State-Religion Relationships in Ukraine during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Specific and Particular Features

This paper presents the particular functioning of state-religion relationships in Ukraine during the coronavirus pandemic. Our research proved that the Ukrainian government has developed two strategies – a restrictive strategy and a partner strategy – in dealing with religious organisations in this crisis. Restrictions were aimed at reducing coronavirus cases in the country. The partnership was created to provide mutual aid in treating the infected citizens of Ukraine. The authors have also proved that religious organisations in Ukraine found themselves in a difficult situation – between the threat of their total discontinuation and the challenges of possible transformation of their activity. Therefore, a partial limitation of church service attendance has been introduced, focusing on the fact that a religious organisation cannot waive church services since that would contradict its nature and mission. The authors have concluded that further harmonious interaction of government authorities and religious organisations in Ukraine in COVID-19 conditions depends on numerous factors: the epidemiologic situation, government decisions on the functioning of various social institutions, religious institutions in particular, and support by religious leaders of government initiatives on preventing the public spread of the disease.


Introduction
The coronavirus pandemic that seized the world in 2020 provoked various challenges for all countries, including Ukraine. These challenges concern different aspects of social life, particularly religious organisations. Religious institutions in Ukraine have met this challenge in different ways and have therefore functioned in conformity with their beliefs. At the same time, this situation has changed the relationships between the state authorities and religious organisations. Thus, to analyse the interaction of the Ukrainian state authorities and religious institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is particularly important to reveal possible differences compared to the experience of such interaction in other countries and regions of the world.
The practical importance is to highlight the significant role of religious organisations and communities in saving people's lives and reducing COVID-19 cases. Religious organisations were one of the main sources of support, control and direct medical aid and social servicing for their communities. Religious leaders shared information on the importance of public healthcare to protect the members of their own and other communities. In addition, they provided pastoral and spiritual support in emergencies related to public healthcare and other health challenges, protecting the needs of vulnerable populations (Tokman 2020b).
The theoretical base of this article is the scientific papers of foreign (G. Ignatowski and L. Sulkowski, R. Lunkin) and Ukrainian (P. Кraliuk, V. Тоkman, L. Vyhovskyi) scholars, among others, who investigated certain aspects of the research problem. Of particular importance were sociological studies, recommendations of international organisations and the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine, analytical materials developed by the National Institute for Strategic Studies, and the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies named after Olexander Razumkov. However, there is still no complex religious analysis of particular features of state-religion relationships during the coronavirus pandemic in Ukraine. The authors' previous scientific papers also became an important base for the research. In particular, some of our scientific studies (Rudenko et al., 2020;Kharkovshchenko et al., 2020;Rudenko & Turenko, 2020) have investigated religious, cultural, methodological, social and political aspects that proved important in preparing this paper.
The research goal was to study specific features and characteristics of state-denomination relationships in Ukraine at the time of the coronavirus pandemic. The previous model of interaction of the government and denominations could no longer function in such crisis conditions. Due to the high degree of uncertainty peculiar of any social cataclysm, insufficient development, a lack of decision-making models and a deficiency of related information bases, it is especially important to reinterpret and understand the should-be attitude of the state towards religion and the attitude of religion to the state.
To achieve the goal of this article, we have used the following general scientific and special methods of research for processes and phenomena: the comparative method, the sociological polling method, interdisciplinarity and principles of academic studies on religion, -objectivity, non-confessionalism, ideological pluralism, and neutrality in religious issues.

The two-vector strategy of state power of Ukraine concerning religious organisations
The limitations introduced by various countries due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have also influenced the activity of Churches. These restrictions aim to prevent public gatherings that are a direct consequence of cult practices of religious organisations. They include church services, prayer meetings, celebrations, funerals, rituals, etc.
In Ukraine, we observe quite indistinct government instructions limiting the activity of religious organisations. The Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No 211 of March 11, 2020, "On preventing the spread of acute respiratory disease COVID-19 caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV2", has been changed several times. In the original version of the subordinate act, public gatherings of over ten participants were prohibited, including gatherings of religious organisations. On April 2, 2020, the government changed this wording and underlined that all public gatherings, including religious gatherings, must be banned. At the same time, the official website of the Cabinet of Ministers stated that churches would not be closed. Such a general statue resulted in much obfuscation and numerous interpretations of limited religious freedom. For example, experts from the Institute of Religious Freedom stated that only public gatherings were limited, not mentioning other religious events, including home meetings, social aid for the disadvantaged, and other private forms of expression of religious beliefs (Explanation of IRF, 2020).
It should be noted that such uncertainty about the functioning of religious organisations in pandemic conditions was observed not only in Ukraine but in many other countries as well, which resulted in large numbers of believers attending the church services of certain religious organisations, as seen in both Europe and Asia (for instance, India).
Such vagueness was revealed in a public opinion poll in Ukraine concerning government actions towards religious organisations (See Fig. 1 below) (Razumkov-centre, 2020).
Which of the following statements do you agree with most? % respondents During the coronavirus pandemic, churches and preaching houses should work only with limitations and strict observance of all sanitary rules 45,0 Churches and preaching houses must not be opened during the coronavirus pandemic as it is dangerous 36,1 Churches and preaching houses should be opened during the coronavirus pandemic to enable people to pray for their health and the health of their relatives 11,8 It is difficult to answer 7,1 2020 It is difficult to answer 4,2 8,6 5,0 8,5

Regions of Ukraine
As we can see, nationwide, most of the respondents were inclined to agree with the opening of places of worship, as long as people wore protective masks and practised social distancing. At the same time, it should be noted that the people of the south and east of Ukraine were more careful regionally, while the people in the west and centre supported a more liberal attitude to the functioning of religious organisations.
As stated by V.Тоkman, "many (clergymen, believers, ordinary citizens) were interested in the following issue: what exactly can be practised in churches and preaching houses during cult and ritual events? As there was no official response, leaders of churches and confessions used certain government statements, current legislation on sanitary norms, and foreign countries' experience. They started developing methodical recommendations on believers' quarantine behaviour. The implementation of the government's decision on quarantine restrictions by representatives of state and local authorities in the regions proved to be a real problem for the Churches" (Tokman 2020a).
Due to the lack of unambiguous interpretation of Resolution No 211, some churches were closed. As a result, not long before Easter, the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations (AUCCRO) addressed Denys Shmyhal, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine with their own propositions on providing the constitutional right of religious freedom during a lockdown. The AUCCRO also called on the government to interpret Resolution 211 and to instruct local police and power authorities to prevent misunderstanding and chaos during the Easter celebrations.
One should also note that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine demonstrated a high level of discipline in quarantine conditions in keeping with the recommendations of the Ukraine Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Vatican. Therefore, considering the constructive response of most religious organisations to the restrictive lockdown steps of the Ukrainian power authorities, after the lockdown, the Ministry of Culture and the Information Policy of Ukraine proposed the following algorithm for the step-by-step resumption of systematic and full-value work of religious organisations.
1. The opening of churches to believers for visiting and private preaching (but not during the traditional services given by clergymen, i.e., without believers and with no more than ten persons present), in keeping with all quarantine behaviour rules for public places (in particular, observing the norm of one person per 10 sq. m inside the church) can be possible when, within ten consecutive days, the percentage of confirmed coronavirus cases among tested people decreases daily, and the daily number of people who have recovered is stable or increasing. 2. Church services with a limited number of believers in the church (preaching house), in keeping with all quarantine rules, in particular with individual protective means and physical distance between the people present, can be possible when, within ten consecutive days, the number of daily new unrelated COVID-19 cases is fewer than five per region. 3. Holding ordinary church services with a large number of believers in traditional ritual and cultic events, such as mass communion, when clergymen and believers keep to the personal hygiene norms, in particular with the use of personal protective means, can be possible if the official records in Ukraine state only rare COVID-19 cases solely due to imported disease cases" (MKIP 2020). As V.Tokman stated, by implementing these steps, the state does not see religious organisations as a means of spreading the pandemic but rather an ally in fighting the pandemic. Following on from this, Ukrainian scientists set the following recommendations for key central power authorities responsible for dealing with religious institutions.
"1. To the State Service of Ukraine on Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience: -to elaborate and submit to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine the initiatives on developing a partnership model of state-confession relationships at legislative and regulatory levels; -to complete the draft of the concept of state-confession relationships in Ukraine with its further adoption as a law. 2. To the Commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on humanitarian and information policy: -to provide for the parliamentary consideration of the draft law on military chaplain service by the end of 2020. 3. To central and local authorities: -to closely engage religious organisations in the realisation of programs, conceptions, and projects concerning human development; -to involve the religious network of various confessions interested in carrying out awareness-raising work regarding the spread and prevention of the coronavirus infection" (Tokman 2020b). Such recommendations were made because the central power authorities saw that religious organisations were highly active in controlling the spread of the coronavirus infection. In the first days of quarantine, Ukraine's largest churches (UGCC, OCU, UOC) went public with a statement that they were fully ready to help the state prevent the spread of the pandemic.
Thus, one can conclude that the state authorities demonstrated a bivectoral attitude regarding the functioning of religious institutions. On the one hand, the state introduced several church service limitations, but on the other hand, the central power and confession leaders interacted to help infected people and to prevent mass infection and deaths of the Ukrainian people. So, the Ukrainian government took an adaptable approach to the functioning of religious organisations, depending on the pandemic dynamics during a certain period.

Religious organisations in Ukraine during pandemics: threat vs. challenge
Western scientists L. Sulkowski and G.Ignatowski state that "any pandemic disorganises social life. One of the manifestations of social activity is religious life. Regardless of increasing secularisation, religion, churches and confession associations influence individual ethical choices and business decisions... Decisions taken by clergymen, irrespective of their personal views, were the result of ecclesiology and traditions. With the change in the organisation of church life, churches contacted believers in various ways, using modern technology and access to public mass media. Though churches do not change their doctrinal positions, they declare various forms of interaction" (Sulkowski & Ignatowski, 2020).
Concerning global experience, we can observe two approaches to solving this problem under total or partial lockdown: a) total rejection of any public meetings, including church services; b) partial restriction of church service attendance, emphasising that churches cannot completely refuse services as it contradicts their nature and mission (Lunkin 2020).
Most religious organisations have chosen the second strategy. This has been confirmed by the believers' poll (Razumkov Centre, 2020) and recommendations of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations given as a response to the introduction of quarantine in Ukraine from March 12, 2020 to April 3, 2020 to prevent the spread of the coronavirus: a) to treat with respect and personal responsibility the measures taken by the power authorities to prevent the spread of this viral disease, its localisation, and quick recovery of infected people; b) to avoid extremes: not to give way to panic but not to ignore the danger; c) to treat oneself and others with responsibility if one has symptoms of an acute respiratory disease or he/she has recently come back from a country with high coronavirus prevalence. This includes staying home for at least two weeks (coronavirus incubation period), avoiding places with large numbers of people, and seeking medical advice; d) to adhere to expert recommendations on current special hygiene rules; e) to demonstrate love, understanding, tolerance, sympathy and assistance to those fighting the disease [See Fig. 2 below] (Razumkov Centre, 2020): Did you visit a church (preaching house) under strict quarantine in March-May 2020? % of respondents who attended religious services and meetings Yes, I attended as often before quarantine 6,7 Yes, I attended, but not so often 25, 6 No, I did not attend 67,5 Did not respond 0,2 Did not respond 0,0 0,5 0,5 0,0 0,0

Regions of Ukraine
The survey results have demonstrated that under strict quarantine in March-May 2020, most respondents (68%) did not attend church or a preaching house (61% of citizens in the west and 77% of citizens in the south and east); another 26% of respondents reduced the frequency of their attendance, and only 7% of respondents disregarded the quarantine (from 11% of UOC believers to 3% of UGCC believers).
1. In general, the relative majority (45%) of citizens was sure that during the pandemic, churches and preaching houses should remain open but in keeping with all sanitary rules (from 60% of citizens in the west to 28% of citizens in the south; from 67% of UGCC believers to 37% of "ordinary Christians"). 2. 36% of respondents were sure that during the pandemic, churches and preaching houses should not open due to danger (from 63% of citizens in the south to 21% of citizens in the west; from 47% "ordinary Christians" to 17% of UGCC believers). 3. Only 12% of respondents spoke against any restrictions in the functioning of churches and preaching houses (from 15% of citizens in the west to 4% citizens in the south; from 19% of UOC believers to 6% of "ordinary Christians"). To keep quarantine restrictions from preventing the observance of the principle of religious freedom and realisation of believers' needs, religious services were streamed on the Internet. The religious services were attended by 13% of respondents (from 39% of citizens in the west to 4-5% of citizens in the other regions; from 56% of UGCC believers to 6% of "ordinary Christians" and "ordinary Orthodox Christians") (Razumkov-centre, 2020).
As the data show, it is no wonder that Orthodox Christians of Ukraine, as the country's leading creed, have started a discussion of the possible transformation of sacraments.
Supporting this point is the opinion of the famous researcher T.Derkach: "The history of the church has largely referred to non-standard, nonlinear situations faced by ancient or medieval believers or bishops. The church has never had quiet periods when it was possible to serve the liturgy, baptise, consecrate and receive communion, being fully confident in the future. The church was not a conveyer of the same rituals on a daily basis. Certain external and internal circumstances have changed -the church has changed service practice and had to refine the teachings of God himself. However, there were situations when it was necessary to take unique decisions quickly. In law, it is called ad hoc -a method of solving a specific problem or task which cannot be used for solving other problems and which cannot fit in the general decisiontaking strategy (exception). By the way, the church has had lots of such exceptions but, for one reason or another, they were used as precedents when necessary paid" (Derkach, 2020).
At the same time, the coronavirus pandemic and the progress of powerful science and technology also stimulated the development of potential new forms of participation in the sacraments, including distant, "online" sacraments. Because direct participation can increase the number of COVID-19 cases in a country, the possible transformation of the sacraments can guarantee the safety and health of the country's citizens (Vyhovskyi, 2020).
However, this issue resulted in a heated discussion, especially after the "Internet Eucharist" held by OCU clergymen Ihor Savva and Dmytro Vaisburd.
After this event, Eustratius (Zorya), the OCU archbishop, published on his Facebook page a series of reflections (statuses). "In his first post, he states that the Eucharist cannot be served distantly, as it is impossible to eat and drink distantly (to my mind, it is a manipulative comparison, as people take the sacrament physically, while what is meant here is distant consecration, but not taking the sacrament itself -D.G.). The second argument is that the form of performing the sacrament cannot be changed, as it was established by Jesus Christ himself. Then archbishop Eustratius states that the logic of online sacrament excludes, if it is not necessary, both the clergyman and the liturgy itself -there are left only God and man. And as God is in man's soul, it is quite enough just to make mediation. The archbishop also believes that online broadcast is a contemplation of the sacrament, but not participation in it, although the liturgy assumes participation. Here is an obvious challenge Archbishop Eustratius poses to the archpriest Ihor Savva: when does a person actually participate in liturgy -when he/she is physically present in church but cannot hear the Eucharist prayers (but most often does not even imagine they exist)? Or when a person is physically absent from church but can hear and see the virtual performance of the Eucharistic canon?" (Gorevoy, 2020). Therefore, we can see that the religious studies discourse considers the pandemic as a challenge to the future. It emphasises that such a situation stimulates new conditions and forms of interaction between the state and religious organisations and their followers (Kharkovshchenko et al., 2020).
It is interesting to note that that this discussion emerged in the Orthodox community. Even though a number of countries with the most Catholic citizens have come through COVID-19, Catholics did not dwell on different forms of participation in the sacraments. Here we can conclude that what they care about is not religious (in)security, as the number of permanent participants in church services is really small, and it was not their goal to change the form of sacraments. This especially concerns Ukraine, where Catholics hold the second position in the country's population, since: 1. On March 17, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in Ukraine published an address to bishops on church activity during the pandemic. In addition to recommendations on social distancing and sanitation, the Roman Catholic Church suggested restricting the believers' participation in church services and thus using as widely as possible all communication channels -radio, television, Internet channels and social networks. 2. On March 24, recommendations were made to the Greek Catholic clergy on how to perform liturgy rituals during quarantine. These included creating an opportunity for people to participate in televised church services via social networks; to worship the shroud of Christ during quarantine by bowing heads to the ground but not by kissing it, and to celebrate Easter only in the open air (Kraliuk et al., 2020). Unlike the situation in Ukraine, a number of countries and religious traditions experienced insubordination to decisions of power authorities and senior leaders of a certain confession. In particular, mass religious events were held in Pakistan and India and a number of European (in particular, Balkan) countries, including Ukraine. Of course, it is necessary to note the reasons for such insubordination. In India and Pakistan, the reason was the religious beliefs of followers of Hinduism; with Christian believers, the reason was the apocalyptic mood and disbelief in the existence of the epidemic itself (Impact of a pandemic on religion, 2020).
At the same time, epidemics are a threat to the functioning of religious organisations in Ukraine. Therefore, social and political cataclysms push religious organisations to act in different ways, and to develop and implement new models of interaction with believers, representatives of certain religious traditions, and the country's citizens in general.
The participation of religious organisations in the fight against the spread of the coronavirus has shown that they are not archaic, and they respond to social challenges. For many, mostly Christian believers, the crisis has raised acute awareness of the need to develop new forms of Christian mission and new ways to attract people to the church. In many countries, the pandemic has helped to develop an inter-denominational dialogue. Social changes caused by the coronavirus pandemic have stressed the current problems and have accelerated the existing processes in internal church life.
That is why "the socially important activity of religious organisations during the pandemic proves that religious denominations are an important partner of the state, in particular in crisis conditions, to mobilise various resources and implement humanitarian projects. Intensification of cooperation between the two institutions will determine the state policy vector as to the freedom of consciousness and freedom of religion. This issue was discussed in particular on June 23, 2020 at the meeting of AUCCRO members with O.Tkachenko, the new minister of culture of Ukraine, and O.Bohdan, head of the State Service of Ukraine on Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience,. Regarding the current situation, related lines of cooperation should be further developed because of the need for wide humanitarian support of vulnerable groups of citizens" (Tokman, 2020a).

Prospective relationships of Ukrainian power authorities and religious organisations
It should be noted that this article was written during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, which demonstrates the significance of considering further development of state-church relationships in pandemic conditions. Importantly, considering the experience of the first COVID-19 wave, the World Health Organisation has developed general recommendations on the functioning of religious organisations and their relationships with countries' leaders.
In particular, these recommendations state the following: "Various global religious and interreligious organisations issued directives, consultancy memoranda and made statements supporting the activity and role of religious leaders of organisations that are based on faith. Many of these religious organisations have made their contributions to these directives due to the well-known fact that COVID-19 is a global pandemic that influences all races, ethnic groups and geographical regions and needs a global reaction. Inter-confessional cooperation of majority and minority faiths is crucially important, in particular, through the exchange of knowledge, resources and advanced practice, where it is possible. (…) When national or local power authorities allow religious meetings, organisations themselves will be able to take their own well-grounded decisions on how many and how often these meetings will be held" (WHO, 2020).
Thus, we can assume that Ukraine will continue developing restrictive strategies (soft or hard, depending on the number of COVID-19 cases) that will enable religious organisations to provide for the safety of the country's citizens in general and believers in particular. However, one important issue remains: how will leaders of religious organisation respond in the future to the decisions of power authorities concerning the possible introduction of measures to prevent and contain the pandemic (including mass vaccinations, etc.)? Thus, one can suggest that there may be protests by believers against the decisions of power authorities based on religious beliefs, as was observed during the "weekend" quarantine.
At the same time, the key aspects of the discussion around possible online Eucharist (online confession, online christening on the Internet, etc.) are mostly theological or, rather, sacramental. Academic religious studies pose a number of other questions: -Is it possible to solve the problem of religious (in)security by introducing new forms of sacraments? -Can online sacraments fully replace the real presence of believers in the church? Answers to these questions can be the basis for both constructive and destructive dialogues. So, in our view, when introducing innovations in church services, in conformity with recommendations and restrictions imposed by the power authorities, including those concerning participation in sacraments, it is necessary to do it with care, remaining mindful of believers' consciousness globally and locally. In avoiding health risks, one can face another side of religious insecurity -conflicts and fights between supporters of various views on this issue. Therefore, the main goal is not to introduce new forms of sacraments in the Orthodox Church but protection from potential religious conflicts that can arise, depending on whether a radical decision is adopted or rejected.

Conclusions
Thus, having analysed and defined the specific features of state-religion relationships in Ukraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. The government of Ukraine has developed two strategies concerning religious organisations in the current context -a restrictive strategy and a partner strategy.
While the restrictive strategy aimed to reduce the increase of COVID-19 cases in the country, the partnership strategy aimed to provide mutual assistance in treating the infected citizens of Ukraine. 2. Religious organisations have found themselves in a difficult situation: they are caught between the threat of their total discontinuation and the problems of possible transformation of their activity. This resulted in the introduction of partial restrictions on church service attendance, focusing on the fact that religious organisations cannot completely waive their activity as it contradicts their nature and mission. 3. The further harmonious interaction of state authorities and religious organisations in Ukraine during the COVID-19 pandemic depends on many factors: the epidemiological situation, state power decisions on the functioning of various special institutions, including religious ones, and support by religious leaders of government initiatives on preventing the spread of the disease among the people of Ukraine.