Ostpolitik

Повищу заяву Товариства вислано до преси зараз чергового дня, по проголошенні номінації о. Івана Стаха єпископом-помічником Філядельфійської Архиєпархії. Це була перша реакція Товариства на явне й не перше вже порушення основних прав нашої Церкви і її Синоду Владик Римськими властями. Згідно з правом і традицією Східніх Церков, які їм привернено на II Ватиканському Соборі, номінування Єпископів – це прерогатива Патріярхальних або Архиєпископських Синодів тих Церков. У нашому випадку це право задержала собі Східня Конґреґація, яка; без уваги на постанови II Ватиканського Собору намагається й на дальше здійснювати його у нашій Церкві. Східня Конґреґація вже двічі пробувала номінувати для нас єпископів минулого року, і два рази не дійшло до здійснення цих спроб. Щойно тепер вдалося нашому Філядельфійському Митрополитові при помочі куріяльних монсіньйорів перевести цю номінацію спеціяльними дорогами. Тому, що поїздка Митрополита Сенишина до Риму була законспірована, його авдієнція у Святійшого Отця: не публікована як це звичайно повинно бути, а Отець Шамбелян Іван Стах достосувався до цього конспіративного способу й ще досі не скомунікувався в цій справі з Верховним Архиєпископом ані не виявив бажання поїхати до нього – цілий цей процес виявився підготованою змовою проти нашої Церкви, проти її Синоду, та проти волі широких мас вірних.

Станувши перед такою складною ситуацією Крайова Управа Товариства заініціювала декілька акцій прохань, насамперед до о. Івана Стаха, до наших Владик, щоб вони здержалися від уділення єпископських свячень аж до полагодження цієї справи із Синодом Українських Єпископів, та до громадської опінії мобілізуючи її на оборону належних нашій Церкві прав. Негайно вислано телеграми – до Святійшого Отця, до Владик, до о. Стаха та до Апостольського Делеґата у Вашінґтоні. У останнього Крайова Управа просила негайної авдієнції в справі номінації о. Стаха, але одержано відмовну відповідь. Листи до наших Владик в цій справі залишились без відповіді, а деякі були неприйняті й повернулися.

Через брак комунікації з Владиками делеґації Товариства не могли їх відвідати. Зате вже в перших днях березня ц. р. делеґації Товариства відбули розмови з о. Іваном Стахом, та з екзекутивами трьох братських союзів: Українського Народнього Союзу, Українського Робітничого Союзу та Провидіння. Розмови з проводами тих організацій вважалися корисними тому, що своєю питомою вагою вони могли були в цій ситуації успішно впливати на дальший розвиток подій. Братські організації мають у своїх руках пресу, більші матеріяльні засоби і близькість стосунків до Владик. Вони також є і господарями у центральних громадських організаціях. Хоч цим делегаціям не вдалося успішно заанґажувати ці сили, разом з їхніми засобами й можливостями, до акцій натиску на спрямування номінації о. Стаха через Синод Українських Єпископів, то принайменше вдалося їм витворити загальну атмосферу, в якій конечність якоїсь дії була вимогою загальної людської опінії.

Лиш під впливом такої людської опінії наші центральні організації, господарями в яких є до великої міри братські союзи, рішилися на певні кроки. Вже 11 березня виїхала делеґація СКВУ, в складі П. Лисогір, Г. Білинський, М. Стахів та Б. Гнатюк, до Риму. Не випадково виїзд цієї делеґації синхронізувався із побутом у Римі Митрополита Сенишина. Друга делеґація, складена із дев’яти людей, від нашого Товариства, від Т-ва Св. Андрея, від Приятелів УКУ та від Студентського Комітету, поїхала до Риму день скорше. Присутність тих двох делеґацій в Римі, їхній персональний склад, розбіжність їхніх цілей і врешті конфронтація їх на авдієнції у Верховного Архиєпископа причинилися до певного уточнення позицій обох сторін. Заява трьох американських Владик, комунікат Президії СКВУ, заяви Митрополита Сенишина та повідомлення його Митрополичої Канцелярії появилися лише в результаті певного натиску зі сторони вірних. І хоч в тих комунікатах оминається конкретних питань, які хвилюють нарід, оперується загальниками й недвозначно опрокидується діяльність Крайової Управи нашого Товариства, то це нас не турбує, бо все ж таки це дасть кращу можливість громаді зрозуміти сучасні потягнення її громадських і церковних чинників. Перед громадою не закриється сьогодні вже нічого й вона не задоволиться самими заявами, а вимагатиме діл.

Крім поданих вище акцій Товариство рішило зробити ще одну форму вияву людської опінії – демонстрацію. Переведено їх декілька. Негайно після пресових повідомлень про номінацію о. Стаха спонтанно й без підготовки з’явилися демонстранти з плякатами в його парафії у Йонкерсі. Опісля дня 3 березня, коли було відомо про те,що о. Стах мав мати авдієнцію у Апостольського Делеґата у Вашінґтоні поїхали демонстранти й туди. Цей епізод був досить вірно поданий у столичній пресі. Рішенням Управи Товариства проведено більшу демонстрацію мирян дня 4 квітня ц.р. у Філядельфії перед палатою Митрополита Сенишина напроти катедри Непорочного Зачаття. Ціль маніфестації була заздалегідь широко опублікована у пресі й іншими доступними засобами. Оборона прав помісности Церкви була головним мотивом маніфестації, але й були домагання щоб єпископська номінація о. Стаха була переведена через Синод Українських Єпископів.

Хоч підготовка була коротка а протиакція Митрополичої Канцелярії настирлива, то маніфестація своєю чисельністю, організованістю, програмою та волевиявленням народу була вдалою. Біля чотирьох тисяч учасників було із близьких міст Філядельфії та Ню Йорку з околицями, а з віддаленіших міст, як Чікаґо, Рочестер, Клівленд, Ню Гейвен, Бріджпорт та Гартфорд були представники. Взірцевий порядок маніфестації був практичним запереченням спрямованих на підірвання довір’я до організованого мирянства і його проводу комунікатів Митрополичої Канцелярії, де їх представлялося як невеличку групку підривних елементів.

Маніфестація закінчилась вічем, в якому доповідачі двома мовами дали яскраву аналізу сучасної ситуації та випливаючих з неї вимог дальшої громадської акції за церковні права. Головним ляйтмотивом думок на вічу було те, що кризова ситуація зростає тепер кожного дня й обіймає щораз ширший засяг нашого духового і громадського життя. Не залишається тут часу ані можливости на відкладування й вичікування, бо вже тепер кожний громадянин індивідуально, кожна католицька родина й також кожна громадська організація сукупно мусять визначити своє конкретне становище у змагу за права Церкви: по стороні її прав, Синоду Українських Єпископів і Верховоного Архиєпископа, або по стороні Східньої Конґреґації і Римської Курії.

Високопреосвященніші і Преосвященні Владики!

Вже скоро буде півтора року як Ви урочисто підписали конституцію патріярхального устрою в Українській Католицькій Церкві і у Вашому Спільному Пастирському Посланні з дня 4 жовтня 1969 р. Ви казали «… Тому ми всі так гаряче бажаємо тієї установи для нашої Церкви не для якоїсь людської слави чи самого престижу, але просто для самозбереження й дальшого нашого духовного, церковно-релігійного і національного росту…» Ми всі Вам вірили і тішилися. Виглядало, що український нарід віднайшов себе як рівнорядний підмет в крузі народів і рішив нарешті сам собою рядити, принайменше на одному відтинку. Але яке гірке розчарування нас огортає. Одні з Вас, Владики, далі наявно і послідовно неґуєте авторитет їх Блаженства, Верховного Архиєпископа Кардинала Йосифа як Голови Помісної Української Церкви, другі з Вас, як доходять до нас тривожні вісті останньо із-за океану, знов складаєте сервілістичні поклони Священній Конґреґації для Східніх Церков, тій Конґреґації, яка цинічно Вам заперечила правність того, що Ви підписали і проголосили, більшість з Вас за мало або й цілком не переводите в щоденне життя Ваших Синодальних Постанов, а всі Ви разом мовчите і не вживаєте ніяких гідних Ваших Достойних Осіб заходів на оборону історичних і слушних прав Помісної Української Церкви.

Ця Ваша трагічна постава глибоко нас усіх тривожить. Менші народи в Східній Католицькій Церкві на наших очах мали відвагу і успішно оборонили права своєї Помісної Церкви. А Ви, Владики, знаючи, що за Вами сотки тисяч Ваших вірних активно стоять, – а якби цілий український поневолений нарід мав фізичну спроможність це зробити, то це були б не тисячі, а мільйони, – Ви мовчите. Просто якийсь невідомий страх огортає і подумати чи може й дійсно під впливом латинського «суверена» Ви вже і затратили зрозуміння потреби існування своєї Церкви як повної самостійної, а не фіктивно-самостійної одиниці в лоні Христової Одної Церкви? Страшно сказати, але хто потурає злу – сам поповняє зло і гріх.

Високопреосвященніші і Преосвященні Владики! Ви перші будете відповідальні перед історією за це, що в часі, коли наша Церква розбита і роздріблена по цілому світі найбільше потребувала об’єднання в силі патріярхального устрою – Ви їй того не запевнили. Від наших національних ворогів ми не очікували іншої постави як та, що вони її показали, але від Вас – так, бо ми на Вас дивилися як на свідомих свого пастирського і національного обов’язку українських ієрархів, що мали в лучности з народом великого бажати!

Годі довше мовчати, Владики! Будьте мужчинами гідними славної спадщини раннього українського київського християнства. Лише Ваша негайна і голосна своєю нефальшованою правдою акція в дальшій обороні тієї історичної правди, що її Ви мали відвагу сказати 4 жовтня 1969 р. може врятувати одність нашої Церкви і привернути мир і взаємне довіря в Її лоні. Це є Ваш святий обов’язок від якого ніхто не є звільнений.

У нашій скромності і щирості ми хотіли подати Вам, Високопреосвященніші і Преосвяіценніші Владики, до Вашого відома ці наші синівські думки і журби, а Ви самі добре знаєте, що ці журби є не лишеу нас одних… Ми Вас просимо, апелюємо до Ваших сумлінь, не мовчіть довше на кривду Вами очолюваній Церкві.

Віддані в Христі Господі, інж. Володимир і Ольга Сушко, Балтимор

1. 3-го березня ц.р. ми були змушені запротестувати перед Святішим Отцем проти процедури номінації о. Івана Стаха єпископом-помічником. Рівночасно ми ствердили й пояснили громадянству причини того протесту, які лежали в легальній площині, в неґації і в запереченні прав помісности Української Католицької Церкви.

2. Сьогодні, 4-го травня 1971 p., ми змушені вдруге протестувати перед Апостольським Престолом з цієї самої причини, бо не зважаючи на попередні протестні телеграми й письма багатьох організацій та індивідуальних людей, ці самі римські чинники номінували другого єпископа для нашої Церкви – о. Василя Лостена, такою самою неправильною дорогою поза Синодом Українських Єпископів і без порозуміння з Верховним Архиєпископом.

3. Номінація римськими чинниками другого єпископа-помічника мимо гострих протестів нашого священства, мирян та студенства виявила ще раз послідовне намагання Римської Курії зліквідувати нашу Церкву як самостійну релігійну, традиційну, культурну й історичну одиницю, іґноруючи духові потреби багатьох тисяч вірних.

4. Наша сьогоднішня заява тим болючіша, що сьогодні протестуємо не тільки проти принципу номінації, але і проти особи Номіната. Українська громада в діяспорі є на такому рівні, який вимагає відповідного духовного проводу.

5. Крайова Управа вислала протестні телеграми до Святішого Отця Папи Павла VI і до Ватиканського Делегата у Вашінґтоні Архиєпископа Люїджі Раймонді. В них підкреслено, що спосіб номінації, який заперечує помісні права Української Католицької Церкви, є ворожим актом проти української церкви й народу.

6. Тому, що події останніх двох місяців глибоко обурили вірних нашої Церкви, і тому, що вичерпні засоби протидії руйнуванні нашої Церкви не здержали Східньої Конґреґації від її дальших кроків, Крайова Управа взиває всіх мирян до спокою й рівноваги духа й закликає до дальшої боротьби за наші права у Вселенській Католицькій Церкві.

За Крайову Управу:

д-р Зиновій Ґіль, голова

д-р Рома Навроцька, секретар

д-р Роман Осінчук, голова Ради Мирян

On June 19, 1971, the Ukrainian Catholic laity of the United States held a convention. The convention, hosted by the Ukrainian National Home in New York City and sponsored by the Society for the Promotion of the Patriarchal System in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, was attended by 8б0 delegates, alternates, and observers who represented most of the Ukrainian Catholic parishes in the East and in the Midwest of the United States. The convention unanimously adopted the following resolutions:

–        to send a petition to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, urging the Pontiff to make possible for His Beatitude, the Archbishop Major Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, the visitation of his flock on the American continent;

–        to urge the Ukrainian bishops in the United States to adhere to the decrees of the Fourth Archepiscopal Synod and to support the Archbishop Major Joseph Cardinal Slipyj in his struggle for the patriarchal system in the Ukrainian Catholic Church;

–        to urge the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy to take all the necessary steps for the convocation of the Fifth Archepiscopal Synod scheduled for 1971;

–        to express reverence and admiration for the 79 Ukrainian Catholic priests of the American Ukrainian Church province who have manifested their courage and signed a petition to the Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn of Philadelphia, requesting that he adhere to the decrees of the Fourth Archepiscopal Synod.

The delegates also resolved:

1. to demand the resignation of the Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn of Philadelphia;
2. to put into effect a moral and financial boycott of the Metropolitan;
3. to initiate the canonical process, required to invalidate the consecration of Msgrs. John Stock and Basil Losten;
4. to protest the unbidden intrusion by the Congregation for the Eastern Rite Churches into the internal affairs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church;
5. to protest the recent Vatican-Moscow rapprochement, achieved by the Vatican at the expense of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

The convention adjourned with the firm intent to take all the appropriate measures to safeguard the unity and integrity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Convention unanimously resolved to work for the establishment of the Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Catholic Church with His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj as her first Patriarch.

For the Public Relations Department of the Society:

Eva Piddubcheshen

Leo D. Rudnytzky

 3 March 1971

His Holiness

Pope Paul VI

Vatican City

In the name of the clergy and the laymen of the Ukrainian Cathcrlic Church in the USA we protest against the method of nomination of the auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia metropoly Rev. John Stock. With due respect and regard for the nominee we feel that the nomination has been made in violation of the rights and privileges of the Synod of the Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The autonomus rights of Eastern Churches have been reaffirmed by the II Vatican Ecumenical Council in the “Decree on Eastern Churches,” which bears your confirmation.

We urge your Holiness to enact these rights for the spiritual welfare of the faithful of the entire Ukrainian Catholic Church, and to relegate, by your authority, the nomination to the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops, and to the Archbishop Major His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj.

St. Andrew Society of the Clergy

of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Ver Rev. Wolodymyr Andrushkiw

Right Rev. Msg. Clement Preima

 

Society for the Patriarchal System

in the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Dr. Zenovy Gill

Dr. Roma Navrocky

Dr. Roman Osinchuk

Prof. Myroslaw Labunka

 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5 May 1971

His Holiness

Pope Paul VI

The Vatican City

The appointment of Mgsr. Basil Losten, as auxiliary Bishop of Philadelphia, has been received by the faithful of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USA with profound shock and indignation. Possibilities of violent reactions by clergy and faithful expected.

There is a consensus of opinion that your Holiness is deceived and misinformed about the feelings of the Ukrainian community. The nomination of Rev. Basil Losten without consultation and consent of His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj and His Synod of Bishops is considered a hostile act against the Ukrainians in general and against Joseph Cardinal Slipyj in particular. A complete disregard for the martyrdom of the faithful, clergy, and the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church has been manifested by the Curia Authorities in the two recent nominations. In the opinion of our Society and the majority of the Ukrainian faithful the nomination of Mgsr. Losten is aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. It is also an attempt of moral assasination of His Beatitude Archbishop Major Joseph Slipyj. Even the godless Soviet government did not subject him to such anguish as that perpetrated by some heartless bureaucrats in the City of Vatican. Lack of Christian charity toward His Beatitude is clearly manisfested by this last act of nomination.

We request that such hostile acts on the part of the Congregation for the Eastern Rite Churches be stopped and the present unfortunate situation be rectified by the responsible authorities of the Curia. Our hopes are in your Holiness.

 

With assurances of deep reverence,

For the Executive Board of the Society for the Promotion

of the Patriarchal System in the Ukrainian Catholic Church,

Dr. Zenon Gill, Chairman

Dr. Romana Navrockyj, Secretary

Dr. Roman Osinchuk, Eva Piddubeheshen, Prof. Myroslav Labunka – Members

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

22 May 1971

His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Your Holiness: The Society for the promotion of the Patriarchal Systems in the Ukranian Catholic Church in the USA implores you to help. Situation in Philadelphia very critical. Students on hunger strike second day. Some taken ill. Bange of disturbances during consecration immenient. Please intercede personally. Please instruet Bishops elects to avoid confrontation. Please ask his eminence Cardinal Slipyj to intercede. His personal presence needed here desperately to avoid dangerous confrontation. We cannot take responsibility for the difficulties which arise in this situation. People are desperate.

For the Executive Board

Dr. Znon Gill, President

Dr. Roman Osinchuk, Member

Miroslav Labumka, Member

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

22 May 1971

Joseph Cardinal Slipyj

Telegram on behalf of the society for patriarchate sent to Pope. His personal intercession and your arrival here requested in the telegram.

Miroslav Labunka

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

26 May 1971

His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Consecretion of John Stock and Basil Losten continuously interrupted by the faithful in Church. Nominees called an Axios-Indigni by the faithful. Three thousand demonstrators protested outside. Validity of consecretion questioned. Please order investigation. Further protests imminent.

Society for the Promotion of the

Patriarchal System in the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Executive Board

Zenon Gill

Osinchuk Roman

Stephen Procyk

Myroslav Labunka

Leonid Rudnytzky

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Providence Association Of Ukrainian Catholics in America

Branch #193 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

3 June 1971

His Holiness, Pope Paul VI Vatican City

Your Holiness,

The recent Associated Press release (Washington Post, May 29, 1971) concerning the Vatican’s refusal to grant a permit to Archbishop-Major Josyf Cardinal Slipyj enabling him to travel to North America, has deeply shocked both clerics and laymen of the Ukrainian Catholic Church throughout the world.

Your seeming disregard of the inalienable right of our Archbishop-Major to offer spiritual guidance to his faithful is indeed difficult to comprehends It becomes unfathomable when one considers the fact that Cardinal Slipyj endured eighteen years of a Siberian concentration camp for professing allegiance to the Holy See. He, after all, was not interned for his person, nor solely for his leadership of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, hut rather for his avowed belief in God and the Universal Church.

In the Washington Post article Vatican spokesman Federico Alessandrini states, “The cardinal is here under particular conditions,” and elaborates that upon the cardinal’s release in 1963, the Vatican agreed with a Soviet request that our prelate be prevented from any political activity. One must indeed be naive to assume that spiritual guidance of faithful Ukrainian Catholics constitutes a political activity. The Ukrainian Catholic Church in Diaspora is on the abysmal ledge of extinction and yet, it seems, the Vatican is more concerned with honoring the request of atheistic Soviets than with the preservation and perpetuation of one of its Eastern Churches. Nonetheless, we the members of the Providence Association are confident that Your Holiness will not permit the demise of our Church.

We all hope and pray that Your Holiness will be inclined to overcome all the apparent obstacles that prevent the leader of our Church from joining his faithful in North America and optimistically await his arrival.

Sincerely Yours in Christ, Executive Board

Eng. Me Karaman, Pres.

Eng. W. Meducha, Treas.

Prof. L. Rudnytsky, Sec.

 

cc: His Beatitude, Major Archbishop,

Josef Cardinal Slipyj

Vatican City

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

7 June 1971

His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Vatican City

 

Your Holiness,

The Ukrainian Communities in the USA and Canada are utterly disappointed by the postponement of the planed and announced visit by His Beatitude Josyf Cardinal Slipyj to North America. This delay has been caused, as reported, by the prohibition to leave Vatican, imposed upon His Beatitude by the official of Roman Curia, in the name of Your Holiness. Indignation and resentment against Holy See is spreading among the faithful of the Ukrainian Catholic Church on this continent. The faithful can not understand why and for what reasons does His Beatitude experiences anguish and extreme difficulties whenever He plans to visit His dedicated faithful in the dioceses which belong to the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

They are disappointed, by the continuous silence on the part of the Holy See, concerning their brethern in faith in the Ukraine. They also wonder very often in disbelief whether Your Holiness is aware of the misuse of your name and authority by the officials of the Curia who constantly create the difficulties for the Archbishop Major His Beatitude Josyf Cardinal Slipyj.

On behalf of the masses offaithful and in the name of the Society for Promotion of the Patriarchal System in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, we appeal to Your Holiness to intercede in this matter and permit justice and charity prevail when ever the problems of Ukrainian Catholic Church are under consideration.

We assure Your Holiness, contrary to possible “official reports” which Your Holiness might be receiving, that the visit of His Beatitude Josyf Cardinal Slipyj is awaited with great expectations in the USA and Canadac The visit is essential for peace of mind and satisfaction of the spiritual welfare of the masses of the faithful in-this hour of division and strife.

We sincerely implore Your Holiness to treat the Ukrainian questions with justice and impartiality and defend the right of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in diaspora and in its persecuted native land.

Respectfully yours,

Dr. Romana Nawrockyj Secretary

Dr. Zenovij Gill, President

Myroslaw Labunka, Executive Board Member

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Letter to His Holinness Pope Paul VI

New York, April 21, 1971

TO: His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Bishop of Rome

Patriarch of the West First Among Equals

Your Holiness:

At the manifestation in the city of Washington, D. C., sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee of Students for a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, the resolutions enclosed with this letter were adopted by those assembled there. Due to the fact that the scheduled consecration of Monsignor John Stock as a bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church had by that time been re-scheduled for May 25, 1971, the planned four day vigil was not held as it would at that time have served no purpose. Instead a twenty-four hour vigil was maintained at the residence of the Apostolic Delegate. Nonetheless, the hoped-for response to our telegram of April 12, 1971 to your Holiness was not forthcoming and the nomination of Msgr. Stock was not rescinded or allowed to be acted upon by the competent body for these matters, the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Wheter your Prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Catholic Churches, Maximilian Cardinal de Purstenberg recognizes the Synod is irrelevant, because we do not consider him to be the competent authority to judge on the Synod’s validity, nay we do not even recognize his right to speak on matters pertaining to our Church. He has kept silent about the continuing persecution of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USSR, has not spoken out in defense of the Church’s rights. Let him now remain just as silent about the validity of the Synod. Any letter appearing with his signature invalidates its credibility and its contents. The Union of Brest of 1596 recognized all the rights of the Ukrainian Church, or as it was then known, the Ruthenian Church, and was ratified by Your illustrious predecessor, Clement VIII and the Synod of the then Kievo-Ruthenian Orthodox Church with Mikhail Rohoza, Metropolitan of Kiev, Halych, and all Rusf at its head. There was no signature to this document of any prefect of a Congregation for Eastern Catholic Churches and we do not today require any such signature to make any decision by our Bishops’ Synod valid. That is not withim his competency to decide. Let him decide on such matters for Churches that signed no such treaty of UNION. The decision on the validity of the Synod rests solely with the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy with the Major-Archbishop at their head. He alone can convoke a Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

There have been serious questions raised in some circles about the question of territoriality. This is a moot point. As good a case could be made in questioning the authority of the Western Patriarch over the countries of the Americas since the early decrees which the Church Universal adopted concerning the territorial limits of the various patriarchates foresaw no Americas. Also, one should bear in mind, that countries like the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc. have no established Church and constitutionally prohibit any such acts. The citizens of these countries may belong to whatever rite, whatever religion they so choose. We Ukrainian Catholics have chosen that we shall belong to a Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops. No one may abrogate that right. Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall, build MY CHURCH. He did not say that it was to be a Latin Church, or one with no room for diversity. We Ukrainians are also that Church of Christ, even more the Ukrainian Church shone and still shines as the symbol of unity and steadfastness in the defense of Christ and His Church.

It is therefore our ardent desire that Your Holiness demonstrate Your often stated concern for the Ukrainian Catholic Church and its faithful by;

1. Recalling the nomination of Msgr. Stock or letting our Synod act upon it;

2. Raise the issue of the continuing persecution of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USSR at the United Nations through the Holy See’s observer, and to disavow any attempts made to lend some semblence of validity to the spurious and illegal “Synod held in Lviw in 1946, which ostensibly “re-united” the Ukrainian Catholic Church with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Ukrainian Catholic Church will not and must not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. The blood of sacred martyrdom does not come cheaply and Our Lord would be truly horrified to see it devalued for some small concessions for Roman Catholics in the USSR. How can one talk about this when the faithful of the Ukrainian Catholic Church do not even have the right to their elementary freedoms.

We would request that Your Holiness give us Your reply through the Chancery of the Major-Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, as any question pertaining to the Ukrainian Catholic Church should be handled through His Chancery, not the Eastern Churches Congregation or some spokesman of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. We would request that no replies be sent thru the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Luigi Raimondi, in the United States, inasmuch as he has repeatedly refused to meet with representatives of the laity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USA. He has thereby demonstrated his incompetence to act as an intermediary and to handle such matters.

It has recently come to our knowledge that certain people are contemplating extremely drastic measures in connection with the planned consecration of Msgr. John Stock on May 25, 1971 in Philadelphia. These are actions over which we have no control and which would be difficult to stop even if we did have sufficient control over the situation. The gravity of these actions has been communicated to His Beatitude Major-Archbishop Joseph Slipyj and we urge the Holy Father, if He is truly concerned about the good, not only of our Ukrainian Catholic Church, but the Church Universal that He give serious consideration to this matter and withdraw the nomination so that we do not all have innocent lives on our consciences. I remain

Yours in Christ,

George E. Karpinsky (Chairman-Ad Hoc Students Committee for a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate)

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Telegram to Msgr. John Stock

By God’s will you have been placed in a position to help save our thousand year old Mother-Church, or to ruin it. Philadelphians present at our laymen’s meeting February 28, 1971, unanimously urged you to meet our Major Archbishop in Rome and to arrange your consecration so it would be carried out only by him, according to the powers of the Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops

R. Lewycky

Chairman

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

17 April 1971

Ukrainian Catholic Association 

847 N. Franklin St.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19123

To Whоm It May Concern:

You did not see fit to sign the communications sent to me, therefore. I have no choice but to address this letter as I have.

I support Ukrainian Catholic Unity and the establishment of a Patriarchate for Ukrainian Catholics, however;

I do not agree with the methods you are employing to establish a Patriarchate. As a good Catholic and Christian I cannot condone violence, vituperative language and divisive actions to achieve this recognition.

I cannot support your objections to either the nomination of the appointment of Msgr. Stock as auxiliary bishop of the Philadelphia Diocese. ArchBishop Senyshyn is the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States and it was within his purview to make the nomination. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and has the sole authority in making the appointment, he notified the proper authority of the appointment, which is all that is required. You speak of recognizing authority yet you take exception to ecclesiastical action by the highest authority of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States and the highest authority of the Catholic Church. You speak of unity, but your actions precipitate disunity. You speak of what is right and what is wrong based on your point of view you do not consider the rights of others if their opinion does not coincide with yours. You speak of persecution and the freedom to worship, but you initiate a demonstration which interferes with the peaceful participation of Ukrainian Catholics in Palm Sunday religious services this is a form of religious persecution and denial of freedom of worship which you purportedly deplore. You speak of Catholicism but you really mean Ukrainian nationalism owe no allegiance to a non-existent nation – I am an American of Ukrainian descent and proud of it. No one is more cognizant of the rich tradition of my Ukrainian heritage than I, nor more determined to preserve and perpetuate this tradition by making my children aware of it so that they may pass it on to their children, etc.

You speak of “being blinded by universality,” “and not being a good Catholic,” if I fail to support you in this demonstration — the arrogance and insensitivity of this statement reflects your ignorance of, and/or disregard for human rights inherent to every man, woman and child to make their own decisions as to the path they wish to follow. You did not ask for my opinion, you told what my opinion should be. I resent the derogatory inference, conveyed by your propoganda news letter, as to my ability to arrive at a logical conclusion if all the facts were presented to me. You excerpted only those statements which, when quoted out of context, would support your viewpoint.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope Cardinal Slipyj is not supporting you in this intemperate action as it will have an adverse effect upon people who are sincere in seeking unity within the Ukrainian Catholic Community. I also want you to know that I support our Metropolitan, Archbishop Senyshyn as the authorized head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States and his nomination of Msgr. Stock as Auxiliary Bishop of Philadelphia, a man who did so much for our displaced Ukrainian brethren and is now being used as à symbol of discontent and divisivness by you as a token of your appreciation for his deep concern for, and efforts on behalf of our persecuted Ukrainian brethren. This in itself would have revolted me and resulted in my rejecting you as sincere proponents of Ukrainian Catholic unity. You saw, and seized, the opportunity to create turmoil and dissention without regard for the human dignity and sensitivity of a good man. You even disregarded the statement of support for the establishment of a patriarchate by our Metropolitan, who advocates a diplomatic approach to achieve this goal, without creating incidents which subject the Ukrainian people to ridicule and scorn. Your egotism is such that no other opinions or methods but yours are acceptable.

If and when you approach this matter in a sensible and civilized manner, I will be among the first to offer you my wholehearted support.

PAUL P. SHALOKA

cc: Cardinal Slipyj

Metropolitan Senyshyn

   * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Stephan Procyk

5219 N. Warnock St.

Phila., Pa. 19141

 28 April 1971

 Mr. Paul P. Shaloka 

4030 Tudor St. Phila., Pa.

Dear Sir:

I received your correspondence dated April 17, 1971. Unless the publication you are refering to was issued by one of our local branches I am not aware of the content you have discussed in your communication. However, because of the importance of the subject matter and of your generously expressed opinion, I am willing to continue our dialogue with the intention to clarify some facts of our mutual agreement or disagreement. I presume that both of us will do this effort intelligently with the search for truth in mind.

We might begin with the main issue of our time – the structure and the leadership of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I go along with your statement that the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States is Metropolitan A. Senyshyn, and that the head of the Universal Catholic Church is the Pope. Here you failed to mention two meaningful components: the office of Archbishop Major, and the powers (decisions) of the Vatican Council II.

As far as the unity of the Church is concerned, we probably differ in scope. You are talking about the unity in the United States of America, and I consider the overall unity of the Church in all countries, including the Soviet Union. The action for the Bizantyne Patriarchate in America does not concur with the unity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Prom this stand point, we can give proper consideration to the fact of Reverend Stock’s nomination as an auxiliary bishop. I am certain that you did not find in our publications any unfavorable remarks with respect to Rev. J. Stock. We objected to this fact strictly on a legal basis. The rights of our Church, restored and guaranteed by Vatican Council, have been ignored by Eastern Congregation. We, as laymen, fight for these rights with all legal means at our disposal.

But now, may I be permitted to express my own opinion with respect to Rev. Stock’s behavior. He has been asked many times to go to Rome and see Archbishop Major before his consecration, if not on a legal basis, then from pure human considerations. Cardinal Slipyj is the Confessor, Senior Archbishop, direct successor of Metropolitan Sheptyckyj, and a martyr for our Church and people. Would you be able to maintain a full measure of respect to a nominee, who for some reasons did not undertake such a trip? You demand respect and appreciation for one who did much for our persecuted brethren. What happens when one of the most persecuted arrives among us? Then our brethren stop talking about respect !

You might be right in your judgment pertaining to the methods of our action. Demonstration is not the best one. We tried other ones. They were not successful. But I will challenge your statement that somebody was prevented by the demonstration from going to the Church. The whole police force would not go along with that. And – It was not our purpose.

As far as nationalism and derogatory language are concerned, I refer you to “America” daily and “The Way” weekly. Both of them appear with the blessing of Metropolitan Senyshyn. The topic of “Non-existing Nation” needs clarification – who put it out of existence?

Going back to the sincere intent of your letter, I would suggest a meeting where we could exchange our views more efficiently.

Sincerely yours,

S. Procyk

 

Reply did not come, and meeting did not take place.

 

 

The early Spring of 1971 saw an influx of Ukrainians into Rome. The first to arrive was our own Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn. He was followed by a nine-member delegation composed of representatives of the clergy Society of Saint Andrew, the Society for the Promotion of the Patriarchal System for the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Friends of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Rome, and the Ad Hoc Student Committee for the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate0 Then came a four-member delegation representing the World Congress of Free Ukrainians.

What brought all these people to Rome?

Speaking for the nine-member delegation, it can definitely be said that it made the trip out of concern for the future of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, concern for the growing credibility gap between Vatican words and deeds created by post Vatican II Curial policies.

The Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches accepted by Vatican Council II and promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 21, 1964, proclaims “high esteem” for the traditions of the Eastern Churches. It recognizes that the “Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines” (5); exhorts those who have fallen away from the traditions of their Church “to take steps to return” to these (6); insists on the reestablishment of the rights and privileges of the Eastern Catholic Churches — those recognized them “in time of union between East and West”(9); rules that the “patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate” (9); and then states that what has been said of the patriarchs is “valid” also in respect to major-archbishops (10).

Earlier, December 23, 1963, the Apostolic See recognized the Metropolitan of Lviv, Archbishop Joseph Slipyj, as Major-Archbishop. Being the only Major-Archbishop in the entire Catholic Church, it is obvious from article 10 of this decree that Major-Archbishop Joseph Slipyj has patriarchal rights. He began to exercise them. In time he convoked the Fourth Archiepiscopal Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops. It met in Rome from September 29 through October 4, 1969. All “but one of the Ukrainian Catholic bishops of the world attended it. The absentee was Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn of Philadelphia. This synod accepted the synodal system of administration for the Ukrainian Catholic Church and petitioned the Holy Father to elevate the status of Major-Archbishop Joseph to that of a Patriarch. All present signed this petition. There is no proof that the absentee from the synod ever added his signature to this petition though efforts have been made to convey this impression.

Despite the reassertion by Vatican Council II of the rights the Ukrainian Catholic Church possessed when it reestablished its affiliation with Rome in the Union of Brest in 1596, the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches is making constant efforts to maintain administrative control over this Church. It made an effort to invalidate the October 1969 Synod of our bishops. The most recent violation of the rights of our church is the method of the nomination of Monsignor John Stock as auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia. The nomination was made without knowledge, let alone the consent, of the Head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, beyond the synod of our bishops. His Beatitude Major-Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Slipyj was not even granted the courtesy of notification of it from official Vatican spokesmen. He learned about it from the newspapers as did the average layman. Such a usurpation of the rights of our Church and violation of the dignity of our Confessor of the Faith is highly demoralizing. It is intolerable. Coming on the heels of Archbishop Agostino Casaroli’s trip to Moscow during which he was reported defending the rights of the Roman Catholics in Lithuania, Polish Catholics in Lviv and Odessa in Ukraine but maintaining silence about the rights of approximately five million Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine, the method of the recent nomination was interpreted as proof of the rumored Vatican-Moscow agreement to lay the Ukrainian Catholic Church on the sacrificial block for the promulgation of a Vatican- Moscow dialogue in the interest of some indefinite “higher cause”.

Fellow Ukrainian Catholics, on its native territories our Church has been legally liquidated. Those remaining in the Silent Church of The Modern Catacombs are persecuted. In the non-communist world this Church is exposed to the dangers of assimilation because it lacks an integrated administrative system of its owne It suffers from the absence of a patriarchal system of administration. In the Western Church the principle of collegiality has been fostered in the post Vatican II era as an innovation. To the Eastern Churches, our Church among them, this principle is a tradition the promulgation of which assures the survival of the particular Church and the negation of which spells its doom. If you are not interested in defending the rights of your Church because you are blinded by a misconception of the principle of Universality, then remember that the motto of the Universal Church is “Unity in diversity, equality for ali. Be a Catholic in the best sense of the word. Join our efforts in the promulgation of a patriarchal system for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Its establishment will remove the credibility gap between Vatican promises and policies.

Public Relations Department, Society for the Promotion of the Patriarchal System for the Ukrainian Catholic Church

On February 22, at eight o’clock in the morning, the nomination of Monsignor John Stock as auxiliary bishop was announced through the Office of Archbishop Louigi Raimondi, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States о Without regard to the strong protests and a deep disappointment of the Ukrainian laity the same source announced on May 4, 1971, the nomination of another auxiliary bishop to the same Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn, what intensified an anger and a dispair within the Ukrainian catholic community.

It is the conviction of wide masses of Ukrainians that it is in violation of the rights of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. This evaluation is based on the rights guaranteed this Church by the Union of Brest of 1596 when it reestablished its affiliation with Rome, the provisions in “Cleri Sanctitati” issued in 1957, the “Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches” accepted by 2,700 Council Fathers at Vatican II and promulgated on November 21, 1964 by Pope Paul VI, and upon the resolutions accepted by the Fourth Archiepiscopal Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops held in Rome early in October of 1969 convoked in accordance with the rights reasserted the Eastern Catholic Churches by the said decree. All the above recognize the right for the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, together with his Synod, to appoint bishops for their particular Church. Yet, the nominations in question, were made not only without the consent of Major-Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Slipyj and his Synod, but even without consultation with him, more precisely without his knowledge. The head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church was not even granted the courtesy of notification from official Vatican spokesman of this nomination. He learned of it from the newspaper as did the average layman.

Such procedure, following on the heels of Archbishop Agostino Casaroli’s trip to Moscow during which it was reported that he spoke in defense of the rights of Roman Catholics in Lithuania, Polish Catholics in Lviv and Odessa in Ukraine but made no reference to the rights of approximately five million Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine, was interpreted as proof of the rumored Vatican-Moscow agreement to lay the Ukrainian Catholic Church on the sacrificial block for the promulgation of a Vatican-Moscow dialogue in the interest of some indefinite “higher cause”.

Information from reliable sources indicates that this fear is not a baseless one. Discussions at “what price” a Moscow-Vatican dialogue was possible commenced in the early days of Vatican II. To pacify adverse public opinion towards such a dialogue, steps were taken to liberate the high ranking eastern Catholic Church prelate still imprisoned in Soviet labor camps. The Moscow regime consented to the release of Archbishop Joseph Slipyj (now Cardinal) upon Vatican’s promise that the liberated prisoner would keep his silence. The released prisoner, at the wish of Pope John XXIII took up residence in Rome. With this psychological ace in the possession of the dialogue negotiators talks about the possibility of a Vatican-Mowcow dialogue made progress.

The liberated head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church kept the Vatican promised silence. He did not, however, remain inactive. Metropolitan Slipyj, the sole survivor of the Ukrainian Catholic Church prelates imprisoned by the atheistic regime of the Soviet Union, rose at the Vatican Council to propose the creation of a patriarchate for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The “Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches” recognized the legitimacy of his proposal.

This was not in accordance with Soviet plans for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. They called for its destruction. The Russian Communists, therefore, inaugurated counter measures to insure success for their plans for this Church. It has been learned from reliable sources that during Peter Podgorny`s visit to Rome in February of 1967, he stipulated the prerequisites for the continuation of the Vatican-Moscow dialogue. These were: 1) the formal recognition of the liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine and its incorporation into the Orthodox patriarchate of Moscow (as per the fictitious 1946 Synod of Ukrainian bishops held in Lviv at which not one Ukrainian Catholic bishop was present); the liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Major Seminary in Rome; 3) The liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Minor Seminary in Rome.

In December of 1970, Andrei Gromyko came to Rome and stipulated similar conditions for the prolongation of the Vatican-Moscow dialogue. About the same time Poland’s Cardinal Vishynsky came to the Vatican and under the pressure of that country’s communist regime presented a plan for the establishment of Roman Catholic churches from “sea to sea” (that is from the Baltic to the Black Sea.) There was no recognition of the rights of Ukrainian Catholics on their native territory during either of these sessions, Ukrainian Catholics constituting the “Church of the Modern Catacombs” were left defenseless by the Vatican.

Now, the same reliable sources which reported the above, leaked the information that during his recent visit to the Soviet Union, Archbishop Casoroli agreed in Moscow that the Vatican would recognize the non-existence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in: Ukraine and would tolerate its existence abroad only as long as it took to assimilate it into other Catholic ecclesiastical structures more acceptable to the Soviet Union.

In the face of these facts and rumors and the efforts of the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches during the winter of 1969 to invalidate the synod of Ukrainian Catholic bishops held that fall, the abrogation of the right of the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy to nominate a bishop for their Church was interpreted as an indication: of Vatican policy of political expediency in favor of the continuation of a Vatican-Moscow dialogue. It was taken as a sign of the willingness of the Vatican to make a sacrificial lamb out of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in its search for improved relations with the Soviet Unione.

Morally it is unexplainable. And formally – it is a violation of centuries old rights of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which have been reaffirmed by the Vatican Council II.

Radio Commentary

 Perhaps the most “burning questions in the minds of many Ukrainian- Americans to-day are:

Why the demonstrations?

Why all the protests?

What is happening to the Ukrainian Catholic Church and to her faithful?

Other Ukrainian-Americans who seem to know the answer to these questions inasmuch as they have participated in the demonstrations, are tormented by doubts and incertitude; they are faced with-questions like:

What good are these demonstrations?

Isn’t it true that no matter how much the people protest those in power will do as they please anyway?

Doesn’t it follow, therefore, that all the demonstrations are an exercise in futility, a big waste of time and energy?

The answers to these questions must be sought in the past as well as in the present. To put the problem in a proper historical perspective we have to go back as far as the 16th century. In 1596, the Ukrainian Orthodox bishops present at the Council of Brest-Litovsk, ratified a treaty of union with the Holy See. In signing this document, the Ukrainian bishops formally recognized the primacy of the Pope over their Church. The Holy Father, in return, explicitly guaranteed to the Ukrainian Catholic Church a definite degree of autonomy which included certain rights and privileges.

Among these rights and privileges are:

The right to maintain and perpetuate own customs, traditions, and rituals.

The right to have a married clergy.

The right to have a Major Archbishop, the Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych, who together with his Synod of Bishops, would be the highest governing authority in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

and:

The right of the Major Archbishop to nominate and consecrate bishops »

These are some of the terms of the Union of Brest-Litovsk of 1596» More recently, on November 21, 1964, the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed these terms in its Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches. The fathers of the Second Vatican Council carefully defined the rights of the patriarch in the following sections of the decree. We quote:

“BY the name Eastern Patriarch is meant the bishop who has jurisdiction over all bishops (including metropolitans), clergy, and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with the norms of law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.”

And:

“The Patriarch with their synods constitute the superior authority for all affairs of the patriarchate, including the right to establish new eparchies and to nominate bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.”

Probably most pertinent for the Ukrainian Catholics is Section 10 of the decree which states:

“What has been said of Patriarchs applies as well, under the norm of law, to major archbishops, who preside over the whole of some individual Church or rite.”

Inasmuch as His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj is the only Major Archbishop in* the Catholic Church at present, it is clear that these articles apply to him. We might add, that in a special Papal Bull issued in 1965, The Confessor of Faith, Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, was recognized to be, by virtue of his office as Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych, a Major Archbishop v/ith jurisdiction over all the Ukrainian Catholics, regardless of their place of residence. This was done in anticipation of the decisions of Vatican II.

These historical facts formed the basis of the Fourth Archepiscopal Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy which His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj convoked in Rome on September 29, 19.

At that time, it appeared, that the age-old dream of the Ukrainians was to be realized. The Synod was attended by all the bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the Free World. All these bishops voted to adopt a patriarchal constitution for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. All the bishops signed a petition to His Holiness Pope Paul VI asking the Pontiff to elevate the Major Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Slipyj to the dignity of a Patriarch. All the Bishops signed all the documents all the bishops but one. The lone dissenter was the Metropolitan of Philadelphia, His Excellency Archbishop Ambrose Senyshyn.

It is futile to attempt to postulate possible reasons for the Metropolitan’s actions. And in the final analysis, the reasons are not that important. What is important, however, and ineffably tragic as well, is the result of his actions. By his actions Metropolitan Ambrose Senyshyn has shattered the unity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and has sown discord and dissent among her faithful.

A period of agonizing ambiguity followed. Assertions that the Metropolitan added his signature to the petition to the Holy Father were followed by denials. Numerous conflicting statements by the” Metropolitan and the Chancery resulted in an unbridgeable credibility gap. It became progressively more obvious to the faithful that their Metropolitan wanted no part of the Synod, that he preferred the Ukrainian Catholic Church to be a colony of the Congregation for Eastern Churches. Therefore, when in December 1969, the Metropolitan sought to strengthen his separatistic position by inviting Maximilian Cardinal de Furstenberg, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches, to Philadelphia, for the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the elevation of the Philadelphia Ukrainian Catholic diocese to the status of a Metropolitan See, the faithful felt conscience-bound to safeguard the integrity of their Church. They demonstrated against the visit of Cardinal de Furstenberg. And that’s how it all began.

The faithful felt that by his actions the Metropolitan was, in fact, depriving them of their ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage. Having exhausted all the means of recourse available, they demonstrated, hoping to persuade the Metropolitan to change his perilous course.

Today about two years later, the issues are still essentially the same. But thanks to the demonstrations all the world is now aware of the tragic plight of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. And because of this awareness thereis hope for a better future.