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
A hint at a new demographic reality?
It appears that we are facing a mass influx of migrants from the poorest countries of Africa and other regions. And the absolute majority of them will profess Islam.
On the seizure of a UGCC сhurch in Tokmak
Statements by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church about “blasphemy” are not the cry of a persecuted Church. They are a textbook example of double standards.
On Budanov's statement regarding UOC
For Yelensky and his the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Budanov's statement was very untimely.
Why does OCU still celebrate Easter “with Moskals”?
On social media, “patriots” are again asking in exasperation: why are we still celebrating Easter with Moscow? How much longer?
Did Patriarch Bartholomew really mourn Filaret’s death?
Constantinople has never recognized Filaret as a patriarch – not “His Holiness,” not “honorary,” not under any title whatsoever. That alone makes the line in the Ukrainian presidential press service’s report sound astonishingly implausible.
Why did Dumenko sit in Metropolitan Onufriy’s chair?
The head of the OCU has his own residence – and Filaret’s residence as well. But what he needs is the Lavra, Metropolitan Onufriy’s office and chair.