Sharing a church building teaches tolerance. It also teaches cooperation.

At the conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on the human dimension which met in Warsaw from 21 September to 2 October, the representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Fr. Mykolai Danylevych, complained of abuses against his Church in various regions of Ukraine (RISU, 2 October 2015). The vice-chairman of the UOC Department of External Church Relations focused on the transfer of parishes from the jurisdiction of his Church to that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Fr. Danylevych alleged that in many cases, regional councils or other political authorities had effected such transfers illegally, and sometimes by force, relying on violent political groups like Right Sector or even a military unit. He was particularly concerned with recent events in the Ternopil’ region.

During the OSCE meeting, Archbishop Evstratii (Zoria) of Chernihiv and Nizhyn, UOC-KP, called for resolution of such inter-Church conflicts through dialogue,  with the participation of the OSCE (RISU, 1 October 2015). By agreeing to this approach, the UOC (MP) would show its good faith in seeking a fair adjudication of disputes. In Archbishop Evstratii’s view, the majority of the parishioners should decide to which jurisdiction a parish should belong. The minority should be provided with another place of worship, or the two groups should arrange to hold alternating services in the disputed church building. This, noted Evstratii, was the solution proposed by the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1990 in its dispute over parishes with the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

In the spring of 1990, a quadripartite commission began visiting disputed parishes in western Ukraine. It soon became clear, however, that the Moscow Patriarchate was manipulating the process. If Archbishop Evstratii’s suggestion is followed, the OSCE will need to make sure that neither Orthodox Church acts improperly.

There is, however, another consideration. Before provisions are made for the minority in a given parish, it must be certain that the transfer of the parish to another jurisdiction has been decided legally. This is not a simple matter of a majority vote. Procedures must be followed. In case of a legal dispute, it may seem reasonable to bring the matter to court. But until Ukraine completes a reform of the judicial system, one must take into consideration the fact that many judges are corrupt, or corruptible.

Once the transfer of the parish to a different jurisdiction has been accomplished in a legal manner, the question of the rights of the minority must be addressed. While in the case of inter-Orthodox transfers, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not a question of fundamental dogma, for many believers it is a matter of conscience. Hence, either the minority must be given another church, or the two groups must share the original church on the basis of alternating services.

Of these two solutions, assigning the minority a new church is the less practicable. Unless a vacant church is available, a new one must be built. In these times of economic hardship, this may be too burdensome for the minority of believers in the parish. This result may also be burdensome for the majority who retain the original church, as they must now fund the maintenance and repairs themselves. Thus, alternating services will usually be preferable.

True, in the 1990s this did not always work, as conflict between the two parties was often bitter. But sharing a church teaches tolerance. It also teaches cooperation, as the faithful of both parties must share the costs of maintenance and repairs. It may some day even help bring about reconciliation.

Andrew Sorokowski