The UOC and the authorities: Is it possible to build friendly relations?

On 11 June 2024, UOC representatives took part in a meeting with the G7 ambassadors. Can we say the authorities hope to establish friendly relations with the Church? On 11 June 2024, a meeting of G7 ambassadors with representatives of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (AUCCRO) was held. The event was attended by the Chairman of the UOC Information and Educational Department, Metropolitan Clement of Nizhyn and Pryluky, and the Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC, Archpriest Mykolay Danylevych. If such a meeting had taken place 2-3 years ago, it would not have attracted much interest – an ordinary protocol meeting, no more. However, in light of recent events related to the state’s attempts to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the participation of the UOC delegation in this meeting arouses a certain interest and raises several questions. Firstly, why were our Church's representatives not invited to recent internal events involving the AUCCRO? They were not invited to meet with the Prime Minister, they were not invited to discuss bill 8371, nor were they invited to visit the USA. They were only invited when representatives of the Conference of European Churches came. Secondly, why did UOC representatives participate in the meeting with the G7 ambassadors on the eve of the Swiss Peace Summit? Thirdly, why were they invited at all, and what was the function of the UOC representatives at this meeting? We will try to answer these questions. Which Synod blessed the meeting? The leadership of the UOC in its relations with the Ukrainian authorities is guided by the do-no-harm principle similar to the approach doctors take with patients. His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry tries to smooth over all sharp edges, almost never criticizes the authorities' actions and avoids political topics. When he speaks about the persecution of the UOC, it is only in the context of patience and humility. His tactic is understandable: he bears responsibility for a large flock, and each of his words can cause harm to many people. Therefore, we initially assumed that Metropolitan Clement and Archpriest Mykolay Danylevych attended the meeting with the blessing of the UOC Primate to avoid confrontation and simply out of humility. However, already when this article was ready, an appeal by Metropolitan Longin (Zhar) appeared on the Telegram channel of the Bancheny Monastery, directly addressing Metropolitan Clement and Archpriest Mykolay with a question: "Which Synod blessed you for such an unlawful meeting you participated in?" This is a very serious question because acting independently in such matters is not just disobedience but almost a challenge to ecclesiastical authority. After all, a hierarch cannot represent the Church without the blessing of its Primate, can he? Let's not rush to conclusions and wait for Metropolitan Clement's own words. On the "forms of cooperation" between the Church and the state In any case, it is very difficult to correctly understand a few phrases spoken by Metropolitan Clement during the meeting, especially in the context of the current relations between the Ukrainian authorities and the Church. In particular, the Metropolitan noted that "thanks to the development of forms of cooperation between the Church and the Ukrainian state in the humanitarian sphere during the war, the Church has the opportunity to effectively testify to its vocation, showing love for one's neighbour in Ukrainian society". Metropolitan Clement is right that the Church does indeed show love for one's neighbour in Ukrainian society. However, what exactly are these "forms of cooperation" with the state that enable the Church to do this? Can it be considered a "form of cooperation" that, according to the authorities, a priest can become a chaplain only if he leaves the UOC? Also, what "form of cooperation" covers the numerous instances when the command of various military units, on whose territories UOC churches were located, not only ceased cooperation with the canonical Church's priests but also transferred its churches to the OCU? Or let's remember Archpriest Serhiy Chertylin, from whom SBU representatives seized several hundred thousand hryvnias during the searches, which have not yet been returned, thus not only committing an unlawful act but also hindering the Church's humanitarian mission? In reality, Metropolitan Clement knows better than we do that the Church continues its activities solely out of patriotic considerations and love for Ukraine, not thanks to "forms of cooperation" with the authorities. He should have thanked not the state but the ordinary believers who give their last money to save the lives of soldiers – their children and grandchildren. Meanwhile, some government officials do everything to prevent this. Therefore, to say that the Church can carry out its humanitarian mission thanks to the authorities is to be ungrateful to those people who genuinely help the AFU and those affected by the war. The state has nothing to do with it. On religious freedom in Ukraine Particularly bewildering is the statement made by the participants of the meeting that "despite martial law, in Ukraine, basic human rights and freedoms are generally ensured, democratic institutions and judicial instances are functioning. However, there are problematic issues that require dialogue and agreed solutions between denominations and the authorities". This statement claims that Ukraine guarantees all necessary religious rights and freedoms. It asserts that Ukraine is an example of democracy and freedom of religion; and if there are any problems, they are resolved through dialogue and mutual agreement between religious denominations and the authorities. This is not just a lie; it is the height of cynicism. Agreeing with such a statement means forgetting that right now several hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are facing utterly absurd criminal cases, accusing them of spreading "pro-Russian" narratives and supporting the aggressor country. Right now, at the legislative level, the Verkhovna Rada, perhaps "in the spirit of dialogue," is trying to ban the UOC. Also, probably with the authorities' approval, UOC communities are "freely" going to the OCU, and the use of crowbars, broken jaws, and hands—these are the things that "require dialogue". Furthermore, the authorities are attempting to seize the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, conducting inspections of the Pochayiv Lavra, and have already taken the Kremenets Monastery—is this all "agreed upon"? It's also worth noting that at the moment, Metropolitan Arseniy of Sviatohirsk, UOC priest Fr. Serhiy Chertylin, and Orthodox journalists are in detention. In other words, our Church is currently going through the most challenging time in its recent history. People who speak about it are behind bars, and those who try to protect their churches are risking their health. Ignoring this and saying that "everything is fine" means betraying them and the Church. The Church and state: lessons from history Metropolitan Clement and Fr. Mykolay Danylevych can be understood. They do not want to share the fate of those hierarchs and priests who are already on trial. What are our grievances? They are that if you cannot speak the truth, at least do not speak lies. Silence in this situation would have been more acceptable than signing a document whose words are akin to a stab in the back to all those who today defend their churches, monasteries, the Lavra and the Church. Moreover, Metropolitan Clement and Fr. Mykolay Danylevych, during the meeting with the G7 ambassadors, played the role of mere extras (their names were not even considered necessary to include in the list of the meeting participants). Their entire function was to join everyone in saying one word – "approved!" Perhaps, by participating in this meeting, the representatives of the UOC followed the same motives as Patriarch Sergius Stragorodsky, who told foreign ambassadors that there were no persecutions of the Church in the USSR. Patriarch Sergius hoped that his words would stop the destruction of the Church by the godless Soviet authorities, but by the beginning of 1941, the Church had almost completely ceased to exist. No declarations or statements of loyalty could save it. The same can be said about the meeting of the AUCCRO with the G7 ambassadors. It was intended to demonstrate to the world, ahead of the Swiss Peace Summit, that everything is fine in Ukraine, that it is indeed a democratic state where things like human rights and freedoms are respected even despite the war. Political benefit for the authoritiesIt is extremely disadvantageous for the Ukrainian authorities to appear as persecutors in the eyes of their Western colleagues because concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience often carry more weight in the West than money, influence, power and authority. Democracy is primarily the ability to believe in God as you wish, and in the West, this is not only understood but also actively protected and supported. That is why the meeting with the G7 was supposed to show that Ukraine is a democratic country. And it is very unfortunate that representatives of the very Church against which a real war is being waged today participated in this "show". Moreover, they not only participated but also supported the lies transmitted by the meeting participants. Conclusions The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is in a complex political situation. It is facing legal proceedings perceived as politically motivated. Unprecedented pressure is being exerted on religious freedoms in Ukraine. The authorities are trying to restrict the activities of the UOC, which contradicts international human rights standards, including freedom of religion. However, in response to this, Church representatives are trying to demonstrate their loyalty, justifying themselves with the reasoning "to avoid making things worse". In this situation, Western institutions and the international community play a crucial role, in front of whom Ukraine is trying to present itself as a democratic state that respects human rights and freedoms. The authorities understand that their reputation in the eyes of Western partners can suffer significantly due to accusations of violating religious freedoms. Therefore, it is impossible to remain silent before this very international community about what is happening in Ukraine in the religious sphere, and to say the opposite is, at the very least, cynical.