On Yelensky’s "Chernivtsi–Romania" talking points
Ukraine’s top religious official gave an interview in which he revealed his bias, clear favoritism toward the OCU, and disregard for the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. How exactly?
On March 20, 2025, the Suspilne Chernivtsi YouTube channel aired an interview with Viktor Yelensky, head of the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (DESS). Once a critic of Jewish clericalism and Zionism, the author of atheist pamphlets and articles, and a loyal servant of the Communist Party, Yelensky now serves as an ideologist of persecution against Ukraine’s largest religious denomination and heads the government body responsible for religious affairs.
In this role, Yelensky is a civil servant and, according to the Law "On Civil Service", is required to "act solely on the basis of, within the authority of, and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine" (Art. 8). Let us examine how closely Yelensky adheres to this legal obligation.
Lobbying for the OCU before a foreign official
Yelensky spoke about a recent meeting with Ciprian Olinici, Romania’s State Secretary for Religious Affairs. During the meeting, Yelensky asked his Romanian counterpart to have the Romanian Orthodox Church recognize the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and to establish a Romanian vicariate in Ukraine under the authority of OCU leader Epifaniy (Dumenko). Quote: "In Romania, there is a Ukrainian vicariate within the Romanian Orthodox Church, which is subordinate to Patriarch Daniel of Romania. We would like to see a Romanian vicariate in Ukraine as well, and for it to be subordinate to the primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. <...> It’s not just about formality – the OCU would like to be recognized by the Romanian Orthodox Church.”
This constitutes interference in religious affairs and discrimination on religious grounds. A state official has no right to dictate how religious organizations should structure themselves or whom they should be accountable to. This is a clear overreach of authority. Why?
First, it violates Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which states: “Churches and religious organizations in Ukraine are separated from the state,” as well as similar provisions in the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations.”
Second, Article 2 of the Law “On the Principles of Preventing and Combating Discrimination in Ukraine” guarantees:
- “equality of rights and freedoms of individuals and/or groups of individuals;
- equality of opportunities for individuals and/or groups of individuals.”
By lobbying on behalf of one denomination – the OCU – Yelensky openly violates anti-discrimination principles. He is so confident in his political backing that he does not even bother to hide this.
Dividing Ukrainian citizens into worthy and unworthy
The Romanian vicariate under the OCU was actually established almost six years ago, on June 27, 2019. Yet, as far as we know, not a single ethnic Romanian Orthodox parish has joined it. In April 2024, even some OCU “bishops” admitted this. When a Suspilne Chernivtsi journalist pointed out that the vicariate has no parishes, Yelensky replied: “Such communities already exist. It’s more about bureaucratic formalities. That’s not so hard.”
But this raises the question: if it’s just a matter of paperwork and easy to formalize parishes, why has it not been done in six years? Elsewhere in the same interview, he says: “We are currently working on filling this vicariate with substance. For that, we need parishes and Romanian-speaking clergy.”
So in fact, there are none yet.
Even more tellingly, Yelensky tried to persuade his Romanian colleague that Romanian Orthodox believers should join the OCU: “Ukraine guarantees Romanians in the vicariate all possible rights for preserving and developing their cultural and religious identity, their liturgical and ritual customs. Because these are our citizens. <...> It’s important that people see they can better and more fully fulfill their spiritual needs in this vicariate.”
The cynicism is evident: Ukrainian authorities go out of their way to guarantee rights and freedoms to Romanians, because they are “our citizens.” Yet, at the same time, they blatantly violate the rights of millions of UOC believers. Are they not “our citizens” too? All Romanian parishes in Ukraine currently belong to the UOC. Who, if not the authorities, is preventing them from “fulfilling their spiritual needs”? The question is rhetorical.
Once again, Yelensky confirms that the current Ukrainian government divides citizens into worthy and unworthy, right and wrong. If you’re “right” (read: OCU-aligned), the government will protect and even lobby for you internationally. If not, you’re second-class: your rights can be violated, your churches seized, your property confiscated, or even imprisoned on fabricated charges. And all the while, the message is clear: join the OCU – and all your problems will disappear.
Clear falsehoods
When asked about the state of religious freedoms in Bukovina, Yelensky said everything is just fine and added: “We have no cases, not even thoughts, of someone dictating what language services should be conducted in, or what liturgical language should be used. This applies to all religious organizations.”
No such thoughts? Ukrainian officials frequently declare that services must be conducted in Ukrainian. For example, on January 10, 2023, Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Presidential Office, said in an interview with journalist Vasyl Holovanov: “We will have a single local Orthodox Church; Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra must be fully Ukrainian; services must be held in our language – Ukrainian. These are key elements.”
This is interference in the internal affairs of religious organizations – officials have no right to dictate what a “local Church” should be. It also includes threats to seize Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and dictates about liturgical language.
Another remarkable Yelensky's quote: “Ukraine’s religious policy is not about taking churches from parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate.”
Then what is it about, if hundreds of churches are being illegally seized from religious communities and transferred to the OCU, where they mostly stand empty due to lack of interest? No examples are needed – simply open any news feed and see how, nearly every day, a church is forcibly “transferred” to the OCU against the will of its parishioners.
Another blatant lie: Yelensky implies that His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry is a member of the ROC Synod: “We determine that an organization is part of the ROC because its leader is a member of the ROC Synod. We then send a notice saying: ‘Your Eminence, your affiliation with the ROC is evidenced by your membership in its governing body. Please withdraw from this body.’”
This is clearly meant to mislead the journalist, implying that Metropolitan Onuphry refuses to leave the ROC Synod. But Yelensky knows full well that Metropolitan Onuphry ceased being a Synod member in 2022. He officially informed DESS of this in a letter dated June 1, 2022, stating: “From now on, the decisions of ROC councils are not binding on the Council of Bishops of the UOC. The Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine has ceased to be a member of the ROC Holy Synod.”
Yelensky’s manipulation of legal definitions
The Suspilne Chernivtsi journalist asked Yelensky what constitutes a religious community – in the context of people voting to join the OCU who aren’t actual members of the parish.
Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” stipulates that decisions about changing canonical affiliation must be made by the religious community itself – that is, by individuals united by shared faith for “joint fulfillment of religious needs.”
Yelensky referenced this article, but then essentially argued that in many cases, a religious community is replaced by a territorial one – i.e., the residents of the village.
“Most communities that transfer are in villages, where the territorial and religious communities often overlap. Everyone knows who is Orthodox and who, for example, is Protestant. So the Orthodox gather and vote.”
This legal distortion – replacing religious communities with territorial ones – is thinly veiled by Yelensky’s claim that most Orthodox statutes don’t define membership criteria.
While some communities may not have detailed membership rules, most UOC statutes require regular participation in worship, Communion, and Confession. Yelensky, however, suggests a different criterion. He gives a hypothetical about someone voting for a parish transfer to the OCU: “‘You shouldn’t vote,’ says the priest, ‘I haven’t seen you at church in ages – you’re not a member.’ The man replies: ‘What do you mean? I was baptized here, married here, buried my parents here. I donate twice a year. I work in Dubno on Sundays, but when I retire, I’ll attend as much as you.’”
Yelensky describes a typical "occasional churchgoer" whose religiosity consists of being baptized, married, and attending funerals – plus dropping a coin in the box on Epiphany and Easter. Does such a person have the right to determine a community’s fate? And using work in Dubno as an excuse to miss Sunday services – which are on a day off – is laughable.
The Chernivtsi cathedral vote
This was one of the most flagrant acts of religious persecution in Ukraine’s recent history. On February 16, 2025, a group of people gathered outside the UOC Cathedral in Chernivtsi and, under nationalist slogans like “Glory to the Nation – Death to the Enemies!”, voted to transfer three churches to the OCU: the Holy Spirit Cathedral, St. Nicholas Church, and the Saints Peter and Paul Church.
The illegality of this theatrical “vote” is so blatant that any attempt to justify it seems absurd. Yet Yelensky claims all is in order.
Suspilne Chernivtsi: “This year in Chernivtsi, a single meeting voted to transfer three churches to the OCU. If city residents vote, can such a meeting be considered valid?”
Even the journalist seems baffled – how can this be legal? But Yelensky, unfazed, replies: “It depends on the statute. It’s valid if there’s a list of community members. I know that in cities such lists are now being approved, and members have certain rights and responsibilities in the church.”
But how could such a vote be valid, when community membership lists must be approved by the parish itself, signed by the rector, and sealed? In this case, the real community held its own legal meeting and voted to remain with the UOC.
Anticipating further questions, Yelensky changes the subject: “But we’re mostly talking about the law banning the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church as a foreign organization. The law explains why the ROC is banned.”
What does the ROC ban have to do with churches in Chernivtsi? There, as elsewhere, Ukrainian citizens want to exercise their right to religious freedom – and the authorities are stripping them of that right along with their churches.
Epilogue
Unfortunately, Yelensky’s interview makes clear that the Ukrainian authorities have no intention of rolling back their campaign against the Church. Instead, they continue trying to convince society that this persecution is legal and justified.
But to see the bias, discrimination, and abuse of power, one simply needs to compare their actions and statements with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.
