Unequal opportunities
Once again Ukrainian Orthodoxy is divided in celebrating the anniversary of baptizing Kyivan Rus’: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is free to operate, while the Kyiv Patriarchate he Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow.
Patriarchate marks the second year in a row when the anniversary is headed by the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus Kirill. On July 28, the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church initiated solemnities together with the Kyiv metropolitan Volodymyr and other members of the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church with the liturgy on the Soborna Square of Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. About three thousand people gathered for the patriarchal service. The public service in Kyiv Kirill finished the nine-day pastor trip throughout Ukraine. During his trip Kirill also visited the Odesa and Dnipropetrovsk eparchies.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, headed by the patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus-Ukraine Filaret, in its turn, celebrated the Baptism by traditionally passing in a Cross Procession from the Volodymyr Cathedral to the monument to Volodymyr the Great. As during the previous years, the column was led by priests who were carrying gonfalons and icons. The Cross Procession which gathered about five thousand priests and adherents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy finished with a public prayer at the Volodymyr Hill.
However, while there were no problems with the organization of the Cross Procession in previous years, this time they emerged. First, the capital’s court banned protests in Kyiv on July 37-28, 2010, or activities supporting the visit of the Moscow patriarch Kirill. In response, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy explained that the court’s ban can’t concern the planned Cross Procession, since it was neither protest, nor supporting activity. Second, as the press-service of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy reported, the Kyiv Patriarchy received signals from different regions of Ukraine about various ways to prevent pilgrims from leaving for the capital. During the night the workers of the State Automobile Inspection didn’t let the buses out of a few regions of Ukraine (Volyn, Rivne, Chernivtsi, Ternopil, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, Kharkiv, and others).
COMMENTARY
Liudmyla FYLYPOVYCH, doctor of philosophical sciences, professor, the head of the department for problems of religious processes in Ukraine, the Hryhorii Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“I suppose that all expectations and predictions regarding the visit of the patriarch were verified. The goals and tasks were achieved; even more than planned. For example, there were meetings with President Viktor Yanukovych and other politicians, which were not planned. The only question is whether these goals coincide with the goals of our state and spiritual development? I think the readers of The Day can answer these questions themselves.
“The appearance together with Kirill during the public prayer near the monument to Volodymyr the Great, the highest representatives of the Ukrainian government demonstrated their position this way. They were to be present at these activities as private persons, not as statesmen. There were a lot of representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, so actually it was impossible to get to the Volodymyr Hill. Why did they need so many guards, who was protected from whom? The situation with the Cross Procession headed by the Kyiv patriarch Filaret was quite different. One could access the site freely.
“I expected to watch the Cross Procession live in the broadcast of Ukrainian television channels, or at least recorded. However, no channel, including the First National channel, considered it expedient to cover this event in their broadcast. Instead, the visit of Kirill was covered in full, live. For me, as a scholar and an expert, it would be interesting to compare the service of Kirill and the Cross Procession of Filaret. It’s good that I had an opportunity to attend it personally.
“I listened very attentively to the words spoken by patriarch Kirill. Up to some point I agreed with all his statements. But it’s absolutely impossible to agree with the conclusions his appeals ensue. They reflect the position and interest of just one church, one state, and one people. This state is alien to me. The people and church, though fraternal, are not mine. The promises the patriarch gave in his spiritual care to all Ukrainians to come every year can be topical only for adherents of one church. He failed to hear Ukrainians which don’t belong to his parish, and, according to approximate estimates, there are not less than fifteen million of them, and these are just the Orthodox, let alone other religions. He addressed the religious minority, and we expected that appeals would concern the whole nation. His appeal to unity was without an addressee because everyone could accept it in their own way. Repent, salvation is waiting for you in the only church of the Moscow Patriarchate. If he had really taken care of solving the problems of the Orthodoxy in Ukraine, his appeals would have had specific addressees. Unfortunately, everything Kirill and his speakers said is connected with political intrigues and ambitions of the Ukrainian political elite. This is the wrong approach. The coming of the patriarch didn’t unite, but polarized even more, based on political and religious convictions.
“Delays of buses with pilgrims from Western Ukraine is a way for officials to toady before the government. The same situation occurred in Odesa. I appeal to Ukrainians not to lose hope, to be watchful and strong in their efforts. The Cross Procession without hysterics and scandals demonstrated the aspiration of Ukrainians to have their own church and not to depend on someone’s spiritual will. We just need to wait a little. One must look to history: autocephaly always take long to obtain.”
Ivan KAPSAMUN, Liudmyla ZHUKOVYCH
