LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (03/29/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Canadian perspective on Orthodox issues

Dear Editor:

As a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, I have followed with interest the recent discussion in The Ukrainian Weekly, that followed Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's visit to the Ukrainian Orthodox Center in South Bound Brook, N.J., in October 1997. I believe that those who wrote either letters to the editor or commentaries on this subject were all Ukrainian Americans. Up until now, I have not seen any comments from Orthodox Ukrainians of other countries whose Churches also have joined the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

I was particularly disturbed by the commentary of Victor Rud (March 8) where, in his lengthy dissertation resembling a legal brief, Mr. Rud, in fact, accuses the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs of lies, cover-up and betrayal of their Ukrainian flock whom he calls "raby" (serfs). Well, I don't feel at all like a "rab", and I trust much more our Ukrainian Orthodox clergy and hierarchs than does Mr. Rud.

Moreover, Mr. Rud and Wasyl Kosohor (February 22) have made it appear as if the decision to join the Patriarchate of Constantinople was purely the matter of the UOC-U.S.A. or "Bound Brook." This, of course, is not the case. Not only the UOC-U.S.A., but also the UOC-Canada, UOC-Austria, UOC-New Zealand, UOC-Latin America, have united for the first time into a single Ukrainian Orthodox Church and have all agreed to become part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Should all the hierarchs of all these Orthodox Churches be considered traitors to their Ukrainian flock? I think not. In fact, the unification of all of the diaspora's Ukrainian Orthodox Churches is an extremely important achievement and gives them considerable strength that can be exercised in the future to help an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine gain recognition.

It is also utterly unfair to blame Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for not recognizing an Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine at the present time. At the conference "Towards A New Ukraine" held on March 21-22, 1997, at the University of Ottawa (which was reported in The Ukrainian Weekly) there was a presentation by Dr. Borys Gudziak, vice-rector of the Lviv (Ukrainian Greek-Catholic) Theological Seminary, on religious life in Ukraine. He provided some interesting statistics regarding the Orthodox Churches. As of January 1, 1997, in Ukraine there were 6,816 religious communities of the UOC-Moscow Patriarchate, 1,499 communities of UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate and 1,163 communities of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. When looking at the number of pastors or priests, 5,590 of them belong to the UOC-MP, 1,273 to the UOC-KP and 534 to the UAOC. Thus, the UOC-MP encompasses some 70 percent of the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine and the rest are badly divided. Under these circumstances, how can we expect Patriarch Bartholomew to recognize an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, other than the UOC-MP? When the majority of Orthodox faithful in Ukraine will belong to an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and if at such time Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to recognize such Church, then we would be clearly justified in criticizing him, but certainly not until then.

Another point: our Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in the diaspora are slowly dying, just like the people who built them some 40 to 50 years ago. In another 10 to 20 years there will be very few of these people left. The younger generation, which mostly does not speak Ukrainian, is not joining our churches in great numbers. They often live too far from the church, or are married to non-Orthodox spouses, or are simply not very interested. There are not many new immigrants from Ukraine and some of them are actually joining Russian Orthodox churches. Just visit one of our Ukrainian Orthodox churches on a "normal" Sunday and there will be a couple of dozen of old parishioners there, and that's all.

Thus, it is obvious that in order to survive, our Orthodox Churches must attract all Orthodox faithful that live in the neighborhood and maybe even some non-Orthodox, such as spouses, and friends. Our Church must, therefore, restructure, adapt to the new environment by using more local languages during church services and become more open and ecumenical. If the old parishioners who built these churches are not happy with such transformation, they simply are not being realistic. Today, our churches often need major repairs and maintenance work, and unless they are injected with "new blood" and money, they will decline and eventually disappear, as this recently happened with a Greek Orthodox church in Montreal which burned down and was razed by the city because there were not enough parishioners to pay for its restoration.

Also, previously, our Ukrainian churches served as center of support for promoting Ukrainian independence. Now that Ukraine is independent this should no longer be their function and they should be involved in religion rather than Ukrainian nationalism. I am a great believer in the separation of Church and state. Countries that don't have it are usually in deep trouble. I was not very proud of being an Orthodox Christian when a year or so ago I watched a TV news report about how some Serbian Orthodox priests were blessing Serbian soldiers who were going to murder defenseless Bosnian Moslems and commit genocide.

In conclusion, I am quite happy with the developments in the diaspora's Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and I would rather agree with the Rev. Nakonachny than with Messrs. Rud, Kosohor, et al.

George Primak
Pierrefonds, Quebec

An examination of misinformation

Dear Editor:

In the last few issues of The Ukrainian Weekly, letters and commentaries have appeared that concern the fate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. I think this is a timely and important topic that concerns the very existence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian nation and its independence.

Most of the correspondents like Victor Babansky and Wasyl Kosohor incorrectly put all of the blame on the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. (UOC-U.S.A.). However the commentary by attorney Victor Rud (March 8) distinguishes itself by being full of misinformation, half-truths and outright fabrications. I would like to take a moment to examine some erroneous statements made by Mr. Rud.

Mr. Rud states that the hierarchy of the UOC-U.S.A. entered into a secret agreement with the Patriarchate of Constantinople on December 6, 1994. Quite to the contrary, at the Sobor of UOC-U.S.A. in 1995, the entire text of the Points of Agreement between our Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. and the Patriarchate of Constantinople was distributed to all participants of the Sobor. "There is absolutely nothing additional or secret about them," stated Archbishop Antony to this writer when asked about the Points of Agreement. I personally am inclined to believe the archbishop.

Mr. Rud's article further states that "we are no longer permitted to pray for our own Church or for our brothers from Ukraine." I don't know how often Mr. Rud attends church services, but every Sunday, during liturgy at each UOC-U.S.A. parish, the priest prays for the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian Churches across the globe. Furthermore, priests of the UOC-U.S.A. are permitted to conduct the divine liturgy in churches belonging to the Kyiv Patriarchate and vice versa. (Incidentally this question was asked during the Sobor of UOC-U.S.A. in 1995, to which Metropolitan Constantine gave an affirmative answer as well as his blessing.)

Then Mr. Rud states that the "shylo" embarrassing pokes through the "mishok" regarding fund-raising by the Society of St. Andrew, which he feels is being usurped by the Consistory of the UOC-U.S.A. (i.e., he believes the Society of St. Andrew to be an independent organization). Were Mr. Rud to buy a 1998 UOC-U.S.A. Calendar-Almanac (as all members of the UOC-U.S.A. should), he would discover on page 188 that the Society of St. Andrew is one of the integral parts of the UOC-U.S.A. and is certainly not an independent unit.

Still further Mr. Rud states that "in violation of their own constitution, our hierarchs simply surrendered autocephaly and buried soboropravnost." I really don't know where Mr. Rud studied canon law but our UOC-U.S.A. was never "sobornopravna." Also it would be nice if Mr. Rud cited even one example where our hierarchs abandon autocephaly. Are our bishops appointed by Constantinople? Of course not.

I object strongly to Mr. Rud's statement that "pious, differential to authority, unassertive in the extreme, these poor people were bludgeoned into psychological passivity by Moscow and now, in their final days on this earth, are cowed into silence by threats from our hierarchs." This is an insult to our fathers who suffered many injustices for our Church, our people and our nation at the hands of tsarist and communist Moscow. They did not succumb to "psychological passivity." Instead, they suffered in gulags and in concentration camps and ultimately escaped to this country, where they built the churches in which we worship. Thousands are buried in the hallowed grounds of St. Andrew's cemetery in Bound Brook, N.J., and many others are still living.

Finally in one of his closing remarks, Mr. Rud mentions that the UOC-U.S.A. is threatening "excommunication ... and ... lawsuits against these people" who worked so hard for our Church. From where does he get his facts - in which document is this stated? Interestingly enough, even though nowhere in the Points of Agreement is "excommunication" mentioned, Mr. Rud brings this topic up in his closing statements. Maybe he himself is fearful of excommunication for his disgraceful attack on the clergy of the UOC-U.S.A. on the first Sunday of Great Lent when all faithful are seeking the Lord's forgiveness for their sins.

I think it is high time that we stop these accusations against our clergy and start doing something positive around which our faithful in Ukraine can unite. We are facing a formidable enemy in the person of Patriarch Aleksei of Moscow, an integral part of the Kremlin establishment. His influence is immense in Ukraine and indeed throughout the world. The Moscow patriarch was successful in putting pressure on the Vatican in denying a patriarch for our brethren, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. When the late Major Archbishop and Cardinal Josef Slipyj was asking the Vatican to give Ukrainian Catholics their own patriarchate, the Vatican said that it could not be done at that time due to the absence of an independent Ukrainian state. After nearly seven years of Ukrainian independence there is still no independent Ukrainian Catholic patriarch.

I have spent two years in the CIS countries and visited many churches in different cities in Ukraine. The people who attend churches of the so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), are told by the clergy that if they attend churches belonging to the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), they will be condemned to eternal damnation since churches of the UOC-KP are "not canonical" and the Ukrainian Church cannot be canonical since it comprises "samosviaty."

And what are we doing here in North America? We fight among ourselves and degrade our own hierarchy. The proposed course of action offered by Messrs. Babansky, Kosohor, Rud and Simon Nahnybida is for the hierarchy of the UOC-U.S.A. to denounce the agreement with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and to join the Kyiv Patriarchate. How this move will improve the situation of our Church in Ukraine is beyond me. The status quo will remain, nothing will change.

Yuriy Bazylevsky
Whitestone, N.Y.