Now they come for the Ukrainians…

The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. One would therefore have expected an endless outpouring of outrage in the Western media concerning recent events in the Ukraine concerning the Orthodox Church there. Yet other than a few articles delighting in the way in which the Ukrainian government is interfering in the governance of the Church in that country little has been said. Unfortunately, there is a great ignorance in the West about how the Orthodox Church is organised which helps allow the great injustice taking place in the Ukraine to take place without protest. This article aims to alleviate that lack of knowledge and understanding somewhat, not only for the sake of faithful Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine but also for the dangerous precedent this sets for all Christians around the world.

The False Narrative

The short version of how this matter is being reported is essentially as follows. As something of a hangover from the bad old days of the Soviet era, the Orthodox Church in Russia remained in control of the church in the Ukraine. Many of the faithful in the Ukraine wanted religious independence along with political, but the Russian Church run from Moscow refused to grant it. So they appealed instead to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the leader of worldwide Orthodoxy, and after due consideration he decided to grant their request. There remains among the Church hierarchy some who owe their position to Moscow and are therefore unhappy with Constantinople’s decision. However, most of the faithful are pleased to have finally been granted their independence.

How the Orthodox Church is organised

The above narrative is essentially “fake news”. Orthodoxy is made up of a number of independent (termed “autocephalous”) churches which are in communion with each other. For historical reasons, similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church, Constantinople is regarded as the See ranking first in honour among Orthodox Christians, but unlike the Roman Catholic Church the bishop of that See, known as the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP), does not exercise universal jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians outside of his See. He is considered first among equals, but at the end of the day he is the head of one (very small) autocephalous church among many. He is not a kind of Orthodox Pope and he has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other autocephalous churches. Indeed, it should be noted that the Great Schism, which separated the Church East and West in the eleventh century, took place over this very issue, whether Rome had jurisdiction over the rest of the Church. The conclusion in the East was that he had not, and the Orthodox churches have operated independently ever since, united in doctrine, but each autonomous in governance. This means that the EP has broken Church law in doing what he has done – the technical term would be that he has acted uncanonically, against the canons or law of the Orthodox Church. This fact has been recognised by the majority of the Orthodox churches, and of those few who have not openly condemned his actions none has spoken out on support of them.

Historical background of the Church in the Ukraine

This does not answer, of course, the puzzling question for Western Christians as to why then should the church in the Ukraine be in some way under the authority of the one in Russia? The simple answer is that it was not, but rather that the Russian Church is Mother Church of Ukranian Orthodox Christians. This means that while the Ukrainian Church is not considered autocephalous, neither is it under the control of Moscow. It is fully independent, managing its own internal affairs. Indeed, when it comes to control it might be said that the Ukraine exercises more control over Moscow than vice-versa, as Ukrainian bishops sit on the synods of the Russian Church, while Russian bishops are not accorded reciprocal privileges.

The connection between the two churches dates back to the time when Christianity first came to the region, a time when there were not two churches but one; a time before there was neither a Russia nor a Ukraine. When the faith was brought to that area, it was then a territory known as Rus, a kingdom made up of not only modern day Russia and the Ukraine but other states as well. This region was ruled from Kiev, the capital of modern Ukraine, and naturally the central authority of the Church was based there also. Some centuries later the capital moved to St Petersburg, later to Moscow, and the centre of Church governance moved also. Some three hundred years ago Moscow decided the time had come to make the Ukrainian Church independent, and did so, following, it should be noted, all the correct canonical procedures that were required.

The modern context

Fast forward some centuries. Communism has fallen; and the various Soviet states are now independent nations. A small movement arises in the Ukraine that an autocephalous church should be established there, free of all ties to Russia. But the movement does not come from within the Orthodox faithful of the nation, but from without, led by a man called Philaret, a former bishop of the Ukrainian Church who had harboured hopes of being appointed Metropolitan and leading the Orthodox Church in his nation, but instead ended being deposed from ministry amidst allegations that he was secretly married with a family (while Orthodox deacons and priests may be married, only monks – who are, of course, single men – may be bishops). His response was to establish his own rival “Orthodox” church – for which reason he was excommunicated – and it was this organisation, along with another group of schismatics, who petitioned Constantinople with the request that they be granted autocephalous status.

As there already exists in the Ukraine a canonical Orthodox Church, recognised not only by Moscow, but by all the other autocephalous churches as well including Constantinople as such, the Ecumenical Patriarch quite rightly dismissed their requests. Indeed, he made public statements to the effect that their requests were not to be considered and could not be considered as they were being made by a group of schismatics led by a deposed and excommunicated bishop.

What happened to cause the EP to change his mind and issue a decree that in all of Orthodoxy has been the subject of much speculation? It has been pointed out that given that his own church is based in Turkey, a Muslim country, his own flock is tiny and there is much to be gained for him in claiming to be the new mother church of the much larger one in the Ukraine. It has also been wondered whether, given the support for this move in the West due to the anti-Russian sentiment which is so prevalent, some form of pressure may have been brought to bear upon him behind the scenes. However, it is hard to know for sure what lies behind his actions.

An unprotested human rights violation

But it is known that the cause of the schismatics has the backing of the Ukrainian government – why? Well, there has been much discord between Russia and the Ukraine in recent years. It is therefore hard not to interpret events as diplomacy by other means, an outrageous interference in the internal affairs of an independent church for the sake of scoring points in the political arena. Also, the government there is liberal with Western leanings and the traditional views of the legitimate Orthodox Church are very much an inconvenience to it (and it is to be noted that this “new” church is already showing signs of being more liberal than the old). The result has been the seizure of properties from the legitimate church by the state for dispersal to the new, state recognised church, along with pressure being placed by the authorities on parishes and clergy to renounce their faith and join the schismatic groupings.

This is an egregious violation of their human right to religious freedom; and that Western democracies and the mainstream media should not only fail to name it for what it is but instead applaud it is shameful. Faithful Christians in the West should be outraged by what is happening and speak out for no other reason than the fact that fellows Christians in the East are being persecuted in this way.

However, there is another reason for alarm and another reason to speak out – sheer self-interest. What we are witnessing in the Ukraine is an experiment as to just how far in the modern world a liberal, Western-alligned state may go when it comes not just to interfering in the internal governance of a church within its borders, but effectively taking control of it. This should terrify those churches in the West whose teachings pose a challenge to the liberal secularism that has become so prevalent. In Ireland, for example, the mainstream media has long felt entitled to call on the Catholic Church to change her teachings to match the tenor of the times, and our politicians increasingly feel comfortable following suit. That the day might come when more direct action might be taken may seem implausible, but it seemed equally implausible to the Orthodox faithful in the Ukraine right up until the moment when it did.

It seems appropriate to end with the final line of Martin Niemöller’s famous poem First they came: “Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” We must speak out for the rights of Orthodox Christians of the Ukraine now … or when our turn comes there may be no one who will speak out for us.