Who stands under the Pope’s “white flag”
Pope Francis has called on Ukraine to surrender. The UGCC acts as if nothing is wrong, and the OCU is dividend-conscious. We analyse the reaction to the Pope's words.
The Pope’s pro-Russian statements
In the preview of an interview, the full version of which is expected to be released on March 20, 2024, Pope Francis suggested that Ukraine should raise the white flag and engage in negotiations with Russia. The corresponding question revolved around the Pope's stance in the debate between those advocating for the continuation of the war and those arguing that Ukraine should surrender as it has been unable to resist Russian forces.
The Pope actually took the position of those calling for surrender.
"But I think that the truly strong person is the one who sees the situation, thinks about people, has the courage to raise the white flag and start negotiations," Pope Francis said. He justified his position by arguing that things would only get worse for Ukraine, and the continuation of the war would result in even more human casualties. "One can feel shame, but how many more deaths will this war end with? <...> Do not be ashamed of negotiations before the situation worsens," the Pope stated, offering himself as a mediator.
These statements caused such a significant resonance that the head of the Vatican press office, Matteo Bruni, rushed to disavow them. He stated that the Pope did not call for capitulation but merely used the term "white flag" in the context of a call for negotiations, not defeat. "Pope Francis used the term 'white flag' in response to the image proposed by the interviewer to signify the cessation of hostilities and the truce achieved through the courage of negotiations," Matteo Bruni said. The Apostolic Nuncio to Ukraine, Visvaldas Kulbokas, also attempted to deflect criticism and rebuked the journalist, saying that the pontiff "should have been given the opportunity to elaborate further".
However, the Pope said what he said. His words can be interpreted in different ways, but to be intellectually honest, he was indeed talking about surrendering to the "mercy of the victor", accepting the conditions set by Russia. They are well-known: recognizing the annexed territories, changing the government, disarming the army and refraining from joining blocs.
This is not the first pro-Russian statement by Pope Francis. Let's remember, for example, his statement in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera in early May 2022, when he, in fact, justified Russia's aggression against Ukraine, saying it was provoked by "NATO barking at Russia's door". At a time when the Ukrainian Armed Forces were in dire need of weapons to defend our people, Pope Francis expressed doubts about whether Ukraine should be supplied with more weapons.
On August 25, 2023, in a video address to Russian youth, the pontiff said literally the following: "Never forget your heritage. You are descendants of the great Russia: the great Russia of saints, rulers, the great Russia of Peter the Great, Catherine II, that empire – great, educated (country) of great culture and great humanity. Never abandon this heritage. You are descendants of the great Mother Russia, move forward with it. And thank you – thank you for being, thank you for being Russian."
After these remarks, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said that he was only "very disappointed" that Pope Francis was speaking about "Russian great-power ideas, which, in fact, are the reason for Russia's chronic aggressiveness".
Let's remember how a campaign of persecution began against the UOC after old women sang about "Mother Rus" in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. This is despite the fact that for them, Rus initially meant the ancient Kievan state. So, the Pope can talk about the "great Mother Rus" but Ukrainian old women cannot! And this is even though the Pope clearly meant modern Russia, while the old women referred to the ancient Rus.
What's the heart of the matter?
Could the Pope actually be right? In fact, he expressed a thesis that many in the West share, although not all articulate it: the longer the war lasts, the more victims there will be and the fewer territories will remain. And if negotiations are inevitable at some point, it's better to start them sooner. This would mean fewer losses. In investment business, this is called locking in losses. When an asset value falls, the sooner you sell it, the less you'll lose.
The American authorities also say that Ukraine is now losing rather than gaining. For example, on 11 March 2024, CIA Director William Burns stated at hearings in Congress that without US assistance, Ukraine could lose significant territory as early as this year. Earlier, the US National Intelligence Director Avril Haines said that Russia is increasingly gaining the upper hand in Ukraine and that the past few weeks have revealed the erosion of Ukraine's military potential.
Within Ukraine itself, many also express pessimistic forecasts regarding the situation on the front lines. Therefore, the thesis that starting negotiations sooner will lead to fewer losses is valid.
However, there is another point of view. It suggests that negotiations won't bring peace but only a temporary halt to the war, giving Russia time and opportunity to better prepare for a new phase of conflict. By solidifying its current territorial gains, Russia will inevitably attempt to invade our country again soon and achieve its complete or near-complete destruction. Therefore, the argument goes, we shouldn't raise the white flag but continue to fight.
History will show which point of view will turn out to be correct in the end. But one thing is absolutely certain: the Vatican is now taking a pro-Russian stance.
Reaction of the UGCC Synod
The UGCC is a religious organization that not only has canonical ties to Pope Francis but also directly submits to him. The Pope is the head of the UGCC, as well as all other Catholics. What then is the reaction of this organization, which calls itself very patriotic, to the Pope's words? On 10 March 2024, the Synod of the UGCC published a "Statement on Pope Francis’s recent remarks". It repeats the narrative of the Pope's press attaché Matteo Bruni that the Pope was misunderstood, that he called for negotiations, not Ukraine's surrender. Well, if the word "surrender" was not uttered, then there were no calls for it.
In fact, there is no reaction to the words themselves. There are diplomatically worded formulations, as well as statements that "any Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory leads to the destruction of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, any independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church." However, if you look at the map of Greek Catholic parishes on the official website of the UGCC, you can see Greek Catholic communities both in the territories occupied in 2022-2024 and in Crimea and the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, which have been under occupation since 2014.
A map of UGCC parishes. A screenshot from the website map.ugcc.ua
As we can see, there are 5 churches of the UGCC in Crimea, 5 in Luhansk, 8 in Donetsk, 2 in Mariupol, 5 in Melitopol and another 15 in the Kherson region, the majority of which are also under occupation. However, the war gives reason for UGCC speakers to loudly proclaim their patriotism and directly or indirectly accuse the UOC of disloyalty to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church may be the one to suffer from further annexation of Ukrainian territories. It is truly independent, although, of course, Sviatoslav Shevchuk did not have it in mind. We see how the ROC subjugates UOC communities and entire eparchies in the occupied territories. We hear calls from ROC hierarchs to strictly punish "apostates", i.e. the UOC, which declared its administrative independence from the ROC at the Council in Feofaniya.
The Synod of the UGCC's statement also includes a call not to "stop at the Pope's words," i.e. not to attach special importance to them. The Greek Catholics did not assess Pope Francis' words. And there is no mass hate against the UGCC for not condemning the pro-Russian stance of the Pope. Let's compare this to the hate against the UOC. At the Council in Feofaniya on May 27, 2022, the UOC made a clear and unequivocal statement: "The Council condemns war as a violation of God's commandment 'Thou shalt not kill!' (Exodus 20:13) and expresses condolences to all who have suffered in the war. <...> The UOC disagrees with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus regarding the war in Ukraine."
Let's remember how the so-called patriots, including those from the Uniate camp, cried out that this statement was too mild and demanded (and continue to demand) that the UOC declare anathema against Patriarch Kirill. It turns out that the Uniates can while the Orthodox cannot.
Another example of double standards: Yuriy Pidlisnyi, head of the Department of Political Science at the Ukrainian Catholic University, criticizes Pope Francis quite sharply and very reasonably for his actual pro-Russian stance. But at the same time, he responds to the call to break relations with the Pope as follows: "Our Church has gone a martyr's path not for unity with Bergoglio but with the Apostolic See."
A screenshot of Yuriy Pidlisnyi's Facebook page
The argument is very correct, but then why is it acceptible in the UGCC while when the Orthodox say that the UOC, having become fully independent administratively, nevertheless cannot break the eucharistic unity with the ROC, as well as with any other Local Church, tons of mud and condemnation are poured on them?
The fact that Patriarch Kirill supports the war against Ukraine is on his conscience, but it is not a canonical offence and it does not make the ROC "not a Church". So why are double standards applied to believers in Ukraine?
The government’s reaction
In September 2023, after Pope Francis's "awkwardness" with the "great Mother Russia", Presidential Office spokesperson Mykhailo Podoliak stated: "There is no point in talking about a mediator called the Pope if he takes a pro-Russian position, already evident to everyone." He also said that the Pope had nullified the reputation of the Vatican and "continues to nullify the influence of Catholicism on the world in general."
However, on December 8, 2023, Volodymyr Zelensky awarded two Vatican cardinals with the Order "For Merit" 2nd Class. The order bearers were the Secretary of State of the Holy See Cardinal Pietro Parolin and the Pope's special representative in Ukraine Cardinal Matteo Zuppi. These are precisely the individuals who usually conduct international negotiations on behalf of the Vatican.
After the Pope's call to raise the white flag, the President of Ukraine also did not dare to call things by their names. In his video address, he disagreed with the call to raise the white flag but did not directly name the Pope, instead referring to a "virtual mediator sitting 2,500 kilometres away".
On March 11, 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Apostolic Nuncio to Ukraine Visvaldas Kulbokas and informed him that Ukraine was disappointed with the pontiff's words about the "white flag" and the need to "show courage and engage in negotiations" with the aggressor. The Ministry noted that "signals were expected from the head of the Holy See towards the world community about the need for immediate consolidation of forces to ensure the victory of good over evil, as well as appeals to the aggressor, not the victim." According to diplomatic rules in such cases, an official note of protest should be delivered as Pope Francis is the head of the Vatican state. However, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs simply "informed" the Nuncio of its disappointment.
So, the government's reaction to the Pope's essentially calling for capitulation is quite mild. But then why does the apparent pro-Russian stance of the Pope not even cause a tiny fraction of the condemnation and persecution that the imagined "pro-Russian position" of the UOC, which exists more in the minds of its enemies than in reality, does?
The OCU’s reaction
It is negative. The Pope is criticised in every possible way. But for the OCU, Pope Francis's statements are beneficial because they help in the informal competition for the most patriotic Church in Ukraine. "Bishop" Gabriel Kryzyna criticizes the UGCC on his Facebook page for not being able to condemn the Pope's position and states that the Union, in general, is a mistake.
A screenshot of Gabriel Kryzyna's Facebook page
In his Facebook post, 'priest' of the OCU Konstantin Kholodov, as if polemicizing with Yuriy Pydlysnyi, writes: "But do my fellow Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics have a guarantee that the next pope will be better than Bergoglio? Or is there a guarantee that he won't be even worse? There is no such guarantee... Therefore, I consider such a global church structure with a centre somewhere abroad, with a foreign man on the throne, to be inappropriate, ineffective, and soteriologically erroneous. The words may be correct, but in the Tomos of the OCU itself, it is stated that its head is another 'man on the throne', the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Quote: '...The Autocephalous Church of Ukraine recognizes His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch as its head...'"
Conclusions
Thesis 1: Pope Francis clearly and consistently demonstrates his pro-Russian stance.
Thesis 2: Pope Francis is the supreme head of the UGCC, as well as all other Catholics.
Now the question arises: can the UGCC be blamed and punished for the Pope's position?
Let everyone answer this question themselves. But let's approach everyone equally: if the UOC is criticised for its "ties" with the Russian centre, then the same should be done with the UGCC, demanding that they sever ties with a foreign centre. Otherwise, Ukrainians are divided into different сlasses. And if Greek Catholics are not guilty of having such a pope, then let's stop reproaching the UOC, especially since Patriarch Kirill is not the head of the UOC. Our Primate is Metropolitan Onuphry.
Those who propose double standards, who divide the Ukrainian people into first and second class, and thereby sow discord in our country, are working for the "white flag". As a matter of fact.
