Kohanovska's Excommunication: What the Odessa Decree Left Unsaid
A conflict has arisen in the UOC over a decree by the Odessa Metropolitan excommunicating human rights defender Victoria Kohanovska from Holy Communion.
On the evening of Saturday, June 27, a scandal erupted in the UOC media sphere: the Odessa Diocese published a decree by Metropolitan Agafangel excommunicating human rights defender Victoria Kohanovska from Holy Communion.
Metropolitan Agafangel emphasized that the reason for the decree was "boorishness, loss of feminine dignity, malicious disrespect for the church hierarchy, the spreading of false rumors and unsubstantiated accusations, slander, degrading statements, blasphemy and insults directed at bishops, priests, deacons and monastics of the UOC," as well as "deliberate attempts to sow enmity between hierarchs and the faithful" and "provocative calls for the destruction of church order."
Kohanovska is a very prominent figure in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. She has represented dozens of UOC parishes in court and saved many of them from seizure. Victoria also actively defended the Lavra during the de facto seizure of the shrine by the state in 2023. For this, the authorities opened several criminal cases against the human rights defender, and during the defense of the Lavra she was even abducted by SBU officers. Thus, the excommunication of Kohanovska from Holy Communion should have had very compelling reasons. What were they?
What happened?
One of the spokespersons of the Odessa Diocese, Archdeacon Andrei Palchuk released a video in which he described the background of the conflict. After the celebration of His Beatitude's name day, V. Kohanovska published a post on Facebook accusing Metropolitan Agafangel of disrespect, since he had not personally come to Kyiv. In response, the diocesan press service stated that the Church has no practice of requiring ruling bishops to be present at celebrations, and that a vicar of Metropolitan Agafangel had arrived in the capital. Kohanovska herself was invited by the Odessa clergy to come to Odessa "to swim, calm her nerves, and attend a prayer service of exorcism."
On the evening of the same day, Kohanovska released a video claiming that Metropolitan Agafangel does not bless his faithful to support the Kyiv Metropolitanate in the courts, stated that "heresy, schism and strange 'blessings of autocephalists' are being bred in his diocese, and other metropolitans and patriarchs are being dragged through the mud," emphasized that he is not coping with his duties, and called on him to retire.
It must be noted here that the tone of the video was maximally boorish and in no way corresponded to the basic principles of Christian conduct. Orthodox Christians should not speak this way even about their elders in general, let alone about bishops.
And it was after this that the decree excommunicating Victoria Kohanovska from Holy Communion appeared.
Father Andrei explains: before signing the decree, Metropolitan Agafangel called His Beatitude Onufriy and asked whether Kohanovska had the blessing of the Kyiv Metropolitanate for her activities. The Primate replied that she had no such blessing, and advised taking no action against her — "to pay no attention to her," as Father Andrei conveyed. Metropolitan Agafangel disagreed with this advice and said that he was excommunicating her from Holy Communion. The Primate did not argue. This is an important point to which we will return.
Whose canons are more canonical?
Immediately after the decree, full-scale battles erupted online, in which some cited church rules in support of Metropolitan Agafangel's decree, while others cited them against it. So let us look at the arguments of both sides.
As justification for the excommunication, the Odessa bishop refers to the 55th Apostolic Canon and the 6th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council.
The 55th Apostolic Canon states: "If any one of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deprived. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people" (cf. Acts 23:5; Ex. 22:28).
Here two problems with applying this canon to Kohanovska are immediately apparent.
First: the canon is addressed to the clergy. "If any one of the clergy..." — the subject of the canon is explicitly named. The punishment is deprivation of rank, that is, a measure that in principle can only be applied to one who holds a rank. This is noted by both commentators and canonists: the 55th canon regulates the conduct not of a layperson, but exclusively of a clergyman or church minister.
Second: what does "insult" mean? The Greek ὑβρίσοι and the Slavonic "dosaditi" here do not mean "to cause mild irritation" in the modern sense. As explained in the commentaries, "to insult" means "to offend," "to blaspheme," "to slander," "to abuse." That is, the canon punishes gross verbal dishonor.
And this is precisely where the problem lies.
Kohanovska's rudeness and sharpness is one thing. But the opinion that an elderly bishop should retire is not slander or blasphemy. It is a value judgment that is constantly expressed within the Church itself about many bishops.
If every opinion, every disagreement with a bishop's decision or age, is to be classified as "insult" in the sense of the 55th canon, then the greater part of both clergy and laity would fall under this canon.
In other words, the mere fact of rudeness does not automatically entail the application of this particular canon. In terms of the subject (a layperson, not a cleric), the addressee (not "one's own" bishop), and the substance (disagreement, not blasphemy), the applicability of the 55th canon to this case is at the very least debatable.
The 6th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council. It is cited as the second basis. And here the discrepancy is even more obvious.
This canon regulates the procedure for receiving and examining accusations against a bishop. Its meaning is: not everyone may bring a church accusation against a bishop; the identity of the accuser must first be verified; the case itself must be examined by a church court.
The canon distinguishes between a private complaint (for example, regarding property or a personal grievance) and a church accusation. A private complaint may be accepted from anyone. But if it concerns a church accusation against a bishop, then the identity of the accuser is verified. Accusations are not accepted from heretics, the excommunicated, the condemned, or those who are themselves under accusation, until they have been cleared. The accuser must present the accusations to the bishops of the region and substantiate them with evidence. At the same time, the accuser agrees in writing to bear the same punishment if the accusation proves to be slander.
This is, in essence, all that the 6th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council addresses: the manner in which accusations against bishops are submitted and examined. But what does this have to do with justifying the excommunication of laywoman Victoria by a bishop? She did not formally file any accusations, did not demand that Bishop Agafangel be excommunicated from Holy Communion, there was no church court, and consequently no lawful punishment was imposed on her.
Thus, the "excommunication from church communion" in the decree is an independent disciplinary decision of the bishop, which does not derive from the canon he cites.
The question of jurisdiction
Here lies the greatest problem. Victoria Kohanovska is a parishioner of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. Consequently, she is under the omophorion of the Kyiv bishop, not the Odessa bishop.
Here the rules concerning the limits of diocesan authority come into play — the very rules that are least often recalled in such situations.
For example, the 2nd Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council: "The bishops of every diocese shall not extend their authority to churches beyond their own boundaries, nor confuse the churches."
The 13th Canon of the Council of Antioch: no bishop shall pass from one region to another, ordain anyone, or interfere in church affairs unless invited to do so.
The 22nd Canon of the Council of Antioch: a bishop shall not enter a foreign city not subject to him, nor interfere in its church affairs.
The picture that emerges is this: a bishop of one diocese applies a disciplinary penalty to a parishioner of another diocese. In itself, this raises the question of an excess of authority. However, in this case, as Father Andrei Palchuk states, Metropolitan Agafangel coordinated his decree with His Beatitude and informed him of his actions.
Therefore, from a canonical standpoint, the document of the Odessa bishop is not beyond reproach, but in the situation that has arisen, this is hardly the main problem. What, then, is the main one?
On certain features of the Odessa Diocese
The day after the scandal involving Kohanovska, an event occurred that would seem to have no connection to our story: an event was held at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Constitution of Ukraine. Zelensky, Stefanchuk, Poroshenko, Dumenko, Jews, Uniates, Catholics, Protestants and Muslims held yet another state event at the shrine seized from the UOC. And the head of the OCU even received an order from Zelensky's hands.
These are all people who are waging war against the Church, or with whose silent consent it has become possible today. And they gathered at the Lavra not by chance. The Orthodox monastery is for them like a trophy, a symbol of victory over the "Moscow priests."
Why are we writing about this now? Because the Odessa Diocese reported that the assistant to the rector of the cathedral, Archpriest Miroslav Vdodovich, participated in this event "at the invitation of the state." He himself showed footage with Dumenko, Zelensky and others beside whom he was seated. And he accompanied this with an unctuous, official commentary, from which it appeared that he had attended an important event in the company of the most worthy people. That is, an Odessa priest communicated with the persecutors of his Church and sees in this only cause for pride.
And for the Odessa Diocese, this is not an unfortunate misunderstanding — it is a pattern. Let us look at Odessa through the eyes of an ordinary believer.
Today the entire UOC is experiencing unprecedented persecution. Churches are being taken from us, priests are being beaten, criminal cases are being opened against clergy, and people are being humiliated simply for remaining faithful to their Church. Virtually every diocese today bears its own pain, and millions of parishioners live with a deep sense of injustice.
Against this backdrop, the Odessa Diocese looks entirely different.
Setting aside the recent case of the seizure of one of Odessa's churches — the first such case in all this time — one gets the impression that everything happening has barely touched the Odessa faithful. The problems that other dioceses face daily do not arise here; the persecution is not as severe as elsewhere. Priests are almost never detained on the streets, and diocesan projects continue to operate quietly.
More than 300 UOC churches across Ukraine have been fully or partially destroyed by shelling. But only the Odessa cathedral receives demonstrative patronage from the state. Only here, after a Russian missile strike, does the President arrive, along with ministers and foreign politicians. The diocese's clergy calmly receive them, conduct tours, communicate, and raise funds for restoration. And all the while, the authorities have never once recalled that the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa belongs to the "Moscow Church" and is under "spiritual occupation."
Nothing of the sort exists in any other diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is so unusual that people inevitably begin to ask why it is so.
In Odessa they say that all of this is thanks to Metropolitan Agafangel. That he has so wisely built relations with the authorities that everything in the diocese is calm: churches are not being taken, work continues, and everything is functioning.
But then another question inevitably arises. Does this mean that the other bishops were unable to do the same? Does it follow that His Beatitude Onufriy proved less far-sighted? That all the other bishops were less wise? Can it really be that only one bishop out of more than a hundred managed to find the right path, while the entire rest of the Church proved incapable of doing so?
It is unlikely that the diocese actually seeks to present the situation in precisely this way, but such statements inevitably lead to exactly these conclusions.
But people are not blind. They understand perfectly well that in today's Ukraine it is impossible to enjoy such exceptional loyalty from the state "for nothing."
And so the faithful begin to seek explanations on their own. When they see footage of priests alongside the persecutors of the Church, when they see clergy engaging in friendly communication with representatives of the OCU, when one of the clergy begins actively promoting the theme of autocephaly — which is extremely painful for the Church — people inevitably form a certain picture. They begin to connect all these facts and draw the conclusion that the diocese's special position has been made possible through certain arrangements with the authorities. That the diocese's clergy are doing what the authorities today find pleasing — for example, "going after" pro-Moscow bishops and pushing the idea of autocephaly.
Some even claim that Metropolitan Agafangel only nominally leads the diocese, while the real power lies with a "media wing" connected to the SBU. Of course, all of this may be nothing more than absurd speculation. But there are formal grounds for it. Why does the Odessa Diocese alone, of all the UOC, have such close ties with the state? Why does Father Andrei Palchuk travel to "pro-autocephaly" bishops and publicly criticize those who hold different views?
Such questions are asked by a great many people "around the kitchen table." But they dare not voice them aloud. Kohanovska, however, is accustomed to saying what she thinks — and in a sharp and, in this case, rude manner. It is simply that when she addressed representatives of the OCU in this way, we did not notice it. And now Victoria has begun to communicate in exactly the same manner with the clergy of the UOC.
Was it worth responding with excommunication? Was it necessary to "declare war"? Perhaps it would have been better simply to consistently set out one's position and demonstrate that she is wrong and behaving badly?
The Church is expected to show mercy, not vengeance
In 2012, a scandal occurred in Moscow: girls from the group Pussy Riot performed a blasphemous "punk prayer service" on the ambo of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, singing the song "Mother of God, Drive Putin Away." As the participants later said, their action was a critique of the close relationship between the ROC and the state.
For this event they received real prison sentences, in which the ROC bore considerable "responsibility," having taken a rather hard line toward Pussy Riot at the time. Patriarch Kirill stated that "the Church has sufficient strength to forgive... but forgiveness must not be perceived as encouragement of the act." According to him, the action was a "battle test" of the position that "the Orthodox will endure anything," which must not be allowed. The then-head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, stated that the action was "a grave sin" and that "Christians must not tolerate blasphemy."
Was the ROC right in such an assessment? It was — Pussy Riot did indeed commit blasphemy. But here is the paradox: the authority of the Russian Church in society suffered greatly from this story. For example, DDT frontman Yuri Shevchuk said that "this is not the Orthodox way."
Why? Because people subconsciously expect from the Church not justice, not the letter of the law, but mercy. Simply because that is how Christ acted.
A "Holy War" within the UOC
Metropolitan Agafangel's decree provoked a genuine confrontation within the UOC. One hierarch calls the human rights defender a "hysteric" and a "shrew," another calls her "Moscow's agent" and "an inadequate person," a third says that Kohanovska "is actively discrediting our Church." The human rights defender's supporters apply even harsher labels to her opponents.
The level of tension is rising. And this whirlpool is drawing in ever more participants, even those who do not wish to be involved. For example, Father Andrei Palchuk stated that Kohanovska had, contrary to Metropolitan Agafangel's decree, nonetheless been given Holy Communion, naming the Vvedensky Monastery. In doing so, the archdeacon indirectly drew the abbot of the monastery, Archbishop Damian, into the conflict. However, according to the UOJ's information, this does not correspond to reality: Victoria was indeed given Holy Communion in Kyiv, but at an entirely different church. Nevertheless, the information has already been "spread" across social media.
One of the bishops is actively hinting that behind Kohanovska in the UOC episcopate allegedly stands a patron who needs to be removed. And everyone can guess who is meant. But again, there is no confirmation for such claims. And Kohanovska herself, instead of repenting, is launching a new wave of attacks against Odessa, accusing it of interfering in the affairs of the Zaporizhzhia Diocese. The tension grows with each passing day. And this at a time when the pressure on the Church is not easing, but only intensifying.
How ambiguous the situation is can be seen even from the reaction of the UOJ's own readers on Telegram. About 1,100 people participated in the channel's poll — and the overwhelming majority spoke out against the excommunication. Only a few approved it: 7% felt that Kohanovska's statements harm the Church, and another 14% felt that a layperson has no right to lecture bishops in a boorish tone.
The rest were against it. The most votes — 35% — went to the answer that is, in essence, the central nerve of this entire story: such a step could become the cause of a new conflict within the Church.
This is also addressed by the lawyer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate, Archpriest Nikita Chekman, in an alarming message in which he calls on the episcopate, clergy and faithful to put an end to divisions and conflicts.
"Today, when our Church is going through difficult times, mutual love, humility and unity are needed as never before. We must learn to ask forgiveness and to forgive one another. For it is precisely division that the enemy of the human race seeks. Any internal conflicts only weaken us and bring joy to those who wish our Church harm," writes Father Nikita.
And here it is worth returning to the conversation between His Beatitude Onufriy and Metropolitan Agafangel, in which the Primate urged him not to react to Kohanovska and not to take any action. Did this appeal mean that Metropolitan Onufriy approved of her boorishness? Or that he did not respect the episcopal dignity of the Odessa Metropolitan? Certainly not. His Beatitude simply knew that such actions would lead only to an outburst of emotions, polarization and division. And he was not mistaken.
But there is yet another important aspect to the situation surrounding this telephone conversation: in effect, Bishop Agafangel disregarded the opinion and counsel of His Beatitude. We do not write that he "disregarded the will" of the Primate, but it amounts to approximately the same thing.
What is to be done?
This article was not written to assign blame. In such stories, everyone is sincerely convinced that they are defending the Church — the metropolitan who signed the decree, the human rights defender herself, and those who rushed to argue on social media. The trouble is that our righteous anger and our sense of being right too often work not for the Church, but against it.
Because the Church is not simply a community of like-minded people that can be strengthened by punishing a dissenter. It is the Body of Christ. And there are forces that seek its destruction at any cost — from without: seizing churches, opening criminal cases, beating priests. But most terrible of all is when these forces receive assistance from within. When we ourselves, without noticing it, become the very instrument of discord that the enemy seeks.
Let us recall: after the strike on the Lavra, His Beatitude was again reproached — they said he was silent again, that he "only prays" again. But is this not precisely true pastoral wisdom? Today, when war is being waged and the Church is being destroyed, every word we speak must be examined under a microscope, for "we cannot foresee how our word will resound." And if there is no certainty that it will resound with love, it is better to remain silent.
Metropolitan Onufriy understood this when he advised not to respond to Kohanovska — not because he approved of her sharpness, but because he knew what the response would bring. And he was not mistaken.
Repentance was expected of Kohanovska; prudence was expected of Odessa. But louder than either of these today rings precisely what the enemies of the Church set out to achieve: that we strike our own. And while we are striking — they are winning.
