How to turn a state service into a laughingstock
The accusatory language used against the UOC clergy cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny – it provokes nothing but mockery and bewilderment.
On November 10, when Ukraine’s media space was shaken by sensational news about NABU raids and large-scale theft discovered in the energy sector, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) published a statement on criminal cases against the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
This document is impossible to read without tears. Why do we say that? Because the level of professionalism and credibility in the statement of this esteemed agency is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.
1. “Twenty-seven hierarchs working for Russian intelligence”
The SBU claims that criminal cases have been opened against 27 hierarchs of the UOC – a quarter of its episcopate – allegedly for “carrying out tasks of Russian intelligence services aimed at destabilizing the sociopolitical situation in Ukraine.” No names, no evidence are provided. And then comes the most fantastic part:
“For this purpose, the hierarchs used religious communities to recruit believers into the agent network of Russia, justified the war crimes of the ‘rashists,’ and called for the seizure of our state,” the text says.
As of today, it is known that only one UOC hierarch, Metropolitan Arseniy, is behind bars. Three others – Metropolitans Feodosiy, Pavlo, and Longin – are on trial. It is absolutely certain that none of them recruited anyone or called for the seizure of the state. What alleged crimes the other 23 hierarchs committed remains a mystery. These claims, at the very least, evoke disbelief.
2. “Metropolitan Onuphry opposed independence from Moscow”
The SBU also asserts that Metropolitan Onuphry supposedly “deliberately opposed the acquisition of canonical independence of the Ukrainian Church from the Moscow Patriarchate,” and that he “continues to support the policies of the ROC and its leadership.”
All objective facts indicate that this statement is an outright falsehood. Metropolitan Onuphry was in fact the initiator of convening the UOC Council in Feofania, which adopted the well-known decisions. But even if he hadn’t – “canonical independence” is an entirely internal ecclesiastical matter that should in no way concern the SBU.
It’s as absurd as if law enforcement began demanding that surgeons perform only non-invasive rather than open-body procedures, or that football coaches use a three-forward formation instead of two.
3. “Involvement in child pornography”
Particularly shocking are claims that the UOC is “involved in the corruption of minors and the distribution of child pornography.” There is hardly any need to comment here. Even if there were some unfortunate individual cleric with such issues (which, given the overall context of accusations, is doubtful), it would be completely inappropriate to project that onto the entire UOC.
Conclusions
Regrettably, the Security Service of Ukraine – once a deeply respected institution that has done much for the country – has now become part of a propaganda machine aimed at discrediting the Church.
The accusatory rhetoric directed at the clergy of the UOC cannot withstand any criticism and can only elicit derision and disbelief. Were the situation not so tragic, the SBU’s current activity toward the UOC could be described in just one word – a laughingstock.
