|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Above: the city of Bakhmut. (Photo/Roman Playshko, Shutterstock). Editor’s note: The author advocates for an end to this war as soon as possible.
Recently highly esteemed Dr. John R.T. Lamont wrote an article titled ‘Trump and Russia: Put Not Thy Trust in Presidents.’ His article is highly erudite, well sourced, and rhetorically powerful, and I respect him as a fellow Catholic brother from across the world. For this I thank him for his important contribution to this discussion about a conflict which has ramifications for the whole world. In this piece he made a strong political case for the US supporting Ukraine in her contest against Russia, even prolonging the war until a ‘favourable’ outcome results for the national interests of Ukraine and the USA. If I have understood him correctly, I disagree with this conclusion on various points. However I could tolerate these points had Dr. Lamont not made a religious claim that I feel obliged to oppose. I respond not as a Russian (though I would not shy away from doing so under different circumstances), but as a tonsured Reader of the Catholic Church and a seminarian honoured to contribute to this online journal.
My name is Maxim Grigorieff. I must introduce myself as a Russian Catholic, while English grammar rules would have me capitalise both words instead of one, which is misleading. For in the world that has been blind to the substance of things (those primarily expressed by nouns), the ethnic adjective remains the main focus – be it White, Black, Russian or Ukrainian. The question of what is prior has come to the point where we are no longer sure whether we should read or, what is more, perceive the phrases like ‘Ukrainian,’ ‘Russian,’’ or ‘American Catholics’ the way we were taught in school or… à la française. But I shall do my best to keep it English.
Dr. Lamont starts with the following:
Trump has favoured Russia in her invasion of Ukraine in important ways. He has refused to sell air defence to Ukraine. He is pressuring Ukraine to accept an unjust and unfavourable peace deal, and to cede territory that Russia has illegally occupied. If he succeeds, the Ukrainian state will be destroyed as an independent entity, and Ukraine will be under the thumb of Russia.
There are so many philosophical questions with this statement I cannot cover them in one piece.[1] But as the author refers to this as ‘an anti-Catholic and immoral policy,’ I have a few doctrinal and moral questions:
1. Since when has it become a religious duty for Catholics to believe in the absolute moral value of any country’s independent existence, including that of Ukraine?
In truth, no country on Earth, including Vatican City itself, should be elevated to the status of the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To do otherwise risks creating a political idol – something we people do so artfully on both continents and the isles alike. For example, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that the American Republic ‘shall not perish from off the earth,’ but in reality, there is only one kingdom and one king cuius regni non erit finis.
Dr. Lamont casually used the term ‘entity,’ as I would probably do myself, although I am convinced that no metaphysical term should be applied to a compound accidental that ‘a people’ is but the People of God.
2. Why must accepting an unfavourable or unjust peace between the two countries be considered worse from the Catholic perspective than continuing a war that seems unwinnable in the near future?
Proportionality, the principle of last resort, and reasonable chances for success are all essential conditions for justifying a war, according to the Catholic moral teaching, alongside its defensive nature, although we are used to seeing the latter as the only relevant criterion, which it is not, and neither is ‘favourable to any country in particular’ found on the list.
3. Who exactly is perceived as the victim of injustice by the author and within the broader discourse in the West – the people who suffer from the war or the state (and thus the government elites) who gains and loses? Furthermore, what constitutes the matter of justice or injustice: the individuals involved or the territories that various states (and thus, again, government elites) seek to control?
As I am constrained by my editor to not make this response proportionate to Dr. Lamont’s extensive treatment, I will focus on a few more particulars. Dr. Lamont says:
In the Ukrainian territories occupied by the Russians after their 2022 invasion, this process of destruction of the Ukrainian nation has already begun through the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children, who are taken to Russia, given to Russian step-parents, and educated to be Russians.
First of all, I am more inclined to agree with those commentators who acknowledge 2022 to be the cementing year for the strong united Ukrainian national identity – something that could not have been formed on these extremely diverse lands if the nation had not been united by a common enemy and a shared tragedy. But that is not the point.
The appointed victim is not a specific Ukrainian family that was forcefully deprived of their kids (who were ‘kidnapped’[2]), which would clearly violate Divine Law if it ever happened intentionally. Instead, the focus is on the Ukrainian nation, or as we might say, the state – the government elites which used to have custody of the orphans and other parentless children. The injustice, to Dr. Lamont, seems to be that the nation is losing its ethnic identity and becoming Russian. But if that were to happen in peacetime, with no shred of injustice – what is the problem with that? Therefore the focus of the cry of ‘injustice’ is misplaced. We should focus on the suffering families, not the suffering ‘nation’ – since a nation is nothing, metaphysically speaking, compared to a family. . Considered per se, there is no problem with whole swathes of people who are not Russians from becoming Russian, unless one thinks that Russian equals ‘anti-Catholic,’ which one might be led to believe based on what Dr. Lamont says.
I do realise it sounds provocative. One may think I’m merely a ‘Russian Imperialist’ hoping to justify an unjust war, but in reality, we are talking about life and death and the creation of widows and orphans. And assuming my motives are malicious will do them little service. As a Catholic I am asking these questions, because we must not only talk in moral absolutes in order to address issues of the Fifth Commandment, but do it correctly.
Concern for the Children
Here is the story about Ukrainian children in numbers known to the Western reader:
1. According to the ‘Humanitarian Research Lab,’:
More than 19,000 children from Ukraine have been deported to Russia.
Russia targeted vulnerable groups of children for deportation, including orphans, children with disabilities, children from low-income families, and children with parents in the military.
2. Then, according to Euronews,
During the second round of direct talks in Istanbul on Monday, Ukraine handed over to Russia a list of its forcefully deported children. (…) The Russian delegation chief Vladimir Medinsky showed the list, which contains the names of 339 abducted Ukrainian children.
3. Whereas the same report says:
1,350 [Children] have been returned, and each return is mediated by a third-party state, notably by Qatar, South Africa and the Vatican.
Indeed, the Vatican has been involved in mediating the negotiation process so that children can return to their families, while never demonising the Russian side who claims that they acted out of charity for the war refugees and didn’t want to divide the families.[3] Russian diplomats publish the guidelines for the families on how to search for and get back their children evacuated from the warfare zone as refugees.
Moreover, Russian citizens cannot adopt a child from the Kherson or Zaporozhskaya regions, as these children can only be taken from there under guardianship. This was stated by the Commissioner for Children’s Rights under the President of Russia, Mrs. Maria Lvova-Belova, during the broadcast of the program ‘The Church and Us’ on the ‘Russia 1’ television channel.
‘We do not have adoptions from the new regions at all, in principle. We only have guardianship or foster families so that in case relatives or people who may claim this child appear there, it would be easier to do so,’ she said (my translation).
This technical ‘adoption’ of a child does not mean that they cannot later be returned to their biological relatives, the ombudswoman noted on national television.
What does it suggest and what does it not?
It looks like the Russian government has been acting according to its Constitution where the four formally Ukrainian regions are considered Russian, thus organising custody over – yes – vulnerable children who are being evacuated and taken care of far from the frontline – however well or badly it might be organised. Some of the children were temporarily given to families who take care of them, others have been reunited with their families. It is obvious that Russia admits the right of a family over a child and is working with various mediating organisations including the Vatican.[4]
Does the situation look perfect? No way. There are always plenty of tragedies along the way amidst the hell of war that broke loose. But it certainly does not look like a war crime – an intentional act of genocide or kidnapping of children from their homes.[5]
Still, it was on 17 March 2023, that the International Criminal Court, amidst an ongoing investigation, issued arrest warrants for President Putin of Russia and Mrs. Maria Lvova-Belova (the same Russian commissioner for Children I quoted above) for the ‘unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.’[6]
Is this whole juridic framework Catholic? I don’t think so. In fact, the least morally questionable deed of Russia is chosen for indictment under ‘international law.’ The United Nations and their related bodies have been supported, in principle, by the Popes in the post-war world for the sake of preventing another world war, but they have never been truly infused with a Catholic ethos. In fact, they have continued to operate not according to the Catholic weltanschauung, according to Catholic Social Teaching, but rather the ‘Cold War mentality.’
There is a more vivid, yet silent question: in case of a ‘just and favourable peace’ achieved, is it implied that those orphan children who got practically adopted in Russia, after however many years have gone by, should be made orphans again, taken from the new families they will have got used to, sent back to the ‘lawful owners’ like slaves used to be sent back to the slave-owning states from the North on the eve of the American Civil war? Statist logic of the ‘international law’ implies exactly that, because, under that mind set, people do belong to their states and governments, not vice-versa. The Catholic mind should not copy this logic, at the very least.
Perhaps my Ukrainian and Western readers find it difficult to take the arguments of a Russian seriously because I personally do not see our two nations involved in the conflict as fundamentally different. Rather, I perceive the current events as a tragic civil war. Because of this, you may think I am justan a heir of my imperialist ancestors from among the pioneers of the Russian Catholic movement, who largely belonged to the Russian nobility and utterly denied Ukraine’s national claims for independence. Moreover, that supposition wouldn’t be completely unjust to conceive of. In response to make a strong and clear case, I shall provide a testimony from Ukraine –Deacon Vasily von Burman (OSB), who wrote about the actions of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky in Petrograd when this bishop from Ukraine arrived in the capital of Russia to discover, among other things, that Russian troops (who conquered the lands now known as the Western Ukraine during World War I), had relocated some Uniate Galician orphans to the ‘Mainland Russia,’ specifically to the city of Taganrog for caretaking and education.
Here is what the Ukrainian Deacon wrote in Russian:
In particular, Metropolitan Andrey was concerned about the large number of orphans taken by the Russian authorities from Galicia, who were placed in a government gymnasium [school] in Taganrog. Upon admission, they were asked about their faith, with the question: ‘Are you Polish?’ The children would answer ‘no,’ and they were recorded as Orthodox and raised accordingly. Meanwhile, in the opinion of the metropolitan, this question should not have been posed, as Ruthenians do not distinguish between a Pole and a Catholic; for them, it is the same. Naturally, the children would give a negative answer; no Ruthenian would ever say that they are Polish. Metropolitan Andrew strongly protested against these children being torn away from their faith and made Orthodox. However, [Mr.] Lvov [the Russian minister for religious affairs of the time] disagreed, not accepting his arguments. [Mr.] Kartashev [who was a Russian Church historian and a friend of Russian Catholics], who was present during the conversation, on the contrary, supported Metropolitan Andrew. In the end, the director of the Taganrog gymnasium helped to resolve the issue of the Galician orphans studying there in a more or less satisfactory manner.[7]
What should be noted? Metropolitan Andrew was primarily concerned with the religious identity of the Uniate children from the orphanages in Galicia, rather than their national identity as ‘Ruthenians’ (indeed, the very term ‘Ukrainians’ had not yet become dominant in the national identity of the inhabitants of Galicia at that time). He was also not focused on ensuring that those children were returned to Galicia, for whose independence from the Russian Empire the venerable hierarch did not publicly advocate either, as his main life’s work was the betterment of the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite throughout the territory of historical Rus’, rather than petty nationalism. And yes, he collaborated with the Russian authorities.
I would very much like to see a figure like Andrey Sheptytsky in charge of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. With all due reverence to His Beatitude, I wish that the Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk would be more concerned about religious freedom and the Catholic education of his flock, including those in Russia, than about the ‘threat to the Ukrainian nation’ in the most war-affected regions, which, contrary to his unfortunately not very truthful statements, were not Uniate or Ukrainian-speaking before the war. Since 2014, Ukrainian clergy have actively left Russia, and the UGCC Cathedral in Donetsk, which was closed after the start of the special operation, looks like a giant Ukrainian flag.
Is it absolutely fair to see the shuttering of such Churches a purely religious act of persecution? The same Ukrainian resource that reports about the two UGCC priests from the Donbass that were presumably arrested in 2022, says that this Church along with the nearby territory was sealed up only in 2024. While Donbass practices have been pretty rough due to sad, but understandable reasons,[8] Greek Catholics in Crimea have their own canonical structures (an Exarchate) and a bishop recognized by the Russian state and not persecuted at all. In fact, there is a Catholic flock in Donbass systematically visited by Russian Catholic priests,[9] while in mainland Russia, in Siberia and Moscow, there are parishes and communities where the Ukrainian rite services are regularly provided.
Does it really look like an organised religious persecution at the state level? Hardly. Instead, the Russian Federation has proved to be tolerant to Ukrainian Greek Catholics beyond what has been expected, given all the circumstances and according to Dr. Lamont’s own standard. To dismiss this fact with disdain and suspicion is to urge the Russian authorities to adopt a harsher stance towards the UGCC and Catholics in general which is not only counterproductive but also detrimental to souls. That would be indeed an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy. The Catholic Church should rather, for lack of a better example, emulate President Trump’s approach. When faced with a provocative question from journalists, he chose not to insult Putin, while keeping his ‘cards’ close to his chest. In contrast, President Biden’s approach, that is labelling Putin ‘a killer’ without any leverage or even concern for those in Russia and Ukraine who might be affected by such remarks — was far less prudent. But this is the approach that seems to have been taken by Dr. Lamont.
4. As for the perspective of ‘more war,’ Dr. Lamont effectively frames this conflict within the Cold War context, highlighting the West’s interests in its confrontations with Russia and China, often implying that this axis is what Reagan called the ‘Empire of Evil’ versus the ‘Alliance of Good,’ led by the United States (Dr. Lamont is Canadian, but he seems to be using a Cold War framework). This narrative has been around for decades and it leaves so much to discuss, but the whole thing largely remains a geopolitical hypothesis, while the real cost of the ongoing warfare is the loss of an entire generation of men in both Ukraine and Russia. While I may be seen as a Russian imperialist who views both peoples as one, this perspective does not diminish the crucial question: should we not all prioritise a flawed peace over a protracted war for a more favourable outcome for some broader political contest? This question is directed at the hawks on both sides who claim to be Christians.
My main thought is that – at least – one should not make this conflict religious, utilising Catholicism in particular. Let us have a look at the history. Nobody, except for some terrorists from the IRA, would now insist it is a religious duty of a Catholic Irishman to fight the English and reconquer Northern Ireland (another ‘Donbass’ in Europe with mixed population and ‘Imperial’ language dominance), bringing it back to Dublin. Nor would anybody claim it was a moral and religious duty of St. Thomas Moore to come against the Crown for the rights of this now Independent Isle, for he would hardly conceive of such a thought anyway. One may also recall the question of Reichsland Elsaß-Lothringen (also known as Alsace-Lorraine). The land used to be an ‘imperial territory’ of the German Empire, located in what is now eastern France, consisting of Alsace and eastern Lorraine, linked by a shared history of… definitely German origin. The ‘German Donbass’ it is, over which the Franco-Prussian War started in 1870. Thanks be to God, no religious sentiment was added to this purely imperialistic or nationalistic war between the two neo-European nations (although one of them was primarily Catholic and the other – Protestant). By the 19th century the Western Europeans seemed to have learnt how to fight each other without a false religious premise. And that was the crucial condition for such modern wars to end, because there can be no end in a religious battle between good and evil, when we are all good, and they, all evil.
Yet, when it comes to Russia, it is somehow different. Ready-made answers tend to be sealed with the authority of Catholicism, dogmatised and sold to the Catholics around the West – those who are still susceptible to the Cold War mentality (a regressive mentality brought about by the Communist claim for world domination which was religious in nature and irreconcilable in its political implementation). The reaction to this threat made global politics binary and tribal for decades. I see this mindset growing in my country as well and I don’t think this ‘fight against flesh and blood’ helps save souls or stop wars.
I also disagree with Dr. Lamont about Russia being an anti-Catholic state that has been coherently anti-Catholic throughout her history up to nowadays. But this is a huge topic that deserves a separate article. The main point here is simply this: the idol of nationalism must be sacrificed to stop the bloodshed, even if that peace is ‘unfavourable’ to nationalist interests. In my view, this is the Catholic approach to this conflict.
[1] For example, what does it mean to be an independent entity? May a ‘buffer state’ or any other state be independent in the absolute sense? What is the criterion of favourable outcome here?
[2] This is the only justifiable case for the use of this word.
[3] Which is plausible given that uncounted plenty of refugees did come to the ‘Russian mainland’ during this warfare.
[4] The Office of the Russian Commissioner for Children is open to interaction with representatives of international organizations and officials of foreign states. In particular, as needed, intermediaries such as Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna, Chairman of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, and Special Envoy of the Pope, as well as representatives from the State of Qatar, are involved in the family reunification process.
[5] Given that no war has been yet even declared between the two countries from either side!
[6] It is notable that these charges were not, for example, about ‘starting an aggressive war’ everyone has been so judgemental about, which would be more legally sound and defensible. Instead, one of the least morally questionable deeds of Russia is chosen for the persecution that has to be started because the state of Ukraine does not recognise the territorial loss and treats all the population as the object proper to these lands (that is the only reason why the whole thing is called ‘unlawful’).
[7] Бурман, Василий фон. Леонид Федоров. Жизнь и деятельность. Львов, 1993, p. 339. Emphasis mine.
[8] The region’s being close to the frontline, for example.
[9] See, for example: https://sib-catholic.ru/tass-katoliki-rossii-otpravyat-v-donbass-svyashhennikov-i-medikov-dlya-pomoshhi-mestnyim-zhitelyam/