Why are no cases opened against the Reserve for totalitarianism propaganda?
The Kyiv Caves Lavra during the Soviet "museum town". Photo: open sources
The Lavra Reserve hosted a conference dedicated to the centenary of the Bolshevik seizure of the monastery and the creation of a "museum monastery" within its walls. However, no one at the Ministry of Culture used such formulations, of course. Official reports stated that the museum workers' activities "protect national interests", and they themselves work for the sake of "deconstructing Russian imperial narratives".
Participants reconstructed exhibitions of the Bolshevik museum town from the 1920s-30s.
And when you read these reports, you can't recover from the absurdity of what's happening. Not long ago, all Ukrainian media and officials threw a tantrum over the use of a 1966 Soviet arithmetic textbook (in Ukrainian, by the way) and the screening of Soviet fairy-tale films at the Orthodox school at the Holosiiv Monastery. Meanwhile, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) opened a case for propaganda of the totalitarian Soviet regime (Part 1, Article 436).
We don't know what kind of "totalitarianism" there can be in arithmetic and fairy tales, but we do know that the expulsion and shooting of monks, the plundering and destruction of Lavra churches, and the creation of a "museum town" within their walls are precisely those crimes of the Soviet totalitarian system that the law speaks about.
Why, instead of condemning the Soviet-era museum workers, are they portrayed almost as heroes, with reconstructions of their exhibits being staged? Probably because today’s "Ukrainian" Reserve differs from the Soviet one only in the change of state symbols. In essence, nothing has changed: they still fight against the Church and continue to feed off church property. A hundred years ago, posters at the Lavra walls proclaimed "Monks are the bloody enemies of the working people" and 'Five-year plan against religion"; today, similar messages are spread by officials through the media and social networks.
Centuries pass, but the methods of fighting the Church remain the same. Only the fighting states change.
Read also
On Budanov's statement regarding UOC
For Yelensky and his the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Budanov's statement was very untimely.
Why does OCU still celebrate Easter “with Moskals”?
On social media, “patriots” are again asking in exasperation: why are we still celebrating Easter with Moscow? How much longer?
Did Patriarch Bartholomew really mourn Filaret’s death?
Constantinople has never recognized Filaret as a patriarch – not “His Holiness,” not “honorary,” not under any title whatsoever. That alone makes the line in the Ukrainian presidential press service’s report sound astonishingly implausible.
Why did Dumenko sit in Metropolitan Onufriy’s chair?
The head of the OCU has his own residence – and Filaret’s residence as well. But what he needs is the Lavra, Metropolitan Onufriy’s office and chair.
Dumenko came up with a way to fill the Lavra
In fact, the St. Theodosius Monastery has been liquidated, and now "female monasticism" will be developed there.