Everything Russia does to annex Ukraine drives it further away

Over the past eight years Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine (Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyiv Patriarchate) has shown a firm hand in devoloping an autocephalous local Orthodox Church, championing the right of the Ukrainian people to have this church before certain foreign countries, and most importantly, in the eyes of the Ukrainian authorities. Largely owing to Patriarch Filaret’s dedicated efforts, the idea of a Ukrainian Autocephalous Church has not been lost in the political turmoil of recent years, as yet another fiasco of the young Ukrainian state. Below, Patriarch Filaret comments on the ups and downs of his eight years in office.

Your Holiness, eight years have elapsed since you were elected Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate. Has anything changed since then? Has the church structure expanded? What has guided you over the years?

Filaret: Eight years ago and now the major task is the same, asserting the development and independence of a Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Considerable progress has been made. I think there is every reason to state that UOC KP has proved its status as a local church. Before 1995, we faced the question: Will this Church exist or will it perish? Our Church has since grown strong enough, so much so as to rule out this question. It has de facto local church status.

Evidence is found in specific changes in our church life, comparing them to what we had at the time of my inauguration in 1995. First, we had only nineteen eparchies in Ukraine then; now we have 33, including four abroad. We have our eparchies in every oblast, we even have two in some. And the same is true of archpriests. We had eighteen before 1995, now we have 37. As for church communities, we had slightly over 2,000 eight years ago; now we have more than 3,500. Another significant fact is the growing number of Kyiv Patriarchate parishes in Ukraine’s eastern and central regions. Houses of God are being erected on an extensive scale, with hundreds opened in the last eight years. I have sanctified four such temples this fall alone.

We are also making every effort to expand religious education. Before 1995, our church had only one theological academy and three seminaries. At present, we have two academies in Kyiv and Lviv, a theology department at the University of Chernivtsi, and an Institute of Theology in Ivano-Frankivsk, along with six seminaries. The number of cloistered communities has increased from ten to over thirty. They are not numerically large, as everything depends on the number of people who want to join them. There aren’t many these days.

We are also doing our best to provide experienced parish priests. Our church has some 2,800 of them now, less than the number of parishes on record, among other things because in Western Ukraine it is traditional for a priest to serve a couple of parishes, as not all of such communities can afford its own shepherd. 80% of our clergymen are graduates of theological seminaries or academies; some of them hold prestigious theological degrees. 20% do not have such diplomas, but they are enrolled in seminaries as extension students. The church wants from them knowledge rather than diplomas.

Among our important attainments is the fact that in the past eight years we have been able to publish Ukrainian versions of practically all important religious books — some twenty books in all, including the New Testament, Books of Prayers and Apostles (meant for church use), and more. We continue publishing the journal Orthodox Messenger, the annual Ukrainsky bohoslov [Ukrainian Theologian], the newspaper Holos Pravoslavia [Voice of Orthodoxy], and many other eparchial newspapers and magazines.

Among our other attainments, I would single out the fact that, hard as the Moscow Patriarchate has tried to separate the Kyiv Patriarchate from the rest of the [Orthodox] world, we are gradually breaking through that isolation. We are currently in contact with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as with churches in Bulgaria and Macedonia. After an interval of some years, we have begun to be invited to international conferences organized by the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine and abroad. Last year, I visited the United Nations when a Ukrainian cultural exhibit was displayed. Therefore, contrary to all hostile efforts, the Kyiv Patriarchate is entering the ecumenical world as a large church of a large country, something to be reckoned with.

What major Kyiv Patriarchate problem remains to be solved?

Filaret: The problem of the Kyiv Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church being recognized by the other Orthodox churches. I am personally confident that our patriarchate will eventually be fully acknowledged. The big question is when. Our church is constantly gaining in strength and scope; even now we have more adherents than many other churches — in Bulgaria or Greece, not to mention the historically formed Eastern Orthodox churches, such as those in Jerusalem, Alexandria, and so on. The Patriarch of Constantinople ranks lower than that of Kyiv, as we are recognized by over ten million residents of Ukraine (I might as well refer you to the turnouts of polls carried out by Ukrainian, European, even Russian institutions, showing that the Kyiv Patriarchate has a greater number of devotees than that of Moscow). This means that sooner or later all the other churches will have to recognize the Kyiv Patriarchate. Not the Ukrainian Church but world orthodoxy suffers from today’s non-recognition.

How do the Ukrainian state authorities and all of our Ukrainian society treat the Kyiv Patriarchate? Has the attitude changed in any way in the past eight years?

Filaret: The situation was unfavorable from the outset. Remember the public violence on St. Sophia Square (when the Moscow Patriarchate refused to allow the burial of Patriarch Volodymyr of Kyiv in Ukraine’s main cathedral — Ed.)? This was graphic example of the regime’s attitude toward the Kyiv Patriarchate; it was an attempt to destroy it, so that what would remain of the Ukrainian Church would be joined to either the Autocephalous Church or Moscow Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. No one has any dream of destroying the Kyiv Patriarchate; instead, there are people who are trying to establish neighborly relations with us. The sad fact remains that the authorities are in no way facilitating our development; on the contrary, those above seem determined to support the UOC Moscow Patriarchate in every way possible. If both our churches were on a parity basis, our attainments would prove superior by far. As it is, we are often witness to Moscow Patriarchate- affiliated eparchies wishing to join KP and being prevented by local authorities that deny them the legally required re-registration. However, the situation has somewhat improved, compared to 1995.

What has happened to the UOC Moscow Patriarchate? The KP presence must have made its impact?

Filaret: It certainly has, and there have been changes. That church has become noticeably more aggressive, as evidenced by numerous acts of violence at the Kyiv-Pecherska Lavra Monastery of the Caves and in other regions where KP parishes are attacked and interethnic religious confrontations exacerbated, where parish priests deliver sermons to instigate; where Moscow Patriarchate bishops and clergy are expressly banned to have any contact with their KP counterparts. This is clearly negative, for we are all citizens of the same country. However, some among the UOC Moscow Patriarchate clergy are more and more aware that building an independent Ukrainian church is an irreversible process. Many of them, bishops and priests alike, are inwardly prepared and willing to unite with the Kyiv Patriarchate, except that they are afraid — precisely because of local authorities and their obvious affiliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. So those still unsure prefer to take the stand that is safer and pays off.

We know that the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is not in its prime these days (to put it mildly); some even believe that there is no UAOC in Ukraine at all. Does the Kyiv Patriarchate consider the possibility of uniting with that church?

Filaret: We wanted to unite at one time; we signed accords with UAOC leaders in Kyiv and Constantinople. But all our efforts proved fruitless. Therefore, I can’t consider any such unity projects as very hopeful. We know that the UAOC suffers an internal rift that spells discord, even hostility. I am afraid that this process will continue on a larger scale, even if we did unite. I wouldn’t want any such unity to be short-lived. This wouldn’t be a serious approach.

I might further point out the unity of the Kyiv Patriarchate as yet another attainment to our credit over the past eight years. Before 1995, we had various trends including internal strife. We have nothing of the kind now.

Your Holiness, we remember that after your inauguration the Moscow Eparchy subjected you to the worst Christian punishment: excommunication. If you had anticipated it, would you have done what you did?

Filaret: I think that even if I had anticipated it, nothing would have changed; I would have followed the same road; my choice had nothing to do with how the Moscow Eparchy would respond. For me, the main thing was my awareness of being in a newly established Ukrainian state, and that its being yet another Orthodox polity meant having its own independent Orthodox church. I knew that our being part of the Moscow Patriarchate was temporary and that having an independent church was part of the future of an independent state. So I made my choice with an eye to the future; I knew that I would travel a winding and thorny path. The experience of the past several years showed that the autocephalous Ukrainian church concept was the right one. I also think that the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is aware of its being temporarily present in this country, that it will eventually have to join the Kyiv Patriarchate as part of a single local church.

Back then they felt sure that nothing would actually change in Ukraine, that its independence was another grownup game soon to be discarded, whereupon we would return to the Russian imperial lap. In fact, some people still think so. But the historical process works against them. Look at the CIS. It has actually turned out to be just an empire on paper. I also think that the Single Economic Space concept will have the same outcome. After all, we can see what Russia is actually after, considering what is happening in the Sea of Azov. Somehow, whatever Russia tries to do to make Ukraine join it makes Ukraine move further away from it. The Russians are making the gap that separates us deeper, and it will be difficult to bridge. All their hopes to subordinate the Ukrainian Church are nothing but wishful thinking. This will never happen.

What public and political movements are supporting the Kyiv Patriarchate?

Filaret: All the parties and volunteer organizations that champion the idea of a Ukrainian nation state. And we reciprocate. The stand of our church is to cooperate with any rather than some political groups or parties working to enhance Ukrainian statehood.

How do you feel about the bill amending the current law on the freedom of conscience?

Filaret: The attitude of our Church is negative, as is that of the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, as well as of the larger Protestant communities. We signed a joint message to the President of Ukraine and the Chairman of Verkhovna Rada protesting that bill. Why? Because we regard it as a time bomb that will explode and cause an outburst of religious discord in Ukraine stemming from church property. Granting churches the status of legal entities means that they are all entitled to own property, including land. As a result, the Moscow Patriarchate will gain full ownership of such church property in Ukraine, regardless of what the adherents want. Both our celebrated Lavra monasteries will also become property of the Moscow Patriarchate. There is a pitched battle being fought at the Pochayiv Lavra to have all its property, land, and improvements denationalized and put fully under Moscow’s control. This was opposed by the general public in Halychyna. Characteristically, not only the UOC KP, but also UAOC and the Greek Catholic Church rose in defense of the Lavra. This national problem forced all nationally conscious forces to rally. I also know that Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan asked the president, cabinet, and parliament to put the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra property of the UOC MP, meaning that it would be placed under Moscow’s control. Meanwhile, we know from olden times that he that possesses these two Lavra monasteries will possess the soul of the Ukrainian people. I might also add that this struggle to control the Lavras is part and parcel of Russia’s policy toward Ukraine. And so we are against that bill at this stage. A church does have a right to be a legal entity, but not within the currently split Orthodox community in Ukraine. Let the church first unite and become truly independent.