Historical (un) truth with Vakhtang Kipiani

Head of the UOC KP Filaret and Protopriest Georgy Kovalenko on ZiK

The TV programme aired on the ZIK channel was designed to drag through the mud the Church of Christ in Ukraine – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. But it turned out somewhat different: the guests of the host, Protopriest Georgy Kovalenko and the head of the UOC KP Mikhail Denisenko, not only refuted the theses stated by the authors of the programme, but also showed the world the truth about themselves which they would certainly prefer to hide.

The programme "Historical truth with Vakhtang Kipiani" consisted of two parts. In the first part, a beautiful video sequence narrated a story of how the Church collaborated with the KGB, and the second was a talk with two very odious personalities: M.Denisenko, excommunicated from the Church of Christ, and Protopriest Georgy Kovalenko, a man taking off for camera his priestly vestments and explaining his defection as follows: "I first came to church 25 years ago ... I was sure that this was the road to God ... After 25 years I’m leaving <...> I'm leaving to find answers to the questions which the Church today can’t answer." And this talk, in fact, was a complete refutation of what was stated in the first part. However, to understand this, you should listen carefully to the questions of the host and analyze the answers of his interlocutors.

The main theses of Vakhtang Kipiani's programme are as follows:

First, all the clergy in the USSR were recruited by KGB officers and carried out the tasks assigned.

Secondly, there are no former KGB agents.

And, thirdly, all the clergy of the modern UOC continue to work for the FSB.

These theses are stated in the programme so openly that it the authors seem to have done it on purpose so that people who have brains would see the absurdity of this and understand that in reality everything is exactly the opposite.

The topic of the relationship between the Church and the communist authorities (including the secret services) in the Soviet era is very suitable for those who wish to throw a stone at the Church of Christ. If you want to laugh at it or accuse it of something, get out a document from the archives or just make a fake that a particular hierarch used to be a security agent under such-and-such cover name. And that's all! You can shout at every corner that the Church is consisted entirely of state security agents.

The line between the loyalty of power and the betrayal of Christ is very subtle. Apostle Paul wrote to the Roman Christians: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Romans 13:1). These words were written at the time when Rome was ruled by the cruel tyrant and the first persecutor of the Christians Nero. Ancient Christians showed this obedience to the authorities in everything, except for those moments when it contradicted the doctrine and Christian morality. Followers of ancient Christians became priests and believers of the Church of Christ in the Soviet Union.

The big number of martyrs and confessors revealed to the world in the USSR shows clearly to whom they remained faithful: the KGB or Christ. Historical data on this vary, but even the approximate figures are striking: more than 400 bishops were repressed during the Soviet period, of which more than 300 were shot or died in jail. In total, from 500,000 to a million people faced reprisals for being faithful to Christ. These people, but not journalists and analysts, prove the falsity of the first thesis of Kipiani’s programme.

There are former KGB agents for the simple reason that such an organization has no longer existed since 1991. In the early 90's, the state security agencies of the former USSR were crushed, which is well known to everyone who knows more or less their history. The modern FSB of Russia was established four years after the abolition of the KGB and is an entirely different body both in terms of its staffing, ideology, functions and real weight in the life of society. But this issue is no longer relevant for independent Ukraine. Much more important is the accusation of collaboration with the former Soviet special services of the modern clergy of the UOC. That's where the degree of absurdity is just off scale.

To date, there are 84 bishops in the UOC, of whom before 1991 only 8 (!) priests were ordained. But this figure is not indicative. The most striking event, which showed that the KGB and the Communist Party could not influence the Church in any way, was the Local Council of 1990, which elected Patriarch Alexy II after the death of Patriarch Pimen. At that Council, according to the rules, Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) of Kiev, who at that time was Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See, was to become the Patriarch. And he really sought support of his candidature from the KGB and the Communist Party.

But he was denied support because the Soviet authorities no longer controlled the situation in the country itself, not to mention the Church. This was said by the late Metropolitan Nicodemus (Rusnak) in the film "Anatomy of the Schism". By the end of the 1980s, the influence of the KGB on the society was on the way to zero. If we take this circumstance into account, even in the time of their episcopal consecration, theoretically only 4 of the 84 people could interact with the KGB. To say, even in veiled terms, that the current clergy of the UOC continue to work for the special services of the neighboring state is a complete nonsense. But "... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility" (Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf", Chapter 10). ZIK has learned this rule perfectly.

And by the way, the most notable instance in V.Kipiani's programme was the end credits before the talk in the studio: "We thank the Ukrainian Catholic University for the production of the programme." That is, throwing all that dirt and lies on the Church of Christ, the authors indicate who they thanked for that dirt being poured out – the Ukrainian Catholic University. For good reason Taras Shevchenko believed that Catholics were the main enemies of the Ukrainian people, which he repeatedly wrote about.

At the beginning of the talk, V. Kipiani asked Mr. Denisenko to say about the cooperation of the Church and the state as a person who directly participated in this. In his first words, Mr. Denisenko said that in Soviet times the Church was completely controlled by the state and explained that no hierarchical consecration and no priestly ordination could take place without agreement with the Soviet authorities. But think about this answer. Mr. Denisenko said that the control of the state over the Church was about resolving personnel issues. In the life of the Church, the personnel issue is definitely an important element, but by no means the main one. The Church lives first and foremost by prayer, by sacraments, by faith in Christian dogmas and by the commandments of God. And it turns out that the state did not influence these vital spheres of the Church's life. KGB bodies did not force to change the Creed, church canons, did not interfere in the order of performing sacraments and did not edit the prayers. They only agreed on possible appointees.

The next question was aimed to make Mr. Denisenko confirm the conclusion that in Soviet times people in the Church were formal believers, but in fact they served the KGB: "Did you see in those Soviet times that people who were not deeply religious, who had other motives, came to the Church? Now there are a lot of such people." A very unexpected answer followed: "On the contrary. In Soviet times, people who believed in God went to the Church, because it was dangerous to go to church and hold office in the state. He who dared to do this overcame his fear of atheism and went to the Church and prayed. If we take our time, then the picture is completely different."

Mr. Denisenko said that during the Soviet period only deeply faithful courageous people entered the theological seminary, those who were not afraid of deprivations and harassment by the Communist Party and the Soviet state, because they wanted to serve God. 95% of graduates took the priesthood in the USSR, and today their number is much less. It brings a smile that the ZIK television channel was trying to present the Church as a collection of traitors and renegades, KGB agents for half an hour, and then the direct participant of all those events suddenly states that in those days to become a priest, and just to go to church for worship was a feat of confession, and only a sincere faith in God could make a person dare to do this.

Further, the host asked if there are some supervisors of church affairs in state bodies today. Mr. Denisenko categorically rejected this, recognizing, however, that in power there are still people who interact with the Church. However, he did not explain where the supervision ends and interaction begins. Yes, now the state is unlikely to put pressure on religious denominations in resolving personnel issues, but it can well make them bring their preaching in line with modern European values. And this is tolerance to LGBT representatives, gender equality, and many other things that contradict the basics of Christianity. In Europe, it happens all the time.

This was followed by Mr. Denisenko's admitting the collaboration with the KGB. So, he said that he agreed with KGB representatives the candidacies of bishops and priests in the Kiev exarchate, which he headed at that time. And after a while he told the story of how a KGB officer summoned him in 1952 for the first time and demanded to work for this agency. Mr. Denisenko proudly stated that he refused the offer, despite the fact that the KGB man put a gun on the table and threatened to shoot the young Filaret in case of refusal.

Whether there was actually a gun, or Mr. Denisenko said a lie for effect, we do not know. But we know that his church career in 1952 immediately took off. At that time, Filaret was only 23 years old, and he was ordained as a hieromonk. At this age he was appointed the acting dean of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, as well as a seminary teacher. Then he became an abbot, an archimandrite, a bishop, held high posts in theological educational institutions, headed bishops' chairs (including abroad), and finally, in 1966, at the age of 37, Filaret became the Kiev exarch and a permanent member of the Holy Synod.

Taking into account Mr. Denisenko’s words that the church personnel issues were resolved exclusively by the KGB at that time, it can safely be said that the talk between the 23-year-old hieromonk Filaret and the KGB commissioner ended in a different way than he told Vakhtang Kipiani. He let it slip, in a word. Or he just thought that no one would look into his biography and relate the time of the talk to the beginning of a career growth.

And here is another slip of the tongue from Mr. Denisenko. The host asked, "Vladyka, do you agree that the UOC KP is a new Church?" Denisenko: "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is not new. On the contrary, it is a continuer of the history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine." Obviously, he wanted to lie, but unwillingly said the truth. None of those present in the studio noticed the embarrassment.

Then he tried to substantiate the thesis "The Church is me, Filaret". In 1992, when the Kiev Patriarchate appeared, according to Mr. Denisenko, it wasn’t he who fell in schism, but all the bishops of the autonomous UOC broke away from the Church, and he remained a pillar of "Orthodoxy" in Ukraine. And at the end of his answer he said what he wanted to say: "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Vladimir, which later became known as the Moscow Patriarchate (it's not true – Ed.), this is a new (Church – Ed.)." Only here is the question: why do all the bishops of the UOC consider Mr. Denisenko but not Metropolitan Vladimir a schismatic; and why do all the local Orthodox Churches hold the same opinion? But the host did not dare to ask such an absolutely logical question.

Protopriest Georgy Kovalenko is a person incommensurably smaller than the anathematized former metropolitan of Kiev, and his answers are not so interesting, but his words also give away a falsity.

"I wouldn’t like to represent any of the conflicting parties (UOC and UOC KP – Ed.), I would like to represent those people who want to see Orthodoxy in Ukraine as one..." And all would be fine, but Protopriest George Kovalenko defined the people who want to unite as indifferent regarding confessional affiliation, who do not care which denomination to belong, schismatic or Orthodox. And if he would like to represent these people, the question arises: why is he still a protopriest in the UOC? It is somehow illogical.

Such a historical truth came out of it.

Read also