INTERVIEW: Bishop Lubomyr Husar on the present and future of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (10/20/96)

INTERVIEW: Bishop Lubomyr Husar on the present and future of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

LVIV - Bishop Lubomyr Husar is the leader of the newly created Kyiv-Vyshhorod Eparchy. He was installed in June after being appointed on April 2 by Cardinal Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, the head of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

Bishop Husar had been secretly consecrated a bishop 19 years earlier by the late Patriarch Josyf Slipyj at Castelgandolfo, the Studite monastery near Rome. Although the Roman Catholic Church recognized the consecration, the bishop remained underground because of the political situation of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in what was then still the Soviet Union.

The 63-year-old Studite monk served as vicar-general of the Lviv Archeparchy, working in Rome until the return of Cardinal Lubachivsky to the historic seat of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Lviv in 1993. In 1993-1994 he worked at the Lviv Theological Academy and from 1995 until his appointment as Bishop of Kyiv-Vyshhorod, he lived at the Monastery of St. Theodore the Studite in the village of Kolodiyivka in the Ternopil region.

Today, many view him as the odds-on favorite to succeed Cardinal Lubachivsky as the leader of the Church.

Bishop Husar attended the Patriarchal Sobor held in Lviv October 6-10 and was appointed by Cardinal Lubachivsky to preside over its work. Here on October 11 he spoke with The Weekly's Kyiv correspondent, Roman Woronowycz, in place of Cardinal Lubachivsky, who, because of his health and advanced years, no longer grants interviews. The interview with Bishop Husar was conducted six days before he was appointed by the World Synod as a special assistant with extraordinary powers to the archbishop-major of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church - an appointment that was approved by Pope John Paul II.

PART I

Q: Those who attended the Sobor praised your leadership of the conference. Was the Sobor a success in your eyes, and what are its most important results?

A: Generally, I am pleased with outcome of the Sobor, mainly with the attitude of the people who took part and who actively worked together. It was most evident in the working groups, where the real work of the Sobor took place. The reports that were read at the beginning were not very strong; they weren't sufficiently analytical, unfortunately. So it was difficult to get a good, complete picture of the situation in our Church. However, we had the ability to listen to our brothers from around the world, effectively, from many different lands. I think that this was a major event and great experience for our people.

It means that we are a Church scattered throughout the world and therefore, we cannot think in narrow terms, provincially, for example, only about Halychyna let's say, but that we must think about our problems from a world view and the solutions to them that will help our people around the world become better Christians. The enthusiasm I saw impressed me. I am happy that such a Sobor took place. There is no reason to fool yourself that it proceeded without flaws. Or that major results and decisions were made to be proposed to the Synod of Bishops.

I think that the strength of the Sobor, its beauty, is found in the fact that it was held, that people came, became acquainted, were interested and took part. And what is important for me, all the committees proposed some format for the continued existence of, I won't say the Sobor, but of organs that would give structure to the ideas that were proposed, to continue that work. The people want these proposals actualized.

I was also impressed with the fact that our whole Church was at the Sobor - bishops, priests, the laity - all of whom took active part in the discussions. At times they did not agree, they opposed each other, but that is no tragedy. In fact, I think it is good that there is independence of thought and that people are not scared to present their views, even in a critical manner. It proves that the people are concerned in their souls about matters of the Church. The collaboration among the various elements of our people is of itself proof of the vitality of our Church.

I sincerely believe the Synod will seriously look at the proposals. As one bishop told me, we must do something because the people have needs and expectations, and our assignment is to guide the people where we must.

Q: The Sobor presented quite a list of proposals that the Synod of Bishops will now decide upon. Which, in your mind, are the most important? Yesterday at the Sobor I heard you assert that questions regarding youth are of particular significance.

A: I think they are all important. Each one of the categories we looked at is important in its own right, but most important, I think, are the proposals that request clearly that the bishops look at the proposals seriously and that structures are formed to maintain what was begun. I do not think that in two or three days anyone can deeply examine a subject, for example, the problems of the family.

More so because we did not simply discuss the family as it is in Ukraine, or Halychyna, but we discussed the Ukrainian Christian family as it is around the world. There are different problems in North America, different problems in South America. In Western Europe there is a different lifestyle. In Ukraine, the east and the west, there are large differences in approach.

So, to shed a proper light on it, to properly study it and come up with a brilliant solution is not possible. But the fact that people want to organize bodies, structures - and at the synodal level - not merely individually at the parish level, that will continue the work begun on youth, the family, the priesthood.

And, because they want it done at the synodal level means that the Synod must form committees chaired by bishops whose responsibilities will be to assure that matters proceed. It will not be enough to merely acknowledge the proposals, to check off that what was requested was carried out, but to expand on the issues, deepen them, study them. The matters must be taken seriously, in other words. I think that was the greatest accomplishment of the Sobor.

There are dangers, as with anything. The committees could bury issues. You know, as they say in America, the easiest way to kill an issue is to form a committee to study it. There is always that danger. Unfortunately, even in our Church we have had instances when committees of the highest levels that were formed did nothing or at most only superficially. But I hope that since all the representations of the Church were present, the bishops, the priests, the laity, they will press that something comes of this.

To think that we will make great progress in one or two years is sheer fantasy, and no one has any illusions. Everybody is aware that this is a long-term effort, that these bodies must exist, work and expand. For example, some have said that some of these matters should already be workable at the parish level. Some parishes are ready, some are not. We must work out the issues as best we can. If we take on this task in a serious manner and form the organizational structures and nurture them and work the problems and report on the progress made before the whole Church, then the Sobor will be considered a great success, more so because this is only the first session.

We have at least four more sessions, which currently, it seems, will be held every year. That's how it looks right now, even though there were some proposals that the sessions should take place every two years because of the preparations involved. We'll see after we review the questionnaires that were handed out. But personally, I think it is better that at least for the first Sobor the sessions should take place annually to the year 2000. Then we'll see. Church law states that sobors such as this one should take place at least every five years, I believe. We'll stick to that.

There was a concrete proposal with much merit that the sobors should deal with single topics. For example, youth, an area where there are many problems, should be discussed. And, as regards youth, such sessions should involve not only older people, experienced in life, but young people as well, so that they can tell us what bothers them, and so that we do not live in a fantasy world, thinking that we know everything about them, because we don't. They must tell us what bothers them, what they need, what they are looking for.

A session on the family must include a certain number of families, young, old, experienced and broken families, so that we may hear how they live, why they live the way they do, how did they manage to form a Christian family, or how did they fail to do so.

I do not think this will happen in the first stage. I am almost positive that this will not happen at the second session of the first Sobor. I believe that every year there will be several topics discussed, as was done this year. [The Sobor] will again attempt to address certain topics and expound on them.

Q: I would like to ask you about Pope John Paul II and rumors that he will visit Ukraine not this year but in the next year. Is there any basis to these rumors?

A: Chances that the pope will come are pretty good because the Ukrainian government has begun actively entertaining the possibility and discussing it. The government must present the invitation. Before there was no discussion of that possibility, now there is. As to when he will visit, that is more problematic. At the press conference I had in Kyiv the facts were somewhat misrepresented in the press. Some wrote that he is definitely coming, and I even received a phone call from Moscow from a person who wanted that confirmed. It seems they were concerned that the pope was to visit.

I think that in any case, practically, the earliest it would happen would be in the autumn of next year. Much depends on the pope's health, the situation here. Papal visits are scheduled far in advance.

Q: Ukrainian Television announced last week that in fact Ukraine is one of four countries to which the pope will travel next year, although, as usual, they did not give the source.

A: Yes, there is such speculation, and it is not without merit. There is discussion in government circles of a visit by the pope. People are talking about it.

But there are divisions. Just recently here in Lviv there was a conference dedicated to the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest sponsored by the Orthodox Church in Lviv, the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. They stated that a visit by the pope is not wanted, that it will only cause further division. These things are said and, of course, the government listens because this is by the numbers the largest Church in Ukraine.

I, however, believe the government will work through these difficulties, take all things under consideration and then make its final decision.

The fact is that it is being discussed. With regard to the time and the form the visit would take, that is all yet to be worked out. Because of the complexities involved, I do not think it could take place before the fall of next year.

Q: During your press conference in Kyiv you also alluded to the possibility that during his visit the pope might recognize a Kyiv-Halych Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. Is that a real possibility?

A: I seriously doubt it. I doubt it for many reasons, even though it cannot be excluded as a possibility. I think that a [papal] visit is not the right circumstance, it would be as if he brought a gift or a piece of candy. No, I think that it is a matter of sufficient importance that it would have to have its own form with proper preparations.

I hope and expect that among other things Metropolitan [Andrey] Sheptytsky will be beatified during the visit, or maybe Yosafata Hardyshevska or Archimandrite Klymentii Sheptytsky. The pope often does this when he visits, whether it is France, Spain, Africa, or wherever. This is a very real possibility. I would go so far as to say that he has done it in other countries and should do it in Ukraine.

As for the matter of the Patriarchate, I think that it is such a serious matter that it would require different preparation. It is important that the patriarch of the West and the successor to St. Peter recognize the Ukrainian Patriarchate, but I think that the patriarchs of the other Catholic Churches must join in such an act.

The recognition of the Patriarchate is very similar to recognizing a state. Ukraine existed, but in the international forum it began to exist only when other countries began to recognize it. De facto, just because a country isn't recognized by other countries does not mean that it doesn't exist. Recognition does not create the state, it only brings it into the community of nations. The same with a Patriarchate.

So, we want not only for the holy father, the patriarch of the West, but also for the other patriarchs to join in the recognition of the Church, and we then become part of the structure as one of the Patriarchal Churches.

Q: So you are saying that such recognition and then the proper preparation for a celebration during a papal visit, let's say next fall, could not happen?

A: My personal opinion is that matters have not yet been properly prepared in the sense of Church politics. Personally, I wouldn't like it to happen that way. I believe it is an act of such momentous proportions that it would lack the proper tone in some ways. If the pope were to give a sermon in Kyiv or Lviv and announce, "Okay, you people are now a Patriarchate," it wouldn't have a serious look.

Such a pronouncement must involve the government and the whole Church. It is a very serious matter and cannot be handled lightly. That is how I see it, anyway. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm not stuck on that it has to be that way, it's only my opinion.

Q: What are the obstacles today to formal recognition of a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate?

A: I believe they are a matter of Church politics. There are factors, a game, if you will, on the international playing field, political games, which make our situation much more difficult. It is a game of political ecumenism, which today is such that recognition of our Patriarchate would be a causus belli, as they say in Latin, for others. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate became alarmed when we formed the Kyiv Exarchate. They appealed to the papal nuncio. They even sent a letter to the pope - how dare the pope invade their territory and create such a thing. I can only imagine what the recognition of such a Patriarchate would do. It would break all ties between the Apostolic Roman capital and the Moscow Patriarchate.

This, I believe, holds some sway, although not exclusively, but there is something to this. I think that we must think through and decide, and be completely convinced as to what this Patriarchate provides us.

This recently completed Sobor was a very strong confirmation of the need for strong, well-organized unity among us. The people showed that they feel a part of a single Church. There were representatives from all of our communities, all were represented. This means that they all feel a part of our Church.

Some do not speak Ukrainian, some speak it poorly, some have little contact [with us]. But no one was not represented. They were here from faraway Argentina and Australia. Bishops and laity and representatives were all present. It shows that the people feel they are part of a single Church. The response to the call by His Beatitude [Cardinal Lubachivsky] for a Sobor was an overwhelming demonstration of our desire for unity. A Patriarchate would be the essential confirmation and ratification of our unity. The people would feel a part of a general international religious union.

I think that this fact must be taken seriously, we must continue to underscore it, and on that basis we must not stop demanding that recognition. It will not fall from the heavens on its own. We must continue to demand [a Patriarchate], politely but decisively. It must be done in a Christian manner, according to Church law, but decisively and without ambiguity. And we must respond to the attacks that continue to be made to rid ourselves of them.

CONCLUSION