UOC-MP still undecided about status of war in Donbas

Religious scholar Dmytro Horyevoy disclosed the manipulation of the representative of the UOC Moscow Patriarchate Mykolai Danylevych. In an interview with Radio Maria this priest in particular said that the Church is not bound to comment on the nature of the war in Donbas.

"Every war is a conflict, and calling the war a conflict is not a mistake, it is absolutely correct," said the speaker of the UOC-MP. "What is happening there is war, but the question is what kind of war it is – a civil strife or a war with the participation of foreign forces...".

According to Fr. Mykolai, it is up to the state, not to the Church to determine the nature of the war.

"Let them figure it out for themselves whether it is a war between Ukraine and Russia, or it is actually an internal conflict, or an internal conflict with elements of external intervention. This is a question to the General staff, to anybody but the Church and priests," he said.

Dmytro Horyevoy called this explanation of the priest "a lie" and "manipulation".

The expert wrote about it on his Facebook page.

"The Ukrainian government has decided on the nature of the conflict in Donbas. This is the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. It is defined by the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of January 27, 2015, the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of April 21, 2015, the Law of Ukraine "On ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and the legal regime in temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine" and the Law of Ukraine "On peculiarities of the state policy to ensure state sovereignty of Ukraine in temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Luhansk regions".

This is enough to understand that this tired trope of the UOC-MP like letting the state to first determine itself, is clearly false and manipulative," the religious scholar said.

Another lie is the statement by Fr Danylevych that the Church allegedly has no right to determine the nature of the war.

"This lie is even more insidious because those who do not know the nuances of church documents can believe it. However, internal documents state completely different things.

Let's open the Social Concept of the UOC, section VIII, paragraph 3, paragraph 4:

"Under the current system of international relations, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an aggressive war from a defensive one. The distinction between the former and the latter is particularly delicate when one or more states or the global community undertakes military action on the grounds that it is necessary to protect the people who are the victims of aggression (see XV. 1). In this regard, the question about support or condemnation of military action by the Church require separate consideration every time it begins or there is a danger that it begins," Horyevoy cites.

The religious scholar also notes that the Church has full authority to condemn an aggressive war when it begins, or when there is only a danger of its beginning.

"However, the UOC (MP) has never met on this issue. That is, throughout the 5 years of war on their canonical territory, they could not even decide on the nature of the war which affects their flock.

It is quite worthy, Orthodox, and canonical," Dmytro Horyevoy summarizes .