Prohibition of Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine: instructive Latvian example

There is a lively discussion of church issues in the media, and there is a great social resonance of Ukrainian Security Service searches the premises of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate. This creates favorable conditions for objective, in-depth and impartial discussion of state policy issues in the sphere of freedom of conscience and religion.

With the appointment of Professor Viktor Yelenskyi as the new head of State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, the chance of banning activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and streamlining the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy in general increases. The need for this, in particular, stems from decisions of the National Security and Defense Council from December 1.

A positive step in this direction was unanimous support by Verkhovna Rada members of the Committee on Culture and Spirituality of draft law No. 8221 "On ensuring the strengthening of national security in the sphere of freedom of conscience and activities of religious organizations."

In the world, Ukraine is rightly recognized as a state that has ensured religious pluralism and non-interference of the state in the activities of religious organizations. Although at one time Viktor Yanukovych tried to make the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate a "state church", these attempts failed. Ukrainians demonstrate to the whole world that freedom is truly a fundamental value for us. Moreover, in such an extremely delicate sphere as religious relations.

However, freedom and democracy do not mean permissiveness, because for their development they must be framed by laws, rules and procedures. The spirit of freedom and democracy, unwritten rules that individuals, organizations, and churches follow, is very important. The spirit was born of national history, continued throughout the centuries and was nurtured by today's generations.

Such conclusions are suggested by analysis of changes to the law on the Latvian Orthodox Church, which Latvian President Egils Levits submitted to the country's parliament in early September. The essence of innovations is to enshrine in national legislation independence (autocephaly) of the Latvian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate because the current status of the Latvian Orthodox Church is a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The final decision rests with Ecumenical Patriarch

In Ukraine, changes in Latvia were noted, but not analyzed. The submission of the "well-informed Latvian sources" version about the initiative of Latvian Orthodox Church leadership in these innovations began to circulate in the media, although in fact, it belonged exclusively to the leadership of the state, its special services and Latvian diplomacy. In the answers of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience to my parliamentary appeal, the previous management of this institution additionally argued that the situation in Latvia cannot be compared with ours, because "everything is different here." But in reality, everything is exactly the opposite.

Latvian example demonstrated the need for decisive actions of state authorities in the conditions of a direct threat to national security from the Russian Orthodox Church, whose activities are completely subordinated to the aggressive policy of the Russian Federation.  Actions due to protection of Latvian Orthodox Church rights against interference by external, hostile factors.

For this, the Latvian state used its entire apparatus, while strictly observing the norms of national and international law. The principle of freedom of conscience and separation of state and religious organizations is ensured. There are more than enough analogies with the situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate, as well as hints on how to solve the problem of its inclusion in the Moscow Church. 

Let me remind you that President Levits proposed a radical change in the legal definition of the Latvian Orthodox Church. Instead of the definition "Church - Latvian Orthodox Church with all its parishes", it is written: "Church - Latvian Orthodox Church with all its dioceses, parishes and institutions, completely independent and independent of any church authority outside Latvia (autocephalous church)".

The law "fully established autocephalous status of Church. The Church has a status of legal entity and rights arising from it in accordance with normative acts." Latvian Orthodox Church is headed by the Head of Church, who "does not depend on any church authority outside Latvia." The law defined procedure for informing state institutions and private individuals about the appointment of the head of church, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, as well as about their dismissal from office. The law obliged the Latvian Orthodox Church to make appropriate changes to its charter by October 31.

Deputies adopted the law in the shortest possible time. On this basis, the Latvian government appealed to the Patriarch of Moscow with a proposal to recognize the autocephaly of the Latvian Orthodox Church. The Council of Latvian Orthodox Church unanimously implemented the norms of law. On October 20, council priests supported changes to the law and the government's appeal to Moscow Patriarch. Council emphasized that the patriarch must act according to canon law to decide the status of the Latvian Orthodox Church.

They are silent in Moscow because they do not know how to hide the facts that are humiliating for them. Kirill's answer is of no fundamental importance because the final decision will be made by Ecumenical Patriarch. When Moscow Patriarchate agrees to the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church, then this church will be included in the Diptych of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches by Patriarch Bartholomew I, this is his direct prerogative. If Kirill refuses, then LOC can appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is the only one authorized to consider complaints of bishops who consider themselves wronged by local councils.

It was once said that all roads lead to Rome. In Latvian case, before the Second Rome - Constantinople.

Moscow will not influence LOC

In this context, the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience responses to my parliamentary appeal were particularly inappropriate and manipulative. Service urged "not to trust media reports", but to pay attention "to primary sources, details and context".

And it stated that "from the communication with the Latvian colleagues of the Service, it is known that the initiative regarding this legislative change belonged to the Head of the LOC, the changes to the legislation corresponded to the aspirations of the leadership of the LOC. At the same time, if the LOC changes its mind and does not submit an updated statute, it will be able to challenge the legislative change in judicial procedure".

In addition, the Service warned that in case of submitting the updated statute, "the Russian Orthodox Church will lose its canonical connection with the Universal Orthodoxy because currently its connection is recognized by local churches through the Russian Orthodox Church." And it stated that the legislative initiative of President Levits "did not prohibit the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, but instead opened up the possibility for the Latvian Orthodox Church to change its charter, and the key factor in this situation was the mutual agreement of the state and the church to change the status of the Latvian Orthodox Church."

Primary sources refute the information of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, exposing the desire of its previous leadership to "advocate" the interests of the UOC MP at any cost. Because this is how you should interpret the words about "Latvian colleagues" (I would like to ask: State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience or UOC MP?), the "initiative" of the head of the LOC, the possibility of him changing his decision, the threat of losing the canonical connection with Ecumenical Orthodoxy.

President Levits sent three documents to the Latvian parliament: the text of the draft law, a letter to the parliament and an explanatory note, in which he explained in detail the historical background of his proposals, the reasons and purpose of their development, the consultations conducted, and consistency with European legislation. The texts of the documents are available on the website of the President of Latvia in Latvian and English, therefore, anyone who wishes can familiarize themselves with their content.

Summary of the main statements of President Levits from the explanatory note. On July 21, 2022, the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs received a notification about the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of Kirill (March of this year) to create a council for the affairs of dioceses from the "near abroad", which, in the assessment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, contradicted the independence of the Latvian Orthodox Church. The special services of the Latvian state recognized this decision as a threat to national security. The legislative initiative to amend the law "On LPC" was discussed by the National Security Council, the President held consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the National Security Service regarding his initiative. The proposals were finally approved by the National Security Council of Latvia.

At the stage of preparation of the draft law of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it was reported that the draft law would provide for its complete independence, i.e. autocephaly. The President recognized his legislative initiative as being in line with Latvia's international obligations, in particular the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9), asserting that the state is obliged to protect the Latvian Orthodox Church from the threat of external interference by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Choice of the UOC MP

Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, primarily the large-scale attack on February 24, had a decisive influence on the position of the President of Latvia and the entire state government.  Mr. Levits drew special attention to two points.

Russian Orthodox Church justifies the war against the Ukrainian people, praises and justifies the crimes of the Russian army, using in its rhetoric propaganda narratives about the denial of Ukrainian statehood, its independence and sovereignty, which poses a threat to the national security of Latvia; the support of the Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill for Russian aggression against Ukraine and crimes against the Ukrainian people should exclude any influence they have on the position and decisions of the independent (autocephalous) Latvian Orthodox Church.

Latvia is a great friend of Ukraine, so any information about the interpretation of its actions by the Ukrainian state in the person of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscienceprobably did not escape the attention of its diplomacy, causing great damage to the reputation of our country. The false information of the Service called into question the trust in the state, whose central executive body distorts the policy of the Latvian state in opposition to Russian imperialism.

Moreover, contrary to the statement of the Service, changes in the legal status of the LOC have an important comparative value for assessing the situation with the UOC MP, in particular, regarding the role of the state in determining the legal status of this religious organization.

Latvian state did not prohibit the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church on its territory, because there was no such need. The essence of the legislative initiative of President Levits was to confirm in the state legislation the complete independence (autocephaly) of the Russian Orthodox Church from any influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and to enshrine its autocephalous status in the legislation.

The Council of the LOC supported these changes, taking into account the time allotted to it by the legislator (until October 31). According to the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, the LOC is a self-governing church, while the UOC MP is a self-governing church with the rights of wide autonomy. After the initiative and decisions of the Latvian authorities and the decisions of the LOC Cathedral, the way to the acquisition of autocephaly by this church was opened. This road is closed for the UOC MP, because the Orthodox Church in Ukraine - as part of Ecumenical Orthodoxy - has already received an autocephalous church system.

After the adoption of the law banning the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the UOC MP will have two ways of determining its future. Begin the process of unification with the OCU, reestablishing Eucharistic communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch while respecting the interests of the national security of our state. Or the creation of a new religious association that will not have the right to be called Orthodox and to own the Orthodox shrines of the Ukrainian people.

The task of state authorities is to promote the first option in order to finally regulate the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy, in accordance with the criteria of national security, current legislation, canons of Universal Orthodoxy, democracy, rights and freedoms of citizens and freedom of conscience.

About the author: Mykola Knyazhytskyi, Deputy of Ukraine, journalist.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.