Wait – is the UOC no longer a "Moscow Church"?

Four ROC metropolitans face allegations. Photo: SBU

Four ROC hierarchs have been charged by the Prosecutor General's Office with "seizing the property of Ukrainian churches" in the occupied territories of Ukraine. Allegedly, by executing a decision of the ROC Synod "to 'incorporate' Ukrainian religious communities into the ROC," they took control of church buildings and land belonging to the dioceses of Dzhankoi, Berdiansk, Rovenky, and Kherson. The suspects reportedly appointed bishops under their control in these dioceses.

But how can this be?

1. For quite some time now, our authorities have consistently referred to the UOC as the "Moscow church," "FSB agents," "Kremlin collaborators," and so on. Recently, the Verkhovna Rada even passed Bill 3894, which effectively demands that UOC communities "separate from the ROC." Meanwhile, the Prosecutor General’s Office clearly refers to the seized "Ukrainian churches" as being part of the UOC. But it’s nonsensical to suggest that the "Moscow church" could seize property from the "Moscow church," isn’t it?
2. Basic logic suggests that if the ROC metropolitans forced UOC dioceses to join the Russian Church, then those dioceses were not part of the ROC initially. Nor were any other UOC dioceses. However… what about the DESS "expert opinions," the rhetoric of the OCU about "ROC in Ukraine," or President Zelensky’s calls for "spiritual independence"? Was all of that untrue? Is there no longer any dependency?
3. If, as the Prosecutor General claims, the ROC began imposing Kremlin propaganda on believers, does that mean such propaganda wasn’t present in UOC churches before?

In other words, with a single statement, the Prosecutor General’s Office has accidentally dismantled the entire tower of lies and hatred built against the UOC. Most likely, this happened unintentionally.

Or perhaps it didn’t.

Read also