Psychology instead of doctrine

As soon as Bishop T. Senkiv assumed power, he immediately presented a whole series of totalitarian methods which have nothing to do with the spirit of the Gospel and with conscience either. For his purposes he abused the police to whom he lied that we had beaten him up; however, when the police wanted a medical expert’s report to be made, he definitely rejected it. How could the three of us beat him up in his residence where there were about 10 more men (priests and seminarists) with him? When we were sitting in a park, he sent the police after us along with a priest with a camera. The priest was to shoot us being taken into the police van in handcuffs. This record was then to serve as confirmation of T.S.’s mendacious information and articles in the newspapers. Moreover, T. Senkiv publicly claimed that we had beaten up even the police, whereby his lie became transparent for every common man. However, he kept on persistently spreading these lies and subsequently even published them both in the secular mass media and in the religious press. Yet the police closed the whole affair by giving us a certificate that we had not committed any offence. Nevertheless, T. Senkiv made a complaint with the highest police organs in Kiev, seeking punishment of the local police of both the town of Stryi and the region of Lvov for their failure to fulfil his pious wish (his complaint was publicized by the Church’s radio “Dzvony”).

The next step forwards of this new bishop was that he hired a student of psychology to write an “expert” article about us and to “professionally” analyze our letters which concern defence of the faith and morals. In this article she was to prove that what we write and how we open the most actual issues and pains of the Church is so-called projections of compulsive thoughts, diagnosed as paranoia, mania and signs of a sect. This student, an “expert” in psychology, and also a would-be “expert” in theology, states at the close of her article: “Besides, there is obvious unacceptance and rejection of whatever criticism in relation to themselves (this is one of the psychological signs of sects). If this state of things is permanently prolonged, there is a danger of development of paranoia as well as of megalomania (a kind of paranoia when the patient considers himself a great personality).”

Response: This quotation does not refer to us but to Bishop T. Senkiv. Those who know him will fully confirm it. We, on the contrary, do accept all objective criticism. However, since we defend the fundamental truths of the faith and not our “selves”, our attitude is connected with a critical and objective view of the situation in the Church and it requires a measure of courage. We do not expect glory so as to live in delusions of grandeur, but we expect persecution and cross. We expect that the enemies of Christ in the Church structures will sooner or later inflict upon us the severest punishments. We do not seek our own career, but strive to defend the substance of faith, because if this is eroded the whole Church gets into self-destruction. Unfortunately, the student of psychology whom Bishop T.S. abused for his mean purposes, does not perceive, similarly to him, the substance of the problem at all, but we forgive her.

In this case T. Senkiv acted in the following way, like: He appoints a butcher the chief surgeon for a major operation. After the operation his “expert” opinion is published in all medical journals. All are astonished at the pioneering work in surgery. The title of the article reads: The operation was successful, but the patient died.

Similar results are achieved by the present-day Church representatives of T. Senkiv’s sort when they let students of psychology evaluate the basic truths of faith.

Yet we have to remind that the bookish formulations concerning paranoia do not relate to us but to the named bishop who hired the student concerned. His obstinate assertion that we beat up both him and the police should be professionally examined not only by this student, but also by a person who really has an academic degree. There is a question whether it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to be examined by these specialists, best in their medical establishment, for some period of time.

This act which Bishop T.S. committed is really shameful. He worships the idol of modern psychology which is based on S. Freud and C.G. Jung. Freud sees everything through the spectacles of sexual libido and of various analytic projections, and Jung opens the door for occultism through his experience of spiritism, not to mention still other authorities in modern psychology who opened themselves to hinduism, buddhism and satanism. Opening the door for this spirit when settling the theological disputes concerning the essence and purity of faith is a fiasco on the Church’s field and meanness of those who do so.

It is really shameful for the present-day Church, and at the same time a sign of her decay, that she has turned away from the sound principles of the Gospel which form the spiritual life, and has put into the centre the idol of psychology which stems from unhealthy roots of impurity and occultism. How valuable then can the Church journals ‘Meta’ (9/08) and ‘Misionar’ be if they publish such articles which replace dogmatics (substance of theology) by psychologies?

We quote from the article mentioned: “Such person is always projecting, i.e. he does not accept the real world as it is but sees his own world which he himself projected and which does not correspond to the reality. Such person urgently needs psychological help.”

This again does not relate to us but in full measure to Bishop T.S. who cried during his sermon that we had beaten up him and the police. Similarly, the question of projections of unreal world concerns even many of the UGCC bishops who do not live in reality but rather in illusion. They do not perceive the real state of the Church at all, cannot see the need of conversion and repentance. Apparently, following the instructions of the article, it is them who would need psychological help so that they might grasp the reality and realize their duty and responsibility for the souls which through their fault are rushing into eternal perdition.

As for the author of the article “Psychology of rebellion of the Pidhirtsi monks” – student O.B., she proceeds on the false assumption that we are unwilling to have a dialogue. The reality is such – we are open to dialogue (e.g. our visit to the synod in Bryukhovychi on 5th September 2008); however, at the same time we emphasize the true Catholic and Biblical teaching and fight against the present-day heresies. Who denies the fundamental truths of the faith, which we defend in these hard times, shows thereby that one is a heretic and apostate. This is what Bishop T. Senkiv already proved to be some time before (see Letters from UA 18/08).

This year is the year of the Apostle Paul. What if this student wrote an article wherein she would be to analyze the statement of St. Paul: “Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am” (Gal 4:12)? By the psychological spectacles on the nose of this student the Apostle would be branded as a super-maniac, super-paranoiac, super-sectarian etc. Every normal Christian who knows the Holy Scripture and accepts it as God’s Word will naturally condemn such “psychological study” as perverted and biased.

                  + Teodozij

      Vicar of Head of the UGCC

             + Markian, OSBM

 Secretary of Synod of the UGCC

Members of the standing Synod of the UGCC

+ Samuel

+ Metod?j, OSBM

+ Eliáš, OSBM

                                                                                                                        Pidhirtsi, 18th September 2008

Address: Bishops’ Synod of the UGCC, Pidhirtsi 19, Brody dist., Lvov reg., 80660, Ukraine

www.community.org