Can a Christian betray?

Dumenko embraces Ostapenko. Photo: OCU

In court, recordings from NABU are being played – conversations with an unknown MP in which Tymoshenko is visibly anxious that she might be recorded and takes every possible precaution. The deputy who brought the recording device listens, nods sympathetically, and keeps recording. He knows that because of these tapes Tymoshenko could end up in prison for many long years, and yet he does it anyway. Yes, what Tymoshenko is doing (and is it only her?) is criminal and wrong. But how should we judge the deputy’s act?

A reader might say that at the top levels of power such behavior is normal – people with a different moral code simply do not climb that high. But how should we react when the same behavior is displayed by people in cassocks?

On January 15, the head of the Lavra reserve once again became Maksym Ostapenko. He is an open enemy of the Church and a loyal ally of the OCU, who has done a great deal to strengthen this structure in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. Yet here is the paradox: after Ostapenko was unexpectedly dismissed in May 2025, the OCU leadership immediately poured tons of filth on him.

Back then, Zoria wrote that Ostapenko had been making efforts “so that the Lavra could not function fully as a Ukrainian monastery, so that there would be as few services as possible”; that “at all meetings and in all memos he spoke about the fact that the OCU ‘does not want, does not wish, is not capable.’” In short, the OCU accused Ostapenko of lobbying “the Russian world” in the Lavra. We may laugh – but for “patriots” this is a serious accusation. And it was made, let us recall, not in open conversation, but as a stab in the back to a dismissed official. What moral standard do we see here?

Exactly the same one we saw in the case of Filaret Denysenko. Dumenko and Zoria – whom he raised and “brought into the world” – deceived him and paraded him as a senile old man. Yes, Filaret is hardly a model of honesty and virtue himself, but that does not cancel one simple fact: his closest disciples betrayed him. And returning to Tymoshenko’s trial, one wants to ask: how do the actions of the people in her case differ from the actions of the OCU leadership? In principle – not at all. As the saying goes: nothing personal – just business.

Only where, in all this, is Christianity?

Read also

When every UOC church in Lviv Region is shut down – is that “freedom of faith”?

In Galicia, the authorities have effectively outlawed the UOC and are hunting down “underground” services – while in the United States they solemnly insist that no one in Ukraine is persecuted for their faith.

Why Epifaniy’s “piety” justifies Patriarch Bartholomew’s hopes

The Phanar is convinced that Dumenko “stands firmly and unshakably on spiritual heights.”

Dumenko’s “dialogue” appeal to the UOC: sincerity or strategy?

If the OCU truly wanted dialogue, it would decide to halt seizures and return what was taken.

Where did the circus go? It was here just yesterday

At an Orthodox Church of Ukraine “service” with Epifaniy (Dumenko) in the seized cathedral in Volodymyr, there are people. But the very next day – without Epifaniy – there are no people.

Why instigators of hatred against the UOC should be in prison

Churches were not built for one state to defeat another, not for the triumph of an “Ukrainian spirit,” and not for the “spirit” of any other nation.

Should His Beatitude commemorate the head of the ROC or not?

Fierce battles are being waged on social media and screens about how Metropolitan Onuphrius should act and how he should not.