INTERVIEW: Cardinal Lubomyr Husar on developments in Church affairs

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar is archbishop major of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Church has been at the forefront of religious news in Ukraine and abroad for the last several months in connection with two unconnected events that have affected the UGCC.

The first was a series of letters sent by Orthodox bishops from across the world to the Vatican at the end of last year expressing reservations and even condemning any possibility that the UGCC should be recognized as a patriarchate. It led to a visit by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, to Moscow to meet with the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, including patriarch Aleksei II.

The second major event in the Church recently was the formal announcement by Cardinal Lubomyr that the UGCC had begun the transfer of the Metropolitan See from Lviv to Kyiv in connection with the ongoing construction of a new cathedral and metropolitan residency. Cardinal Husar met with The Weekly on April 21 to discuss these matters in detail. The following is an edited version of an interview that took place in the UGCC Government Liaison Office in Kyiv.

Q: Your Beatitude, how is the fund-raising for the patriarchal sobor, the Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, proceeding?

A: Yesterday at a meeting I found out from our priests, who came from different eparchies in Ukraine, that it seems now there is a second wave of collections from within Ukraine. It seems that the contributions are coming in not badly as far as I know. But ultimately it would have to be Bishop Vasyl (of the Kyiv-Vyshhorod eparchy) who would have the detailed information.

There is interest [everywhere], so far as I know. When I have traveled to different parts of the world I have seen the interest. People are willing to contribute, which is very encouraging.

Q: When is the building project scheduled for completion?

A: This morning I was at the building site. I spoke with the foreman. They have really taken up our requirement that when we assemble for our synod at the beginning of October, we will be able to bless the crosses for the domes. There will be five crosses. The builders are working to that date. They are very consciously working towards that purpose. It seems that things are going not badly.

The foreman today mentioned that they are a little behind because of specific complexities in the construction that they have uncovered and have to resolve, but they are well determined to keep the date.

For us it will be a very important moment, all the bishops will be here and it is important that we jointly do this. It is an edifice that will belong to the entire Church, so I think it will be very important and proper that all the bishops be gathered together here to take part in the blessing ceremony.

Q: Could it be that the first liturgy would then take place within the sobor structure at that time even in an unfinished state?

A: No, only the crosses will be blessed and then a crane will set them in place. The domes will be finished already. The outside of the church will then be completely built and very visible from the right bank of the Dnipro River.

For the rest of the schedule [of construction] you would have to speak with Bishop Vasyl, but so far as I know, the earliest possible date [for the opening of the sobor] would be the fall of next year. This means that we could enter the church and celebrate. But it could be up to two years, that is the spring of 2006, before the work on the church will be finished.

Of course, the decorative work will take several years more after that. This is a big building and studies will be needed to be done and most likely a competition will take place. Ultimately there ought to be a basic unified approach, even if the execution is divided up among several artists. We need an overall plan so that the church is looked at as a single unit.

Q: Will it be a traditional Byzantine-style rendering?

A: That is still to be determined. The artists who will take part in the [competition] will need to take a look at the completed church and then they will have to determine what could be the best way of doing it.

Q: Which means that all styles will be considered?

A: We will set no limitations prior to receiving the designs. Certainly the style has to be recognized as for a church of the Byzantine tradition, even if it is a modernist expression. The building itself is somewhat modernistic in its approach. So this will be the challenge to the artist, to present it properly.

Q: Your Beatitude, you are now in Kyiv, but this is just the beginning of the transfer from Lviv, as you mentioned to me several weeks ago. How long will it take to complete the move - years, decades - and specifically what is involved here?

A: This is precisely what has to be very clearly decided. We have to take into consideration that Kyiv has a central position in Ukraine, but that the majority of Greek-Catholics reside in the west of Ukraine and that certain aspects of Greek-Catholic Church life is intimately involved with that part of the world.

Now, how much and to what extent to transfer to Kyiv will be primarily a problem of determining how not to affect the normal function of Church life in western Ukraine and yet tying what can be tied to the central office here.

Certainly, we have this office (communications and government relations), which by its nature belongs in Kyiv. I think that anything that will be connected with the archbishop major and his curia would naturally have to follow. But then we will have to see about the various metropolitan commissions concerned with Church life and social life of the faithful.

We wish to proceed without undue haste. We have to consider what will be the best for the functioning of the Church. It is not simply: move everything to Kyiv simply because it has to be in Kyiv. What has to be in Kyiv has to be in Kyiv. What is better set and better functioning where it is now, in Lviv for example, ought to stay there. I would not set deadlines on this, whether we have to do this within a year, two years or five years. I think that life will dictate it.

What is important is that the major archbishop, the head of the Church, is in Kyiv with his immediate staff and coordinators.

Q: And what will happen to Lviv?

A: Traditionally we have had one metropolitan see. That was Kyiv, from the very beginning until the early 19th century when it became impossible to have a metropolitan in Kyiv. Then the Holy See, as a remedy, made Lviv the seat of the Metropolitan in 1807. Now we are in a position to go back. Definitely Lviv will remain an arch eparchy. But, no, it will not remain a metropolitan see as in the traditional sense. There can only be one. According to tradition, it has to be Kyiv.

Lviv will be an arch eparchy with important offices of metropolitan significance for Ukraine. As I said, the majority of people are there and so it is easier to function there. Maybe in the far future, maybe we will divide Ukraine into smaller metropolias - but that is for the future. We are now discussing how to resolve this canonically. We have not yet made any absolute conclusion. What's obvious is this: the seat and head of the Church is in Kyiv. Secondly, Lviv remains an important center, the living center of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

What this will mean practically - what type of offices, what type of functions - this is to be determined.

Q: In your opinion can St. George's remain one of the most important religious and spiritual centers of the Church?

A: For 200 years we have looked at Lviv and at St. George's as our spiritual center. I think that now we will have to start looking at our sobor in Kyiv, for that is where we come from.

As with our people in Ukraine as well, but especially for those who today live outside Ukraine, when they left Ukraine St. George's was the spiritual center. When they, those in Brazil or Canada, had troubles and problems they wrote to the metropolitan in Lviv asking for help and support and so on. It was through Lviv that these different settlements, especially in the New World, but also in Western Europe, were established as a stable structure of the Church. It is natural that the people look to Lviv, because it was through Lviv that they received their position.

Q: The other side of this problem is that some people in Lviv have expressed disappointment that what has been theirs for so long now moves to Kyiv, which is not even Catholic.

A: There may be some objective value to this statement because between Lviv and Kyiv in terms of the Greek-Catholic Church there is, of course, a large difference. Lviv has been our center for 200 years, but not forever. I think we have to realize that the baptism (the christening of the Kyivan Rus state by Grand Prince Volodymyr in 988) took place in Kyiv; the Union of Florence was announced in Kyiv; the Union of Brest was announced in Kyiv.

This has been the seat of the metropolitan, the head of the Church. This is why all Orthodox bishops, heads of their Churches, sit in Kyiv, and properly so. With all due respect for Lviv, it is not the capital of Ukraine. Now that we finally can be in the capital, and especially since we have a strong history here, we have to be consequent with this.

Q: Will there be a separate bishop appointed for the Lviv Eparchy?

A: Yes, there will be an archbishop. Not just in symbolic title, but also as an office it will remain an arch eparchy, no doubt about this.

Q: Has there been any further dialogue between the UGCC and either the Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church or the Vatican regarding the matter of the letters by Orthodox bishops denouncing a UGCC Patriarchate or the recent meeting between the Moscow Church and Vatican officials? Has it gone any further?

A: No, we have had no reaction through this day, as far as I know. None whatsoever from either side.

We will certainly try to make our position understood. We have been trying to make ourselves understood to all those who spoke up at the occasion of Cardinal Kasper's visit to Moscow, that is the Holy Father and the Curia, Cardinal Kasper himself, as well as Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and the various Orthodox Churches that spoke out at the instigation of the patriarch of Moscow.

However, we will also approach the Catholic patriarchs and the Catholic episcopal conferences to try to explain to them in greater detail what the whole thing is all about and why we have been asking the holy father so insistently to put his seal on a Patriarchate, on this reality that is the UGCC.

Q: At what point in time would the UGCC be ready to declare itself a Patriarchate even without the Holy Father's recognition?

A: We will absolutely not do that. We have decided that we will be absolutely loyal to existing Church law and the intention of the Ecumenical Council, both of which acknowledge the establishment of Patriarchates for the Eastern Catholic Churches, but when the need arises.

This is our point of departure in our recent attempts because the history [of UGCC attempts to form a Patriarchate] goes back to the 17th century, but this was under different circumstances.

So today, after the Second Vatican Council, we base our case - to use the legal terminology - on the expressed will of the Second Vatican Council, which has been given some precision by the Code of Canon Laws of the Eastern Churches. Most recently in apostolic instruction for bishops it has been repeated that the Eastern Churches should have this when necessary and where necessary and so on.

We do not wish to do anything on our own behind the back, so to speak, of the Holy Father. We have taken this road and we will adhere to it because we feel this is the proper way to do it.

Q: Have there been any recent communications whatsoever between the UGCC and the Russian Orthodox Church?

A: No there has not been. Probably the last was four or five years ago when a commission was established at the desire both of the Holy See and the Moscow Patriarchate. It was a commission of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, whose work was to take place under the auspices of both the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate, but it never got off the ground.

There was no meeting; there has been no response from the UOC-MP to this initiative to this day. Cardinal Kasper spoke of it during his visit. Now there is an attempt to establish a different commission, which will not specifically relate to Ukraine, to settle differences between the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate. We do not intend to take part, but if it gets off the ground, that is good. However, the earlier initiative never went anywhere.

Q: Do you believe all the publicity surrounding a Patriarchate for the UGCC - the controversial letters by the Orthodox bishops; the Vatican's response; the visit to Moscow by Cardinal Kasper, etc. - has helped or hindered the cause for a UGCC Patriarchate?

A: We have had a real windfall because this was publicity for which we did not have to pay a single penny. We really benefited greatly because some stations that never actually report anything on the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church spoke of the visit and, actually even spoke of the establishment of the Patriarchate. This has been priceless publicity. We are grateful.

Q: Your Beatitude, you have mentioned that the move to Kyiv cannot be considered simply a physical move, without reason or cause, but must be seen as a step forward in developing the All-Ukrainian Church. Have any concrete steps been developed in moving forward in this manner. Has there been any dialogue with the other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine on reconciliation?

A: We are interested in establishing good contacts with everybody. With some of the Churches, with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, we have no difficulties in discussing things. We are planning some joint initiatives for the future, perhaps scientific cooperation, liturgical collaboration, perhaps some social projects.

There are occasional meetings; we occasionally have joint molebens and public prayer stations. We are happy about that. But it has not gone very deep. We have not as yet established any real dialogue to assess the situation and to see how to conduct ourselves in the future.

Unfortunately, we have not had any contact with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, although we would not be at all averse, on the contrary, we would be very happy to have that contact. Not in terms of an ecumenical approach, in the sense of how we could get close, but in the sense of a discussion of common problems. There are many aspects of our ecclesiastical life that we could learn from one another, that we could support one another in a certain sense.

There are real, common interests. I would be real happy if we could begin a discussion in such a way. It would be the normal thing to do among neighbors, if nothing else. I regret that we have not been able to establish contact, at least in this way. I think that it could be very meaningful and I believe it would help us to get to know one another.

I have always insisted on this: East and West in general, that means the Latin West and Byzantine East with the [historical] addition of Moscow cannot get closer because they do not know one another. When I reflect closer, I cannot really say that we Ukrainians, and especially including Ukrainian Greek-Catholics, can say that we know the ways of thinking and the ways of acting of the Russian Orthodox. Nor am I convinced that they know what we really want and what we really stand for.

Ultimately we do not really know. We know a lot of aspects. We have a lot of experiences. But in any meaningful dialogue one ought to enter into the mindset of the other person. We can foretell with a certain amount of accuracy the way of acting of the Moscow Church. But do we really know what makes them tick, as they say? Why do they behave in such a way? Why do they think in such a way? Why do they speak in such a way?

We have generalized, stereotyped answers, but I feel that it is not really enough, ultimately, just to remain at this level. We should really make an effort to get into their mind, just as we would wish that they would understand us.

This process should take place through simple, quiet, unpretentious dialogue, without pretending to have any great aims, such as that now we are going to sit down to resolve how we should unite. I think that this would be going much too far. I think it would be sufficient to sit down and talk about things of common interest and to get to know each other much better. This would be a good beginning.

Q: The Moscow Patriarchate has warned the UGCC more than once not to proselytize in Kyiv and the eastern regions. They also have cited the size of the patriarchal sobor as an example of the aim of the UGCC to gather converts. It has asserted in the past that the size of the church is so large because the UGCC intends to find converts to fill it up. How do you reply to such allegations?

A: We do not intend to proselytize, that is to try to start convincing people of other convictions, of other faiths, to become Greek-Catholics. We, first of all, have to cater to our own faithful who are more numerous than we had expected, even in Kyiv itself.

Now that we have the Church of St. Basil, people are beginning to awaken to their background. We will not fill up the sobor at the cost of anyone else. This is not our intention. We are not really interested in filling it up, in the sense that it has to be bursting with people wall to wall.

The sobor is a symbol of our unity all over the world. People from different countries, different settlements, which have been away from Ukraine for a hundred years, their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, should be awakened to the fact that this is the place of origin from which they came. And not so much that they belong here for some sort of static or economical reason, but that this is the source of their Christian life, which for their own benefit they ought to maintain because these are their roots.

There are many people in eastern Ukraine who of their own accord will wish to become Greek-Catholics, or at least will come to our Church. We are not going to stop them. We are not going to turn them away, if they feel at home. We tell them who we are. We will warn them, we are Catholics. Even though we are of the Byzantine tradition, we are in communion with the Pope, the successor to St. Peter in Rome.

I do not think that we ought to say stop living and stop breathing simply because someone says, "This is my territory, this is my country, stay away." Well, it is not.

We are as much at home in Kyiv as we are anyplace else in Ukraine. Such is our history. We cannot deny our history, nor do we wish to do so. We do not intend to proselytize or to use the classic Ukrainian term, to take part in "dushekhvatstvo" (soul stealing), which is a very expressive term. We certainly do no intend to do such.

We are going ahead. We wish to work for the growth of our Church. If every Orthodox confession will also try, we, together, could do a lot. But simply to keep telling us, "Don't do anything because you don't have the right to do it" - well, who forbids us, who is it that tells us we have no right?

We have been here; we are not going into a mission territory untouched by anyone. We evangelized this part of the world. We have been here for all these centuries, not just as Greek-Catholics but as the Kyivan Church, specifically in communion with the Holy See, the see of Peter.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, May 16, 2004, No. 20, Vol. LXXII

| Home Page |