By Aleksandr Voznesensky
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/vatican-war-ukraine-constantinople/
The other day the Uniate website “RISU“, which is based in the Ukrainian Catholic University, and subsequently a number of other media agencies spread news that is in fact information that has been preparation for the beginning of a full-scale religious war in Ukraine.
For those who haven’t seen this post, I will specify that a number of public figures declared that the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) bear full responsibility for the military operations in the East of Ukraine. All of this was presented as a certain initiative of certain public figures from different churches, but at the same time it was separately written that the ROC and the UOC MP still haven’t admitted their guilt for the Lvov Sobor, during which the remnants of the Uniates in Ukraine decided to join the ROC. Those who are interested in studying the text of the message in full and the list of signers can do so here.
And now let’s work out what is happening, who exactly stands behind the writing of this aggressive attack on the UOC MP and the ROC, and why it was done especially now.
As the proverb goes: “even father doesn’t kiss mother just like that” – every action in this world has reasons and consequences, and this address appeared now not at all by coincidence.
My readers already know that my book about the role of the Catholic church in protest movements and state coups is being prepared for publication. It describes in detail that it is precisely the Catholic church (Roman Catholic Church and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church [UGCC]) with the assistance of western funds and politicians that was the main driving force of the coup in Ukraine in 2013, and that with the coming to power of Pope Francis the Catholic church put into action a number of similar acts. For example, in Brazil in 2013 during the period of protests the NSA wiretapped Brazilian officials and the Pope personally urged the youth to take to the streets and to participate in protests. In 2014 a Catholic cardinal and a Protestant teenager were the leaders of the Maidan in Hong Kong. But if to return to events in Ukraine, it should be noted that among Catholics a major role in the organisation was played by the Ukrainian Catholic University. No, no, it isn’t just an institution where young persons study Thomas Aquinas’ works and the foundations of the Catholic faith. It is a whole complex on the basis of which secular faculties work; they have their own media (RISU) and a business academy (Lvov Business School) was created, which maintains connections with many large funds like NED US, USAID, the Soros fund, etc. All of this allowed the management of the university to have influence on the media not only through RISU (which has received help from the US Embassy since the Maidan of 2004), but also thanks to the graduates of the journalism faculty. The university trains managers and rallied many politicians and businessmen around itself. A striking example of the latter is Dmitry Firtash – in the past this person was in Viktor Yanukovych’s camp, but literally 1-1.5 years before the coup of 2013 Firtash started appearing in the Ukrainian Catholic University at different events together with the head of the Ukrainian Catholic University and bishop of the UGCC Boris Gudzyak, during business meetings within the framework of the activity of the business academy, and by the beginning of Maidan Firtash was no longer playing on Yanukovych’s side any more.
But who is this figure who heads the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lvov? This is the bishop of the UGCC Boris Gudzyak. It would be possible to speak for a very long time about this person, but I will limit myself to the following: his father and godfather fled from Soviet troops during WWII, settled in Munich, and then moved to the US, where representatives of the US army suddenly decided to help Boris Gudzyak’s father to obtain citizenship. And afterwards everything was like it is in fairytales: the stomatologist, who only finished his studies a few years ago, enlists for military service in the US and is transferred to Europe, where there was a big grouping of troops after the war. But he doesn’t stay in the same spot – as his son Boris Gudzyak specified: in two years he traveled to all corners of Europe. Having returned to the US, he spends money like water: his children study at a private school where every year of tuition costs the same as a car; he finances a department in Harvard where Boris Gudzyak later studied; he financed the management of the UGCC, under whose supervision Boris Gudzyak then studied in a seminary; he financed anti-Soviet protest movements; and so forth (it’s cool being a stomatologist in the US, isn’t it???). At the same time, his father and godfather were involved in political life, held positions in the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), and his godfather even met the US President. All of this provided easy entry for Boris Gudzyak into the upper political layers of the US. It reached such a level that when he was ordained a bishop, during a church service the representatives of the diplomatic corps of 6 countries were present and the ambassador of the US John Tefft personally handed a letter to him written by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that spoke about a long and warm friendship. It is precisely this educational institution that became a place where representatives of Canada, US ambassadors, and the representatives of different large funds often came.
It is precisely from the Ukrainian Catholic University that the American Ulana Suprun, who heads the Ministry of Healthcare, became a part of the government of Ukraine. This story has interesting details: it turns out that Suprun, who worked at the Ukrainian Catholic University, isn’t just an activist and acquaintance of Gudzyak. Semen Gluzman, who is a pro-West figure, specified in one of his posts that Ulana Suprun is the sister of “Mr Voznyak, the official curator of the CIA in Ukraine”. Here are such non-ordinary people working and heading the Ukrainian Catholic University.
And now, after the completion of the introduction to this article, which was necessary for the reader to understand the situation, let’s return to the statement addressed to the UOC MP and the ROC.
Who were the signers of this statement? In the post of Georgy Kovalenko (he is considered to be the “right hand man” of the metropolitan of the UOC MP Aleksandr Drabinko, known for his support for Maidan and possessing autocephalous views) 21 signers are specified, and at the same time the signers are divided into three categories – along territorial lines: Russia, Ukraine, and the EU.
4 persons from Russia signed this paper about the declaration of aggression against the UOC MP and the ROC, among who 4 journalists and 1 historian are specified: Sergey Chapnin, Konstantin von Eggert, Aleksandr Soldatov, and Nikita Petrov. So who are these people? It is said that Nikita Petrov is a historian. But actually he isn’t just a historian – he is a historian from the “Memorial“ society. We open Wikipedia and read:
“Due to the introduction of the law on the registration of non-profit organisations that receive foreign financing and conduct political activity, the ‘Memorial’ human rights center was declared a foreign agent. According to the results of the audit carried out by the prosecutor’s office at the request of the Prosecutor-General’s Office in April 2013, it was declared by the representative of the Prosecutor’s Office that the ‘Memorial’ human rights center is engaged in political activities in Russia, setting itself the task – as it is stated in the charter of the organisation – of ‘influencing public opinion inside the country’, and at the same time the financing of this organisation comes from the US… On December 7th, 2016 the Tverskoye district court of Moscow fined International ‘Memorial’ 300,000 rubles for refusing to register as a ‘foreign agent’. In 2008 the US State Department stated that such organisations ‘play an important role in building a democratic society and defending human rights’, having emphasised: ‘it is necessary that their work continues without obstacles’. The statement of the State Department was made after a search took place at the St. Petersburg office of ‘Memorial’ within the framework of the criminal case initiated under article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the organisation of an extremist organisation’s activity). According to ‘Memorial’, the search was carried out in connection with suspicion of financing by “Memorial” of an extremist newspaper (representatives of the organisation denied this). The US State Department urged the Russian authorities to quickly return the confiscated documents and equipment back to ‘Memorial’ . Soon the Dzerzhinsky court of St. Petersburg recognised the search as illegal. In 2010 the president of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov, having noted that ‘Memorial’ receives financing from the West, stated: ‘They fulfil everything that they are tasked with by those who pay. People who are ready to perform ‘dirty’ work for big money can always be found’.”
Further we see Sergey Chapnin and Konstantin von Eggert. Concerning the man in crimson trousers – I had no time to investigate his ties with the others, but Chapnin is a known person. Up to 2015 he was the editor of the main media of the ROC “Moscow Patriarchate Magazine” and, obviously, still can’t cope with the offense he felt after being fired. But the most interesting of these four people is Aleksandr Soldatov. The fact is that this is a representative of the split of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), many members of which are trialled for extremism. It turned out that Soldatov himself appeared in court not so long ago vis-a-vis the extremist criminal cases of representatives of the ROAC. And if we open media reports we will see that “on December 25th, 2015 the Federal list of extremist materials was again updated. The list was filled up even more… by the materials of the speeches of Andrey (Maklakov), a bishop of the Pavlovsk ROAC”. In reality Andrey Maklakov is the manager of the foreign parishes of the ROAC, lives in the US, and sometimes runs to the State Department to complain that adherents of this split find themselves in different unpleasant situations with law enforcement bodies. But this doesn’t prevent the UGCC and the Ukrainian Catholic University from cooperating, in particular, with the ROAC informally. The fact is that representatives of the ROAC fiercely hate the ROC and are involved in pro-nazi movements and different kinds of frauds. One of the actions of the aggression of the Ukrainian Catholic University against the ROC was carried out in the framework of the ROAC. Not so long ago the liberal media of Ukraine and Russia spread a post, citing Aleksey Lebedev, which said that allegedly all the participants of the 1945 Sobor of the ROC were recruited by agents of the NKGB. When I started investigating this case it turned out that Aleksey Lebedev is a priest of the ROAC who was earlier convicted of fraud – he installed plaques on different buildings in St. Petersburg for the purpose of indicating that they are the premises of the ROC (a kind of parody in order to mislead people so that they thought that this is the ROC), and placed advertising around the city that stated that the relics of Saint Nicholas are in these buildings. The people who arrived were met by a young man who told them that there is no priest, but if they wanted the priest to a serve a prayer in front of the relics, then it is necessary to hand over 3000 rubles (about $100 at those times).
Later it turned out that no such an organisation as the Russian Orthodox Church had even been registered. When I dug more deeply it appeared that documents don’t contain anything that Lebedev stated, and it also appeared that Lebedev himself allegedly incidentally received scans of documents, and the documents also absolutely incidentally were found by the employee of the Ukrainian Catholic University Roman Skakun, who after this wrote on his page that he successfully carried out an information attack against the ROC, and in most cases this provocation was presented as if it was the SBU that had published these documents. And Skakun writes: “So the SBU can take credit for an effective information operation (and me – an award)”. I.e., an employee of the Ukrainian Catholic University allegedly incidentally obtained documents from the archives of the SBU, allegedly incidentally sent them to a colleague in Russia, and they absolutely incidentally arrived from the latter to the priest of the ROAC Aleksey Lebedev, who then massively disseminated this as confirmation that all participants of the 1945 Sobor of the ROC had been recruited. And then absolutely coincidentally, referring to the representative from Russia (Lebedev), the media outlet working in the Ukrainian Catholic University published this provocation against the ROC.
And now let’s look at who signed this paper in Ukraine? In fact, it is the majority of the employees of the Ukrainian Catholic University and their allies – representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate (UOC KP) and Aleksandr Drabinko’s supporters. Actually, it is indeed the surname of the head of the Ukrainian Catholic University and bishop of the UGCC, the American Boris Gudzyak, who is the first on the list from the Ukraine side. Further we see Miroslav Marinovich, who is the vice rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University. Further we see Antoine Arjakovsky, who for some reason appeared among the signers from the EU. He is the director of the Institute of Ecumenical Research working in the Ukrainian Catholic University. Next on the list is Mikhail Dimid, a priest of the UGCC who also works at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Then we find on the list a short mention of “Taras Dmitrik, IEOE, Lvov”, but having visited the website of the Ukrainian Catholic University we find out that Dmitrik is the responsible secretary of the Ukrainian Christian Academic Fellowship, which was created by the Institute of Ecumenical Research of the Ukrainian Catholic University within the framework of cooperation with the Kiev-Mogyla academy. I.e., it is once again a structure of the Ukrainian Catholic University. In the same place we also find a representative of the Kiev-Mogyla academy – Konstantin Sigov. Further the representative of the UOC KP Evstraty Zorya is specified from the signers. The bloc of representatives of the UOC MP is interesting – it is four persons: Metropolitan Aleksandr Drabinko and his colleagues. Besides him, the document was signed by the archpriest Andrey Dudchenko, who, after one of the meetings concerning the unification of churches within the framework of the project of the Constantinople Patriarchate, stated that for the sake of unification it is necessary to make a compromise not only on canonical questions, but also on dogmatic ones, thus fatly specifying that Uniates fully participate in the process of unifying the churches in Ukraine and play such a large role in this that for the sake of them Dudchenko is ready to make compromises on the fundamentals of dogma. Where do such aspirations to trade the foundations of faith come from, you ask? One doesn’t need to be a genius in order to understand this – in the published document it is written: “Father Andrey Dudchenko, priest of the UOC, Open Orthodox University”. In the same place we find two more priests from the Open Orthodox University who are Drabinko’s supporters – Georgy Kovalenko and Bogdan Ogulchansky. And everything lies in the fact that the Open Orthodox University was created by the initiative group “November 21”, where half of the people are closely connected to the Ukrainian Catholic University (these are people who teach there on a constant and periodic basis, and even the head of this educational institution is the bishop of the UGCC Boris Gudzyak).
Besides these people, on the list there is one more signature from Ukraine – “Oles Kulchinsky, the Ukrainian orientalist, Istanbul university” and the signature of Andrey Yurash, who stands behind a number of information provocations against the ROC. In addition, for some reason in the bloc of representatives from the EU there is the signature of the Pole Wojciech Surówka. The fact is that although he is a Pole, he has worked for a long time in Kiev and heads the Roman Catholic “Institute of Religious Sciences of St. Thomas Aquinas“. Further we find the signature of one more Catholic – “Marta Titanets, society ‘Karitas’ in Poland”. And right at the end we see two people, but it’s not clear what religious organisation they belong to (it seems to me that this aspect should be clearly written down by the signers, since they interfere in an exclusively religious sphere): “Cécile Vaissié, professor at the University of Rennes” and “Bernard Marchadier, historian of the Russian religious philosophy in the European context”. As we see, if to sort them by their belonging to churches and organisations, the Catholic bloc appears to be the largest and, moreover, it is precisely at the Ukrainian Catholic University that a presentation of this statement took place.
As Taras Antoshevsky, the editor-in-chief of RISU (he works at the Ukrainian Catholic University), wrote: “In Lvov a very important communique was presented which the other day was jointly prepared by intellectuals from Russia, Ukraine, and the EU”. But in the photo it is visible that the event takes place at the building of the Ukrainian Catholic University.
If the role of the UGCC is clear, then also clear is the role of the supporters of Drabinko, lured by the Uniates, and for who these same Uniates created the Open Orthodox Institute and other projects. But what’s very interesting in this is the representative of the Roman Catholic Church and head of the Institute of St. Thomas Aquinas in Kiev. In this institute’s management there are representatives of the Dominican Order, which the Pole Surówka also belongs to. But looking at this signature, it is impossible not to remember the events that took place on the eve of the radicalisation of Maidan and which were also connected to this Roman Catholic educational institution.
I will offer a little reminder about the course of those events. By the beginning of 2014 the authorities of Ukraine already clearly understood that behind the protesters in Kiev there were the “Saint” fathers of the Catholic church, and the SBU put pressure on the Ministry of Culture and forced it to send a letter to the leadership of the UGCC with a threat to close this religious structure. After this the former head of the UGCC, the American Lyubomyr Guzar, stated to the media on January 10th, 2014 that the people have “a natural right to take up arms”, which was immediately spread by dozens of media agencies. On January 15th in the building of the highest theological Roman Catholic educational institution – the Institute of Religious Sciences of St. Thomas Aquinas in Kiev, which was under the control of Dominican monks – there was a round table with the name “Theology in the presence of Maidan”, where the following people gathered: the Dominican priest Wojciech Surówka (the director of this Institute), the Dominican priest Petro Balog (the vice-director of this Institute), the religious scholar Yury Chernomorets, Viktor Zhukovsky (the leader of the Theology Department of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lvov), UOC KP deacon Roman Kolyada (the executive producer of radio “Promin”), the Protestant theologian Mikhail Cherenkov, the pastor Nikolay Romanyuk, the priest of the UGCC Mikhail Dimid, who is an employee of of Ukrainian Catholic University, and the head of the UGCC Svyatoslav Shevchuk, and some others. In fact, the discussion revolved around it being impossible to replace the government in these conditions, and the topic of opposing the government was touched upon. Thus, Yury Chernomorets specified that “it is necessary to pray not so much for peace, but for general wellbeing”, emphasising the powerlessness to replace the government in these conditions. Such an idea is very convenient for unleashing radical actions – after all, it is possible to try to justify any crime by saying that in the far future it will result in the “wellbeing” of the people. Hitler also promised people a bright future and thus justified all the horrific crimes. Cherenkov in turn emphasised that “a post-secular world means opportunities for Christianity”, and that’s why the churches must play the role of the first violin that will unite society. But the speeches of Catholic representatives were more radical. Viktor Zhukovsky, as an employee of the Ukrainian Catholic University, stated that “Maidan is a practical model of building society”, his colleague at the Ukrainian Catholic University Mikhail Dimid continued by saying that “to believe means to act”. But, perhaps, the most frank of all was the vice-director of the Institute of St. Thomas Aquinas Petro Balog, who delivered a speech on the theme “Would God bless a violent character of Maidan?”, to which he answered in the affirmative if certain conditions are observed.
On January 16th, 2014 the Verkhovna Rada adopted a number of laws that were supposed to impose certain restrictions and punishment on those who intend to participate in unauthorised meetings and protests. On the same day the director of the Ukrainian Catholic University library Taras Timo wrote on his Facebook page: “And maybe now the leaders of Ukrainian churches should come to the podium and call people for an active protest (my hands itch to write ‘uprising’) for their constitutional rights?”.
On January 18 employees of the Ukrainian Catholic University, members of the group “December 1” (a group created at the initiative of the former head of the UGCC cardinal Lyubomyr Guzar), and members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Union appealed to the political leaders of Maidan Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok, Klitschko, and Poroshenko with the DEMAND to immediately nominate a sole leader. At this time it was verbatim stated: “Either you nominate a sole leader, or you will be obliged to leave the scene”. Thus, a clear signal that it is precisely the Ukrainian Catholic University and a group of appointees of the US who dictate the rules of what should happen on Maidan was given. It was specified that this appeal was made, once again, by the priest of the UGCC and employee of the Ukrainian Catholic University Mikhail Dimid.
And already the next day terrorists from “Right Sector“, who in their majority consisted of the members of the organisation “Trizub” named after Stepan Bandera (this organisation has officially cooperated with the UGCC and carried out security functions during large events for decades), firstly repeated the demand that was made the day prior by the priest of the UGCC Mikhail Dimid, and after this they started to attack law enforcement officers and unleashed the radicalisation of Maidan.
As we can see, many of those who have now signed this act demonstrating hostility against the UOC MP and the ROC gathered in the Roman Catholic Institute of St. Thomas Aquinas in Kiev on the eve of the radicalisation of Maidan. Moreover, it is precisely the Catholic side that pushed forward the topic of radicalisation. And the participants that are from the Ukrainian Catholic University planted in the masses the topic of radicalisation even earlier. So on December 19th the head of the Theology Department of the Ukrainian Catholic University Viktor Zhukovsky spoke from the scene of the Kiev Maidan about the topic “God is a peacekeeper, God is a revolutionary: reflections about the warring Church”.
And now let’s talk about the aims and reasons for such an aggressive statement, where it is said: “We are obliged to regretfully ascertain that the Russian Orthodox Church fully shares responsibility for the formation of the ideology of confrontation and an unwillingness to accept sovereign Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian nation”. The fact is that such an accusation is an attempt to present the ROC and the UOC MP as a party to the military conflict with all that it implies. What does it mean? Proceeding from the formulation of the address, it was decided to recognise the UOC MP as a NON-Ukrainian church despite the fact that it consists of Ukrainians, is led by Ukrainians, and doesn’t depend on the decisions of the ROC. Secondly, if the UOC MP and the ROC bear responsibility for the military conflict and if they are exposed in advance as enemies of the Ukrainian people (it is precisely for this purpose that it was written “unwillingness to accept sovereign Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian nation”) and are a party to the conflict, then this allows to use forceful methods against them precisely as if they were a party to the military conflict and are enmity with statehood.
Why was it signed precisely during this period? Maybe already today or tomorrow the Constantinople Patriarchate will make the decision to grant or not grant autocephaly to Ukraine. In the event that it is granted, the members of the newly created “United church”will lay claim – and have already laid claim – to the main shrines that are at the disposal of the UOC MP – the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and a number of other monasteries and temples. This in particular was stated already more than once by the head of the UOC KP Filaret Denisenko. It is clear even for the most stupid and primitive person that believers won’t give their shrines to schismatics and Uniates, and that it will cause a standoff. And it is precisely for the purpose of justifying aggression that this document was written now. Because attacking compatriots – the same Ukrainians, but they go to the temples of another jurisdiction – is one thing, but if you are told that you attack an anti-Ukrainian structure that bears responsibility for the military conflict in the East of the country and is at enmity with the statehood and the Ukrainian nation, then it is completely something else.
Moreover, the fact that this topic disturbs the signers of the document is visually seen in the interview of one of the signers from October 4th (i.e., the interview appeared almost simultaneously with the statement addressed to the ROC). Andrey Yurash – one of the signers – stated that the SBU must check the UOC MP for the activity of paramilitary organisations, having continued by saying that “the fight against granting autocephaly can acquire an organised form in the different cities of Ukraine with the subsequent sending of delegations to the capital for the purpose of blocking state authorities. This is what the SBU said”. I.e., the use of the beautiful words “fight against granting autocephaly” of course implies that believers of the UOC MP, from who there is the desire to take shrines, can rebel and that’s why there is an urgent appeal to the SBU to check the activity of different organisations that can prevent the prompt captures of shrines. The “Radomir” organisation in the Zaporozhye region was especially highlighted.
For those who aren’t aware, I will offer a reminder. At the beginning of this year in the Zaporozhye region the party member of the “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” and entrusted blogger of P. Poroshenko Yury Gudymenko started an aggressive provocation against the UOC MP for the fact that, in accordance with the canons and rules of the Church, the priest refused to read the burial service for the deceased child who was baptised by schismatics(the fact is that a baptism carried out by schismatics of the UOC KP isn’t recognised by the canonical church of Ukraine as being valid, that’s why the child in fact hadn’t been baptised, and the priest couldn’t read out the burial service for a non-baptised child). And further a whole number of provocations followed. Moreover, all the organisers of these provocations were connected to two people from the “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” party – Yury Gudymenko and the head of the Zaporozhye branch of this party Igor Artyushenko. At some point, in order to develop aggression, it was stated that near the temple of the UOC MP a participant of ATO was beaten up, and that allegedly he was beaten up by representatives of “Radomir”. The amateurish way in which this provocation was carried out leaves a lot to be desired – the friend of Gudymenko called the police and reported that allegedly an assault had been committed, the police arrived 7 minutes later, but there was no fighting, no attackers, and no victim – i.e. the assaulted person found some strength and ran away all full speed from the scene [sarcasm – ed]. And the one who saw this assault a few minutes later wrote that it was committed by representatives of “Radomir” (they probably approached him and introduced themselves [sarcasm – ed]). As the head of the Zaporozhye department of the National Police reported, the one who reported about the attack started changing his testimony on this same day. The assaulted ATO soldier had indeed been found, but for some reason he flatly refused to give evidence. But despite the evidence that it was a frank provocation, the head of the local branch of the “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” Igor Artyushenko started shouting in all instances and to demand that the SBU intervenes in the affairs of the Zaporozhye diocese and in the activity of the “Radomir” organisation. At the same time it is possible to easily find information about Artyushenko actively helping the UGCC to create the first temple in Zaporozhye and cooperating with the management of the “Golden Lions of the Black Hundred” organisation, which openly wears the chevrons of the SS “Galicia” division, and which are under the spiritual guardianship of priests of the UGCC and participated in the raider capture of the temple in Ivano-Frankovsk.
It isn’t any less remarkable that Andrey Yurash in an interview nearly directly described plans to appropriate the main shrines of the UOC MP. Answering the questions of journalists, he reported:
“By the way, who now possesses the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochayev Lavras?”
“The Lavras are owned by the state. Such objects of national value aren’t transferred to anyone’s possession. The lower part of the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochayev Lavras were leased to the UOC MP for 50 years.”
“It is known that the Pochayev Lavra was leased to the Moscow Patriarchate with violations of the law. Is it possible to cancel this lease through the courts?”
“There are no grounds for the courts here. The state provided the lease and it is in the prerogatives of government bodies to decide its further destiny. I.e., if it is clear that there were violations during the transfer of the Lavra for leasing, then it can form the grounds for the contract to be revised. This is a question within the competence of the Cabinet of Ministers”.
What follows from this? Certain bishops of the UOC MP are already ready to unite with Uniates and schismatics. This is the so-called autocephalous wing, which contains less than ten followers in the environment of the episcopate of the UOC MP, and the domination over which is attributed to Metropolitan Aleksandr Drabinko. That’s why a part of the UOC MP will want to be a part of the “United church”, but the problem is that they aren’t numerous enough, and some of them categorically despise Filaret Denisenko, and because of him they can oppose unification. Concerning the others, the incitement of hatred has already been noted, which surely will escalate into an armed standoff, and it is precisely for this reason that people like Andrey Yurash aren’t interested in a bunch of paramilitary organisations within the UGCC, he is disturbed precisely by these organisations within the UOC MP that can resist the mass of attempts to capture shrines.
Of course, the reader may ask a rather fair question: why does the Vatican need to kindle a religious war in the center of Europe??? And there is a rather simple answer to this question. The fact is that, statistically speaking, Catholicism in Europe is not simply dying out – it does it very promptly. In many respects it is caused by the policies of the authorities in a number of countries. And it is especially for this reason that the Vatican, leaning on the countries of Eastern Europe, trains religious radicals for the purpose of sweeping objectionable governments aside. Actually, even at the beginning of Maidan and soon after its termination the ideologists of the Ukrainian Catholic University and the top management of the UGCC spoke about this extremely clearly, but due attention wasn’t paid to this. So for example, the head of the Ukrainian Catholic University and bishop Boris Gudzyak three weeks after Maidan finished, when everyone still had fresh memories of the standoff that escalated to murders, stated in an interview with the Forbes magazine: “This movement, this revolution, this transformation will definitively obtain full maturity when we will understand that we fight not only for ourselves, but that this fight must bear fruit, to give a certain inspiration that will leave far beyond the geography of our country or our ethnos”. Answering the question about what Ukrainians can give to Europe, Gudzyak continued: “It is very important that our aspiration to be in Europe isn’t consumerist, that supposedly Europe will give us something. Yes, this is important, it is needed, it is necessary: law and order, less corruption, better medicine, roads etc. But this movement will become definitely mature, powerful, and fully-fledged when we will understand that we also owe Europe, and not only to Europe – to give something. What this is isn’t easy to define, but it is felt on Maidan, in these events, in this mobilisation, in this solidarity and cooperation. We enter very long processes. Patience is needed, we have to be prepare ourselves for the long road. It is a little bit difficult for us. We are emotional, we can spark”. The head of the UGCC spoke in a similar way back then too. And the ideologist of the Ukrainian Catholic University Yaroslav Gritsak at the very beginning of Maidan stated that he held consultations with specialists in protest movements in the post-Soviet space from Bulgaria, and they came to the conclusion that they intend to combine their efforts in order to make the Maidan movement ALL-EUROPEAN.
That’s why Ukraine for the Vatican is a place for experiments, a place where attempts are made to create – with might and main – the conditions for the emergence of religious radicalism, which can later be used for their purposes. But for the residents of Ukraine all of this is fraught with large bloodshed, although this already doesn’t really bother the “Holy Father”, who has his strategic objectives and for who Ukraine is just an auxiliary element for the achievement of these aims.