New Round of Orthodox Rift?

The confrontation between the dominant and traditional religious communities in Ukraine remains the government’s major pain. The president, cabinet, and separate groups in parliament have long been trying to develop a mechanism of unification and reconciliation. None of the strategies has proven effective.

The cabinet is preparing new measures believed to result in the adherents finally coming together. The Kyiv Patriarchate knows what is happening. Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and All Rus’ told The Day that the government has begun preparations for the establishment of a single Autonomous Ukrainian Church (“Autonomous” by definition does not mean independent, but being subordinated to another church; the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church must be part of the Russian Orthodox Church and take orders from the Moscow Patriarchate. In other words, its status will be approximately the same as that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate). Patriarch Filaret noted that the cabinet has already taken several important steps in that direction. (The Patriarch has copies of the pertinent documents.) First, documents are being actively prepared to be submitted to the cabinet in mid-November, so a decision can be made. Government officials have had preliminary consultations with the patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople. Moscow is known to be prepared to a gree to the autonomy of a single Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as this will in no way damage the Moscow Patriarchate’s interests; on the contrary, it will benefit. The Patriarch of Constantinople is still undecided, but he has to reckon with the opinion of the Ukrainian state and government. In the most likely case (as Patriarch Filaret sees it) of both patriarchates saying yes, the future UOC autonomy will receive canonical status and recognition as a world Orthodox community. A brilliant plan, but there is always a but.

There are quite a few ambiguous aspects. In the first place, Operation Unity was conceived and is being carried out by officials without having any consultations with either of the interested parties, primarily representatives of UOC KP and UAOC. Private consultations with individual ranking clergymen could be held out of the public eye, but the whole issue requires an extensive public discussion before the cabinet makes a decision. As it is, we are witness to the proverbial secrets of the Spanish court: whispers, suspense, and intrigue.

Of course, this is not the only point. The main thing is that the effort to create an Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church could come to a standstill and will suffer the same lot as did so many assets of Ukraine, which are no longer ours but the eastern neighbor’s property, transferred there under the pressure of conjuncture. Now it seems the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s turn. Also, the fact remains that a large number of UOC KP and UAOC bishops (not all by any means) will refuse to accept such autonomy. Quite a few of their UOC MP counterparts will follow suit. They demand that their church be named “Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine” and adamantly refuse both autocephaly and autonomy. They will not unite with the bishops of two “uncanonical” churches “on equal terms.” In a recent interview of November 5, 2001, one Russophile UOC MP radical, Metropolitan Agafangel of Odesa and Izmayil, resolutely denied the possibility of any interference by secular authorities in church affairs and denounced the authorities in general and certain government officials in particular for supporting the “schismatics.” As for unity, he declared that “the return of the dissenters in the lap of the Mother Church [read the Russian Orthodox Church] would be possible only through repentance.” Are there many “uncanonical” Ukrainian bishops willing to unite on such terms and live with the status of second rate clergymen that they are sure to receive?

Among the government- planned measures, according to the Kyiv Patriarchate, is also the possibility of convening a unifying Episcopal Council (the powers that be are fond of solving church problems with the hands of church fathers, not that they want to have any truck with God, as evidenced by the 1946 Lviv Council dissolving the Greek Catholic Church). Very likely this council will be attended mostly by UOC MP clergymen, yet their resolutions liquidating the UOC KP and UAOC will be considered valid by somebody in power.

Needless to say, such government actions could well run counter to the constitutional clauses providing for the freedom of conscience and the independence of church and state, but such a tactic of solving church problem at the governmental level is characteristic of church-state relationships in the Orthodox world, dating from the Ecumenical Councils. Yet, any such interference of the state in the Lutheran or Catholic Church is simply inconceivable.

It is difficult to make any forecasts concerning Ukrainian Orthodox issues. At best this governmental endeavor will be another failure, retaining the current unattractive status quo. In the more dramatic scenario the religious rift will branch out. One thing is perfectly clear. If and when a single Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church is formed and duly recognized, the Moscow Patriarchate will possibly grant it independence (autocephaly) at the “end of times.”