In order to comprehend the Christian view on the current events, one must consult the social teaching of the Churches, which is formed as the universal Christian answer to the modern social challenges. First of all, the social teaching unambiguously condemns terrorism, absolutely forbids the faithful to participate in such activities, and places the direct obligation of uncompromising rooting out of terrorism on the state and the international community.
Secondly, the social teaching definitely does not allow priests and the faithful to participate in conflicts that are civil wars. The Orthodox social teaching foresees the participation of the faithful in peaceful rallies and actions of civil disobedience. The Catholic social teaching recognizes participation in a revolution only, but not in a civil war.
It should be emphasized that participation in a revolution is accepted as an extraordinary phenomenon in exceptional circumstances. “Armed resistance against the oppression by the political government is justified only if all of the following conditions exist:
♦ in case of unquestionable, serious, and long violation of the fundamental human rights;
♦ after all other means have been exhausted;
♦ if it does not cause even greater chaos;
♦ if a hope for success is grounded;
♦ if it is impossible to rationally foresee better solutions (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2243).
It is important that during the discussion of the issue of possible transition from peaceful nature of protests to violent actions during the Maidan, the Churches have stressed the unacceptability of violence and clearly stated that they would not call for a revolution with sticks and stones, Molotov cocktails, and weapons in hands. Today people in the East of Ukraine carry arms, even though we do not see either “unquestionable, serious, and long violation of the fundamental human rights” in the East of the country from the side of the new government, or “exhaustion of all other means.” On the contrary, people appeared with arms instantly, and if they are not saboteurs de facto, they still are insurgents. Again the resistance would have been justified if, among other things, “it would not cause even greater chaos.” But everyone can see that greater chaos has been caused and further escalation of the resistance to the central government in the East can result in chaos for the whole country and unpromising decline for the East of our country. And finally, resistance would have been justified if it was “impossible to rationally foresee better solutions,” but the amendments to the Constitution, the national dialog, reconciliation, consensus of elites around the new president – all of these are better solutions of the problems, which everyone, especially the Churches, find easy to predict. Therefore, there is no such situation that would justify the use of arms against the government today, and it is not expected in theory, even if such situation emerges. In these conditions, the Churches must remember that “blessed are the peacemakers” and not just call for the insurgents in the East to lay down arms, but to take even greater historical responsibility upon themselves. In particular, Churches could advocate the interests of the East of the country during social discussions of the Constitution and the future order of the country, and defend the objective interests of all regions, all national and religious minorities.
Often passions and stereotyped thinking, speculations of populists and provocateurs do not allow people in the East to even realize what is their objective and absolute interest, what are the ways to defend their rights, and what are the ways of returning to partial responsibility for the whole country, its direction, and its future. The Churches should have been forming a specific roadmap for the Ukrainian East based on their own social teachings and not just be an advocate of our East’s interests before the Kyiv government or Europe, but a guarantor of rights the state will provide to the East. That is, the Churches have to initial a national consensus act, if it is signed with the representatives of the East of the country. Creation of such consensus act is possible only with political, representatives of local communities, social elite of the East, but not with militants. If you want negotiations, do not carry arms, and moreover, do not use them, do not sponsor terrorists. All these are clear demands of the social teaching, along with the expansion of local communities’ rights.
The Christian teaching sees local community as a kind of a family, a parish. A healthy social organism of the nation is impossible without live local communities. Legal state on top, social solidarity on bottom, provision of human rights everywhere – these are the three maxims that will save Ukraine. They will save it, because it is a recipe for each country which emerges from a crisis, be it Georgia, which managed to do it, or Russia, which did not. High prices for resources can allow to put off the reforms, but sooner or later every nation comes to the necessity of establishing of the three maxims, stated in the Appeal of Churches made on December 1, 2011: legal state established by the government; solidarity that is created mainly on the level of local communities; human rights protection as a general idea for both legal state and solidary society: without the dignity of citizens, created in the image of God, free, intelligent, and creative, we will not have either legal state, or civil society, or social welfare, or political peace.
And the last: the social teaching unambiguously blesses armed protection of the motherland as a result of external aggression, no matter which forms this invasion acquires in the East of Ukraine. Military defense is always recognized as just and justified. During it, the Church always reminds about the Savior’s words: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).
