What will happen if the Verkhovna Rada bans the UOC
While bill № 8371 is put on hold, which could end at any moment. How events may unfold if it is still passed? Let’s discuss.
In the article “Why Haven’t the Authorities Banned the UOC Yet?”, we analyzed the difficulties the government is facing while trying to pass bill № 8371 on UOC ban, as well as what they are doing to overcome these obstacles. To understand the logic of the developments, we should answer the question: why do the authorities need to ban the UOC?
Why ban the UOC?
The inconsistency of official narratives that the UOC is subordinate to the ROC and is a fifth column is now obvious. Even those who fervently call for fighting "Moscow priests" understand that the facts contradict this narrative. "Moscow priests" cannot pray for the preservation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, cannot bless believers to join the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, cannot raise money for cars, ammunition, and other necessities for our soldiers on the front line.
The UOC is not governed by Moscow and adopts official documents that directly contradict the ROC's positions. Therefore, the thesis that the UOC should be banned to eliminate Moscow's influence is incorrect.
When back in 2018, P. Poroshenko initiated the creation of the OCU, those in power were confident that they would succeed in a "blitzkrieg" and that by rough but decisive actions they would compel all Ukrainian denominations calling themselves Orthodox to unite into one structure, controlled by the state and fulfilling the will of the authorities. But it didn't work out. For over five years, despite all the deprivations, pressure from the authorities and activists, violence, threats, and defamation in the media, the UOC has been stubbornly unwilling to join the OCU.
The UOC's arguments that the Church cannot unite with schismatics simply at the whim of those in power, that canonically ordained bishops cannot unite with anathematised impostors are incomprehensible to the authorities. They view the Church as a social organisation. But it is already clear to state officials that it will not be possible to unify the UOC and the OCU. Everything has gone too far. Apart from arguments about the canonical insolvency of the OCU, there are a lot of wounds, insults, temple seizures and other unsightly actions on the part of this organisation.
A great deal of hatred and malice has been poured out on UOC believers. The OCU has very clearly revealed its essence. Thus, the thesis to ban the UOC so that it finally unites with the OCU is also wrong.
Incorrect is the thesis, which logically follows from the previous ones, that the UOC ban is necessary to consolidate Ukrainian society. Over the past years, it has become clear that persecution against the UOC does not unite but divides society.
What is left then? Why do the authorities still strive to ban the UOC?
Firstly, there is the inertia of state decisions and the unwillingness or inability of the authorities to admit their mistakes. Perhaps, if in 2018 the authorities had known that there would be no "blitzkrieg" to unite confessions, that it would lead to what we are witnessing now, and, most importantly, that Poroshenko would not be able to win the elections by riding on the church issue, they would not have played this card. But having said "a", it is very difficult not to say "b". It is not customary to admit one's political mistakes; the legacy of the Soviet Union has not yet been eradicated. The state keeps pressing on the Church, despite the futility of these efforts. But that is not the main thing.
Secondly, the authorities need not the result, but the process. Such a process that can be activated or slowed down. The fight against the country's largest denomination is is an information occasion that is capable of overshadowing other news, redirecting society's attention from other problems to the fight against "Moscow priests."
On the one hand, the Church is defenceless enough (at least that's what the authorities think) to offer strong resistance, which means that it can be fought with impunity. On the other hand, it is numerous and influential enough to make it look really large-scale.
Therefore, the authorities will pump up the church issue in order to hide their own failures in the economy, domestic politics or on the front behind this media event.
A probable reason for another attack on the Church is a possible truce in the war, which Ukraine is being pushed towards by influential forces in the West, and with which a part of Ukrainian society, and the most active part, categorically disagrees. If the authorities negotiate a ceasefire, they will need to divert the public's attention and redirect its discontent in another direction. The Church is perfect for this purpose.
In any case, the authorities demonstrate a consumerist attitude towards the Church, believing that they can solve their own problems at its expense. But the Church as a whole and each believer individually must maintain a different view of the Church: it is the Body of Christ, joining which one can reach the eternal Heavenly Kingdom with God.
Now let's consider the potential further developments of the situation if the authorities still decide to pass bill № 8371 banning the UOC. We’ll start with the least probable scenarios.
Scenario No. 1: The UOC will be taken off the firing line
There is no mention of the UOC in bill № 8371. The scheme of its ban under this bill is described in detail in the article "Shmyhal Bill: Banning the UOC in 4 Moves". In brief, the scheme boils down to first banning in Ukraine the activities of RF-governed religious organisations and then recognising the UOC as such an organisation.
The authorities may well decide to do the first and not the second, at least for now. The fact that already one religious expertise of the Ministry of Culture's DESS has already recognised the UOC as part of the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church does not matter, as it was conducted before the adoption of Bill № 8371.
The new expertise may have approximately the following wording: "No facts confirming that the UOC has a governing centre in Russia have been found at the moment". That is, the UOC is not banned in Ukraine.
There may be several favourable moments for the authorities in such a scenario. Firstly, the tension in society is relieved. Secondly, the claims of Western partners in infringement of freedom of religion are removed. Thirdly, this does not mean the end of persecution and pressure on the Church. After all, "facts confirming that the UOC has a governing centre in the Russian Federation" can be revealed at any convenient moment.
Additionally, all actions by activists regarding church seizures, unpunished physical violence and unlawful transfers of temples to the OCU may continue, as well as the "liberation" of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and the campaign to discredit the UOC in the media.
The reason to consider this scenario unlikely but possible is given by the words of V. Yelensky, the DESS head, who stated that the state does not demand from the UOC "neither change of calendar nor liturgical language, nor joining another church, nor declaration of autocephaly. The only requirement is to break ties with the Moscow Patriarchate."
Such a rupture, namely the rupture of administrative ties, while preserving eucharistic unity, took place at the Council of the UOC in Feofaniya on 27 May, 2022. The authorities may consider this a sufficient basis for recognising the independence of the UOC, perhaps with some reservations of their own.
Scenario №2: Joining another Local Church
In the event of a ban, the UOC may convene another Council and decide to go under the omophorion of some other Local Church, such as the Polish, Romanian or Bulgarian Church. Such a decision may be accompanied by formulations like "temporarily", "based on the circumstances", and so on. Theoretically, this should alleviate the authorities' claims against the UOC regarding ties with the ROC, but it has already been mentioned that these claims are not the real reason for the persecution.
This scenario is also unlikely, like the previous one. Firstly, it may cause even greater canonical confusion. The ROC certainly will not consent to such an option, meaning that the Local Church that accepts the UOC under its omophorion may face a break of Eucharistic communion and other unpleasant consequences. Some Local Churches may recognize this, while others may not.
Secondly, as a consequence, it will hinder the overall pan-Orthodox dialogue, which the Jerusalem Patriarchate and authoritative hierarchs from other Local Churches are trying to establish (so far unsuccessfully).
Thirdly, it may introduce division within the UOC itself. Some may agree to such a transition, while others may not.
Fourthly, UOC eparchies in some regions may declare that they "moved to the wrong Church". For example, if they join the Polish Church, Romanian communities in the Chernivtsi-Bukovyna Eparchy may declare that they want to join the Romanian Church.
However, if the UOC is faced with the alternative of either a complete ban, expulsion from all temples and monasteries, deprivation of property, and transitioning into an illegal position with the threat of criminal prosecution, or going under the omophorion of a Local Church with all the risks described above, then such a scenario may well be implemented.
Scenario №3: Continued Resistance = Confession
If we recall the early centuries of Christianity, during times of persecution, the Church had no opportunity to seek refuge under someone's omophorion or prove within the framework of a religious expertise that it posed no threat to the national security of the Roman Empire of that time. The Church had only one choice: to cease its existence or to continue living, relying on the will of God.
The Church did not devise strategies to get out of the situation, did not engage in long-term planning; it simply lived day by day.
Every day it suffered hardships, some believers were seized and thrown into prison, some were tortured to death, some were deprived of their property, and so on. But the rest of the Christians lived on, believing in Jesus Christ, gathered for worship and followed God's commandments. And there came a day when persecution ceased.
Today, such a scenario looks the most likely. The ban on the UOC is a very lengthy process consisting of many stages. First, it is necessary to pass bill № 8371, then to conduct a religious expertise and declare that the UOC is governed from Moscow, then to demand that the UOC to eliminate all ties with the ROC, then to take the case to court and so on. Moreover, this must be done in relation to each church community, each monastery and educational institution. At each stage, there will be appeals, legal disputes, appeals to courts and law enforcement agencies. For every attempt to seize a temple, there will be an attempt by believers to defend it.
All this will be accompanied by appeals to international human rights organizations and attempts to prove to society that the Church does not threaten national security but rather strengthens it. The Church will live and resist unlawful and unjust actions against itself within the framework of the law but by all available means.
During persecutions in ancient times, despite the biased attitude of society at that time, both among the common people and the elite, the Church constantly tried to prove its innocence. Church apologists wrote philosophical treatises, letters to the emperor, in which they explained their faith and their right to profess it. On the interpersonal level, pagans saw the pious life of Christians and gradually abandoned their prejudices.
At the legal level, Christians also tried to appeal to the judicial and administrative system of the Roman state.
By the way, a significant support in defending their rights was the position of Roman legislation, according to which an accuser, if unable to prove their accusation, received the same punishment as was provided for the charges they made.
If only now, for the inability to prove accusations against the UOC of collaboration with the FSB, the accusers would receive a sentence under the article of "treason". Such charges would immediately be null and void.
The Church will act similarly today. Apostle Peter gave such instructions to Christians who were unjustly persecuted: "Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil..." (1 Peter 3:13-17).
It is worth paying particular attention to the words about responding with gentleness to everyone who demands an account from us (Christians). This is said not so much about those who are interested in Christianity, but about those who make claims against the Church, i.e., its enemies. Apostle Peter says that we also need to calmly and wisely explain to them what our faith consists of and why we behave in this way and not otherwise. The position of "it's useless to say anything to them and prove anything" is understandable from a human point of view, but it is not shared by either the Holy Scripture or the experience of the ancient Church. So, we are destined to respond to malicious attacks with calm explanation of our position and to respond to evil with kindness and prayer.
Our main strength lies in our faithfulness to God and in the unity of the Church. As long as we are united, as long as our enemies have not managed to divide us into warring parties, as long as we realize ourselves as the true Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church, we cannot be defeated.
