INTERVIEW: The Vatican's administrator for Toronto eparchy

As of December 29, 1992, the Rev. Roman Danylak is the apostolic administrator for the Toronto Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy, with episcopal character, that is, with the powers of a bishop.

The Rev. Danylak, formerly a consultor to the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Canon (Church) Law for the Eastern Churches (1973-1990) has been serving as the chancellor of the Toronto Eparchy since 1966, and as pastor of its cathedral, St. Josaphat's, since 1978.

In the wake of two weeks of increasing controversy over his appointment, The Weekly contacted the Rev. Danylak at his residence at St. Josaphat's parish on January 16. The interview was conducted by Andrij Wynnyckyj.

PART I

Q: How did you learn of your appointment?

A: The Church in Canada, as well as the Ukrainian Church at large, had been waiting for several new appointments for the diocese in Canada. According to the Canon Law of not only the Western Church but also of the Eastern Church, and according to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, bishops are invited by the pope to proffer their resignations at age 75. Because of the celebrations of the Millennium [of Christianity in Ukraine] and other factors, the Holy See deferred the acceptance of these letters of resignation, for example, those of Archbishop (Maxim) Hermaniuk in Winnipeg and Bishop Isidore (Borecky) in Toronto.

However, the people knew that in the Ukrainian Catholic Church something was going to change, and the Synod of the Church, held in Lviv under the leadership of Patriarchal Archbishop Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky had conferred about possible new appointments. It took place in March or April of last year, I don't remember the exact date. I'll check that out...

Q: In May.

A: OK, in May. Possibly an element on the agenda was the proposal of candidates for those dioceses to which new bishops were to be appointed. Among these were Toronto, Winnipeg and Australia. The bishop of Australia - not only had he reached age 75, but he was also very ill. In the meantime, the diocese of New Westminster, British Columbia, became vacant with the death of Bishop Jerome Chimy, so that post had to be filled as well.

So everyone was on pins and needles, everyone was conjecturing who the new candidates would be and when they would be appointed. After the presentation of a list of candidates by the Synod to the Holy See, the latter continued its work by conducting an investigation to ensure that the people proposed by the Synod were above all suspicion, men of rectitude, of knowledge, capable of handling the important task of guiding the heart of the Church, the diocese. Questionnaires were sent out to people who might know something about the proposed candidates.

Again, the wait was unduly long. I heard rumors that I was among the candidates, not necessarily for Toronto, but these were only rumors, because according to the rules of the Synod and the rules of appointment of a bishop, this information is top secret. Everybody is bound by papal or pontifical secret, and they cannot at any time divulge the names of the candidates. However, people can't contain their tongues, and they were conjecturing all parts of possibilities.

Because such a long time had passed, I personally had come to the conviction that the decision had already been made, that I had been bypassed and that I was not one of the proposed candidates. This was my conjecture. And so I was taking care of my own business as pastor of the cathedral and working in this eparchy.

And then, on Friday, December 18, I received a phone call from Ottawa, from the office of the pro nuncio, Msgr. [Carlo] Curis... asking to come the following Saturday. This was impossible because I had commitments in my parish connected with Christmas, not our Christmas but the other, and that Sunday. So we finally decided on an appointment for Monday, December 24. When I arrived, I was greeted by Monsignor Curis and informed that I was chosen to be apostolic administrator.

Normally, I would have asked for a week's time to go to a retreat, pray, and make a decision in the Lord. However, because it was the end of the year and nowadays everyone presses for time, I simply asked to go to the chapel, and in the end, I had to come to a decision. My decision was one of obedience. And I accepted.

We then discussed the issue of publication my appointment in the L'Osservatore Romano in Rome. There was a tentative agreement on the details of publication a little earlier, but because the press wasn't ready, the actual proclamation of my name and that of Metropolitan-elect [Michael] Bzdel was set at December 29.

A few days before that I was asked if I had any reservations about the date, but it happens to coincide with my birthday, so it was rather fortuitous.

Q: What would be your next step in assuming your duties?

A: I have already assumed all of them, because my appointment was effective immediately upon the day of publication. In terms of the actual exercise of these duties, I've already made some appointments, but because so much is taken up now in preparing for the actual consecration, the whole focus of the various committees in the eparchy are directed to that. I've begun meeting with the individual priests and considering our relationship with them.

Q: Which ones? Whom have you met?

A: That's confidential. Then I met with the [eparchy's] lawyer, because this isn't a simple transfer of the title, it involves chaning the name on various accounts. The government has to be informed of my authority within the diocese, because they have to know who the official agent for the eparchy of Toronto will be.

Q: So you have been discussing the matter of transfer of authority with Bishop Borecky?

A: Yes, with his solicitor. This is a practice that is as old as the Church itself and it's not only the practice of the Western Church but of the Eastern Church as well.

For the benefit of your readers, I will provide a bit of history. In the 16th century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople found himself in a considerable amount of trouble at the hands of the Turks, in seeking moral and financial support, he would go through different dioceses, not only in Greece, but in Russia and other countries that were out of his jurisdiction. To make sure that he had their support and maintained his control, he would appoint exarchs - that's what the Byzantine Church called them. His exarchs would exercise power over the archbishop of Kyyiv and power over all the bishops. So we see that this form of authority was exercised not only by the Catholic universal Church, but also by the various patriarchates - sometimes to the detriment of the Church and sometimes for its well-being.

It is applicable not only in cases such as this one at a time when the incumbent bishop has passed the age limit, but also at times of persecution of the Church or when the bishop has problems dealing with the government, such as the whole period between 1945 and 1990.

Q: You mentioned that you were in contact with Bishop Borecky's solictor, which suggests you might not have been communicating with him directly. Have you?

A: No, no. We've met. I've met with the solicitor and with Bishop Borecky. The three of us are working to regularize all of the relationships. Not his and mine, but things that relate to the banking system and the civil governments - federal, provincial and municipal. Some of the bureaucratic red tape has to be dealt with.

As far as the internal workings of the Church are concerned, there's nothing there. He has received the [Vatican's] communication he has welcomed me - not as his successor, but as the apostolic administrator.

You know, I have worked closely with him as his chancellor since 1966, so he and I have always had a good relationship.

Q: Could you offer an opinion why you were appointed as apostolic administrator at this point, other than the matter of deferred resignation? Because it has been brought to our attention that such Church officials are appointed for serious and special reasons. What would they be in this case?

A: In this particular case, the only reason is that Bishop Borecky has passed his age of retirement. Feeling himself strong and healthy, he felt that he had all the faculties needed to govern the Church. However, because Rome has been very insistent that all bishops do submit their resignations... He has now well passed the mandatory age of retirement of 75.

Q: When Bishop Borecky was initially asked to submit it, he refused to do so rather forcefully did he not? And he was strongly supported by those in the eparchy. Why would he have reconsidered?

A: I don't know. In things like that I didn't want to...As his chancellor I was faithful to him. I was his closest collaborator. I was aware that this meant that it would mean that he would lose his job, so I didn't want to raise the issue.

Q: As you are no doubt aware, a considerable controversy has arisen around your appointment. What would you suggest might be the reason for the controversy?

A: Rumors have reached me. Many have reserved emotions about me, and this reserve does not simply concern me personally, but also because of some of the issues involved. This attitude of reserve has existed for some years, and now that I have become their bishop, there is a lot of fear that has been raised in their minds.

Just as before, when the Holy See requested Bishop Isidore to present his resignation, the other priests in an act of support for him convened a meeting to gather signatures challenging the authority of Rome to do what they did, that this was counter to the Eastern tradition and whatnot. I was not a party or privy to any of that, and likewise now...

They're using many arguments that don't really correspond to the truth. They have a semblance of truth, but they aren't the truth. Let me give you some of the arguments, they use. They claim that the Holy See, in making this appointment, went against the expressed wishes of the Synod. This would imply that they disregarded the list of three candidates that had been presented.

Whether the Holy See did that or whether I was on the list of the three, I don't know. However, because everybody is bound by secrecy in this regard, they are simply going on the basis of rumor.

For your information, one of the rumors circulating in June-July-August was that I was to go to Winnipeg, not Toronto. This is the rumor. So they're using this argument because they don't want to see me here, because they're afraid of me. It's a fallacious argument with a semblance of truth.

They allege that the authority of the Synod has been flaunted and the insinuation has been made that Rome is not only flaunting its authority, but also not contributing to the betterment of relations between our particular Ukrainian Church and the Holy See. That's one type of argument I can remember.

Secondly, my appointment is not as bishop of Toronto, but as apostolic administrator. The Holy See, when it acts in this regard, acts immediately and directly.

I needn't have been made a bishop. The incumbent bishop had been informed years ago that if he did not present his resignation that an apostolic administrator would be appointed. The Church had done this before in Canada. When Bishop [Neil] Savaryn found it difficult to step down... Well, he already had an auxiliary, so his auxiliary was appointed administrator.

The apostolic pro nuncio shared with me the experiences of other Churches in similar cases. Previously, when priests were given the authority of an apostolic administrator, they experienced considerable difficulties. This is why they decided to give me an appointment with episcopal character. This is why I am going to be ordained, not as bishop of Toronto, but as bishop of Nyssa, in Asia Minor.

Q: So will there be two titular bishops in this eparchy?

A: No, no. Bishop Borecky will be the ordinary eparch of Toronto, only he will no longer be the acting bishop.

Q: What if the Vatican were in conflict the Synod. What then? A decree of the second Vatican Council was brought to our attention, which states that the Eastern Churches are to be ruled by synods, as is their tradition, not by an other authority.

A: Nothing has been breached in the authority of the Synod, of the Archbishop [Lubachivsky], or of the Eastern Churches. This practice is as old as the hills. It goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity.

At the beginning of the interview, I indicated the many instances of the appointment of exarchs. Secondly, [I wish to address] the comment about the Eastern Churches, that it does not hold with tradition that bishops resign.

Well, it was not in the tradition of the Western Church either. The Second Vatican Council introduced a new experience, learning from the human experience. From business and whatnot, and also from 2,000 years of experience with the frailty of men. There comes a time, even at the highest level, even that of the Curia in Rome, that people have held office who should have long ago resigned. Cardinal Latoviani for example, was going blind in his latter years, but he found it very difficult to step down.

So this is why the council, not just the Vatican, the council of all the bishops of the world, East and West, proposed this - that bishops resign at 75. Had the council had its way, it would have been automatic and mandatory. At 75, you automatically cease in office.

But Pope Paul VI intervened with the interests of the dignity of the office in mind. He changed what the Vatican Council had wanted to decree and said no, the bishops will be asked to present their resignation. So the present pope is simply acting out this decree.

There was some discussion, because it came out of the Latin Code, on whether it applied to the Eastern Church. Our Synod of Bishops, after that council, decided, according to its own synodal decision, that its bishops would be asked to step down at age 75.

Finally, when the Eastern Code was published in 1990, it specifically spells out that bishops must resign at 75. It is now the law. So the arguments against this are specious. They're not canonical, not scientific, they're specious.

What was published in 1990 spelled it out clearly that what was decreed by the Second Vatican Council was the law. It had also become our particular law by decision of our synod.

Q: I want to bring up perhaps a petty detail, but in a sense a detail that illustrates the kinds of fears that people have about your appointment. Why has your ordination been arranged to take place at St. Michael's Cathedral, a Roman Catholic shrine, and not at a Ukrainian one?

A: Because it's the largest Catholic Church we have. Bishop Borecky was ordained there. Bishop Savaryn was ordained there. Bishop Filevych was ordained there. And why? Because it's the largest church that we have.

Q: So there's even a measure of consistency to it.

A: It's not a matter of consistency at all. Perhaps if I build a bigger cathedral, whoever comes afterwards will be ordained there. Remember this is an event not of St. Joseph's parish [that of the Bishop of Toronto], not even of the Catholic eparchy of Toronto - this is an event of the entire Catholic Church. And all of the Catholic Church wants to participate.

I should actually go to Rome, and be ordained in the Basilica of St. Peter to do justice to all the people who want to participate.

CONCLUSION

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 31, 1993, No. 5, Vol. LXI

| Home Page |