Even some supporters of Ukraine see the ban as an overstep in the name of national security, a violation of religious freedom and a potential risk to continued foreign
military aid.
An aerial photo shows the thousand-year-old Monastery of Caves, also known as Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the holiest site of Eastern Orthodox Christians, taken through morning fog during a sunrise in Kyiv, Ukraine, Nov. 10, 2018. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka, File)
August 21, 2024
By David I. Klein
(RNS) — On Tuesday (Aug. 20), the Ukrainian Parliament passed a long-anticipated bill that will ban the activities of churches deemed to be affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church or supporting the Russian invasion.
The legislation, expected to be signed into law soon by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, explicitly bans religious institutions subordinate to leaders based in Russia and is seen even by some supporters of Ukraine as an overstep in the name of national security, a violation of religious freedom and a potential risk to continued foreign military aid.
The clear target of the law is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its historical ties to Moscow. The church declared itself independent of the Moscow Patriarchate three months after the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 but many still suspect at least some of the church leadership has loyalties to Russia.
“The government in Kyiv wants to see the conduits of Russian influence in Ukrainian society totally minimized,” said Andreja Bogdanovski, an author, scholar and analyst of Orthodox Christianity.
Ahead of the vote, Zelenskyy said the law would “guarantee that there will be no manipulation of the Ukrainian Church from Moscow.”
“This draft law must work and must add to Ukraine the unity of the cathedral, our real spiritual unity,” he added.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks during a news conference in Kyiv, Ukraine, July 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)
Historically, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been the largest faith group in Ukraine, but the country’s Orthodox Christians found themselves split in 2019, when a newer religious body, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, was recognized as canonical and fully independent of Moscow under the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The OCU, which now represents the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, formed in part from parishes resisting Russian control during Ukraine’s independence movements at the beginning and end of the 20th century. In the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and support of separatist militias in the Donbas region, the OCU was bolstered by Ukrainian clergymen who felt that Ukrainian Orthodox Christians needed a religious body divorced from Moscow’s Patriarch Kirill, who has long been a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has justified Russia’s aggression in spiritual terms.
The law, once signed, would equip the Ukrainian government to set up a commission to investigate religious institutions across the country. The commission would then have nine months to provide a list of those deemed subordinate to Russian institutions.
Ukraine’s largest organization of religious bodies, the Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, which represents Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups, endorsed the draft law in an Aug. 17 statement, praising the effort “to make it impossible for such organizations to operate in our country.”
Those that sever their ties to Russia during that period will be allowed to continue to function. What constitutes a tie and an appropriate level of separation have not yet been specified. These details are what in part delayed the legislation’s approval for more than a year and a half after Zelenskyy first endorsed its draft.
Iryna Herashchenko, the first deputy chairwoman of the Ukrainian Parliament, hailed the bill’s passing as a “historic vote.”
Parliament “has passed a bill banning the aggressor country’s branch in Ukraine. 265 MPs voted FOR! This is a matter of national security, not religion,” she announced on X.
Despite the broad support inside Ukraine, the bill has been strongly criticized by some Orthodox leaders, including those from populaces that support Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Bulgaria’s newly elected Patriarch Daniil sent a letter of support to Metropolitan Onufriy, the primate of the UOC. The Bulgarian church does not recognize the OCU as canonical, but the church and government have expressed support for Ukraine in the war.
“You have resisted and continue, with God’s help, to resist all attempts to create disunity, preserving the unity, integrity, and canonicity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Patriarch Daniill wrote.
A Ukrainian serviceman of the 72nd Separate Mechanized Brigade lights candles during a Christian Orthodox Easter religious service, in Donetsk region, Ukraine, May 4, 2024.
(AP Photo/Francisco Seco)
Onufriy also received letters of support from the heads of the Antiochian and Georgian Orthodox churches. Both jurisdictions have issued statements shy of condemning Patriarch Kirill’s role in Russian aggression.
But the bill has also been blasted on religious freedom grounds by many observers and is expected to be challenged as Ukraine moves closer to joining the European Union.
RELATED: Ukrainian Orthodox churches purge vestiges of Russian influence
“It’s very hard diplomatically to reconcile this law with Ukraine’s European ambitions,” said Samuel Noble, a scholar of Orthodox Christianity at Aga Khan University in London. “This is the kind of thing that will wind up being brought to Strasbourg, that is, the European Court of Human Rights.”
“It’s not normally the kind of thing that one does in a country aspiring to join the European Union. On the other hand, Ukraine is not in a normal situation,” he added.
Smilen Markov, a Bulgarian scholar of Orthodox Christianity, put it more bluntly: “The Ukrainian state is violating religious freedom. It declares a religious community pro-Russian, which is legally problematic, divisive and ruinous.”
Regina Elsner, the chair of Eastern churches and ecumenism at the University of Muenster’s Ecumenical Institute, posted on Twitter that the legislation’s approval is “deeply disturbing.”
“This law opens a door to serious violations of religious freedom and new fragmentation within Ukraine,” she said. “The amendments of the last months did not improve anything. Hate and violence against UOC believers get public approval. Sad.”
Since the outbreak of full-scale war, Ukraine has jailed more than 100 UOC priests over charges of espionage and anti-Ukrainian speech, including posting opinions on social media and speaking from the pulpit.
The Russian Orthodox Church in particular has sought to use such religious freedom concerns to garner sympathy for the UOC and cast doubt on Western aid to Ukraine, which has been crucial for the Ukrainian defense.
“The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being subjected to reprisals for its refusal to join the organization of schismatics and self-ordained peoples, created as a political project aimed at destroying the common spiritual heritage of Russian and Ukrainian peoples,” said Vladimir Lagoida, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church, on Telegram. “There is no doubt that the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will sooner or later receive a fair assessment, just as the godless regimes of the past received it, destroying the human right to faith and to belong to their Church.”
Onufriy also received letters of support from the heads of the Antiochian and Georgian Orthodox churches. Both jurisdictions have issued statements shy of condemning Patriarch Kirill’s role in Russian aggression.
But the bill has also been blasted on religious freedom grounds by many observers and is expected to be challenged as Ukraine moves closer to joining the European Union.
RELATED: Ukrainian Orthodox churches purge vestiges of Russian influence
“It’s very hard diplomatically to reconcile this law with Ukraine’s European ambitions,” said Samuel Noble, a scholar of Orthodox Christianity at Aga Khan University in London. “This is the kind of thing that will wind up being brought to Strasbourg, that is, the European Court of Human Rights.”
“It’s not normally the kind of thing that one does in a country aspiring to join the European Union. On the other hand, Ukraine is not in a normal situation,” he added.
Smilen Markov, a Bulgarian scholar of Orthodox Christianity, put it more bluntly: “The Ukrainian state is violating religious freedom. It declares a religious community pro-Russian, which is legally problematic, divisive and ruinous.”
Regina Elsner, the chair of Eastern churches and ecumenism at the University of Muenster’s Ecumenical Institute, posted on Twitter that the legislation’s approval is “deeply disturbing.”
“This law opens a door to serious violations of religious freedom and new fragmentation within Ukraine,” she said. “The amendments of the last months did not improve anything. Hate and violence against UOC believers get public approval. Sad.”
Since the outbreak of full-scale war, Ukraine has jailed more than 100 UOC priests over charges of espionage and anti-Ukrainian speech, including posting opinions on social media and speaking from the pulpit.
The Russian Orthodox Church in particular has sought to use such religious freedom concerns to garner sympathy for the UOC and cast doubt on Western aid to Ukraine, which has been crucial for the Ukrainian defense.
“The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being subjected to reprisals for its refusal to join the organization of schismatics and self-ordained peoples, created as a political project aimed at destroying the common spiritual heritage of Russian and Ukrainian peoples,” said Vladimir Lagoida, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church, on Telegram. “There is no doubt that the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will sooner or later receive a fair assessment, just as the godless regimes of the past received it, destroying the human right to faith and to belong to their Church.”
Patriarch Kirill, right, meets with Cardinal Matteo Zuppi at the Patriarchal Residence in Danilov Monastery, in Moscow, Russia, June 29, 2023. (Photo by Moscow Patriarchate)
The UOC has ceased to commemorate Patriarch Kirill in prayers and has said it is not bound by the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate.
“In Orthodox Church logic, that’s effectively a declaration of independence,” Noble said. “Even from the Russians’ perspective, officially on paper, the UOC is autonomous in all things, except for Onufriy’s seat on the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, which he has more or less disowned.”
Still, many Ukrainians remain deeply suspicious of the UOC. In 2021, 18% of religious Ukrainians identified as members of the UOC, but months after Russia’s full-scale invasion, that dropped to just 4%, according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. The same poll found OCU membership increased from 34% to 54%. In addition, hundreds of Orthodox congregations have switched allegiance from the UOC to the OCU, according to church records, but few monks, traditionally seen as sources of authority in the church, have followed.
“Of course, it is true that the hierarchy of the UOC is partly pro-Russian,” Markov noted. “The allegations about ties with Moscow are often factually correct.
“However, these perpetrations are personal and they should be proved case by case,” he added. “They cannot be blamed on a religious community of millions of Ukrainians.”
Opinion
Ukraine’s ban targeting Moscow-linked Orthodox Church risks US aid
Zelenskyy is about to test not only Ukraine’s carefully constructed global image but also its own path toward liberal democracy.
An aerial view of the Monastery of the Caves, also known as Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, one of the holiest sites of Eastern Orthodox Christians, in Kyiv, Ukraine, April 13, 2020.
(AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)
August 21, 2024
By Katherine Kelaidis
(RNS) — On Tuesday (Aug. 20), the Ukrainian Parliament passed long-threatened legislation meant to ban the country’s Moscow-linked Orthodox Church and any faith groups supporting Russia’s invasion. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called the bill a “duty” to “guarantee Ukrainian spiritual independence” and is expected to sign it into law soon, launching state intervention into a largely ecclesiastical battle.
In doing so, Zelenskyy is risking Ukraine’s access to Western military aid, especially crucial U.S. aid. Signing the law will give ammunition to the worst slurs of anti-Ukrainian forces in American political life.
The Russian Orthodox Church traces its origins to ninth-century Kyiv, now Ukraine’s capital. The majority of Ukrainians are Orthodox Christians, divided between two church bodies: a newer church formed with Ukrainian nationalism and an older church tied to Moscow. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine was formed by churches that broke from Russian control during Ukraine’s independence. The jurisdiction was granted autocephaly or independence in 2019 by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, called “first among equals” among Eastern Orthodox leaders. The recognition dented centuries of Moscow’s religious dominance in Ukraine as parishes switched loyalties, and its legitimacy has been fiercely rejected by Russia’s Patriarch Kirill and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, sparking a deep conflict within global Orthodoxy.
RELATED: Ukrainian Orthodox churches purge vestiges of Russian influence
While the UOC declared itself independent from Moscow three months after Russia’s 2022 invasion, many believe the church remains canonically tied to the Russian Orthodox Church and still harbors loyalty to Russia. Ukraine has prosecuted more than 100 UOC clerics, with charges ranging from anti-Ukrainian speech to espionage.
Charging priests with spying might seem like a groundless attack on members of an unpopular religious group, but the Russian Orthodox Church has a history of weaponizing itself as soft power for the state. There is also evidence that the Russian Orthodox Church is frequently used as an outpost for Russian intelligence efforts. This has led Estonia to pass similar legislation against the church.
The problem is that Ukraine’s legislation skirts the line between addressing a legitimate national security interest and suppressing a religious minority merely for having the taint of the “foreign.” Anyone concerned with freedom of conscience and belief can find legitimate reasons to condemn criminal charges over opinions expressed on social media or from the pulpit, which has been the case of many UOC clerics jailed since the invasion.
RELATED: Ukraine’s Parliament approves ban on Moscow-linked religious groups
Ukraine’s Parliament passed the legislation with a wide margin despite the potential ramifications. The country’s defense efforts rely primarily on the large amounts of military aid it has received from Western nations, mostly from the U.S. In gathering this aid, Ukraine has leaned heavily into a self-image as a newly liberalized democracy, a bulwark against Russian aggression and authoritarianism. It is as a liberal, pluralist democracy that Ukraine has sought not-yet-granted membership in NATO and the European Union.
That this self-narrativizing on the international stage has not been entirely persuasive is never more evident than in how contentious the continuation of American aid to Ukraine remains. Republicans are largely opposed or indifferent to the Ukrainian cause. The Republican nominee for vice president, JD Vance, has even declared he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine.
Many on the American right do not see Ukraine as a democracy, dedicated to safeguarding liberty at home and abroad, but instead see Ukraine as an authoritarian state in its own right. Before leaving Fox News, right-wing provocateur Tucker Carlson said Zelenskyy was not interested in “freedom or democracy.” Cato Institute fellow Ted Galen Carpenter has called Ukraine a “false democracy.” U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has applauded Russia for “protecting Christianity” and described it approvingly in comparison with “secular Ukraine.”
Greene’s comments point to a larger point in the American anti-Ukraine view, built on a belief in Russia’s self-promotion as a protector of Christianity and traditional values. Russian President Vladmir Putin recently advanced the Kremlin’s narrative by simplifying the immigration process to attract foreigners who share Russia’s “traditional values.”
The result of these dueling self-descriptions of Slavic nations is that Russia and Ukraine have become proxies for each side of a divided America. Just as American progressives are perhaps too quick to attribute to Ukraine the pluralism and social progressivism they strive for in the U.S., American conservatives and traditionalists are quick to believe Russia — and in some cases specifically the Russian Orthodox Church — is a bastion of the same traditionalism they hope to defend in America. For them, it makes sense that Russia was forced to go to war with Ukraine to defend it against “pride parades.” They fear (however irrationally) they might be forced into the same war in America.
For these people, Ukrainian efforts to suppress the Moscow-linked UOC are seen as evidence for their belief not only that Ukraine is an anti-democratic, anti-Christian, anti-family state, but moreover that Americans who support Ukraine are these things as well. This is particularly true as Americans are notoriously bad at separating their own internal battles from those abroad. “Religious freedom” is a dog whistle among many American traditionalists. A Ukrainian attack on “religious freedom” will most certainly lose all nuance in their translation of it into the American political landscape.
The truth is that Ukraine finds itself in a nearly impossible situation with respect to the UOC. On paper, at least, the UOC is an independent and fully Ukrainian church. It is also the church of many ordinary Ukrainians, who for whatever reasons (including language, habit, canonical and traditional loyalties) remain part of the besieged jurisdiction. At the same time, nearly everyone knows that the UOC’s independence is shallow at best, perhaps merely window dressing, and that while the UOC has supported Ukrainian soldiers and refugees, at least some UOC clerics are involved in efforts to undermine the Ukrainian cause and promote Russian ideology.
Zelenskyy is about to test not only Ukraine’s carefully constructed global image but also its own path toward liberal democracy. Ukraine’s future remains even more unclear as a result.
(Katie Kelaidis is a research fellow at the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England.)
By Katherine Kelaidis
(RNS) — On Tuesday (Aug. 20), the Ukrainian Parliament passed long-threatened legislation meant to ban the country’s Moscow-linked Orthodox Church and any faith groups supporting Russia’s invasion. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called the bill a “duty” to “guarantee Ukrainian spiritual independence” and is expected to sign it into law soon, launching state intervention into a largely ecclesiastical battle.
In doing so, Zelenskyy is risking Ukraine’s access to Western military aid, especially crucial U.S. aid. Signing the law will give ammunition to the worst slurs of anti-Ukrainian forces in American political life.
The Russian Orthodox Church traces its origins to ninth-century Kyiv, now Ukraine’s capital. The majority of Ukrainians are Orthodox Christians, divided between two church bodies: a newer church formed with Ukrainian nationalism and an older church tied to Moscow. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine was formed by churches that broke from Russian control during Ukraine’s independence. The jurisdiction was granted autocephaly or independence in 2019 by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, called “first among equals” among Eastern Orthodox leaders. The recognition dented centuries of Moscow’s religious dominance in Ukraine as parishes switched loyalties, and its legitimacy has been fiercely rejected by Russia’s Patriarch Kirill and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, sparking a deep conflict within global Orthodoxy.
RELATED: Ukrainian Orthodox churches purge vestiges of Russian influence
While the UOC declared itself independent from Moscow three months after Russia’s 2022 invasion, many believe the church remains canonically tied to the Russian Orthodox Church and still harbors loyalty to Russia. Ukraine has prosecuted more than 100 UOC clerics, with charges ranging from anti-Ukrainian speech to espionage.
Charging priests with spying might seem like a groundless attack on members of an unpopular religious group, but the Russian Orthodox Church has a history of weaponizing itself as soft power for the state. There is also evidence that the Russian Orthodox Church is frequently used as an outpost for Russian intelligence efforts. This has led Estonia to pass similar legislation against the church.
The problem is that Ukraine’s legislation skirts the line between addressing a legitimate national security interest and suppressing a religious minority merely for having the taint of the “foreign.” Anyone concerned with freedom of conscience and belief can find legitimate reasons to condemn criminal charges over opinions expressed on social media or from the pulpit, which has been the case of many UOC clerics jailed since the invasion.
RELATED: Ukraine’s Parliament approves ban on Moscow-linked religious groups
Ukraine’s Parliament passed the legislation with a wide margin despite the potential ramifications. The country’s defense efforts rely primarily on the large amounts of military aid it has received from Western nations, mostly from the U.S. In gathering this aid, Ukraine has leaned heavily into a self-image as a newly liberalized democracy, a bulwark against Russian aggression and authoritarianism. It is as a liberal, pluralist democracy that Ukraine has sought not-yet-granted membership in NATO and the European Union.
That this self-narrativizing on the international stage has not been entirely persuasive is never more evident than in how contentious the continuation of American aid to Ukraine remains. Republicans are largely opposed or indifferent to the Ukrainian cause. The Republican nominee for vice president, JD Vance, has even declared he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine.
Many on the American right do not see Ukraine as a democracy, dedicated to safeguarding liberty at home and abroad, but instead see Ukraine as an authoritarian state in its own right. Before leaving Fox News, right-wing provocateur Tucker Carlson said Zelenskyy was not interested in “freedom or democracy.” Cato Institute fellow Ted Galen Carpenter has called Ukraine a “false democracy.” U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has applauded Russia for “protecting Christianity” and described it approvingly in comparison with “secular Ukraine.”
Greene’s comments point to a larger point in the American anti-Ukraine view, built on a belief in Russia’s self-promotion as a protector of Christianity and traditional values. Russian President Vladmir Putin recently advanced the Kremlin’s narrative by simplifying the immigration process to attract foreigners who share Russia’s “traditional values.”
The result of these dueling self-descriptions of Slavic nations is that Russia and Ukraine have become proxies for each side of a divided America. Just as American progressives are perhaps too quick to attribute to Ukraine the pluralism and social progressivism they strive for in the U.S., American conservatives and traditionalists are quick to believe Russia — and in some cases specifically the Russian Orthodox Church — is a bastion of the same traditionalism they hope to defend in America. For them, it makes sense that Russia was forced to go to war with Ukraine to defend it against “pride parades.” They fear (however irrationally) they might be forced into the same war in America.
For these people, Ukrainian efforts to suppress the Moscow-linked UOC are seen as evidence for their belief not only that Ukraine is an anti-democratic, anti-Christian, anti-family state, but moreover that Americans who support Ukraine are these things as well. This is particularly true as Americans are notoriously bad at separating their own internal battles from those abroad. “Religious freedom” is a dog whistle among many American traditionalists. A Ukrainian attack on “religious freedom” will most certainly lose all nuance in their translation of it into the American political landscape.
The truth is that Ukraine finds itself in a nearly impossible situation with respect to the UOC. On paper, at least, the UOC is an independent and fully Ukrainian church. It is also the church of many ordinary Ukrainians, who for whatever reasons (including language, habit, canonical and traditional loyalties) remain part of the besieged jurisdiction. At the same time, nearly everyone knows that the UOC’s independence is shallow at best, perhaps merely window dressing, and that while the UOC has supported Ukrainian soldiers and refugees, at least some UOC clerics are involved in efforts to undermine the Ukrainian cause and promote Russian ideology.
Zelenskyy is about to test not only Ukraine’s carefully constructed global image but also its own path toward liberal democracy. Ukraine’s future remains even more unclear as a result.
(Katie Kelaidis is a research fellow at the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England.)
No comments:
Post a Comment