Five years ago, a colleague and I conducted an informal and not very systematic survey of the Ukrainian Catholic community in the United States. Not surprisingly, the sample, which was weighted toward older individuals, revealed a religiously committed and active population. As we noted then, however, we still need a professional sociological survey of our diaspora – Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, adherents of other faiths, agnostics and non-believers, both those in the “community” and beyond it – regarding attitudes towards Church and religion. It is in the interest of the Churches, and of the community as a whole, to commission such a survey. Relying on parish statistics tells us nothing about why people leave our Churches.
Earlier this year, I circulated an informal opinion poll among several Ukrainian Catholic friends and acquaintances, with the proviso that the responses might be made public, albeit anonymously. The question was this: Do you think there is a “critical mass” of committed and intellectually curious Ukrainian Catholics in the North American diaspora who could form the core of a revived church? Following are slightly edited excerpts from the responses, which, while not representative of diaspora opinion as a whole, do offer some insight into what people are thinking about the future of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
“I do not know whether there is a core group with the describers you mention. …In general, I have seen much apathy over the years, and not only to spiritual things, but cultural as well. …The main problem I have seen ‘out in the trenches’ has always been ignorance of Scripture. …Do people have an actual relationship with Christ, or at least are seeking that/Him? If not, then why not? and have they replaced Him with something or someone else? Everyone wants happiness, but does not always know where or how to find it.”
“I think one of the biggest challenges… is a linguistic one. And the problem gets compounded by the fact that newer clergy is more comfortable with Ukrainian, not English, although some have become quite adept at English.”
“… our communities tend to be so scattered that these people do not always know each other. Also, we have a fair number of people who have actually benefitted from their ‘temporary migration’ to Roman Catholic churches. … these are very patriotic Ukrainians, who nonetheless have been so disappointed/hurt by their own Ukrainian parishes, that grudgingly they go to Roman Catholic parishes. But they always tell me how they would love to come back. … [I]t also all depends on what we think the Church is. If it is in fact an appendage to the Ukrainian nation or community, then, of course, it not only will die, but from a ‘marketing’ perspective should die, because today there are all sorts of other great, lucrative, fun, exciting and ‘quicker’ ways to be Ukrainian. …in Ukraine we do indeed see more and more intellectuals who have a hunger for the living God. And since they live in a real Ukraine (in spite of all of its frailty), they don’t feel the need to prop up a surrogate. They know that we’ve already had one Ukraine without God, and that experiment failed miserably.”
“The emphasis of our primary mission is not ‘heard’ by many, perhaps even by most. We are not an ‘ethnic’ Church. … It is easy to forget the obvious – we are part of a larger socio-religious picture in these United States. Atheistic humanism and ‘technologism’ are part of the milieu in which language (Ukrainian/English), old-new calendar, and geographic distance affect the forces that we can marshal to preach the Gospel. …these are some ideas I think impair the mission: the idea that the Church is a distant institution instead of a ‘team’ of believers. …a childish attitude that ‘waits’ to be instructed instead of being thirsty for knowledge. …The Church celebrates in the House of God but grows and thrives at home. The family must be [where] religious instruction takes place. Home schooling by parents and siblings is indispensable. …New liturgical services of 20-30 minutes for popular worship. New popular religious songs. Uniformity of calendar.”
“The revived Church would be one that focuses on the Spirit vs. mainly on reason for its being. Many Catholics, Ukrainians included (in the U.S. or Ukraine), are turning to other religious traditions (Hindu – Yoga, Meditation; New Age; Zen; Pentecostals) primarily because these traditions address the emptiness and discord they ‘feel’ in their everyday lives. In trying to revive the Church, we need people who seek to understand why these other traditions are attracting and stealing so many Christian/Catholic believers. …Parishioners need to feel that they are part of a community. …However, what happens when the children of these Fourth-Wavers grow to adulthood and assimilate into the larger U.S. community? …Unless the Ukrainian Catholic Church figures out how to reach and retain the hearts and minds of the faithful in their everyday life concerns, under-girded by a spiritual and moral base, the membership is likely to dwindle even further. National heritage will not be enough. …What I would like to see is a greater emphasis on evangelization of young and old alike, and less on dogma. Sermons are very important and should address the spiritual, moral and daily living struggles of the faithful. A special effort to improve preaching should be made… People need to hear how they are to live and love as Christians. …Furthermore, our religious rituals are beautiful but are no longer as engaging as in the early Church. These rituals should strive to engage everyone in a greater personal participation, such as responses in song – not just being the exclusive domain of the choir. …Community is a major missing element not just in our churches, but in the general culture today. People feel ‘disconnected’ and are hungry for community. There are a lot of lonely, isolated people, about whom no one cares. There is a lot of ‘cliquishness’ in our Ukrainian churches.”
“To get into liturgical services more deeply, an explanation of some theological thought or more important elements of a given service – divine liturgy, matins, vespers, Presanctified Gifts, panakhyda/parastas, Hours, akathystos/moleben – would be very helpful… A one-minute reflection before the service would set the tone, give direction. This can be expanded to groups… We must change the attitude from ritual-for-ritual’s sake and passive presence to participation of each person as one-by-one together they form a community of worshippers. Conscious participation is quintessential for spiritual renewal. …There also has to come a time when our theologians give serious thought to the quasi-liturgical qualities of the Kyivan Church’s legacy of the domestic Church. …We have to meet head-on the defining spirituality of our Kyivan-Byzantine tradition. Doing that will also brace us to meet the various strains of globalization and select what’s right for us.”
Inevitably, discussions of the laity turn to what the laity expect of the hierarchy and clergy. While not addressed to the above question, these observations of a correspondent on the West Coast are pertinent:
“The Byzantine Church… added prayers after prayers, ceremonies after ceremonies. The monastics focused on developing this, and it may serve some of their needs. But the monastic life and schedule do not fit into a working person’s life. …I am speechless when I read of Christ’s life and then look at the Church structure. …The Lord of all went to the people. The Church does the opposite. …there needs to be humility in the Church leadership, they need to see that they don’t know what is going on in the world. …The Eastern Church has great maps of human consciousness. …The emphasis on developing the inner life, the inner world, the liturgy that can put one in an altered state of consciousness, this and the outward, good actions, Love, the growth of consciousness, is what religion is about. The individual and the group must grow.”
I would add three points. First, the Christian Churches today are grappling with issues of marriage, sexuality and family life. While it would be foolish to follow their every fad and fashion, these are central concerns. Our Churches cannot be revived if they do not confront them. Traditional teaching on the Christian family does not address, for example, the needs of those divorced through no fault of their own, or those who find themselves alone in a non-believing family. I hope that our theologians, both Catholic and Orthodox, are developing an approach to these and other “family issues” in the Kyivan Byzantine tradition. Perhaps they could work together. Our bishops would then translate this theology into a pastoral approach by which the clergy would transmit their unique “Eastern” understanding to the laity.
Second, there is only passing reference to the Fourth Wave of immigrants from Ukraine. It appears to include pious Galician guest-workers who can be counted on to fill the pews, as well as de-Christianized post-Soviet professionals and other intelligentsia to whom church-going – or even religion itself – seems alien and bizarre. While demographic studies have yielded valuable information about this group, we still need a sociological survey to determine its religious attitudes.
Third, the above comments barely mention young people. Perhaps that is just as well; targeting them through “youth programs” probably alienates many. But there is a fundamental problem here. To try to reconcile the Christian way of life with the accepted youth culture of today seems futile. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that – outside certain enclaves in Middle America – only those young people who have the courage and integrity to reject the lifestyle of their peers can live truly Christian lives. Until there is a sea change in our culture and society, the Church may only be able to attract a small core of young believers.
This is part of a broader problem of religion and modernity. Should religion conform itself to modernity? Or should we bring modernity closer to religion? The former approach means that the Church might cease to be a critical counter-cultural voice. The latter would mean that the laity must work to transform modernity itself.
The comments quoted above show that the laity expect a lot from their hierarchy and clergy, who already have their hands full just doing the minimum with limited human and financial resources. If we want effective pastoral care in our tradition – not to mention a revival of church life – we have to provide those human and financial resources. This means not only money, but vocations. Yet significant funding and vocations can only come from a revived Church. It is, thus, a vicious cycle. Can we break it?