COMMENTARY: Kuropas column only clouds the religious picture (01/12/97)

COMMENTARY: Kuropas column only clouds the religious picture

by the Rev. John R. Nakonachny

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

It was with great sadness that in this season of love and joy, Myron Kuropas chose to write his article "Christmas in Ukraine, 1996," which was printed in the December 22, 1996, edition of The Ukrainian Weekly. Surely this topic could have been written at a later date and something more in tune with the season submitted in its place.

I realize that Dr. Kuropas is a dedicated and loyal member of the Catholic Church, and this is to be admired. However, his loyalty and disappointment in the knowledge that the pope may not visit Ukraine appears to have clouded, if not distorted, the true picture of the current religious situation in Ukraine, as well as the sad history of Church relations in the United States.

It is true that, in the past, there was great tension between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, especially among the clergy; as Dr. Kuropas stated, "Ukrainian Catholic priests and Ukrainian Orthodox priests never sat at the head table together, not even at community-wide events." However, in all fairness, we must recognize that in almost all such cases, the fault was not with the Orthodox clergy. Most of the Orthodox priests were former Greek-Catholic priests from Halychyna and their return to Orthodoxy in the 1920s branded them as traitors. As a result, they were shunned by the Greek-Catholic clergy, as was everyone who belonged to their parishes.

I remember growing up in Taylor, Pa., and visiting local Catholic churches without hesitation, while my Catholic friends were told by their priests that it was a "sin" to enter an Orthodox church and if they did, they must go to confession. For this reason, my own relatives would not visit my Orthodox parish. Yet, when visiting them, we always attended liturgy at their church.

At the same time, it was not unusual to hear that Orthodox believers who planned to marry in the Catholic Church were forced to be re-baptized.

Dr. Kuropas wrote that "such foolishness finally ended in 1988." Thank God it ended, but in truth it ended much earlier than 1988 with the decisions of Vatican II and their acknowledgment of the fact that the Orthodox Church traces its beginning to the Pentecost and has apostolic succession, thus recognizing the true history of the Orthodox Church.

I write these words not with any joy, rather to honor, respect and defend the dedicated pioneer clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States who had to endure the many insults inflicted upon them for being Orthodox.

Regarding the main issues of Dr. Kuropas's article - Ukraine and the pope's visit - allow me to comment on two points that he brought up in the article.

1. Dr. Kuropas makes the statement that "Ukraine is hardly an Orthodox nation. Ukraine is a pluralistic state wherein most of the citizens are non-believers."

Statistics have been published in Ukraine showing that of its 52 million citizens, over 30 million consider themselves Orthodox, 3 to 5 million are Greek-Catholic, and the remaining numbers belong to other religions or no religion at all. Truly, Orthodoxy is the major religion in Ukraine.

When there is one united Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the Orthodox Church will no doubt play a great role in the country. This should not shock anyone, for the same is evident in Poland with the Roman Catholic Church's influence.

I have certainly never read any statistics that indicate that "most of the citizens (of Ukraine) are non-believers." Where does Dr. Kuropas' information come from? Is it based on church attendance? If that is the gauge by which Dr. Kuropas measures belief, then France, Italy, Brazil and similar countries, which are looked upon as "Roman Catholic" countries, must also be counted as countries of "non-believers," since only 10 percent of the men in these countries attend church.

Ukraine has been independent for only five years, and after more than 70 years of religious persecution, the Ukrainian people are only now coming to terms with religion. Let us not judge them as non-believers.

2. I find Dr. Kuropas, statement regarding Patriarch Filaret to be reprehensible. He writes that "given his one-time loyalty to the Moscow Patriarchate and his shady past - many believe he was once on the KGB payroll - his remarks are not surprising."

Further he writes that the pope will probably not visit Ukraine "because of remarks by such former Soviet shils as Filaret."

Shame! Having observed Patriarch Filaret's work, over the past three years, for an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, how much longer will our Ukrainian leaders continue to ignore the good that has been done by the patriarch? Why must they continue to bring up things that possibly took place before an independent Ukraine? Do we read such statements about past Communist leaders, i.e., former President Leonid Kravchuk, President Leonid Kuchma and the many diplomats in the United Nations and Washington who visit our communities across the country and are so warmly welcomed by Ukrainians in the United States? We applaud them for their conversion from communism, but when the same applies to a Church leader, in the person of Patriarch Filaret, we cannot accept his conversion and commitment to work for an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

I wonder where the Christian Church would be today if the early Christians had done the same to St. Paul on his conversion from persecutor of to a believer in Christ?

Yet, in spite of Dr. Kuropas' beliefs, of all the Orthodox hierarchs, Patriarch Filaret is the most aggressive in regard to improving relations with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. During the Orthodox Sobor that elected him patriarch in October 1995 - at which I was an observer - a representative of the Ukrainian Catholic Church greeted the delegates to the Sobor and spoke of mutual cooperation.

Following the enthronization divine liturgy at St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kyiv, I was amazed to hear Patriarch Filaret speak to all the clergy and faithful that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church were the only two Churches that cared about an independent Ukraine. For Patriarch Filaret to make such a statement, at a time when the Russian Orthodox Church was trying to put fear into the masses by accusing him of being a secret Catholic, took courage and showed outstanding vision and leadership.

He further demonstrated that courage when, in visiting Lviv, he met with Cardinal Myroslav Lubachivsky and later, in Kyiv, attended the enthronization divine liturgy of the Kyiv exarch of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Bishop Lubomyr Husar. Surely these actions by Patriarch Filaret cannot be misconstrued as anything other than his desire to work cooperatively with the Greek-Catholics. Dr. Kuropas overlooks all the good that Patriarch Filaret has done for inter-Church relations.

I personally believe that if the pope does visit Ukraine, Patriarch Filaret and the bishops of the Kyiv Patriarchate will be the only Orthodox bishops present at any of the pope's appearances.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with Patriarch Filaret's statement that the "time has not yet arrived for him (the pope) to come here (Ukraine)." As a concerned Church leader, does Patriarch Filaret not have the right to express his opinion? He did not malign the pope or the Catholic Church. He simply stated that he felt this was not the best time for the pope's visit.

The same situation existed in the United States 35 years ago. I remember the Protestants opposing John F. Kennedy because he was Catholic. On a parish organization bus tour of Amish country, the guide informed us that the Amish do not vote in elections, with one exception. They came out to vote against Kennedy, for fear that the pope would gain control of American politics.

As ridiculous as it sounds, at that time it was a very great concern for many people.

Could you imagine a papal visit to America following Kennedy's election?

Ukraine, in its spiritual rebirth, has not yet reached the stage to which we in America are accustomed. In Ukraine, the pope is not looked upon in the same light as he is in the West. For many Ukrainians, the word "pope," especially in eastern Ukraine, conjures up the same visions that the Amish held in the States in the 60s.

Unfortunately, a similar situation exists between the Vatican and Moscow. I was present when a nun from the Ukrainian Catholic Church visited the Kyiv Patriarchate with a greeting on the enthronization of Patriarch Volodymyr in October of 1993. No Catholic clergy attended the enthronization because the Ukrainian Catholic Church did not want to harm its relations with the Vatican, fearing that Moscow would protest any participation.

Perhaps, Dr. Kuropas, "the time has not yet arrived," but let us fully understand the present situation in Ukraine. As we approach the third millennium, let us pray that both the Vatican and Constantinople will cease their fear of Moscow and take the bold steps of recognizing an Autocephalous Orthodox Church and recognize the title of patriarch for the leader of the Greek-Catholic Church in a free and independent Ukraine.

Such recognition will have a far greater effect on the faithful of Ukraine then will a three-day papal visit.

The Rev. John R. Nakonachny is pastor of St. Vladimir's Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in Parma, Ohio.

| Home Page |