LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (09/06/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Constructive criticism is often very healthy

Dear Editor:

As a long-time supporter of Ukrainian studies at Harvard, I was often exposed to accusations by our community activists and in the so-called Ukrainian political press that Harvard is not worthy of our support. I personally know every professor, librarian and staff member working at the HURI, as well as many non-Ukrainians associated with Ukrainian studies at Harvard. They are pro-Ukrainian, and I have always been pleased that we have such an institution that stands out above our small-minded groups that call themselves "political."

I have always been convinced that true politics are associated with governments and institutions of higher education. I have been thankful to people who established these institutions and to them I owe the possibility of participating in and contributing to the process of raising Ukrainian issues to a level that is considered very high throughout the entire world.

I am not an educator, and my everyday life is closely linked to people whom Dr. Kuropas calls the "grunts." Community activists, organized in one group or another, working under the umbrella of the UCC in Canada and the UCCA in the U.S., have always been in the majority. The educators and their supporters constituted a small minority. Sometimes the attacks of our organized community against our institutions of higher education were so strong that I myself had doubts about whether I was right in my conviction to support higher education.

After reading Dr. Myron Kuropas' article "The Grunts Carry Us" (July 12), I was initially a little confused as to who is right. However, my confusion was dispeled when I read responses to Dr. Kuropas' article, in particular Dr. Lubomyr Hajda's letter, which not only explained why the works criticized by Dr. Kuropas were what they were, but also showed how the world can be persuaded to sympathize with Ukrainians. This is exactly why the original organizers of the Ukrainian Studies Fund that support the HURI were determined to fund this institution, which can speak to the world as a part of a well-established, internationally respected university, and to not back our fragmented local groups, each pursuing their own ideological objectives.

Since criticism of established leaders is taboo in our community, I admire Dr. Kuropas for his courageous and professional presentation of our highest educational institution from the point of view of the "grunts." However, I have to congratulate the defenders of the HURI, and especially Dr. Hajda, for their well-intentioned and intelligent explanations as to why the HURI works the way it works. These explanations would never have been expressed if not elicited by Dr. Kuropas' article. Constructive criticism is very healthy and leads to self-improvement.

In my opinion, both sides in this discussion will benefit from it. This discussion gave me and, I believe, many other "grunts," even more confidence that we are doing all right. Many thanks to The Weekly for providing a forum for these polemics.

Peter Jacyk
Mississauga, Ontario

Orthodox need to know the full truth

Dear Editor:

First of all, l thank Archimandrite Andriy Partykevich for publicly stating in his recent letter to The Weekly (July 26) that there is a "... current ban against episcopal Eucharistic concelebration" between our bishops and the clergy of the UOC-KP and UAOC. When I mentioned a ban in one of my letters, it was denied and ridiculed by the Rev. John Nakonachny, thus spreading misinformation and confusion. This is just one example of what I believe is the real fundamental issue in our Church - the apparent inability of our clergy to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Constantinople jurisdiction issue. This inability has resulted in distrust on the part of the laity towards our spiritual leaders.

Bear with me for one more example. In the recent June 14 open letter to the Patriarch of the UOC-KP, our bishops question the infamous Protocol 937 stating "... the original of which we have never seen ...", and asking "if such a document exists...". (Note this wording. Why would they expect to see the original? I assume the original went to the Moscow Patriarch). This protocol was published in the Eastern Churches Journal (Autumn 1995, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 233-237), a periodical that lists Archbishop Vsevolod on its editorial board, and was quoted at length in the January 1996 issue of Visnyk, the official newspaper of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada. Knowing this, how could our bishops make the statements they made in their open letter?

Archimandrite Andriy writes; "I fully support the decision of the Council of Bishops to place the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the diaspora under the omophor (jurisdiction) of the ecumenical patriarch." Yet he never states why. What has this accomplished? Furthermore, he writes that there are good arguments on both sides, yet he never shares any of these arguments.

I continue to ask the questions that I, and others, have repeatedly asked: Why did we walk away from being in communion with the Churches in Ukraine? Why are we under the jurisdiction of a foreign Church - one that shamefully betrayed us in the past and one that has consistently, for hundreds of years (both under the tsars and under communism), supported and continues to support the Moscow Church? Where is the Church in the diaspora heading? How can we honor the memory of Patriarch Mstyslav as we trample what he stood for all of his life?

We should be forever thankful that in this century some of our clergy, led by Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky and then Metropolitan Ioann Teodorovich, and finally Patriarch Mstyslav, were not enraptured or blinded by recognition, but devoted their lives to fighting for the preservation of our Ukrainian Orthodox tradition. However, even then there were those for whom recognition was more important. They stayed with or joined the "canonical" Russian Church and can be recognized by their Ukrainian surnames as they continue to faithfully serve a Church that has dedicated itself to eradicate all that is Ukrainian.

It is so ironic that at this time in history, when we finally have our own country, we are not fighting to support and to preserve our own Church. How will we be able to defend or explain our actions to future generations - and on Judgement Day?

Simon T. Nahnybida
Basking Ridge, N.J.

Great need exists for interpreters

Dear Editor:

I am writing as the local project coordinator and assistant coordinator for the U.S. Information Agency-sponsored program Community Connections, that is being implemented by Pittsburgh Council for International Visitors (PCIV) and 40 other non-profit organizations across the United States. The Community Connections program offers homestay-based two- to five-week practical training opportunities in the U.S. for entrepreneurs, local government officials, legal professionals and non-governmental organization leaders from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova.

In January of this year, I traveled to Cincinnati to attend a conference of organizations implementing the Community Connections program. I was proud to hear of the successes my colleagues were having with their participants from Ukraine, and I was encouraged to hear that most of them use the Ukrainian language. I was, dismayed however, to have been told by one gentleman that while he wants to use Ukrainian, he cannot find Ukrainian interpreters, so he uses Russian instead. I am writing to call attention to this unfortunate situation.

The Community Connections program is just one of many U.S. government-sponsored aid programs now being implemented for the benefit of Ukraine. As such, there is a great need for professional interpretation and translation in Ukrainian. Thus, there is a great need for capable interpreters and translators who are well-versed in modern Ukrainian and who know legal, governmental and business terminology.

I encourage students to use the Ukrainian language at home and to study at Ukrainian school and at any of the universities that offer the Ukrainian language - as a subject of study. There are many opportunities for work using your knowledge of the Ukrainian language, and the future promises still more.

Stephen Haluszczak
Pittsburgh, Pa.

The writes is project coordinator, Community Connections Program Pittsburgh Council for International Visitors.

Catholic hierarchs must support our rite

Dear Editor:

In my life, I have always wondered about the circumstances surrounding the Vatican's 1929 expulsion of our married Greek-Catholic priests from the United States (and then expanded to the whole world, outside of Ukraine itself). The expulsion was based on jealousy and ignorance on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in America. In our entire history as eastern Christians, since the 10th century, our people were led primarily by married priests. All of a sudden in 1929, all of that normalcy came to an end with the Vatican's decision against us. Now we must live our lives as Ukrainian Catholics doing without one of the most important aspects of what being "Eastern" really meant.

I often wondered why our ancestors put up with this perversion of a normal life. How would I have reacted had I been in my grandfather's shoes?

Well, history is now repeating itself. Recently, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodana, issued an edict that all married Ukrainian Catholic priests serving in Poland will be expelled from Poland. He acted after being petitioned by the Polish Roman Catholic hierarchy to do so.

First, we must ask, have our people not suffered enough under Polish subjugation. One of the most tragic examples of Polish treatment of their Lemko Ukrainian minority is Akcja Wisla, the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of our people from their ancestral homeland, during which many died or were outright killed.

But what do we do now? Do we just shrug our shoulders and accept this new offense as being something that we can do nothing more about? They are over there, and we are over here, so who cares about them?

Until now, I never understood Father Alex Toth's reaction to the 1929 Vatican edict against our married priests, originally petitioned by jealous American Roman bishops, and ultimately against us. As a Greek-Catholic priest, his response was to lead his faithful out of the Catholic Church and into the Orthodox Church. His reaction expanded in scope, so that in most of our pioneer communities in the northeast U.S. we often have two houses of worship for our people, one Ukrainian Catholic and one (or sometimes two) Orthodox. I once thought of him as a traitor to our rite. Now after this most recent ignorant example of the Vatican's power, I more fully understand why Father Toth did what he did.

If this insult to our tradition is allowed to stand, we as Ukrainian Catholics have few options. We must petition our hierarchs to live up to their titles as leaders of a particular (self-governing) Church and assert our right to married priests everywhere in the world. They should use this bigoted decision as a basis to right a 70-year-old wrong.

Let us hope and pray that our hierarchs will be strong enough to not retreat on this extremely important issue, and will do what is right, to insist that all Eastern Catholics in the diaspora have a right to a married priesthood.

If they are not courageous enough, we have one other recourse (besides asking for complete independence from Rome). That is the option for each of us to consider leaving our Ukrainian Catholic Church. The question is, will we be brave enough to consider leaving to join the already established Orthodox Church in our community, or will we again shrug our shoulders and say as our ancestors did in 1929, "... but surely this cannot get any worse ..." As history shows us, it very well may!

Whatever we do, the unacceptable option, yes, the un-Christian option, is to do nothing and let our brothers and sisters be abused yet again.

Yurko Honchar
Carnegie, Pa.

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typed (double-spaced) and signed; they must be originals, not photocopies.

The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes.

| Home Page |