On April 27, a «Rome Consultation» was held in the Italian capital, where theologians, historians, sociologists, lawyers and experts in ecumenical relations analyzed the observance of religious freedom norms in Ukraine on the example of pressure on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by local and national authorities.
At the outset, those gathered articulated the purpose of the meeting as follows: «We support Ukraine in its just defensive war against Russia and believe that the lawful and justified actions of special services and state bodies to protect the constitutional order and prevent collaborationism and espionage against specific perpetrators of crimes are within the legal framework. At the same time, we cannot share the rhetoric that exploits the thesis of collective responsibility of the entire religious community for the actions of its individual members or even clerics.
We advocate that even in the conditions of war with the totalitarian Russian regime, Ukraine should remain committed to democratic values, which include freedom of religion as one of the basic values.»
The consultation was attended by priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Andrei Kordochkin (Netherlands) and Georgy Ashkov (France), historian and sociologist Nikolai Mitrokhin, theologians Dmitry Krikhan and Justyna Panina, lawyer and priest Mikita Chekman, journalist and human rights activist Denis Lapin and others.
Journalist Denis Lapin noted that the accusations against the Sviatogorsk Metropolitan are based on a video from 2023, where the hierarch mentioned the location of Ukrainian army roadblocks. «With modern surveillance systems and provided that we are talking about small settlements where everyone knows each other, but this is a secret of Polichinel» — said the journalist.
He also touched on the repression of the Union of Orthodox Journalists. «You can have different attitudes to their activities, but several representatives of the union have been arrested, they are now in pre-trial detention centers. And we do not see that the journalistic community of Ukraine is somehow concerned about this. Everyone just republished the press release of the Security Service and said: «Well, it’s clear, enemies have been found, enemies are being punished». That is, the situation is far from normal.» — Lapin emphasized.
He also told about fresh cases of seizure of churches and expulsion of UOC communities, in particular in the city of Irpen and the village of Lesniki.
Mykola Mitrokhin presented the data of monitoring of pressure on clergy and parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was conducted from February to April, between the Berlin and Rome consultations.
«First of all, we should talk about the change in the position of the ROC, which through the meeting of the World Russian People’s Council on March 27, 2024, much more clearly stated its support for the war. The ROC, in principle, has grown a political structure for making sharp statements in support, therefore, of both the Putin regime and the war, and this WRNS performs the same function as the «German Christians» during World War II. That is, it is a kind of political structure under the body of the church, which is de facto responsible for political statements. Based on the fact that the Holy Synod of the ROC supports in its statements the decisions made by the WRNS and endorses the Patriarch’s activity in this Council, we can say that through this instrument the ROC actually subscribes to the increasingly harsh terminology supporting the war. The designation of the war as a «holy war,» the presentation of territorial claims to Ukraine in the same «Nakaz» and other statements made on March 27, move the ROC to a new plane. This was noted in the PACE resolution that the ROC is now considered by international organizations as one of the Russian structures supporting the war. This is a new quality of the ROC, which immediately led to serious problems with foreign, primarily European dioceses, starting with the Baltic States, where government officials have already started talking about the possibility of banning the ROC as a structure that ideologically supports and justifies the war,» Mitrokhin said.
The second trend the sociologist described is the obvious continuation of the ROC’s seizure of UOC dioceses in the occupied territories of Ukraine. While most of the bishops from the occupied territories have moved to the territory of Ukraine, which is controlled by the government in Kiev, and do not support the occupation. Some cases of seizure occur with temporary formulations «until the situation is regulated». In other cases, dioceses are completely taken over, with the clergy voting with an unclear degree of certainty.
Against this background, as it were, the UOC takes a completely unambiguous position. It promptly condemned the «Nakaz» of the VRNS. And even stated that it is not Christianity. That is, politically the UOC unambiguously disassociates itself from the statements in the ROC.
Mitrokhin pointed out that the number of real criminal cases with proven facts of priests’ collaboration is in dozens, which is a negligible percentage of the clergy. But he also pointed out that there is another completely stratum — these are church leaders, against whom the SBU is waging a systematic fight. «And here the most important innovation is a number of criminal cases against major figures in the church, who are obviously being punished for their activities of organized resistance to the repressions carried out by the SBU, DESS and others. At the moment we have a case against Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy, who protested against the seizure of a monastery on the territory of the Cherkasy diocese by supporters of the PCU. A case has been opened against him,» the German sociologist said.
The attack on Metropolitan Longin (Zhar), the arrest on spurious pretexts of Metropolitan Arseniy of Sviatogorsk, the criminal case against the deputy head of the Department of External Church Relations of the UOC, Archpriest Nikolay Danilevich and other cases were also cited as examples.
Mitrokhin noted that the legal re-registration of congregations from the UOC to the PCU does not mean a real transition of believers. The churches of the PCU stand half-empty while the UOC believers pray in church houses and rented premises. Another important issue raised by the German researcher was the split in Ukrainian society, which could have a negative impact as the war continues.
Mykyta Chekman, a lawyer and priest from Kiev, shared his experience of participating in legal assistance to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and individual parishes. He emphasized the absurd formulations in some cases that directly contradict the Constitution of the country. For example, in the materials of the criminal case against Archpriest Sergei Chertilin, he is accused of denying the attributes of independent Ukraine, including the newly created Orthodox Church of Ukraine. «According to their logic in the secular state of Ukraine the attribute of statehood is the PCU, which contradicts Article 35 of the Constitution, according to which the church is separated from the state,» — said Chekman.
According to the lawyer, the very fact of an inter-church discussion about the presence of apostolic succession or the validity of sacraments is interpreted by secular law-keepers as incitement of inter-religious hatred.
There is also the problem of legal illiteracy of priests and parish leaders. Despite the vague wording on parish membership when deciding on the transition, there are norms that prevent illegal meetings of «territorial communities» instead of parish ones. «The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has clearly established the criteria for proving whether one is a member of a congregation or not. Community charters do not provide for fixed membership. Therefore, the House specified two criteria. The first criterion is that a person is 18 years of age. The second criterion is regularity of attendance at worship services. That is, if you do the right work in the parishes, if you do the right paperwork to document that a person regularly attends worship services, then it will be proof in disputes,» said Chekman.
The second part of the Rome Consultation was devoted mainly to discussing the problem of the systemic crisis of Orthodox ecclesiology, which balances between the imperial exterritorial and nationalist philhellenic models of the «national church.» According to priest Gregory Ashkov of France, the solution could be the development of a «eucharistic ecclesiology,» where the center of decision-making is the local eucharistic community, with a voluntary and elective higher authority. This ecclesiology was formulated and developed at the St. Sergius Institute in Paris among the Russian emigration. Master of Theology Justina Panina (France) agrees with him, saying that this model has already been realized partially in the Orthodox Church in America, and is quite applicable to Europe. «Unfortunately, the PCU has inherited all the generic problems of the Russian Orthodox Church, namely the verticality of the structure and the autocratic power of the feudal bishops, which made the transition pointless even for the so-called ‘intelligentsia communities,’ who at the beginning looked at the new church with great hope» — Panina explained.
Dmytro Krihan, in his turn, told about the emergence in Ukraine of a new jurisdiction of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which started its mission on the historical Romanian lands in Chernivtsi and Odessa region. At the same time, the Romanian Orthodox Church is in canonical communion with the UOC and persecution of Romanian parishes in its jurisdiction may worsen interstate relations between Romania and Ukraine. Also, the Romanian Church may become a church of refuge for priests and part of the laity in case of a complete ban of the UOC in Ukraine.
As a result of the consultation, the «Rome Declaration on the situation with religious freedom in Ukraine» was adopted, which was sent to members of the European Parliament, ombudsmen and members of specialized committees of parliaments of EU countries, to inter-church bodies and international human rights organizations. The declaration states the main problems identified in the area of religious freedom, but also emphasizes support for Ukraine and the desire to assist in maintaining the course of its democratic reforms in the future.
