Communion and war: Perspectives from fathers and church canons
How does the Church, which stands against war, view the communion of soldiers who participate in this war? What do the fathers and canons of the Church say about this?
At the latest clergy meeting in Moscow, Priest Dmitry Vydumkin told Patriarch Kirill that "priests often encounter soldiers in confession who have just returned from hostilities in the 'SMO' zone and who were directly involved in combat actions."
"What practice, in your opinion, should be adhered to regarding the admission or temporary non-admission of such servicemen to Holy Communion?" he asked the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church. In response, the Patriarch asked, "Why is there a question of non-admission at all?" The priest explained, "Because of their involvement in killings in the recent past." It would seem that both the question itself and the answer to it are indeed important because they concern fundamental matters for a person – the salvation of their immortal soul. However, Patriarch Kirill did not provide an elaborate answer, limiting himself to the statement that "there was no problem regarding Alexander Nevsky after the Battle of the Neva River whether to admit him to communion or not."
Historical sources do not tell us how exactly the issue of communion on the battlefield (or after it) was resolved for Alexander Nevsky and his troops. Moreover, individual examples of pastoral approaches to a particular issue are hardly justification for general practice.
From this short dialogue between the Patriarch and the priest, one can conclude that, in the opinion of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, participants in the "Special Military Operation" are not prohibited from approaching the Chalice. But Priest Dmitry Vydumkin would hardly have dared to ask Patriarch such a question without urgent necessity. After all, killing in war is also killing.
Let's turn to the pastoral and canonical aspects of this issue.
Gospel and War
The issue of the Church's attitude towards the participation of Orthodox Christians in war is not new. However, we have not encountered any systematic response to this issue from the Church. There are only individual statements from the Fathers that can be interpreted depending on personal preferences.
At the same time, the Gospel does not provide any justifying connotations regarding war as a phenomenon. From the perspective of the New Testament, war is always evil, for which there can be no morally acceptable explanation. Any attempt to justify murder of another person using the Gospel is a deliberate distortion of the words of Christ. However, Scripture itself does not provide answers to all possible situations that may arise in a person's life, leaving the question of the interpretation of possible Christian participation in war open.
Nevertheless, both the Holy Scripture and the Church leave no doubt that any war brings spiritual harm to humanity. The words of Christ, "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52), should primarily be understood in a spiritual sense – if you take up arms and take someone's life, you may spiritually perish yourself. In the "Alphabetic Syntagma", it is stated that by the sword and destruction one should understand "the eruption and deprivation of the Sacraments; for the righteous, this constitutes a deadly punishment" (Alphabetic Syntagma, Chapter 7 – concerning those who kill as bandits).
Therefore, the saints approached with great caution the complex issue of the participation in the life of the Church of those affected by war. By the word "affected" I mean everyone who has suffered from this war – both soldiers and civilians. Even if during combat you did not kill anyone, the readiness to commit this act itself leaves a certain negative imprint on your spiritual state. This is why the Church approached the issue of participation in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ of those who returned from war with particular caution.
Canons and War
St. Basil the Great, in his famous 13th Rule, writes: "It seems to me that our fathers did not consider killings in war as murders out of indulgence towards defenders of chastity and piety. But perhaps it would not be bad to advise that they, as having unclean hands, should abstain from communion for a period of up to three years."
As we can see, the saint "advises" rather than obliges to suspend communion for warriors for a period of up to three years. Clearly, this rule was never strictly enforced. In each individual case, a pastoral approach was taken, requiring careful consideration by the priest towards the repentant sinner.
This rule was not dictated by a desire to punish someone who has already suffered. After all, taking another person's life damages the perpetrator and even partly leads to their own internal death.
The penance of being suspended from communion was intended to provide time for healing of the mind and heart, time for recovery.
There is another important question to which theologians do not have a single answer – whether soldiers can be communed on the battlefield. Obviously, there can be no talk of any three-year penances in this case. From the pastoral practice of military chaplains, we can conclude that the Church communions soldiers on the front lines out of oikonomia, as they are in mortal danger every moment and are in special need of God's help.
Returning to the "post-war" theme, it must be said – any priest who communicates with soldiers in confession knows that the horrors of war do not simply let go of a person. Moreover, war can enter into a person's peaceful life, leading them to believe that hatred and even killing of those they consider enemies is normal. But the Church has never viewed it that way. And even a reference to the famous phrase from the letter of St. Athanasius the Great to Abba Ammon does not change the situation – the Church considers killing (even in war) as murder.
Communion and killing "in defense"
In this context, it is useful to refer to the aforementioned "Alphabetic Syntagma", which extensively explains another rule of St. Basil the Great, namely the 55th Rule. In it, the great bishop of Cappadocia writes that "those who attack in response to bandits, if they do not belong to the clerical rank, are deprived of participation in the Divine Mysteries, and if they are clergy, they are defrocked. For Scripture says: 'He who takes the sword will perish by the sword.'"
It should be noted that this concerns defense against attacks by bandits. So why is St. Basil so strict in this case? We read in the "Alphabetic Syntagma" a dictionary of church law compiled in 1335 by the Byzantine canonist Matthew Blastares: "Some thought it heavy and unworthy of righteous judgment to subject themselves to penalties instead of rewards, which they were supposed to receive for endangering themselves to save others and exerting efforts to cleanse places of bandits; but the rule subjects to penalties not only these, but also those who resist bandits when they attack, in order not to be killed: for the statement 'everyone who takes the sword' applies not only to bandits, but also to those who kill them.
But under Patriarch Constantine Chliarine, it was investigated and determined by the council that if someone, having the opportunity to avoid the evil intention of bandits, rejects this opportunity to intentionally attack and kill the bandits, he should be punished as a murderer, and much more than is usual according to the present (55th Basil the Great) rule: for if the bandit had remained alive, he might have repented, and, leaving his banditry, turned to the Lord; but if the bandit first raised the sword against the one who killed him, in this case the decision of this rule should apply. And whoever, at the urgent request, for the common good, having made efforts to find the bandit, finds him and kills him, he shall not only not be subject to punishment according to civil and church laws, but should be rewarded as the one who saved his fellow countrymen from death and made the country safe. But for greater safety, it was pleasing to the council that these also be subjected to a three-year penance, like those who kill in war. But clerics who commit any kind of killing are immediately defrocked, as for them in this case there is no distinction between an enemy, or a bandit, or anyone else, as becomes evident from the determination of the same patriarch."
Such a lengthy quotation from the "Alphabetic Syntagma" is needed to show that abandoning the Rule of Basil the Great and excluding even minimal penance for participants in war means abandoning the fundamental Gospel texts about love for God and neighbors and even for enemies.
Returning to the dialogue of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church with his cleric, it should be said that his reference to St. Prince Alexander Nevsky can hardly be convincing. Rather, this statement logically fits into the Patriarch's rhetoric about the "mystical war of good against evil", where warriors who fought on the "good" side did nothing wrong. But whether such a position will bring spiritual benefit to the soldiers themselves is a debatable question.
