But what is it really? The conflict in Ukraine is above all a clash between two geopolitical actors, NATO and Russia. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR was followed by three decades of Anglo-American hegemony, due to Russian weakness.
It seems that today, first with the conflict in Syria, and now with the refusal of a new advance of Western influence in Ukraine, Russia has decided to assert itself again.
The Two Parties Involved
The West continues to promote a vision of the world deeply opposed to the Christian vision, dissolving what might remain of civilization and morality. Churchmen have echoed this liberal and, recently, explicitly pantheistic vision, under ecological pretexts.
On the other hand, Russia tries to pass off that it is clothing itself in traditional elements, not accepting the ultra-liberal vision in moral matters, and seeking in its past, in the absence of communist ideology to serve as cement, a kind of anti-liberal identity.
Part of this lost Russian identity is the Russian Orthodox Church, widely supported by the Kremlin as an instrument of rule, even if the social influence of its hierarchy is quite poor. Moreover, Russia does not hide its support for communist power in China, which continues to persecute Christians.
From a certain Catholic point of view, the presence of two great powers, even if both are anti-Catholic, is undoubtedly preferable to the overwhelming power of one. Two powers that clash, as long as they do not clash into a destructive war, limit each other, and cannot fully pursue their objectives.
The Pope: How Many Divisions?
“How many divisions does the Pope have?”, Stalin asked at Yalta in the face of Pius XII’s European demands. In this conflict, the Vatican seems to be on the side of peace and a quick solution, which would be the most reasonable solution for all parties.
However, there is no shortage of interventions that recall how much the Holy See echoes the “West” and its vision. There are even invites for people to “fast” from gas during Lent, with both ecological and anti-Russian aims.
According to Vatican News: “the Laudato Si’ movement – formerly GCCM, Global Catholic Climate Movement – … has proposed to ‘fast’ from gas, one of the protagonists of the conflict marked by the blood of innocent people and very strong economic interests. Previously, the organization had promoted a fast from plastic and other substances polluting the earth. But today, saying no to fossil fuels, plunder and conflict means calling the whole human family to co-responsibility.
As we await ‘green’ choices from European governments and other actors: the acceleration of investments in renewables and hydrogen; as we wait for the EU to modify the natural gas supply framework, cut the umbilical cord with Russia and reduce its dependence, each of us can make a difference.”
The message echoes both the ecological mantra, and a green version of foreign energy policy, that has always wanted to separate Russia from Europe. Dependence on Russian gas would therefore be an evil for Europe to fight. If it is legitimate to discuss such a problem, the Holy See seems to take a clear-cut position here, determining the geopolitical structure of the two warring empires.
Kirill’s Homily and the Division of the Orthodox World
At the same, the homily of Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church aroused excessive enthusiasm in certain circles. On March 7, he took up the political reasons for the war put forward by the Kremlin: the Ukrainian persecution of the Donbass, which has been going on since 2014, and presented the Russian expedition as a kind of holy war against the perverted “West.”
Kirill’s analysis continues: “Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government [world power], a kind of pass to that ‘happy’ world, the world of excessive consumption, the world of visible ‘freedom.’ Do you know what this test is?”
“The test is very simple and at the same time terrible – it’s a gay parade… gay parades are designed to demonstrate that sin – is one of the variations of human behavior. This is why in order to enter the club of those countries, it is necessary to organize a gay pride parade…. This means that we are talking about imposing by force a sin condemned by God’s law, and therefore, by force to impose on people the denial of God and His truth….There is a real war around this subject today.”
But the speaker of these words is a denier of the Catholic Church. Kirill denies the truth of God as much as the organizers of the gay pride parades, and he is even more dangerous because he seems better than them. On this subject, it is obviously possible to recognize that what the heretics – or the schismatics – say or do is good when it is the case.
But we cannot praise them according to Canon 2316: “Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy… is suspected of heresy.” To praise heretics is to present in a favorable light people who should not be, especially if they are leaders. It is putting simple people in danger of apostasy or confusion.
Moreover, Kirill’s position exposes the theological drama of the Orthodox Church. For this error, there is no God-given principle of unity for the government of the Orthodox Church, so that the Orthodox divide according to political and national needs – and not by schism, as can happen with Catholics.
Thus, there is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church loyal to Moscow, and another which is autocephalous in accordance with an agreement with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. It did not hesitate to break with Moscow for purely political reasons. What theological principle could guarantee Church unity for the Orthodox?
The Consecration of Russia
In this context, Pope Francis announced the consecration of Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will be carried out by himself in Rome and by his delegate in Fatima. He also invited all the bishops of the world to join him.
This article does not examine the correspondence of this act with that requested by the Virgin at Fatima, but wonders why the Pope today considers possible, or desirable, an act long postponed or carried out in an unclear way by his predecessors and by himself? Is the urgency of the war sufficient to explain this position?
One of the obstacles long considered unavoidable to the explicit consecration of Russia was ecumenical. If the Pope of Rome had consecrated Russia, it would have been considered an affront by the Muscovite clergy who believed themselves to be the jurisdictional guardians over Russian soil. In addition, in 1993, the Holy See explicitly committed itself, through the Balamand Accords, not to carry out any evangelization action on “Russian Church” territory.
Today, after Kirill’s declarations in favor of war, this caution no longer seems necessary. The Moscow Patriarchate, by its attitude of support for Putin’s war, has excluded itself from ecumenical courtesies.
A Catholic Balance
In the current war situation, some figures in the Catholic world have supported the anti-Catholic position of the “West” – with slight nuances – and on the other hand, prelates and scholars have indiscriminately exalted Holy Russia, going so far as to invoke the “Third Rome” myth to justify Russian aggression.
The term “Third Rome,” which speaks of Moscow in a positive sense, is to be avoided, because this term is used by the Orthodox to signify their claim to replace the throne of St. Peter. The current war is a clash between non-Catholic powers, between a “West” with anti-Catholic traits and a Russia that cloaks itself in a veneer of schismatic orthodoxy.
Thus, to consider the Russian expedition as a “holy war” seems like an exaggeration of schismatic propaganda, which is not credible. It may be agreeable and good to hear the denunciation of the anti-Christian perversion of the “West,” provided that we do not forget from which age-old perversion of faith and ecclesiology the warning comes.
In the post-war period, faced with the danger of communism, part of the Catholic world and the hierarchy aligned themselves so much with the American and liberal front that they then accepted without difficulty the new doctrine on religious freedom in the Second Vatican Council. We must not today, facing the perverted “West,” make the same mistake in reverse.
In truth, it is up to Catholics, long deprived of their own geopolitical references, to turn towards Heaven, remembering what Pius XII exclaimed on Stalin’s death: “Now you will see how many divisions we have up there!”
The Russian-Ukrainian war has been dressed in religious connotations. The conflict is being presented as a confrontation between two visions of the world: that of the “West” of “human rights without God” on the one hand, and the “moral integrity” of Russian Orthodoxy on the other.