Can UOC be repressed? The opinion of a Catholic and Doctor of Philosophy

Ph.D. Andrii Baumeister. Photo: UOJ

Andrii Baumeister, a Ukrainian philosopher and writer, a professor at the Department of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and a Catholic by faith, published a brave video on his YouTube channel on 19 September 19 2023 titled "The Fate of Orthodoxy in Ukraine: Challenges and Fateful Mistakes. From Tomos (5.01.2019) to 2023". Why "brave"? Because Andrii Baumeister as a well-known public figure dared to speak openly and honestly about the situation of the Church in Ukraine, as much as it is possible in modern conditions. Here is an attempt to analyze his key points.

Who is the "right" Church?

At the very beginning of his talk, Andrii Baumeister makes a very important point, emphasizing that the "church issue" in Ukraine currently has a vivid ideological and propagandistic bent. He highlights that in conflicts on the religious ground (and in Ukraine, we indeed have such a conflict), "everything usually is simplified to the extreme and is viewed in the form of very simple dichotomies: Ukrainian Church – anti-Ukrainian Church, pro-Ukrainian narrative – anti-Ukrainian narrative, Ukraine’s friends – Ukraine’s enemies."

For this reason, anyone who attempts to look at the problem "from the outside," without fitting into "the Procrustean bed of these rigid confrontations," as Baumeister puts it, immediately becomes an enemy and finds themselves under an ideological attack, being accused of "Kremlin propaganda and voicing enemy narratives". This happens because in the "church issue", we encounter a non-alternative position, which means ideology and propaganda.

And Baumeister is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the state has long ago determined for itself which church is "good and right" and which is "bad and wrong". This determination not only contradicts the Constitution and common sense but is also a postulate that no one questions. In other words, those who fall into the "bad" category can only change the situation by defecting to the "good" side.

You can even perish in the war for your Homeland, but you won't prove your "reliability" until you switch sides to the "good" one.

Furthermore, you can't even attempt to look at the situation impartially because when it comes to ideology, you either accept it or you don't. This, in turn, makes the process of analysis impossible. This is precisely what we see in the case of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – even a neutral, non-hostile attitude towards it (as provided by law and the Constitution) is perceived as a rejection of the ideology, which means betrayal.

Tomos and unity

Baumeister quoted Bishop Job (Getcha) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who in 2016 (before the Tomos bestowal) stated that there should be one Church in Ukraine, not two or three, and therefore, "we need to work on this unity". Andrii Baumeister repeated this idea twice, emphasizing its importance.

After all, the Tomos, whose goal, according to Patriarch Bartholomew, was to unite the "branches of Ukrainian Orthodoxy", not only failed to bring about this unity but further divided Ukrainians, sparking an unprecedented wave of confrontation among Orthodox believers. This is indeed a crucial argument against the Tomos, one that has been noted by representatives of those Churches that did not recognize the OCU.

History revision: was it possible?

Telling about his spiritual journey and his relationship with Orthodoxy, which Baumeister did not renounce even after converting to Catholicism, he poses another question, this time directly addressed to the canonists of the Phanar: How did it happen that Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which had been part of Russian Orthodoxy for over three hundred years, suddenly ceased to be so?

Baumeister recalled that in 1686, Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople gave the Kyiv Metropolis into canonical subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate. However, in 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew annulled Dionysius' decree, considering the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis illegitimate.

"And here the question arises: What is this? How can the current Patriarch Bartholomew correct, annul, or re-approve documents issued over 300 years ago?" wonders the Ph.D. from Kyiv University.

In his opinion, it is not possible to go back in history and change the legal status of any document solely on the grounds that "everything was not flawless," because almost everything goes "not flawlessly" in these matters.

"Kremlin narratives"

The professor believes that accusing someone of "Moscow narratives" is an irrational and unconvincing argument: "Accusations of wrong narratives, certain hostile things, hierarchs’ unworthiness, legal insolvency of claims to certain church properties, etc. – all this is not a plausible principle".

He is confident that "Ukraine should become a free European state. In this state, citizens should have the freedom to choose any confession. This freedom should not be imposed based on any principles, as accusations of 'Kremlin narratives' are neither rational nor legal nor political arguments."

Furthermore, according to the philosopher, the term "Kremlin narrative" is so vague that it can be applied to "anyone". This accusation is used for one reason only: "to discredit the source" and "accuse opponents of anything".

He also noted that most Ukrainian politicians, including President Zelensky, have met with UOC hierarchs, which means they could also be suspected of following incorrect "narratives". He questions, "Was the entire political leadership of Ukraine since 1991 all collaborators or friends of collaborators, or friends of hostile narratives? Or did these hostile narratives suddenly appear in 2022 and emerge out of nowhere? Did a bishop in Lviv, a bishop in Kyiv, or in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra suddenly start spreading hostile narratives, preach them right in the centre of Kyiv or Lviv, in their own churches, or in their own monasteries? It looks very strange."

Likewise, in his opinion, the accusation that hierarchs collaborated with the KGB during the Soviet period cannot serve as an argument. Firstly, without the KGB's control, bishops could not carry out their activities. Secondly, many Ukrainian politicians began their careers in the Soviet Union and were therefore under KGB control. Thirdly, the ideologist of the "Ukrainian Church independence", Filaret Denisenko, also collaborated with special services.

At the same time, Baumeister agrees that if any priest was a collaborator, he should be tried after proving his guilt. But, he is sure, one cannot be tried for one's views – the way metropolitans of the UOC are being tried now. He says, "I'm sorry, this is not a legal system, this is not a European state when people are tried for their beliefs, for their convictions. I tell you this is a very, very dangerous thing."

Church property

Baumeister commented on the termination of the lease agreement with the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra by the Ministry of Culture. He pointed out that under Stalin and Khrushchev, many churches and monasteries in Kyiv were destroyed, and in the 1990s, the process of returning what had survived began. This includes Kitaevo, Holosiivo Hermitages, the Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas, the Intercession and Ascension (St. Florus) Convents, the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, and others. Many of these monastic communities were founded in the mid or late 19th century during the Russian Empire. For example, the St. Jonas Monastery was founded in the 1860s, and it was created with the help of Ekaterina Vasilchikova, the wife of the Kyiv governor, who "donated her land and finances to the monks".

The Intercession (Pokrovsky) Convent was founded on January 11, 1889, by Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna, with significant assistance from Russian emperors Alexander III and especially Nicholas II. The monastery had an orphanage and the only X-ray room in Kyiv, all funded by the Grand Duchess, who was constantly in debt.

After the fire of 1811, the St. Florus Convent was restored with the help of Emperor Alexander I, who provided 133,000 rubles. Later, this nunnery became associated with the name of St. Seraphim of Sarov, as one of its nuns became the abbess of the Diveyevo Convent.

Therefore, Andrii Baumeister believes, "When we talk about the economic and legal aspects, we should understand that the Church has a longer history than even the history of the state." According to him, "the Orthodox Church is older not only than Ukraine but also than Russia, Germany, Italy and the United States".

It is for this reason, sooner or later the state will have to return monasteries and churches to their rightful owners – monastic and religious communities.

Because "this is not state-owned land; this is the land of Vasilchikova, Grand Duchess Alexandra... These are private properties granted to specific monasteries and churches". He emphasized that lease agreements represent "a Bolshevik approach: first to nationalize, which means to steal the property from the monasteries, to appropriate it by the state, and then implement Bolshevik policies". He rightly states: "Property issues have a history of not 20 years, not 30 years; property issues in Europe go back 200-300-500 years, and this is very serious."

Church and power

Baumeister reminded that the UOC has been friendly with the authorities for a long time and "is now paying a high price for it". "The same will happen to the OCU. Because you can't run ahead of the locomotive, you can't look the next government in the face and say, 'What can I do for you?' You can't do that because then the Church loses its dignity and strength." If, he continues, the Church tries to "guess" the desires of the authorities, then it is not needed at all: "Why do we need such a Church? To bless something? To bless some invented slogans?"

Due to the fact that the Church is not a bureau of ritual services but something greater, Baumeister wonders why some representatives of the OCU, whom he considers worthy and deep persons, remain silent when UOC churches are being seized. In his opinion, when local authorities ban the Church, "we bring problems upon ourselves" because it concerns hundreds of thousands of UOC believers who show steadfastness. In this situation, he believes, "the Ukrainian authorities are behaving irrationally, creating a legitimacy deficit that can affect us in a year, in five or ten years."

He stressed that now everyone has mobile phones, and a lot of information has appeared on the Internet about the violence used during church seizures, which law enforcement representatives do not react to: "These are very unpleasant images. We think that in the West, they do not pay attention to this, that it is not monitored... And when we see the police and armed military men on the territory of monasteries, these videos and photos speak for themselves that something wrong is happening to the Church."

You can't divide the saints

Baumeister also highlighted that it is not possible to divide saints into "Ukrainian" and "Russian" at this time because the history of the Church is a complex process that does not fit into the ideological framework:

"Optina Hermitage, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Leo of Optina, St. Macarius of Optina, and the entire tradition of inner prayer that was later spread to other monasteries – these saints and intercessors lived, prayed and died here for 338 years and were canonized. How can you divide them? We go into St. Nicholas Cathedral in the Intercession (Pokrovsky) Convent, and in the left side chapel, there is an icon of St. Sergius of Radonezh. We enter the territory of the St. Florus Convent, and in front of the main cathedral, there is a fresco of St. Seraphim of Sarov praying in the forests... Where does it go?"

In Baumeister's opinion, we can’t say that during the 338 years of the existence of the Kyiv Metropolis within the Moscow Patriarchate, all of its prayer men, confessors, spiritual writers, and many others are "something distorted or alien, not ours, or hostile." He emphasizes that all of this is the history of the Church.

Where are OCU monks?

Andrii Baumeister poses a quite reasonable question to the representatives of the OCU: "Where are monks, where are convents?" According to him, "If a person dedicates their life to God and if a person makes eternal vows, it is important for them to understand in which Church they are, how much they can be saved."

In other words, Baumeister, though not directly but quite frankly, exposes one of the major problems of the OCU – the absence of monasticism. He makes it clear that the reason behind this absence is the uncertainty of those who would like to choose the monastic path about whether the OCU is indeed the Church where they can find salvation. People do not go to Epifaniy Dumenko because he can offer nothing beyond ideology and loyalty to his state.

In connection with this, the professor asks the OCU leadership a simple question – why are they trying to take away Lavras and monasteries when they have no one to fill them: "What will you do with them?"

At the end of his video, Andrii Baumeister urges the authorities to be wise and support their country.

He once again stressed: "An opinion cannot be judged, a worldview cannot be judged, a worldview and a way of thinking cannot be judged. If you judge, hate, or expel people for these reasons, then, in the words of Voltaire, nothing good will come of it."

In this case, it's hard not to disagree with Voltaire.

Read also