Archimandrite Kirill Hovorun– Candidate of Theology (Kyiv Theological Academy), Bachelor of Theology (University of Athens), Doctor of Philosophy (Darem University, Great Britain), author of numerous theological essays.
It is difficult to take up with Fr. Kirill.The schedule of the head of the Department of External Church Relations is quite identical to the one of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Though the Church is not a secular institution, but is no less integrated into the world community than any state. The Ukrainian Church is most closely connected with the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow. Though for the first seven ages of its history the Ukrainian Church was rather a branch of the church administration of Constantinople, the last three ages of history worked predominantly for the Ukrainian-Russian integration. Many hierarchs of the Russian Church in the XVIII century came from Ukraine, many famous church architects of the ХІХ century were trained in the art schools of St. Petersburg. Already in the ХХ century almost two thirds of clergymen in wholly Russian regions were of the Ukrainian or even west Ukrainian origin. Though,it is not “in the fashion” now to admit it. And it is quite understandable –the governing circles of Moscow still interpret the Ukrainian independence as political nonsense, the matter of time and the Ukrainian ruling circles very often has nothing to prove this independence with. Therefore willing or no, we had to start the conversation with our interlocutor with the issue of status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – the Church staying at the intersection of civilization ways of the East Europe, especially in the context of the last-year visit of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and the forthcoming visit of the recently enthroned Patriarch Kirill.
Father Kirill, what results of the last-year visit of the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople were the most important for Ukraine, to your opinion?
The most important outcome, I would say, is the new stage in the relations between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople, which commenced in Kyiv and a year ago and was resumed by the successful visit of Patriarch Kirill to Istanbul. For the first time in the last thirty years the relations of the two patriarchal thrones has obviously acquired more constructive character. And it is on the level of cooperation between these two Churches that the way of development of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy highly depends - whether it will be able to overcome the existing schism and receive a new stimulus for the public perception inside Ukraine.
And speaking in more detail, in what way can these negotiations facilitate overcoming of the controversies inside the Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
The point is that the dialogue between the existing orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine was also actively conducted before the visit, and our Church played a leading role there. Later on, when the administration of the UOC-KP and the UAOC were promised the entrance to the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the terms of metropolises, we had an impression that the dialogue halted, because it seemed to the leaders mentioned that they could do without us. But it happened otherwise. From the last-year events all the Ukrainian church leaders drew certainty that no one would help us except ourselves.
At the end of July the first visit of patriarch Kirill to Ukraine is expected. Is this visit intended to be fully ceremonial, let us say – to appear before the Ukrainian believers, or there is some definite program of meetings and talks?
The point is that the contacts of the Patriarch with the state leaders will be cut to a minimum, since the visit will be completely of pastoral nature. Several meetings with the public, in particular, the lectures for the youth are scheduled. Speaking about the negotiations on adjustment of the Church situation in Ukraine, it is not the matter of one visit - it should be dealt with persistently and systematically in a format other than that of the pastoral visit – the format we are working at it now. And I’m sure that the patriarch will support the uniting initiatives of our Primate, His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr and of our Church.
I cannot help myself asking what kind of status, after all, has today the Church whose external interests you represent. AsfarasIknow, the UOC is administered by its own Synod. Though the chief church Ukrainian hierarchs are permanent members of the Patriarch’s synod, neither the Patriarch himself, nor his representatives sit in session of the Ukrainian Synod. What then does the autocephaly mean for the structure which formally has all the signs of the autonomous church?
Indeed, our Church has all the rights of the autonomy, as embodied in its statute. It is independent and self-governing. Autocephaly could signify only formalization of the rights we already have. But to make the steps towards autocephaly, fist of all there should be consensus on this issue inside the Church itself, which is still lacking.
Iftheautocephalyisapureformality, what is the use of struggling for it so hard? What are its pluses and minuses?
If the autocephaly brings peace and unity to the Church, it is worth struggling for. If it becomes a cause for the subsequent division, we should refrain from pressing for it. So long as the risks of future division through introduction of autocephaly are still high, and that is all because for many it is not an instrument of self-governance of the Church, but a powerful myth.
Let me ask you a kind of provocative question: the Ukrainian Orthodox Churchin the union with the Moscow Patriarchateis often reproached in fully non-Ukrainian cultural image. Actually, the clergy seldom speaks Ukrainian in sermons even in completely Ukrainian speaking dioceses. And where does the Ukrainian-language sermon comes from, if no subjects are taught in Ukrainian in the seminaries? But we are not speaking of the language. One can teach even a parrot. What do we have to do in order that the dominant branch of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy became Ukrainian — not only in the culture of sermon or celebration of the liturgical service, but also in realization of its public mission?
What you are talking about is a popular stereotype regarding the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In fact, as it follows from our conciliar statements and our actions, we are the Ukrainian Church. We are not strangers either to our people, or to our state. You might be surprised, but the most part of our parishes are in the West Ukraine. Besides, it was our Church that initiated many programs for preservation and spreading of the Ukrainian culture, as for example, the recovery and presentation abroad of the Peresopnytsia Gospels. By the way, this project is one of the few in our state, which imparted positive image to Ukraine in the view of the international community. In our seminaries the subjects are taught in Ukrainian as well, in spite of the fact that permanent Ukrainian theological terminology has not been finally elaborated yet. Of course, our Church is not entirely Ukrainian-speaking, but neither is our society. Therefore people have right to speak and listen for example, a sermon, in the language they are used to.
If there is, as you affirm, the language parity, why it is almost impossible to buy in the parish stores any homiletic book in Ukrainian? Are they not published from considerations of the lack of demand in the society, or do our sponsors, founders of publishing business prefer to develop “the great and mighty” Russian language?
Our Church also publishes Ukrainian-language literature, though indeed, it is very seldom found in our parish stores. Unlike literature in Russian, the most part of which is re-published by the older specimen sheets, we have to create Ukrainian-language literature practically from nothing; therefore its publication requires much more effort. Besides, there is objectively lesser demand both for the church and secular Ukrainian literature, therefore the church has to fully subsidize its print, and there are not always some additional funds for that.
Then a question in pursuit: to your mind, how can the political discourse be characterized, defining “pious ability” of many politicians and social activists to solve the church problems?
We welcome good intentions of the state and social activists, intended to resolve complex problems the Ukrainian Orthodoxy faces today. We have the same purpose – to overcome divisions and to consolidate Orthodoxy in our country. The only thing is that their intentions should be sincere and should not pursue additional electoral dividends. They also should not act on their own discretion, but maximally agree their actions with the Church.
For the last two months the problem of the notorious anathema of hetman Mazepa was raised. As far as I know, it is not declared in the churches in the course of the special liturgical service on the first Sunday of Lent from the end of 60-ies of the 19th century. Atleast, thenthenameofthe disgraced hetman disappeared from liturgical texts published by the Holy Synod. But it this year, 2009, the anathema to Mazepa was proclaimed in the Diocese of Tiraspol of the Russian Orthodox Church. When, finally, the question of anathema to Mazepa will be solved from the point of view of the canon law? At least, the historians have already said their word, even the Russian historians.
This question remainsdebatable both for the Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lately in our Church the antipodal estimates of this hetman’s activity - ranging from categorical condemnation to those demanding immediate rehabilitation of hetman. You mentioned solution of the problem of anathema on the canonical grounds. But, in my view, it cannot be done until the political passions over this issue calm down.
Maybe, all those who proclaimed this anathema in such a non-canonical way, i. e. the followers of Peter or, at least, those who now insists on this anathema in 200 years after Poltava, come under this anathema? Something like: «befell own anathema»…
Such a definition also requires respective decision of the Church. Undoubtedly, anathema is a certain canonical action, imposed exclusively on those whop caused harm to the Church, accordingly, one cannot swing this anathema as a sword to achieve some or other political goals.
FatherKirill, I well remember when at the beginning of 90-ies the Church enforced the construction programs, since there were not enough churches, in a few years the domain of information was next in turn – publication or republication of the books, mastering of the world wide web, media-projects; at the beginning of the present century the youth programs were on the agenda, it became clear that the society cannot suggest for the generation of the post-soviet teenagers anything better that “arteks”, “summer lightings” and students’ construction gangs. And what is central for the Church today, taking into account the Ukrainian realias?
Everything you’ve mentioned is currently central. Our objective today is to reach with the Gospel’s good news to the most distant layers of our society, to choose the best words and messages for each social group and individual person. For that purpose the church sermon and its means are to be respectively adjusted, modernized, we should learn the language of the modern man without defiling the God’s word.
A question for you as a member of Theological commission of the UOC. I knew a person, 100% orthodox man, who stopped to take medicines inordernottocomplicateextremely hard financial condition of his children. Itwas a kind of passive euthanasia. It is a special case. But can the Universal Orthodoxy review its attitude to euthanasia of just find its position as for the categories of unnatural death?
For the Church life is a unique value, regarding which there can be no compromise. Therefore the Church will always condemn suicide and the euthanasia as its variation.
But the Church does not condemn military service, which often may be interpreted as a suicide, and of quite an idealess kind. Finally, one may die just not resisting diseases. I would ask to define in brief what the Church can do in order that a man’s life became more protected, at least, in the social aspect?
Military service is not suicide, but sacrifice, when man is ready to give his life for others. The suicide is when one passes away on one’s own because of despair and because of what seems to him a dead end. Speaking about the second part of the question, the Church now does a lot in order that the quality of people’s life improved, at least socially, patronizing the orphanages, homes for elderly, hospices etc. Unfortunately, the state, as the life proves, does not pay appropriate attention to it. The Church can compensate this lack of social concern, but for that purpose it needs at least cooperation on the part of the society, in spite of all its political bias.
And the last thing, what is the subject of your next monograph?
Recently I had an opportunity to give a series of lectures in the universities of Europe, Asia, America and China on the problems of modern Orthodoxy. The modern orthodox world is extremely complex and its real life often differs much from the superficial stereotypes the people have. Therefore, proceeding from the lectures given I’m going to prepare a monograph dedicated to the real structure and situation of the orthodox Church in the modern world.
