How to turn the Church ban into its "protection"
Head of the UGCC Sviatoslav Shevchuk. Photo: gazeta.ua
But how can the closure of churches and the ban on religious services be considered “protection” of the Church? And in what way could religion have been used as a weapon in UOC parishes? The answer is very simple – it couldn’t.
How can one not recall Orwell’s famous quotes, “War is peace”, “Freedom is slavery”, etc.
Any reasonable person understands that Shevchuk’s words are complete absurdity.
And here, it’s worth reminding the head of the Uniates about a recent historical period when his structure found itself in a very similar situation to the UOC.
The Soviet government, aware of the close ties between the Greek Catholic Church and nationalists, decided to de facto ban them. From 1946 to 1990, the UGCC was underground.
Today, the Uniates are very resentful of Stalin’s decision and refer to the years spent underground as “martyrdom”.
But could the Bolsheviks at that time justify the ban on the UGCC using Shevchuk’s words, claiming that the ban on the Uniates “was not a ban on the Church but rather its protection from the danger of religion being used as a weapon”?
There is an aphorism: “A slave does not dream of freedom but of having his own slaves.”
In our case, the Uniates, who experienced the ban on their Church, are now fully supporting the ban on the Orthodox.
Such is their “Christianity”.
Read also
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?