A Lay Arbiter

At a press conference held in Zhytomyr on February 8 President Yushchenko indicated that in the course of the administrative reform he intends to reduce the number of state committees and other agencies. Out of 62 existing entities, it is planned to leave only 42 intact. Among those slated to be disbanded is the State Committee for Religion, created in 1995. President Yushchenko made it clear that this committee’s local branches would also be abolished. “The government is going to work openly with every religion,” the president noted, “and we do not intend to create special obstacles for a certain faith or church.”

Meanwhile, the current religious situation in this country objectively calls for (and this requirement may be valid for an indefinite period of time) the creation of a coordinating and consultative body. Since Ukraine’s religious map is rather variegated, relations between some churches are not always cordial and thus require intervention from a third party. In other words, there must be an arbitration body to heal rifts among churches as well as between churches and government. An institution should be set up to conduct research into new churches that, in rare cases, might be undesirable for society. This kind of research should obviously be the preserve of religious scholars and experts. The experience of many countries that observe strict non-interference into religious affairs proves the necessity of such advisory bodies.

According to Prof. Kolodny, chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the Ukrainian Institute of Philosophy, churches in Ukraine need help that only scholars can offer: for example, to prevent certain churches from politicization, which occurred during the recent election campaign, or to grasp, and reject, the idea of one “official church” in Ukraine (following Russia’s example).

The Orthodox churches of Ukraine are most often in need of consultations with an outside party. Most of the other churches – Ukrainian Catholic, Roman Catholic, and various branches of Protestantism – live a self-sufficient ecclesiastical life and as a rule resolve all their problems internally, without airing their dirty linen in public. It is a different matter where Orthodoxy is concerned: the latest example is the bickering in the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church surrounding the premises for the Patriarchate, in which both sides expect the secular authorities to restore justice.

The same applies to the politicization of church life, which Prof. Kolodny also mentioned. A dangerous change occurred long ago in the public life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP): pro-Russian political activities have squeezed out such true spiritual pursuits as charity, education, etc.

It is all too apparent that the difficulties besetting our church life have been caused by “just” two very concrete factors, two hard nuts that even our new government has failed to crack: the split of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into three churches and the subordination of one of these to the Moscow Patriarchate. If not for this subordination, during the presidential campaign we would not have witnessed such shameful things as the demagogic fervor of pro-Russian fraternities, desecration of temples, and the involvement of bishops in attempts to split the country, etc.

The new government’s quest for religious changes began with an appeal by Mykola Tomenko, then chairman of the Verkhovna Rada committee for freedom of speech and information, to Volodymyr Sabodan, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. The message says: “As you may know, part of the Orthodox Church has made a considerable effort during these elections to discredit Orthodoxy. Many priests of Your Beatitude’s church tried to persuade their congregations to vote for one of the candidates, who represented the government whose numerous, unpardonable sins were very well known to our compatriots. Instead of spreading words of faith and love, the churches of your denomination resounded with agitprop-style sermons full of hatred toward the people who were championing true Christian values among their co-religionists and other Orthodox denominations. The churches stored and circulated mud-slinging publications. This caused enormous harm not only to churches and lay people but also to Orthodox Christianity as a whole. And now, although you have blessed Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, some priests of your church are continuing to stoke the fire of enmity in Ukrainian society…I am therefore requesting you to speak out in clear unambiguous terms about the actions of your church representatives who are stirring up enmity in society and to state clearly whether the UOC MP supports the right of the Ukrainian people to live freely on their own, God-given, land or, on the contrary, whether it believes that only specific people can exercise this right.”

There was no official reply. Past relations between the state and the UOC MP show that the only effective measure against law-breaking by a certain part of its clergy is fines and public trials – in full compliance with the laws of Ukraine, without any consideration for titles and ranks. Meanwhile, various churches, the Orthodox clergy, and various church-related organizations still enjoy the status of persona grata, despite the offenses they have committed.

I will take the liberty of stating that the full resolution of the “Ukrainian Orthodox problem” (i.e., reuniting the three branches and granting this church autocephalous status under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarch who has expressed readiness to do so) is as difficult a task as Ukraine’s accession to the EU. If our government manages to change this explosive and highly dangerous situation, it will gain our never-ending trust. But politicians should not hope for the Moscow Patriarchate’s assistance or entertain the illusion of a quick fix. If no changes are effected, then the continued existence of the State Committee for Religion may make no difference.