LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (06/28/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Re: Bound Brook and autocephaly

Dear Editor:

If you think the situation with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. is bad now, wait until Patriarch Bartholomew recognizes the "autocephaly" of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate. With the Ukrainian Orthodox diaspora now under control, Moscow and Constantinople will strike a deal under the table, as the two did 300 years ago. Obviously, the two of them will make sure that "autocephaly" will be in name only, just as it is today "Ukrainian" in name only. And Bound Brook won't have to apologize anymore, as it did after the Odesa fiasco, that "the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot be blamed for his inability to recognize all jurisdictions in Ukraine."

The next thing to ponder is this: In addition to the numerous examples of Patriarch Bartholomew's drive to "unite" our Church in Ukraine with Moscow, he also spoke of "unity" of Bound Brook with our Church in Ukraine (let's forget, for the moment, the irony that Bound Brook always was united with, and an integral part of, that Church). Bound Brook wrote in its own documents: "[Patriarch Bartholomew] spoke of his anguish over the situation of the Church in Ukraine and expressed his and the Holy See's desire that the unity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in diaspora and in Ukraine be achieved at the earliest possible date."

So, just as the patriarch of Constantinople sold the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to Moscow 300 years ago, it will do so again. Bound Brook will get its wish of "recognized autocephaly" in Ukraine and of being "united" with it, just as it now is already "in communion" with Moscow. The Russification of Bound Brook that we have seen after the death of Patriarch Mstyslav is the perfect prelude.

However, we can take solace in the fact that our memorial to the 7 million victims of Moscow's man-made famine in Ukraine is now canonical. Should those victims offer a thank you? Maybe their surviving relatives should be billed for that privilege, with the money going to Bound Brook's Patriarch Mstyslav [you read it right] Endowment Fund?

George Pasichnyk
Brooklyn Center, Minn.

About fund-raising for Kyiv cathedral

Dear Editor:

I am the treasurer for the recent fund-raiser by the Society of St. Andrew for the purchase of the bells in connection with the restoration of Kyiv's St. Michael's Cathedral. Every day I deal directly with the faithful, and I can no longer remain silent.

This issue isn't a theoretical one. It involves real world issues of honesty, integrity and basic human decency. It's also a good example of whom to believe in the discussion about the "Ukrainian" Orthodox Church.

Contributors regularly and repeatedly insisted that I not divert their money through the Consistory in Bound Brook, but instead that the money be sent directly to Kyiv. Why? Because Victor Rud was absolutely correct in his assessment that Bound Brook was trying to get a "free ride" at the literal expense of the same faithful who have been so heartlessly betrayed.

The Consistory was angry when it found out that the money would not pass through its books. Why such a reaction if it's truly sincere about helping our Church, as the Rev. Nakonachny writes? I kept my promise to the contributors. Their money went directly to Kyiv without being first diverted through the Consistory. Yet the Rev. Nakonachny had the temerity to write in the March 22 issue: "How shameful (and uninformed) that Mr. Rud writes that the Society of St. Andrew - not the Consistory in South Bound Book - is collecting money for the bells for St. Michael's Cathedral in Kyiv." (In the very next sentence, however, the Rev. Nakonachny agrees: "[the society] is now raising funds for the bells."

Mr. Rud wrote it the way it is. Is what he wrote shameful? Is what I did shameful, for honoring the wishes of the faithful? Or is what the Consistory is doing shameful?

The Rev. Nakonachny's and Mr. Bazylevsky's further response (March 29) on this issue is something not to be believed. "Bratstvos," such as the Society of St. Andrew, have stood throughout our history as independent overseers of the hierarchs to curb the abuse of power. They were and had to be independent if they were to fulfill their purpose. For Mr. Bazylevsky to insist that the society "is one of the integral parts of the UOC-U.S.A. and is certainly not an independent unit" only adds insult to injury. Are he and the Rev. Nakonachny reducing the society and its president, Mr. Heretz, to the level of the All Saints Camp in Pennsylvania, the Cultural Center, the museum, the seminary and the bookstore? They also are "integral parts" of the UOC-U.S.A and are, together with the society, listed on page 188 of the UOC-U.S.A.'s 1998 Calendar/Almanac that Mr. Bazylevsky waves so confidently.

Are "Church-affiliated organizations" being used by the Consistory to "pack" the Metropolitan Council through the placement of these organizations' representatives on the council? Do Mr. Bazylevsky and the Rev. Nakonachny see Mr. Heretz, president of the Society of St. Andrew, as simply another captive vote for the Consistory? I certainly hope not.

Bound Brook isn't fazed, however. It's now raising $1 million for an endowment fund named after, guess who? The late Patriarch Mstyslav. And guess where the money will go to? Asia Minor. At the same time, they're seeking donations to repair a water line for the gravesites at the cemetery, because "the Consistory budget for the current year does not provide enough funds to accomplish this." (They sure know how to tug at the heart strings.) Evidently, gifts for Patriarch Bartholomew emptied the coffers.

The reason Bound Brook is able to do all this with impunity is because people are not only not informed, but actively disinformed. Imagine, if you can: bequests continue to flow to Bound Brook from, obviously, the elderly who are the very ones who built Bound Brook and were at one with what Bound Brook and the late Patriarch Mstyslav stood for. If they only knew. The Weekly is the only newspaper with the spine to provide that knowledge and a forum for public discussion of this issue, which affects Ukrainians worldwide.

Regardless of the views that one may have, all your readers should applaud your decision to give this matter the serious attention that it deserves. I strongly encourage you to continue to do so in order that a full airing is finally attained. Thank you.

I commend you, as well, for such an excellent publication overall.

Anna Wojtiuk
Paterson, N.J.