How Vatican representatives in Ukraine undermine the Pope's authority
The head of the UGCC, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, and the RCC bishop in Ukraine, Vitaliy Kryvytskyi, supported Law 8371, while Pope Francis opposed it. What does this signify?
On August 17, 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held a meeting with representatives of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (AUCCRO), during which they discussed Law 8371 with religious leaders. Following this meeting, the AUCCRO website published a statement in which representatives of various religious denominations in Ukraine (with the exception of the UOC, which was not invited to the meeting with the head of state) "categorically condemned the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church" and supported "the President of Ukraine's legislative initiative to prevent such organizations from operating in our country."
This statement was signed by all the religious leaders of Ukraine (except representatives of the UOC). However, not only is the fact of such striking unanimity noteworthy, but also some statements made during the online meeting with the president, which we would like to draw special attention to, and we will explain why shortly.
Kryvytskyi's "New Reality"
This concerns the words of RCC Bishop Vitaliy Kryvytskyi, who stated the following at the meeting: "It is well known, first of all, which organization we are talking about; perhaps there are others... But at present, as we had hoped and expected, this organization has not taken any concrete steps to separate itself, to condemn, as we all have... Therefore, we understand the necessity of such a bill."
It is clear which "organization" Kryvytskyi had in mind – the UOC. What is unclear is why he would lie so blatantly. Because His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy, on the very first day of the war, and the first among all religious leaders in Ukraine, made a statement in which he unequivocally condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine:
"In defending Ukraine's sovereignty and integrity, we appeal to the President of Russia and ask him to immediately stop the fratricidal war. The Ukrainian and Russian peoples emerged from the Dnipro baptismal font, and war between these peoples is a repetition of the sin of Cain, who out of envy killed his own brother. Such a war is unjustifiable before both God and people."
So, His Beatitude clearly identified the aggressor, pointed out that the aggressor commits the sin of Cain, and emphasized that such a war is unjustifiable before either God or people. Is this not a condemnation of Russia's actions against Ukraine?
And what did Kryvytskyi himself say about the war? On his Facebook, we read:
"Today we woke up to a new reality. A full-scale war has begun, initiated by Russia and its subordinate Belarus. We place all our hope in the Lord. He is our help and shield. We pray for our defenders, the authorities, and all who will help overcome this challenge of the time."
As you can see, there is no word of condemnation or a clear position on this issue – just "new reality" and "challenge of the time." And then there's the lie about Belarus.
Therefore, Kryvytskyi's words that the well-known "organization" did not condemn Russia's war against Ukraine, and on this basis, it can and should be banned, at the very least, seem strange.
Shevchuk and Orwell
Just as the words of Kryvytskyi's colleague, the head of the UGCC and Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church Sviatoslav Shevchuk, seem strange. He told the President that he greatly values the fact that "the state treats all churches and religious organizations equally, particularly regarding this bill."
Shevchuk believes that Law 8371 is "about religious freedom" and emphasized that "Moscow uses Orthodoxy for its own interests." Later, on the official UGCC website, Shevchuk added that "Russia has used the Orthodoxy under its control as a tool of militarization, turning it into neurotropic weaponry."
It's clear that such statements about Orthodoxy, coming from a representative of a union that for many years suppressed Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, are not surprising. What is strange, however, is how one can call a law that restricts freedom of religion something that actually protects it. Here are Shevchuk's words: "Law 8371 is not a prohibition of the Church, but rather its protection from the danger of religion being used as a weapon." One can't help but recall Orwell, who, in his famous novel 1984, wrote that "War is peace..."
But the situation with Kryvytskyi and Shevchuk (who, let us remind you, are bishops of the Roman Catholic Church) became especially strange after Pope Francis's words in defense of the UOC.
The Pope’s Defense of the UOC
On August 25, Pope Francis made it clear that he does not consider Law 8371 a protection of the Church. In his speech, the pontiff urged the Ukrainian authorities "not to ban any Christian church, directly or indirectly", and emphasized that, "thinking about the recently adopted laws in Ukraine," he fears for the freedom of those who pray, "because those who truly pray, always pray for everyone."
"A person does not commit evil because of praying. If someone commits evil against his people, he will be guilty for it, but he cannot have committed evil because he prayed. So, let those who want to pray be allowed to pray in what they consider their Church," Pope Francis stated.
In other words, the pope did not support the statements of his subordinates but expressed a completely opposite opinion.
Naturally, the pontiff's opinion did not go unnoticed by the Ukrainian authorities, who once again had to "explain" Francis's words to the citizens of Ukraine.
For instance, Ukraine's ambassador to the Vatican and one of the "fathers of the Tomos", Andriy Yurash, stated that the pope's words can be explained by the fact that the head of the Roman Catholic Church was simply "not aware" of what Law 8371 actually says:
"It seems to me that the Pope was not well-informed about this ban, because there are no restrictions on those who pray. And in this ban, there is no restriction on the freedom to practise the faith and pray," Yurash said.
It is possible that Yurash's comments influenced Volodymyr Zelensky's stance as well. The day after Yurash's statement, Zelensky emphasized the importance of the information space and the influence it has on religious institutions, including the Vatican. According to the President of Ukraine, "as soon as you pause in your information work, everything gets filled with Russian information. They work like clockwork in this regard... The Church operates abroad very effectively for them."
But was the pope really "poorly informed," as Yurash suggests? We highly doubt it. Moreover, we believe that the pope's level of information about what is happening in Ukraine is so high that hardly any European religious leader could compare. We will omit the frequent visits of Shevchuk and Kryvytskyi to Rome or Yurash's constant contacts with Vatican officials. We will also skip mentioning the several meetings between the President of Ukraine and Ukrainian politicians with the pope. What is particularly noteworthy is that literally the day after the online conference with Volodymyr Zelensky, all members of the AUCCRO personally met with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin. So, the pope was very well-informed about the positions of Shevchuk, Kryvytskyi, and the Ukrainian authorities regarding Law 8371.
So, how should we understand this situation? Why does the pope say one thing while his subordinates say another?
It seems to us that this can be explained by the fact that the Vatican receives comprehensive information about what is happening, and its leadership can draw conclusions independently of anyone. This is why the pope often makes statements that contradict the "official" position, and his statements align with the information he receives from his own sources.
Meanwhile, Yurash tries to portray the pope as an out-of-touch old man who was handed "the wrong newspapers." This is despite the fact that any of the pope's speeches (especially public ones) are carefully edited, with every word weighed, and there are no "accidental" remarks in his public statements. Therefore, to talk about the pope being "poorly informed" is to disrespect not only Francis personally but also the entire Vatican state apparatus. Can you imagine the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. making similar comments, suggesting that Biden was "poorly informed" about some important Ukrainian issue? No. Because the day after such a statement, the ambassador would be back in Ukraine. Yet Yurash allows himself to do this. Strange, isn’t it?
But there are also a few other points worth noting, namely the internal issues within the RCC itself.
Ukraine, the Pope, and Catholics
To understand the growing tension within the Catholic Church in relation to the war in Ukraine, it's important to note that Pope Francis's disagreement with the positions of Shevchuk and Kryvytskyi regarding Law 8371 is far from the first example of differing approaches to the events in Ukraine among RCC representatives.
For instance, on March 16, 2022, Pope Francis emphasized the need for a ceasefire and peaceful dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. In his speech, he deliberately avoided directly blaming Russia, instead calling on both sides to stop the violence.
In August 2023, during a video conference with young Russian Catholics, Pope Francis urged the youth to remember Russia's past:
"Never forget your inheritance. You are the heirs of the great Russia. The great Russia of the saints, of the kings, of the great Russia of Peter the Great, of Catherine II, that great imperial Russia, cultivated, with so much culture and humanity. Never forget this inheritance. You are the heirs of the great Mother Russia, go forward. And thank you. Thank you for your way of being, for your way of being Russian."
Naturally, these words from the Pope sparked a wave of dissatisfaction from Ukrainian politicians, Ukrainian society, and Ukrainian Catholics. Notably, Shevchuk, though he wrote a seemingly mild letter to the Pope, could not hide his irritation.
The reaction of Bishop Vitaliy Kryvytskyi to the Vatican's initiative to have representatives from Ukraine and Russia carry the cross together during Holy Week is also noteworthy. Kryvytskyi wrote that he did everything in his power to prevent this from happening... Shevchuk went so far as to say that the very idea was offensive.
In this context, we can also recall the Pope's statement that Putin's war against Ukraine was provoked by NATO "barking at Russia's borders". In response, Sviatoslav Shevchuk said that any attempt to justify the war by blaming NATO or the West is morally untenable.
What Does This Mean?
The examples provided above illustrate a clear division between the Vatican's approach and the positions held by the leaders of the UGCC and RCC in Ukraine. Additionally, these contradictions raise several important issues:
1. Undermining the Pope’s Authority: Public disagreements between the Pope and key Catholic leaders in Ukraine significantly undermine the Pope's authority. The Pope's position as the spiritual leader of the RCC is rooted in the concept of unity, which has been developed over centuries in the Roman Church. When high-ranking church figures openly contradict the Pope's stance, it can erode trust in him among the faithful and substantially weaken the RCC's voice on global issues. The amount of harsh criticism directed at the Pope in Ukraine after his statements is telling. For instance, he was accused of working for Moscow, called a "senile old man," and so forth. These reactions suggest that, for many Ukrainians, the Pope's opinion no longer holds any significance.
2. Doubts About the Vatican’s Monolithism: The differing reactions to the war in Ukraine from the Pope and his subordinates reflect deep divisions within the Roman Church. The UGCC and RCC in Ukraine have taken a more condemnatory stance, while the Vatican has consistently advocated for a broader and more diplomatic approach aimed at maintaining dialogue with all sides of the conflict (consider Cardinal Matteo Zuppi's visits to Russia and Ukraine). Such disagreements indicate that the Vatican is failing to communicate effectively with its followers (both Catholics and Greek Catholics) in Ukraine, thereby risking a schism within the global Catholic community.
3. Theological and Moral Issues: The Pope is an authority on matters of faith and morality. War is a moral issue, and the Pope has taken the evangelical stance: "Blessed are the peacemakers." This is a deliberate and considered position, not just a coincidence that later needs to be "interpreted" for the Ukrainian public. Moreover, when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra," his position is to be accepted by Catholics worldwide as the ultimate truth. Regarding Law 8371, the Pope spoke from the chair, so to speak. In this sense, contradicting the Pope’s words in defense of the UOC and openly disagreeing with the pontiff’s approach highlights deep problems in the relationship between Ukrainian Catholics and the Vatican.
Conclusion
The differing statements from Pope Francis and the leaders of the UGCC and RCC in Ukraine regarding Law 8371 represent a divergent approach to the Gospel and the teachings of Christ, as well as a challenge to the unity and authority of the Catholic Church. By defending the UOC, the Pope is upholding religious freedom, while Shevchuk and Kryvytskyi seem to be merely serving state interests.
It is clear that these contradictions could seriously undermine the authority of the papacy, which is essential for maintaining the unity of the Catholic Church, and the public nature of these disagreements only accelerates this process.
