Altar of the Fatherland

On February 24, the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was prescribed by the locomotive of the Kyiv department of Metropolitan Onufry (Berezovsky). This means that the former head of the Chernivtsi and Bukovinsky diocese is becoming the near future by the leader of the largest denomination in the country. Whether he will be able to establish himself at this department for life, will decide the Local Council of the UOC, which will gather after the death of the current Primate of the UOC MP Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan). He has been on death for several weeks and, according to some reports, in recent days "ceased to recognize his own."

The decision on the appointment of Onufry marked the end of the managerial crisis that paralyzed the activities of the UOC-MP UOC in the last three to four years. The struggle of political and age groups in the Synod of the UOC, with physical incapacity of the head of the Church, led to the fact that, in the midst of the political crisis in the country, the UOC MP could not distance himself from the criminal regime of Yanukovych. Moreover, individual representatives of the leadership of the church were supported by his support.

Against the backdrop of the redistribution of property (not so much material as “symbolic capital”), which unfolded throughout Ukraine, such sins could be fraught with huge risks. For example, on the night of February 23, panic information on the surroundings of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra was received on the tapes of news agencies, where the spiritual and administrative center of the UOC MP, the detachments of the Kyiv "self-defense" in order to transfer it to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. And although it soon became clear that the detachment arrived only for the external defense of the object (as well as other important administrative buildings of the city), the excitement of the UOC -MP was clear.

It is not without reason that the most experienced religious figure of modern Ukraine - the head of the UOC -KP Filaret (Denisenko) decided to take advantage of the situation. The UOC -KP actively supported the rebellious people. The Holy Mikhailovsky Cathedral in Kyiv, which was owned by her during the events, turned into a hospital and a place of rest for participants in the Maidan. So it is quite natural that immediately after the victory, Filaret decided to transform the acquired symbolic capital into material, again making a statement about the need to create a single Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The idea of ​​creating on the site of three Ukrainian Orthodox churches of a single (and independent of Moscow) church organization is almost the same age as Ukrainian independence. It was consistently supported and supported by almost the entire Ukrainian political class - except Yanukovych and his Donetsk. However, the unification is still not implemented. And the UOC -MP still does not separate from Moscow, does not go into free swimming. And in the near future one or the other one does not have to be expected. And that's why.

The first significant reason is associated with the individuals of the heads of the main competing churches - the UOC -MP and the UOC -KP. They are long -standing and irreconcilable rivals in the struggle for power over the Orthodox community of Ukraine. And if Metropolitan Vladimir can no longer be taken into account, then Filaret (Denisenko), as far as is known, is in good health. And causes heartburn at the episcopate and a significant part of the clergy of the UOC MP. So far, there is a chance that he will lead the united church and put it under himself just as he did with the UOC -KP, there can be no talk of any real unification.

To ordinary priests, laity, and even parts of the Bishop of the UOC -KP in the UOC MP are a much softer attitude. Their transitions from church to church are a frequent phenomenon. And this is the second reason for the existence of several Orthodox churches. If the community or priest really got the diocesan authorities, they have a choice - to remain in his subordination or leave. And the awareness of this possibility effectively limits the omnipotence of the episcopate, which is the most serious problem of the life of the Orthodox communities in Russia.

The third problem is the issue of canonical autocephaly. Translated from the church, this is the question of whether the current UOC MP will be freed from subordination to Moscow in order to head the United Ukrainian Orthodox Church (without Filaret). And whether residents of the Russian -speaking regions of Ukraine (primarily Odessa, Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk regions) agree with such independence - or they will want to join the Russian Orthodox Church directly, as its foreign parishes and dioceses, as happened with Orthodox communities in the Baltic countries.

The appointment of Metropolitan Onufry is called upon to solve the first problem. In Russia (including among the Orthodox community), it is not known little. However, in the UOC-MP, he is known as a person who in the late 1980s of the Pochaev Lavra (the Center for Moscow Orthodoxy in Western Ukraine) from capture by political activists who at that moment supported the Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church (now this is the third and last participant in negotiations on unification). As Metropolitan Onufry himself told me in 1997, he simply did not fight for guard, which was an extraordinary act in those days. He firmly opposed the course of autocephaly when Metropolitan Filaret in 1992 tried to lead the UOC from the Russian Orthodox Church. For twenty years he retained under his control one of the largest Ukrainian dioceses, which now has 400 parishes, and did not let her “go into a split”, which happened in other areas of Western Ukraine. He, unlike many other members of the Synod of the UOC, does not have a scandalous homosexual reputation, and he refrained from any political statements during the confrontation.

So Onufry is an ideal candidate in order to protect the UOC -MP from attempts to coercive association. He took the first steps in the same capacity on the same synod where he was elected by the locomotive. The UOC MP condemned Yanukovych and created the next commission on negotiations with the UOC -KP. However, secondary church officials were included in this commission - and this clearly shows that it was created to delay the situation, in which Onufry is a great master.

As for the resolution of long -term strategic tasks, then Metropolitan Onufry, if he is elected to the lifelong head of the UOC MP (and this is still not guaranteed) - not the person who can justify someone's high hopes. This is an elderly monk, brought up in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. He knows how to collect and preserve property well, but to engage in attracting young people, distribute new church technologies, set and solve other important tasks, and even more so to lead the UOC for a decisive gap with Moscow. His current prisoric orientation means only that he, unlike the chairmen in the Synod (and also darting to the post of locomotor), Metropolitan of Odessa Agafangel (Savvina) - will not come up with the stages of the Ukrainian authorities and the public.

However, this is perhaps not bad. The stay of Onufry as the head of the UOC will reassure the pro -Moscow church separatists. At the same time, he is in good relations with a group of young and educated church administrators, which has developed in the last decade around Metropolitan Vladimir. The church intelligentsia and the new authorities see the hope of uniting Ukrainian Orthodox. On February 25, with the blessing of Onufry, they served a prayer at the site of the death of people in Kiev. The administrative and psychological mature of this part of the episcopate under the wing of Onufry is perhaps not the worst scena of events for Ukrainian Orthodoxy for the coming years. If only this process did not drag on for decades again.