by Dr. Oleh Turiy

Currently, Church life in the countries of the former Soviet Union often oscillates between two extremes: from a sacrosanct uplifting at times reaching the point of exaltation to a pervasive atmosphere of deadening secularism. Such wounds as the liquidation of visible structures of the Church and repressions against hierarchs and faithful, the spiritual crippling of people and the destruction of ecclesiastical traditions are slow to heal even with God’s intervention and human remedies.

Most likely, we have not even reached the first phase of rebirth and normalization when it comes to our search for balance and stability, for choosing conversations about all that is spiritual and holy. This concerns various aspects of Church life, including the Church’s hierarchical leadership.
In various countries and among many confessions, there is often a discussion about who should lead and how he should lead a particular religious community, and although at times this polemic is long and heated, it is always considered a normal course of action. As a result, there is a concrete, practical and most importantly, a moral and prayerful preparation for a change in Church leadership. We, on the other hand, often do not know how to approach this issue: we either panic clamorously, or try to hush it up, thinking that if we ignore it, it will go away. In general, the silent approach is fostered by a good, fundamental principle, which cannot be taken lightly. And that is the fact that our life, in particular, our Church life is in God’s hands, so any kind of political speculation, or habitual gossip cannot be fruitful when contemplating the situation and the future of the Church leadership. A state of panic is never productive. The components of fear and helplessness at a time of crisis can be turned around and a time of crisis can be a time of opportunity and a challenge for growth and maturity. (In Greek, krisis means a time to make decisions). When making such an important decision, it is essential that a spiritual focus and a steadfast faith in God’s divine Providence, as well as a calm and composed thought process and harmonious cooperation be present among those who are responsible for this challenge.

Where am I going with these thoughts? Various Churches in Ukraine and the Belarusan Orthodox Church have had a relatively long history with their current leaders. The first personas of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches—both the Kyiv and the Moscow Patriarchates – Filaret and Volodymyr, and the Metropolitan of Minsk and All-Belarus Filaret, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church His Beatitude Lubomyr – are all now or soon to be octogenarians. And, there are laws of nature….While we all wish them many more years on this earth, every member of the Church who is concerned about the Church’s welfare, should contemplate, or at least actively pray, for a worthy successor for each Church’s leadership. Nevertheless, many active and committed members of the above-mentioned Churches look to the future with fear. And this is not surprising. Patriarch Filaret, Metropolitan Volodymyr of Kyiv and Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk have been leaders of their respective Churches for almost half a century. Their persons are clearly embedded in the consciousness of their faithful and often they personify the good of their Church communities. The question arises: what happens next? Is the inevitable change in leadership not threatened by turbulence, conflict and even demise?

For Greek Catholics, the prospect of a change in leadership provokes even greater anxiety. The brilliance of the pastoral witness of His Beatitude Lubomyr (Husar) and his spiritual insight are recognized not only in Ukraine, but well beyond its borders. The recent celebrations of his 10 years as Patriarch clearly accentuated that special role that he plays not only in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and among all Ukrainian Church life, but throughout our entire society. Many speak of him by name. He radiates such authentic love and a sense of deep peace, coupled with humility and wisdom and warm and witty humor and he shares all of this with everyone. It is difficult to name anyone in Ukrainian society today who is regarded as a greater moral authority than Lubomyr Husar.
For this reason, there is trepidation. What will happen after Patriarch Lubomyr? These thoughts are not without grounds. Even more so because His Beatitude Lubomyr has clearly and unequivocally said publicly that he would like to pass on the leadership of the Church to his successor while he is still on this earth. And what is even more important, he has kept his word. When these statements were first voiced in 2009, they prompted quite a few publications in the Ukrainian press and stirred numerous conversations among the faithful of the UGCC and the broader community. Many members of the Church, hearing about the final decision of His Beatitude are now bewildered and live with a real fear: how is it that at such a complex time, when Ukrainian society is facing such unprecedented threats, the spiritual leader of the Church is voluntarily leaving his responsibilities?

Without a doubt, if we are to approach this question as laymen, there is indeed reason for bewilderment and fear. We can delve deeply into these feelings and wallow in them. However, it is probably more interesting and more spiritually beneficial to look at His Beatitude’s decision from a different perspective. In reality, does this decision disturb the accepted order and traditions? Can not the Church, at a critical time, change its leader? Does everything have to fall apart only because the laws of nature are at work? Can we not face the challenges with a greater reliance on God? Examples from the history pages of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church during the last century reveal new hopeful prospects for us. In other words, the Church has been in analogous situations before and is now facing similar trials.

If we are to look at the last four transitions of the top leaders of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, we will see each one occurred in a “special” and “critical” time. Each transition was accompanied by turmoil and fear, fiery debates and disputes. And at the same time, each of these historic moments was blessed by God, as each head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church proved to be an authentic leader, even a prophetic individual. Let us look at these precedents:

On December 17, 1900, when Pope Leo XIII nominated Andrey Sheptytsky to the post of Galician Metropolitan, Sheptytsky was at that time, a 35-year-old, who came from established Ukrainian ancestry, which had been Polonized over the centuries. Many patriotic Greek Catholics believed that this appointment was catastrophic seeing it as a Polish plot to bring their Trojan horse up the hill to St. George’s Cathedral, the bastion of the Western Ukrainian society. During his 44 years as the Pastor of the Church, Ukrainian society accepted him gradually, and some people did not always understand him to the end. Although with time, the Metropolitan became a preeminent authority, he almost always faced groups that were in opposition to him, whether it be the Austrians, the Poles, the Germans, or Soviet powers, or his Church’s monks and priests or “right” or “left” politicians. He was not an expected hierarch, but because he was both wise and creative, he always remained unpredictable. Today, looking back at the history of the 20th century, we realize that it was Metropolitan Andrey who -- at first was met with prejudice – became both the spiritual and national leader of Ukrainians. He became a man of universal significance, rising in significance beyond the communities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian people in general. He was perhaps, the most significant Ukrainian of the 20th century.

Metropolitan Andrey was chosen by the Holy See in Rome. Pope Leo XIII was personally acquainted with the young monk --15 years before making this appointment in 1900. Today, it is clear that this choice was courageous, one dare say brilliant. God’s Divine Providence so ordered that the successor to Metropolitan Andrey was chosen differently; however, the caliber of the individual was of no lesser quality. Pope Pius XII granted Metropolitan Sheptytsky extraordinary rights in personnel policy and other issues. So, in fact, Metropolitan Andrey received permission and consent from Pope Pius XII to name his own successor --Josyf Slipyj. Metropolitan Andrey nominated and consecrated Josyf Slipyj as his Archbishop and co-adjutor with the right of succession. This happened on December 22, 1939, at the start of the second world war and the occupation of Galicia by Soviet forces. No doubt, this period in Ukrainian history was more critical than our current situation. Indeed, at that time, it seemed that the entire civilized world was collapsing around them.

So, when Metropolitan Andrey died on November 1, 1944, at the age of 79, the young Metropolitan Josyf had to lead his Church and support his people, who were traumatized during the war and faced terrible material losses and moral devastation. Less than six months went by when Josyf Slipyj and his entire episcopate were arrested and put behind bars. With these arrests began the martyrdom of our Church --- and paradoxically the most famous and singularly heroic pages in the history of our Church. It is hard to imagine a more steadfast and persevering leader during this era of trials and tribulations.

Josyf Slipyj spent 18 years (1945-1963) in prisons, concentration camps and in exile. At the age of 71, he found himself deported to the free world. There, already elderly, this Confessor of the Faith-- in a 20 year span -- was able to not only gather together the Church community, but the entire Ukrainian community, breathing into them a new faith that the battle for human dignity continues in Ukraine, that the struggle for Church freedom and national rights goes on behind the Iron Curtain. He initiated broad reforms in Church administration, renewing the synodal governance of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and raising the level of consciousness of all Ukrainian Christians regarding ecclesiastic identity, the particular Church and especially regarding patriarchal dignity. And so, if Metropolitan Andrey was chosen as the UGCC leader by Rome, and Josyf Slipyj was chosen by Metropolitan Andrey with the consent of the Hoy See, the future election of Ukrainian Catholic Church leaders was to include the Ukrainian Synod of Bishops. This was no easy task to secure and Patriarch Josyf faced many challenges and obstacles to achieve this status. And, this was all happening in the free world, without the “strong arm” of Moscow interfering, without the totalitarian repressions that the Church faced in the Soviet Union. After the emergence of the Church from the catacombs, today, the election of a Church leader in an independent Ukraine adheres to the principles elaborated by Patriarch Josyf and promulgated by the Holy See.

The transition of the leadership in the underground took place in extreme conditions. When in early 1963, the Soviet government unexpectedly released Josyf Slipyj from exile and put him on a train to Rome via Moscow, Metropolitan Slipyj’s mission was to quickly secure a leader for the Church in the Catacombs, in Ukraine. By telegram, he summoned a Redemptorist monk, Vasyl Velychkovsky to Moscow and in a hotel room in that Soviet capital city, on February 4, 1963, he ordained him a bishop. (Vasyl Velychkovsky was recognized as a martyr in 2001). Bishop Vasyl was the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of the catacombs until 1972. That year, he Soviet regime deported him to the West, (Winnipeg, Canada) where he soon died of poisoning that was induced through delayed-reaction chemical substances on June 30, 1973. While still in Ukraine, and with the premonition that he may be arrested, Bishop Vasyl (who was indeed arrested in 1969) had taken precautionary measures to secure Church leadership in Ukraine. On July 19, 1964 he ordained his successor, a fellow monk from the Redemptorist Order, Volodymyr Sterniuk. Bishop Volodymyr was very careful and level-headed in his work with the underground Church. He served as locum tenens for both of the Church in Ukraine for both Patriarch Slipyj and his successor Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, until the latter returned to Ukraine on March 30, 1991. During these complicated times and under almost impossible conditions, when the church was banned and repressed in a totalitarian state by the Soviet regime, God’s Providence passed on the leadership of the Church into reliable hands that were able to secure its future.

As Josyf Slipyj turned 90 years of age, Pope John Paul II allowed him to call together a Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in 1980, which identified three candidates as his co-adjutors with the right of succession. Of these three candidates, on March 27, 1980, Pope John Paul II chose the first name on the list–Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky. This choice was not met with any great enthusiasm. Following such hierarchs as Andrey and Josyf, who were great figures of authority and ruled the Church collectively for 84 years, Myroslav Ivan was a quiet, soft-spoken academic, who lacked the charisma of his predecessors. In the diaspora, the faithful panicked that Myroslav Ivan would not be able to resolve the complex assignments that stood before him and his flock. On September 7, 1984, when Josyf Slipyj died in Rome, and Myroslav Ivan became his successor, the Church in Ukraine had spent two generations in the underground and there was great doubt as to her future. The Church in the diaspora was also beginning to falter. In the 1980s, the process of assimilation and secularization was progressing and young men who responded to a calling from the Church were few and far between.. And, then once again, Providence surprised the skeptics. It was during the tenure of Myroslav Ivan as head of the Church that the Church in Ukraine was legalized and it experienced a wonderful rebirth in Ukraine. Thus, when in 1989, close to 300 priests emerged from the underground Church, this proved to be only the beginning. In the next 10 years, more than 1,500 priests were serving in Ukraine and today that number is over 2,500. New immigrants and pastors from Ukraine are also strengthening historic church structure In the diaspora and are creating new parishes. The gift of prayer, humility and directness exhibited by Myroslav Ivan was shown to be necessary during a time of euphoria, and in this way, he won a quiet, but real respect among his faithful.

The last transition in the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as with all those before, had no exact precedent and took place in an atmosphere of dynamic social change in Ukraine. Patriarch Josyf had consecrated Lubomyr Husar clandestinely on April 2, 1977, in the Studion monastery on the outskirts of Rome. Bishop Lubomyr ‘s episcopacy remained secret 19 years. In the spring of 1996, his consecration as a bishop was publicly recognized by Pope John Paul II and the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC and in the autumn of that year, at the request of Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, Lubomyr Husar was named an assistant to Myroslav Ivan, with delegated authority to lead the Church. His assignments were difficult at the time, as he was tasked to renew Church structures in Ukraine and establish relations between the Church in the diaspora and in Ukraine. And, all this was to happen at a time of a deepening economic crisis. And, a new wave of Ukrainians was beginning to emigrate. When Myroslav Ivan died on December 14, 2000, more than 100,000 people lined the streets in Lviv, parting with him warmly and with great reverence. One month later, in January 2001. Bishop Lubomyr , who had been consecrated as bishop 19 years earlier was elected by the Synod of Bishops to serve as the leader of the Church. However, it was no secret that during this Synod, the episcopate was divided and many did not want Lubomyr Husar as the leader of their Church. This was also true among vocal lay Catholics who explicitly spoke out against the possible election of Lubomyr Husar as head of the Church.Thanks be to God, Providence directed the synod differently.

If we are to draw conclusions on the basis of the abovementioned changes in the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, it is understood that each one of these transitions –without exception – took place in a time of deep political, social, national and Church crises, and was at a time of great fear and criticism. The new leader was always met with resistance. Yet, every time the Church welcomed a leader who was good, unexpected, yet original and deeply spiritual, a real helmsman who left his mark in the annals of Church history as well as on the pages of Ukrainian history. Whether it was during the period of the Austro-Hungarian empire, or the rule of Poland, or whether during the raging world wars, or whether it was at the time of the underground Church, and totalitarian rule, or among the Ukrainians scattered over four continents, or at a time of Ukrainian independence, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church always had a worthy leader.

In respect to the wishes of His Beatitude Lubomyr, we should prepare to pray, to fast and to be courageous and mature regarding affairs of the Church, in order for us to receive the grace which is needed to choose a new leader, who will lead the Church on to new spiritual heights. God’s grace supplements all of mankind’s weaknesses. If Providence – acting through people and circumstances calls a specific person to serve the Leader and the reverend of the Particular Church, it will certainly give the newly chosen Leader the grace needed to do this job well.

The history of the salvation of humanity in general and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in particular gives all of us the grounds to face a transition with hope, faith and peace. That is why his Beatitude Lubomyr – in his decision – is preparing his flock for the future and assures one and all that our Lord, even after his tenure – will be with his flock. His move is strong, courageous and modern. It sets a precedent and is an example, not only for our Church, but for all who don’t have the courage to look reality in the eyes and react in a timely manner. But, foremost, the decision of the Patriarch is a manifestation of his great faith in God, his faith in the entire Church and toward his future successor. All of us, who are not apathetic to the fate of the Church, now have a wonderful opportunity and a personal responsibility through prayer to have this trust justified.

Oleh Turiy
Vice-Rector for Research
Head of the Department of Church History of the Ukrainian Catholic University