Editor:
Prof. Federico Alessandrine, the Vatican’s press spoke-man, reacted to the press conference of the Ukrainian Patriarchal World Federation in Rome by refuting the Ukrainians’ claim that theirs is the patriarchal Church and that her head, Josyf Cardinal Slipyi, should be recognized as a Patriarch (The New World, July 25). Alessandrini refers to certain «canonical» considerations why the Holy See has twice refused to grant autonomy to our church and the dignity of a Patriarch to Cardinal Slipyi.
Our contention is that there are not canonical impediments to the creation of an autonomous Ukrainian Patriarchate based on existing canon law and the Vatican II Decree on Eastern Churches. The provision of the decree that the Patriarchates are limited to the territorial jurisdiction is a misrepresentation. The same decree clearly states that patriarchal authority extends over «a territory or the rite» which also reflects a personal jurisdiction of the Patriarch over the faithful of the same rite in Diaspora.
Referring to my statement at the press conference in Rome, a Ukrainian bishop «who asked not to be named» told the NC interviewer: «Prof. Markus does not represent the majority of the hierarchy, the priests and the laity of the Ukrainian rite… The majority of the Ukrainian Catholics refuse to join in disobedience to the Holy Father.»
Certainly, the undersigned did not represent the hierarchy or the clergy. Nonetheless, I was a spokesman for Patriarchal Federation consisting of 15 national and international societies of Ukrainian laymen. The «majority of obedient Ukrainian Catholics» cannot demonstrate such an organized showing and influence.
MOREOVER the same bishop made unfounded statements concerning Cardinal Slipyi’s activities during the Ukrainian pilgrimage in Rome. It is not true that out of 21 bishops only 5 showed up for synod. Out of 14 present in Rome six attended the session, some excused themselves, and a few were not notified on time, but acceded to its decisions. Cardinal Slipyi did not call a meeting of priests; they assembled on their own initiative as the conference of the St. Andrew’s Association of Ukrainian Priests. Only representatives of individual branches attended it. Understandably, the bishop failed to mention the congress of laity.
May I add that the unnamed bishop cannot claim to be a spokesman of the Ukrainian hierarchy either.
VASYL MARKUS Professor of Political Science Loyola University of Chicago
Chicago, August 22, 1975
