”Where will the UOC MP be when it separates from Russia? Dialogue is needed.” Theologian Volodymyr Vakin — about why a hot war with the Moscow Patriarchate is beneficial to the Kremlin. An interview

For several months, local authorities banned the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) in six regions. These decisions do not have legal force, but this is only part of the big conflict between the state and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) with the pro-Russian churchmen of the UOC MP. In six months, the SBU opened 61 criminal proceedings against priests of the Moscow Patriarchate who support Russiaʼs war against Ukraine. The vicar of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra Pavlo is also accused of this — he has been under house arrest for the second month. Journalists found a Russian passport of the head of the UOC MP Onufriy, although he claims that he had given it up earlier. Security forces find pro-Russian literature in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, and its priests refuse to honor Ukrainian soldiers. At the same time, parishioners of the UOC MP say that the state illegally persecutes the church and ignores the fact that many defenders of Ukraine are also believers of the Moscow Patriarchate. Because of this conflict, skirmishes occur from time to time throughout the country. There are those in both churches who are ready to negotiate. In July 2022, the clergy of the UOC MP and OCU adopted the "Declaration of Understanding". After that, the dialogue slowed down and resumed already in 2023. What are the two churches currently agreeing on, what is preventing the unification, and who can lead the unified Orthodox church of Ukraine in the future? These questions were answered by the rector of the Volyn Orthodox Theological Academy and archpriest of the OCU Volodymyr (Vakin) to “Babel”. In short, there are three options for the development of events: two Ukrainian and one Russian.

Letʼs start with the main question — how to find a compromise between the two churches and relieve the tension that currently exists in society?

Before talking about this, it is important to emphasize once again that the existence of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is not a current issue. For thirty years, no one has solved it, although the things its representatives in Ukraine have allowed themselves to do are beyond the limits of legality and adequacy.

When the OCU received the Tomos, it did not solve the complex Ukrainian issue — it was not possible to unite all the Orthodox Ukrainian into one church. Maybe the [OCU] didnʼt work hard enough. Only two bishops of the UOC MP joined the OCU, although the Ecumenical Patriarchate expected much better results.

Which ones exactly? How many MP bishops were predicted to join the OCU?

At least 10-12, but it could have been half or all. I know that they were under pressure from Kyiv and Moscow, and asked not to join. There are even rumors that someone had been kidnapped.

Russia uses the church as a tool of imperial geopolitics. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, is its part. Where do the parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate have the narrative from that power is given by God and Putin is a gift from God? Representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not condemn any of their priests for collaborating with Russia, against whom criminal cases were initiated. But they react quickly when their priest switches to OCU.

In 2022, the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Onufry, partially condemned the war, calling it Cainʼs sin. Thatʼs a strong statement, but thereʼs been nothing else like it. In May of last year, the UOC held the Theophanes Cathedral, they deleted the references to the Moscow Patriarchate from their charter, as if they had separated from it, but they did not take any real steps — they did not send the corresponding letters to Patriarch Kirill.

The representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have not yet taken steps that would please society — they havenʼt condemned the war, they have not separated from Russia, and they have not even apologized for the fallacy of their policy. Although the church or religion is a sphere that involves forgiveness and repentance.

How should the priests of the Moscow Patriarchate apologize — what to say?

That the alliance with Russia was a mistake. And that their policy was wrong — in terms of language, culture, history, and everything else. In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not seem to be against moving away from Russia, but it fell into a trap that it itself created. For thirty years, the UOC MP has emphasized that it belongs to the Ecumenical Church through Moscow, in contrast to the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, which is not recognized by the world. And now, if the MP completely breaks with Russia, it will find itself in a worse position than the Kyiv Patriarchate in the 1990s. The latter at least had light at the end of the tunnel — Tomos for OCU. And the UOC, when it separates from Russia, where will it end up? Thatʼs why dialogue is needed, you canʼt be alone in this.

Some priests of the UOC MP appealed to Bartholomew of Constantinople to temporarily create his diocese in Ukraine and they would join it. That is, they no longer want to be in the UOC MP, and refuse to join the OCU for various reasons. How likely is Bartholomew to take this step?

This is an appeal by part of the clergy, not the official church. And for now, this is just a statement posted on social networks. I think that the Ecumenical Patriarch will not respond to the requests of several priests. Another thing is, if many priests turn to him, and even better — a part of the bishops, then such a solution to the crisis is possible. However, this is a partial solution, just one of the stages.

Will OCU be happy with such a development?

Why not? The transfer under the management of the Ecumenical Patriarch of the UOC MP clergy can be a certain temporary solution, for example, for five years. Then there should still be a union of Ukrainian churches.

Actually, Iʼm a fan of the transition period. It is needed at least to heal wounds. Now there is a confrontation around the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and other churches. There is rhetoric from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, that “we are not against dialogue, but not under pressure”. This confrontation has descended on the parish, where people react in their own way. For example, the case when a soldier was beaten or when [the UOC MP parishioners] refused to bring a coffin with a dead soldier into the church. It should be understood that this whole situation is beneficial for Russia, so that it shows the picture: “Look, they have internal social tension there.”

Often a temporary solution becomes a practice for many years. If the Ecumenical Patriarch creates his eparchy, wonʼt this become a new problem — Ukraine risks getting two churches again: the OCU and the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

This risk can be minimized if the terms of the transition period are set right from the start.

Is the final goal now the disappearance of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine or the emergence of a single Orthodox Church?

One does not exclude the other. There cannot be a Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine, let it exist in Russia. We are against Russiaʼs influence on us through the church, especially via imperial, distorted Orthodoxy. The Church cannot be an instrument of propaganda and manipulation.

It is still too early to think about it, but in the future, a single large church may carry certain risks — it will have a monopoly influence on society and will dictate its rules in gender policy, education, recognition of the rights of the LGBT+ community. For example, in Poland, the church actually banned abortion, and now women are dying because of it.

I think there is no such risk in the case of Ukraine. The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches is one of the best in the world, because it shows all points of contact. All denominations are present there: Orthodox, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Catholics. In addition, Orthodoxy will have a lot of issues to deal with when the war ends — to care about soldiers, orphans, and widows. Now we have just closed the issue of military chaplaincy, medical chaplaincy is on the agenda, and this is much more difficult and necessary. We have where to spend energy, instead of fighting for some influence on the state.

In addition to the opening of the Constantinople Diocese in Ukraine, what other options for overcoming the crisis are currently being discussed?

Option of unification of churches — OCU and UOC begin to live together. It is necessary to determine the transition period in which this should happen. For example, the unification process has been going on for five years. Although the terms can be different — three years or seven.

The unification begins through joint management — a Synod is created, which will consist of an equal number of representatives of the two churches, for example, ten people from the UOC, ten from the OCU. The members of the Synod should change every six months so that everyone can participate and express their opinion.

What decisions can such a Synod make?

About the general strategy of church development, issues of unification and specific management decisions. The heads of the two churches during the transition period will be Onuphrius and Epiphanius, and after the end of the transition period, elections for the head of the united church will be held, in which they can participate. Or maybe they will voluntarily refuse to run for office.

Within five years, it will be necessary to conduct negotiations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on raising the status of the church — from the metropolis to the patriarchate. Then we will elect a patriarch, not a metropolitan, as now. This is a realistic scenario that can effectively solve the Ukrainian issue.

Will personnel issues be resolved at such a joint Synod — how to divide dioceses, for example?

This is the competence of the Synod. But with regard to personnel issues, I would suggest the following concept: since the churches have parallel structures, in each region there are bishops of two churches, it should be determined in advance that everyone stays with their parishes for the rest of their lives.

Do churches need mediators to initiate such a union?

The UOC, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, should say that it is not breaking relations with Russia declaratively, is ready for unification and calls for mediation from the Ecumenical Patriarch. Mediators can also be representatives of other churches, states and international organizations.

From the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Bishop Michael, who is in Kyiv, is not against mediation. Representatives of the two churches have already approached him with this question, and now their joint meeting is being prepared. In the USA, the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate held a conference, they are ready to play the role of mediators, but no one will force them here. Willingness is needed.

Who has to make a voluntary decision for the unification to begin?

We need the blessing of Onufry, the head of the UOC, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate.

This blessing can be waited for a long time, and the crisis is growing.

Then we need to have a script to solve it. This should be a Ukrainian scenario, because if not, there will be others — forceful, impulsive, foreign, Russian. As a matter of fact, now the state sees that nothing is being resolved, and begins to act in its own way, people on the ground — in their own way, that is why many acute incidents occur. This is a negative scenario, but these are natural laws — if you donʼt solve the problem in time, then thatʼs just the way it is.

Should such a blessing come only from the head of the UOC MP?

Either from him or from the Synod. Then it will be legitimate. In order for the Synod to make a decision on unification without a leader, an initiative group must be formed. But there is neither one nor the other.

Is there any information about the readiness or unreadiness of Onufry for dialogue? Has anything changed in the last six months?

Unfortunately, I donʼt have such information. His deeds do not show this, only his words. Therefore, working groups on unification have not been created. In February 2023, representatives of the churches met in Sofia of Kyiv. It was a good meeting, but on an informal level.

What was agreed upon at that meeting?

It was attended by up to twenty representatives of the clergy from one denomination and the same number from another. I was also there, on public grounds — as a canonist and theologian. The meeting was coordinated by the head of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience Viktor Yelenskyi. The meeting was dedicated to overcoming the crisis and was quite productive — the participants outlined the steps for further actions, they are quite realistic and balanced. The next stage was supposed to be a meeting of the clergy with Onuphrius and Epiphanius, but it has not yet taken place.

Because of the reluctance of Onuphrius?

Yes. If this dialogue was crowned with success, then the questions surrounding the Lavra and other temples would disappear.

What is the role of Yelenskyi at the meeting in Saint Sophia Cathedral — should the state be included in the process of uniting churches?

It should be a mediator. I think that all the opinions expressed by the clergy at the meeting were conveyed to the president. The state is interested in solving the crisis, and that is good.

And what do state representatives say? What do they want?

The minimum task of the state is to eliminate Russiaʼs influence on the church. But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church cannot simply separate from Russia, this must be done in a canonical way, and this is possible only by uniting the two churches. Because in the Orthodox world you cannot be alone, you must be recognized.

Letʼs imagine that the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate sends a letter to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill about separation. How realistic is it that they will really break off relations?

A real separation of the UOC, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, is possible only when it is agreed with Russia. When Russia says: “Here is Ukraine, we sympathize with it and give it Tomos.” Then the Russian Orthodox Church will call the churches in Poland, Serbia, and Bulgaria, and they will automatically recognize the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is a negative scenario for Ukraine, because it will not solve the problem of Russiaʼs influence on the Ukrainian church.

Usually, during important negotiations, and especially unification, situations happen when someone says: “If that person is there, I donʼt agree to unification.” Are there any such cases now?

At the joint meeting in Saint Sofia, a certain tactic was chosen — dialogue without preconditions from both sides. The structure of the Councilʼs management assumes that the decision is made by the majority, and the minority accepts it. You can disagree and vote against, but you accept the decision of the majority.

If neither of the two crisis management options you mentioned work, is there a plan B? Because otherwise the crisis will grow, and people will fight in churches.

If the situation is not resolved according to the Ukrainian scenario, there will be radical scenarios. Many representatives of the UOC are already declaring: “We will be martyrs, we will radicalize.” This is the Moscow scenario, and it is dangerous enough.

In the Khmelnytskyi region, it is resolved as follows: "Svoboda" party organizes a rally and signatures of people for the transition of the temple to the OCU. No one checks whether the activists or the parishioners vote, all this is accompanied by confrontation. Doesnʼt this harm the already difficult negotiations between the two churches?

I cannot support such actions, but I understand why it happens: it is a reaction of society to inaction. People have good intentions, but all this carries many risks, and the picture is beneficial to Russia.

There is another opinion — do not touch the Moscow Patriarchate and it will die by itself, because irreversible changes are taking place in society and people shun everything connected with Moscow. Do you agree?

The further Russian tanks are from Ukraine, the more Russia will invest in the ideological component. It will demand revenge. If we donʼt solve the issue of the presence of Russian influence through the church in Ukraine, then the future victory will be only a respite before a new war.

And you didnʼt ask the priests of the UOC MP, who appealed to Bartholomew with a request to open a diocese, why they are in favor of this particular option, and do not want to immediately join the OCU?

I didnʼt ask, but it takes a lot of courage and faith, itʼs a big step. They have strong ties with Russia, most of them studied there. They need to admit the realities: where they are and what led to this.

Their explanations sound different. What surprises me the most is when they say: “I made an oath to my church and I cannot betray it.” Such an oath is a Moscow tradition and it does not have the sacred meaning that is given to it. I am joking: if you did not take the oath as an FSB officer, then your oath to the Moscow Patriarchate is not essential. Your priesthood is a service to Christ.

Some priests say: “We were brought up in this church, we have friends and colleagues there, so we want to solve the issue of transition with the whole church.” If this is true, it should be respected.

You say that it is necessary to unite, but how to ensure that those who maintain close ties with Russia do not get into the new united church?

This should be done by the Security Service of Ukraine. The church can weed out only those people who do not correspond to the evangelical principles — they led an inappropriate lifestyle, behaved unworthily, or cursed everyone whom they could, this also happens.

Explain why the Moscow Patriarchate refuses to pay tribute to Ukrainian soldiers? The latest case is in the village of Zadubrivka in the Chernivtsi region. The mother of the deceased in tears asked to let her into the church with her sonʼs coffin, but the priest did not let her in until he was expelled. Such situations are now very radicalizing people.

Because the priests of this church do not recognize the war, for them it is a fratricidal conflict, not Russiaʼs attack on Ukraine. This has been going on since 2014. Although now the situation is changing — recently Metropolitan Onufriy near the Lavra called to pray for the army that defends the state.

Before our conversation, we talked with friends who went to the Moscow Patriarchate church with their parents all their lives. They say that this is a very painful issue for them, families are divided: the younger generation sometimes rejects the Moscow Patriarchate, while parents and grandmothers do not. No arguments with those who are told by pro-Russian priests that Russia is not to blame for the war, do not work. For example, an acquaintance says that the priest of the UOC MP forbade her aunt to eat with a fork, because it is a symbol of Satan, and she does not eat with it now. What to do with such people? How to explain to them that some priests are spying on them with anti-Ukrainian propaganda?

It is necessary to change the agenda. It is necessary that journalists write more about church life and that priests who know how to speak explain all this in an accessible way.

A person comes to church and opens up, religion is an intimate sphere. But instead of gaining freedom in Christ, he or she is manipulated. People will need time for rehabilitation and recovery.

When we reported on the events in Khmelnytskyi, where a military man was beaten, the parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate complained. It is offensive to them to hear that they are a Moscow church. People rightly say that many soldiers at the front are members of the UOC MP and are ready to die for Ukraine. Do you think about such people, how to build a dialogue with them?

Of course, we have to consider their feelings, and we do that. It seems to me that the tone of our conversation, the approaches that are now being proposed for the unification of churches, confirm this. But it must be admitted that many such people became a tool of the aggressor and this led to the war, to dozens of thousands of victims. It is naive to hope that the crisis will resolve itself on its own.

Translated from Ukrainian by Anton Semyzhenko.

To believe in God or not is your business. We believe in the victory of the Armed Forces. Support the fighters with a donation.