Machine guns in the Monastery of the Kiev Caves: Can reporters find sources for facts?

Let me begin with some personal remarks, since it would be valid for readers to raise these issues.

Yes, I am an Orthodox believer who has — twice — worshipped with the monks of the Monastery of the Kiev Caves. I have walked its matrix of underground sanctuaries, tombs and monastic cells. It’s hard for me to imagine something more horrifying than soldiers with machine guns inside the Lavra, passing the bodies of numerous saints. I confess that, for a decade, I have prayed that we would not see a military takeover of this sacred site by forces on either side of the divides inside Ukraine.

Yes, I saw the New York Times report with this headline: “Ukraine Raids Holy Site Amid Suspicion of Orthodox Church Tied to Moscow.” I have read a dozen or so other mainstream media accounts of the rising tensions about the current Ukrainian administration considering some kind of Lavra takeover.

All of these reports are based on information from government officials and the leaders of the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was — depending on the sources cited —created by Western Ukrainian leaders, the U.S. State Department (under the administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden), the government of Turkey and/or the first-among-equals Ecumenical Patriarch who leads the tiny Orthodox body that remains based in Istanbul.

These reports continue to ignore or downplay the statements and actions of the historic Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Onuphry, which has — since the day of the Russian invasion — stressed its total opposition to this action of the Vladimir Putin government in Moscow. This church, the canonical church of Ukraine for many generations, has taken steps to cut its ties to Orthodox leaders in Moscow, even as its leaders have recognized they do not have the clear authority to do so. They appear to be pleading for the wider world of Orthodoxy (as in patriarches of multiple ancient churches, not just Istanbul) to intervene, somehow, in this crisis.

As a rule, mainstream journalists have expressed little interest in the actual Orthodox traditions and laws linked to this tragedy. In particular, the press has ignored the global voices of the Orthodox who oppose Putin, but support Metropolitan Onuphry and, thus, the monks of the Lavra.

Frankly, my head is spinning as I try to deal with the myriad journalism issues involved in covering this massive story. I am aware that most journalists are limited in what they can cover, due to language issues and the difficulty of on-site work in the midst of this conflict. I want to look at two issues in this Times report because — this is a positive — it includes some remarks from an actual monk from the Kievan Caves. Such as:

Father Hieromonk Ioan, a member of the Kyiv monastery, said that the clergy there were not loyal to Moscow but did not shy away from the close historic ties with Russia. “We have certain relations with Russia and it’s painful for us what is going on now,” he said in an interview outside the monastery. …

I know that this will be hard for many journalists think about the following concepts without their heads exploding, but let’s give it a try. After all, the events unfolding at Orthodox altars in Ukraine are very important and may take years or decades to settle — not that readers would know that from reading mainstream news reports on the schism.

Ready?

First and foremost: There is no Eastern Orthodox pope, no one shepherd who can snap his fingers and make Orthodox disputes vanish.

Yes, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin are key players in the current drama. However, this dispute between Moscow and Constantinople transcends politics and enters the world of doctrine and church polity. The ties that bind between Kiev and Moscow are far older than the current politics of Europe and Russia.

Yes, it is true that are are arguments about whether the Ecumenical Patriarch — based at the tiny, embattled Orthodox church in Turkey — has the power to grant “autocephaly” (creating an autonomous national church) in Ukraine. However, these debates are not, ultimately, between Poroshenko and Putin — they are between Patriarch Bartholomew and the rest of the world’s Orthodox patriarchs.

With that in mind, before we turn to the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Christianity Today, let’s pause for a recent word from the ancient church of Antioch.

Responding to Patriarch Bartholomew’s request to recognize the results of December 15’s “unification council” and the nationalist Ukrainian church created there, His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch urged Pat. Bartholomew to stop the process of granting autocephaly until a pan-Orthodox solution could be found to the Ukrainian crisis.

In other words, this Ukrainian issue is creating a global Orthodox crisis. Thus, it will require a global Orthodox solution. Repeat: There is no Orthodox pope.

Additional information:

The Patriarch of Constantinople sent letters of appeal to recognize the Ukrainian church to all the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches on December 24. The request has thus far been explicitly denied by the Polish and Serbian Churches.
In his response, Pat. John emphasized that the events surrounding the creation of the new church cause concern not only because of the disunion they create in the Orthodox world, but also because the opinion of the Local Orthodox Churches was not taken into account by Constantinople. …

Journalists: Please look for this. The issue here is not what churches remain in Communion with Moscow or the Ecumenical Patriarch. The issue is how many other patriarchs declare themselves to be in Communion with this alleged new church in Kiev. This is what matters to the Orthodox, not whether Kiev is in Communion with the U.S. State Department and the European Union.