Philosopher Baumeister on the pressure on UOC: “War against its own people”
Ukrainian philosopher Andriy Baumeister thoroughly analyzed many problematic aspects of Law No 8371 to the point it would bring no benefit to Ukraine. Why?
On 28 August 2024, the well-known Ukrainian philosopher and intellectual Andriy Baumeister recorded a video in which he shared his perspective on the processes taking place in Ukraine concerning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). His position seems not only reasonable and balanced but also extremely important because Andriy Baumeister approaches the issue unbiased. The fact is that he is a Catholic by faith.
Therefore, no one can accuse him of having a confessional bias in favour of the UOC. Quite the opposite – Baumeister could have demanded the UOC ban, especially considering the stance of Ukrainian Catholics (Bishop Kryvytsky and Sviatoslav Shevchuk). But he doesn't do that. Instead, he views the issue not as a Catholic but as a believer and a citizen of Ukraine who cares about the fate of the people and the state. For this reason, we decided to briefly outline his arguments to acquaint our readers with the position of a reasonable and intelligent person.
Euphoria and psychosis
The recent Law No 8371, passed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, has sparked intense discussions and polarised opinions within society. The law, which is formally aimed at protecting the constitutional order in the religious sphere, has become a cause for triumphalist statements and even euphoria among some of the Ukrainian political elite.
According to Baumeister, many of the Members of Parliament who wrote on social media that "Ukraine has finally gained spiritual independence, and that this nest of the FSB, KGB, which threatens Ukrainian security and culture, will finally be destroyed," have fallen under a kind of collective psychosis. This euphoria, occurring against the backdrop of the events in Kursk and Pokrovsk, is difficult to explain, especially in contrast to the law itself, which, in Baumeister's view, is rather tedious and highly problematic from a logical and legal standpoint.
After delving deeply into the document, Baumeister identified numerous problematic aspects in it.
The problem of legal uncertainty
One of the main points of criticism is the ambiguity and vagueness of the terms used in the law. According to Baumeister, many of these terms, such as "affiliation", "part of the structure", "governing center" and "Russian world", lack clear legal definitions and can be interpreted in various ways. This creates the risk of the law being applied according to an expansive interpretation, leading to potential manipulation and abuse.
Andriy Baumeister particularly emphasises that concepts like the "ideology of the Russian world" or "pro-Russian propaganda" are not legal terms and therefore cannot serve as the basis for legal actions. This opens the door to unfounded accusations and persecution, leading to legal nihilism and violations of justice principles.
Canonical ties and religious profanation
Baumeister also points out that purely ecclesiastical phenomena, such as the canonical ties between Churches, could fall under the accusation of "affiliation": "If one church has a canonical connection with another church, the existence of this canonical connection could give rise to a law with such sanctions."
He also highlights that the canonical ties between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is seen as something that requires an immediate break, without considering the historical and religious context. In his view, this is a manifestation of religious ignorance and profanation, as canonical ties cannot serve as grounds for the sanctions and restrictions provided by the legislation.
The professor rightly notes that this law does not take into account the existence of canonical ties between various Patriarchates and Local Churches, which may vary in the degree of closeness but maintain a religious character. At the same time, the unilateral interpretation of Church connections proposed in Law No 8371 reflects a superficial and oversimplified approach by lawmakers to religious matters.
The issue of spiritual independence
The Ukrainian philosopher pays special attention to the concept of "spiritual independence", which is actively used both in the text of the law and in the rhetoric of its supporters. Baumeister questions the very necessity for the state to ensure the spiritual independence of its citizens, pointing out the historical and philosophical flaws in such an endeavor. He reminded us that as early as the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe began developing ideas of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience, which are entirely contrary to the state's attempts to dictate the spiritual life of its citizens. At the same time, Baumeister is convinced that the law in question is "drafted from a perspective of legal, religious, and historical nihilism and ignorance".
"Moreover, it is utterly and indefensibly anachronistic. It is hopelessly outdated. Many of the Members of Parliament, and I know many personally – these are relatively young people, between 35 and 50 years old. When they vote for this law, they are thinking in an absolutely outdated way. They are thinking in 300-year-old categories that have nothing to do with the 21st century, or even the 20th century, and that put these legislators and the authors of this bill at a disadvantage the moment we begin to test history," the professor argues.
That is why such a law is not only outdated but also poses a danger to Ukraine itself, as it is based on ideas long rejected by modern legal and political thought.
To prove that this approach is considered outdated, Andriy Baumeister recalled the words of Pope Francis, who stated that prayer cannot be an instrument of evil and called for the inviolability of churches. From this statement, it is clear that the Roman Pontiff believes that religious freedoms in Ukraine are under threat.
Signs of totalitarianism
For this reason, the philosopher believes, there are signs of a movement toward totalitarianism in Ukraine. This is also evident in the initiative to create a Ministry of National Unity, which would increase control over public opinion and the education system. In other words, the authorities aim to shape a unified "correct" national identity among citizens, which contradicts the principles of a liberal and democratic state.
On the other hand, state policies aimed at ensuring "spiritual independence" strongly resemble the methods of past totalitarian regimes, where the state interfered in the religious life of its citizens.
Historical parallels and the Constantinople Patriarchate
Andriy Baumeister drew historical parallels, recalling that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been closely tied to imperial power, whether it was the Byzantine or Ottoman empires.
Later, in the 18th century, Russian emperors and empresses became patrons of the Constantinople Patriarchate, turning the Russian imperial court into the primary guarantor and benefactor of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This added yet another empire influencing the existence of the Patriarchate, alongside the Ottoman and Byzantine empires.
However, in the 19th century, when the Balkans, Bulgaria, and Romania gained independence following the Russian-Turkish War of 1877, national autocephalous churches began to emerge. The Constantinople Patriarchate condemned this as a manifestation of ethnophyletism (the supremacy of the national principle over the ecclesiastical one) at the 1872 Council, deeming it an anti-church and anti-nationalist action.
In the early 20th century, after the defeat of the Greeks at Smyrna in 1922 and the subsequent Lausanne Conference in 1923, the Turks seriously considered banning the Constantinople Patriarchate as an outdated imperial institution. However, the Allies insisted on its preservation. Since then, the Patriarch of Constantinople has remained a loyal citizen of Turkey, with his influence more connected to diasporas and parishes scattered around the world rather than to compact state formations.
Thus, Baumeister argues, the claims that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is infected with "imperial narratives" are entirely unfounded. Moreover, when considering the historical ties between the Phanar and various empires, these accusations are not only unfounded but also absurd and laughable.
The OCU and the current situation
The changes brought about in Ukraine by the 2018 Tomos led to the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), although historic holy sites like the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra remain under the control of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. According to Baumeister, essentially, the Phanar restarted the process of canonical connections, sparking debates about the historical and ecclesiastical legitimacy of this move.
Furthermore, the professor notes that political and religious leaders have been swept up in the "euphoria" of rejecting their heritage, which may result in decisions that are anti-historical and contrary to legal principles. He stresses the importance of preserving historical memory and traditions, which are integral to national identity.
A war against its own people
Baumeister pointed out that in recent years, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has faced unprecedented pressure from various state and non-state structures. This pressure is manifested through the active actions of paramilitary groups that seize monasteries and churches, as well as through the support of these actions by local authorities who echo aggressive slogans, thereby legitimising violence against the Church.
While the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has historically dominated in Western Ukraine, Volyn and other regions of Central and Western Ukraine have traditionally been Orthodox. The philosopher reminded that ancient churches in these regions, some of which have stood for centuries, are now being attacked and taken over.
The support for such actions from the police and the inaction of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) create conditions for unchecked pressure on the UOC, which Baumeister sees as a war against its own people. Targeted campaigns are being conducted to break the spiritual identity of Ukrainians by imposing "spiritual freedom" through restrictions on church attendance. This, in turn, leads not to freedom, but to spiritual oppression and a break with traditional spiritual values.
The UOC and the OCU
Baumeister also recalled that it was repeatedly suggested that the UOC should renounce any canonical ties with the Russian Orthodox Church in favour of going to the jurisdiction of the OCU. However, according to the professor, this step is perceived as a demand to break the will of the believers, to force them to abandon their spiritual identity and accept the conditions determined by the OCU.
The pressure continues and, undoubtedly, it will only increase in the near future. In this regard, Andriy Baumeister expresses concern that many hierarchs of the OCU, as well as people for whom he had respect, are now rejoicing in this situation or at least remaining silent when their duty would have required them to stand up for the UOC.
“It hurts me that many of my acquaintances, people whom I treat well, OCU hierarchs, are taking advantage of this situation, rejoicing in it, or at least joyfully silent about it, whereas their duty is to directly stand up for the UOC and tell both the representatives of the State Service of Ukraine on Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, our legislators, our President and local authorities that these (UOC – Ed.) are our brothers. We will not be able to pray in these monasteries and temples, knowing that before that people were driven out by force, by paramilitary groups sometimes pushing them out, inflicting some bodily wounds or organising carnivals of godless people near the Lavra.... There are many videos on YouTube for the years 2022-2023, watch them... Humiliation, booing, constant shouting about some Moscow popes... Everything was invented like in the 20s by the Bolsheviks... So if I were the hierarchs and the priests of the OCU, I would appeal to the authorities: these are our brothers, let's solve this issue in a different way, let's give the people of Ukraine freedom, as it is written in the Constitution, freedom of conscience”.
He also appealed to representatives of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church and Judaism to support the right to freedom of conscience and to oppose violent actions against UOC believers.
In conclusion, Andriy Baumeister highlighted that the principles of the Gospel are fundamentally different from those of Caesar.
"And if you are religious people, I am addressing OCU representatives and Protestant leaders, you understand that with violence, insults, hatred, and all these tricks, paramilitary groups cannot storm the Heavenly City, the City of God. The Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken by raiding paramilitary groups; eternal judgment and divine truth cannot be taken by raiding groups and the Verkhovna Rada’s law. Think about it."
