Paul Goble
Staunton,
January 11 – Commentators have suggested that in the wake of the achievement of
autocephaly by the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the church in Belarus may eventually
follow suit. There are many obstacles to that possibility, but three reports in
the last few days suggest that they may not be as insurmountable as many think.
First,
Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s statement that autocephaly isn’t
going to happen is, according to ROC MP Archdeacon Andrey Kurayev a way of signaling
to the Kremlin that it could if Moscow continues its push for the amalgamation
of the two countries (nsn.fm/policy/kuraev-lukashenko-shantazhiruet-moskvu-belorusskim-cerkovnym-raskolom.html).
Given
that under current rules, only an independent country can have an autocephalous
church; and given that the support of the political leadership of that country
for autocephaly appears a fundamental requirement – autocephaly in Ukraine
would not have happened without the efforts of President Petro Poroshenko –
this is a clear warning to Moscow, Kurayev says.
Second,
Archbishop Daniil, the exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine, told the
BBC’s Ukrainian service that for the Belarusian church to receive autocephaly, “the
people of Belarus, its authorities, and its pastorate must appeal to the Ecumenical
Patriarch” as happened in the Ukrainian case (bbc.com/ukrainian/features-46827400).
The ROC MP is very much opposed to
that, Daniil said, “but each people and nation which wants to establish its own
Orthodox church must have the right for this” – a clear invitation from Constantinople
to the Belarusian government, people and church, to follow the Ukrainian
example.
And third, there are reports that
the ROC MP is sufficiently concerned about this possibility that Moscow plans
to replace Metropolitan Pavel, the patriarchal exarch in Belarus, with
Metropolitan Feofan of Kazan and Tatarstan (kazanreporter.ru/news/29994_mitropolita-feofana-perevodat-v-minsk-a-zatem-v-pervye-lica-rpc-istocnik).
Pavel
is viewed by many as ineffective, and his Russian-centric approach while in
Kyiv has offended many. According to the Kazan
Reporter, he is not now viewed in Moscow as someone who can navigate the
approaching storm. Feofan has two advantages: he has shown himself a skilled
diplomatist in Kazan, and he is close to Moscow’s ambassador to Minsk.
Such
a shift in personnel might give Moscow a better handle on developments in the
Belarusian church and thus Belarusian society. At the same time, however, it is
likely to be viewed by many Belarusians as a sign of Russian desperation and give
new urgency to calls for autocephaly.
None of these things mean
autocephaly is about to happen – there are simply too many problems to be
overcome including Lukashenka’s own authoritarianism and Moscow’s still-strong
hand in Belarus (charter97.org/ru/news/2019/1/10/319478/).
But the possibility Belarus will have its own church and that that church will
support the country’s independence appears to be far greater than it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment