“Howling at the moon” instead of prayers, or why’re UOC clergy joining OCU?
Vasyl Levchenko, a priest from the Bukovyna Eparchy of the UOC, has moved to the OCU. What motivated him to make such a decision?
A few days ago, it became known that a UOC priest from Bukovyna, Vasyl Levchenko, joined the OCU. Shortly after, an interview with him appeared, where he explained the reasons for his decision to leave the Church. Earlier, a “confession” by another UOC priest surfaced online, in which he admitted that he had been internally ready to shift to the OCU for a long time but had not done so because of his family. These two examples are so revealing that we feel it is necessary to draw attention to them.
The “Ukrainian Church” and serving the people
So, the first question the journalist asked Vasyl Levchenko during the interview was about the reasons for his transition from the UOC to the OCU. Briefly, it should be recalled that a priest cannot, without the blessing of his ruling bishop, not only transfer to another Church but even simply change parishes. This is what Church canons say, and this is what future priests pledge to adhere to during the so-called “novitiate oath”. Violating this promise is unequivocally classified as schism. Only if the higher hierarchy falls into heresy does a priest have the right to break communion with it and change jurisdiction. So, what did Levchenko say when asked about the reasons for leaving the UOC for the OCU? Did he refer to the fact that Metropolitan Meletiy (his ruling bishop) was a heretic or that the UOC leadership was committing lawlessness, trampling on Christ's teachings?
No. He responded that he "wanted to finally be part of the Ukrainian Church and work for his people without the label of being a 'Moscow priest'". It’s worth noting that, in explaining such a significant decision in his life, the priest reduces everything to the idea of "Ukrainianness". He needs a "Ukrainian Church" rather than Christ’s Church, nothing more.
The second reason was to rid himself of the label "Moscow priest". Here, it might be worth reminding the former UOC priest that Christians have always been labelled. They were called a "Jewish sect", "infant eaters", "atheists", "bigots", etc. One can assume that many Christians, giving up their faith in God, claimed they wished to be free of such unpleasant "labels". But many more chose to live with Christ and walk the path to Golgotha.
Levchenko went on to explain that when he was in the UOC, he tried to "bring the word" to people or be close to them, but he constantly had to "justify" himself as being from a "not fully Ukrainian Church" while he was "Ukrainian" himself. He described this as an "internal schizophrenia", which was "very exhausting" because the energy required for his priestly duties was spent on explaining that he was "one of them", not a "representative of the fifth column". That’s why he decided to join the OCU.
In this passage, Levchenko made what is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip" because his words vividly illustrate the core issue for those who leave the UOC for the OCU: instead of fulfilling their priestly duties, they devote all their energy to proving they are "one of them". The entire activity of such people becomes an attempt to prove something to someone. They don’t want to (and thus don’t know how to) truly pray, simply serve the Divine Liturgy or preach the Gospel (not with words, but through action). They don’t want to, because they always feel as though they could be accused of being part of the "fifth column", that they are "not one of them". This is indeed a kind of schizophrenia that prevents these people from going to Christ and being true priests.
As a result, as we see, such an important step in Levchenko's life was pushed not by religious or doctrinal motives. He has no claims to the UOC in terms of dogmatic theology or ascetic practice. He recognises the Sacraments of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its gracefulness and salvation mission. And it is all the more surprising that Levchenko speaks about his ban, which from the canonical point of view should be recognised as valid, with a sneer, chuckling at the wording and bragging that he ‘has not even read’ it. That is, as we can see, he is simply deeply indifferent to everything that concerns real church issues – only politics and “serving the people”, not God.
A "confession" of a priest
Equally revealing was the "confession" of an unknown UOC priest who wants to join the OCU but cannot. This priest explains that his wife, his brothers (who are also UOC priests), and even his elderly mother (a nun in the world) are categorically against such a step. He openly writes that this transition could destroy his family because his wife is firmly opposed to it. However, the priest himself admits that he has wanted to join the OCU for several years. He says there are numerous reasons "that prevent you from doing what your conscience has been telling you to do for a long time". At this point, we might expect the UOC cleric to tell us what is happening in his Church that his Christian and pastoral conscience cannot tolerate. It’s logical to think he would be referring to serious violations of the rules of life in Christ, Church canons, dogmas or something directly related to the Church.
But instead, we read that his conscience reacts to entirely different things unrelated to the Gospel. What holds him in the UOC is "not a ban from the priesthood" but... his family. This is a significant argument, no doubt. But does it have justification from the perspective of the Gospel? Of course not. Because Christ clearly says who should be loved more than family and loved ones. On the other hand, if this priest had said that he could no longer serve in the UOC because the hierarchs had turned away from God, ceased to be Christians, and fallen into the deepest heresies, could he have remained in such a "church", even if his family was against it? Probably not. Which means the UOC is the Church of Christ (and that’s why he remains in it), and his conscience is not rebelling against doctrinal errors, but against something entirely unrelated to Christianity.
Indeed, he does not present a single Church-related argument to explain his desire to leave for the OCU. At the same time, all the reasons keeping him in the UOC are also not Church-related: his wife would go to their dean for Communion, stop preparing food according to the new style during Lent, and not celebrate the feasts, etc. You’d agree, if a person were striving for truth, all these "difficulties" could be endured. So again, the issue is not about truth but something entirely different. In the end, the priest confesses that he and others like him "quietly howl at the moon in the evenings when everyone is asleep". In other words, instead of praying, they prefer to act in this way. Strange, isn’t it?
What is life in the Church and why you shouldn't "howl at the moon"?
The example of Levchenko and the "confession" of the unknown priest vividly illustrate how personal and political ambitions can overshadow spiritual values. However, a Christian always places faith first. Politics, social status, material wealth, patriotic feelings, etc., should never influence the spiritual choices of Christ’s follower. On earth, he seeks the most important thing: peace with God and with his neighbour. Anything that contradicts this primary goal must be set aside. Yet, at the moment, Dumenko's supporters are doing everything to make their "church" bear the mark of an aggressive, non-Christian organisation, using violence against UOC believers and its temples. But what does Christ have in common with Belial? How can one "combine" the Liturgy with breaking into a church using crowbars and grinders, or the Jesus Prayer with the words "death to enemies"? UOC believers do not and will not understand this, while in the OCU such actions provoke neither resistance nor surprise.
The priests and laity who have remained loyal to the UOC say that life in the Church is, first and foremost, participation in the Liturgy, prayer, humility and service to God. They do not prioritize personal well-being, try to please the world or seek political self-assertion or self-determination. For them, being with Christ is more valuable than being with the world.
At the same time, many of those who defected to the OCU did so not out of love for God but to avoid pressure from the authorities, to secure more comfortable living conditions or to appease worldly leaders. However, the Gospel clearly states: "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). A person cannot serve both God and earthly rulers, strive for spiritual purity while seeking an easy life. The transition to the OCU is the choice of those who seek worldly benefits, not those who are willing to serve God, even under the current difficult circumstances.
We know that there will always be people in the Church who are ready to betray their faith for personal gain. History is full of examples of the clergy who abandoned their faith for earthly benefits or political preferences. But such individuals have always been a minority, and the Church itself has always remained faithful to Christ, despite the traitors.
At the same time, the willingness to betray one's flock and the Church for political reasons is a clear example of how personal ambitions and "internal schizophrenia", coupled with a lack of prayer, can erase spiritual values from life.
Ultimately, the examples of these two priests once again confirm that the desire to move to the OCU indicates that a person is more interested in worldly goods, politics, and the "needs of the moment" than in spiritual life. And we can only advise them: instead of "howling at the moon in the evenings", pick up a prayer book.
