“Only by casting off everything that separates them can the churches unite”

Our editor-in-chief of Larysa Ivshyna began the following interview with His Beatitude Liubomyr Cardinal HUZAR, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with the words, “Your Grace, while preparing for this meeting, we carefully considered our questions to you. We were also quite nervous because we know how happy the vast majority of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church believers are to hear you speak. As we have a monopoly on you today, we must do our best to spread this chance of communication to others.

“To start with, I would like to say a few words about an ongoing project of ours that we are proud of. We publish a daily in two — Ukrainian and Russian — languages, taking into account the current situation in Ukraine, as well as an English language weekly. We once understood that our society needed to refresh its historical memory and to be told about many forgotten heroes, especially from the viewpoint of today. This is why the newspaper has such rubrics as “Ukrayina Incognita” and “History and I.” Here is Serhiy Makhun, editor of the History and I department. Klara Gudzyk also works on this subject. There also is a wide circle of our regular contributors, including many scholars. And last year, in connection with Den’s jubilee, we managed, by using these materials, to publish the book Ukrayina Incognita, a copy of which I would like to present you on behalf of our authors. Today there are many who write about history, but we have still decided to write in the language of modern concepts and without the eternal apologetic intonations — as if something were wrong with us... Public consciousness must finally be freed of complexes. Your opinion is of special importance to us, for we know how much you have done in terms of contributing to both our memory and national values.”

“Thank you, Madam Editor-in-Chief. I often look over this page of yours. I keep track of some publications and authors, although I find it a bit difficult to read now because of an eye ailment, but I think it get better.”

“Perhaps the typeface in the newspaper is really too small. Now that we have boasted a little, with your permission let’s get to the questions.”

CHURCH AND STATE

“Addressing the latest session of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches, you put forward the idea of working out a general concept of church/state relations. You also said that it would only be possible to draft a law on religious freedom after this. What is the problem here?”

“This is not just my personal opinion; it has been in the air for several years. When meeting with various officials, I joined representatives of other churches in stressing the need for this kind of concept. I was promised that the matter would be studied deeply and seriously. In general, this matter is as important as it is complicated and difficult. However, it will provide a good opportunity for different churches and religious organizations to voice their opinion. We must understand that we now face new and quite unusual circumstances. For the Ukrainian church has long been in the situation of political confrontation. In the past, we always faced an alien government, an alien state, an occupier, in whose heart there was nothing good for our people or our church. In those times, the church was very close to the people, for it suffered the same hardships that they did.

“In the Soviet period the state and its ideology maintained that the church and religion in general had no place whatever in the affairs of the state and the people. Now everything is different, but unexpectedly neither the state nor the church knows how to treat each other. On the one hand, for the first time in many years the church is standing before it own independent state, a government of its own. And the church is confused to some extent because it is not used to a situation like this. Yet, this is our government no matter whether you or somebody wants this or accepts some detail or another. These are all secondary, transient things.

“On the other hand, we have a government comprising quite a few individuals who were raised and began their career under the communist regime and, hence, have a certain prejudice against the church. What should be done to this church, what should be the attitude toward it, what place does it hold in society under our conditions of uncertainty and some misunderstanding? It therefore seems to me that any legislation will be lame and not contribute to the true development of either the state or the church unless it has a clear concept of state/church relations.

“What kind of relations should there be? Let me give a few examples. For instance, under a communist or other totalitarian regime, the church is always considered a very important instrument of control over the populace. A totalitarian state treats the church well when the latter brings up obedient slaves. A normal state, however, should not view the church as something that can be manipulated and used for its purposes. This is one possibility, one extremity. The other extremity is theocracy or a full merger of the state and the church, when the latter blesses the state and interferes in public administration. Meanwhile, we must treat each other as mutually respectful partners who work among and for this same people. There should be no supremacy or patronage here.

“Western Europe has worked out and is still working out its own concepts of this type, but every European state has its own particular church/state relations always based on a given cultural philosophy, the history of this church and state’s coexistence, and national peculiarities. Every state has its own uniqueness, and I think we must find our own Ukrainian concept in this, as well as in other, matters — one that will be in line with our history, culture, and reality.”

“Your Beatitude, I think this is a very high standard for the relationship between the Ukrainian government and churches and really will require a lot of time. And it is difficult to discuss proportions and ratios perhaps because each of the Ukrainian churches has its own history and biography, as well as its own experience of relations with the authorities. This is undoubtedly connected with the tragic and high mission of the Greek Catholic Church, as well as the current interdenominational rivalry for being, so to speak, close to the powers that be. Isn’t this the opposite side of some other painful process? For there is no general pattern of behavior so far, and it seems sometimes that each of the denominations maintains its own special relations with the state.”

“Sometimes it seems so. For example, today’s Orthodox Church uses some concepts of Byzantine origin, albeit in the Moscow interpretation. An Orthodox bishop once gave me a very interesting explanation. In his words, the relationship between the church and the state is like that of husband and wife. The husband must take care of his wife, so that she is well provided for, serene, and safe. And if she is sometimes a little capricious, the husband has to put her in her place. Maybe this kind of relationship makes sense for some nations.

“I think the concept should be worked out on the initiative of the state: the latter should set up some mechanism, commission, or something to unite all the churches for cooperation. This is a very difficult thing to do because it will involve entirely different visions of the issue. We want to have a law for everybody, so we have to find a concept that to some degree would be acceptable to every church. This is very difficult, for the traditions of, say, the Catholic Church were formed under the influence of Western history. Our church is special in that it is on the borderline of two traditions, the Western and the Eastern. Although now divided, the Orthodox Church is still united, so to speak, ideologically in its Byzantine roots. Protestant churches have their own unique experience. There also are some new religious groups, but I do not know if they think about such things because they don’t have enough historical experience.

“As you see, it would be illogical to make a law for everyone without first working out a common platform. Moreover, as we see very clear today, there is a danger of granting one church a more privileged position, putting it, so to speak, closer to the center. This is very dangerous for the state: it gives rise to misunderstandings and domestic troubles. Conversely, one of the purposes of the concept is to eliminate any sources of conflict between church and state as well among the churches themselves.”

DENOMINATIONS AND TRADITIONS

“Some say a united Local Church would be the best model for Ukrainian spiritual and church life. What would you say in this connection?”

“You see, this is a wonderful thing that, God willing, someday will happen. But don’t forget that there are 72 different churches registered in this country. I still think we must confine our mutual cooperation to the most numerous and traditional churches sometimes referred to as the Kyiv tradition. Indeed, it would be ideal for a state to have one church only. But how can this be achieved? I remember the president speaking recently at Ukrayina Palace about a government program to promote the unification of churches. This is a godly and good wish that we all joyously welcome. But, you see, the state cannot unite us, and I think the government doesn’t understand this. Obviously, the President should have said it was a desire, an ideal, so to speak. Yet, he spoke about efforts in this direction.

“Among other things, the authorities need to understand what they can and can’t do. Obviously, they can and should create an atmosphere and conditions in which we would find it easier to meet each other halfway. For, however sad it is to admit, we all are doing too little to come together. There are various, including political, difficulties which I won’t dwell on. All are ostensibly for unity, but there’s no progress. Of course, there are some concrete reasons for that. For example, there are five bishops in Lviv now, so if the churches are to be merged, four will become unemployed. This means we have to find not just a practical but also a theological way, so that church unity does not lead to their loss of their traditions.

“I think the Greek Catholics could serve as an example here, albeit not quite a perfect one. For we have not yet adopted a clear stand within the bounds of the Catholic Church, and this is going on with great difficulty. Because the Latin mentality and Latin traditions differ very much from ours. We find them hard to understand. Besides, being a small particle compared to the great Latin tradition and culture, we don’t carry enough weight. It’s not easy for us, although we are breaking the ice little by little. It needs time.

“Now we are speaking about the same Orthodox Church (by Orthodox I mean the Eastern tradition, not the denomination), about the church that emerged in the time of Volodymyr, has been living by the Byzantine tradition and has struck deep roots in the Slavic world. Can this church be united again? Here we should find a formula based on the idea of being in communion with one another. This means we are all together, but we each remain what we are. Only by rejecting everything that separates them can the churches unite around a single center. I emphasize, without ceasing to be what they are. Taking into account the current Ukrainian situation, the Greek Catholics see their task in propagating this idea by all means inside this country and out. This is neither a simple, easy, nor fast process, and not everyone is ready for it today. But I can’t see any other way.”

SYMBOLS OF UNITY

“This is truly a subtle, filigree task that requires not only a high level of knowledge but also intensive spiritual work. Yet the point seems to be that people of different religious traditions can’t be in communion. What then can serve as a basis for unity?”

“We, Greek Catholics, have two symbols of unity: the Eucharist and the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome does not create unity, he is the symbol and not the principle of unity, like, say, the national flag. Inasmuch as we are people, we need a visible center, a visible symbol. But being united in the Eucharist and the recognition of the Bishop of Rome in no way means rejecting our background, our culture or church tradition. To be fair, Westerners find it hard to understand this after a millennium of complete separation, for there have been very few contacts between the West and the East, that is, the Latin and Byzantine traditions, for the last thousand years. The Western tradition has worked out some particular ideas that suit them very well but within which we find it difficult to find our place. This is complicated. Theoretically, on paper, there are few disagreements. The difficulties begin when it comes to implementation. Yet, there has been considerable progress in the past forty years since the Second Vatican Council. It appears that the door is open a little. I would be glad to see a single Eastern rite church in Ukraine, but it’s not likely.”

“The world is going through a difficult moment now. There is a tendency for the great powers tend to simplify global models somewhat. By contrast, we in Ukraine are going the other way, delving into details and are unable to find a common platform for unification. If we imagine that the door is open, what spiritual values and what program might allow us to take part in globalization?”

“Never forget that we lived without freedom for over 300 years, which obviously left a noticeable imprint on us. We, both the government and the church, lack the mentality of statehood, while living in today’s world requires a broader outlook. Because of this we get bogged down in details, and it will take two or three generations to reach the level of the mentality of statehood, that is, to deal with the fundamentals and not the details. I think this is one cause of our difficulties. You’re very right when you say that we are too deeply absorbed in details, we are, you might say, struggling with them. Nor do we see the common values that could unite us when we do not always agree even on the details.”

BRICKS FOR THE CATHEDRAL

“When we recently paid our last respects to the perished Ukrainian journalists, we attended the funeral mass in a Kyiv Greek Catholic church. In spite of a tragic moment, many journalists noticed how different and beautiful this temple on Lvivska Square looks. It combines tradition and the modern, meeting all the requirements of today’s people, especially when divine services are held. Your Beatitude, is there any progress with the construction of another Kyiv temple, a cathedral on the Left Bank?”

“The work is underway, although we have serious problems. We are, so to speak, beating the bushes for funding. A cathedral is quite an expensive thing, but it is meant for all Ukrainian believers. It is not a temple of Kyiv, a political party, or a part of the Ukrainian people. We expect it to be kind of a center for Greek Catholics in the capital by the time the church is united. But we should already be present in Kyiv.

“Fate has scattered our people all around Ukraine, and we are try to look for them. For example, in the Donbas our church is making not bad progress and forming communities. Yet, many people have forgotten that they belong to the Greek Catholic Church, and many have dropped religion altogether, for they are the second or third generation emigrants. This is not an easy process, but it’s our moral duty to them. They have the right to be cared for by us. We make no efforts to convert members of other churches, but if they want to, we will welcome them. You see, it is the task of our church as well as of all Christian churches to worship Christ. Many people are for various reasons far from church, far from God. However, I would say there are very few people in Ukraine who are really against God, who can be called militant atheists. And there are people who need to be taught and persuaded that it is good to be Christian and this is their salvation. In fact, I wanted to say that the Greek Catholic church is not confined to Western Ukraine alone and must have a clerical center in Kyiv.”

“When is it planned to finish the construction of the cathedral? Will it be difficult for the Lviv archiepiscopal see to move to Kyiv? What do the people in Lviv think about this? And what will be the attitude of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate toward this?”

“Under the contract, the construction is to be completed in two years. Now the walls are being built. Of course, there are difficulties. For example, there are problems with the construction in winter. If we fail to raise funds for very costly heating — so that priests could conduct services — construction will drag on for another two years or so.

“We are raising money. Our position is that the money should come from all our churches in Ukraine and abroad. In other words, every believer must make at least a modest contribution and say, ‘This is ours, my cathedral. I also half a brick in here.’ It’s very important for us that it should be the symbol of the whole church. It would be wrong to say we are being showered with money, but still there is no reason to complain.

“Now about the move. Any resettlement is to some extent painful, difficult, and costly. One must get ready for it in time and gradually. Let me recall that 200 years ago we were banished from Kyiv, and our diocese was closed. Then we opened a Galician, not Kyivan, diocese in Lviv. Now we must address the problem of the coexistence of both the Kyivan and the Galician dioceses. There should be two dioceses, not one. Some of the many problems here are administrative. Lviv residents show various reactions: some take it to heart, some shed fewer tears. In any case, we must solve the problem in such a way that Ukraine will not be divided into Kyiv and Lviv. We must state in no uncertain terms that this is one church in one state.

“As to the reaction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there are different trends. I have already spoken to some hierarchs: they have no objections. The intelligentsia is in general in favor, while the churches under the Moscow Patriarchate voices official protests. The latter church has various and, as I think, very important reasons for this: it fears the complete Ukrainization of our church. This creates a certain tension. They have already lodged protests to the European Union and the Vatican in order to prevent the transfer the throne of our episcopate to Kyiv.”

“What does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have to fear from too much Ukrainization? What does it mean in plain language?”

“The Ukrainian Church, both Orthodox and Catholic, are now in Kyiv, and the Moscow church thinks that we have encroached a little on their history. However, there is no denying the historical fact that the Moscow church also emerged from Kyiv. For Kyiv monks and missionaries went East and North to convert the pagans there. It is also obvious that a part of the Eastern Orthodox world was christianized later than Kyiv. But this is no tragedy. The problem is that, despite these historical facts, they want to consider themselves the Mother Church, to some extent even an imperial church. This is why the potential loss of some of its contact with Kyiv as some kind of humiliation, you might say, even defeat. This causes some tension. I am aware of this. Still, I think that, to promote the health of our Greek Catholic Church and state, we must insist on our church’s Ukrainian character so that it will be strong, be meaningful for our people. It’s hard to persuade here, but we cannot do otherwise.”

CLOSURE ON THE PAST

“We are approaching the mournful anniversary of the events of the summer of 1943 in Volyn. Former head of the Greek Catholic Church, Andrei Sheptytsky, once strongly condemned the confrontation between the Ukrainians and the Poles in Volyn, quoting the biblical commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ This fact played a certain role, diminishing the conflict’s toll. Yet, a dialog at the highest level between Ukraine and Poland has begun only after sixty years. The church should play an important role in this today. Have any steps been taken? What exactly should be done on July 11 this year to honor the memory of those killed in Volyn? For the faithful of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Greek Catholic Churches all fell hostage to that situation.”

“This is indeed a very complicated and simultaneously simple matter. I cannot say what the state is doing to observe the anniversary because I’m not very well informed, although some consultations are already taking place in Lutsk. Let me say what we are doing.

“Don’t forget that for centuries Poland and Ukraine have had very different relations. There were times of peace, tension, and bloodshed. Volyn is just one episode. We have begun talks on this matter with the Polish Catholic Church. We decided we must make our own contribution to improving Ukrainian-Polish relations, and we are ready to join state initiatives. What we are plan to do is try to draw up convincing joint declarations and addresses in order bring the past to closure. There is a precedent. In 1987, Supreme Archbishop Myroslav Liubachivsky and Polish Primate Cardinal Glemp read out, in the presence of many bishops from both sides, a declaration of mutual forgiveness. Regrettably, that document was later forgotten — perhaps because it was prepared well enough. Maybe it was not the document but the people who were not ready. Moreover, this was done in Soviet times, and neither Poland nor Ukraine could possibly make it public. Now we want to repeat this kind of declaration during a very solemn ceremony. First of all, we will point out that both sides, not just one of them, are to blame for the tragedy. We will also note that the current situation cannot last forever. It is always easy to find arguments and pretexts. So we must tell ourselves to stop. And we hope that, God willing, all will be well. But we must be thoroughly prepared for this because there are hot heads on both sides, people who think it impossible to reach reconciliation: they are convinced that a Pole (or a Ukrainian) deserves only to be hated. It is primarily here that the church must play an important role. As it seems to me, the majority of the people are more balanced. Although they have bitter experience of their own, they understand that reconciliation is indispensable for both the state and the church to have a normal life. We should not raise generation after generation in mutual hatred.

“This is our plan today. We will issue a declaration ostensibly dedicated to Volyn but without emphasizing this word. We will only state that such things happened in history, and that nobody should think that he is a holy angel or the other party is a devil. We take as a showpiece a similar 1967 declaration between Poland and Germany, which ended discussions about the past. Let historians continue their work, while the common people, at least the majority, must calm down. For it is impossible to satisfy and pacify everybody.”

“Your Most Reverend Grace, what meaning do you attach to such a historic event as celebrating the coronation of Danylo (of Halych)?”

“We want to stress the important fact that our history shows that we were always close enough to both Constantinople and Rome. This is one of the moments of our particular history and not that of any other Slavic country. While Russia, the Moscow church, followed the Byzantine tradition and the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian churches followed Rome, we always remained more open and in different vectors. This is one of the major factors that has formed our history. For example, even after the 1054 schism, our representatives attended Western church councils, while remaining in contact with Constantinople. We must make certain conclusions and in particular concentrate our scholarly efforts on studying this phenomenon.”

“We thank you for this fascinating exchange of views.”