Vladimir Legoyda, Chairman of the Department for Society and Relations with the Mass Medias of the Russian Orthodox Church
Interview with Vladimir Legoyda, the Head of the Russian church’s
Synodal Department for Church, Society and Media Relations claims that
the Moscow Patriarchate is not dominated by Putin and expresses
gratitude for the discretion of the Pope and the Holy See in the face of
recent intra-Orthodox controversies: “There was not a single comment
from the Roman Catholic Church that would interfere or make the
situation worse”
No Orthodox Church has so far offered certificates of
recognition to the new independent ecclesiastical structure established
in Ukraine before the recent presidential elections. And this is a sign
that the process of recognition of an Ukrainian “autocephalous” Church,
independent from the Moscow Patriarchate, does not benefit from the
“orthodox consensus”. This is why a new pan-Orthodox meeting is needed
to untie the knots of a crisis that is making the entire Orthodox
suffer. These are the Moskow Patriarchate’s wishes regarding the
“Ukraine case” exposed in the following interview by Vladimir Legoyda,
Journalist, professor in the Department of International Literature and
Culture at Mgimo (Moscow State Institute for International Relations),
Legoyda is the Chairman of the Department for Society and Relations with
the Mass Medias of the Russian Orthodox Church. Born in 1973 in
Kostanay (Kazakhstan), married, he has two daughters and a son.
Five Months after the formation of a new Orthodox Church in Ukraine, how do you see the situation?
«We see all the process, as an uncanonical way of dealing
with the situation in Ucraine. In terms of inter-orthodox relations,
Ukraine is definitely a part of the canonical territory of the Russian
Orthodox Church, and nobody has questioned this fact, including The
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The situation changed in
april 2018, and without any understandable reason to the Orthodox world.
We have to realize that the idea of canonical territory was the basis
of inter-orthodox relations: we can discuss many things, there are
different unsolved problems in interorthodox relations, but one thing is
absolutely clear: the idea of canonical territory and the fact that
nobody can interfere in the canonical territory of another Church, and
this is what happened: an interference in our canonical territory.
Now we still claim that in Ukraine there is only one
canonical Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). We have almost
100 bishops in UOC. Before there were rumors that when Constantinople
would establish this new “Church” half of them, or one third, or one
fourth of them would move in the new Church, But only two of them
decided to move, and only two did so far».
And what about the parishes?
«The parishes of the canonical church are 12000. After
december 15th, only 60 parishes had moved( qui sarebbe meglio da
..verso..), the majority of them under the pressure of nationalistic
groups. And in these cases, their move has nothing to do wih the real
spiritual life of the parishes. All the problems in Ukraine were created
by political power. We hope, first of all, that they will stop the
pressing on priests in the near future. Another important thing: the
Rada (Ukrainian Parliament), before the elections, expressed the will to
implement the law that our Church has to change its name, going by the
name of “Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine”. This is a nonsens; The
Ukrainian Orthodox Church is an autonomous Church that consists of
ukrainian citizens, not russian citizens. Even the charter of Russian
Orthodox Church stays that the center of the Ukrainian Church is Kiev,
not Moscow».
Vladimir Zelensky was elected as new
President of Ukraine. What does his election mean in the light of the
issue of this ecclesial struggle?
«Our main concern and our main hope is that the new
political ream will stop the pressure on the UOC, its priests and
parishes. Patriarch Kirill ,in his address to the newly elected
president Zelensky ,said that «I sincerely hope for the end of the
sorrowful period of persecution and discrimination against the Ukrainian
citizens who belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church»
How can this crisis be solved? Do you think there is a valid “exit strategy” to find a break through in the current situation?
«This is a canonical problem, and for this we need some
kind of pan-orthodox discussion. This is the only correct way. And other
orthodox Churches are supporting the idea of a pan-orthodox meeting to
face the situation in Ukraine: Serbian Church, Albanian Church,
Bulgarian Church. Polish Church, Anthiochian Greek Orthodox Church... I
don’t see another way to solve the problem. I hope the Ecumenical
Patriarch understands that. When I say there is only one canonical
orthodox Church in Ukraine, this is not the opinion of the Russian
orthodox Church: up to now, none of the orthodox Churches recognized the
new so called Ukranian Church, nobody congratulated the new elected
head of new “Church” sending a simple letter of courtesy, and this is a
vivid example of the real attitude in the Orthodox world. There is the
orthodox consensus on this issue. It is a fact, and a very important
fact».
One can think: let’s just wait, Time will heal the problem.
«This is not a theoretical problem. This is not a dispute
involving only some ecclesiastical cyrcles, The Ecumenical Patriarch,
the Patriarch of Moscow, and so on. The spiritual life of millions of
people is involved, and the same theme is with the schismatics of the so
called Kiev Patriarchate. It is question of whether you have religious
life or you don’t.
Filaret was a schismatic. And Patriarch Bartholomew also
recognized he was as a schismatic. Then, suddenly, he said: now we
forgive him. And nobody actually said anything about his status. Filaret
started declaring: I am still the Patriarch, and the next day he said:
inside Ukraine I am the Patriarch, and outside I am not the Patriarch…
It is absurd, a canonical nonsens. The people are tired of this
situation».
What about the results affecting the spiritual-sacramental life?
«You know we don’t recognize any sacraments celebrated
within the structures of schismatics. In those structures, some people
put some clothes and say “I am a priest now”. The faithful probably
don’t know all the details and implication of the situation, but they
suffer. And they understand they are sufffering for political
ambitions».
There where no bloody clashes up to now. It seems that the people of God are wiser than ecclesiastical-hierarchical elites.
«If you compare the situation with 1992, when there were
bloody clashes, yes, it is not yet like that. But if they keep pushing
and try to take over churches, who can guarantee that nothing will
occure in the future? A famous Ukrainian boxer, Usik, declared: if they
come to take my Lavra, I will defend my monks. People are thretened,
this is the reality. There was no bloodshed yet, but the situation is
not OK. And regarding the conflict in the eastern part of the country,
we see that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church can be today the only
pacemaker».
The Moscow Patriarchate diserted the
Pan-Orthodox Council at Crete. According to many observers, this was an
historical mistake, and Moscow Patriarchate lost the opportunity to find
shared solutions for the interorthodox problems….
«I would’t describe all this in terms of “mistake”. We were
planning to go to Crete. Tickets were bought. We were ready. What’s
happended? Several Churches said that they could not go. It was not
Russian Church behind this decision. This was related with
inter-orthodox problems. In that situation, we wrote to the Ecumenical
Patriarch an official letter from our Synod saying that since we were
talking about a pan-orthodox meeting, all the 14 Autocephalos Churches
needed to be present. We wrote this letter 2 or 3 weeks before the
Council, when it was clear that not all of them would be present. We
wrote: let’s get togheter, on some kind of High level meeting, discuss
that situation and let’s solve this problem, so that all the Churches
will come. We did not get a proper answer. I perfectly realize that in a
situation where the long time of preparation, almost sixty years
waiting this meeting… but the main idea was not just to get together,
but to get all the chirches together. So, how could we go? It wouldn’t
be a pan-orthodox meeting, and it wasn’t. Nevertheless, We don’t see
this as a dramatic, or more, tragic situation. It was a working
situation. We did have time to find a solution. In every case, it is not
true that we could take advantage and discuss at the Council of Crete,
problems like the Ukrainian situation, The agenda was set, and the idea
was not to bring other issues in the agenda».
The Moscow Patriarchate cut sacramental
communion with Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate
didn’t make the same regarding the Moscow Patriarchate. Don’t you see
the risk to use sacraments as weapons in ecclesiastical disputes
regarding jurisdiction problems?
I don’t think you can say we cut the eucharist communion
with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Our Synod said: we don’t see how it is
possible to continue being in communion, in this new situation. We
didn’t cut, we have just said that we are in a new situation now, and we
have to admit that after what happened in Ukraine we can no longer
continue the eucharistic, liturgical communion. In other words, de facto
they broke liturgical communion, we just stated the fact,. Maybe they
didn’t say they cut. Patriarch Bartholomew continues to commemorate
Patriarch Kirill, but those are words. As when you do something very bad
to someone, and then you continue to say: oh, you are still my friend…
What do you think of the attitude of Pope Francis and the Holy See towards this intra- orthodox conflict?
«We do appreciate that, as far as I can see it, the Pope
and the Holy See understand the whole situation and how difficult it is.
And there was not a single comment from the Roman Catholic Church that
would interfere or make the situation worse. We are grateful for that».
Ecclesial life can be transformed into a
struggle of power, in order to affirm its own supremacy with political
skills. does it seem so?
«Theoretically, there is always this risk for every Church,
not only for the Russian orthodox Church in the contemporary world,
when the religious as such is becoming more and more important. Thirty
years ago religion as topic was not as important as now in international
relations. Now it is getting more and more towards the centre of this
political and social life. This has to do with the end of bipolar
international system».
What do you mean?
«You know, after the crash of the Soviet Union there were
talks of such flavour: Now, we’ll have the happy life, now the life will
be predictable, we will have a bright and peaceful future. Nothing of
what people expected came. And it turned out that there is no some kind
of ideal, of ideological essence towards international relations and
political life. So the governments, and political forces are looking for
some ideas in religion. It is a fact. We can look it differently, but
this is a fact. Religion is getting more and more important. That is why
it is a temptation».
A temptation also in Russia…
«I would say this is something that really bothers me: when
I see how the media describing the relation between Russian Church and
Russian State… These descriptions are always so far from the reality.
Because the reality is that the Russian Orthodox Church, in its entire
one thousand years History, has never been so free from the State as it
is now. I am not speaking only about the Soviet period. Even before, the
Russian Church was very much dependent on the State».
Russian media narrates everyday contacts, meetings and good relations between President Putin and Patriarch Kirill.
«If we say we are independent we mean that our inner life
is autonomous. And this was not possible before, not only at the time of
the Soviet Union. We do treasure this situation. And at the same time
we don’t interfere in the political life. We don’t do politics, because
the centre of political life is struggle for political power, And
Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t need or want political power. We are
satisfied with the situation we have in now. We respect the State. We
are not in opposition with he State, because it is not something that
Church would normally do.
Some people say: How can you say you are not used by the
State if you are not in opposition with the State? And we can answer:
why would we be in opposition? We are not a political Party, The Church
is not a political party, and the mission of the Church is not political
opposition. And about the connections between politics and ecclesial
life, I see the Ukrainian case as a good example of the temptation we
are speaking about…».
What do you mean?
«On this topic, Russian State officials said something
about their concern, but did not interfere, they don’t do anything about
the situation, All we do about Ukraine is our Church effort to try to
stop this. But there was not interference from the Russian State. It was
not the same in Ukraine. When they had their Uniting Council in Kiev,
the 15th of december 2018, and established the so called new Church,
President Poroshenko was actually the head of this meeting. Can you
imagine something similar in Moscow today? Can you imagine Putin coming
to a Church meeting and presiding and moderating there? Or take any
other European State: can you imagine something similar in Italy, or in
Germany?».
Moscow Patriarchate suspended its
participation in the Commission of theological Dialogue on the themes of
Primacy and Sinodality. Does it mean that Russians Orthodox Christians
refrain to walk together towards sacramental communion with catholics?
«We have to differentiate. the theological dialogue is one
thing, and the broad dialogue on some other important issues is another
thing. Theological dialogue is a very specific thing. it is important
when you want to make sure that you understand correctly the theological
position of your partner and to show exactly what your theological
position is. But the question of sacramental unity is a very complicated
issue. And we have a lot in common, on moral issues and traditional
values: Roman Catholic Church is our closest partner on this field. We
don’t see any problem in the dialogue with Roman Catholic Church on the
issue of traditional values, moral issues in the contemporary world, as
gay marriages et cetera. As they met in Cuba, the Pope and Patriarch
Kirill gave to politicians a vivid example of how you can, having some
differencies, put them side and meet and discuss something that is vital
today, when people are suffering. For example, to find the way to
support together the christians persecuted in Syria».
In present times there is a sort of
competition to present themselwes as protectors of Middle East
Christians. This approach leads to the danger of transforming the middle
eastern christian indigenous communities in a sort of “alien bfody”
always needing external support in order to survive.
«I think there is this risk, but it is a little bit
theoretical. We are talking about people that are being killed today.
And when there is an emergency, you have to face the emergency».