UPTsMP CATEGORICALLY DENIES TRANSFER OF CRIMEAN PROPERTY TO RUSSIAN CHURCH AND IT IS READY TO SUE NEWS MEDIA
Dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Crimea have not changed their status and they remain in subordination to the metropolitan of Kiev and all-Ukraine. This was said on Tuesday in an interview by Bishop of Irpen Kliment, the chairman of the synod's Information Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is reported by the official website of the UPTsMP.
He said that the UPTsMP dioceses on the territory of the peninsula of Crimea have not in any way changed their status and they are in the same juridical and canonical subordination that they were in last year and in the preceding years of the existence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UPTs). According to the charter of UPTs, Master Kliment said, all dioceses that are located on the territory of Ukraine and in Crimea are in subordination to the metropolitan of Kiev, and they are dioceses of the UPTs.
The chairman of the synod's Information Department of UPTs also declared that "the fact that the dioceses in Crimea are immediately subordinate to the primate of the UPTs, Metropolitan Onufrey, is evidenced by the position of the UPTs, which was repeatedly attested, inter alia, by decisions and statements of the Holy Synod to the effect that the church defines these dioceses as territorially and canonically subordinate to UPTs."
He said that the adoption of the charters of dioceses located in Crimea was determined only by canonical documents, the "Tomos on the independence of the UPTs" and the "Charter on the administration of UPTs." Bishop of Irpen Kliment also reported that no other factors influenced the contents of the text that defines the activity of the Crimean dioceses on the territory of Crimea that is now annexed.
According to reports of Pobrobnosti, the UPTsMP told them that they are "ready to demand in court a denial of the false information."
As RISU reported, on 10 March documents were made public that give evidence that leaders of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow patriarchate) had legally recognized the annexed Crimea as part of the Russian federation and had transferred all property of the two Crimean dioceses to the possession of the Russian church. It was on the basis of that document that a story on TSN.Tizhden was made. (tr. by PDS, posted 11 March 2015)
KIEV PATRIARCHATE WONDERS IF UPTsMP WILL GIVE ALL ITS PROPERTY TO MOSCOW ON THE CRIMEAN SCENARIO
On 11 March the press center of the UPTsKP published a statement on the question of registration of the Kiev patriarchate and UPTsMP in the autonomous republic of Crimea in accordance with Russian legislation. The authors of the document note that reports about the recognition by UPTsMP of the annexation of Crimea and the transfer of its property on the peninsula to the Russian Orthodox Church evoked a substantial resonance within society.
The UPTsKP emphasizes that representatives of the Moscow patriarchate have tried to justify themselves by affirming that other religious confessions in Crimea are also undergoing registration in accordance with the legislation of occupying Russia. In this context they have even mentioned the Crimean diocese of the UPTs of the Kiev patriarchate.
In order to refute such statements, the press
center of the
Kiev patriarchate reports that neither the Simferopol and Crimea
diocese of the
UPTs of the Kiev patriarchate, nor parishes and monasteries that
are a part
of it, have carried out nor are carrying out actions for their
registration in
accordance with the Russian legislation. (tr. by PDS, posted 11
March 2015)
DOCUMENT: DECLARATION ON ISSUE OF REGISTRATION OF STRUCTURES OF THE KIEV PATRIARCHATE AND UPTsMP IN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA IN ACCORDANCE WITH RUSSIAN LEGISLATION
Press Center of Kiev patriarchate
On 8 March information was spread in news media about the registration of a new edition of the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTs of the Moscow patriarchate. Later the complete text of the charter also was published, to which journalists appealed in their reporting.
From the said text it is obvious that, despite the formal continuation of the Simferopol and Crimea diocese of the Moscow patriarchate as part of the UPTsMP, in reality this diocese is an immediate part of the direct administration and property dependence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow patriarchate.
According to the charter, the diocese is legally recognized as a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. All important personnel decisions (appointment of bishops, rectors of ecclesiastical academic institution, and abbots of monasteries, awarding of church orders, and promotions in the ranks of clergymen) are resolved only with the consent and with the written consent of the Moscow patriarchate. More outrageous is the legal recognition of the fact that all moveable and immoveable property not only of the diocese but also of its canonical subdivisions, that is, parishes and monasteries, are "the property of the Russian Orthodox Church." And this pertains not only to the legal property but also property that is rented or being used. The document also confirms legal recognition that Crimea is territory of the Russian federation.
The above mentioned report attracted substantial attention in both the church and secular milieu and provoked lively discussion. Therefore, persons subordinate to the UPTsMP, including its official representatives, wishing to protect their position, have begun to point out that other religious confessions in Crimea also are going through registration in accordance with the legislation of occupying Russia. In this context, the Crimea diocese of UPTs of the Kiev patriarchate is also mentioned as supposedly going through the same procedure.
In order to refute such false statements of representatives of UPTsMP, the press center of the Kiev patriarchate officially states that neither the Simferopol and Crimea diocese of UPTs of the Kiev patriarchate nor parishes and monasteries that are a part of it have conducted nor are conducting actions for their registration in accordance with Russian legislation. In an interview last year, to which representatives of the Moscow patriarchate appeal, Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea Kliment (UPTs of the Kiev patriarchate) speaks only about various aspects of the legal status of the diocese from the point of view of Russian legislation and about possible consequence of fulfillment or nonfulfillment of this legislation. Archbishop Kliment did not state anything about intentions to begin registration in accordance with Russian law, let alone about completing registration. "I can regard attempts by representatives of the Moscow patriarchate to involve my name in this story only as their attempts to justify their own treachery. If Metropolitan Lazar (the leader of the Simferopol diocese of UPTsMP) has done something with the charter of the diocese in Crimea or the synod of UPTsMP in Kiev, he should not shield himself by appeals to my name," Archbishop Kliment stated with indignity in an interview with the press center of the Kiev patriarchate.
Subsequently the Legal Department of the Kiev metropolia of the Moscow patriarchate stated in its official commentary that the text of the charter of the Crimea diocese published in news media had "not been adopted" by the synod of UPTsMP. Clarifying the circumstances of the case on the basis of public sources, and having collected other pertinent information which they can substantiate, the press center of the Kiev patriarchate has established the following.
Immediately after the adoption in Russia of a law by which upon all legal entities [persons by law] in occupied Crimea, including religious organizations, is imposed the obligation to go through registration in accordance with the legislation of the RF as Russian legal entities or as affiliates of foreign organizations, on 19 June 2014 the synod of UPTsMP adopted the decision to introduce changes into the charter of the Simferopol and Crimea diocese of UPTsMP. Changes in the charter of the Feodosia diocese were adopted by the synod only on 23 December, and information about changes in the charter of the Dzhankoi diocese have not been found.
From this fact it follows that the hasty adoption of changes in the charter of the Crimea diocese just a few weeks after the proclamation of the new legislation of the occupation of RF for Crimea had the practical goal that was dictated by political necessity—to demonstrate that the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP is loyal to the new occupation authority and will fulfill its orders. Otherwise how does one explain that of the three dioceses of UPTsMP in Crimea, one began the process of registration back in June 2014, and another in December, while the third still has not begun it?
Representatives of UPTsMP still have not provided reliable evidence of just how the text of the charter of the Crimea diocese was adopted at a session of the synod on 19 June 2014. Confirmation of the accuracy of the words of the Legal Department of the Kiev metropolia can come only through full disclosure of the text of the charter.
From the Uniform State Register of Legal Entities of the RF it is evident that the "Orthodox Religious Organization of the Simferopol and Crimea Diocese" was registered on 23 December 2014 with its identification number 1147700000150. This fact, along with the decision of the synod of UPTsMP, confirms that changes were introduced into the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP and this charter is registered in Russia
The legal department denies, not that the text published in news media is the text of the charter of the Crimea diocese which was registered in accordance with the laws of the RF, but that this text was adopted by the synod of UPTsMP. Thus there arises the just proposal that in the event that the legal department is correct, then the text that was adopted by the synod of UPTsMP was later changed by someone and registered in the altered form. Who could have changed this text?
The answer to this question is given in point 17 of the charter: "17. The charter of the diocese with changes (additions) has been confirmed by the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus." Because there are not in Ukraine specialists on Russian legislation, it is completely reasonable that the draft of the charter was sent to Russia, most likely to the legal service of the Moscow patriarchate. There is every reason to suppose that changes were introduced in the Moscow patriarchate and the text was approved by Patriarch Kirill, and then the Crimea diocese submitted it for registration. It is typical that the document indicates that "the edition of the charter was confirmed on 3 December 2014," but it is not indicated who did this—Metropolitan Onufrey, who should confirm such a document as the primate of UPTsMP, or Patriarch Kirill, as is provided in the charter itself.
As a conclusion to this analysis, the state of affairs surrounding the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP appears to be as follows.
1. Either the leadership of UPTsMP, in the person of Metropolitan Onufrey, as the primate, and Metropolitan Anotony, as the chancellor and secretary of the Holy Synod responsible for official record keeping of the synod, actually participated in the adoption of the charter, whose text was published in news media, or the text adopted by the synod was changed, without the desire and knowledge of the leadership of UPTsMP, in Moscow and was confirmed by the Moscow patriarch. If the first is correct, then all former denials on the part of UPTsMP are unreliable. If the second is correct, then it is necessary to acknowledge that the Moscow patriarch grossly violated the rights of UPTsMP to self-administration and the charter of UPTsMP, and it appropriated to itself for the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP rights that do not belong to it. Have the leaders of UPTsMP decided to admit that their patriarch did such actions?
2. Representatives of UPTsMP are now trying to raise a fog around the case, switching the attention of the audience from the legal and factual side, for which secular specialists could give an authoritative assessment, to the "canonical" side, in which the broad masses have little experience. The fact that the Kiev metropolitan is commemorated in the liturgies in Crimea and Metropolitan Lazar is a member of the synod of UPTsMP still does not represent the real authority of UPTsMP in Crimea, and the more influential center of authority for Crimea is the Moscow patriarch. If the published text of the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP is genuine (and this seems now more likely), then this means that the authority of UPTsMP over the Crimea diocese is nominal, and actually Crimea has been transferred into subordination to the Moscow patriarch.
The text indicated (part 2): "The diocese is a canonical subdivision of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and is a part of its hierarchical structure. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not have the right of legal entity and is a self-administering part of the religious organization of the Russian Orthodox Church (other official name is Moscow patriarchate), which is called in subsequent text of this charter the "Russian Orthodox Church" with rights of broad autonomy." That is, from an ecclesiastical point of view (which for lawyers does not have decisive significance) UPTsMP exists as a self-administering part of RPTs, but from a legal point of view, UPTsMP does not exist, because there is no such legal entity. There is the legal entity of RPTs, and from a legal point of view the Crimea diocese (and in the sense of the charter, also the other dioceses of UPTsMP, from the point of view of Moscow) belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, as the charter confirms.
This conclusion is affirmed by the following point 3, which indicates first of all: "The diocese conducts its activity within the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church in accordance with the charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. . . ." This signifies that all other sources subsequently cited, including the charter of UPTsMP and other Ukrainian sources, are subordinate to the charter of RPTs and should be accepted only to the degree that they correspond to it.
The charter (point 9) legally confirms the recognition of the annexation of Crimea by Russia: "The location of the permanently functioning executive organ of the diocese (diocesan council led by the diocesan bishops) is the Russian federation, republic of Crimea, city of Simferopol."
The above mentioned point 17 indicates directly who has the supreme legal authority over the Crimea diocese: "The charter of the diocese with changes (additions) confirmed by the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus." There is no mention of the metropolitan of Kiev or the synod of UPTsMP in this context! This authority is confirmed also by the decisive right of the Moscow patriarch regarding appointment and dismissal of leaders of the diocese (point 20): "Diocesan bishops (metropolitan, archbishop, or bishop) are selected (removed from office) by the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, receiving the order of the metropolitan of Kiev and all-Ukraine (locum tenens), which takes effect after the candidate for office of diocesan bishop receives the written blessing of the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus." That is, without the signature from Moscow, Kievan decisions regarding Crimea have just as much force as laws passed by the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine that lack the president's signature. Thus key personnel decisions (appointment of rectors of ecclesiastical academic institution and abbots of monasteries, bestowal of church awards, and promotions in rank) occur only with the consent of the Moscow patriarch (point 21). In his action, the leader of the Crimea diocese also is primarily subject to the Moscow patriarch (point 22).
Financial allocations for the activity of RPTs are also made by the Crimea diocese in accordance with the decision of Moscow and not of Kiev (point 37): "The diocese allocates financial resources for general church needs in accordance with rules established by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."
Especially obnoxious are points 31 and 42 of the charter:
"41. Property belonging to the diocese and its canonical subdivision by right of ownership or other property right are the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.
"42. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church established a uniform procedure for possession, use, and disposal of immoveable and especially valuable moveable property of the diocese and its canonical subdivisions."
That is, not only all property of the diocese itself, but also property of all its subdivisions (monasteries, parishes), church buildings, land, and all other immoveable and moveable property not only owned but also rented or provided for usage according to the charter are lodged in RPTs as a legal entity of the Russian federation.
Because of this, Ukrainian society has the right to hear correct, documented, and comprehensive answers from official persons of the Moscow patriarchate to the following questions:
1. Why did the synod of UPTsMP so quickly (on 19 June 2014) adopt changes to the charter of the Crimea diocese, if not in order to satisfy the political demands of the occupying authorities of Crimea and to confirm legally the recognition of Crimea as Russian territory? The absence of decisions on changes to the charters of the two other dioceses of UPTsMP before the end of 2014 confirms that such an urgency for changes in the charter of the Crimea diocese did not accord with actual necessities.
2. Will texts of the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP, in the version confirmed by the synod and in the version registered on 23 December 2014 in Russia, be made public so that one can determine whether there is one and the same text in order to analyze what it contains?
3. Can the legal department or other authorized structure of the metropolia of UPTsMP officially disprove that the text of the charter of the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP published in the news media is the text that was registered on 23 December 2014 in Russia, as reported in the Russian register?
4. Can the legal department or other authorized structure of the metropolia of UPTsMP officially confirm or disprove that the Moscow patriarchate introduced amendments into the text of the charter that was confirmed by the synod on 19 June 2014, and this was confirmed by Patriarch of Moscow Kirill and not by Metropolitan Onufrey? Or if this happened, did the Moscow patriarch consult beforehand with the primate of UPTsMP Metropolitan Onufrey and the chancellor of UPTsMP and secretary of the synod Metropolitan Antony regarding the altered text of the charter? Was UPTsMP Metropolitan of Crimea Lazar consulted on this text?
Upon the answer to these question depends the conclusion about what really happened in the Crimea diocese of UPTsMP and whether violations of the charter of UPTsMP regarding the right to self-administration were committed on the part of Metropolitan Onufrey, Metropolitan Antony, and Metropolitan Lazar, or there occurred an intrusion of the Moscow patriarch into the jurisdiction of UPTsMP and his assumption of authority in the Crimea diocese without their knowledge. And whether what happened to the Crimea diocese is a pattern according to which the Moscow patriarch plans to produce changes in the provisions of all other dioceses of UPTsMP, denying the right to self-administration of UPTs—which the Kiev patriarchate has talked about frequently during recent years. (tr. by PDS, posted 11 March 2015)
Ukrainian original posted on RISU, 11 March 2015
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.