Head of the State Service for Ethno-politics and Freedom of Conscience Viktor Yelensky wrote a letter of response to Professor Thomas Bremer on his criticism of the Conclusion of the Religious Expertise of the SSEF of the Statute on the Governance of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The letter was published by the portal Dialog.TUT.

“What the experts had to investigate within the framework of this examination was the presence/absence of the UOC’s connection with the Russian Church. And we are not talking about the mystical connection, the unity in the dogmas and Eucharistic communion, by which all the Local Churches are connected in the depths of the one, holy, sobor, apostolic Church, but exclusively the canonical connection. That is, the connection that is based on the norms and rules of the church structure”, – Elensky wrote.

He added that Prof. Bremer is wrong when he thinks the panel is a government body.

“These are researchers of religion who have proper competencies, academic titles and relevant scientific works on the subject of expertise; and who are invited by the state body on religious affairs to analyze this or that problem, institution or phenomenon. The State Body on religious affairs has ensured the implementation of a significant number of expert examinations, each time involving experts-specialists in one or another field of religious studies, who are not, as a rule, civil servants, in the analysis. Naturally, the State Service of Ukraine on Ethno-politics and Freedom of Conscience in its activity takes into account the conclusions reached by the experts involved”, – noted the Chairman of the SSEF.

According to Elensky, the “Conclusions…” provoked a strong reaction and lively discussion in the ecclesiastical and public environments. There was everything in this discussion: long excursions into church history, heated discussions about the peculiarities of canon law, and discussion of the personal qualities of the members of the expert group. But none of the discussants could convincingly prove that the UOC is not part of the Russian Church. In fact, you do not take the responsibility to assert this either.

In the opinion of the head of the SSEF, the expert group “cannot impose anything on the leadership of the UOC. It itself knows what it needs to do in order to stop being part of the Moscow Patriarchate; what signals it should send to society in order to overcome the suspicion and doubts that have accumulated over the years. And it is not only the state and society, but also an increasing number of their own clergy and laity, who are telling them this. Unfortunately, their calls are not heeded by the clergy. Some of the hierarchs prefer to act according to the principle “the worse, the better” and deliberately increase confrontation with the state and society”.

“The hierarchy stubbornly refuses to dialog with civil society, the authorities and even their own clerics and faithful who try to reach them. They do not even find it necessary to explain why and for what reason they are pushing the UOC on the path determined for it by the Kremlin. But this problem, which I would be happy to discuss with you, goes beyond the scope of our discussion around the Conclusions of the Expert Review”, – emphasized Elensky.

Finally, he noted that he did not see “facts that would have been misrepresented by the experts; events and phenomena that would have been misrepresented by them; acts and deeds that would have gone unnoticed by them. Accordingly, I find no argument that would allow me to accept the conclusions of your analysis of the Expertise under discussion”.