On Zelensky’s statements regarding the "Moscow Patriarchate"
Piers Morgan and Volodymyr Zelensky. Photo: a screenshot from Morgan’s YouTube channel
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, in which he mentioned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), left a disturbing impression. Here’s why. Essentially, Zelensky’s comments were a response to Tucker Carlson, the well-known American journalist, who accused him of dictatorial tendencies, including the ban on the UOC. So, what does Zelensky offer in return?
1. The claim that the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (UCCRO) excluded the "Moscow Patriarchate" from its ranks.
The President clearly confused this with UCCRO’s support for the law banning the UOC. This, in itself, is a disgraceful position for Ukraine’s religious denominations, but it does not constitute an expulsion from UCCRO. The official UCCRO website still lists Metropolitan Onuphry as "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine." Notably, there is no mention of the "Moscow Patriarchate".
2. The claim that the entire population is against the Moscow Patriarchate, as strange as that may sound.
It is entirely unclear how Zelensky determined this. Did he derive it from the anti-church hysteria in Ukrainian media or from polls funded 90% by the controversial USAID? According to Ukraine’s State Ethnopolitics experts, the UOC has around 6 million believers and thousands of parishes. Has Zelensky simply excluded all these people from the population of Ukraine?
3. The claim that there is a legal connection between the UOC and the ROC: "The Moscow Patriarchate is being closed, there can be no legal connection. They must be a Ukrainian Church, legally in Ukrainian jurisdiction."
The only connection between the UOC and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is Eucharistic communion. Legally, the "Moscow Patriarchate" does not exist and never has existed in Ukraine. The UOC has always been and remains under Ukrainian jurisdiction.
This is yet another incorrect statement by the President.
4. The claim that the ban on the UOC is "all lies. That is Putin’s narrative."
But if Zelensky admits that the ban exists and even justifies it, then why does he call it a "Putin's narrative"? What does Putin have to do with this at all?
We acknowledge that the President may not be well-informed on church matters, and it is possible that he has been misled. However, he is now spreading this misinformation worldwide, while simultaneously opposing a massive portion of his own country’s population. Very sad indeed.
Read also
Authorities “open” the Far Caves – whatever they do, nothing works fro them
The authorities and the OCU are straining every nerve to make everything look properly “churchlike” – every bit as respectable as under the “Moscow priests.” Yet all they ever produce is a parody with a distinctly Bolshevik stench.
Athonite monks at Dumenko’s Lavra “service”
OCU benefactors paid for the visit of a magnificent Byzantine choir led by the Archon Protopsaltis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
When building a church is banned – is that “freedom of faith”?
In Nychehivka, the authorities unlawfully halted construction of a UOC church on private land.
Mobilizing UOC clergy: Are the authorities simply purging “Moscow priests”?
UOC clerics – unlike those of the OCU, UGCC, Jews, Muslims, and pagans – are granted no exemptions.
Will those who praised the Nazis be included in Ukraine's Pantheon of Heroes?
It may prove difficult to argue that people who sent greetings to Hitler and praised the Nazi army do not fall under Ukraine’s laws condemning Nazism.