LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (02/20/94)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Kudos for covering Toronto Eparchy

Dear Editor:

You should be congratulated on your frank and detailed coverage of the conflict within the Toronto Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy - a topic largely regarded as taboo and only timidly alluded to by the local Ukrainian press, even though this deplorable controversy has seriously split the community and has now been exacerbated by the libel suit filed by a group of priests against Bishop Roman Danylak (The Ukrainian Weekly, January 30).

However, you are incorrect in saying that the Vatican has remained silent in this dispute: indeed, in his letter of June 28, 1993, addressed to Bishop Isidore Borecky, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches, has expressly stated that the apostolic administrator (i.e., Bishop Danylak) was invested with all the rights and duties of an eparchial bishop, both in spiritual and in temporal matters, and that Bishop Borecky retained only the prerogatives of a liturgical character.

This clarification was repeated in Cardinal Silvestrini's letter of the same date addressed to Bishop Danylak, which also contained a statement to the effect that Bishop Borecky did not have jurisdiction over the Eparchy of Toronto and that any decision or measure taken by him either "in spiritualibus" or "in temporalibus" was void of any juridical effect.

Bohdan Budurowycz
Toronto

Space program not all Russian

Dear Editor:

President Bill Clinton in his State of the Union address described an American-Russian program in space as one of the major diplomatic achievements of his administration. The centerpiece of this well-advertised cooperative action focuses on the design, fabrication and deployment of a space station as a joint effort between NASA and its Russian counterpart. This joint effort is expected to realize technical, economic and political benefits for both countries.

The news media is telling the public that by employing U.S. and Russian scientists, technical benefits would be realized in making use of "Russian" liquid propellant motors in American-built rockets. Economic benefits would result in utilizing launching facilities in Kazakhstan, as well as "Russian" technical and operational personnel, thus reducing significantly the cost of the space station program. The political benefits for both countries will arise from personal contacts of American and Russian scientists in the post-Cold War era. Such a cooperative effort would hopefully reduce the proliferation of rocket weaponry, which has been a stated goal of U.S. foreign policy.

However, when President Clinton and the press refer to the "Russian" space program and "Russian" rockets, such references are not entirely accurate. It was the Soviet effort that produced the space program, encompassing mostly three former republics of the USSR, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the assets of the space-related industry became separated among the three independent countries: Russia, where most of the space research, design and engineering is carried out; Ukraine, where most of the rocket-manufacturing capability resides; and Kazakhstan, where the space-launching facilities are located.

Consequently, without the cooperation of these three republics there cannot be a "Russian" space program. Both Ukraine and Kazakhstan would need to be included in the proposed space effort. Ukraine should reasonably expect to be paid for its manufactured rockets, and Kazakhstan for the use of its launching facilities.

Today, political, economic and technical relations between the United States and Russia are characterized by a superficial cordiality. Such a superficial relationship overlays a gulf of real societal and cultural differences that lead to instances of dangerous misreading of issues and negotiations. United States policy still has a Moscow-centric orbit, ignoring the fact that Ukraine would need to be included if any cooperative space program is to succeed.

Natalia B. Lysyj
Canoga Park, Calif.

Re: Seagram's plan for Ukraine

Dear Editor:

It is well-known that alcohol is wide spread in our fatherland, being a serious enemy of the Ukrainian people.

Marta Kolomayets in her article (January 30) informs us about the invasion of Ukraine by more alcohol from abroad. Ukraine is becoming a "part of Seagram's global strategy." Seagram introduces alcoholic "products ... expensive but worth every penny." Is vodka worth more than the precious health that it is able to destroy?

The luxurious Seagram's store, loaded with alcohol bottles, is in the city center of the Ukrainian capital. Next door is located the "almost always empty-shelved Produckty food store" with "customers who have been waiting their turn for hours." Would it not be better and more humanitarian for the Bronfmans to fill those empty shelves with food for hungry people instead of offering them miniature bottles of alcohol delicacies.

It is deserving of punishment to employ as promoters of vodka "younger people, straight out of school," who should be protected from contact with alcohol.

And now we have to respond to the question from Mr. Kish: "Who knows more about vodka than Ukrainians?" If we have no competition in this regard shall we be proud or ashamed of it? Are the Ukrainian people really champions in drinking?

N. A. Hruszkewycz, M.D.
Cleveland

Sevastopil vote was unanimous

Dear Editor:

For the sake of historical accuracy, please allow me one slight correction to Taras Kuzio's interesting article on Ukraine's security concerns after the December parliamentary elections in Russia. The July 9, 1993, vote in the former Russian Parliament regarding the status of Sevastopil was unanimous, with one deputy abstaining not voting against.

Roman Solchanyk
Munich

| Home Page |