THE UKRAINIAN GREEK- ON

SOME COMMENTS ON A RECENT DOCUMENT

NATALIA KOCHAN*

At their last meeting in Baltimore in July 9-19, 2000, the members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman and the Orthodox Church failed to agree to a final document. The problem of Uniatism, which was at the centre of discussions at the previ- ous meetings in Freising (1990) and in Balamand (1993), still remains a stum- bling block in Catholic-Orthodox relations and hampers theological dialogue. The loss of dynamism in the Joint Commission’s work has also another cause. The Commission, whose competence by definition is limited to theological questions, has attempted to consider practical matters before discussing theo- logical questions and obstacles. The Orthodox, however, insist on the importance of elaborating a common theological vision. They claim that only this vision can provide a key for understanding and settling practical matters. Formal theological dialogue with Rome has allowed the Orthodox to reassess their approach to the phenomenon of the Uniate (Eastern-Catholic) Churches. Initial radical demands by some Orthodox Churches to liquidate the Uniate Churches in principle, or at least to eliminate their participation in the Ortho- dox-Catholic dialogue, have given way to the acknowledgment of their right to exist and to serve to the needs of their believers. At the same time the Ortho- dox persistently stress the necessity of a common Orthodox-Catholic theo- logical evaluation of particular unions, like that of the established Uniate (Eastern-Catholic) Churches and the phenomenon of Uniatism itself. Common theological vision in this field presupposes a comprehensive knowledge of the subject, which neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox side possesses. It is impossible to come to a Catholic-Orthodox agreement on such a complex and controversial phenomenon as the Uniate Churches

* Natalia Kochan is a fellow of the Sociological Institute of the Ukrainian National Acad- emy of Sciences in Kiev. 270 NATALIA KOCHAN without taking also into consideration the standpoint of the Eastern-Catholic Churches: how do they understand themselves; how do they see their place and their part in Catholic-Orthodox relations; what characterizes them since their union with Rome and how is this different from their earlier Orthodox identity? The Uniate Churches’ rather long period of evolution as dogmati- cally Catholic Churches with an eastern rite confronts them with an uneasy question about their identity: are they Catholic or Orthodox, or different from both? This question becomes even more important if we consider that the position of the Uniate Churches in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue differs markedly from the position of the Catholic Church. Two documents that were accepted by the Synod of bishops of the Ukrain- ian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC) at its meeting of June 16-22, 2000 are worth mentioning from this point of view. The first one is called The Con- ception of the Ecumenical Standpoint of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church; the second, Practical Measures for Carrying out the Ecumenical Standpoint of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.1 Neither of these texts has been noticed at the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in Baltimore. Yet the first of these docu- ments, the Conception, could have served as the starting point for a joint dis- cussion of the theological questions which were on the agenda in Baltimore: the Eastern-Catholic Churches and Uniatism from an ecclesiological, - ical, and doctrinal perspective. The views expressed in these two documents are quite often different from or even opposed to the official position of Rome. For the Roman Catholic Church such differences pose problems, in theory and in practice, that are more serious than those pointed out by the Orthodox Church when it defines the particular unions and subsequently the Uniate Churches as ‘theological nonsense’. In the following I will concentrate above all on the first of these documents.

SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY

In several instances the authors of the Conception introduce rather strange inter- pretations of certain theological and historical terms. This can be illustrated from the very first lines of the document.

1 For both documents see the UGCC official newspaper Meta (), 2000, No. 8-9, pp. 4-5, 9. THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 271

The collective term ‘Kievan Church’ (Church of Kiev) first occurs in the preamble and is then frequently used throughout the text. Strictly speaking, this term is a neologism without any historical or theological foundation. From its foundation the ‘Church of Kievan Rus’ possessed metropolitan sta- tus under the jurisdiction of . The term ‘Kievan Church’ is used mainly to distinguish the Orthodox Church in from the Russ- ian Orthodox Church. In recent years the UGCC has begun to call itself ‘Kievan Church’ or ‘Church of the Kievan tradition’. The Conception defines this term as the unity of ‘those who feel themselves the heirs of our spiritual mother – the Church of Kiev’. Clearly, to use such an expression in an official church document is incor- rect, and not only because it has been never used before by scholars or the- ologians. The term ‘Kievan Church’ belongs to the sphere of ideology and mythology for a nation which came to nationhood and state-building much later than other European nations, especially its closest neighbours and Poland. It is one of the key terms for the newly founded ‘national’ Ortho- dox Churches with irregular status (the ‘ of Kiev’ and the Ukrain- ian Autocephalous Churches) and of those political parties and organizations that promote the idea of an independent in an independent Ukrainian state. Representatives of these religious and political currents declare the unification of all the Orthodox into one Ukrainian Church to be of prime importance for the nation’s political consolidation and a guarantee of its statehood. From the same milieu calls are frequently heard for unification between Orthodox and Greek-Catholics in the name of national unity and state-building. The Conception itself labels for Orthodox partners of the UGCC in ecu- menical dialogue the Churches ‘which belong to the Kievan tradition’, that is, Churches with indisputably Ukrainian self-identification. Curiously, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself is not regarded to be a part of this Kievan tradition and even not allowed to call itself ‘Ukrainian’ because it stands under the jurisdiction of Moscow. Although the overwhelming majority of belong precisely to this Church, its canonical links with the Moscow Patriarchate are interpreted in political and national categories. It thus appears that the UGCC has only two possible Orthodox partners for ecu- menical dialogue in Ukraine, the two ‘national’ Orthodox Churches mentioned above, which both still have an irregular status. 272 NATALIA KOCHAN

The UGCC’s application of the term ‘Kievan Church’ to itself also indi- cates the problems it has with its own identity. The UGCC uses a term rem- iniscent of its origins perhaps in order to deny its present hybrid state, but it sees these origins in narrow terms: it calls its earlier tradition ‘Eastern’, but never ‘Orthodox’. In addition, the term ‘Church of Kievan tradition’ has clear ideological implications in UGCC politics. One of its recent bishops’ Synods declared that the UGCC is no longer a provincial, Galician Church in the Ukraine, but should have an all-Ukrainian status. Its see should be trans- ferred from Lviv to the capital of the Ukraine, Kiev. This idea has its influ- ential promoters among both hierarchy and laity. Its promoters ignore the ques- tion of whether the majority of UGCC faithful would benefit from such a move. The large majority of the Greek-Catholics in the Ukraine (about four million on a total population of forty-eight million) live in Galicia. For the rest of the Ukraine the bishops give figures ranging from six to twenty thou- sand Greek-Catholic faithful. Another term of importance that is used in the Conception to refer to the UGCC is ‘Particular Church’. In the Vatican’s the formal status of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is given as the Major Arch- bishopric of Lviv. Unlike Catholic canonists, the UGCC interprets ‘particularity’ in a rather broad way. One could even say that ‘particularity’ is interpreted according to the Orthodox tradition. This broad interpretation of ‘particular- ity’ results in using (quite illegitimately) the title of ‘’ for the head of the UGCC and the qualification ‘patriarchical’ for the administrative struc- tures of the Major Archbishopric of Lviv. In the document, the bishops note in brackets that they refer to the Major only in the first instance where the title ‘patriarch’ is used for the head of the UGCC. Subsequently mention is made of other ‘Particular Catholic Churches’ (II, 6), and it is declared that the UGCC is in ‘full ’ with them. As for the See of Rome, it qualifies as an ‘inter-ecclesiastical structure of international level’ (II, 11). Will- ful confusion of two ecclesiologies, which are complementary but not in agree- ment, produces a kind of theological hybrid which Uniate protagonists some- times define as synthesis. Thus is created a kind of ‘particular ’, which is a contradiction in terms to say the least, and consequently the of Rome is transformed into a sister church of the UGCC. Greek-Catholic interpretation of the ecumenical category of ‘sister chur- ches’ also has its specific traits and has no analogies either in Catholic or in Orthodox . Chapter III of the Conception which is entitled, THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 273

‘Relations of the UGCC with particular sister churches’, opens with a para- graph on the ‘Relations of the UGCC with the Apostolic See and particular Catholic Churches’. Completely new in the theory of ecumenism is the expo- sition of the relations between the UGCC and the Catholic Church in the same chapter as that on the relations between the UGCC and the Orthodox and Protestant Churches. The See of Rome is treated as (just) one of the sis- ter churches of the UGCC. Although the Conception proclaims ecclesial unity with the of Rome as ‘one of the fundamental grounds of the UGCC’s identity’ (III, 17), in reality it is recognised only with certain reservations. Thus, the Code of Canons for the Eastern-Catholic Churches states explicitly that the Apos- tolic See in Rome has the authority in the name of the entire Church to conduct ecumenical discussions with each of the Catholic Churches (Tit. XVII, Canon 904, §1). In the Conception, however, the See of Rome is treated merely as one of the UGCC’s partners in ecumenical activity:

‘In order to make more active its participation in the international ecu- menical movement the UGCC tries to broaden and deepen its contacts and to establish permanent cooperation with inter-church structures at international level, in particular with the Apostolic See, the Council of Euro- pean Bishops’ Conferences, the Conference of European Churches, and the World Council of Churches’ (III, 11).

Questions arise about the character of the UGCC’s relations with Rome, but they remain unanswered. How is it possible, for instance, that at one and the same time the Roman Catholic Church could be a sister church of the UGCC (III) and an ‘inter-ecclesiastical structure of international level’ (II, 11)? Can the UGCC voluntarily and one-sidedly reject , yet continue to call itself a Catholic Church? Does the UGCC deny the teaching of the mag- isterium that the Roman Church is the Mother Church to all other Churches? More puzzling still is that the Greek-Catholic hierarchy made this statement just after receiving Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter of June 30, 2000 to the heads of Bishops’ Conferences. In this letter the Cardinal emphasises the inadmis- sibility of the term ‘sister church’ in relation to ‘Protestant communities’ and reminds the bishops that the Catholic Church is ‘not a sister but a mother to all the particular Churches’. The same strict requirement of the magis- terium was repeated in (No. 17) of September 2000. 274 NATALIA KOCHAN

The Conception emphasises ‘the specific ecclesiological and theological posi- tion [of the UGCC] in the Catholic Church’ and calls for ‘putting into life the Holy Father’s wish to make more concrete the form of exercising the pri- macy of the Pope of Rome, in whose person coincide the ministries of Ecu- menical Hierarch, , and the Bishop of Rome’ (III, 21). This call is of major importance for today’s UGCC. It is worth recalling that the late head of the UGCC, Cardinal Myroslav Ljubachivskyj, in his reac- tion to Cardinal Edward Cassidy concerning the Balamand statement on Uniatism, likewise stressed that the UGCC is a sister church not only to the Orthodox Church, but to the Roman Catholic Church as well, and insisted that canonical relations between the UGCC and Rome should be changed in a way that they would be acceptable to the Orthodox. Most likely the UGCC regards juridical dependence on the Church of Rome as a burden. Rome is scarcely ready to decentralize its authority in a way that would satisfy the UGCC’s claim for partnership in relations between the Eastern-Catholic Churches and Rome. If such a claim becomes more radical it may lead to the creation of yet another ‘national’ Catholic Church rather than to a restructuring of the Roman Catholic Church. The UGCC’s difficulties with its Catholic identity are not limited to its rela- tions with the Church of Rome; they are also manifest in its relations with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the Ukraine. The latter is the only ‘Particular Catholic Church’ that is mentioned directly in the Conception. Historically, relations between Roman Catholics and Greek-Catholics in the Ukraine have been complicated and strained. The Conception says nothing about the urgent need to overcome centuries of prejudices and conflict between the Catholics of the two rites. The arguments used clearly indicate that it is the UGCC that has problems in accepting the presence of Roman Catholics in the Ukraine. Nothing else explains the Greek-Catholic bishops’ stress on (and confusion of) the nationality and citizenship of the Roman Catholics in the Ukraine. The reader can only guess if it is due to a lack of knowledge or to an abundance of emotions. ‘Formerly its [the Roman Catholic Church] believers were mainly non-Ukrainians, but at the present time most of them are citizens of the Ukraine’. In connection with the activity of the Roman Catholic Church in the Ukraine the UGCC bishops cite an official curial document for the first and last time in the entire text of the Conception: THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 275

‘The UGCC is worried by and shares the anxiety of the Ukrainian Ortho- dox about some aspects of the Roman Catholic Church’s activity on the territory of Ukraine, which goes beyond the needs of the spiritual care of the -rite believers. Formerly the did not take into con- sideration the close links between the Christian heritage of the Kievan tra- dition and the ethnic and cultural identity of Ukrainians, and this resulted in misunderstandings and conflicts. Today the problem urgently needs to be settled in the spirit of p. 10 of the Instruction for the right implementa- tion of the liturgical directions of the CCEC which “condemns any attempts to separate Eastern believers from their Churches … by propounding ways of thinking, , and piety not in conformity to their own spiri- tual heritage”' (II, 20).

Ironically, the Instruction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to which the bishops refer is based on the directives of the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches and is only addressed to the Eastern-Catholic Churches, ‘with the aim to help them realize fully their identity’ (5). In addition, the Instruction reaffirms that Roman Catholic priests should keep to the directives of the Constitution on the Sacred of the (4). Not accidentally the Instruction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches draws attention to the identity of these Churches, an identity which cannot be reduced to questions or to other outward differences from the Latin tradition. Even the few foregoing examples of the Greek-Catholic vision of ecumenism show that it differs from both the Catholic and Orthodox approaches. Most experts explain this by citing the numerous, sometime incompatible hybridisms – ritual, doctrinal, canonical – that developed over time in the UGCC as an Eastern-Catholic Church. Hybridism has pene- trated the UGCC to such an extent that a new identity of Uniate Churches might arise by nature. The authors of the UGCC’s ecumenical conception are either unconscious of this option or simply do not take it seriously, since they state that the UGCC ‘still cherishes and fosters Eastern spirituality, the- ology, canon law, and rite’ (II, 6). 2

2 The Greek-Catholic treatment of conciliarism (sobornost’) is an example of theological hybridism: ‘… elaborated in the writings of the and ecumenical councils the category of conciliarism has received a new scholarly and theological foundation during the last two 276 NATALIA KOCHAN

THE AIM AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE ECUMENICAL POSITION OF THE UGCC

The Conception mentions the necessity of overcoming the ‘present plurality of the Churches’, and therefore of achieving the full unity of the Church. The preservation of the ‘national and cultural identity of every people’ is treated as a precondition of such unity:

The UGCC considers the final goal of ecumenism to be the achievement of the complete unity of the Church of Christ. The present plurality of the Churches is no more than a provisional reality, and we fill it with the love and light of Christ’s , although this reality is not the ideal which will conclude our efforts. Full union can only be achieved if we keep to the principle of ‘unity in plurality’, which guarantees the preservation of eccle- siastical and national and cultural identity of every people (I, 4).

The Conception does not make it clear what exactly should be overcome in the ‘present plurality of the Churches’ for the sake of unity: is it the variety of institutional forms or is it doctrinal differences? Nevertheless, in connec- tion with the Churches in the Ukraine the final goal is seen as the institu- tional unification into one Church both of the UGCC and of the Orthodox Churches of the ‘Kievan tradition’:

‘The UGCC prays for the unity of the Holy Churches of and sees the fulfillment in Ukraine of these in the union of all the Churches

or three centuries. The foundation and the aim of conciliarism in the Church is the con- ciliarism of the Holy , Father, Son and . God the Son became a man in Jesus Christ to invite humanity to participate through the Church in the conciliarism of the Most Holy Trinity’ (II, 2). ‘The conciliarism of the Church is manifested continually and is edified by unity in the , by the preaching of , and by the common confession of in the ministry of bishops, presbyters, and . The conciliarism of all believers becomes evi- dent and is present in the conciliarism of the bishops, and for the Catholics the ministry of the Ecumenical Hierarch is a visible sign of this conciliarism. In the UGCC the con- ciliarism of its believers is manifested and grows due to the conciliarism of the bishops, which reveals itself in their eucharistic and synodal meeting coming together’ (II, 3). THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 277

of the Kievan tradition in one Particular Ukrainian Church in the form of one Patriarchate in communion both with the Church of Rome and with other sister-churches of the Christian East’ (III, 39).

It is easy to see that cause and effect are confused in this statement. Restora- tion of unity cannot but come about at the very level where it was broken. The Churches which came into being by way of separate unions with Rome were and still remain hostages of the development of Orthodox-Catholic rela- tions. The early Church knew no unions; separation as such gave rise to unions and the Eastern-Catholic Churches became possible only after the fragile visible unity between East and West was broken. The problem of the Uniate Churches can only be settled simultaneously with, or rather after between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches is restored. Presently, the UGCC, as one of the Uniate Churches, finds its dependence on a ‘mother church’ ever more difficult. It claims to be a leader in the process of reconciliation and continues to insist that its existence is a convenient model of future full unity. The principles of the Conception indicate that the UGCC has begun, or is about to begin, to drift away from Rome, although not in the direction of . While members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue argue about Uniatism, the UGCC declares as its final ecumenical goal to set up (‘restore’) full communion between the fictional ‘Church of Kiev’ and the Church of Constantinople while maintaining communion with Rome (III, 22). This kind of approach to unity has no correlation to the major thrust and results of the work of the Joint Theological Commission. The Conception does not explain how it is pos- sible to set up full communion at the local level if such a communion is not restored beforehand between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Two priorities in the UGCC’s ecumenical activity, one external and one inter- nal (Ukrainian), are highlighted in the document:

a) At the inter-church level: to affirm its original identity as an Eastern- Catholic Church, to demonstrate the richness of the Eastern tradition to Latin-rite Christians and to be a representative of Catholicism in the Orthodox East; b) At the Ukrainian level: to foster relations with the Churches of the Kievan tradition on the basis of a revival of the common heritage of 278 NATALIA KOCHAN

Kiev’s , mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, common evangelization, preservation of religious and cultural identity both in Ukraine and in the (II, 8, a-b).

These declared ecumenical goals sufficiently limit, if they do not entirely cancel, the possibility for the UGCC to take part in the work of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission. The UGCC’s ecumenical Con- ception threatens to debase theology itself, both Orthodox and Catholic; no sound theological statement is replete with ethnicity, nationalism, and national culture. Moreover, no one in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue ever expressed a need for mediators, especially not of such mediators who struggle with their own identity. Those who fail to synthesize the Orthodox and Catholic elements in their own development and create hybrid modifications can hardly be recognized as mediators. It is worth mentioning that stress on reviving Kievan Christian traditions is absent in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). It never lost those traditions, because it never broke as radically with its early history as the Uniate Church did by changing its jurisdiction from Constantinople to Rome. More- over, the continuity of the Kievan Rus’ tradition is preserved in Russia and the to the same extent, if not more, than in the Ukraine. But this Church, solely on nationalistic and political grounds, fails to fall under the Greek-Catholic classification of a Church of the ‘Kievan tradition’. When the ‘Kievan tradition’ for Orthodoxy or Greek-Catholicism in the Ukraine is emphasized as an absolute value, this limits or reduces the history of the Church to one time period. The Church, however, is not an archeo- logical museum, but a living, dynamic body, and changes are inevitable: some elements pass away for ever, while new elements appear, called for by con- crete needs and integrated into the Church’s life. The Church cannot return to a period of history long past, since the Church by its nature should be basi- cally directed to the future. Emphasis on the necessity of preserving the reli- gious and cultural identity of the Ukrainian Churches home and abroad, when the world is challenged by globalization and , might reflect a lack of understanding of the Church’s basic nature and mission. This deviation from the prime mission of the Church which is to proclaim the Gospel among all people, reveals a great deal about the authors of the UGCC’s statement. About these fundamental issues the Conception has nothing to say. THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 279

RELATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

The title of the paragraph ‘Relations of the UGCC with the Russian Ortho- dox Church’ (III, 27-31) is somewhat artificial, since the UGCC has no direct contacts with the Patriarchate of Moscow. The paragraph rather reveals the basic principles of the UGCC’s attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. These principles are the basis for any future relations the UGCC may have with the Russian Orthodox Church. Politics colors these principles, beginning with terminology. The Slavic languages can differentiate between ‘the Russian Church’ and the ‘Church of Rus’. In Russian as in Ukrainian the formal name of the Church is ‘Church of Rus’’ (conciliar decision of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1943), but not the ‘Russian Church’; the latter has connotations of the and its colonial past. The ‘Church of Rus’ is the term which emphasizes the common historical roots of the Eastern Slavs. A willful confusion of these nuances and the indiscriminate use of the two terms allow for political prejudices to cloud ecclesial issues. Does not such terminological confusion contradict the Conception’s declara- tion about the need ‘to avoid unfriendly actions and utterances, which could cause or deepen mutual prejudices and distrust’ (III, 31, c)? The final statement of this paragraph demonstrates that the authors of the Greek-Catholic Conception are poorly acquainted with Orthodox life in Rus- sia and the Ukraine and ignore the Vatican’s principles of Catholic-Ortho- dox relations. The bishops write about

‘the quest for areas of mutual trust and cooperation both at the level of inter-church relations and at the level of the spiritual care of believers of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine and of Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Russia’ (III, 31, d).

What is wrong with this seemingly innocuous statement? First of all, it dis- torts the real state of affairs for both the Orthodox in the Ukraine and Greek- Catholics in Russia. Formal annual statistics of the Ukrainian State Committee for Religious Affairs never list any Orthodox parishes in the Ukraine under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow. The Ukrainian Ortho- dox Church enjoys a broad autonomy and it is incorrect to call its members the ‘faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine’. Thus, any questions 280 NATALIA KOCHAN about ‘destroyed Orthodox parishes on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate’ in Ukraine concern the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), not Moscow. When Greek-Catholic ecumenists label the UOC the ‘Moscow Patriarchate in the Ukraine’, or, as it is often found in Greek-Catholic peri- odicals, the ‘Moscovite Church in the Ukraine’, they themselves provide examples of ‘unfriendly actions and utterances, which can cause or deepen mutual prejudices and distrust’. Second, there are indeed a few Greek-Catholic parishes in Russia.3 Their strong engagement in national and cultural questions deprives them of the possibil- ity of growth as a religious community. Natural processes of assimilation may bring an end to Greek-Catholic communities in Russia, unless they give pref- erence to religious matters, and not national. Greek-Catholic communities, like other religious communities in Russia, like to emphasize the discriminative char- acter of Russian legislation on religious freedom, which limits the rights of new, ‘non-traditional’ religious organizations in the country. This is, indeed, an important point for negotiations both at ecclesiastical and governmental lev- els. The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches reserves the preroga- tive to negotiate to the Apostolic See in Rome (CCEO, Can. 904 §1). Rome negotiates both with Russian authorities and with the Patriarchate of Moscow about Catholics in Russia, regardless of their nationality or rite. Is the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches of any validity for the UGCC, or has its hierarchy exempted itself from its authority?

THE UGCC’S ATTITUDE TO THE DIVISIONS AMONG THE ORTHODOX IN THE UKRAINE

The principles outlined in the Conception concerning the ‘Relations of the UGCC with the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine' also contradict the formal standpoint of the Catholic Church. The rules for the implementation of ecu- menical principles in the territory of a newly independent state issued by the

3 Official sources in 1995 listed only four Greek-Catholic communities in the Altai region. In 1997 there was one Greek-Catholic community registered in the Russian Federation. See the statistics of the Department on Affairs of Non-Governmental and Religious Orga- nizations of the Ministry of Justice of RF (1 January 1997). THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 281

Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity on 25 March 1995 demand that bishops, synods of the Eastern-Catholic Churches, and bishops’ confer- ences act in accordance with the directives of the 's Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (§164). Since the Ukraine gained its independence, inner divisions in the Ukrain- ian Orthodox Church have caused deep crises. This is a typical situation in the post-communist societies of Eastern Europe. The new authorities in the Ukraine, the same communists who quickly became nationalists attempted to establish a state Church. They did not succeed, but they did provoke divi- sions within the Church and polarized the discussion of a ‘national Ukrain- ian Church/Christianity'. The majority of Orthodox faithful in the Ukraine still belong to the UOC under the jurisdiction of Moscow, which is the only Orthodox Church with canonical status. The two other Orthodox Churches, the Patriarchate of Kiev and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, each claim to be a national Church and strive to gain canonical recognition from Con- stantinople. How to deal with this situation, not rare in the Orthodox world, is clari- fied for the Eastern-Catholic Churches in the instruction mentioned above of the Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity: bishops’ conferences and synods of Eastern-Catholic Churches should see to it that Catholics do not participate in groups that are not recognized as ecclesial communities (from §160 to §170). In the Ukrainian context this means that the UGCC may have some degree of communion only with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of Moscow. Because this provision has never been observed by the UGCC, the Catholic organization Pro Oriente organized an ecumenical meeting between the bishops of the UGCC and the UOC in Vienna during the summer of 1998. A joint resolution at the end of the meeting obliged both sides to ‘respect the canonical decisions of one another'.4 Translated into plain words, this means that the UGCC, whether it intends to engage in dialogue with the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine or not, should end its close relations with the two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches that have no regular status. In this way Western European Catholics tried to help

4 Agency for Religious Information of the UGCC, Lviv, 10 July 1998, pp. 2-3. 282 NATALIA KOCHAN the UGCC to keep to international principles of ecumenism, and thus, to help it take its place in international ecumenical dialogue. The UGCC’s commitment ‘to respect the canonical decisions' of the UOC remained a commitment on paper only. Two years later Cardinal Cassidy had to stress once more in his interview with the Ukrainian newspaper Den’ (7 July 2000): ‘Since two of the Ukrainian Churches failed to gain recognition [from Orthodox Churches], the Catholic Church also cannot recognize them, as this would lead to serious complications with the rest of the Orthodox Churches. Traditionally we recognize in our ecumenical rela- tions only those Churches which have the recognition of all Orthodoxy. Whether to recognize a Church or not is a prerogative and a problem of Orthodoxy, not ours'. The UGCC finds the Roman authorities' approach unacceptable:

‘Taking into account the present uncertain status of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, the UGCC does not pretend to have authority to evaluate the attemps indi- vidually of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [under the jurisdiction of Moscow], the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church to represent Orthodoxy in Ukraine. In its relations with the above mentioned Churches the UGCC proceeds from the principle that the three of them have the common his- torical heritage of the Kievan Church’ (III, 32).

This paragraph again displays confusion and a lack of logic. The prerogative to evaluate the canonical status of an Orthodox Church can never belong to the UGCC. Moreover, it is incorrect to draw a direct correlation between the canonical status of a Church and its historical heritage, as the UGCC bish- ops do here. Greek-Catholic ecumenists sum up their policy as follows:

‘Taking into account the principle of non-interference in inter-Orthodox relations, the UGCC in its policy with regard to other Churches will try to maintain working contacts and dialogue with all the jurisdictions. The UGCC bases its policy on the principles that: a) it is impossible to settle the problem of the reconciliation among Churches while the interests of some jurisdictions are ignored; b) the involvement of all the THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 283

Ukrainian Churches into international Christian processes will promote positive changes both within these Churches and in the relations among Churches in general’ (III, 34).

Again confusion reigns. There are not several Orthodox jurisdictions in the Ukraine, but only one canonical jurisdiction, while the rest are self-pro- claimed independent Churches, not recognized by any Orthodox Church. Involvement of the Orthodox in international Christian life is conditioned by canonical status; the moment they gain this they are automatically involved in the Pan-Orthodox community. The position of the UGCC with regard to ‘national Orthodox Churches' in the Ukraine is not a ‘false irenism' in ecumenical activity (CCEO, canon 905), but a denial of its basic principles. Catholic ecumenists may interpret the following statement of their Greek-Catholic colleagues as a threat to the results of their ecumenical efforts: ‘The new ecumenical initiatives which come from the UGCC will help the Apostolic See to evaluate more pro- foundly the place and the role of the UGCC in the international Christian community' (III, 19). In fact, it is likely that these initiatives will undermine the ecumenical achievements of the Holy See. For example, due to the ‘spe- cial ecumenical efforts' of the UGCC, the Ukraine became the first country with an Orthodox majority where the canonical Orthodox Church categor- ically refused to meet Pope John Paul II when he visited the country in 2001. One final characteristic feature of Greek-Catholic practical ecumenism must be mentioned. While the Balamand statement insists that Orthodox and Greek-Catholic communities should settle their problems by themselves, without the intervention of civil authorities, the Conception calls on the help of ‘Ukrainian non-governmental and political structures and authorities' (II, 12) to settle inter-denominational conflicts.

THE UGCC’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROTESTANTS

The chapter ‘Relations of the UGCC with Particular Sister Churches' con- cludes with a paragraph entitled ‘Relations of the UGCC with Protestant Churches and church communities' (III, 40-44). Strictly speaking, both the Catholic and Orthodox positions refuse Protestant communities the name ‘churches', say nothing of ‘sister churches'. 284 NATALIA KOCHAN

Classical , both Lutheran and Reformed, has had little rep- resentation historically in the Ukraine. At the present time this Protestantism is represented in the Ukraine by small religious communities of national minorities (103 communities of the Reformed Church, composed mainly of ethnic Hungarians in the Transcarpathian region, 35 communities of German Lutherans, 1 Swedish Lutheran, and 1 Anglican community). In addition, there are Evangelicals, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and charis- matic communities. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church main- tains relations with these communities. The authors of the Conception, nev- ertheless, proclaim the necessity of ‘contacts and of cooperation with Protestant Churches and church communities' and of ‘discussion with them of certain theological categories'. The document makes no distinction between the Protestant communities properly speaking and the various evangelical, charis- matic, and other groups mentioned above. It also does not specify possible subjects for a future dialogue, nor does it indicate with which groups such a dialogue could become possible. The document makes abundantly clear, however, that discussion about cer- tain theological categories is needed not between the UGCC and Protestants, but between the UGCC and the Catholic Church. An analysis of this Greek-Catholic synodal document shows that on impor- tant doctrinal, canonical, and ecclesiological questions the position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church differs from and in some cases opposes the official position of the Catholic Church. When the Greek-Catholic hierar- chy declares its intention ‘to monitor the doctrinal contents in church peri- odicals at all the levels of the Church’s structure' (Practical Measures, 17, b), questions again arise. Which ‘doctrinal contents' will be under control: Catholic or ‘Greek-Catholic’? The document’s context provides no basis for a definite answer. Does this not suggest the possibility of a new division within the Catholic Church, with the same good intentions as during the Refor- mation, but now under the slogan of ‘easternization'? As mentioned above, the document contains only one direct quotation, and that slanted, from a formal document of the Roman Apostolic See. The bishops failed to ground their ecumenical vision by referring to the magis- terium or to other fundamental Roman documents. They have limited them- selves to a general list of the recommended literature. Ten items in this list are official Catholic documents, and four Greek-Catholic documents. Among THE UKRAINIAN GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ECUMENISM 285 the latter are writings of Metropolitan Andrew Sheptyckyj from 1907–1943, in which the question of church unity is treated in the spirit of post-Tri- dentine . Included is also the message of Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, ‘About Unity in Christ' (1976), where unity in Christ is reduced to the national and confessional unity of the Ukrainian people, under a fictive Ukrainian Greek-Catholic-Orthodox Patriarchate. A perusal of the Conception shows that some Catholic theologians could be right when they say that the shaping of a new, specifically Eastern- has been launched.5 Answers to questions from the Baltimore agenda are thus still needed: is there a need to examine and evaluate the Eastern- Catholic (Uniate) Churches under doctrinal, ecclesiological, canonical, and historical aspects? Uniatism still needs to be defined clearly. The existence of the Uniate Churches challenges the Catholic Church even more than it challenges the Orthodox Churches. For Orthodoxy the origin and existence of Uniate Churches remains like an open wound. For the Catholic Church their existence too often is a real problem. Obviously, it is too early to discuss and perhaps to settle practical matters at the level of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue. First we should add to our knowledge about such a complex phenomenon as contemporary East- ern-Catholicism.

5 See Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 39 (1998), No. 1. The authors of the volume try to substantiate this Eastern-Catholic theology.