The President and Fellows of Harvard College

The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia, 1848-1914 Author(s): JOHN-PAUL HIMKA Reviewed work(s): Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1/4, Ukrainian Church History (2002-2003), pp. 245-260 Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036853 . Accessed: 03/03/2013 09:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The GreekCatholic Church in Galicia, 1848-1914

JOHN-PAUL HIMKA

In 1848, according to eparchial schematisms,there were 1,587 Greek Catholic parishes in Galicia embracing2,149,383 faithful.1The archbishopof Lviv and metropolitanof Halych was MykhaïlLevytsTcyi, who was alreadyquite advanced in age and made his residence in the village of Univ. The day-to-dayadministra- tionof Lviv eparchywas entrustedto suffraganbishops: HryhoriiIakhymovych (1841-1848), Ioann BokhensTcyi(1850-1857), and Spyrydon Lytvynovych (1857-1858). On 5 September 1848 Iakhymovychbecame bishop of Przemysl (Peremyshl),succeeding Ioann SnihursTcyiwho had died in the previous year. However, for most of 1848-1849 Iakhymovychremained in Lviv to take part in the momentouspolitical events of those years of upheaval.2 The year 1848 markedthe startof a new period in the historyof the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia. No substantiveinternal changes occurred within the Church in thatyear, but 1848 was a turningpoint because withit began the Greek Catholic Church's fatefulinvolvement in Ruthenianpolitics.3 The year 1848 was, of course, one of revolutionthroughout Europe and it had immense repercussionsfor the Greek Catholic Ruthenianpopulation of Galicia. In thatyear the Rutheniansformed their first political organization,the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna Rus'ka Rada), and published their firstnewspaper, Zoria Halyts'ka;most importantly, in 1848 serfdomwas abolished,thus freeing the mass of theRuthenian population for the tremendous social and culturaladvancement thatwould markthe remainingdecades of Austrianrule. The Greek Catholic clergyplayed a leading role in Ruthenianpolitics during the revolutionof 1848-1 849.4 Membershipin the Supreme RuthenianCouncil was restrictedto Greek Catholics. The council firstmet in the consistoryof St. George's Cathedraland laterin theGreek Catholic seminary.Its branchesoutside Lviv were organized to coincide with Greek Catholic diocesan deaneries. The

HarvardUkrainian Studies XXVI (1-4) 2002-2003: 245-60.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 246 HIMKA presidentof thecouncil was Bishop Iakhymovych,one of thevice presidentswas the canon Mykhail Kuzemsicyi,and one of the secretariesthe canon Mykhail MalynovsTcyi.Of 66 council members,19 were priestsand 10 theologystudents. The council announced as its primarygoal the acquisition of equal rightsfor the Greek Catholic Church.Of 25 Rutheniandeputies elected to the constituent Austrianparliament (Reichstag), 8 were priests.The involvementof the Greek Catholic clergyin Rutheniannational politics duringthe revolution was so pro- nouncedthat many spokesmen of therival Polish movementin Galicia dismissed the Ruthenianmovement as simply a clerical intrigue.Greek Catholic priests active in theSupreme Ruthenian Council workedfor the partition of Galicia into separatePolish and Ruthenianprovinces, supported the aspirations of thenewly emancipatedpeasantry to own forestsand pastures,and remainedunswervingly loyal to the Habsburg court. Afterthe defeat of therevolution, during the decade of neoabsolutism,political lifecame to a standstill.Such Ruthenianpolitical representation as existedin the 1850s was limitedto the higherclergy of the Greek Catholic Church in Lviv. In 1850, largelythrough the initiativeof Bishop Iakhymovych,the Ruthenians obtainedthe emperor's agreement in principleto theestablishment of a thirdepar- chy in Stanyslaviv(but thiswas to remaina dead letteruntil the 1880s). In 1852 theysucceeded in reopeningthe Greek Catholic seminaryresidence in Vienna, which had been closed in 1848. In 1859, when Count Agenor Goluchowski, the governorof Galicia who was soon to become ministerof the interior,tried to impose the Latin alphabet on the Ruthenians,Greek Catholic ecclesiastics, includingBishops Iakhymovychand Lytvynovych,were instrumentalin preserv- ing thetraditional Cyrillic alphabet. During the 1850s theGreek Catholic clergy also establishedhundreds of Ruthenianparish schools, wherecantors provided peasants witha primaryeducation. MetropolitanLevytsTcyi, who had been elevated to the cardinalatein 1856,5 passed away on 14 January1858. HryhoriiIakhymovych replaced him as arch- bishop of Lviv and metropolitanon 23 March 1860. In the same year Toma PoliansTcyireplaced Iakhymovychas bishop of Przemysl. The tenureof MetropolitanIakhymovych was short(he died on 29 April 1863), but eventful.It saw the restorationof constitutionalpolitics, as the Habsburg monarchysought to reformitself in thewake of defeatin theItalian war of 1859. One symptomof the new orderwas a revival of the Ruthenianpress in Galicia. The newspaper Slovo began to appear in January1861. At firstit enjoyed the moraland financialsupport of MetropolitanIakhymovych, but his attitudecooled to thepaper when it began to criticizethe Greek Catholic higherclergy. Electoral politicswas also revived,and a numberof Greek Catholic priestsacquired seats in theGalician diet,including Canon MalynovsTcyi.The greatissue of the 1860s was the restructuringof the monarchy.The Ruthenianleadership, which was

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848- 1914 247 concentratedin the Lviv consistory,submitted a series of (ultimatelyfruitless) memorandato the emperorand his ministersreiterating the Ruthenians'desire to see Galicia partitioned,stressing their loyalty to the centralgovernment, and importuningthe governmentnot to favorthe Poles. The early 1860s also saw the beginningsof a sharppolitical cleavage within theRuthenian movement between Russophiles and Ukrainiannational populists (narodovtsi).6The higherGreek Catholic clergy considered both movements extremist,the Russophiles because theygravitated toward Russian Orthodoxy, and the national populists because they flirtedwith liberalism and admired the Ukrainianpoet Taras Shevchenko in spite of anti-Catholicpassages in his writings. Linked to, but not entirelyidentical with, the nascent Russophile movement was a movementwithin the clergy to purifythe Ruthenianrite of Latinizations.7 The more radical of these ritual puristssought to bring liturgicalpractices in the Greek Catholic Church closer to conformitywith practices prevailing in the Russian OrthodoxChurch. The radical puristspublished theirviews in the newspaperSlovo, which soon developed a palpably Russophile orientation.The political strugglewith the Latin-ritePoles fuelled the passions of the purists, who began to differentiatethemselves emphaticallyfrom the Latin clergy by growingbeards, donning Orthodox-stylevestments and headgear,and making demonstrativeuse of the three-barredcrosses thatRoman Catholics generally associated withOrthodoxy. These developmentscaused concern in Rome. The Vaticanremembered that a ritualpurification movement had preceded the conversion of the Belarusian and Right-Bank Ukrainian Church to Orthodoxyin 1839. The infatuationof elements of the Galician clergy with thingsOrthodox suggested the danger of anotherdefection to schism.Moreover, the Vatican was perturbedby theincreas- ing influencethat nationalism was acquiring among the Greek Catholic clergy. The greatestenemy of thepapacy at thattime was the Italian movement,and the Vatican was on principleopposed to every species of nationalism,let alone one thatseemed capable of drawingthe clergy into schism. The Galician administra- tion was also disturbedby the movementfor ritual purification, and in 1862 the presidiumof the Galician vice-regency(namisnytstvo, Statthalte rei) instructed Metropolitan Iakhymovychto be on guard against priests altering liturgical practicesbefore the changes had been legally sanctionedby the Church. In 1862 the Vatican divided the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith into two units,one of which was the Oriental Congregation,with responsibilityfor the affairs of theEastern-rite Catholic Churches(it laterbecame a completelyseparate congregation). Among thefirst tasks that the Oriental Con- gregationundertook was thepreparation of a legal agreementbetween the Greek and Roman Catholic bishops in Galicia on mattersof contentionbetween them,

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 248 HIMKA includingchange of riteand the determinationof the riteof childrenof mixed marriages;this "Concordia" was signed by all Galician bishops on 17 July1863 and officiallypromulgated on 6 October.8It replaced a previous Concordia that had been signed in 1853, but which was consideredunsatisfactory. The Oriental Congregationalso responded to the agitationof the ritualpurists, issuing over the firstfew decades of its existence a numberof decisions regardingliturgical practice,the form of thecross, and theoutward appearance of theclergy. As part of its effortto bringthe Greek Catholics more securelyinto the Catholic orbit, the Vatican also revived the process of canonization of Iosafat Kuntsevychin 1862, and five years laterhe was officiallyproclaimed saint. On 28 September 1863, SpyrydonLytvynovych was named metropolitan to replace the late MetropolitanIakhymovych; he was formallyinstalled on 5 May 1864. During his metropolitanatethe problemsthat had begun to develop underhis predecessorwere exacerbated.Tensions between the Churchand the liberallyinclined national-populistmovement reached a crisis in 1865, when the metropolitanconsistory was moved to forbidthe faithfulto subscribeto the national-populistorgan Meta. But themajor problemfor the Church was Russo- philism,which became almost hegemonic in Galician Rutheniansociety in the late 1860s; at thattime, in spite of all the Ruthenians'lobbying and demonstra- tions of loyalty,the central governmentdecided to turnthe administrationof Galicia over to thePolish gentry.Although the higher clergy tried to maintainits distancefrom what it consideredextremist politics, the clergy was nonethelessa major componentof theGalician Ruthenianpolitical class and played important partsin boththe national-populistand, especially,Russophile movements. Russophilismamong the clergywas strengthenedowing to eventsacross the borderin the last survivingUniate diocese in the Russian Empire. Here, in the eparchyof Chelm (Kholm), the Uniate Churchhad been largelyPolonized, and the clergy had supportedthe Polish patrioticdemonstrations of 1861 and the Polish insurrectionof 1863-1864. The tsaristgovernment was determinedto remove Polish influencein the Chehn eparchyand to this end recruitedpriests and seminariansfrom Galicia. The materialrewards for working in the Chehn eparchy were attractive,since young clerics could expect much more rapid advancementhere than at home in Galicia. Aside fromeconomic motivations, however,political and religious factorsalso came into play. Coming froman environmentin which theyhad been fightinga losing political battleagainst the Poles, theemigrants were moving to one in which,thanks to governmentback- ing,they were certainto emergevictorious. For the Russophiles among them,it was a chance to serve the Russia theyso admired.For ritualpurists, the move to Chelm meant an opportunityto shed Latin accretions and restorethe pure Easternrite without the government interference that hindered them at home; in Chelm, in fact,the tsaristgovernment would encourage themin theirefforts at

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848-1914 249 purification.In addition to priestsand seminarians,a bishop was broughtover fromGalicia; Canon Mykhaïl KuzemsTcyiwas consecratedbishop of Chehn on 9 April 1866. Thus, the Galician Church became inextricablyinvolved in the fateof the Chelm eparchy.9 In 1869 bothGreek Catholic episcopal thronesin Galicia fell vacant; Metro- politan Lytvynovychdied on 4 Juneand Bishop PoliansTcyiof Przemysl on 10 November. The appointmentof theirreplacements became a highlycontested issue, notonly because of thedelicate situationwithin the Greek Catholic Church, but because various influentialfigures in the Austriangovernment and in the Vatican supporteddifferent candidates. The appointmentsalso took place in a new political situation,in which the Polish viceroy of Galicia had a decisive say. In the end, on 18 May 1870, the emperor named as metropolitanIosyf Sembratovych,the administratorof Przemysl eparchy and a participantat the FirstVatican Council.10 In 1872 Ioann StupnytsTcyiwas made bishopof Przemysl. The appointmentsof Sembratovychand Stupnytsicyiwere widely regardedat the time to be the resultof Polish influence. If IosyfSembratovych was indeed a Polish candidate,it did nottake him long both to lose favorwith the Poles and to win acceptance among the Ruthenians. He took an interestin Ruthenianpolitical life,tried to steerthe warringfactions towardconciliation and moderation,and initiateda major temperancecampaign in the mid-1870s, enlistingthe parish clergyto combat the influenceof alcohol among the peasantry. During Sembratovych's reign as metropolitan,a group of Greek Catholic priests, disaffected by the growing Russophilism among their compatriots and demonstrativelyloyal to Rome, began to publish thejournal Sion. (It first appeared in 1871 as Sion Ruskii; from 1872 to late 1880 and again from 1883 to 1885 it bore the titleRuskii Sion; fromlate 1880 through1882 it was called HalytskiiSion.) Among the leading lightsof theSion group were SyIVestr Sem- bratovych,Iulian Pelesh, Aleksii Toronsicyi,and Aleksandr Bachynsicyi(all of whom were to acquire greatinfluence in theChurch in thelate 1880s and 1890s). In late 1880 thejournal fell afoul of MetropolitanIosyf Sembratovychwhen it published the Rome-educated Rev. Nykolai Malyniak's "Notes of a Roman" (ZapyskyRymlianyna) criticizing the situation in theGreek Catholic seminaryand indirectlythe Greek Catholic hierarchy.Metropolitan Sembratovych reorganized the editorialboard and renamedthe journal. The problems that had dogged MetropolitanSembratovych's predecessors were to prove his undoing.In particular,affairs in theChelm eparchytook a turn forthe worse. Recruitmentof clerics fromGalicia continued,but by the early 1870s it became clear thatthe Russian governmentwas moving in the direction of suppressingthe Church Union in Chehn and forciblyconverting the eparchy to Orthodoxy. In 1871 Bishop KuzemsTcyireturned from Chelm to Galicia.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 250 HIMKA

The administrationof the eparchyfell to anotherGalician emigrant,the fervid Russophile Markel Popel'. Aftera thoroughgoingritual reform in 1873-1874, the Union was abolished in the eparchyin 1875. Resistance to the abolition of theChurch Union was largelyconfined to thenative Chehn clergy;143 Galician emigrantsembraced Russian Orthodoxyand remained in Cheta, constituting almost half of the eparchy's clergy in 1881. The main Russophile newspaper in Galicia, Slovo, praised the Galician emigrantsfor theirrole in bringingthe Cheta region into the Orthodoxfold. MetropolitanSembratovych banned the paper, but the damage had already been done. The Galician Greek Catholic Churchfell undera dark cloud of suspicion,both in the Vatican,which feltthat the Union in Galicia itselfwas seriouslyendangered, and in Vienna, which now questioned the loyaltyof a people situatedon the borderof what had become its greatestforeign rival.11 The Vatican sent the nuncio Domenico Maria Jacobinito Galicia in 1877 to investigatepersonally the situationin the Greek Catholic Church; he came to the conclusion thatproschismatic tendencies there were rife.The Polish press and individual Poles with influence in the governmentand the curia fanned suspicion furtherby interpretingevery instance of Ruthenianself-assertion as a manifestationof pro-Russianor pro-Orthodoxsympathies. In 1879 the Polish orderof Resurrectionistsdecided theywanted to open a religiousboarding school forGreek Catholics in Galicia in orderto instilla Catholic spiritin Ruthenian youth.Sembratovych and StupnytsTcyiboth opposed the plan, as did Ruthenian public opinion; FatherStefan Kachala, a leading figurein the national-populist movement,accused the Resurrectionistsof Polonizing intentionsin a much- publicized speech in the Galician diet in November 188 1.12The Ruthenians' objectionsto theResurrectionists' initiative struck both the Galician administra- tionand theVatican as furtherproof that the Greek Catholic Churchwas falling away fromCatholicism. Matterscame to a head in 1882. In December 1881 inhabitantsof the village of Hnylychkyin Zbarazh countyannounced their intention to convertfrom Greek Catholicism to Orthodoxy.Although at the root of the peasants' decision lay a purelylocal grievancethat had nothingto do witheither religion or nationality and although the peasants were soon convinced to retracttheir declaration, the Vatican and the state authoritiesviewed the incidentas a most dangerous symptomof pro-Orthodox,pro-Russian sentiments in theGreek Catholic Church. Theirsuspicions seemed confirmedwhen theylearned that the Russophile priest Ioann Naumovychhad encouragedthe peasants to change religionand had even authoredtheir declaration of intent.The Polish press in Galicia made much of theissue; alarmistarticles depicted the events in Hnylychkyas merelythe tip of a schismaticiceberg. The Greek Catholic metropolitanIosyf Sembratovych and his consistoryfelt that the press and the Galician administrationwere purposely

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848-1914 251 exaggeratingthe significance of whathappened at Hnylychky in orderto slander theRuthenian Church and people in theeyes of theVatican and theimperial court. The metropolitan'sprotestations, however, only undermined his standingin Rome and Vienna, both of which took the Hnylychkyaffair very seriously.13 The Galician viceroyAlfred Potocki ordered a thoroughand wide investigation thatincluded manysearches of Ruthenianinstitutions and individualssuspected of Russophileleanings. Arrests were made, and in Juneand July1 882 eleven Rus- sophiles, includingFather Naumovych, were triedon charges of high treason. The Vatican,working in concertwith the Austrian state, also took measuresto curb the Russophile tendenciesin the Greek Catholic Church.For some time it had been consideringa reformof theBasilian order,in whichmonastic discipline had declined and whichcontributed little positive to Greek Catholic Churchlife. The Hnylychkyincident, however, moved Pope Leo XIII to decisive action in thisregard.14 Acting on a plan workedout by Rev. HenrykJackowski, the Jesuit provincialin Galicia, thepope issued a bull on 12 May 1882 ("Singulare praesi- dium") announcingthat the Jesuits would reformthe Basilian order.The Basilian monasteryat Dobromyl would be transferredtemporarily to Jesuitcontrol and would become the centerof a reformednovitiate. The overall intentionof this reformwas to create a renovatedBasilian orderthat would functionas an ener- geticdefender of Catholicismwithin the Ruthenian Church. The pope's decision to entrustthe reformto theJesuits, and in theconcrete circumstances of Galicia these were necessarilyPolish Jesuits,elicited vehementprotest from almost all sectorsof Rutheniansociety. Basilian monks in a petitionin May 1882, secular clergyin deaneryconferences in June1882, parliamentarydeputies, newspapers of both the Russophile and the Ukrainiannational-populist persuasion, public assemblies held in Lviv in June 1883 and May 1884, a deputationof Ruthenian leaders to the emperorin April 1885- all voiced theirobjections to a Jesuit- directedreform of the Basilian order.Both the Vatican and the Austrianstate, which had given its consent to the reform,interpreted these protestsas further evidence of the anti-Catholicundercurrent in the Greek Catholic Church,and MetropolitanSembratovych was held responsiblefor not being able to stemthe wave of proteststhat erupted in the springand summerof 1882. Moreover, in JuneSembratovych issued a statementon the Basilian reformthat was under- stood in both Rome and Vienna as a demonstrationof the metropolitan'sown oppositionto it. IosyfSembratovych's tenure as metropolitanhad been undera cloud ever since the conversionof the Chelm eparchyto Orthodoxy.Thought had been given to his removal as early as 1877, but the idea reemergedin Vatican circles afterthe peasants of Hnylychkydeclared thatthey wished to leave the Greek Catholic Church. By June 1882, the idea found an ardentchampion in Viceroy Potocki, who wrotetwo long memorandadetailing the dangers of Russophilism and the

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 252 HIMKA alleged responsibilityof Sembratovychand his closest advisors fortolerating it. The memorandasingled out forcriticism the metropolitan's lack of supportfor the Basilian reformand also a pastoralletter of 2 June1882, in whichSembratovych not only praised the Ruthenianclergy for its services to Churchand nation,but even urgedit to standfirm in theface of slander.Potocki's memorandacirculated in thecuria and Austriancabinet and convincedthem that Sembratovych and the canons MalynovsTcyiand Ioann Zhukovsicyihad to be removed fromoffice. IosyfSembratovych was summonedto Rome in Julyand pressuredto resign. He stood his groundfor some time,but at the personal insistenceof both Pope Leo XIII and EmperorFranz Joseph, he submittedhis resignationto thepope on 5 September1882. He remainedin office,however, until an apostolic administrator was named forthe Lviv archeparchyon 11 November.In his last weeks on the metropolitanthrone, he suspended and excommunicatedthe Russophile priest Naumovych.15 The replacementof Iosyf Sembratovychposed a difficultproblem for the Vatican and Austrianauthorities, since theirsuspicions of the Galician Greek Catholics now ran so deep that they were unwilling to trustany Ruthenian cleric withthe post of metropolitan.They even considered appointinga Latin- riteclergyman to administerthe Lviv archeparchy,but decided thatthis would alienate the Ruthenianpopulation too profoundly.In the end, theysettled upon the formermetropolitan's nephew and suffraganSyl'vestr Sembratovych, but appointedhim apostolic administratorrather than metropolitan, since theyhad gravedoubts about his capabilities.Although misgivings still lingered, eventually, on 26 March 1885, SylVestrwas named archbishopof Lviv and metropolitan of Halych. In connectionwith the crisis of 1882, thelong moribundplan of erectinga third Greek Catholic eparchyin Stanyslavivwas finallybrought to fruition.The idea of an eparchyin Stanyslavivhad firstbeen broached in 1842, and the imperial governmenthad agreed to it in principlein 1850 as a rewardfor the Ruthenians' loyaltyduring the revolution.However, budgetarydifficulties had prevented implementationof theplan and it was notconsidered seriously until the autumn of 1882, when the Vatican urgedAustria to invest in the new eparchy- partly to assuage the Ruthenians,who were unhappyabout the forcedresignation of a popular metropolitan,and partlyto facilitatecloser supervisionof the Greek Catholic clergy.The Lviv archeparchy,with over a million and a half faithful, was one of thelargest Catholic dioceses in theempire. Considering its problems and its long borderwith Russia, it made sense to divide thearcheparchy into two moremanageable entities.As theVatican secretaryof stateLuigi Jacobiniput it to theAustrian ambassador to the Vatican: "Divide et impera." Afterthe Austrian government had essentiallyresolved the problems of fund- ing and boundaries,Pope Leo XIII issued a bull erectingthe Stanyslaviv eparchy

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848- 1914 253 on 25 March 1885. A suitable candidate forthe new episcopal thronewas found in the person of Pelesh, who had been rectorof the Greek Catholic seminaryin Vienna and theremade a favorableimpression on theAustrian minister of religion and education. Pelesh, the authorof a scholarlyGerman-language history of the Uniate Church thatwas characterizedby a strongCatholic spirit,was the most outstandingintellectual among the Greek Catholic clergy.16He seemed such an excellent candidate to the Austriangovernment that it even considered making himmetropolitan and installingSyl'vestr Sembratovych as bishop of Stanyslaviv. However,fearing that this would engenderunnecessary bad feeling,Pelesh was leftin the new bishopric.He was formallyenthroned on 9-10 January1886. Now thatthere were threeGreek Catholic eparchiesin Galicia, it was possible to hold a provincial synod. One had not been held since the Synod of Zamosc (Zamostia) in 1720 and many issues needed to be resolved. The subject of a synod was firstbroached in 1886, butthe Galician administrationconvinced the centralAustrian government as well as the papal nuncio in Vienna thatit would be too riskyto hold a synod given the oppositional mood among the Ruthenian clergyand faithful.Permission to hold a synod was grantedlater, in 1888, buton the conditionsthat all preparatorydocuments be drawn up in the metropolitan consistory,without preparatory conferences of the clergyin the deaneries, and that laymen be excluded from participationin the synod (an exception was made forone delegate fromthe Lviv StauropegialBrotherhood, who was, how- ever, restrictedto a consultativerole). The ill health and thendeath of Bishop Stupnytsicyiof Przemysl in 1890 interruptedpreparations for the synod. After Bishop Pelesh was transferredto Przemysl and Iulian Sas-Kui'lovsicyi made bishop of Stanyslavivin 189 1, the synod could take place. The provincialsynod met in Lviv in Septemberand October 189 1. It settleda numberof liturgicalquestions, but its main emphasis was on improvingthe train- ing of the clergy,in particular,seminary reform. The most controversialissue at thesynod was clericalcelibacy.17 In itsinstructions to theGreek Catholic bishops, theOriental Congregation had asked thatan exhortationto celibacy be included among the resolutionsof the synod. The synodal fathers,however, vehemently objected, and the synod witnessedsome unpleasantencounters between priests opposed to the celibacy resolution,on the one hand, and MetropolitanSyl'vestr Sembratovychand the apostolic delegate Agostino Ciasca, on the other.The synodal fathersoverwhelmingly rejected the textof the resolutionon celibacy and replaced it with a new text that emphasized, rather,the Greek Catholic traditionof a marriedclergy. After the synod, however, Ciasca on his own initia- tive replaced the textapproved at the synod with one of his own composition thataccorded with the instructionsof the Oriental Congregation.The Galician clergyfirst saw the new textwhen the officialacts of the synod were published in Rome in 1896. Participantsof the 1891 Lviv provincial synod protestedthe

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 254 HIMKA alteringof the textat eparchial synods held in Lviv in 1897 and in Przemyslin 1898. As late as 1926 survivingsynodal fatherslodged a formalprotest against the falsificationof the acts. MetropolitanSyl'vestr Sembratovych was the most politicallyactive metro- politan since the time of HfyhoriiIakhymovych, but his political interventions did not win him popularityamong the Ruthenians.At the startof his tenure,he alienated both the Russophiles and the national populists by puttingforward his own candidates for the parliamentaryelections of 1885; these, moreover, enteredan electoral alliance withthe Poles. Also in 1885 he began to fundhis own newspaper,Myr, which was conceived as a rival to the main Ruthenian papers,the Russophile Slovo and the national-populistDilo, both of which had protestedthe Jesuits' involvement in the Basilian reformand theforced resigna- tion of his predecessor;Myr, however, garnered few subscribersand folded in 1887. The metropolitanwas also one of the principalbackers of the "New Era" of 1891-1894, in which the Polish Club and the Rutheniannational populists came to an uneasy understanding;the "New Era" collapsed, however,under the weightof bittermutual recriminations and lefta bad tastein Ruthenianpolitical circles.When themetropolitan was named a cardinalon 29 November 1894, this was widely interpretedin Rutheniansociety as a reward for political services renderedto the Poles. During SylVestr Sembratovych's term as metropolitan,and in no small measure owing to the decisive interventionsof Rome and Vienna in 1882, the Russophile currentrapidly lost groundamong theRuthenian intelligentsia, both clerical and lay,and the nationalpopulists assumed leadershipof the Ruthenian national movement.This posed new problems for the Church,for while Rus- sophilismbrought with it gravitationtoward Orthodoxy, national populism's mix of liberalismand nationalismbrought a decidedly secular and even anticlerical currentinto Ruthenian society. Already in the 1870s, radical Ukrainophilesfrom the Russian Empire had inspireda small Rutheniansocialist movementwith a markedlyanticlerical bent. By 1890 the numberof its adherentshad grown to the extentthat they were able to found the Ruthenian-UkrainianRadical Party (Rus'ko-Ukrains'kaRadykal'na Partiia), whichwas in factthe first formal politi- cal partyever establishedby Ruthenians-Ukrainians.The partyincluded in its ranks the poet and freethinkerIvan Franko, who was made editor of the most prestigiousUkrainian literaryreview, Literaturno-naukovyivistnyk, in 1897. Radicalism also began to develop a followingamong thepeasantry. Anticlerical sentimentswere not, however,limited to the radicals. Many national-populist intellectualshad been alienatedfrom the Church in the 1880s and 1890s, because theyfelt that it had fallenunder Polish control.They also had a tendencyto view theChurch as a nationalinstitution rather than a religiousone, and Metropolitan

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848-1914 255

Sembratovychhad to remindthem that their faith was not an instrumentin the service of nationality. Around the turnof the century,the hierarchyof the Greek Catholic Church was completely replaced. On 22 April 1896 Bishop Pelesh died, and on 21 February1897 KonstantynChekhovych was installedas bishop of Przemysl.On 4 August 1898 MetropolitanSyl'vestr Sembratovych died, and in the following year Bishop Sas-KuiTovsTcyimoved fromStanyslaviv to become archbishopof Lviv and metropolitanof Halych (the pope's nominationwas dated 30 August 1899). On 2 February 1899 the emperornamed Andrei SheptytsTcyito replace Sas-KuiTovsTcyias bishop of Stanyslaviv.Sas-KuilovsTcyi and SheptytsTcyiwere generallyconsidered to be Polish candidates.The new metropolitanhad servedin the Polish nationalguard in 1848, and SheptytsTcyiwas a Polish count who had changed fromthe Latin to the Greek ritein orderto enterthe Jesuit-controlled Basilian monasteryat Dobromyl.18After Sas-KuiTovsTcyi died on 4 May 1900, SheptytsTcyi,then 36 yearsold, was named metropolitan(the emperor'snomina- tionwas dated 30 October 1900; thepope's 17 December 1900; theformal instal- lationoccurred on 17 January1901). The nominationof SheptytsTcyi'ssuccessor in Stanyslavivposed many difficultiesfor the decision makersinvolved, and it was not until1904 thatthey settled on HryhoriiKhomyshyn. In 1900 therewere 1,854 Greek Catholic parishes in Galicia with2,934,278 faithful.19 Because of his background,Metropolitan Andrei SheptytsTcyihad to win the confidenceof Rutheniansociety. He was notto accomplish thiscompletely until 1914, in spite of extraordinarycontributions to theRuthenian cause. He was, for example, very active in the effortto establish a separate Ukrainian university in Lviv. To this end, he supported the secession of Ukrainian studentsfrom Lviv Universityin 1901 by closing down the seminaryin Lviv and sendingthe seminariansabroad to study.On 28 June 1910 he addressed theAustrian House of Lords on the universityissue. Moreover, it was throughhis tireless efforts thata majorityof the Polish deputies to the Galician diet finallyagreed to the Ukrainians'demand fora separateuniversity in 1914 (however,World War I and thecollapse ofAustria-Hungary prevented implementation of thisagreement). He was also, unlikethe Polish episcopate in Galicia, a championof electoralreform, which benefitedthe Ukrainians. In 1906 he and the other Ukrainian bishops traveled to Vienna to lobby for universal manhood suffragein parliamentary elections, and in 1913-1914 he was crucial in bringingabout an agreement increasing Ukrainian representationin the Galician diet (this agreementtoo, however, was stillbornbecause of the war). SheptytsTcyiwas also a generous benefactor,donating a buildingfor a freewalk-in clinic (Narodna Lichnytsia)and establishinga nationalmuseum. SheptytsTcyi's efforts on behalfof theUkrainians sometimesbrought him into conflictwith the Polish episcopate of Galicia, and particularlywith the Latin-ritearchbishop of Lviv, JózefBilczewski.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 256 HIMKA

However,in spiteof Sheptytsicyi'sservices to thenation, mistrust of his inten- tionslingered. Partly this was because theanticlericalism that had emergedin the 1890s had become even more pervasivein the 1900s. In 1899 the Radical party split,and itsright wing joined withthe more progressive of thenational populists to formthe Ukrainian National DemocraticParty (Natsional'no-Demokratychna Partiia). This immediatelybecame the mainstreamparty of UkrainianGalicia. The formerradicals broughttheir anticlericalism with them into the new party, and anticlericalsdominated the editorial boards of thenational-democratic press. Among the leaders of the national democrats was also Professor Mykhailo Hrushevsicyi,head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society; an emigrantfrom Russian-ruledUkraine, he had littlesympathy for the Greek Catholic Church. The studentmovement, in whichradical and social-democraticinfluences were paramount,was also anticlerical, as evidenced particularlyby the speeches made and resolutionspassed at the Ukrainianstudent congress held in Lviv in July1909. Some representativesof the national-democratic:camp resentedthe factthat SheptytsTtyi'ssupport for the Ukrainiannational movement had clearlydefined limits. Sheptytslcyiwas only willing to endorse those actions of the national movementthat were consonant with Christianteachings. The most dramatic confrontationbetween Sheptytsicyi and the Ukrainianmovement came in 1908, when a Ukrainianstudent, acting on his own, shot dead the viceroyof Galicia, Count Andrzej Potocki. Among radicals and students,as well as among many peasants,the assassin, Myroslav SichynsTcyi, was hailed as a hero.Even moderate nationaldemocrats stopped shortof an outrightcondemnation of the assassina- tion,considering it an act of political protest;moreover, they made use of the sensational event to publicize the plightof the Ukrainian nation in the world press. Sheptytsicyi,however, jointly with the otherUkrainian bishops, strongly condemnedthe action and all such "politicswithout God." In response,the radical deputy KyryloTryl'ovsTcyi declared in parliamentthat SheptytsTcyi'scensure of the assassination was only an example of class and nationalsolidarity, since bothSheptytsTcyi and Potocki were Polish counts; SheptytsTcyi,he said, was like Mickiewicz's KonradWallenrod, who maskedhis Polish nationalityonly in order to become influentialin theenemy camp and to deal mortalblows to theenemy fromwithin. Bad feeling over SheptytsTcyi'sstance on the Potocki assassina- tion was to lingerfor years. In 1910, when the metropolitanvisited Ukrainian immigrantsin westernCanada, themore radical elementsthrew eggs at himand called him a traitorbecause he had condemned Sichynsicyi'saction. Anotherpoint of tensionbetween the Ukrainianmovement and SheptytsTcyi was themetropolitan's alleged toleranceof Russophilism.The nationaldemocrats wanted Sheptytsleyito proceed energeticallyagainst suspected Russophiles in the Lviv consistoryand to identifyhimself unequivocally with the Ukrainian

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848-1914 257 movement.Although SheptytsTcyi was a Ukrainian by personal conviction,he feltthat as a bishop he could not affordto identifyopenly with one political faction or the other.In fact, he went so far as to tryto avoid using the term "Ukrainian,"preferring when possible to speak of "our people" (which irritated the national democrats and socialists). He also demanded tolerance fromhis priests. In particular,he tried to restrainnational-democratic zealots among his youngerclergy, who were agitatingamong parishionersagainst pastors of the old persuasion. One of his orders prohibitinginterference in the affairsof someone else's parish provoked a vehementeditorial in Dito in 1908, in which SheptytsTcyiwas called "a foreigner,inspired by the traditionof Wallenrodism, who has stolenonto theRuthenian metropolitan throne only, it seems, to weaken its power to resistthe enemy onslaught."20 However tolerantSheptytsTcyi was of political Russophiles, he had no sym- pathywith a religious orientationon Russian Orthodoxy.SheptytsTcyi believed in a renewal of the Eastern spiritin the Greek Catholic Church (for example, he revived Eastern monasticismaccording to the Studite rule), but he was not impressedby Russian Orthodoxy.He considered it a mere instrumentof state, withweak spirituality.In his view, Russian Christianitycould only be revivedby unificationwith the universalChurch, and in 1907 he even traveledincognito to Russia to organizea Russian Catholic Church.A greatpromoter of Churchunity, SheptytsTcyialso presided over the ecumenical congresses held at Velehrad,in Moravia, in 1907 and 1909. SheptytsTcyiwas an extraordinaryindividual, with great personal charisma, deep piety,and exemplarypersonal courage. He was, however,plagued by ill- ness, whichsometimes prevented him from accomplishing all he wished. Bishop Chekhovych of Przemysl was a trustworthyhelper in all the metropolitan's endeavors, whereas SheptytsTcyi'srelations with Bishop Khomyshynof Stany- slaviv were somewhatstrained. They were two verydifferent personalities. The metropolitanwas tolerantand gentle,the bishop of Stanyslaviv was sternand at timesarbitrary, proceeding against suspected Russophiles, forexample, withan almost ruthlessenergy. Bishop Khomyshynalso, however,quarreled regularly withthe nationaldemocrats who, in his estimation,were saturatedwith an anti- Catholic spirit.Moreover, Bishop Khomyshynfound it difficultto overcome his personal dislike of the metropolitan,with his aristocraticbackground, magnetic personality,and growingprestige. The Galician bishops had to contend with a new strain of Russophilism between 1908, when Austria annexed Bosnia, and 1914, when war broke out between Austria and Russia. Although Russophilism had by then become a marginal political movement,with little local support,the mountingAustro- Russian tension induced Russia to seek sympathizersin Galicia and among Galician emigrantsto NorthAmerica. Connected with this were some efforts

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 258 HIMKA to promoteconversions to Russian Orthodoxy.In August 1911, enthusiastsof thisidea, mainlyRussian churchmenand Galician Russophile leaders (the latter were all laymen), met at Pochaïv monasteryto plan a strategyfor propagating Orthodoxyin Galicia. They decided to send Austriancitizens, namely young Russophiles educated in Russia and ordained as Orthodoxpriests, into Galicia as missionaries.Several such missionariesconducted agitationin Galicia until theAustrian authorities either arrested them as spies or threatenedto draftthem into the army.However, theirefforts did registera limitedsuccess, particularly in some villages near the Russian borderand in theLemko region (the western- most extension of Rutheniansettlement). The Orthodox movementwas more successful in parishes where relationsbetween the pastor and his parishioners had already deterioratedbecause of economic conflictor political differences (this was the same environmentin which radicalism thrived). The Basilian order had emerged fromJesuit tutelage in 1904. Through its missionsin thecountryside and itspopular publications (including the periodical Misionar', founded in 1897), the orderdid much to spread Catholic piety and combat radical and Russophile influence among the peasantry.By the early twentiethcentury, perceptive observers of the Galician scene, including the prominentnational democrat Ievhen Olesnytsicyiand even Ivan Franko, had come to the conclusion thatthe reformof the Basilians, so heatedlycontested by the Rutheniansin the 1880s, had been a blessing in disguise; the reformed Basilians were energeticand patrioticand had produced some eminenteccle- siastics, not least MetropolitanSheptytsicyi. In theirefforts to spread popular Catholic piety,however, the Basilians drew freelyupon devotional practices and religious literaturefrom the contemporaryCatholic West and developed a reputationas Latinizers. On the eve of World War I, the Basilian orderhad 16 monasteriesin Galicia with211 monks and 23 novices (includingmissionaries in the new world).

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1848- 1914 259

Notes

1. Schematismusuniversi venerabilis cleri Archidioeceseos metropolitanae graeco- catholicaeLeopoliensis pro anno Domini 1848 (Lviv: E TypographiaCaes. Regii aerarti,n.d.); Catalogus universi venerabilis cleri Dioeceseos Premisliensis graeco- catholicaepro anno Domini 1848 (Przemysl:Impressum in TypographiaCapi tuli rit.gr. cath. Premisliensis, n.d.).

2. On Iakhymovych,see LuigiGlinka, Gregorio Jachymovy c- Metropolitadi Halyö ed il suo tempo(1840-1865), 2nd ed., AnalectaOSBM, ser.2, sec. 1, Opera 30 (Rome, 1974).

3. In thelate nineteenth century the Ukrainian people in Galicia were divided between thosewho identified with the Russian nation (Russophiles) and those who espoused a Ukrainiannationality separate from that of both the Poles and Russians. Their own self-designationatthat time was "Ruthenians"(rusyny). Around 1900 the majority ofthe Galician intelligentsia began to referto theirnation as Ukrainian,although theRussophiles refused to do so. Dependingon thecontext I willuse eitherthe historicalname "Ruthenian" or the more modern term "Ukrainian." Following the conventionused by theGreek Catholic Church until the late twentiethcentury, thenames of Ukrainianecclesiastics are givenin theirChurch Slavonic forms. I have transliteratedthem according to the Ukrainianpronunciation of Church Slavonic.

4. See Oleh Turii,"Die Griechisch-KatholischeKirche und die Entstehungder ukrainischennationalen Bewegung in Galizien,"Ostkirchliche Studien 47 (1998): 3-21.

5. This was theresult of a chainof eventsthat had begunin 1839, whenthe Uniate Churchwas abolishedin Belarus and Right-BankUkraine. To strengthenthe ChurchUnion in Galicia,in 1843 theVatican and Habsburgauthorities began to considerelevating the metropolitan of Halychto therank of patriarch.However, resistancefrom the Hungarians quashed this project, and insteadof an elevation ofthe office, LevytsTcyi was personallyadvanced to therank of cardinal.

6. Thereis an excellentnew studyof theRussophiles: Anna Veronika Wendland, Die Russophilenin Galizien:Ukrainische Konservative zwischen Österreich und Rußland,1848-1915 (Vienna, 2001).

7. IaroslavHordynsTcyi, Do istoriikul'turnoho i politychnoho zhyttia v Halychyniu 60-tykhrr. XIX u, ZbirnykFilol'oeichnoï sektsiï NTSh 16 (Lviv,1917), 63-89.

8. CollectaneaS. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu decretainstruetiones rescriptapro apostolicismissionibus , n. 1243 (Rome,1907), 1: 685-88.

9. LuigiGlinka, Diocesi ucraino-cattolicadi Cholm(Liquidazione ed incorporazione alla Chiesa russo-ortodossa)(Sec. XIX),Analecta OSBM, ser.2, sec. I , Opera34 (Rome, 1975).

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 260 HIMKA

10. EdithSaurer, Die politischenAspekte der österreichischen Bischofsernennungen 1867-1903,Forschungen zur Kirchengeschichte Österreichs 6 (Vienna and Munich, 1968), 158-68.

11 . John-PaulHimka, Religion and Nationality in WesternUkraine: The Greek Catholic Churchand theRuthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900(Montreal, 1999),32-41, 57-64.

12. StenografiereSprawozdania z czwartej sesyi czwartego peryodu Sejmu Krajowego KrólestwaGalicyi i Lodomeryiwraz z WielkiemKsiçstwem Krakowskiem w roku 1881: Posiedzenie1-29 ([Lviv],n.d.), 714-20.

13. Himka,Religion and Nationalityin WesternUkraine, 73-78.

14. M. Karovets',Velyka reforma chyna sv. VasyliiaV 1882 r.,pt. 1 (Zhovkva,1933), pt. 2 (Lviv, 1933), and pt. 3 (Zhovkva,1936); PorfirioPidruönyj, "Documenti riguardantil'inizio della riformaBasiliana in Galizia (1880-1882)," Analecta OSBM, ser.2, sec. 2, vol. 11 (17), fase. 1-4 (1982): 353^103.

15. Naumovych'sexcommunication was dated3 November1882; it was onlycon- firmed,however, on 5 July1885. Earlyin 1886 Naumovych,who enjoyedthe backingof KonstantinPobedonostsev, one of themost influential figures in the Russiangovernment and Church,left Galicia permanentlyand settledin Kyiv, wherehe convertedto Orthodoxy.He died in mysteriouscircumstances, from poison,in 1891.

16. See JulianPelesz, Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom von den aeltestenZeiten bis aufdie Gegenwart,2 vols.(Würzburg and Vienna, 1881).

17. John-PaulHimka, "The Issue of Celibacyat theLviv ProvincialSynod of 1891: UnpublishedDocuments from the Lviv and Przemysl(Peremyshl) Archives," in Mappa Mundi:Zbirnyk naukovykh prats' na poshanuIaroslava Dashkevychaz nahodyioho 70-richchia;Studia in honoremJaroslavi Daskevyc septuagenario dedicata,ed. IhorHyrych et al., 648-70 (Lviv,1996).

18. The bestwork on Sheptytsicyiremains Paul R. Magocsi,ed., with the assistance of AndriiKrawchuk, Morality and Reality: The Life and Timesof Andrei Sheptyts'kyi (Edmonton,1989).

19 . Shematyzmvsechestnoho klyra hr. kat. mytropolytal 'nóiA rkhydiietseziï L 'vivskoï na rik1900 (Lviv, 1900); Schematismus universi venerabilis cleri dioeceseos gr.-cath. Premisliensispro anno Domini 1900 (Przemysl, 1900); and Shematyzm vseho klyra hreko-katolycheskoïEparkhiï Stanyslavivskoï na rikbozhii 1900 (Stanyslavi v, 1900).

20. "Ad maioremPoloniae gloriam," Dilo, no. 182, 1908. The authorof theedito- rial was theanarchist Mykhailo Lozynsicyi. The actualeditor of Dilo, L'onhyn TsehelsTcyi,was forcedto resignbecause of the breach of tact.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:30:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions