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
Zelensky and the strike on the Lavra: grief for export?
If Russia’s strike on the Dormition Cathedral is, in Zelensky’s words, “barbarism,” then what should we call the Ukrainian authorities’ destruction of UOC churches? Is that not barbarism? Or is that somehow “different”?
How Epifaniy became a successor of the "occupier"
From the OCU's perspective, Bishop Ioann was the living embodiment of the very “spiritual occupation” of Ukraine and the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra that they now claim to be heroically fighting against.
Ukraine’s court religions: conscience or LGBT?
“Moscow priests” will be branded not only for refusing to join the OCU and for following the Julian calendar, but also for “homophobia.”
Does Patriarch Bartholomew consider Ukrainians bearers of the "Russian World"?
The Primate of the Church of Constantinople arrived in Vilnius to introduce the newly appointed Exarch of Lithuania, Bishop Panaretos of Tamasos.
A lesson for the modern Church from the depths of ages
St. Leontius had no desire whatsoever to be “one of their own” for the local authorities or non-believers.
How the UOC Council in Feofania was turned into a “lawless gathering”
All the insults hurled at the Council – claims that it was a “mob gathering,” “filth,” “foam,” and the like – rest not on canons or facts, but solely on the emotions of those making them.