Evangelicals used to have a saying, “WWJD”: What would Jesus do? It’s presumptuous to guess, perhaps, but it is a handy way to apply His teachings to everyday situations. On this 75th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, we might try a more modest exercise in looking at the issues of our day: “What would Sheptytsky do?”
Of course, only experts – like those at the Sheptytsky Institute in Toronto – are qualified to answer this question. Ultimately, it is impossible. Sheptytsky was formed in a very different time, and it is difficult to extrapolate from his known views to what he might think of things he could not have imagined. But the attempt does have the virtue of highlighting the broad range of his interests and activities, and his far-reaching vision. For he is known not only as the metropolitan of Halych and head of the Greek-Catholic Church in western Ukraine between 1900 and his death on November 1, 1944. He is also revered as the de facto political leader of western Ukrainians in that period. His leadership talents and political acumen were in fact extraordinary. Even if Ukraine had had its own state, Sheptytsky might have proved to be its finest leader. Imagine him side by side with recent presidents of Ukraine – or even the United States. Does any of them stand up to Sheptytsky?
But there was more to Sheptytsky’s activities than religion and politics. He was also known for supporting culture and mending fences with the intelligentsia. Less familiar are his economic thinking and activity. These are explored in a recent study by Liliana Hentosh (“Mytropolyt Sheptytsky (1923-1939): Vyprobuvannia Idealiv, 2015”).
In 1899, when Andrey Sheptytsky became bishop of Stanyslaviv (today’s Ivano-Frankivsk), the basic economic problem in Western Ukraine was underdevelopment: Austrian Galicia and Transcarpathia were among the poorest lands in Europe. In his first pastoral letter, Sheptytsky declared that “the road to prosperity” lay in the teachings of Jesus Christ. This was true not only for individuals, but for society as a whole. For prosperity could not be based on the private, subjectively determined ethics of the individual. Rather, it must be based on an objective divine law binding on everyone. Such an ethic was necessary to maintain the balance between rights and responsibilities. This balance formed the basis for social order, which in turn was necessary for morality. And morality was the precondition of economic prosperity. (“Pershe Slovo Pastyria,” No. 7).
In Sheptytsky’s view, the prosperity of the people was measured not by the sum total of wealth in a society, but by the average wealth of its citizens. Indeed, “only that people is wealthy and strong, in which all or nearly all (according to their estate) are wealthy. And there is little advantage in a society’s wealth unless it is distributed among all its strata and, insofar as possible, equally among all its members. But this is only possible where the moral law effectively binds them all.” (Ibid.) Applying Catholic social teaching to Ukrainian conditions, Sheptytsky further elaborated his socio-economic ideas in his 1904 pastoral letter “On the Social Question,” his 1931 speech on the 40th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” and elsewhere.
In his new book on Sheptytsky, former dissident Myroslav Marynovych argues that central to the metropolitan’s thinking was the concept of “win-win” as opposed to “zero-sum.” That is, economic activity is not a struggle in which one side wins and the other loses, but a mutual process in which both sides can benefit. In his foreword to Mr. Marynovych’s book, economist Adrian Slywotzky summarizes Sheptytsky’s economic thinking in several points: bottom-up economic development, education as the key to success, development of the family, a fair minimum standard of living, fair trade (prohibiting the sale of poor-quality goods), fair pricing (avoiding exploitation of others), broader property ownership and the development of cooperation to balance market control. (Myroslav Marynovych, “Mytropolyt Andrei Sheptytsky i Pryntsyp Pozytyvnoi Sumy,” 2019.)
Sheptytsky did not limit himself to theory. His economic activity as bishop of Stanyslaviv and then metropolitan of Halych was a fruitful application of his principles. He supported Ukrainian economic institutions as well as investing archeparchial funds in successful business ventures.
What would the metropolitan say about today’s economy? What would Sheptytsky do about it? As Dr. Slywotzky points out, many problems of Sheptytsky’s day are still with us: decades-long wage stagnation, economic pressure on the family, income inequality and a concentration of capital in financial rather than productive investments. And has anyone in the last three decades, he asks, raised a voice in defense of morality, ethics and fundamental justice in the economic discourse? (Marynovych, op. cit., 11-12).
In the face of these problems, Sheptytsky’s approach remains valid. Today, for example, unscrupulous oligarchs have deforested large swathes of the Carpathians. Sheptytsky opposed clear-cutting the forests of Perehinsk, and his administrators made sure they were replanted – an early example of sustainable use. One can easily imagine the metropolitan’s reaction to deforestation in Brazil and Colombia, criticized at the Catholic Church’s recent Amazon Synod. And in Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the “Green Patriarch,” Sheptytsky would find a partner in ecological as well as ecumenical dialogue.
As for Ukraine, Sheptytsky would likely chastise today’s oligarchs for managing “their” wealth for selfish purposes rather than the common good. He would ask whether today’s globalized economy serves the people – especially the workers – or merely the corporate elite and private investors. He would judge Ukraine’s wealth not by gross domestic product, but by its fair distribution among its citizens. At the same time, he would likely condemn the hyper-individualism, hedonism and consumerism propagated in order to perpetuate an economy that does not serve true human needs. Sheptytsky would surely support cooperatives, employee-owned and operated businesses, trade unions and worker representation on corporate boards.
In next month’s column, we will turn to Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s relations with the Ukrainian intelligentsia, and his views and activity in the cultural sphere.
Andrew Sorokowski can be reached at [email protected].