"Now the Lavra will really revive: exhibitions, displays, concerts..."
Oleksandr Tkachenko explained in an interview with the "Rada" channel why the UOC is being evicted from the Kyiv Caves Lavra and what he sees as the future of the shrine.
Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko gave a program interview to the 'Rada' channel where the state official spells out the situation around the Kyiv Caves Lavra and the UOC in general. We propose an analysis of the main theses.
The Kyiv Lavra being taken away because the UOC refused to cooperate with the OCU?
This is what Tkachenko said in response to a journalist's question about what was the trigger for the state's actions to take away the Lavra from the UOC.
“There has long been a need for dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the OCU. And even during the war, we have tried to organize such a dialogue on the territory of Sophia between priests of the OCU and the MP. But after that UOC MP representatives banned such a dialogue," Tkachenko said and added that "law enforcers started to investigate the activities of priests of the Moscow Patriarchate, and it turns out that among them there are many collaborators who supported Russia's aggression. And in fact, they have divided themselves between the Ukrainian people and the Church to which they belong. But no one has dared to break the connection with the Moscow Patriarchate once and for all".
There are three reasons why the authorities are cracking down on the UOC in general and the Lavra in particular.
- Refusal to cooperate with the OCU
- Mass betrayal of Ukraine by the clergy
- Refusal to sever ties with the Russian Orthodox Church
Of the entire list, only the first point is true, with a caveat. The UOC priesthood did not "forbid dialogue" with representatives of the OCU simply because no one initially asked permission for it. Those few priests of the UOC who went to Sophia did this on their own initiative. And by the way, they also went there for the second meeting, which was held recently.
The second thesis of the minister, about "many collaborators" in the UOC, is also untrue. We know of only one case when a priest was accused of collaboration activities and then exchanged in the Russian Federation. There is also a statement by the head of the SBU about 19 suspicions and five convictions of UOC clerics. But if you remember that the UOC has more than 12,500 clerics, 114 bishops and 4,600 monastics, these are negligible figures. The percentage of collaborators in the SBU is incomparably higher.
The claim that the UOC refuses to sever ties with the MP is an obvious lie, which Tkachenko himself refuted a few months ago. Quote: "I do not know representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, there is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which dissociated itself from the ROC at the last Synod (meaning the Council in Feofaniya – Ed.)".
In conclusion, the reasons given by Tkachenko for the eviction of the UOC from the Lavra are not entirely truthful and are likely to be part of a wider political agenda.
We oust you for no reason, but you must respect us
"A commission is now working at the monastery to examine the circumstances of compliance or non-compliance with this agreement (the state-Lavra agreement – Ed.). I think that those who are on the territory of the Lower Lavra must act with respect for Ukrainian laws. They are citizens of Ukraine," Tkachenko said.
Indeed, the monks must obey the law. But should the authorities abide by it? The monastery had a contract with the state for perpetual use of the property of the Lower Lavra. There have to be very good reasons for breaking it. We should pay attention to the words that the commission will only examine the question of "compliance or non-compliance" with the terms of the contract. However, the authorities are already terminating it. On what grounds? On no grounds at all. The Ministry of Culture has kept secret the conclusions of the interdepartmental expert commission that verified the conditions of compliance with the agreement.
The monks' property does not belong to them?
Many Ukrainian media outlets are now running the story of the monks "robbing" the Lavra. They say they are brazenly taking out icons and their belongings. They do not specify why the brethren should leave all this to an unknown party. Tkachenko also commented on this topic. It came out in a peculiar way.
O. Tkachenko: "What is on the territory of Lavra is not given to Pavel, it is given to the Lavra. The fact that they perceive this property as their own also speaks of the attitude they have towards their profession, their vocation."
There are many photos of the Lavra's state when it was transferred to the UOC in 1988 and how it looks now. Destroyed buildings, debris, shabby walls, toilets in altars – this is how the Lavra churches and cells looked like then. All this was restored and "polished" by the hands of monks and parishioners, at their own expense. Naturally, there was no property there at all. The money on which the shrine was rebuilt, icons and other things believers brought not to the state, not to the "Lavra territory" (as Tkachenko put it), but to the monastery, they brought them to God. And most importantly, the minister knows all this very well. But his position obliges him to manipulate, and in a very primitive way.
A monk with nowhere to go? Bow to Dumenko and stay
A journalist says that she has spoken to monks of the Lavra and many have told her that they have absolutely nowhere to go – they have no houses or flats. So she asks the minister what they should do.
"If we are talking about monks, and I am convinced that the monastic life in the Lavra must continue, they know very well what options they have. That includes staying at the Lavra," Alexander Tkachenko replies with a wry chuckle. In light of his previous comments, there is no doubt that these "options" include recognising the authority of Epifaniy Dumenko. How is this consistent with the observance of the law, which the minister argues for? In particular, Article 35 of the Constitution states that "everyone has a right to freedom of world view and religion", and that "The Church and religious organizations in Ukraine are dissociated from the state... Not a single religion can be acknowledged by the state as obligatory"?
Not in any way consistent. Tkachenko, as a representative of the authorities, says almost directly that the condition for monks to be in a monastery is to defect for another denomination.
The future fate of the Lavra to be expositions, concerts and exhibitions?
The journalist talks about communicating with UOC parishioners who fear that if the monastery is expelled, the caves and temples will be closed and they will no longer be able to pray in the Lavra.
What does Tkachenko say to her? Instead, the OCU is going to hold services at the Lavra, so let them go there. But the minister also mentions this in passing. He has his own plans for the Orthodox shrine, about which he talks very passionately.
"The Lavra is a jewel where visitors should come. The state should develop a plan for the premises so that exhibitions, rich displays, thematic meetings can be arranged there so that the Lavra really comes alive," says Tkachenko. According to him, "there will be no rock concerts here 100%, but cultural events - yes.... The Lavra territory is very suitable for such events".
Conclusions
Firstly, there are no legal grounds for the expulsion of the UOC from the Kyiv Caves Lavra.
Secondly, the authorities disseminate obvious falsehoods to justify such expulsion.
Thirdly, the fact that in order to continue praying in the monastery, the authorities set a condition for the brethren to join the OCU, obviously violates Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Fourthly, if the UOC is expelled, the Lavra will regain the museum status that it was in Soviet times. There will be no services (Dumenko will visit it occasionally) but there will be exhibitions, concerts and exhibitions. According to Tkachenko, this status will "really revive" the Lavra.
The authorities will be fully satisfied, but for the believers, it will be a tragedy.
