Why Finnish archbishop speaks out against Trump’s peace plan
Archbishop of Helsinki together with Dumenko. Photo: OCU
The head of the Finnish Orthodox Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Archbishop Elias, has officially declared that the American peace plan for Ukraine is unjust because it may include the rehabilitation of the UOC.
Calling the UOC “the Moscow Patriarchate,” he was outraged by one of the plan’s provisions requiring Ukraine to “correct its legislation on freedom of religion.”
“This requirement can only mean granting guarantees to the Moscow Patriarchate’s church structure in the country,” the hierarch protested, adding that he had been in Ukraine and saw for himself that no one persecutes the UOC.
“This condition is not based on facts. I know this because I have seen the truth with my own eyes,” the archbishop claimed.
A very weighty statement – at first glance. One might think the Finnish primate had done serious groundwork: met with the UOC leadership, visited at least dozens of communities that lost their churches, “saw the truth with his own eyes,” and formed an informed judgment based on firsthand observation.
But that impression is utterly false.
Because the archbishop then explains where his information actually came from.
“Our conversations with the head of DESS V. Yelensky and with the religious leaders of Lviv confirmed that freedom of religion in Ukraine is fully respected. Religious communities do not live in fear of one another but act freely,” the Constantinopolitan hierarch assured.
These words are staggering.
There are hundreds of videos documenting beatings carried out by OCU militants, footage of priests lying bloodied, and harsh reports by international human-rights bodies, including UN commissioners.
Yet Archbishop Elias notices none of this. He forms his judgment solely from conversations with a state official who has been persecuting the Church since Soviet times, and with OCU representatives who are currently intimidating and terrorizing parishioners.
His statement, published on the official website of the Finnish Church, concludes as follows: “A lasting peace cannot be built on injustice.”
So – ending the bloodshed and halting the crackdown on UOC believers is what he calls “injustice”? Out of the mouth of an Orthodox bishop this sounds like sheer mockery, or, to put it bluntly, absolute cringe. It’s the kind of twisted logic we’re used to hearing only from Dumenko and his troupe of “hierarchs.”
It is worth recalling that during his visit to Ukraine, the archbishop had close meetings with Dumenko and even concelebrated with him.
The Psalmist David warns of the consequences of such associations: “…with the pure you will show yourself pure, and with the crooked you will show yourself crooked.”
It seems that fellowship with the “crooked” never goes without leaving a mark.
Read also
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?