Counterpoint on Archbishop Luke of Simferopol

Excerpt from a review by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna (+2019) of the book, Αρχιεπίσκοπος Λουκάς: Άρχιεπ, Λουκάς Βόϊνο-Γιασενέτσκι ένας άγιος ποιμένας καί γιατρός χειρουργός (1877-1961) [Archbishop Luke: Archbp. Luke Voino-Yasenetsky, a holy shepherd and physician and surgeon (1877-1961)], by Archimandrite Nectarios Antonopoulos, published in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 29 (2012), No. 1, pp. 33-34.

There are those who have unreasonably accused St. Luke of collaboration for having ultimately remained in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, forgetting, as Father Nectarios’ book avers, that he courageously opposed the Living Church movement, flatly rejected Sergianism (Patriarch Sergius’ tragic policy of compromise with the Soviet authorities), spent years in prison and exile, and was even accused of counterrevolutionary sentiments. The Soviets helped create this accusation, in order to diminish the Saint’s spiritual influence. In this vein, as Father Nectarios notes (see p. 380), an entry about the Archbishop in the Soviet Encyclopedia of Medicine, published in Moscow in 1958, makes no mention of his religious vocation: “Valentine Voino-Yasenetsky, son of Felix, Soviet surgeon, physician, winner of the USSR State Prize [for medicine] in 1946,” followed by a history of his service as a director and professor at various medical clinics and institutions, as well as a description of his writings. Like the Saint’s pious colleague, Ivan Pavlov (see pp. 161f.), whom Soviet propaganda successfully turned into an atheist—a success that is reinforced in Western encyclopedic sources—the holy Archbishop Luke became a victim of the Soviet Union’s enduring legacy even in post-Communist times: the lies of tailored history.

Nonetheless, just as figures like the late Father Georges Florovsky have provided personal testimony disputing the lie about Pavlov and his supposed atheism, they have also vindicated St. Luke of charges that he sympathized or collaborated with the Soviets. By the Saint’s own admission, while he was suspicious of the Moscow Patriarchate’s revival under Joseph Stalin, he did not feel that he could work effectively and with full faith within the various catacomb groups in Russia. Yet, he clearly told correspondents in the West of his support for the free Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (Abroad), though at the same time warning his correspondents against what he saw as extremist voices in the exile community and, significantly, about the dangers of thinking that the legacy of the Soviet experience could be easily or quickly removed from the Moscow Patriarchate. Undoubtedly, he did not anticipate the fall of Communism, but his latter warning was significant. I might only add that a flurry of rumors about his contacts with the American C.I.A.—once more, probably spread by the Soviets further to downplay his influence as a spiritual leader—have never been supported by even a shred of plausible evidence.