What SBU figures regarding the Church say and don’t say about

Why is the SBU so actively opposed to the UOC? Photo: UOJ

On October 4, 2023, the SBU Telegram channel published a message about the criminal prosecution of more than 60 representatives of the UOC, who "worked for Russia, sold weapons, and pornography." The SBU stated the following: "Since the beginning of the war, the SBU has exposed more than 60 representatives of the UOC MP collaborating with the occupiers, including 14 metropolitans. The SBU investigated 20 cases of state treason, collaboration, and assistance to Russia, while another 18 cases involved incitement of religious hatred. There were also cases of priests selling weapons and distributing child pornography. As of today, 26 suspects have been identified, and 19 have received sentences."

The very loud headline about "selling weapons and pornography" raises questions. Is there really evidence that the UOC is involved in such activities? As will become clear from the subsequent text, the SBU did not provide any evidence of such facts, which immediately suggests that such publications are more aimed at the emotional impact on Ukrainians. This includes labeling the UOC as "MP" (Moscow Patriarchate).

Nevertheless, this "news" was immediately picked up by the media as some kind of sensation. However, just half a year ago, the SBU reported almost the same information. Although there was no mention of "selling weapons and pornography" at that time, the number of "criminals" was almost the same.

In that publication, the head of the SBU, V. Maliuk, announced 61 open criminal cases against UOC clergy, and in the current one, it is 68. This means that in the last six months, only 7 criminal cases have been opened, almost 1 case per month. And during the entire war, there have been 68 cases. This is despite the fact that the SBU and other law enforcement agencies conducted about 1,300 searches.

1,300 searches and only 68 criminal cases! Of which 20 are accused of state treason. Is this a lot or a little? Obviously, it's very little. So little that, for example, a long-time critic of the UOC, Lyudmila Filipovich, head of the Department of Philosophy and History of Religion at the G. S. Skovoroda Institute, clumsily tried to explain this figure to the "Apostroph" publication: "60 priests out of 12,000 is, of course, not a lot. But this does not mean that the SBU is doing a bad job. They have only told us what can be told now, when a certain evidentiary base has been collected (I am sure that many clerics are charged under several articles at once), when there are court verdicts. And it's probably just the tip of the iceberg."

So, in the SBU's opinion, we were only told what already has solid evidence. But what about the operational reports from law enforcement agencies on the day of searches at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Chernivtsi Diocesan Administration, Korets Monastery, and other places, when photos of found brochures or Russian magazines were immediately posted, which in itself cannot be evidence of guilt a priori? Photos of undressed clergy were posted, and inappropriate behavior was immediately attributed to them, which was not actually the case. So, it seems that the SBU did not really care about a solid evidential base at that time.

On November 22, 2022, the SBU, together with the National Police and the National Guard, conducted searches in 350 UOC church premises in just one day. Initially, the purpose of these actions was stated to be the "verification of information regarding the use of UOC premises to shelter sabotage and reconnaissance groups, foreign citizens, and the storage of weapons, etc." But instead of weapons and sabotage groups, they found the following.

For example, Patriarch Kirill's leaflet turned out to be a forgery, composed of several quotes published at different times and for different reasons. The first paragraph was taken from Patriarch's sermon on February 24, 2022, the second from a sermon on April 19, 2014. And the third paragraph with the text "Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, we will restore historical justice" is someone's creative invention. These leaflets were planted in various places just before law enforcement arrived. This was the case, for example, in Korets Monastery. As one of the monastery's residents, Sister Savvatia, explained: "It's interesting that these leaflets were found in a damp, unheated attic. Everything that is kept there, books or paper, immediately gets damp and covered with mold, but these leaflets were brand new and dry. We told the SBU officers that these leaflets are not ours, we don't know how they got there." In other words, it is an obvious provocation aimed at discrediting the UOC.

Following the search in the Chernivtsi-Bukovyna Diocese, law enforcement officers claimed to have found child pornography on the computer of Metropolitan Meletius. This accusation is very serious. But where is the trial, where is the verdict? They are absent. So the approach is as follows: throw in a vile accusation that the media will pick up, and then not present any charges due to lack of evidence. As the bishop himself said: "In computers that were in the hands of the SBU for more than four hours without control, you can find anything, from a rebellion in Cameroon to an assassination attempt on Biden."

The same goes for the accusations against Metropolitan Ionafan (Yeletsky), who was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison with the confiscation of property by the Vinnytsia City Court. According to his lawyer, Ihor Chudovsky, the "evidence" of the bishop's crime consisted of three leaflets "found" on the computer of the metropolitan and in the premises of the diocesan administration. Moreover, the results of the expertise conducted by an SBU Institute employee showed that these files were created on October 15, 2022, four days after the search at the bishop's residence. In other words, at a time when the computer was already in the hands of law enforcement.

In general, the evidential basis for the accusations against the UOC clergy is weak, and the numbers are not impressive at all. But there is another statistic that critics of the UOC prefer to remain silent about.

Collaborators in Uniform

Over a year ago, on July 17, 2022, the President of Ukraine, in his address, revealed the numbers of collaborators among the employees of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the prosecutor's office, and other law enforcement agencies.

"As of now, in Ukraine, 651 criminal cases have been initiated under articles related to state treason and collaborationist activities against employees of the prosecutor's office, investigation, and other law enforcement agencies. 198 people have received notices of suspicion. It is known that over 60 employees, including those from the SBU, are currently on territories of Ukraine controlled by Russian forces and are working against the Ukrainian state," the President said, commenting on his decrees to suspend the heads of the SBU and the prosecutor's office from their positions.

So, over a year ago, the number of criminal cases related to state treason against law enforcement representatives was ten times higher than against UOC clergy. And over the past year, their numbers have likely increased even more. But for some reason, no one is shouting to the world that our law enforcement agencies should be banned, and their assets should be confiscated.

As of today, it is not possible to find statistics on the number of criminal cases related to state treason involving SBU, prosecutor's office, and other law enforcement agency employees. It is believed that this information is deliberately not publicized to prevent society from comparing it with the numbers of persecution of UOC clergy and asking uncomfortable questions. Google search results for relevant queries only show specific cases. For example, in January 2023, there was news that a colonel of the SBU was conducting reconnaissance and subversive activities in favor of Russian special services in the Zaporizhia region. He collected and provided information about his colleagues in the service, the layout of checkpoints in the area, and other information.

In March 2023, the SBU reported that a former chief of the Main Department of the National Police in Vinnytsia region, Anton Shevtsov, was suspected of state treason. He not only helped the enemy conduct reconnaissance and subversive activities but also developed a "plan for subversive work on the territory of Ukraine" for the Russian FSB.

At the end of September 2023, it was reported that three judges from Crimea, who had switched sides to the enemy, had been sentenced in absentia for state treason, and three employees of the Crimean SBU had been notified of suspicion of committing the same crime. Moreover, these law enforcement officers are accused not only of state treason but also of involvement in torture and abduction of people.

In total, after the annexation of Crimea, 1,300 (!) SBU employees switched to serving the enemy. According to the lawyer of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Nikita Chekman, this is approximately 98% of the entire staff. "We are looking for deserters not only among Ukrainian representatives of the Armed Forces but also among the SBU. Unfortunately, we also have deserters who switched sides to the enemy—over 1,300 SBU employees who served in the Crimean unit, part of the Center for Special Operations, and part of the Main Department of the SBU in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol, and so on," said Vasyl Hrytsak, the former head of the SBU, in an interview with the "112 Ukraine" TV channel back in 2016.

The logical question is, why aren't the SBU disbanded, banned, or all their employees accused of collaboration? They might say that there are traitors, but the majority are still patriots who faithfully perform their duty to Ukraine. But the same applies to the UOC! Despite the fact that there are indeed individual collaborators among its clergy, the absolute majority of both clergy and laity support Ukraine and its Armed Forces, helping the front in any way they can. Many thousands of laity, sons, and relatives of priests are directly defending our country with arms in their hands. How can they be accused of collaboration?

After the mentioned address by President Volodymyr Zelensky with figures of traitors in uniform, Bishop Nikolai (Pochtovyi), the administrator of the Kirovohrad Diocese, wrote an open letter to the regional council deputies who were going to consider the issue of banning the UOC in the Kirovohrad region.

"Look into the eyes of our believers who are fighting for Ukraine against the invader—Russia. Look into the eyes of thousands of UOC volunteers who give everything they have to our soldiers. Look into the eyes of everyone who attends our churches—and say that you want to ban them. And most importantly, everything you do—you do it in the eyes of God. Look at the icon of Christ and tell Him that you are banning His Church," Archbishop Nikolai wrote. What more can be added to these words?

And yet, we are promised that after the war, we will hear about things that cannot be discussed openly right now. Both regarding the surrender of Kherson and demining of passages from Crimea and much more. However, for some reason, law enforcement agencies prefer to press charges against the Church based on accusations, the number of which is an order of magnitude lower than those against themselves.

Why Does This Happen?

It turns out that objectively there are many more reasons to prosecute law enforcement agencies themselves (as absurd as it may sound), rather than the UOC. After all, there are far more criminal cases initiated against their employees than against UOC clergy, both in terms of quantity and percentage. However, the Church is the one being persecuted. Moreover, despite the relatively small number of criminal cases and court verdicts (and when these cases reach the European Court of Human Rights, there might not be any left), the SBU is doing everything in its power to promote the "collaborators in cassocks" narrative. They are trying to create an information noise around this topic, while there are much more serious issues for public discussion. There may be the following explanations for all of this:

Firstly, this information noise may serve as a smokescreen intended to hide or downplay other topics in the public consciousness, which are uncomfortable for the authorities and carry certain political risks. These include shocking cases of corruption among high-ranking officials, scandals during mobilization, and emerging problems in international aid to Ukraine.

In addition to this, the question of elections in Ukraine remains unclear. Conducting elections during a war is quite absurd, but there are political forces pushing Ukraine in that direction. During the election campaign, uncomfortable questions about the authorities will be much louder. In these conditions, it is very easy to pull out the "fail-safe" topic of "collaborators in cassocks" from the sleeve and attempt to redirect the accumulated public negativity towards the UOC. Especially since it is entirely defenseless against law enforcement agencies, courts, radicals, and the powerful media machine. The strength of the Church lies in prayer, unity, faithfulness to God, and His commandments. But for secular people, this has no significance.

Secondly, the constant reminder of criminal prosecutions of clergy, especially high-ranking ones like metropolitans and leaders of dioceses, is intended to intimidate everyone else. The message is: "If we can do this with metropolitans, we won't hesitate with smaller clergy." The goal of such psychological pressure is clear: to stimulate defections to the OCU. After all, the state aims to create a unified Church, as high-ranking politicians have repeatedly stated. They want to merge the UOC, OCU, and Greek Catholics into a single structure, obedient to the ruling elite and fulfilling their tasks. The fact that the UOC refuses to join such a company (even though refusal could result in a complete ban) shows that the UOC is the Church of Christ, which serves God first and foremost, not the state.

Lastly, I would like to quote the words of Saint Justin Martyr, who lived in the 2nd century and wrote an Apology in defense of Christians. He addresses those in power with the following words: "We demand that you judge us based on strict and thorough examination, not guided by prejudice or favoring superstitious people, not swayed by irrational impulses or long-established bad rumors. Through this, you would pronounce judgment against yourselves."

These explanations shed some light on why the "collaborators in cassocks" narrative is being promoted and exploited, despite the fact that there are seemingly more significant issues to address in Ukraine's complex landscape.

Read also