Dear Editor:
Andrew Sorokowski’s article on the future of Ukrainian Churches in North America (“Future Flock,” May 13) skips the importance of the episcopal factor in church viability.
Both of the major Ukrainian confessions in the U.S. belong to (or are in communion with, if you prefer) non-Ukrainian Churches. Thus, the bishops are bound by oaths of strict obedience to carry out whatever orders come down the pipeline, however it may reflect on them and whatever they may bode for their Churches
The Ukrainian Catholic Church (UCC) in the U.S. is a case par excellence of this conundrum. Its flock has been shrinking for decades, in part due to flawed episcopal decisions – whatever their origins. That being the case, relying on new immigrants to maintain the flock will be just a temporary solution, as Mr. Sorokowski points out.
A few examples should illustrate why over the years some of the flock felt stressed when confronted with developments they viewed as regressive and which generated some painful questions.
Why did some bishops in the 1950s and 1960s dress up as Roman Catholic bishops for their official photographs? Were the traditional black robes just too modest for their station in life, or were they ordered to do so?
What did it mean when, in the early ‘50s, some priests started celebrating liturgy in Roman Catholic vestments?
What was the flock to think when, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, some bishops publicly decried lay activists they disagreed with as “a bunch of dopes,” as reported in the Philadelphia press, and who were characterized as “Bolsheviks,” “Viet Cong” and so on in UCC’s own America and The Way?
What was the flock to feel when Roman Catholic Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia mocked Patriarch Josyf Slipyj as a geriatric has-been on TV, and the local UCC archbishop remained mute?
Were all of the flock supposed to be insensate blobs of protoplasm because, after all, they’re not called a flock for nothing? Is it that “pray, pay and obey” just doesn’t cut it anymore?
Alexandria, Va.