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
Should the law banning the UOC be repealed?
It turns out that MPs from Batkivshchyna were taking money for “the right” votes. Could the vote for the law banning the UOC also have been “bought”?
Our raider–officials should brace themselves?
Someday the Zelensky era will end. And when it does, there will be plenty of claims to answer for. The war against Orthodoxy will be among the chief indictments.
State and Churches: For Catholics – restitution; for Orthodox – confiscation
Shouldn’t DESS be campaigning for the Kyiv Caves Lavra to be returned to the Church after the Bolsheviks expelled the monks a hundred years ago and turned it into a “museum complex”?
Why the idea of a "national Church" is doomed
According to the most optimistic estimates, the population of Ukraine is now no more than 19 million. The figure is shocking, especially when you remember that at the beginning of independence, 52 million people lived in the country.
"The UOC doesn’t hold funerals for soldiers": a lie-manufacturing machine
At the end of December, a wave of outrage swept across the internet over claims that UOC priests refused to serve a funeral for a fallen soldier in the Bukovynian village of Banyliv-Pidhirnyi. So what actually happened there?
Budanov instead of Yermak: Will anything change for the UOC?
Will the new head of the Presidential Office use the post to wage war against the UOC?