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

OCU: To steal and seize

The church community is trying to defend its temple from outsiders – armed with angle grinders, knives, bolt cutters, and crowbars – who are storming churches to which they have no connection whatsoever.