The Russian Church must admit its complicity in unleashing a genocidal war against Ukrainians — Jose Casanova. Interview

Investigators of the Security Service of Ukraine, who inspect the temples of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), UOC (MP), report that during the searches they found pro-Kremlin literature, in the liberated territories they found former warehouses of the occupying power, Russian symbols.

The Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of Patriarch Kirill actually supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Congratulating on Christmas, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, in particular, that Russian church organizations support the participants of special military operations in Ukraine, as in Russia they are waging a war against Ukraine.

In May, as a sign of disagreement with the position of Patriarch Kirill, the UOC (MP) declared its independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. At the same time, liturgical communication between the UOC (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church was preserved. Observers say that the detachment was purely formal.

During December 4-27, 2022, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted a survey that showed that 78% of Ukrainians believe that the state should intervene in the activities of the UOC (MP), and 54% believe that this church should be completely banned in Ukraine. The Humanitarian Policy Committee of the Verkhovna Rada supported a draft law that could ban the activities of the UOC (MP) in Ukraine. Now the parliament has to vote for him.

Sociologist of religion, professor emeritus of Georgetown University Jose Casanova told “Voice of America” ​​about what is the future of the UOC (MP), whether the church should be banned and why “Russian peace” is a non-Christian theology. The American scientist of Spanish origin devoted more than one year to the study of the relationship between the Ukrainian and Russian churches, studied the Ukrainian language and published two books in Ukraine about religion in the modern world.

The interview has been edited for flow and clarity.

Maria Ulyanovska, Voice of America: Mr. Casanova, when Ukraine received the tomos, in one of the interviews, you said that you were against the ban on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Has your opinion changed now?

Jose Casanova: I believe that in the long term it is better to solve this issue through dialogue and reconciliation. The state should not ban the church. But when there is a war, there must be a guarantee that this church does not have any financial, political, economic contact with the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia.

According to the latest sociological surveys, 4-5% of the population consider themselves to belong to this church. But even this small percentage is a lot of people. The fact that people are members of this church does not necessarily mean that they are not Ukrainians, do not support Ukraine, or cheer for Russia. We must respect that. They are citizens of Ukraine and have the same rights as others. The state must protect the religious freedom of all citizens of Ukraine and not give priority to one church over another. But in times of war, the state must also guarantee national security. I think there is another way to ensure this than banning the church, but the main thing is that this church does not become a Trojan horse of Russia.

M.U.: In a situation of full-scale war, can the state afford to have a religious organization affiliated with the aggressor?

H.K.: I hope that the church will not be banned altogether, because that means going against the people. But the question is how the church will position itself — whether they are really for Ukraine, for freedom, democracy, society and the nation. There can be no ambiguity in this matter. It is obvious that they are affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church [РПЦ] — they cannot grant themselves autocephaly. This is a global religious issue — how they see themselves in the context of global Orthodoxy. The UOC (MP) can, for example, say that they are connected with the Russian Church in a Eucharistic way [тобто єдині в догматах, причасті — ред.]. But they must clearly show that there are no financial, political or ideological contacts between them and the ROC, that they are on the side of Ukraine and against Russian aggression. And in such a dialogue with the state, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and all other religious institutions, you need to present yourself to them. If the UOC (MP) want to be respected, then they should clearly state that everything Cyril says is anathema, not Christianity and heresy.

Maria Ulyanovska, Voice of America: Mr. Casanova, in your opinion, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) a threat to the security of the state and should Ukraine do something about it?

H.K.: If there are elements of this church that advocate for Russia or cooperate with the Russian army, then this is a criminal activity and Ukraine should prosecute them according to the legal process, this is completely legitimate. At the same time, the leadership of the church – Onufry and the bishops should publicly condemn such pro-Russian manifestations.

I would strongly advise against choosing the path of simply closing this church – that is exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church and Stalin did to the Greek Catholics and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church after World War II. At the same time, those churches that want to operate on the territory of Ukraine must accept all laws and rules of coexistence for the security of the state in the context of war and must very clearly show themselves as patriots of Ukraine, not Russia.

MU: You researched the Russian Orthodox Church. To what extent are the state and the church separated in Russia? What is the future of this church – will it be able to return from justifying war and genocide to Orthodoxy?

H.K.: It is obvious that the Moscow Patriarch uses the political theology of “Russian measures” not only not to oppose this war, but also to make it sacred. Recently, Patriarch Kirill said that Russia should help the world, which is “increasingly sinking into a spiritual and moral crisis”, to find salvation.

In order to save everyone, they staged a genocide and a criminal war. Who has the right to say that the whole world is plunged into a crisis of immorality? The Russian Orthodox Church says that the genocide against the Ukrainian people is a sacred process, that they “must” do it in order to save the planet from the terrible plague of fascism, just like before.

The problem with the Russian church is that it has never reviewed its history of collaboration with the Soviet regime and sees itself as a victim, not a collaborator. They never once apologized for helping to eliminate all the bishops, to send many priests to the Gulag so that the monopoly of the Moscow Church would remain in Ukraine. Now the Ukrainians themselves are saying: “We are now free, we want to have our own church, give us the churches back.” And the Russian church presents it as persecution in Ukraine.

After the overthrow of Nazism, the German churches had to apologize and go through their process of reflection. The problem is that the Russian church went from collaborating with Stalinism, then with the Soviet Union and Communism to collaborating with Putin. They use the same arguments as during the Second World War: “Stalin is good because he is defending the nation from fascism, so we can cooperate with him.” And now everything is the same: “Putin is good, because he defends the “Russian peace” from Ukrainian fascists who do not want to be part of it, and therefore it is good that we eliminate them.

If they do not see that this terrible collaboration is genocide, then it is obvious that this church will have a very difficult time reforming itself. To justify this genocide, they turn to political theology. The problem with their messianism is that they see themselves as good versus evil. The whole world is evil, and we are the ones who defend the good, committing a terrible genocide. They will have to reflect not only on everything they have done, but also to rethink that their theology is not Christian.