LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (05/31/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

UNA is diaspora's great achievement

Dear Editor:

As the 34th Convention of the Ukrainian National Association came to an end, I felt there are some key questions that every member of the UNA should ask himself. First, can one expect the UNA to be a leading force in the Ukrainian community?

Soon we will no longer be able to say that the UNA publishes the oldest Ukrainian-language daily in the world, one thing of which UNA'ers can now be proud. Did those delegates who voted "yes" on the proposal for Svoboda to become a weekly publication consider this?

Why not to try to attract more advertisers and contributors, including those from Ukraine, to this publication instead? Why not try to cover more events from Ukraine? By that I mean definitely expanding the Kyiv Press Bureau. Why not consider expanding the publications and acquire new advertisers, subscribers and members as a result? There is also a possibility of printing Ukraine-based publications for the U.S. community, something that, of course, is much more complicated now that the UNA does not have its own print shop. As well, there is an oppotrunity to print the UNA's publications in Ukraine.

How can it be that the leadership of the UNA, being a fraternal organization, chooses to save money by limiting its services to the community instead of looking for potential earnings? I believe there are other ways to solve financial difficulties. There are people in our community who can help solve them. We need their voice, and we need the UNA to listen.

We will not be going to Soyuzivka for Christmas. Are we going to loose our beautiful resort, just as we lost the Home Office building in downtown Jersey City? We will, if we don't act now.

Also, as to discussions in regard to mergers: it is shocking to me that 137 delegates (luckily less than the two-thirds required to pass the proposal) voted in favor of changing the name of the 104-year-old organization, after their ancestors contributed so much to building and developing it in order to serve the Ukrainian community. How easily, it seems, some can forget about the importance of the name that is associated with striving of Ukrainians for independence and dedication to our community in the West.

It is sad not to see new people with new ideas making up the leadership of the organization for the upcoming four years. Thus, it seems improbable to me that there will be considerable increase in membership in the association, the decline of which had began to trouble the UNA's leaders years ago.

We, the members of the UNA, as well as everyone dedicated to the Ukrainian community in the U.S. and Canada, should make ourselves heard. And we need to do this now, before the Ukrainian National Association, the greatest achievement of Ukrainians in the West, has disappeared.

Serge Polishchuk
New York

Basic questions remain unanswered

Dear Editor:

In all of the recent articles and letters regarding the developments in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., two interrelated questions are still unanswered:

1 ) What did we obtain by submerging ourselves in the agreement with Constantinople; and

2) What overriding issue made this agreement necessary, tearing apart the Ukrainian Orthodox community in the diaspora and (notwithstanding the Rev. Nakonachny's assurances) stunning our brothers in Ukraine? Bound Brook's answer to these two questions is that by surrendering our independence here, we hasten recognition of the Church in Ukraine, which will be promoted by Patriarch Bartholomew. But there is nothing in the Points of Agreement that even implies that the patriarch will lift a finger to help our Church. To the contrary, his pronouncements and actions, both before and after the Points of Agreement, have been directly and irredeemably opposite. This is a matter of public record.

If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is simply that we are now "canonical", so as "...to give us a forum to speak in support of an Autocephalus Orthodox Church in Ukraine," then it sounds good, but is irrational. We are being asked to believe that our bishops got into this situation so they can oppose the position of their prime hierarch.

In reality the canonical argument is spurious. Our hierarchs themselves have repeatedly said, both before and after the Points of Agreement, that we always were canonical. And clearly none of them were re-ordained or re-consecrated by Constantinople.

The late Patriarch Mstyslav stated that nobody gives you independence, you take it. The Russians know this. In 1664, Moscow's Nikon simply declared himself "Patriarch of Moscow and all of Great Rus', Little Rus' (that's us) and White Rus'." He didn't beg for anyone's recognition. And guess what - they're canonical.

An argument that has been put forth many times is that our Church in Ukraine will be recognized when we are united. Why this unique precondition? Is there unity in the other Orthodox Churches? No, there are five separate jurisdictions (with two patriarchs) in the Russian Orthodox Church. There are multiple Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian Orthodox Churches. This multiplicity hasn't created a "recognition" problem for the other nationalities. Why is there such concern for unity among the Ukrainians? Why the double standard?

Father Nakonachny states that the letters written to The Weekly sow disunity and are helping the Moscow patriarch. Indeed, he laments our "otamanschyna." Moscow's greatest ally and supporter is Constantinople, who has assured the Russians that the UOC in the diaspora has been neutralized. Have we grasped the significance of this assurance?

Some writers fear the appointment of a bishop from Ukraine to the U.S., because this bishop may not understand our ways. What I fear and foresee, is a rewriting of our Church Constitution, including the reduction, to the point of elimination, of the laity's role in the Church. I fear that we will become a synodal church run wholly by the bishops and in violation of the Ukrainian Orthodox tradition. I fear that in the name of retaining our youth, Ukrainian will be eliminated from our Church services. I fear that in time, we will be absorbed by a generic American Orthodox Church. I fear that Constantinople will recognize the "autocephaly" of the present "UOC - Moscow Patriarchate." Of course it will be autocephalous in name only, just as it is Ukrainian in name only.

In closing I appeal to the clergy and faithful of the UOC-U.S.A. - think about what is happening, read the documents, observe the actions, examine the facts, and then answer the two questions in your own hearts.

Simon Nahnybida
Basking Ridge, N.J.