OCU and the ban on religions in Ukraine: Nothing personal, just business

In late December 2023, the spokesperson for the OCU, Evstratiy Zoria, announced that draft law No. 8371, which foresees the ban on the UOC and was approved by the Verkhovna Rada in the first reading, applies not only to the UOC but to other denominations somehow "affiliated" with the aggressor state.

"The ideology of the 'Russian world' is characteristic not only of the Moscow Patriarchate. We see that both the main religious centers of Muslims, Protestant communities, and even Jewish communities are all extremely concentrated around this imperial ideology. They use their influence through the administrative ties between Ukrainian religious structures and Russian religious structures as a tool in hybrid warfare," said the spokesperson for the OCU.

For this reason, Zoria believes that the state not only has the right but also the duty to prohibit religious organizations from submitting to Russian religious centers.

What do these words from one of the key figures of the OCU mean, and what should Ukraine expect in terms of religious human rights and freedom of worship?

Ban on UOC or all religions?

Initially, despite its vague wording, draft law No. 8371 was perceived exclusively in relation to the UOC. Let's recall that on the day of the first reading's vote in the Verkhovna Rada, deputies speaking from the podium only mentioned the necessity of banning the "Moscow church", specifically referring to the UOC.

For instance, Ukrainian MP from the "Holos" party, Solomiya Bobrovska, quoting the accusations presented by the court against representatives of the UOC, stated that anyone not voting for draft law No. 8371 would be aiding the creation of an RF intelligence network.

MP from the "Party 'For the Future'" group, Ihor Huz', urging his colleagues to vote for the draft law, yelled from the Verkhovna Rada podium that anyone not pressing the "for" button could consider themselves a supporter of Moscow, where the "last outpost is the Russian Church" in Ukraine.

In turn, Uniate MP Pavel Bakunets, from the same podium, stated that draft law No. 8371 would help stop the influence on the consciousness of Ukrainians through agents within the ranks.

In other words, despite efforts by individuals like Poturaev and Yelensky to explain that draft law No. 8371 is not directed against any specific church or religion, elected representatives, by voting for it, clearly understood that it was about banning the UOC. This understanding was also shared internationally.

International reaction to the ban on UOC

Following the vote in the Verkhovna Rada, a number of foreign politicians, journalists, lawyers, and notable figures expressed concern that believers were being discriminated against in Ukraine.

US presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswami said that due to the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Ukraine cannot be considered a democratic country. Lawyer Robert Amsterdam declared that the Ukrainian government should return to the rule of law and withdraw draft law No. 8371. The UN recommended that Ukraine reconsider the law banning the UOC. In other words, the world began to discuss that Ukraine's stance on the UOC does not align with democratic norms and human rights.

For instance, human rights activist Oleg Denisov stated that Ukrainian authorities have received "sufficient" hints from the international community to the effect that passing a law banning the UOC is not acceptable. According to Member of Parliament Yevhen Shevchenko, if Ukraine adopts it, the country's entry into the EU will be blocked.

The authorities of the country seem to have picked up on this "signal".

Ban on UOC: Rhetorical shift

MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn believes that the world does not fully understand the "complexities" of the activities of the UOC, so the law prohibiting the Church needs to be crafted to withstand scrutiny in EU courts. The draft law has been sent for examination, a step deemed necessary for EU accession, according to MP David Arakhamia. However, even Viatrovych was able to understand that "this examination will not be in our favor." This is because it is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and inhumane. Despite Poturaev's attempts to argue that banning the UOC would not violate freedom of religion because the UOC is "not about Christ," authorities understood that they would not be believed in Europe or worldwide. Therefore, they decided to involve representatives of the OCU and other Ukrainian religions in the case.

Ban on UOC: Involvement of OCU

Dumenko, in an interview with "Voice of America," revealed that all members of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches support the ban on the UOC. Later, religious figures from Ukraine embarked on a journey to the USA, during which Zoria and his colleagues spoke about an unprecedented level of religious freedom in Ukraine, while the chief rabbi lobbied for the UOC ban in the US. The goal of these trips and statements is clear—to show the US and the world that draft law No. 8371 does not discriminate against Ukrainian citizens based on religious grounds.

Whether Zoria and Dumenko will succeed in deceiving Europe remains to be seen. However, it seems they have decided to use the situation in another sense—to "eliminate" their competitors under the guise of these actions.

OCU and ban on all: Nothing personal

In this light, Zoria's words should also be considered. Because in a sense, he is right: neither Muslims, Catholics, nor Protestants in Russia have declared their disagreement with "theirs." Moreover, many religious leaders in the aggressor country openly supported the war against Ukraine, while others simply remained silent, as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

According to Catholic Bishop Stanislav Shyrokoradiuk, if they speak out against it, "they won't be there." The question is whether this timid position of these denominations gives Ukrainian authorities the right to ban the activities of their colleagues in Ukraine. From the logic of law 8371 – yes, since Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics in Russia in one way or another supported "theirs". However, from the perspective of human rights and freedoms – no, because there is no "collective responsibility" in the legal field.

However, both Zoria and other representatives of the OCU are deeply uninterested in all this. They simply decided to follow in the footsteps of their "teacher" and "spiritual father" Filaret Denisenko, using the war to ensure that there is no one left in Ukraine's religious sphere except for the "correct" church, viz. the OCU.

Recall that in 2023, the adviser to the head of the Presidential Office, Mykhailo Podoliak, claimed that "there will be only the OCU in Ukraine." True, he was referring to Orthodox denominations. But apparently, the OCU decided to discreetly deal with competitors for the favor of the authorities and make sure Podoliak's words come true.

What to expect?

In any case, Catholics, Jews, and Protestants in Ukraine should not sleep peacefully from today onwards. Accusations of the "Russian world" by the OCU are not a joke, and usually, actions follow words. Especially since our history has already witnessed similar examples—just recall the persecutions of all believers, not just the Russian Orthodox Church, by the Soviet authorities. It is entirely possible that the leadership of Dumenko's structure will convince Ukrainian secularists that our state needs only one "correct" church, all others being not necessary. As they say, nothing personal.