Their response

The Kyivan Cave Monastery hosted this year’s first meeting of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), the supreme joint advisory body of the Orthodox churches. The meeting was presided over by His Eminence Metropolitan Volodymyr. Among those who gathered in the Synodal Hall of the Kyivan See to discuss the most important questions of church life were Metropolitan Ahafanhel of Odesa and Izmail; Metropolitan Onufriy of Chernivtsi and Bukovyna; Metropolitan Lazar of Symferopil and the Crimea, and UOC Administrator Archbishop Mytrofan of Pereiaslav.

As underlined in the church’s press release, the members of the Synod discussed the most important problems of the church. Among other things they decided to resume the dialogue with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The metropolitans addressed this problem undoubtedly because of President Yushchenko’s recent speech at the Verkhovna Rada, where he declared: “I cannot help mentioning the most sensitive social problem in the religious sphere, the unnatural disunity of the Orthodox churches. There is no denying the need to overcome the differences that exist among the largest Orthodox jurisdictions and to ratify a single, united Local Orthodox Church. Without a doubt, its creation is considered in the general context of the development and affirmation of Ukrainian national identity. In view of the strategic importance of this issue, the state is within its right to actively broach it and assist in resolving it without interfering in internal church matters.”

The Holy Synod immediately reacted to the president’s statement by replacing the membership of a commission that has existed for more than 10 years and instructing its chairman, Metropolitan Irynei of Dnipropetrovsk and Pavlohrad, to renew its work. However, what does this “renewal” mean — the beginning of negotiations, working out new unification conditions, or drawing up lists of concessions from both sides? In any event, this is a very noble topic for conscientiously reacting to the president’s admonition; here one can “remain innocent and acquire capital,” as the Russian saying goes. After all, it is difficult to expect serious progress in negotiations in which only one side is supposed to make all the concessions. Nevertheless they reacted.

Another highly explosive issue raised by the UOC MP Synod was the so-called Lviv sobor and its 60th anniversary this year. This postwar church council, organized by the Soviet special services in 1946, “condemned and abolished” (materially but not spiritually) the large Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church with its 350-year-old history in western Ukraine. It was only in the 1980s, on the crest of freedom, that western Ukrainians were able to regain their church property, unfortunately not without excesses, and most importantly, the opportunity to profess their creed. It would seem that since we live in one country and pray to one God — the God of forgiveness and mercy- mutual grievances could be slowly forgotten. The UGCC leadership is demonstrating precisely this attitude to the problem. Its hierarch, Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, said, “We wish to forgive those who for 40 years (under the Soviet regime) persecuted and banned our church and its activists. We wish to place a full stop here and now; even though we cannot forget this date, it must not be the cause of negative consequences in our time.”

During the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP), Metropolitan Volodymyr stressed the importance of the Lviv sobor for the history of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. The Synod resolved to honor this “historic” event, for which purpose an ad hoc commission was set up and headed by Archbishop Serhiy of Ternopil and Kremenets. I can just imagine how much hostility, hatred, and how many religious processions held jointly with communists and socialists this “commemoration” will engender, and how once again it will divide Ukrainians into westerners and easterners, into “papists” and “Muscovites.” Is the church planning to keep turning the knife in its wound until Judgment Day? Is it not the duty of the church to calm people and reconcile them? After all, the UOC-MP has the largest number of churches, and its adherents do not have to pray in the open air. There is no doubt whatsoever that the so-called commemoration of the 1946 Lviv sobor is politically motivated and is aimed at destabilizing society.

Finally, let us broach another important issue that was not discussed at the latest meeting of the UOC-MP’s Holy Synod. Synod meetings are convened on a monthly basis, and the elections to the Verkhovna Rada are scheduled for March 26. Meanwhile, our society still has not managed to forget the active interference of clergymen and certain hierarchs of this church in the political struggle; the use of the houses of God as propaganda centers; and the publication and distribution of agitational literature. It would be logical, proper, and patriotic of the Synod to issue a public statement warning the flock and the bishops of the church against repeating such excesses, which are unworthy of the church. Unfortunately, Ukrainians have heard no such statement.