Only a strong and influential Church has a chance to unite and be recognized
Kyiv Patriarchate (KP) is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) operating independently of Moscow. KP is an significant part of Ukrainian society, a reality that cannot be ignored even by its opponents. Unfortunately, another undeniable reality is the pitched confrontation between two churches of the same confession: the UOC KP and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, UOC MP. Worse still, there seems no hope for reconciliation, not even in the remote future. This rift in Orthodoxy, it should be noted, is characteristic of not only today’s Ukraine. Similar problems also exist in other Orthodox churches (in Serbia, Bulgaria, Moldova, and Estonia), albeit on a smaller scale because these churches are numerically considerably smaller. Meanwhile, ecumenical Orthodoxy, including fourteen local churches, has no levers to reconcile these anomalies. Nor does it seem inclined to do so. Could it lack the energy? The only noticeable response is standard ostracism of all those that have somehow or other achieved autocephaly, meaning the expulsion of millions of believers from the Orthodox community because of their shepherds’ allegedly noncanonical conduct. The Day ’s guest, Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine, one of the initiators and founders of the autocephalous Kyiv Patriarchate, shares his views on the future of his unacknowledged church.
How does Your Holiness visualize the political steps to be taken by the KP on its way to recognition and to the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy within a single local church?
Filaret: There is no denying that the Kyiv Patriarchate has grown stronger and gained in public influence. Polls indicate that it is currently supported by 10 million Ukrainians. It is actually the most powerful church in this country. It includes 29 eparchies, over 3,500 parishes, six seminaries, a theological academy, theological department at the Chernivtsi University, and thirty cloistered communities.
Those same polls show that a mere 9% respondents acknowledged their affiliation to UOC MP; 3-4% declared their belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. Official statistics pointing to the prevalence of UOC MP, therefore, are not correct. In actuality, three of ten thousand UOC MP parishes exist only on paper. There are cases on record when KP communities end up included in UOC MP. There are numerous Moscow-affiliated parishes wishing to join the Kyiv Patriarchate, but they lack the courage, among other reasons because local authorities (district and oblast state administrations, mostly in the south and east of Ukraine) sometimes tendentiously support the Moscow church, contrary to the law on the equality of all religions and confessions. In particular, they officially register its parishes and monasteries without any obstacles, while constantly erect obstacles to the work of the Kyiv Patriarchate. The same applies to the restitution of temples. For example, we have for a number of years been waiting for the Chernihiv authorities to hand over St. Catherine’s Church which stands empty, while the Moscow church has long been using several historic churches in the area. Another example is found in Kharkiv where the Kyiv Patriarchate does not have a single religious structure. And the same is true of Dnipropetrovsk.
It is true, however, that in many administrative regions the attitude toward all Orthodox churches is equally fair, and there are such indications at the highest level, including from the president. He even went so far as to almost simultaneously commemorate two such polarized dates as the tenth anniversary of the Kharkiv gathering and our Unification Church Council. However, I would like to point out that what we need from the government is not help or privileges but noninterference in our efforts.
Those supporting the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy have placed great hopes in the trilateral talks between the delegates of the Ecumenical and two unacknowledged churches, the UOC KP and UOC MP. The last meeting in the Crimea left nothing of these hopes. The Moscow Patriarchate did not even send a bishop and no delegates of the two Ukrainian churches concerned were invited to attend. What do you think of such supposedly top-level talks?
Filaret: It is true that the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchate talks are deadlocked and their level of representation has apparently lowered. I think that, had our president taken a more decisive stand – the way the Estonian president did or the Polish government did in the 1920s (that stand was very important for the Polish Orthodox community in attaining independence from Moscow {through the establishment of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Poland Under the Ecumenical Patriarch — Ed. }) – our Orthodox neighbors, the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople, would have behaved differently. Nevertheless, we believe that the talks must continue and we will support them in every way, because there no other way to settle our disputes. This, however, does not mean that our church will sit on its hands and wait for the outcome of these or other talks. We are convinced that the only way for our church to be acknowledged is its growing stronger, then our government will have to reckon with it on a broader scale.
I might as well point out that we have decided to somewhat readjust the paradigm of our church policy. Specifically, we will place major emphasis on the historical fact that our church does exist, is independent, and has the local status, even if still to unite. There is no telling how long it will take to achieve that unity. We must bear in mind that the Moscow Patriarchate will never let go of such a large and rich archdiocese as UOC MP. Thus we cannot act on the principle of uniting first and then building our local church. From the historical experience of other Orthodox churches we know that [official] recognition is not a necessary factor for normal church life. Our church will live and continue its blessed mission. Incidentally, the nonrecognition of UOC KP as one of the largest Orthodox churches of the world, its forced isolation from the religious process damages not only Ukraine, but world Orthodoxy as a whole, weakening it and reducing its influence on the international arena. Meanwhile, various sects are growing stronger in Ukraine, taking advantage of Orthodox discord among other things.
Also, I would like to stress that that uniting the churches must be a peaceful process; it must be achieved through brotherly love in Jesus Christ, never by responding to enmity with enmity. True toleration is a sign of wisdom. At the same time, we must not make compromises capable of damaging the local church. I am convinced that the Kyiv Patriarchate will emerge triumphant in the struggle for the faithful, because it faithfully serves this state and this people, unlike the [Moscow-affiliated] UOC whose members, being Ukrainians and often truly patriotic, serve the benefit of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Talking of the peaceful process and brotherly love, may I ask Your Holiness whether the Kyiv Patriarchate levies certain disciplinary measures on parishioners and clergymen resorting to coercive methods in settling interfaith conflicts? We media people have no information about UOC KP – or UOC MP, for that matter – enjoining penance in retaliation for transgressions of Christian ethics.
Filaret: This, however, does not mean that we tolerate instances of un-Christian conduct. This is the prerogative of bishops at the head of eparchies. Well, on second thought perhaps we should make public knowledge certain most outrageous cases, so others will learn from such examples. Anyway, hostile acts cannot benefit the Kyiv Patriarchate; we must defend our interests using peaceful means.
Not so long ago our powers that be took part in the festivities commemorating two jubilees that are complete antipodes. I have in mind the tenth anniversary of the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council and formation of the Kyiv Patriarchate, and the tenth anniversary of the Kharkiv Church Council swearing allegiance to the Russian Orthodox Church. Don’t you think that this official attitude is unprincipled, if not cynical? Wouldn’t it serve everybody’s benefit if the Ukrainian political leadership refrained from attending both ceremonies rather than turning the whole thing into yet another political show, trying to be all things to all people? After all, the president, cabinet, and parliament seem to have provided ample evidence of their complete inability to handle Orthodox issues. Isn’t it time they washed their hands of them all and remembered the constitutional principle separation of church and state? They at least could stop racing from one church to the next on holidays.
Filaret: I might as well remind you that the so-called Kharkiv Church Council was not recognized by the cabinet and parliament. In fact, Verkhovna Rada and the cabinet came out with appropriate resolutions in 1992. As for the unifying church council and our proclamation of an independent (autocephalous) Kyiv Patriarchate, the people’s deputies met it with a standing ovation.
Will Your Holiness mind my posing an uncomfortable question, maybe an indiscreet one from the secular point of view: The world media are currently discussing possible changes at the Vatican and likely successors to the Holy See. How do you feel about such changes at the UOC KP? We all know that the Kyiv Patriarchate is kept in one piece by the iron will of only one man, the Patriarch. What will come of the church after he returns to the earth? Do you see a successor among the 32 bishops of the Patriarchate? Are you grooming a replacement? Do you believe that they will preserve the church after you? In fact, the same question applies to the UOC MP. What can one expect from the new post-Soviet Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Sometimes, listening to diplomatic soliloquies by young bishops, the impression is that interconfessional relations will worsen in the Ukrainian Orthodox community after the leadership changes (if it does, of course). What do you predict?
Filaret: We people of the Church profess not only the existence of the Lord, but also believe that the Church is ruled by Him. For the Lord founded the Church and He shall not abandon her. One hierarch will pass away, and the next will take his place. I also wish to point out that strength, a [physically] strong person is not always required by the Church. When the first Patriarch since the times of Peter I was elected by the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the revolutionary year 1918, there were three candidates, Antoniy Khrapovitsky, Arseniy Stadnitsky, and Tikhon Belyavin. Tikhon, outwardly the quietest and weakest, was elected. And he proved the strongest. Moreover, he was sanctified for preserving the Russian Church in that horrible period. Many other such examples could be cited. Pope John XXIII was very old, yet he directed the Roman Catholic Church on the road of reform, something a lot of young and strong clergymen would have never dared do in his place.
I will not live forever. The Lord will summon me and another will be elected from among our 32 bishops to hold the post. People may look around and see no leader among themselves, but He always has one in mind. And so I am at peace, even though I do not see sufficiently strong personalities about me, people with worthy life paths left behind, with an adequate education and experience. I think that the situation will not get worse under any circumstances. After all, some very important and irreversible process have taken place in Ukraine. There is no getting back to the Russian empire.
As for the UOC MP, why don’t you ask this question of them? All I can say is that there is a strong backstage campaign underway even now. Mildly speaking, there are rather exotic figures among the metropolitan candidates. Of course, Moscow will have the final say. They will have to show a very subtle and refined approach, because the nominee must be totally faithful to the Russian church and simultaneously not compromised by something odious, not one who is always telling tales in the mass media, and their are such figures. Well, we’ll live and see.
