Why has the Culture Ministry not been banned yet?
Photo: SBU
At the end of March, the SBU detained the head of a department within the Ministry of Culture on charges of justifying Russian aggression and praising Putin. The ministry promptly issued a statement saying that “the information disclosed by the SBU concerns an individual official and does not reflect the position of the ministry.” The message is clear – the entire institution cannot be branded hostile because of the actions of one official. Collective responsibility does not apply here.
Now consider other examples. Since 2022, several members of parliament have turned traitor and sided with Russia. There has been no formal statement by the Verkhovna Rada on this, yet no one in government, society, or the media claims that the parliament as a whole is a collaborator structure that should be dissolved.
Another case. After the annexation of Crimea, the overwhelming majority of SBU personnel on the peninsula turned traitor. A total of 1,391 individuals defected, including one major general and 47 colonels. In his book “The Showman,” Simon Shuster cites former NSDC Secretary Oleksiy Danilov as saying that at the start of the full-scale invasion, the highest number of deserters among law enforcement agencies was in the SBU.
Again, we do not hear accusations that the SBU as a whole is an enemy structure.
And rightly so. Neither the Ministry of Culture, nor the parliament, nor the SBU can be held responsible for the actions of individual people.
But when it comes to the UOC, this logic seems not to apply. Its clergy and even ordinary believers are now labeled as “Muscovites” and “spiritual occupiers.” Communities are driven out of their churches, monks from their monasteries, and the entire Church is being systematically pushed toward destruction.
When will logic begin to apply?
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.