The Ukrainian war is breaking apart the whole body of the Orthodox Church, not only the Russian one. The Orthodox Church has trouble staying united; this might have long-term consequences for the body of Christianity.
The non-autocephalous Ukrainian Church under Metropolitan Onufriy has responded negatively to the injunction from the “State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience” (hereinafter, the Service) demanding a decisive break from the Moscow Patriarchate, considering it irrelevant, based not on facts but on opinions, and having no legal but political connotations.
On August 16, in a five-page text, the Kiev Metropolia “concluded that the observations in the injunction, with the obligation to eliminate violations of the legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations (referring to Law 3894 of August 2024; cf. here on SettimanaNews), are fictitious, have no relation to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and cannot be accepted and executed.”
The document laments that the Metropolia was not informed of the documented evidence compiled and was unduly subjected to the law. The Service’s staff lack canonical and theological expertise and ignore all observations made by specialists. The expert opinion on which the injunction is based does not accurately reflect the legal-canonical situation of the Church and relies on sources from non-final court rulings. It cites documents from the Moscow Patriarchate, which the Metropolia does not recognize. It ignores all the support and aid activities for the Ukrainian nation’s war effort in the current context of war with Russia. The injunction violates national law and international conventions on the right to religious freedom.
Putin and Cyril as Guardians
What were the Service’s demands? To denounce the statutes of the Russian Church in the points providing for the explicit involvement of the Ukrainian Metropolia, to demand the resignation of clerics and monks who are part of it at all levels, and to expressly reject the decisions of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding occupied territories and related episcopal appointments. Furthermore, to demand a written statement from Metropolitan Onufriy expressing disagreement with his appointment to Moscow’s governing bodies and for a formal break with the Patriarchate.
“In his response – notes Orthodox Times – Metropolitan Onufriy avoids addressing the central issue raised by the Ukrainian authorities: the persistent link of the Church he leads with the Moscow Patriarchate.”
There is consensus (or rather “non-dissent”) among the religious families of the All-Ukrainian Council of Religious Organizations regarding the government’s directives and the mentioned law.
The weight of the war, with its tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, countless destruction, and millions of refugees, weighs heavily on the justification of legal provisions that are not without ambiguity and contradictions. Especially after the about-face of the Trump American administration, the re-legitimization of Putin, and the winning Russian military push on contested territory.
It is not coincidental that the issue of the non-autocephalous Church and guarantees for it was on the list of demands of the Russian president for the meeting in Anchorage, Alaska (August 16).
After the revocation of citizenship from Metropolitan Onufriy, signed by President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 2 (cf. here on SettimanaNews), the current response morally commits the 154 ecclesiastical institutions of the Metropolia that enjoy legal personality.
The intra-religious conflict is festering. “In this situation, noted last February Thomas Bremer, former professor of ecumenism in Münster, the country needs unity and not new divisions. State measures against the non-autocephalous Church are not suitable for overcoming divisions. They are not only to be rejected on grounds of religious freedom, but above all, they significantly harm Ukraine itself.”
“Unfortunately, as reported by the information sources of Orthodoxtimes.com, the situation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy is chaotic. All Churches, beyond jurisdictions and doctrines, have become ethno-nationalist, abandoning their mission […] In both Churches, Epiphanius’s (autocephalous) and Onufriy’s, the majority of the clergy (apart from some exceptions in the second) lack adequate theological training” (Efi Efthimiou).
Growing Difficulties
The same author, director of the independent Orthodox news portal Orthodoxtimes.com, wrote: “According to information sources from the Phanar (Constantinople), Metropolitan Onufriy is a very pious man, a simple monk, unfortunately lacking the charisma of a leader. People see him as a spiritual father, a respectable elder, but lacking vision. When one’s own Church is persecuted, the pastor must save it. A vision for the future is necessary, and Onufriy lacks one. However, he tries to maintain the unity of his Church and make it independent from Russia, but with great difficulty.”
He is struggling to maintain a balance between nationalists and pro-Russians. “As long as Metropolitan Onufriy and the non-autocephalous Orthodox Church do not clearly and officially declare independence from the Moscow Patriarchate and restore communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate […], Ukrainian public opinion will continue to associate Onufriy’s Church with Russia, the aggressor and occupier of parts of Ukraine.”
The true “Putinist” soul would be that of the chancellor, Metropolitan Antony of Boryspil, a fiercely Russophile and financially supported by Ukrainian oligarch Vadym Novynskyi. He recently lashed out against priests and monks who worked to maintain a minimum of dialogue with the autocephalous Church and other confessions, accusing them of unworthy compromises, alignment with the persecutors, and hypocrisy. True traitors of those suffering violence to defend their churches and those enduring accusations in court as authentic confessors of the faith.
On August 12, the head of the Country’s Security Services, Vasyl Maliuk, said in a television interview that there are 170 ongoing criminal proceedings against clergy, and 31 have concluded with convictions either for treason or for incitement to racial and interreligious hatred. The unclear situation at home also makes the activity of the approximately 40 parishes that the non-autocephalous Church has opened in Europe for the care of exiles and refugees precarious. They are ignored by Ukrainian diplomacy and suspected by Western governments. The autocephalous Church committed itself, with the tomos received from Constantinople, not to open parishes outside its national territory.
The “National” Poison for the Churches
Bartholomew of Constantinople does not hide his private disappointment over the persistent tension among the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. He offered autocephaly to all Ukrainians and not just to some. He looks with dismay at the persistent divisive activism of the elder Filaret and at the inability of Epiphanius, Metropolitan of the autocephalous Church, to attract the consensus of the faithful. He has bent it to a “State Church” without realizing the danger this can mean.
The Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly expressed his regret at not being able to recognize Onufriy for the leading role in the autocephalous Church. Some officials at the Phanar point the finger at Eustratiy of Bila Tserkva, who controls the finances of the autocephalous Church without a missionary and theological perspective. It is not coincidental – it is said – that the Romanian minority in Ukraine prefers to look to Bucharest rather than Kiev. A clearer distancing from the violence that sometimes accompanies the forced seizure of churches by non-practicing nationalists would be expected, who then lack the forces to manage them with their own priests.
In the current challenging context, Major Catholic Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainians reiterated at an ecclesiastical conference on August 18 the “dream” of his predecessor, Cardinal. Lubomyr Husar, of a single Ukrainian Patriarchate capable of representing the entire Christianity of the country, even in its different confessional souls, in communion with Constantinople and with Rome.
