UOC/U.S.A. and Holy Ascension Church involved in complex legal battle (11/14/99)

UOC/U.S.A. and Holy Ascension Church involved in complex legal battle

by Irene Jarosewich

PARSIPPANY, N.J. - A lawsuit and counterclaims involving hierarchs and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A (UOC/U.S.A.) and members of Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, located at 635 Broad St. in Clifton, N.J., were filed this summer in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County.

The original lawsuit, filed on May 27, lists the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.; Archbishop Antony (head of the Consistory of the UOC/U.S.A. in South Bound Brook, N.J.); the Rev. Arkadiusz Mironko and 41 other individuals as plaintiffs, with Robert Hedesh of the law firm of Juman, Juman and Hedesh as attorney.

Listed as defendants are John Luchejko, John Marchenko, Roma Lisovich and Walter Mohuchy, trustees or members of the parish board of Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with Myroslaw Smorodsky of Smorodsky and Stawnychy, Rutherford, N.J., as attorney.

In a seven-count complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants, of Holy Ascension parish, violated acts of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Constitution; used funds inappropriately; defamed the Church, Archbishop Antony and the Rev. Mironko; deprived plaintiffs of the ability to receive sacraments and pastoral services, thereby depriving them of their legal right to worship; did not conduct proper board meetings; wrongfully interfered in the employment of the Rev. Mironko; and breached terms of the contract between the UOC/U.S.A. and the parish of Holy Ascension.

In turn, on August 10, the defendants, filed an answer in which they denied all the allegations made against them by Archbishop Antony and the other plaintiffs and then filed a nine-count counterclaim, which includes allegations that Metropolitan Constantine and Archbishop Antony "willingly, knowingly, intentionally and clandestinely" abdicated their responsibility to the basic principles and traditions of the UOC, including remaining an independent Church, by becoming bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate; committed fraud upon the Church by willfully misleading the faithful and the participants of the sobors (the Church's highest governing body); broke an implied trust with the parishes with regard to funds; and intimidated those who dissented from their points of view.

They also allege that the Metropolitan Council did not fulfill its fiduciary duty to the parishes; that the plaintiffs filed this case to use legal means to financially and morally exhaust opponents; that the Rev. Mironko, together with Archbishop Antony, wrongfully removed the Antimines (sacred cloth and relics necessary to Orthodox rituals) in the middle of the night of March 28 from the premises of the Holy Ascension Church with the express purpose of preventing any other priest from performing religious services; and that the Rev. Mironko breached his contract and his duty of loyalty to his employer, the Holy Ascension Church.

Among the remedies sought by the defendants in their counterclaim is that the court recognize that the assets of the UOC/U.S.A. dioceses are held in trust for the benefit of all parishes and that by becoming bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Constantine and Archbishop Antony no longer have authority over the UOC/U.S.A. diocese assets nor can they interfere with each parish's right to hire and fire priests and to control its own property and assets.

On November 1, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, that is, to dismiss the counterclaim filed by the Holy Ascension members, stating that because the UOC/U.S.A. is a hierarchical structure, the defendants' counterclaim has no legal justification. It is the position of the plaintiffs that individual parishes have no right to question the authority of an established Church hierarchy. The plaintiffs also claim that "Holy Ascension, as a local parish within the hierarchical organization, holds all its property in implied trust for the superior ecclesiastical authority, the UOC."

This argument runs counter to the position of the defendants of Holy Ascension, who claim that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is, and always has been, "sobornopravna" and that the power lies within the parishes, that it is not a hierarchical Church, and never was intended to be hierarchical Church.

Complete texts of the legal documents can be viewed on the Internet at: http://[email protected]/holyascension/.

| Home Page |