INTERVIEW: The Vatican's administrator for Toronto eparchy
As of December 29, 1992, the Rev. Roman Danylak is the apostolic administrator for the Toronto Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy, with episcopal character, that is, with the powers of a bishop.
The Rev. Danylak, formerly a consultor to the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Canon (Church) Law for the Eastern Churches (1973-1990) has been serving as the chancellor of the Toronto Eparchy since 1966, and as pastor of its cathedral, St. Josaphat's, since 1978.
In the wake of two weeks of increasing controversy over his appointment, The Weekly contacted the Rev. Danylak at his residence at St. Josaphat's parish on January 16. The interview was conducted by Andrij Wynnyckyj.
CONCLUSION
Q: You brought up the fact that some priests fear the consequences of your appointment. What reasons might they have to fear it?
A: That's right, [they fear me] because they know my views on certain issues. An issue that they fear me on is, for example, the celibate versus the married clergy.
Q: Do you oppose the ordination of married priests?
A: No, I don't.
OK, they all know me as a law and order priest. That I stick to the rules. Their misconception is that rules are made to be broken.
Q: Whose rules?
A: The rules of the Church. The rules of the Catholic Church. Metropolitan [Andrey] Sheptytsky, back in the 1940s, when he was questioned by some of his clergy whether they were to obey some laws and disregard others, replied that the law is the law, and a priest must obey it.
The law in this case is the expression of the experience of the Church through the centuries, and also an expression of the will of God through the Church, so we have to obey the law.
Now, considering the issue of the married clergy. The decrees of the Second Vatican Council and now the Code of the Eastern Canon Law says, in my paraphrase of the original Latin, that the married clergy must be held in honor by all in the Catholic Church. I've never questioned that.
Q: So all those who might be concerned that their ordination might be annulled, or those who were hoping to marry and remain in the clergy have nothing to fear?
A: Those who have already been ordained, no. Some of them fear that I'm going to boot them out.
Q: That's groundless?
A: They're here, I've accepted them. Secondly, the issue concerns the married clergy for the future. The law in Canada is still in discussion, and it is a very moot issue, but as it stands, bishops in Canada and the United States, that is, outside the territory of Ukraine, cannot ordain married men on their own.
Of course, this is the practice and tradition in Ukraine. But according to the law, the ordinations cannot take place here, because otherwise they're against the rules that are binding on us.
Bishop Isidore, recognizing this, would have priests ordained either by Cardinal [Josyf] Slipyj or by Archbishop [Volodymyr] Sterniuk to get around this.
Q: Maybe to get around the Canadian law, but within the realm of the Ukrainian Church, he was doing it in accordance with its laws.
A: Those men were able to ordain priests for their own dioceses, but they can't ordain them for Toronto.
Q: I'm confused. Even if they remain within the realm of the Ukrainian Catholic Church?
A: That's right, that remains an abuse of the law. The Holy See, sympathetic to the needs of the Church, turned a blind eye to such practices.
Q: But you would ensure that they be discontinued?
A: I haven't yet taken office.
Q: Surely you have some predispositions. This is what we touched on. People need to know them, because your predispositions are what they fear.
A: What I'm going to do, I don't know. But when I will consider what will be done in the future, I will consider what the law is. And I am going to abide by the law, because this is the will of God.
The laws can be changed, but that's another issue. Our bishops have been trying to get that law changed, but all the other bishops have abided by the law that binds them, and continue to work. The law is the law and it binds the conscience.
Q: All right. Do you favor the concept of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate?
A: Again, the Second Vatican Council decrees state that each Eastern Church is entitled, according to their ancient traditions, to be governed by a patriarch. But it goes on to add another paragraph stating that the decision to elevate a given Church to a patriarchate, to be headed by a patriarch, is reserved to an ecumenical council of all the bishops, or a decision of the pope.
How can I be against brotherhood? How can I be against our Church? I would like to get together with you for several articles, not just one.
But to get to the nitty gritty of the matter at hand, I'm all for the patriarchate. We don't have it yet, we are all struggling for it, and many things have to be done. One of the major obstacles is not, as our Ukrainian nationalists would contend, the attitude of Rome, but the attitude of the Orthodox Churches, not the Catholic. Not merely the Ukrainian ones, but including and mostly the Ukrainian ones.
For us, the issue of the patriarchate is an issue of the reunification of the Ukrainian Churches. Following the Union of Berestia, or Brest, of 1596, our Churches became divided. Our bishops opted for union with Rome, but certain elements that were hostile to their action began fomenting rebellion and what not. It was not within their jurisdiction to do this. They were not under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but the Patriarch of Antioch. He ordained, or rather reordained two new clergies for the Church, the Orthodox Church, which was totally outside his competence. And then because of the support of the political factions and the military faction, the Orthodox Church was re-ensconed...
Q: Well, you're describing the Kozak movement and much of the eastern Ukrainian clergy. The argument here centers on the fact that the western wing of the Ukrainian clergy was more fully under Polish influence and agreed to the union, while those in the east...
A: That's the argument that's used, but it's not true. At the time of the Union of Berestia, there was a counter-synod, also in Berestia, organized by Konstantyn Ostrozky. And the bishops who acceded to the union were the bishops of the east. The bishops of the Kyyivan metropoly and all the others. It was the two bishops of the west, of Lviv and Peremyshl, that refused. Even though they had been part of all the discussions and had agreed to everything prior, it was those two who refused.
That's the reality of it. The arguments historians make and certain Churches use now are not supposed by the reality. But, whatever that be, the issue is that Ukraine became sorely divided in the 1600s.
We had great men at the head of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, and they all realized the problem, and began working on a reunification. They realized that the enemies were really outside the Church, and the only way to resolve these problems was to establish a Kyyivan Patriarchate. The idea came not from them, but it had been elicited by Rome itself, but that would be another article.
But what is the reality? The reality is that the patriarchy can only be one. It has to be a Kyyivan patriarchy. When Cardinal Slipyj chose to use the title Kyyivo-Galician Patriarch, he chose it and used it not because he wanted to establish a Galician patriarchate, but because the authority in Halych came about only later, upon the division of the Church into East and West.
When we look at the attitude of the Orthodox now (we could get into the whole attitude of Metropolitan or Patriarch Mstyslav, but that's a whole other can of worms), we see that they are very opposed to the claims of the Catholics in Kyyiv. They tell them: "You do not belong here. This is an Orthodox country."
Even at the time of the Ukrainian provisional government between 1918 and 1925, they wanted to establish a unified patriarchate. Vynnychenko was supposed to have turned to Metropolitan Sheptytsky about this. And Metropolitan Sheptytsky's response was that I'm all for this acceptance, but the patriarchy can only be in Kyyiv, and I will willingly submit myself and my Church to that authority. But I will only accept a patriarch that will be recognized by the universal authority of the successors of St. Peter.
Q: So what you're saying is that the only path to a Ukrainian patriarchy is to submit to the pope in Rome?
A: Acknowledge what was done in 1596.
Q: But you are in favor of increasing ecumenism and a resolution of differences between the two Churches?
A: Ecumenical dialogue, yes. This is how the Church is always calling us. We are people of one nation. We believe in the one same Christ, and we should be working toward the fulfillment of Christ's prayer that all be one. And Jesus, when he speaks through the Church says that he has one flock, one sheep-fold, using the imagery of the shepherd. And yet I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must reach out to them. This is the mandate that Christ gave to us.
Q: So you don't believe at all in setting up a separate national Church under a patriarch?
A: No. There is only one Church. As a Catholic priest it is a matter of gospel faith and fidelity to Christ. The whole tradition of the Church, from the beginning of its time, both East and West, the concept of the Church is that there is one Church established on the rock of Peter. The words of Scripture. They are quite clear in this particular regard. That's how the Catholic Church views its own reality.
Q: Returning to the fears that people might have. Some have charged that you are a proponent of subsuming the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church within the universal Roman Church. That is, that you are in favor of Latinizing its rite and changing its practices to conform to Roman Catholic ones. Is this true?
A: This is the first time that you have met me, so you really don't know my ideas.
Q: I'm just asking you as a journalist.
A: All right, so I have to answer as to a journalist. On what grounds do they make these claims. What in all my actions in the 35 years of my priesthood, and the 20 some years that I've been here as a priest have they seen signs of this? Whenever I have stepped up publicly, not only before the Ukrainian Church, but also before the Roman Catholics, I have always insisted on our own rites and reality, and this is how I have been received among the Roman Catholic bishops of the Church. As a representative of the East.
There is no shade of truth in such accusations, no shade of truth. Not even specious truth. Absolutely none.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 7, 1993, No. 6, Vol. LXI
| Home Page |