Viktor Yelensky: ‘Solidarity of Churches against Government Attacks Critically Important Component of Their Real Independence’

31.01.2014, 09:28
Interview
Viktor Yelensky: ‘Solidarity of Churches against Government Attacks Critically Important Component of Their Real Independence’ - фото 1
Interview with leading Ukrainian religious studies expert and President of the Ukrainian Association of Religious Freedom Viktor Yelensky

Віктор ЄленськийIn late January the world celebrates Religious Freedom Day, honors the memory of an outstanding fighter for civil rights Martin Luther King, Jr., and prays for persecuted churches. At this time religious scholars and human rights activists reflect on the situation of religious freedom in the world. This year especially focus has been on Ukraine, for the recent events in our country have had their impact on the state of religious freedom. About this and more I spoke to leading Ukrainian religious studies expert and President of the Ukrainian Association of Religious Freedom Viktor Yelensky. I start with a sore point.

Is not the current state of church-state relations, when the government does not listen, a consequence of the fact that the churches have not spoken out loud enough about social topics? Or that they have not used all their leverage to prevent the current situation?

— It is truly difficult to draw the line of demarcation between speaking out “loudly” and “quietly,” even using sociological tools. But look: during the rule of the of current government, the churches in Ukraine quite strongly opposed the changes in the law on freedom of conscience and repeatedly called for the release of Yulia Tymoshenko; they called the Kolesnichenko-Kivalova language law a “delayed-action mine” and (albeit with varying degrees of sincerity and enthusiasm) supported the European aspirations of Ukraine. Finally, they – again with varying degrees of determination – condemned the use of force against peaceful protesters, demanded that the authorities punish those responsible for beating students, and called on the government to stop provocations against protesters. RISU reports fairly thoroughly on how the churches support the people who rose up against injustice and violence and on the efforts of religious organizations and individual clerics to prevent the escalation of the conflict between the people and the government and stop the bloodshed.

Another thing is that the churches (like all of society) are dealing with an exceptionally cunning, vengeful, and morally deaf regime. This regime has a lot of hefty hooks on which it hung some hierarchs and whole churches. Not all always have the will to tell it a firm “no!” Church leaders are continuing to feel pressure, are threatened for their activity on the Maidan and even for leading a traditional Sunday prayer before the national assemblies; they are told that a certain religious building will be taken; they are even attempts to bring them to court.

— Why did the authorities fear the prayers on Maidan and start to exert pressure on the people of the church so that they would cease to pray on Maidan? Was it to aggravate the conflict?

— If you leave aside the purely sacramental aspect of the problem, then prayer and worship on Maidan is the creation of a special spiritual space, which not only unites and elevates those who are present, but also legitimizes Maidan as a mature and integrated community of sophisticated people. It completely contradicts the sense behind the government’s propaganda about Maidan. In fact, most of those who personify, cement, and “hold up” this regime do not believe that human motivation can be the conscience and the inner desire to do good. They think in the paradigm of Stalin, who, upon learning in 1946 that one evening the people gave a standing ovation to the disgraced poet Akhmatova, sternly asked, “Who organized the uprising?” Therefore, the churches must be withdrawn from Maidan so that they do not “organize” the spiritual strength and moral core of its defenders.

— How does the letter to the Ministry of Culture of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church fit into this paradigm?

— This is not just an attack on religious freedom, not just outright mockery of the Ukrainian Constitution, but another attempt to divide the country. I personally am very skeptical about conspiracy theories, but it was quite obvious that experienced provocateurs were behind the attacks on the Greek Catholics. Watch the average talk show devoted to Ukraine or information program on the federal Russian channel. Everywhere there is talk about “Galician neo-Nazis,” who are instigated by bloodthirsty anti-Semitic priests and everywhere – attention! – you will reach the conclusion that the collapse of Ukraine is “inevitable.” Therefore, Fr. Mykhailo Arsenych’s speech in 2010 is so important for the Kremlin propagandists, who alleged that he also spoke on Maidan. It is so important for them that in Brussels the Russian President said: “In Western Ukraine clerics urge people to go to Kyiv and take down the government. And the further argument: so that our home is not commanded by blacks, Moskali, that is, Russians, and Jews.” Millions of Russian television viewers, of course, are not told that for these words the priest was punished, that it was three years ago, that the speech was jointly condemned by Patriarch Sviatoslav and Chief Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich, and others.

Russian viewers have to understand that a) it is necessary to split off part of Ukraine and b) the other part of it should be saved immediately. And so on January 29 two personages simultaneously addressed the Russians. The head of the Synodal Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin called on Russia and its allies to intervene in the Ukrainian situation, regardless of “what people will say about Russia on the eve of the Sochi Olympics.” And Vladimir Zhirinovsky immediately explained how to intervene: immediately bring Russian troops into Ukraine. It is not a “spontaneous creation”; it is a clear demonstration of a scenario on which they have “hooked” the Ukrainian authorities, and on which it, in fact, is “hooked.”

— Meanwhile, the Ministry of Culture’s letter to the UGCC was not officially withdrawn...

— As well as de jure, the crazy dictatorial laws from January 16 continue to be in force until Yanukovych signs. These laws if not for the popular uprising would have greatly restricted freedom in Ukraine, including, of course, religious freedom. And if the movement does not reach its objectives there will be a backlash – the regime will resort to repression, discrimination, to the introduction of totalitarian laws that will take Ukraine back many years.

Let’s look at least at a small fraction of the legislation voted with a show of hands on January 16 in the Russian version. The list of literature that is considered “extremist” is constantly updated. And it already includes religious texts written centuries ago, Jehovah's Witnesses journals; from August 2011 to March of 2012 it included the principal canonical text of the Society for Krishna Consciousness “Bhagavad Gita As It Is,” that is, the translation of a text that was created several centuries before BC.

As for the Ministry of Culture’s letter, it caused a deluge of genuine indignation and its inspirers realized that they should step back. For now... This is a very distinct characteristic of today’s regime – it stops only before real resistance. If resistance is imitated, if they see it slacking, they exert pressure. Remember how in 2010 there was an attempt to exert pressure on the UOC-Kyivan Patriarchate? The authorities stopped only when they felt real opposition. And the UOC-KP made ​​the right conclusion – in connection with the letter of the Ministry of Culture it publicly spoke out in support of the UGCC. The solidarity of the churches against the government’s attacks is a critical component of their true independence.

It seems that there is a different policy on the part of the heads of churches and the clergy on Maidan: indirect intervention by the hierarchs and direct conversations with politicians and the continued support of the active part of the “Maidan” clergy. Is there is a certain breakdown of the methods of influence?

I do not know how appropriate the word "breakdown” is here. In fact, the head of the UGCC, the UOC-KP, and some Protestant communities very clearly supported the spiritual care that their pastors provided the protesters. With tears in his eyes, Patriarch Filaret recalled the priest, who “bid farewell to his wife and children and went to Maidan to serve Ukraine.”

On Maidan are a lot of clerics who are constantly with their faithful. They were with them on November 30, and during the assault on the night of December 10 to 11, and on the barricades, and Hrushevskoho Street. They feel that the people need much more now than in normal times; they are willing to stand between protesters and Berkut, to serve, to profess, and to comfort them in the bitter cold and among the flames in front of the Dynamo stadium. They are ready to be mediators – the country is aware that the Ukrainian Council of Churches met with Yanukovych and later opposition leaders; everyone saw and heard how the representatives of the council asked for a mandate to continue negotiations on January 25.

How do you assess the position and activities of the UOC-MP in this situation?

The UOC-MP brings together very different people and clergy, sometimes with very different views and political positions, especially political because even the desire to ignore the conflict is also a political position. But we have seen on Maidan UOC representatives who supported the movement for human dignity; the UOC Primate signed an appeal from the AUCCRO (this church currently chairs the council) regarding the use of force, the punishment of those responsible, and the inadmissibility of violence. It is also clear by the fact that on November 30 when the authorities feverishly searched the UOC for an authoritative person who would justify the beating of students, they found no one. Remember also the monks who prayed in the neutral zone on Hrushevskoho Street.

This church is under special supervision, the main pillars of the current regime belong to it. But, apparently, they do not tend to listen to the morals of the church. It seems also that the pressure on the hierarchy of the church is increasing and they are becoming the subjects of particularly nasty blackmail and all sorts of “interconnections” with the authorities.

What about the participation of Jews and Muslims in Maidan with Christians?

They also support the movement for human dignity and that is understandable; a rabbi and the deputy mufti of Ukraine both spoke from the stage. Although the government continually strives to play the anti-Semitism card and to discredit Maidan to the world, Arseniy Yatseniuk addressed this issue very sensitively but rightly: “Maidan rejects black-hundredist slogans. Those who tried to exclaim them quickly found themselves on the perimeter of this area of ​​freedom.”

What impact will Maidan have on religious life in Ukraine?

It is clear that such an extreme situation leads to an exacerbation of religious feelings, to what Pitirim Sorokin called “moral polarization,” i.e., the crystallization of two large, larger than usual, cohorts of people. One of them shows great humanity and resilience in the ability to resist evil; the other shows an unprecedented for “peacetime” immorality and cruelty. The earthly visible church is experiencing a period when its every word and every action can have enormous significance for its future impact on “this world.”

Tetyana Mukhomorova