By: Pavlo Smytsnyuk , director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, Ukraine.
berkleycenter
November 21, 2019
Since the independence of Ukraine in 1991, the
confessional situation in the country has been characterized by a high
level of religious freedom and pluralism. The latter made the Ukrainian
case unique amongst its neighbors, where usually one denomination plays a
dominant role (as in Russia, Romania, and Poland). In Ukraine, three
Orthodox jurisdictions co-existed with two Catholic churches (Latin and
Greek traditions), a variety of Protestant denominations, and
traditional Jewish and Muslim (Crimean Tartar) populations.
Historically, for the Catholic Church in Ukraine,
dialogue with the Orthodox has proven to be a rather difficult task. The
largest Orthodox church, part of the Moscow Patriarchate, was rather
reluctant to engage in dialogue with Ukrainian Catholics. Relations with
the other Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine were problematic from a
Catholic perspective in that these communities had never been recognized
by the Holy See, nor by worldwide Orthodoxy. The situation changed in
January 2019, with the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
This Church has been subsequently recognized by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, the most important see of Orthodoxy, and, some months
later, by the Orthodox Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of
Alexandria.
The creation of an independent Orthodox church in
Ukraine presents both serious risks and unique opportunities for the
development of ecumenical dialogue. On the one hand, OCU’s autocephaly
had a negative impact on both inter-Orthodox relations and, to a certain
extent, on ecumenical relations at an international scale. The creation
of an independent church in Ukraine led to a break of communion between
Moscow and Constantinople, with a risk of creating division between the
Greek-speaking and Slavonic churches.
A crisis of this sort
constitutes a unique challenge for the Orthodox canonical framework and
ecclesiology. Now, a crisis can be an occasion for growth. For example,
in the West, the crisis of the medieval papacy and the Protestant
Reformation forced the Roman Catholic Church to renew itself and its
institutions. A renewal of this sort could happen within the Orthodox
communion, which could be led to rethink how relationships between
fifteen independent churches function. Another undesirable consequence,
linked to the creation of the OCU, is that the disagreement between
Constantinople and Moscow has led to the latter’s withdrawal from the
official theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the
Orthodox Churches. This act was motivated by the Russian decision to
cease taking part in any commission presided or co-chaired by
Constantinople. If the ecumenical dialogue is important for Moscow and
Constantinople, they both should look for creative solutions, for
example allowing a “neutral” jurisdiction to chair the Orthodox
delegation at the dialogue with the Catholics.
On the other hand,
however, the establishment of the new Orthodox church offers new
perspectives for ecumenical dialogue in Ukraine. Firstly, with
the recognition of the new church, Ukrainian Catholics have a legitimate
and open-minded interlocutor. Ecumenical dialogue, which has been on
standby since the 1990s, can now be reinvigorated, and Ukrainian
Catholic Church, with its various human and institutional resources, in
particular with the Ukrainian Catholic University and the Institute of
Ecumenical Studies, can be very much on the frontline in this endeavor.
On the one hand, this dialogue can familiarize the new Orthodox church
to the major achievements of the official Catholic-Orthodox
conversation, and, on the other hand, it can introduce Ukrainian
Catholics to discussions within the broader Orthodox community. In the
context where the two churches lack any robust experience of
cooperation, there seems to exist some latent competition and reciprocal
suspicion on the part of some of their members, hence the need to act
with extreme prudence and transparency. At the same time, Catholics
should not exclude the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in communion with the
Moscow Patriarchate from its ecumenical endeavors, and conserve
neutrally in the ongoing conflict between the two jurisdictions.
Secondly,
Catholics could advise the Orthodox Church of Ukraine on how to
strengthen its academic potential and expand its international
partnerships. The communities that have now have merged into the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine had previously lived in isolation for a
number of decades and were unable to send students for studies abroad,
to become members of ecumenical associations (such as the World Council
of Churches), or to attend academic and interfaith meetings. If asked to
do so by the new church, Ukrainian Catholics should make its academic
programs and intellectual resources available in order to increase the
quality of theological education within Orthodox establishments in
Ukraine. For this endeavor to be truly ecumenical, both parties should
renounce any proselytizing desire, and, not less importantly, avoid
acting in a way which the Patriarchate of Moscow could reasonably
perceive as threatening.
Thirdly, although at the present
moment this seems to be a difficult thing to achieve, Ukrainian churches
should not be burning bridges between them, but rather reflect on how
they could contribute to reconciliation and peacebuilding in the
country. Both the war in the Donbass region and recent electoral
divisions point to a paramount need to reach a healthy civil
understanding in the country. The churches can play an important role in
this process. But in order to make their contribution, the churches
must overcome the prevalent attitude of suspicion and start working
together. There are precedents in recent history, during the Orange
Revolution in 2004 and Revolution of Dignity in 2014, when the churches’
common reconciliatory position helped to reduce the violence of the
parties in conflict. The need for ecumenical dialogue, however, is not
only a factor of the church’s external relation to other communities,
but also belongs to the very core of evangelical credibility. In fact,
the antagonism, and even animosity, between various denominations in
Ukraine has been one of the major obstacles for Christian witness. In
order to make church communities more engaged and welcoming, they need
to stop understanding themselves in terms of competition with fellow
Christians, and instead start being open to learning with, and from,
other churches. Reaching out to one another will constitute a vital
contribution towards a new ethos of Christian communities in Ukraine
built on openness and self-giving.