Some considerations on the Ukrainian question
(Personal notes not for publication)
- It is clear that as true Catholic I condemn without reservation the suppression through violence of the Greek-Catholic Church of Ukraine, of Subcarpathia, and of Rumania. Violation of consciences is inadmissible. Respect for the human person requires that those who believe before God that their obligation is to remain in full communion with the successor of Saint Peter should be allowed to do so. I have written several times on this subject (in the journal Etudes as early as 1944). This point ought to be clear.
- Question of the Ukrainian Patriarchate (be it at Kiev or elsewhere).
After Chalcedonia patriarchates were created when new political entities were formed (Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Rumania).
There has never been a Ukrainian Patriarchate but a Ukrainian political, separatist movement does exist in the. USSR and abroad. The establishment of a Ukrainian Patriarchate by Rome could not fail to be considered by the Soviets (and by others) as the assumption of a stand by the Holy See in Ukrainian affairs, as moral support for the separatist politicians and therefore as hostile interference in the internal affairs of the USSR.
The enemies of the Church would rejoice at such an establishment, the Holy See would really give them a pretext to reject any modification of their attitude towards the Greek-Catholics in strictly religious matter.
The only realistic means one can envisage at this point for the improvement of the situation of millions of Catholics in the USSR are persuasion, negotiation, and pressure from abroad (articles in the press, etc.). There is no doubt that the establishment of a Ukrainian Patriarchate would be considered as a provocation by the Soviets and would make any negotiation with them even much more difficult. In present circumstances it can be asked whether there are not provocatore among the promoters of a Ukrainian Patriarchate.
3. Question of total autonomy of the Ukrainian Church in Europe, America, Australia under the Major-Archbishop.
The Second Vatican Council foresees autonomy for patriarchates on their own territory. Here it is a question of healthy ecclesiology which the Holy See seeks to reestablish in practice. Rome suppressed the Latin patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. There are no more nominations of bishops “in partibus”. Briefly, the local and particular Churches are respected: a bishop for a (given) territory; this is the present tendency and it is very well justified. A multiplicity of bishops and rites on the same territory is a cause of weakness of the Church in the Near-East. It is necessary to be prudent and not create the same situation in the rest of the world. In other words it is not desirable to create Eastern Patriarchates (or their equivalent) which extend over parts of the Latin Patriarchate. It seems to me that this is a question of principle.
In practice, by the same token, a good number of Ukrainians of the New World, especially the young ones, do not desire to be placed under jurisdiction of bishops who know the situation in America, Australia…only from a distance. It is necessary to express just desires (desiderata), but then one must leave the final judgment and decision to those who have the responsibility for the entire Church. It is absolutely unjust to cast doubt on their good will. In principle, it can be presumed that generally they view the needs of the Church in a more balanced manner than those who are strongly attached to one particular Church. As to the use of harmful words in addressing the authorities, whoever they may be, even on the practical level they are “counter-productive”; they make people think that the person using them is impassioned, that he does not judge with objectivity, and therefore such people will not be heard.
In haste, P. Mailleux, S.J.
