The Man from Montenegro: A Response to Abp. Elia of Finland
We respect His Eminence’s right to defend himself vigorously. However, the UOJ claims the same right for ourselves. And so we must say once again: Our coverage was accurate and our analysis was perfectly fair, given the information available at the time. To label our work “misinformation” is not merely wrong but slanderous.
Last week, representatives of the schismatic Montenegrin Orthodox Church (MOC) paid a visit to Rome. The MOC delegation was led by its so-called primate, “Metropolitan” Boris Bojović. While in Rome, Bojović met with His Eminence Abp. Elia of Helsinki, a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP). The two posed for a photo together in what appears to be St. Peter’s Basilica.
A few days later, the UOJ reported on the meeting. In our article, we noted that His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew declared in 2019 that he would never recognize the MOC. We also recalled that, earlier this month, Metr. Emmanuel of Chalcedon claimed that the EP has no contact with the MOC whatsoever. We then pointed out that the meeting between Bojović and Abp. Elia appeared to contradict Patr. Bartholomew’s policy and Metr. Emmanuel’s claims.
Abp. Elia quickly responded on Facebook, labeling our report a “masterclass in disinformation” and the “anatomy of a lie.”
Jumping the Gun?
Though it grieves us to disagree with an archpastor of the Orthodox Church, we must defend our work and our reputation.
First of all, our reporting relied on publicly available photos and accounts. Our “source” for the story was a press release issued by the MOC, which was picked up by the Montenegrin news site Aktuelno. We acknowledged this in our original article. The photo of Abp. Elia and Bojović also comes from the MOC.
Secondly, we welcomed His Eminence’s prompt clarification: that the encounter was a brief, unplanned two-minute interaction, and he claimed no prior knowledge of Bojović’s membership in the MOC. In keeping with journalistic integrity, we published a follow-up article on his statement and added a clear addendum to the original piece for full context.
Some have accused us of “jumping the gun” by assuming that the meeting was intentional. Yet we must ask: by what standard? Should the media treat every photo of church leaders together—in a church setting!—as purely accidental, unless both parties actively confirm otherwise? That is unreasonable.
Rather, men and women in positions of authority are expected to exercise discernment in choosing with whom to meet and/or pose for photographs.
Bojović and the EP
Also, consider the context. The MOC claims significant support among Orthodox Montenegrins (up to 40% in surveys). Moreover, it actively pressures the EP for recognition. Hence, Metr. Emmanuel’s recent statement and Patr. Bartholomew’s public denunciation.
Also, this is not the first time Bojović has attempted to “network” with an EP bishop. In 2019, Metr. Emmanuel of Chalcedon accidentally concelebrated the Divine Liturgy with Bojović in Kyiv. And that was before Bojović was made head of the MOC!
So, when Abp. Elia met a man from Montenegro who claimed to be an Orthodox bishop, it may have been prudent to inquire about the man’s synodal affiliation.
Of course, we don’t judge His Eminence. This appears to be a simple lapse in judgment. To anyone who has experienced the hustle and bustle of “the Eternal City,” it’s more than understandable.
That’s why our original report assigned no ill motive on Abp. Elia’s part. We merely documented the encounter, described how such a meeting might appear to outsiders, and noted its potentially scandalous implications—implications which, again, His Eminence seems to recognize.
Our aim was to inform and analyze, not accuse. We stand by that approach.
By contrast, Abp. Elia immediately attributed malice to our reporting. Instead of simply correcting the record, he chose to defame the UOJ and its staff. We deeply regret this unfortunate and unnecessary escalation.
Moving Forward
We respect His Eminence’s right to defend himself vigorously. However, the UOJ claims the same right for ourselves. And so we must say once again: Our coverage was accurate and our analysis was perfectly fair, given the information available at the time. To label our work “misinformation” is not merely wrong but slanderous.
The UOJ remains dedicated to truthful journalism for the Orthodox faithful. We regret the confrontational tone from some quarters but hope all may pursue clarity and charity, remaining united eternally in Christ, whatever our passing disagreements.
