New Ukrainian Law Moves Christmas To EDec. 25, Rejecting Russian Orthodox Date

 AP reports that last Friday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a law that moves the date on which Ukraine will celebrate Christmas from January 7 (the date observed by the Russian Orthodox Church) to December 25. According to AP:

The explanatory note attached to the law said its goal is to “abandon the Russian heritage,” including that of “imposing the celebration of Christmas” on Jan. 7. It cited Ukrainians’ “relentless, successful struggle for their identity” and “the desire of all Ukrainians to live their lives with their own traditions, holidays,”....

The law also moves the dates for two other Ukrainian patriotic holidays.

Putin's Grievances Include Split In Ukraine's Orthodox Churches

As the world's attention is focused on Russia's claims on Ukraine, there has been less reporting on the tensions between Russian and Ukrainian branches of the Orthodox Church.  This AP background article by Prof. J. Eugene Clay points out:

Two different Orthodox churches claim to be the one true Ukrainian Orthodox Church for the Ukrainian people... The older and larger church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate.... A branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is under the spiritual authority of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.....

By contrast, the second, newer church, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, celebrates its independence from Moscow.... In January 2019, [Constantinople] Patriarch Bartholomew formally recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as a separate, independent and equal member of the worldwide communion of Orthodox churches.

Vladimir Putin's widely reported Feb. 21 speech on the Ukraine (full text) included Russian grievances as to this religious split. Putin said in part:

Kiev continues to prepare the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is not an emotional judgement; proof of this can be found in concrete decisions and documents. The Ukrainian authorities have cynically turned the tragedy of the schism into an instrument of state policy. The current authorities do not react to the Ukrainian people’s appeals to abolish the laws that are infringing on believers’ rights. Moreover, new draft laws directed against the clergy and millions of parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada.

Split of Ukrainian Orthodox Church From Moscow Looms

The New York Times reported yesterday that in a move having significant political as well as religious significance, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is about to formalize its separation from the Moscow-based Orthodox Patriarchate:

Intensifying a millennium-old religious struggle freighted with 21st-century geopolitical baggage, Ukraine’s security services have in recent weeks interrogated priests loyal to Moscow, searched church properties and enraged their Russian rivals....

The new Ukrainian church is expected to be granted legitimacy on Jan. 6, the eve of the Orthodox Christmas, when its newly elected head, Metropolitan Epiphanius, travels to Istanbul to receive an official charter from the Constantinople patriarchate, a longtime rival power center to Moscow.

Lawsuit Filed In Turkey Over Attempt To Give Independence To Ukrainian Orthodox Church

As reported yesterday by UrduPoint, in Turkey, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken steps to grant independent status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, purporting to remove it from the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and to remove the anathema from the leaders of two other separatist Orthodox churches in Ukraine.  The Kiev archdiocese was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686.  In response, the Turkish Orthodox Church has filed a lawsuit contending that under the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople is limited to religious services of the Greeks living in Turkey.  According to a follow-up article in UrduPoint, the Russian Orthodox Church charges that the move by Constantinople was engineered by the United States and other Western countries to create tension between Kiev and Moscow. In response to Constinople's action, the Russian Orthodox Church has cancelled its Eucharistic communion with the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Defamation Suit Between Ukrainian Orthodox Church Factions Dismissed

In Nykoriak v. Bilinski, (MI App., March 17, 2015), a Michigan appeals court dismissed a suit that apparently grew out of the rivalry in a Michigan parish between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church controlled by Moscow, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate that was created to be independent of Moscow. [See prior posting for background]. The suit was brought by Bishop Paisiy and a deacon who apparently decided to embrace the Moscow Patriarchate.  They sued the Kyiv Patriarchate in the United States and Canada and its leaders.  Bishop Paisiy asserted that the defendants

released a press release on March 23, 2013, which falsely alleged that plaintiff Bishop Paisiy resigned as bishop; he transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate; he could no longer serve as bishop; ... and that ... St. Andrew Church [in  Hamtramck, Michigan] was placed under the direction of the [Kyiv] Vicariate. Plaintiffs also alleged that on March 24, 2013, ... defendants arrived at St. Andrew and behaved in an unruly manner, used profanity, interrupted services, took pictures of plaintiffs, called them, "The Devil, Criminal Thief, and other inappropriate, immoral and unlawful terms," and then distributed the [Kyiv] Vicariate's press release to the congregation.

The court held first that defendants' alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the defamation claim, the heckling in which plaintiffs were called devil and criminal could not reasonably be understood a stating actual facts.  The remaining defamation claims, the court held, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

In order to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims, a court would have to engage in an impermissible excursion into their religious doctrine pertaining to ordination, the religious authority needed for succession of their church leaders, and the organization and form of their church government.