ROC, state, and war: What Metropolitan Kirill would say to Patriarch Kirill

At present, the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) on the war in Ukraine appears fully formed – the Church has thrown its support behind the actions of the state. This is evident in statements by the highest hierarchs, the rhetoric of clerical bloggers, and in priests blessing mobilized Russian soldiers across various dioceses.

One might get the impression that the ROC has always supported the war. But that is simply not true. Only twenty years ago, the Bishops’ Council adopted a document that professed entirely different principles – regarding the Church's relationship with the state, its stance on war, and the right of the Church to disobey if the authorities compel believers to violate God’s commandments.

Facts are stubborn things

Before delving into discussions about the war and the Church’s attitude toward it, we must first acknowledge a few unshakable facts:

1. Russia initiated the war against Ukraine, not the other way around. One can argue endlessly about defending Donbas, but on February 24, 2022, the Russian Federation launched a full-scale military assault across all of Ukraine. Kyiv’s western suburbs were virtually obliterated, and massive destruction has been inflicted upon Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Zhytomyr, and many other regions.
2. The war is being fought on Ukrainian soil, not on Russian territory.
3. No coherent justification for the invasion has ever been offered. Ukraine posed no threat to Russia, made no declarations of intent to invade, seize cities, or overthrow its government. If threats were voiced, they came from fringe figures lacking any military, political, or economic means to act – as did Ukraine as a whole.
4. It is peaceful civilians who are suffering most from this war. In recent weeks, alongside the destruction of towns and villages, there has been a large-scale campaign targeting civilian infrastructure – missile and drone strikes on power plants and critical utilities. The goal of these actions is openly declared: to freeze Ukraine’s population in winter. These are not only morally indefensible acts but blatant violations of numerous international conventions on warfare.
5. As of late October 2022, around 150 churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) have been destroyed. Countless UOC faithful have perished, both on the battlefield and among civilians. Every day, new names are added to the commemorations for the departed. Those being killed are precisely the believers whom Russian authorities claimed they sought to protect through their “special operation.”

From all this, it follows that:

Russia is waging an absurd war against the Ukrainian state and people. Yet despite the self-evident nature of this truth, the ROC not only justifies the war – it actively encourages Russians to take part in it.

Patriarch Kirill’s Position

There are plenty of examples of Patriarch Kirill's explicit or implicit support for the war. After the consecration of the Spassky Cathedral in Penza in June 2022, he declared that Russian soldiers in Ukraine are moved by a moral sense grounded in Orthodox faith, and that “our young men are defending Russia on the battlefield.” Whether there is any truth to the claim of “defending Russia” in a war waged inside Ukraine is easily answered by the facts above.

Patriarch Kirill also asserts that a “metaphysical battle” between good and evil is underway, in which Russia, he says, stands on the side of good – with the boundary between good and evil supposedly corresponding to national borders. This is an astonishing claim for an Orthodox theologian, compounded by his equally dubious statement that “Russia, in its history, has never attacked anyone.”

But the apogee of his “war theology” is perhaps the assertion that a soldier’s death on the battlefield washes away all his sins. His exact words: “He offers himself as a sacrifice for others. And therefore we believe that this sacrifice cleanses him of all sins he has committed.”

Following the start of Russia’s mobilization – essentially the conscription of ordinary civilians into death – Patriarch Kirill effectively called for participation and once again grounded his appeal in religious terms: “We are living in fateful times. And in such times we must renew our faith, sharpen our awareness and our memory, and reevaluate many things we used to view with indifference. This spiritual mobilization I now call everyone to will support the mobilization of all the forces of our Fatherland.”

But here’s the irony – today's Patriarch Kirill is refuted by none other than his former self. His own words of moral clarity are preserved in a document adopted with the full authority of the Russian Orthodox Church: “The Foundations of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”, approved by the ROC’s Bishops’ Council in the Jubilee Year 2000.

At that time, Kirill – then Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and head of the Department for External Church Relations – chaired the Synodal working group that drafted the concept.

The group consisted of 26 members: bishops, clergy, theological professors, and staff of Synodal departments. Metropolitan Kirill led and directed the group’s work, and the final document can rightly be considered his brainchild. At the Council, he presented a report highlighting the concept’s key positions – especially those in Chapter III: The Church and the State and Chapter VIII: War and Peace.

The Church and the state

So what did Metropolitan Kirill say about Church–state relations?

He began with a brief retrospective: “At the Bishops’ Council of 1992, it was declared that ‘The Church binds itself to no social or state system, nor to any political force.’”

Theoretically, that sounds right – but in practice, today’s ROC has bound itself completely to the ruling regime, including its actions in Ukraine.

Commenting on paragraph III.2, Metropolitan Kirill said: “It is very important to properly delineate the limits of state authority… The state must in no way become a self-sufficient institution. We know from history that such a tendency has appeared more than once – and we know the dangerous consequences it brings.”

Is such a tendency not glaringly present in today’s Russia? Are we not witnessing precisely those “dangerous consequences”?

On paragraph III.4, he remarked: “No matter the circumstances in which the Church serves, it must always rest on Christ’s commandments, the teaching of the apostles, and the holy canons – and thereby fulfill the tasks God has entrusted to it.”

Yet today, the ROC hierarchy repeatedly exhorts Russians to go to war. Whatever the impact on Ukrainians, the moral question remains: if a Russian takes inspiration from such messages, goes to war, and dies – does the ROC bear no responsibility? And how does this align with the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”?

Paragraph III.5 states: “If the authorities compel Orthodox believers to turn from Christ and His Church, or to engage in sinful, spiritually harmful acts, the Church must refuse obedience to the state… If obedience to state laws and directives is impossible for the Church as a whole, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, after due consideration, may take the following actions: enter into direct dialogue with the authorities on the issue; call on the people to use democratic mechanisms to change the law or government decision; appeal to international bodies and world public opinion; or call its flock to peaceful civil disobedience.”

It is absolutely clear that today’s situation is precisely such a case – where the state compels its citizens, including Orthodox Christians, to engage in “sinful, spiritually harmful acts.” Yet the Church hierarchy is silent. And certainly, no one is calling for “peaceful civil disobedience.”

The Foundations also address the issue in the section on Christian ethics and secular law. Presenting this section, Metropolitan Kirill said:
“Paragraph IV.9 marks a firm boundary for legal obedience, set by the Church for its faithful: ‘In all matters pertaining solely to earthly order, the Orthodox Christian must obey the law, regardless of its flaws or imperfections. But when a law endangers eternal salvation, requires apostasy, or compels grave sin against God or neighbor, the Christian is called to the struggle of confession – to stand for divine truth and the salvation of the soul. He must lawfully oppose such violation of God's commandments, and if lawful means are impossible or ineffective, he must take a stance of civil disobedience.’”

The following words, quoted by Metropolitan Kirill from the concept, deserve to be emblazoned on a banner and shown to the current Patriarch Kirill: “It is also stated that clergy and canonical Church structures cannot cooperate with the state in the following activities:… waging civil war or an aggressive foreign war.”

In other words, the ROC’s official doctrine explicitly states that the Church cannot cooperate with the state when it wages an aggressive foreign war.

And yet, the war in Ukraine is precisely that: an aggressive foreign war.

What do we see today? Priests across Russia blessing conscripts on their way to slaughter instead of speaking out in protest.

How can this be?

War and peace

A separate section of the Foundations of the Social Concept is devoted to the issue of war and peace. Remarkably, the document addresses only the concept of a "just war" – that is, when a nation or state is defending itself from aggression. Unjust, aggressive warfare is thus implicitly and unequivocally condemned.

Here are the words of Metropolitan Kirill from the report we've been quoting: “The section ‘War and Peace’ considers, from a Christian point of view, the notion of just war (paragraphs VIII.1–2). While pointing out the sinful causes of war and ‘recognizing it as evil, the Church nevertheless does not forbid its children from participating in military action when it comes to defending one’s neighbors and restoring trampled justice. In such cases, war is seen as an undesirable but at times necessary means.’”

Powerful and correct words. But can an attempt to conquer another country truly be called the “restoration of trampled justice”? Can the destruction of cities and villages across Ukraine be honestly justified as “defense of Donbas”? One would think every reasonable person already knows the answer.

Metropolitan Kirill also spoke about the methods of waging war: “The Church must also express its position on the methods of warfare – on the treatment of prisoners and of the enemy’s civilian population. Even while waging what may seem like a just war, one may commit great evil and prove to be no better than the aggressor in moral and spiritual stature.”

One may debate endlessly why so many Ukrainian cities have seen the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure by Russian bombardment. But recently, Russia has openly begun conducting large-scale strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, explicitly aiming to disable it. The ones left without light, heat, or water this winter won’t be the so-called “Nazi authorities” – but ordinary, peaceful Ukrainians.

Let us recall: “The Church must express its position on the methods of warfare and the treatment of the enemy’s civilian population.”

Has the Russian Orthodox Church issued any statement on this matter?

Metropolitan Kirill concludes his review of the “War and Peace” section with a quote on the Church’s peacemaking mission: “…The Church especially strives to carry out a ministry of peace – helping ‘to resolve conflicts and reconcile nations, ethnic groups, governments, and political forces – including by facilitating negotiations between warring parties and offering aid to those who suffer. The Church also opposes war propaganda, violence, and all expressions of hatred that can provoke fratricidal conflict.’”

Tragically, the ROC today does nothing to fulfill what is written in that paragraph. The Vatican, through Pope Francis, offers mediation for peace talks. Meanwhile, the ROC – whose own doctrine contains such appeals – has instead taken the side of the aggressor and provides it with spiritual cover.

Conclusion

In late October, the UOJ editorial office received a letter that read:
“Hello, I am from Russia. I’ve encountered a difficult situation. Our Patriarch justifies the war and calls for the killing of Ukrainians. But at services, his name is still commemorated, as is the local ruling bishop, who shares the same views and even traveled to occupied Donetsk and Luhansk. My confessor also supports these atrocities. What should I do? My moral and ethical compass cannot accept these positions. Because of this, I no longer want to go to church. Should I even attend the Liturgy when it’s served by clergy who justify murder?”

Perhaps such people are not the majority within the ROC, but they certainly exist. And this letter is a serious wake-up call. With time, many actions are seen in a completely different light.

The contradiction between Patriarch Kirill’s current position and the principles outlined in the Foundations of the Social Concept of the ROC – not to mention his own speech at the 2000 Bishops’ Council – is glaringly obvious. The only question is: Does the Patriarch himself realize this? Does he feel burdened by the current state of affairs?

In the end, the answers to such questions matter less than something more fundamental:

The future of the Russian Orthodox Church, and whether people continue to perceive it as the Church – rather than a branch of state power – will depend directly on whether it can live up to what is written in one of its most important official documents, confirmed by the Bishops’ Council.

And more than that – can the Church fulfill the Gospel commandments under today’s tragic and difficult circumstances? Can it call things by their proper names: sin – sin, and lawlessness – lawlessness?

Yes, doing so would amount to an act of confession. But is that not precisely what Metropolitan Kirill, and the very document he helped craft, call for? Here is the quote: “When obeying a law endangers eternal salvation, entails apostasy, or involves a clear and grievous sin against God or neighbor, the Christian is called to the feat of confession – for the sake of divine truth and the salvation of his soul unto eternal life.”

Will the Russian Orthodox Church today hear the call of then Metropolitan Kirill?