• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

"Religious destabilization has a negative effect on society as a whole"

17 February, 1998 - 00:00


"I do believe that the spirit of unity, of a single powerful Church will prevail over all temptations and dissenting trends, because this spirit is inherent in Orthodoxy. Just as I am convinced that with the help of Our Lord the Orthodox adherents of Ukraine will achieve peace and harmony"

The interfaith situation in Ukraine "remains complicated," without any signs of improvement. A major aggravating factor, causing differences in religious life, stems from the relationships with the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow Patriarchate. Some consider these relationships destabilizing, others call them destructive. Below is an exclusive interview with Patriarch Aleksiy II of Moscow and All Rus'.

Question: How would Your Holiness estimate the overall situation concerning Orthodoxy in Ukraine?

Answer: As previously, this situation is being viewed by the Russian Orthodox Church with utmost concern. You will agree that no one calls the situation normal in which Houses of God are forcibly occupied and movable and immovable property of Orthodox communities appropriated; when people have to defend their right to offer up prayers in places where their forefathers had done so; when religious differences affect families, or when the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being scorned just because its adherents try to remain faithful to its canons.

People inexperienced in religious canons or with political interests are faced with a difficult choice, witnessing obvious distortions of underlying objective criteria and priorities. This inevitably results in disputes. Separate religious and secular leaders try to solve them relying basically on emotions, contrary to common sense, secular laws, and Church canons. Destabilization of the religious situation produces a negative effect on the whole of society. Unfortunately, there are various political forces trying to use religious tensions to their own ends, which makes things even worse.

The interconfessional situation in Ukraine requires careful analysis and a balanced approach from the state. One must realize that all spiritual issues are extremely sensitive, involving man's innermost recesses and affecting the age-old principles of people's life.

In Ukraine, the situation with Orthodoxy is complicated by deep-going dissent, by unprecedentedly brutal acts of dissenters blatantly violating Canon Law. Canonically, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Kyiv and All Ukraine, under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, is the only legitimate Orthodox Eastern body in Ukraine. This fact was attested to by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople during our recent meeting in Odesa. However, once there is dissent it must be stopped the way one afflicted with an illness is treated and cured. This calls for meticulous work relying on sound religious judgment and accurate assessment of the situation that has developed. After all, every dissenting religious leader in Ukraine acts on behalf of a group of faithful, many of them quite sincerely believing that what they are doing is right and worthy of His approval. Dissent is a raw wound on the body of the Church. It has to be treated, and here very much depends on both the healer's skill and society's determination to be healthy spiritually.

Q: What course does Your Holiness think events will take in Ukraine? Will the Orthodox Church reunite or split even further?

A: As I have pointed out, there is only one Ukrainian Orthodox Church considered legitimate in the eyes of the world Orthodox community. History teaches us that any society is strong for so long as it remains united. Unity is that fortified wall against which all destructive forces shatter. I do believe that the spirit of unity, of a single powerful Church will prevail over all temptations and dissenting trends, because this spirit is inherent in Orthodoxy. Just as I am convinced that with the help of Our Lord the Orthodox adherents of Ukraine will achieve peace and harmony.

Any dissent is based on pride. St. James says, " God resisteth the proud..." (Jam 4:6), which means that Orthodoxy will be united in Ukraine, sooner or later. Besides, the church annals reveal a regularity: all dissenters eventually break up into so many hostile groups, each claiming possession of the Truth.

Q: How does Your Holiness consider the issue of a local Autocephalous Ukrainian Church? Would this run counter to the canons and traditions of Ecumenical Orthodoxy?

A: Autocephaly is an essential component of Orthodox Ecclesiology. It is closely associated with the church canons and teaching on the local Church. Such issues require coordination with all Orthodox churches. At present, we do not have any clearly defined procedures of granting autocephaly. In fact, this issue is viewed differently by different local Orthodox Churches which they try to settle with the aid of Inter-Orthodox Theological Commissions. This work is based on a thorough analysis of the Canon Law and ecclesiological teaching of the Old Church. The All-Orthodox Council will have the final say here.

Establishing an autocephalous Church requires a number of specific conditions, particularly the ability to maintain Orthodox purity and unity of Local Churches, which, in turn, calls for unanimity and keen awareness of the responsibility before the Church community at large. Here all political ambitions must be cast aside, and the same applies to the personal ambitions of separate religious or secular leaders or groups. We must all proceed from that which can benefit the Church when making any important, crucial decisions.

At present, adherents in Ukraine are extremely divided. Many support the idea of an Autocephalous Ukrainian Church, but there are many decidedly against it, especially in the eastern, northern, and southern regions. Autocephaly is an ecclesiastical term which many people who do not know. Church history or canons regard it as an indication of national independence. Such replacement of the ecumenical essence of the Church by the priority of national identity results in basic misunderstandings that sometimes become tragic mistakes. Autocephaly at this stage would be premature and would further divide the religious community at large.

There are many tragic pages in the annals of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, when autocephaly was arbitrarily proclaimed, showing that this road leads nowhere. The people's consciousness of canonicity must be strengthened, because inattention to the principles of canon law could fundamentally undermine the purity of our faith and have a highly negative effect on the whole Orthodox community.

Q: What role does the Ecumenical Patriarch play in a situation threatening to divide the local Churches as now?

A: The precedence of honor accorded the Patriarch of Constantinople among the Patriarchs of the Local Churches is based on tradition dating from the Eastern Roman Empire, when the capital was transferred from Rome to Byzantium in AD 330, later named Constantinople. The capital bishop's rights were made equal to those of the patriarchs then holding old apostolic office at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In other words, the Bishop of Constantinople was conferred an exceptional honor, but that gave him no cause to claim superiority.

A number of dissenters refer to the "precedence of honor" granted the Patriarch of Constantinople, compared to the Patriarchs of the other local Churches, seeking Constantinople's support in asserting their positions. Under the circumstances, the Patriarch of Constantinople must be especially careful in his approach, lest the canonical unity of the Church be undermined by short-lived priorities, political trends, or other secular interests. In today's extremely sensitive, pathological situation in Ukraine His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew's public support of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church headed by Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) shows that all those trying to break the unity of the Church cannot expect recognition.

Q: Will the Russian Orthodox Church continue to use anathema?

A: The Holy Russian Orthodox Church serves to save human souls, so every member of the Church is part of a single religious mechanism. Therefore, in the words of St. Paul, "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." (I Corinthians, 12:26) This principle of spiritual linkage among the members of the Church as one Body of Christ warrants our general responsibility, serving our cause so "there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (I Corinthians, 12:25) And so we have canonical punishments that are an expression of this care for the integrity and soundness of the church organism. These punishments are levied on individual members - or even groups of members - of the Church as an exception. And we also practice penance, interdict, suspension, deposition, and finally, anathema.

It should be noted that anathema is not a disciplinary act applied to punish a guilty party. St. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that if a sinner pays no heed to the Church "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" (Math. 18:17). The Church resorts to anathema very infrequently. Remembering His words that "it is not the will of your Father who art in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (Math. 18:14), the Church treats earthly weaknesses and faults with the utmost patience and lenience, calling on those who err to wholeheartedly repent.

At the same time, the Church is called upon to show firm will, for the world to see its resolve in retaining the purity of its faith and wholesomeness of spirit, while jealously watching for dissent and chaos within. Pronouncing anathema is evidence of the Church's wisdom; it shows that one of its faithful has placed himself over and above her, casting aside its grace and saving care.

Q: How would Your Holiness estimate the stands and religious policies of the Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches in Ukraine? Are there any plans for your meeting with Pope John Paul II?

A: We cannot but feel deeply concerned about the highly complex interfaith relations in Western Ukraine. Greek Catholic persecution of Orthodox believers, seizure of Orthodox churches, and other acts of violence have created a situation in which Orthodox Bishop Augustin of Lviv has been left with a single small House of God which cannot accommodate all who wish to pray in it. On holidays people have to pray in the street. In Ivano-Frankivsk, Bishop Mykola is threatened with eviction from the eparchial office building.

Alas, we must admit today to the absence of positive changes in Ukrainian interfaith relationships, and I mean changes that would inspire hope in the faithful for a quick end to the shameful practice of defamation and persecution for reasons of church jurisdiction. Measures taken by the Apostolic Nuncio in Ukraine, in May-June 1997, are regarded by the local Orthodox faithful as a symbolic gesture, rather than an actual effort to alleviate the situation.

Indeed, changing the religious situation in Western Ukraine is very complicated. Regrettably, there is still no progress in righting the humiliating condition of those remaining true to the canonical Orthodox Church on this territory, which is strongly condemned by the Ukrainian episcopate and clergy. This heavy burden of problems was actually the reason why I was not able to meet with Roman Pope John Paul II last June. However, we intend to maintain dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in all the areas I have mentioned, and this dialogue will in many ways govern the prospects for our meeting face to face.

Q: A few words about your ascent in the church hierarchy; how do you see your mission? How do you prefer to occupy yourself after hours? Is there a radical semantic difference between the life of a layman and that of a cleric?

A: I have been with the Church since childhood. My parents were dedicated believers and they raised me accordingly, so that very naturally I took priesthood as soon as my age made it possible. When, by the will of Our Lord, I found myself ordained bishop, I became aware of my exceptionally demanding responsibility. Those were trying times. Together with my flock we lived through the persecution and restrictions of the 1960s. As was divinely conceived, I became Patriarch of Moscow precisely when the Church had begun to revive in every respect. This was a second baptism of Rus'. I see my mission in representing before Our Lord thegreat flock of the Russian Orthodox Church, in shouldering my Patriarchal cross, which is especially heavy now that we are in the process of religious renascence. There is little time to spare, and what you call "after hours" is actually filled with many other duties. Whenever I can I prefer to be left alone with nature, but this happens very seldom.

Everyone, layman and cleric alike, must make every effort to be reborn ethically, to learn to live in keeping with age-old ethical dictates. St. Ivan of Kronstadt wrote: "All the sinful desires of one's heart and flesh must be watched closely, suppressed, and loathed, as they are hazardous and perilous to man and unwanted by God. One must praise and love all virtuous aspirations, the desire to pray and read His Word, to participate in spiritual discussions, to feel affection and mercy, to be pure, restrained, and obedient." I do hope that each and every one of us, the hardships and vanities of this world not with standing, will find his road to the Almighty and spiritual perfection, because this road was shown man by Our Lord God.

 

Issue: 
Rubric: