Not Canonicity But Politics Keeps Orthodoxy Split
Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been in the extraordinary condition of schism for so many years. The three Orthodox denominations have taken not a single step toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relations. Such concepts as consensus, tolerance, and, finally, Christian forgiveness, find no practical application in our interfaith conflict. How did it come about? For the faith, dogmas, rites, feasts, church calendars, and customs remain the same for all our Orthodox believers. So how on earth have we come to such a deep schism among the followers of the same faith? The Day publishes today the relevant opinion of the person blamed by many for the current situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. This is the first President of independent Ukraine, now Verkhovna Rada People’s Deputy, Leonid Kravchuk. The public at large is sure that if Ukraine’s first independent government had not wanted to do everything at once and had not speeded up the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s breakaway from the Moscow Patriarchate’s jurisdiction, the church would have remained united, which would open, in due time, a wide road toward its autocephalous status. Others object: “The church could have remained united, but completely pro- Russian, while now at least a part of Orthodoxy takes an active part in the development of our young state.” Still others us assure that what happened was bound to happen. One way or another, sooner or later, the split between the Orthodox believers of Western and Eastern Ukraine was inevitable. For Western believers would not have tolerated long the protectorate of Moscow, while Eastern believers would have held out for links with Moscow, as they do now. So let us listen to Mr. Leonid KRAVCHUK.
“How did the idea of an independent national Orthodox Church come about? Who did it belong to: Metropolitan Filaret or President Leonid Kravchuk? Today, this is part of our recent history, and the younger generation no longer knows the way it all began.”
“After World War II, there was the Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Well before the proclamation of independence, the Exarch, Metropolitan Filaret, repeatedly lobbied the Synod and the Moscow Patriarchate for granting greater powers to the Exarchate. So he managed to gain (in 1990) considerable, if limited, powers for Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the field of canon law, finances, and cadres. And soon, the revival of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church with Patriarch Mstislav at the head triggered a mass movement for the establishment in Ukraine of a single independent national church, spearheaded by Metropolitan Filaret. The movement was also supported by a group of People’s Deputies headed by Dmytro Pavlychko, and the government of this country. An official address was sent to Moscow, and Deputy Premier Mykola Zhulynsky made a special visit to Istanbul for talks with the Ecumenical Patriarch over the canonical recognition of the Ukrainian church. Both replied they were ‘not ready’ to recognize our autocephaly.”
“Why do you think the attempt failed? What kind of mistakes were made? Could it have been because emphasis was laid on the old-style command methods? Why did Moscow outdo Kyiv?”
“I think there were objective reasons which, in spite of all our efforts, led to a church schism, rather than independence. The main factor is that the majority of our bishops were not prepared to secede from the Russian church and did not accept the idea of autocephaly. The bishops sided with the Moscow Patriarchate and, being members of the Holy Synod (as they are today), they voted against their own independence. I am sure if the Ukrainian bishops had voted for breaking away from the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian top hierarchs would not have dared to protest against the secession of Ukrainian Orthodoxy at that specific moment.
“Could we have done anything to correct the situation? No. By that time, our Verkhovna Rada had already passed, as one of its first acts, the law on the freedom of worship, so nobody could overstep it, nobody had the right to pressure or intimidate the hierarchs. We then lost the historic chance of gaining immediately and painlessly independence for our church.”
“How would you assess the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UPTs) under the Moscow Patriarchate?”
“Ukrainian by name, it in fact remains a Russian church. For example, whenever I visit the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, I am always struck with the complete absence of the Ukrainian spirit there. The language of liturgy is Russian, kiosks sell Russian books and periodicals, Russian is spoken not only by church officials but even by beggars. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is very far from being a bulwark of Ukrainian statehood, when the latter is still in the difficult process of being made. Can it be considered right and normal when the national church is not interested in such aspects of statehood as intellectual life, the official language, national culture, and the unity of society? I am sure it should not be like this.
“I am far from accusing Metropolitan Volodymyr of any anti- Ukrainian actions. He is Ukrainian, the son of this soil, but he is being godlessly manipulated. What is being manipulated is not only his authority but also that of the church. Which is not in favor of our state. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has cemented a very active body of politicians, people’s deputies, all kinds of fraternities and foundations, that is, all those to whom the idea of Ukrainian statehood is not only alien but even greeted with hostility. This church-centered clique makes use of the services of believers for their overtly political purposes, far from church life. As to the hierarchs, not all of them, unfortunately, are true pastors, many of them use their authority to pursue the same political ends.
“Let me give an example. At the Inter-Orthodox Conference in Odesa, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate (both from Moscow and Ukraine) were overtly fulfilling the political orders of those Moscow politicians who dream day and night about restoring the empire in one form or another. I am sure the church itself must, sooner or later, reject those who abuse it to the detriment of the state.”
“There is a viewpoint that the schism in Orthodoxy has not only negative points: what is being described as a kind of rivalry between the Orthodox churches has been of use not only for them but also for the overall inter- denominational climate in this country, that the schism has allegedly weakened the Orthodox monopoly. Is this really so?”
“I cannot agree. As President, I felt myself the numerous difficulties and complexities arising out of the split in our traditional church. No doubt, the current leadership feels the same. All holidays, both religious and public, all ceremonies, blessings, television, and radio programs — all this is being multiplied by three in a quite childish and funny fashion. The leadership has to carefully observe the rule of precedence in the relationship with hierarchs of the three Orthodox churches. If the President received one hierarch, so he must receive, whether necessary or not, the other two. Otherwise, you’ll be in for trouble. This also complicates the life of the Ukrainian Diaspora, the more so that the Ukrainians living abroad find it difficult to find their bearings in our mind-boggling situation. What suffers is the international image of our state, a polity in which the fellow believers cannot exist peacefully. Besides, the international community is worried over the possibility of another serious conflict on religious grounds.”
“What do you think, given your political experience, about the root causes of the Orthodox schism?”
“I don’t know. Perhaps it is a trait of our mentality. Let’s look at history. We only see internecine clashes, especially after Bohdan Khmelnytsky: between the Left and Right Banks, between Hetmans, the Cossacks, and the peasants, the supporters of Moscow and Poland, etc. The current schism in Orthodoxy is in fact a political split, the continuation of the same old Ruin. What keeps the churches split is not the purity of faith or the ‘canonical vs. non-canonical’ contradiction, but politics. Just imagine people coming to church to pray, but they are being drawn into inter-denominational struggle and set against their like Orthodox believers, their Ukrainian brothers! At the same time, society experiences economic slump, mass impoverishment, and sometimes even the menace of a civil war looms, while the church does nothing to assuage this dangerous mess.”
“What is your idea of further developments in Orthodoxy? What kind of measures would you take to overcome the split?”
“This is a difficult question. I believe only the hierarchs themselves, their spiritual power and desire, can straighten out the situation. It is, however, hard to imagine now that one of them will meet another halfway. There is very little hope that they will convene, at last, the all- Ukrainian Orthodox Council, calmly discuss their church affairs, and draw up the ways to accord. And the state, despite calls from various sides, cannot intervene and has no right to support one church or another.”
“Do you think there really can be no normal moral atmosphere in society without the influence of church? For this kind of influence has been very little noticeable up to now. What is your attitude to the idea of a Christian state propagated by People’s Deputy Valery Babych?”
“I am absolutely convinced that public life would be much worse and poorer without church influence. Faith is a powerful force, for it brings to people the ideals of good and justice, and elevates the individual to the idea of God. Very essential for all of us is the fear of sin, for it keeps most people from ungodly actions. As to the Christian state, we should not forget that all churches, Orthodox included, are separated from the state in this country, and that the medieval political idea of a totalitarian Christian state coincides, in a way, at least to my mind, with the atheistic state, which crippled so many human souls.”
“What was your attitude to the legalization of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? How would you assess its current condition and the role it plays in this country?”
“My attitude is positive, I respect the courage of Greek Catholic believers who, in spite of all bans and the Lviv pseudo-council which supposedly united all Uniates to the Mother Orthodox Church, have preserved their faith, clergy, and church life. It is very important that the Greek Catholics take a firm stand for Ukrainian statehood, culture, and language. Its complete renaissance is a positive and natural phenomenon. It would be good if all Christian churches came to terms on the Ukrainian soil, for citizens of Ukraine are the flock of all churches.”
“What is your attitude to the visit of the Pope to Ukraine? Will it be possible in the immediate future? What significance do you attach to this visit?”
“Here we must ask ourselves if the visit of Pope John Paul II will benefit our religious life. For we cannot spurn the opinion of our Orthodox hierarchs. The best way would be for all the high priests to get together and discuss all pros and cons. But is this possible? And should he come, he, as a clergyman, will also have to communicate with Orthodox pastors. But which ones exactly? For example, to bypass the so-called uncanonical priests would mean to slight millions of Ukrainian Orthodox believers. And the opposite option can lead to a still larger, even international, conflict, to the worsening of relations between Rome and Moscow. What I am sure of is that the Pope is bound to make a correct and wise decision, the more so that he possesses quite enough information about our church life.”
“Many letters to our newspaper take a dim view of the former Communist Party atheist functionaries who became transfigured into devout Christians. Is it obligatory to publicly display your conversion to faith? What do you think, what was the situation with you personally?”
“I was christened immediately after birth and, in childhood, would go to church with my grandmother. Then... You know very well what then happened to all of us. Later on, in the new times, faith awakened deep in my heart, though I did not even venture to make the sign of the cross. I remember attending, in 1992, the ceremony of the entombment of the remains of Metropolitan Yosyf Slipy at St. George’s Cathedral. I was standing in plain view, for I was part of the church ceremony; thousands of believers were praying, but I was not prepared to behave as befits a Christian. Readiness to accept Christian rites came gradually, in due time. I am sure that faith and rites are not for television cameras and photo reporters. This is a personal matter for each, an affair of one’s own heart.
“As to state leaders and each person in general, we all must fulfill the mandatory prescriptions of the temple we come in, irrespective of the religion or denomination. When visiting a synagogue in the US, I put on, like everyone else, a yarmulke.”
“What would you, Mr. Kravchuk, like to tell The Day’s readers in conclusion?”
“I will only repeat my deep conviction that we will never build a democratic state without the church, without its participation in public life, and without unity in religious life.”
The Day invites readers to express their viewpoints on church developments in the 1990s and on the role the Orthodox church is currently playing in the life of the Ukrainian state.
