If it's okay to beat "Moscow" priests, why not beat "Ukrainian" ones?
In the Lviv region, a military official handed a draft notice to a UGCC cleric, grabbing him by the throat. Greek Catholics were outraged. But can this be surprising?
In the history of the Church, as well as in the history of our people and state, there are many examples when those who once approved violence inevitably became its victims.
In mid-December, a video from the village of Duliby (a suburb of Stryi, Lviv region) shocked all of Ukraine, where a military official handed a draft notice to the UGCC priest Mykhailo Chmyr. Surprisingly, the outrage was not so much about giving the notice to the priest, but about how it happened. The military official grabbed him by the throat, pushed him, cursed at him, and behaved extremely rudely. A massive scandal erupted. Greek Catholics complained to the head of the Lviv Regional State Administration, M. Kozytsky, and the authorities tried to hush up the scandal.
In this situation, what shocked everyone was not just the fact of lawlessness against a priest, but that this priest belonged not to the "Moscow Church" but to the super-patriotic denomination. Anyway, should it be surprising that by promoting hatred and animosity towards the "bad" priests, Greek Catholics experienced the same animosity albeit they are "good" ones? Let's recall the well-known words of Christ: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). We believe that the aggression against the UOC, which is encouraged and often initiated by representatives of the UGCC and OCU, sooner or later will turn against them. Don't you believe it? Then let's turn to history.
Historical echoes: the USSR and the "Living Church"
Today, based on archival documents and eyewitness accounts, there is no doubt that in the 1920s, Soviet authorities played a key role in creating the church split called the "Living Church." The head of the 6th department of the OGPU (to combat religious associations) Yevgeny Tuchkov wrote in 1922 about some of his tasks: "The basis of our work against the clergy was the struggle against the reactionary Tikhonite clergy and, of course, primarily with the highest hierarchs, such as metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, etc. To implement this task, a group was formed called the 'LIVING CHURCH,' consisting mainly of white priests, which gave us the opportunity to sow discord between priests and bishops, roughly like soldiers with generals, as there had been enmity between the white and black clergy long before this time because the latter had a significant advantage in the church and protected themselves with canons from the competition of white priests for higher hierarchical positions."
One of the most prominent authorities and de facto leader of the "Living Church" was the "Metropolitan Evangelist" (as he called himself) Alexander Vvedensky. In the early 1920s, his name shone on the front pages of Soviet newspapers, and debates with his participation attracted crowds. He sharply criticized the "Tikhonites" (representatives of the canonical Church), had to speak at the trial against Metropolitan Veniamin, which resulted in the execution of several priests, and felt very confident.
No wonder – Vvedensky enjoyed unconditional support from the authorities, the removal of the GPU-NKVD "competitors" in the form of the canonical Church, "transferring" thousands of Orthodox churches to the ownership of the "Living Church," and so on. It's enough to say that in 1922-1923, more than half of the Orthodox episcopate and parishes were under the jurisdiction of the renovationist structures. Moreover, during the persecutions against the clergy of the Russian Church, ordinary people, Komsomol members, and collective farmers actively humiliated, insulted, abused, and killed canonical priests. The "Living Church" vigorously supported all these iniquities, being sure that nothing similar would happen to them. But...
By the early 1930s, in the context of the general strategy of harshly destroying religious life in the USSR, the Bolsheviks practically stopped distinguishing supporters of the "Living Church" from believers of the canonical Church – arrests and repressions affected everyone. During the Great Terror of 1937-1938, when mass repressions and the closure of all churches were taking place, 86 renovationist bishops were shot, and the renovationist movement was on the verge of total collapse, having completely disappeared by 1946.
As we can see, initially, the authorities supported the schismatics who attacked the canonical Church. However, due to a completely unexpected turn of events, government support turned into executions. Why?
History Lessons
Because there is a timeless truth: supporting violence, even if initially approved or encouraged by those in power, is a path to ruin.
The Ukrainian people have moral principles that have been cultivated within them for centuries. Among these principles are respect for elders, traditions, and a reverent attitude toward holy places and the Church. In our folklore, it's challenging to find anything resembling the Russian tale of "The Priest and His Servant Balda" (lummox - Trans. note). We don't have jokes or songs containing offensive words or expressions about Orthodox clergy. Well, at least, there weren't until recently.
True though, during the Soviet era, efforts were made to defame the Church, but there was almost no result. The situation started to change quite recently, during Poroshenko's presidency. It was this Ukrainian president who took liberties to use sharp and offensive language against UOC priests and bishops, while Poroshenko-owned "5th Channel" would go all out libeling and labeling the UOC.
However, even this couldn't be called the "bottom." The bottom was reached during Zelensky's presidency. First, accusations of "collaboration with the aggressor country," and then direct calls for reprisals against Orthodox clergy (recall the scandalous broadcasts of the "Quarter 95") led to the idea of physical violence against an Orthodox priest no longer being perceived in society as a "taboo."
Representatives of the UGCC and OCU play a significant role in this surge of hatred. For example, a Uniate priest, who seized a UOC church near Kyiv, recently called on his parishioners to "cleanse" Ukraine of "Moscow priests," and a cleric of the OCU called the removal of locks from UOC churches a "holy deed." One can recall dozens (if not hundreds) of other statements from followers of Dumenko or Shevchuk that provoke aggression against the UOC. But, more dangerously, all these statements lead to the erasure of boundaries of what is permissible, destroying moral norms and standards that somehow shielded Ukrainians from insulting the Church and its servants. And by erasing these boundaries towards one Church, it's hard to expect this will not occur to another. The desacralization of the Church always leads to the satanization of society, to the fact that nothing is forbidden or tabooed for individual representatives. So if one priest can be beaten, why not another?
The Dilemma of OCU and UGCC
Returning to the incident involving a representative of the Greek Catholic Church and a military official, it is always necessary to remember that the consequences of approving violence against the Orthodox Church will be most disastrous for its initiators. Although in the short term, the removal of locks may seem like a "holy deed," history shows that such a position will eventually get the OCU and UGCC to face the same reality as they have been preparing for the "Moskals" (derogatory term for Russians). If, instead of the Gospel and the necessity of repentance, one constantly talks about violence against the "Moscow Church," people raised on such "sermons" will go "beat faces" to anyone who calls them "slaves of God," as it happened with the UGCC priest in Duliby.
When the "Moscow" priests are gone, the "patriotic" ones will be grabbed by their throats. Just out of habit. History repeats itself.
