OPINION
In late November, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia stirred up controversy by declaring that there is no need to dread nuclear war, as Christians are unafraid of the end of the world. Shortly before that, he claimed the Church — supposedly along with Jesus Christ — has never condemned the death penalty. Religious commentator Natalya Frolova argues that such statements distort the essence of Christianity. By refusing to denounce Putin’s nuclear threats and by justifying the death penalty as long as it is “legal,” the patriarch serves as an ideological ally of the Putin regime and lends support to its expansionist ambitions.
As Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine drags on, Patriarch Kirill’s rhetoric drifts further and further from Christian values. A skilled orator, he adeptly manipulates Christian rhetoric to legitimise the actions of secular authorities. Within Putin’s ideological framework, Kirill has crafted his own version of the Church – one filled with lofty words about faith, God, and Christians, but ultimately resembling a house turned upside down.
When the patriarch refrains from criticising Putin’s statements about the possibility of nuclear strikes and instead advises people “not to fuel fear,” the underlying message is: Putin’s words should be criticised, and such threats should be feared. Yes, Christians believe in the “resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come,” as stated in the Nicene Creed, and await the Second Coming of the Messiah. But Christianity does not call upon humanity to destroy this God-created world entirely. That is the task of the Antichrist, not of a human being — especially not one who professes to believe in Christ.
Similarly, when the patriarch claims that death on the battlefield in what he himself calls a “fratricidal” war against Ukraine “washes away all sins,” the implied message is the opposite – for a Christian, this is an unforgivable sin. It is no coincidence that the name of Cain, who in the Book of Genesis killed his brother Abel, has become synonymous with betrayal. In Christian theology, there is no interpretation of this story that questions God’s will — no suggestion that, instead of punishment through exile and wandering, Cain’s sins could somehow be “washed away.”
A similar issue arises with the death penalty. The patriarch was technically truthful in stating that the Church has never condemned the death penalty or demanded its abolition, but it has also never endorsed it. However, there are nuances — and many nuances.
The Russian state news agency TASS quoted the patriarch as saying:
“The Lord Jesus Christ did not condemn the death penalty, even though He Himself unjustly suffered such a punishment. Of course, the killing of a person as punishment for their crimes is an extreme measure. It would have been ideal for the people not to commit crimes that warrant the death penalty. But the Church has never insisted on the abolition of this punishment.”
When the patriarch uses the term “Church” and references Christ’s words, the audience might get the impression that he is speaking on behalf of the entire Christian world. However, his remarks reflect only the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) on the death penalty.
The position Kirill references is codified in the Foundations of the Social Concept of the ROC, a document adopted by the Bishops Council in 2000. That text outlines how bishops, clergy, and laypeople should interact with the state and the secular society at large.
Interestingly, when the Foundations were published more than two decades ago, they were seen as a relatively progressive document, reflecting how significantly modern Russian society had evolved. There the Church’s position on prisoners, in general, is clearly stated: “The Russian Orthodox tradition has always presupposed mercy toward the fallen,” and, “We have not come here to rebuke you, but to bring you comfort and guidance” (the latter is a quote from St. Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson).
However, regarding the death penalty, the position is precisely as the patriarch expressed it: broadly against it, but without condemnation due to the idea that “it is necessary.”
This stance is based on several key premises.
First: the death penalty is acknowledged in the Old Testament, and “there are no indications in the New Testament Scriptures, Tradition, or the historical legacy of the Orthodox Church that call for its abolition.” Indeed, these sources do not explicitly demand the abolition of the death penalty.
But even in secular law, as the saying goes, there are the letter and the spirit – and as the New Testament describes it, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life ” (2 Corinthians 3:6). One of the central distinctions between the New Testament and the Old Testament is that Jesus calls upon humans to treat one another with greater compassion.
One of the central distinctions between the New Testament and the Old Testament is that Jesus calls upon humans to treat one another with greater compassion
The Old Testament says: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:12). However, Jesus urges abandoning the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and instead advocates for turning the other cheek when struck. In other words, He calls for mastering the most challenging virtue — forgiveness.
Even in the Old Testament, in the story of Cain and Abel, God punishes Cain by making him “a wanderer on the earth” but also declares: “If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” (Genesis 4:15).
The second key premise: while the concept acknowledges that the death penalty makes judicial errors irreversible — that “capital punishment cannot have the proper corrective significance” and that pastoral work is best conducted while the person is still alive — it simultaneously reminds us: “For the Orthodox consciousness, human life does not end with physical death.”
This idea is expanded upon by a prominent Moscow archpriest, Vladislav Tsypin, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy. In an interview with the website of the Sretensky Monastery, Tsypin said:
“From a doctrinal perspective, it is also clear that, according to the Christian view, death does not mark the end of a person’s life. Life continues beyond the grave, and ultimate justice will be revealed only at God’s Judgment. Therefore, even if a judicial error has occurred, it is, of course, deeply regrettable and tragic — but it is not the final tragedy.”
This argument is correct “by the letter,” as Christianity (and other religions) do indeed affirm that the soul is eternal. However, “by the spirit,” its seeming acceptance of any real world tragedy that is less than “final” diminishes the value of human life on Earth.
The third premise: the Church should not challenge the state's right to impose the death penalty, regardless of its own stance on the matter. As Christ said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” The concept states that the ROC supports actions by governments that abolish the death penalty but acknowledges that this decision lies with society (implying the state), based on “the level of crime, the state of law enforcement and judicial systems, and, above all, considerations for protecting the lives of law-abiding members of society.”
In his widely discussed remarks, Patriarch Kirill stated:
“It is impossible to give a general recommendation, but of course, ideally, people would not be deprived of their lives. However, let those who determine the punishment according to the law handle this.”
It is clear that the Church cannot dictate to the state or society how to combat crime. But the Church can and must act as a moral arbiter — indeed, both believers and atheists expect it to do precisely that. Instead, the patriarch’s reasoning makes the issue of capital punishment sound as trivial as deciding on a dinner menu item: baked sturgeon, or macaroni with canned beef? Sturgeon would be preferable, but let the host make the final choice.
It is obvious that the patriarch avoids criticising the state when faced with the task of providing a clear, straightforward answer to the question of the death penalty. But from a Christian perspective, there is only one answer: only God gives life, and only He has the right to take it away. When the state assumes the authority to execute a person, it usurps the role of God.
When the state assumes the authority to execute a person, it usurps the role of God
“If you destroy the image of God, how can you undo what has been done? How can you resurrect the dead and return souls to their bodies?” — these words belong to one of the foremost Christian theologians of the late 4th century John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. He is the author of the liturgy most frequently conducted in Orthodox churches.
Ultimately, the present situation creates the impression that the ROC under Patriarch Kirill is trying to sit on two chairs simultaneously. It is clear why: the Russian Orthodox Church has long been unable to exist independently from secular authorities, be it the empire, the Third Rome or the Kremlin. The Russian Orthodox Church as it exists today was reestablished by Stalin in 1943, at the height of World War II, on the ruins of the Russian Church, which the dictator and his associates had crushed and persecuted.
Even after the collapse of the USSR, the Church failed to achieve independence. Following Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, it became a loyal ideological ally and propagator of Vladimir Putin’s imperialist ambitions — from supporting the annexation of Crimea to endorsing the war against Ukraine and blessing weapons. Today, the ROC’s role is not to advocate for life, but to justify death — as long as it is caused “according to the law”.
It is impossible not to recall a key episode from The Tale of Bygone Years, a 12th century chronicle of the Kyivan Rus. The text says of prince Vladimir the Great, who baptised the Rus’ in 988:
“Vladimir lived in the fear of God. And the number of robbers greatly increased. The bishops said to Vladimir, 'The robbers have multiplied. Why do you not punish them?' And he answered, 'I fear sin.' But they told him, 'You are appointed by God to punish the wicked and show mercy to the righteous. You must execute robbers, but only after trial.'”
But while Vladimir neglected secular duties for fear of God, the modern leadership of the ROC considers it appropriate to serve the state and think like bureaucrats rather than to hold forth as Christian preachers.
The leadership of the ROC considers it appropriate to serve the state and think like bureaucrats rather than like Christian preachers
In this context, it is telling that Patriarch Kirill made his equivocal remarks on the death penalty while addressing participants in the Time of Heroes programme. This pro-war initiative, launched on Putin’s orders, has been implemented by the Higher School of Public Administration. Time of Heroes aims to “educate participants in the special military operation,” allegedly transforming veterans of a criminal war into “highly qualified, competent leaders.”
Kirill’s passivity in the face of secular authority stands out — and not in a positive way. A modern Christian Church can and should take a clear and unequivocal stance on the issue of the death penalty. Others certainly have.
The Catholic Church, following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which significantly reexamined the relationship between Church and society, gradually moved toward condemning the death penalty without any reservations. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, adopted in 1992 under Pope John Paul II, it was stated that if the guilt of an aggressor was fully established and if it was “the only possible way to effectively protect human lives from unjust aggressors,” then the Church’s traditional teachings did not exclude the use of the death penalty.
In 2018, Pope Francis amended the Catechism chapter on the death penalty. The updated version states that the world has changed, and that people retain their dignity even after committing serious crimes. It also notes that “more effective prison systems have been developed, which ensure the safety citizens are entitled to, while still allowing the possibility for the guilty to repent.” Therefore, grounded in the Gospel, the Church “resolutely advocates for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide” and asserts that “the death penalty is an inadmissible measure that offends human dignity.”
It could be argued that the Catholic Church, possessing its own state, does not need to conform to the authorities of the countries where its flock resides. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople — like the ROC, an Orthodox Church — has formulated an equally clear stance on the death penalty. Its social doctrine, ‘For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church’, was published in the spring of 2020. It reads:
“Since the death penalty repays evil with evil, it cannot be seen as a virtuous or even acceptable practice. While some may try to justify it as an expression of proportional justice, such logic is unacceptable for Christians. In the Gospels, Christ consistently rejects the principle of proportionality. He calls on His followers to embrace forgiveness, which not only goes beyond the demands of 'natural' justice but also sets aside the anger of the Law in favor of its deeper logic of mercy.”
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
In a 2020 conversation with Pope Francis about the Constantinople Church’s position on the death penalty, its leader Patriarch Bartholomew noted that rejecting the death penalty is a “logical and moral consequence” of upholding Christian principles of human dignity. “Therefore, the logical and moral conclusion is that anyone who condemns war should also reject the death penalty,” Bartholomew reasoned. This is exactly how we should interpret Patriarch Kirill’s words and actions today — only in the opposite direction. As a living example of the difference between the two Orthodox denominations, in recent years Patriarch Bartholomew has taken in at least ten ROC priests who faced persecution at home for their moral stance against Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.