Kost Elisevich

Apart from the ‘useful idiots’ that Vladimir Putin has recruited in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world to promote his propaganda, both globally and within Russia, a significant supportive element for him at home has been the Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).

During the tsarist reign of the 14^th to the early 20^th century, patriotism and nationalism were intertwined with the deep spiritual faith of the Russian people as manifest within their church, particularly throughout the countryside. Religion, however, was effectively eliminated for the 70 years of Soviet rule that followed. It was reintroduced by Putin as part of a populist platform that sought to reestablish a unifying nationalist sentiment, emulating what he imagined had characterized the Russian Empire. Conflating these elements has long provided Putin some measure of support by the country at large.

The images of atrocities perpetrated by the Russian military in an unjustified invasion of Ukraine have brought about near universal condemnation but appear to have escaped the attention of the same church that has stood steadfastly by its dictator/benefactor, Putin. The discordance here reminds the reader of a biblical passage in Titus 1:16, “They profess to know God, but deny Him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good deeds.” The Patriarchate of the ROC stands alone among the faiths of the World Council of Churches for not only its support of the invasion but its actual promotion, despite mounting evidence of its naked brutality and the suffering of a nation at the hands of Putin. Where is the voice of humanity by the leader of the faithful within the country?

Kirill, the 75-year-old Patriarch of the ROC in Moscow, whose secular name is Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev, was named to the post in 2009, assuming also the title of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, which, at the time, extended ostensibly to include the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine. Politics has factored into Kirill’s tenure, particularly in his association with Putin. Kirill’s background as an active agent of the KGB may not only have provided him with a suitable recommendation for his current post but influenced his notions of Russian hegemony and imperialism. As such, he was regarded negatively by Ukrainians from the outset as someone aligned in service to the state, as much as to the church.

To this point, Kirill has taken on a supportive role in Putin’s agenda on several occasions, some of which are worth mentioning in light of the past eight years of Russian belligerence toward Ukraine. In 2014, when Putin began his armed intervention in eastern Ukraine, Kirill provided solace by professing to those concerned that no military threat was being imposed and that the intervention was necessary to quell terrorist activities by Catholics and Orthodox separatists aimed at creating a separate Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There was no such threat. In 2017, to further justify the annexation of Crimea and to gain the imprint of church approval, he recognized two senior members within the newly established Crimean administrative structure, Sergei Aksyonov and Volodimir Konstantinov, with Orders of the Church. Both were actually wanted by Ukrainian authorities on charges of treason against the state and creating a criminal enterprise.

In 2021, Kirill awarded yet another Order of the Church upon recently deceased ultranationalist politician, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for his promotion of relations between church and state, and his support of Russian spiritual values and patriotism. This was a man who called for the execution of all Ukrainian military personnel in the absence of any pretext of war and advocated for a nuclear strike upon Iceland simply to intimidate the West into not intervening in the conflict with Ukraine. In similar fashion, Kirill’s support has extended to neighboring Belarussian repressive dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, who has remained in power since 1994 and who has allied himself politically and militarily with Putin.

Just as Putin regarded Ukraine a vassal state of Russia, subject to his authority, so has Kirill regarded the Orthodox Church in Ukraine subordinate to his patriarchate in Moscow. Conflict inevitably arose regarding his jurisdiction over the church in Ukraine. Mounting concern over church leadership by Kirill led the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, to grant independent rule or ‘autocephaly’ to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January 2019, wresting it from control by the Moscow Patriarchate. In doing so, the new church became answerable solely to the Constantinople Patriarchate. This marked the start of a Moscow-Constantinople schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church which continues to the present.

Kirill’s authority within the Ukrainian Church had already been undermined by Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. This, however, did not diminish his enthusiasm for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine citing, as suitable justification, the drift of the nation toward Western decadence as manifest by ‘gay parades’ and the unproven declarations of extermination of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. In a recent letter to the World Council of Churches, he oddly mentioned the preservation of the Russian language as a further justification for the invasion as if the victims of this invasion, ethnic Ukrainians living in Ukraine, were expected to disregard their own language and heritage.

The Moscow Patriarchate appears to be approaching pariah status among all faiths in a fashion similar to that which is occurring for the state itself. Ironically, this would appear to be appropriate for a religious leader who appears so thoroughly invested in the state and its leader, Putin. Not so, for 280 ROC priests in the global community who have condemned the war in an open letter. More specifically, the Amsterdam ROC, in addition to condemning Kirill, has left the Moscow Patriarchate for the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Lithuanian ROC has likewise sought independence from Moscow. Criticism has come from the Vatican and from the prior Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who has suggested that consideration be given toward expelling the ROC from the World Council of Churches.

A suggestion has been put forward that Kirill was coerced by Putin to support the invasion, but this scenario runs counter to Kirill’s earlier record. One would expect that the stronger moral argument to be made would be to stand by the Christian conviction that humanity deserves better.

Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2022. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.