The arson of a UOC temple, or Once again about “free transitions” to OCU
In late September, supporters of the OCU burnt down a UOC church in Volyn. How is this arson related to the myth of “free transitions” from the UOC to the OCU?
On September 26, the Volodymyr-Volynsky Eparchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church reported a shocking incident: the arson of a church under construction in the village of Stari Koshary in the Kovel district.
The shock stems not only from the blatant arson of the church and the fact that such acts are inconceivable to any normal person, but also because this burnt church was built by a community that had already endured hardship.
The fact is that in 2019, representatives of the OCU seized the UOC believers' Church of St. John the Theologian in the village of Stari Koshary. They took it over it on Great Wednesday, the day Judas betrayed Christ, adding symbolic weight to their actions.
For this reason, we believe that the recent arson of the new church is not just a criminal act but a powerful symbol of the ongoing persecution faced by UOC believers.
No persecution?
Today, we constantly hear from the opponents of the UOC that there is no persecution of the Church in Ukraine. Moreover, Viktor Yelensky, head of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Religion (DESS), has repeatedly claimed that the level of religious freedom in Ukraine is among the highest in Europe.
However, the fact that the church in Stari Koshary was deliberately set on fire should be a red flag for all those who claim there is no persecution of the UOC.
The religious community, having already lost one church, united and managed to build a new one. You might think that the enemies of the Church would have calmed down, having seized the first church. But that wasn’t the case. Archpriest Andriy Khomych, the rector of the UOC community, reported that the suspect in the arson had been threatening the priest and the parishioners for a long time. Despite the believers warning the authorities and providing evidence of the threats, there was no response from law enforcement. In the end, the UOC Church of the Protection of the Holy Theotokos was burnt down...
For this reason, we believe this arson cannot be viewed as an isolated incident. No, it is part of a broader issue: UOC parishioners cannot rely on the laws or the Constitution of Ukraine applying to them. Nor do the norms of democracy or international law seem to protect them. And no matter how much OCU supporters claim that believers freely transfer to their jurisdiction, the truth is quite different.
The myth of free transitions
Representatives of the OCU often claim that UOC believers freely choose to join Dumenko's organization, which gained legal recognition in 2018.
We frequently hear that no one is forced to change jurisdiction, that all transitions are based on voting rights, and that the decision solely depends on the community's desire to move to the OCU.
We see how "meetings" and "votes" are held, where groups of people make the "natural decision" to join the "national" church. Then the media reports that a religious community "expressed the desire" to transfer to the OCU, often without the UOC priest.
To someone unfamiliar with the reality in Ukraine, it might seem like this is how it is – no persecution, pressure, threats or document falsification, just pure democracy and the "will of the community". But the events in Stari Koshary show a different picture.
The Orthodox Christians of this village did not want to join the OCU. Not at all. But let’s assume for a moment that some part of the community decided to take this step, and the church was seized almost legally. Let’s assume that. What do we see next?
The other part, namely those who refused to move to the OCU, remained loyal to their Church. They didn’t succumb to external pressure; they weren’t afraid of threats or accusations of "serving Moscow"; they simply built a new church.
However, the representatives of Dumenko, realizing that they could not "transfer" the new church to the OCU (since those who built it were not going to join the OCU), decided to simply burn it down. What does this tell us?
First, it shows that the "transitions" to the OCU are not as free as they are portrayed.
Second, even if part of a UOC community decides not to go anywhere, they will not be left in peace. People will live under constant threat, fearing attacks and facing open violence.
These things clearly show that many UOC communities in Ukraine don’t have real freedom of choice – either you "transfer" to the OCU or you’ll be burnt down. There’s no middle ground.
If the transition to the OCU were truly free, there would be no need for violence. However, we see the opposite: staying in the UOC in an atmosphere of violence and hatred requires great courage because those who make that choice are not left alone.
Conclusions
What kind of "free transitions" can we talk about in this case? Can you call a person’s decision "free" when their fingers are smashed with a crowbar (as during the seizure of the UOC church in Yurkivtsi), or when their legs are broken (as during the seizure of the UOC temple in Nosivka), or when their nose is broken (as they did to a UOC priest in the Tulchyn Eparchy), or when their throat is slashed (as they did to a UOC priest in Vinnytsia)?
Can you talk about a "free transition" of a UOC community to the OCU if crowbars, sledgehammers, grinders and battering rams are used to enforce this "freedom", and even when, after losing their church, the community decides to stay in the UOC and build a new one – it is simply set on fire? Where exactly is the "freedom" here? We will answer the question.
The "freedom" here is that some are allowed to do everything, while others are allowed nothing. That some Ukrainian citizens are considered first-class, while others are second-class. And that people who call themselves Christians, yet seize and burn churches, freely reject Christ.
