Christmastime Benevolence in Journalists’ Hearts?

With Christmas time over on January 13, the Orthodox Church celebrated the Day of Basil the Great on January 14 and Holy Epiphany (Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ) on January 19. In this period, beginning with St. Philip’s fast, the mood of every Orthodox believer is (or at least is supposed to be) characterized in general by the following Gospel words, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:13). Good will, i.e., “benevolence” toward the world, is to be extended to one’s neighbors and even enemies. The universal quality of Christmas goodwill stretches far beyond one’s own church, denomination, parish, or party. It is not confined to people of the same faith, but embraces all humans irrespective of their religion, nationality, or political persuasion. Or am I wrong, and Christians must, even on a holiday, display festive benevolence only toward people of “their” faith and other like-minded individuals and continue to show customary sectarian hostility against the people of other faiths?

It is worth noting that, according to media reports, political passions ran somewhat lower during the Christmas season — let us hope not only because politicians and journalists dutifully observed the great feast. In his Christmas message, the Most Blessed Metropolitan Volodymyr, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP), also “cordially” greeted “those who broke away from the united church.” As to the Orthodox media, some religious journalists did not even try to wash the war paint off their faces, tone their words down, and hide their relentless aggressiveness, at least for a short time, for the sake of the Christmas fast and Christmas, itself. Here are a few examples of “Christmas-spirit” publications by religious and quasi-religious journalists and politicians.

Let us start with a very interesting letter from the Ukrainian Slavic Party to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, made public during the Christmas fast. In brief, the letter “furnishes proof” that “the idea of autocephality is ruinous for both the Whole Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine.” The party leaders thus begin their rather stern message, “We know that you are very worried over the ‘Ukrainian question’ or, to be more exact, the split in Ukrainian Orthodoxy and you suggest that this problem be solved by establishing ‘the united local church.’ Fully sharing your preoccupation over the existing situation in Ukraine, we nevertheless believe that the ‘local church’ option is not only unrealizable but also dangerous for a number of reasons... All illusions have melted like the March snow in the ten plus years of ‘independent’ life, so now both the clergy and the laity know only too well what autocephality, the ‘local church’ and the Pope, taken together, are going to bring us...

“Knowing the situation in Ukraine, we find it very difficult to imagine how the Russophobes and the ‘Muscovites’ can live together under the same roof (i.e., in the local church — K.G.). For it is far easier — under a common roof — to put a canonical church into ‘the channel of Ukrainian spirituality’ or, in other words, to put it (the Church) on the Russophobic dope and tear it away from the Russian Orthodox Church.” (A very clear-cut definition of what caused the split in and the political games around Ukrainian Orthodoxy — K.G.).

The Moscow Patriarchy also recalled our domestic church affairs during the holidays. Alexiy II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, said, among other things, in an interview with Kommersant, “What also arouses our concern is the policy of the Uniate Church hierarchy in Ukraine. The intended establishment of a Uniate patriarchate centered in Kyiv, ‘the mother of Russian cities’ and the cradle of Orthodox Christianity on our land, is another step backwards in our relations with the Vatican, which will throw [these relations] down to the 17th-century level” (the times of Trouble and Cossack wars? — K.G.).

Of course, Moscow-Vatican relations is none of our business, but in this case it is in fact interference into Ukrainian church affairs! Why should the Ukrainian “Uniates” (incidentally, the Moscow Patriarch, a highly educated person, is certain to know that the term “Uniate” has long taken on a derogatory meaning in this country) be banned from choosing the church setup that they deem necessary, including the patriarchate? This is their internal affair. Let us recall, incidentally, the polite letter Cardinal Huzar, Supreme Archbishop of Lviv, sent to the Moscow Patriarch in connection with the likely visit of the latter to Ukraine? The letter offered, among other things, a dialogue to settle reciprocal claims. To no avail! The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church head received no answer, while our Orthodox media stooped to hurling vicious insults at him over this letter. Why not meet each other in the spirit of Christian love? For we live in a world, where dialogue and consensus are acquiring increasingly greater importance and application in the solution of difficult age-old problems. Is it not the church that must set an example in this? Why can’t Christmas become the departure point for a civilized dialogue between the historically opposed sides? And why have church people, who profess the teaching of Christ, been hostile to one another for ages? What then can we, sinful laymen, do?

“A Review of the Lay Press,” published by the UOC MP press service. in the Christmas season is full, as usual, of disrespect for any alien views, the patronizing lecturing of lay journalists, and, what is more, lack of evidence for passing incriminatory judgments. Just one example: the reviewers scathingly criticized the Dzerkalo tyzhnia newspaper for using Razumkov Center survey data for analyzing the level of religious devotion in Ukraine. These data show that today’s Ukrainians are not very devout, to put it mildly. The review authors reject this conclusion, which they are, of course, free to do. But the common practice is to deny specific figures by means of figures from other sources, e.g., other sociological surveys, rather than by invectives. Besides, the UOC MP press service is unaware of the well-known fact that the Razumkov Center’s data differ very little from the results of similar Russian surveys on the devotion of Orthodox Russians. Yet, the point in question is different: religious journalists might have shown a bit of tolerance, chosen more polite words, and avoided abusing us, their lay counterparts, at any cost, at least during Christmas time. (As the French say, “A chacun sa maniere.”)

The aforesaid review could not, of course, escape the “eternal” topic of canonical Orthodox journalists, the so-called “Filaret question,” seemingly a new variety of obsession for some UOC MP writers. The supporters of Ukrainian Orthodox autocephality can draw a conclusion from this fact that things are not so bad as they sometimes seem to be. On balance, the tone of the UOC MP press service strikingly resembles the style and methods of the media in the unforgettable totalitarian times, when the world was suitably divided into the two warring camps. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), everything is not as simple and transparent as some think it is.

In conclusion, let me repeat the same thought: it would be great if the Orthodox clergy and media show the lay politicians and journalists an example of tolerance and, I dare use this word, love for their neighbor — even for the one who does not always agree with them, — especially on the days of major Christian feasts.