.png "English"){kind=small}
The
Russian Orthodox Church has attracted Christians from countries like
the United States because of its pro-life statements. One would expect
that its supporters in Ukraine deal with the Coronavirus in a manner
consistent with this position.
It has been remarked that while the
Moscow Patriarchate has generally followed state quarantine
requirements in Russia, some of its supporters in Ukraine have resisted
the regulations of the Ukrainian government. Most notable, and tragic,
was the conflict between the civilian authorities and the monks of the
Kyiv Caves Monastery. Several monks contracted Covid-19 and one has
died. It is difficult to tell whether the attitude of some clergy of
the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” under the Moscow Patriarchate
(formerly, and accurately, known as an exarchate of the Russian
Orthodox Church) is motivated by a kind of religious fundamentalism, or
a determination to resist the Ukrainian government and sow chaos.
Perhaps both.
On the issue of the Coronavirus, two
opposing tendencies have emerged worldwide. One is to focus entirely on
stopping the spread of the disease. This means not only the kind of
social distancing recommended by most religious authorities, but
closing churches altogether. It also means shutting down all but
“essential” businesses (however the authorities choose to define that)
for the long term. The reasoning seems to be that as long as there is
no vaccine against the virus, and its trajectory remains unpredictable,
it is safest to take the most extreme measures to limit its spread.
This approach has been criticized
because its devastating economic consequences could actually hamper our
ability to fight the disease. It is obvious, for example, that
economic activity related to the health care field needs to be
supported and expanded, not limited. Maintaining and delivering
sufficient food supplies is likewise important in the struggle against
the Coronavirus. More broadly, a weakened economy would jeopardize
medical and public health efforts themselves.
Others point out that there are other
illnesses that take more lives, but which have not prompted such
drastic measures. Taken to the extreme, after all, such measures would
require permanent social distancing and an end to physical human
contact altogether. Some Catholic commentators have also pointed out
the philosophical underpinnings of the radical approach. Modern
society, they note, tends to believe that sickness and even death are
merely technical problems, which science can eventually solve. This
illusion, which rejects the Christian understanding that sickness,
suffering, and death are inevitable, underlies the determination to
take the most radical measures possible until the Coronavirus is
defeated. It bespeaks a kind of apotheosis of science, promising an
ersatz salvation displacing religion.
The other extreme is the
“fundamentalist” position taken by some Russian and other Orthodox
hierarchs, and a few adherents of other faiths. It entails opposing
practically any adjustments to religious practices for the sake of
public health. The reasoning behind this seems to be that since the
spiritual is superior to the mundane, the truly faithful must not make
any concessions that interfere with divine worship. This means not only
that churches must remain open, but that the faithful should continue
to congregate at public services and engage in pious practices like
kissing icons. It also means that cenobitic monasticism must continue
unmodified, as at the Caves Monastery in Kyiv. Resistance to scientific
knowledge and common senses become a mark of fidelity.
But is such a position pro-life? If
Christians defend the right to life of the unborn, as well as of the
elderly and the disabled, can they consistently oppose measures to
protect public health and safety? One can, of course, make a
distinction between a practice like abortion or assisted suicide, which
directly destroy human life, and the refusal to take sanitary
measures, which may or may not have the indirect effect of somebody
becoming infected with a potentially fatal disease. Nevertheless,
concern for human life requires taking reasonable precautions against
the spread of a disease that is spreading very rapidly, has taken over
170,000 lives worldwide, and for which there is no known cure. In fact,
it is precisely the Catholic Church, known for its pro-life stance,
that has endorsed strict public health measures to combat Covid-19,
both in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world. The autocephalous Orthodox
Church of Ukraine and most religious leaders in that country have asked
their faithful to follow the government’s health directives. The
religious groups’ measures are not extreme. Churches can still be open
at certain times so that individual believers may visit them, for
confession for example, while maintaining appropriate social distance.
The Russian Orthodox Church has
attracted Christians from countries like the United States because of
its pro-life statements. One would expect that its representatives in
Ukraine deal with the Coronavirus in a manner consistent with this
position. They have not done so.
