Catholic Church and Authoritarian State: Poland 1932

According to a Christian understanding, Church and State should coexist in a harmonious complementary relationship. But debates as to how such a relationship functions and where to draw the boundaries between one and the other “power” are as old as Christianity itself. 

At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church's magisterium shifted from the Church-State dichotomy to emphasizing the role of Christian believers in civil society and in the international human family. Hitherto, however, the Holy See sought to manage the relationship with treaties or concordats aimed at protecting the liberties of Catholics and to accord the Church institution with certain advantages. This was especially true in countries where Catholicism was the majority religion. 

One such country was Poland, which, after having been partitioned between three Europeans Empires at the end of the eighteenth century, emerged as an independent state in 1918. Even after the end of imperial rule, a Josephist (or Josephinist) ideology remained among the civil bureaucracy. Named for Austrian Emperor Joseph II, this rationalist Enlightenment theory relegated religion to the private consciences of believers. Anything touching on religion in the public sphere was to be regulated by state functionaries as opposed to Church officials. 

Even the Concordat between Poland and the Holy See, ratified in 1925, was fraught with diverging interpretations. Prominent Polish statesmen considered certain guarantees to be formal courtesies lacking in juridical content. In their (Josephist) view, the clergy were like civic functionaries that should be submissive to government policy. This is why they demanded that the Concordat make the bishops and major clergy swear an oath of loyalty to the State upon taking office.

The Church interpreted this oath as a promise of loyalty to the institutional state rather than to a particular regime, government, or policy. Additionally, the Holy See conceived the oath to be that befitting the office of a bishop/priest; a loyalty which did not contradict Divine Law, Church Law, or his moral duty to defend from excessive state pretensions. Marshall Piłsudski’s authoritarian regime, which took over the State in a 1926 coup, considered the oath in maximum terms. Thus, it altered the wording, for Orthodox bishops, from an oath of loyalty to one of obedience.

The history of the Second Republic is often obscured by the history of Communist and Post-Communist Poland. This is more so when we think of the role of the Church and believers in Poland. For instance, not well known is the extent of the hostility by officials of the Sanacja regime to the influence of Catholicism in society. 

Authoritarian regimes seek ever greater control over every aspect of the nation and invariably find themselves in competition with the Church, especially if the clergy and laity are fulfilling their prophetic mission to speak truth to power. Such regimes seek to denigrate the Church’s moral authority and sometimes even attempt to usurp its preaching and teaching role. Secular officials tell the faithful that good Catholics are those who respect the civil leadership. Those who challenge are labelled with simplistic slogans. The regime activates useful idiots as well as honourable but naive patriots, who hesitate to believe evil of the leadership. In more recent contexts, new forms of Joseph[in]ism have made a comeback.

 

The following document was presented to Pope Pius XI by the Primate of Poland, Cardinal August Hlond, in March 1932. It certainly shows its age and mindset of the time. And yet it is valuable to understand s the historical situation only seven years before the beginning of the war which, de facto, ended the existence of the Second Polish Republic.

SECRET INFORMATION

on the Religious-Political situation in Poland

Rome, 14 March 1932

For some time now, unfortunately, one notes a certain tension between the Government and the Church in Poland. The causes? Government circles blame the Church, asserting that the Episcopate is aggravating the Government and that the lower Clergy is in political opposition to it. How do things stand in reality?

 

1- THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOVERNMENT CIRCLES

In the Government and its party, which makes up the majority in the legislative chambers, there are undoubtedly Catholics. However, the majority of the government’s parliamentary coalition is made up of people who are religiously indifferent and positively adverse to Catholicism. There are Socialists, free thinkers, sectarians, apostates and Freemasons, not to mention Protestants, schismatics and Jews. Among the Catholics, then, there are those who come from Socialism, which they remain infected with especially in those that concern public life and relations with the Church. This is also the case of Marshal Piłsudski.

The Government of today, with a few exceptions, is composed of legionary officers of not very high intellectual culture and of poor political preparation. Their government is dictatorial in principle and their way of perceiving and taking things is military. They do not make much effort to conform to the European standards and especially do not see the need to do so in internal administration.

 

2 – POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCLES

The idea of ​​the State has not yet crystallized in the government’s program. It oscillates between fascist and bolshevik conceptions. The omnipotence of the State is however one of the cornerstones of the present political system. The citizen, the individual, no longer counts. The family is almost excluded from the influence on the spirit of education in state schools, which is based on the cult of Marshal Piłsudski. Nobody has an idea of ​​what normal relations with the Church should be. Government spheres feel harassed by the strong position of the Church, whose authority and influence are growing.

In particular, within the government’s parliamentary coalition there are various tendencies, strong divergences of ideas, and even struggles which become livelier and sharper as the personal influence of the Marshal decreases [due to age and infirmity]. Catholics in the government’s coalition have been unable to exert sufficient influence on the direction of affairs. And thus, unfortunately, the tendency within this coalition is secular. This explains a sad fact: the Nation remains faithfully attached to the great Catholic traditions of its past, called by Providence to successfully implement the Christian conception of the State. Nevertheless, it is generally governed in a sectarian sense and pushed towards a non-Christian future. The only obstacle in the way of the rush towards secularism is the firmness of the Episcopate.

One of the characteristics of the program to secularize the life of the Nation is a tendency to avoid open conflict with the Church, which would have serious political consequences in Poland. Conflicts with the Holy See are therefore carefully avoided and the letter of the Concordat is generally observed, thus avoiding persecution of the Church. At the same time, however, attempts are made to gradually implement the secular program, in ways that are invisible but insidiously effective. The soul of the Nation is being poisoned with a sectarian spirit. Its moral strength is being shattered with free rein being given to every kind of vice. The existence of the family and the institutions of the Church are being threatened by laws and decrees. Ways are being studied to undermine the authority of the Episcopate. Its work is being interfered with, the clergy is being harassed and accused of being opposed to the Government and an enemy of the State. [...]

 

4 – SECULARISM IN POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

In the government, the political administration, in diplomacy, and in the army, free thinkers, atheists, bigamists, and apostates are given preference. Practicing Catholics are gradually kept back under one pretext or another. In general, personnel changes are unfavourable to Catholics. [...]

Political authorities usually look askance at State employees maintaining friendly relations with the Church. Several employees at the Ministries were expressly told that, to advance in their career, they should associate less with priests. In circles dependent on the Government, that kind of corruption reigns. In order not to get into trouble, one must maintain an unfavourable or at least reserved attitude towards the clergy. Whoever demonstrates the ability to harm the Church is protected against any misfortune. For this reason, State employees do not belong to Catholic Action and are beginning to absent themselves from the Marian Sodalities.

The correspondence of the bishops is secretly monitored, and the clergy are also meticulously monitored. The Governors’ political offices have introduced card files for each priest. These record not only their political conduct but also their private and priestly conduct, naturally based on unverifiable police reports and complaints of the clergy’s adversaries. Catholic Action and all the Associations that belong to it are specially monitored. Control is also extended to the confraternities, third orders, Marian sodalities, etc.

Since I repeatedly complained about the harassment suffered by Catholic organizations and their members, last November the Minister of the Interior issued a circular forbidding any harm to Catholic Action. Since that time the authorities have harassed it a little less. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the pro-government associations have intensified their work. They never tire of denigrating Catholic organizations, especially those for youth and charity. Even missions for the unemployed, introduced in the Dioceses following the Encyclical of His Holiness, were molested and persecuted by state organs, in various places.

The Government does little or nothing to hold back the flood of immorality, indeed it seems to encourage it. The ministerial commission for monitoring films permits real indecency to pass. Bad writers, who devastate [public morals], are supported and favoured. With the permission of the Minister of the Interior, eugenic consultation offices are being set up, whose purpose is to teach the most effective methods of contraception.

 

5 – THE SPIRIT OF SECULARISM IN EDUCATION

It is true that in accordance with the Concordat, religion continues to be taught in schools, but it is also true that there are continuous attempts to give the rest of the school a secular imprint.

Firstly, there are several cases where school authorities reduce the hours of religious teaching without reaching an agreement with the Bishops.

Practicing Catholics are systematically eliminated from offices of higher education and are replaced by unbelievers, Protestants and defrocked clergy. The number of unbelievers is growing in the ranks of teachers and professors, and they are always favoured. A few weeks ago, at the headquarters of the Superintendent of Education in Poznań, the Association of Freethinkers for School Employees was officially founded. This year, I noticed that, in my Archdiocese, atheist teachers are already beginning to be in the majority in certain secondary schools, where only good Catholics taught five years ago.

Teachers are forbidden to take part in Catholic youth associations. It is viewed with displeasure if they are on good terms with the clergy. The spiritual retreats that I organize annually for teachers are frowned upon. And they were not pleased when, last New Year's Eve, I presented to school officials, professors and teachers of the Poznań voivodeship (about 8,000 people) a special annotated edition of the Pope’s Encyclical on Christian Education.

They have started harassing the Marian Sodalities that are thriving in the middle schools. Instead, they organize clubs of various kinds in the same schools, in which unfortunately they propagate bad attitudes. They force the youth of the middle schools to read and comment on modern literary works, some of which are even pornographic, especially in high schools for girls.

A large-scale program is being launched against the Catholic character and spirit of Polish scouting, which hitherto has distinguished its ranks. Unfortunately, this program has already made inroads into the female section.

 

6 – SECULARIST TENDENCIES AMONG POLISH ÉMIGRÉS.

Unfortunately, the Government agencies are also bringing secularism to Polish émigrés, as I witnessed among emigrants in the United States, Brazil, London, and especially in France.

So far, in [France] has not been possible to have the schools organized by the Polish Government to be administered in a Catholic spirit. On the contrary, these schools are conceived as purely atheistic. The teachers sent there from the homeland were convinced not to teach religion and not to have contact with Polish priests. Only now, after my recent interventions, has the Polish Government promised to organize religious education in those schools. Certain Polish consular representations in France never weary of fighting Catholic organizations among the emigrants. They often hindered the work of Polish priests, who are carrying out a very important pastoral mission.

 

7 – THE “AGGRAVATING CONDUCT” OF THE BISHOPS.

Far be it for me to assert that everything the Government does is bad. Neither do I intend to infer that the Polish Government is always inspired by hatred towards the Church. I also willingly recognize all the good that it does for the Church. And I do not miss an opportunity to express my satisfaction and gratitude to the representatives of the State for the services they provide to Religion.

But is it any wonder that the Bishops, faced with anti-religious tendencies and the facts, take steps to defend the faith, morality, and rights of the Church? All these steps are now described by the Government and pro-government circles as “aggravating behaviour” and as a cause of tension between the two powers [Church and State].

More than once, the Government and its parliamentary coalition have invoked the principal of State sovereignty to convince the Bishops they must not interfere in any way in what the Government does. That is, they would like the Church to be completely uninvolved in what the State legislates and decrees, even if the laws, decrees, and orders intrude into the religious sphere, offend morality, and infringe upon the Church’s rights. Whenever the hierarchy does anything to oppose the wave of secularism, in such cases, we hear cries that the Bishops do not respect the State and are unfaithful toward it.

They convinced Marshal Pilsudski of this theory, and he became fixated with the idea that the Bishops hinder the work of the Government and show disrespect toward it. He usually expresses this with the motto that: ‘the Bishops want to bring back the Middle Ages to Poland.’

The Episcopate, on the other hand, understands very well that it must guard against even the appearance of being influenced by the opposition parties. The episcopate knows that that its actions, especially concerning the Government, must be well-founded, serious, dignified and respectful. And it is worth noting that, for years now, the Episcopate’s collective statements have been redacted in the style of calm gravity. Sometimes they are strong, as in questions of matrimony, but they are never offensive or lacking in respect. Except for a few exceptional (well known) cases, even the personal pronouncements of the Bishops are anything but exaggerated. Rather than a lack of respect for government authority, they might be faulted for not presenting Catholic doctrine in relation to the errors and unhealthy tendencies of the modern age with sufficient clarity.

I also believe it is my duty to point out that the Episcopate is in constant and cordial contact with His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio, who is perfectly aware of what is happening in Poland and merits the full trust and great veneration of the Bishops.

 

8 – “THE POLITICS” OF THE LOWER CLERGY.

Pro-government spheres accuse the lower clergy of not being faithful to the Government according to the meaning of the Bishops’ oath. In the last parliamentary debates on the ecclesiastical issues (mentioned above), it was stated with regret that eighty-five percent of the clergy is not on the Government’s side.

If it is a question of convictions and feelings, I believe that not even 15% of the clergy have confidence in the present Government or hope that, over time, the positive elements in pro-government spheres will prevail in lending Christian direction to politics. The rest [remaining 85%] do not have confidence in the Government, especially because of the tendencies and facts mentioned above.

If we now take into consideration actual politics, it should be clarified that the phenomenon of the political priest is becoming increasingly rare. From year to year the number of priests who take an active part in political movements is decreasing. While previously there were thirty, forty, or more priests as deputies, in today's Parliament there are four priests in the government’s coalition and one in the national one. It is true that a certain number of priests, especially in the former Germanic regions, continue out of habit to belong to parties that have remained in opposition following the revolutionary events of 1926. But in general, this is a personal membership that does not try to propagate the party and without actions the oppose the Government.

Increasingly rare are priests who take an active part in politics to the extent permitted by ecclesiastical law and the laws of the country. Exceptional are the cases in which a priest abuses his office for political propaganda or fails to show obedience to the Government or to be faithful to the State. In such cases the Government invariably brings criminal charges, but all the cases end with acquittal, except for some singular cases concerned with the national minorities.

The Government’s irritation is based on fact that the clergy in general do not accept the government party’s policies, which naturally has a strong impact on the behaviour of the population.

[The Government] misinterprets the Bishops’ oath and thus accuses the Clergy of being unfaithful to the Government and the State, because they belong in part to political groups other than the pro-government coalition or because, obeying the Bishops’ orders, they preach against the dissolution of marriage, against infanticide [abortion], against the decline of the social morals, etc.

For example, the Governor of Poznan complained to me that, among my priests (there are a thousand of them), there are some who are not loyal to the Government. But when asked for concrete facts, he was never able to provide me with a single one that might be incriminating.

 

9 – CONCLUSION: THE REAL CAUSE OF THE “TENSIONS”

Leaving aside the well-known mistakes of certain Bishops, which in no way can be blamed on the collective Episcopate, if there is tension between the Church and the State in Poland, it is explained by the furious indignation of Freethinking Circles following their moral defeat on the issue of marriage. The strong protest of the Nation against the proposed marriage law, caused by the strong statements of the Bishops, was the hardest blow endured by the secular politics of the pro-government party in Poland. Hence the anger.

In fact, until November of last year, there was almost no talk of bishops or priests being politicians. Then suddenly they were all declared politicians, not deferential to the Government, unfaithful to the State, violators of the oath. This is a reaction and revenge of wounded sectarian hatred. 

In conclusion it is important to note:

a) The policy of the present Government involves manifestly secularist elements which prevent tasks of the State from being carried out in due conformity with Christian precepts.

b) It is the task of the Church and of Catholic Action to save the Polish soul from sectarian infection. The Church must find a way to do this while respecting the Government, maintaining fidelity to the State, and preaching to Catholics respect and obedience to public authorities.

c) The work of the Church, insofar as it corrects the aforementioned secular tendencies, is frowned upon by the Government and pro-government circles, and causes that state of unease which is called tension between the two powers.

And as to remedies? The Government seems the remedy in the Church ceasing to watch over the spirit of the Nation and not opposing any legislative or administrative acts, even when they are contrary to the Law of God and the Church. This is impossible. Instead, I believe that today's annoyance and other tensions can be alleviated and partly prevented:

a) by coming to a fair solution in the unfortunate disagreement between some Bishops and the Government, [...];

b) by clarifying the principles of the Christian concept of the State and the relations between the two powers. Such problems are being totally ignored even by Catholic politicians;

c) by persuading the Government to make the appropriate arrangements with the Episcopate before making decisions or establishing draft laws or decrees on mixed [Church-State] matters, such as Catholic schools, religious hospitals, marriage, etc.;

d) by instilling in  Catholics respect for the authorities of the State and obedience to the just laws and decrees of the Government;

e) by continuing to draw the clergy away from any active participation in politics;

f) by ensuring that no Bishop takes personal decisions in his relations with the Government which could have consequences for other Dioceses. Uniformity of conduct must be safeguarded in the interest of the common cause. Some indication from the Holy See in this regard would save us in future from certain troubles, such as have unfortunately already occurred, for example, regarding the Organizations of Catholic Youth.

Hlond's original report, typewritten in Italian, is in the Archive of the Second Section of the Papal Secretariat of State: ASRS, AES, Polonia, period IV, pos. 144. Cardinal Pacelli also sent a copy to the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw: AAV, Arch. Nunz. Varsavia 257.

The Sovereign Opens Canada's Parliament in 1957

From a report from the Apostolic Delegate in Canada, Archbishop Giovanni Panico, sent to both Sections of the Papal Secretariat of State:

Ottawa, 16 October 1957

This morning, after a four-day stay in Ottawa, the Queen of England [Great Britain] and Canada, Elizabeth II, left for the United States.

She arrived in this capital on the afternoon of 12 October, coming directly from London, for the purpose of opening the new Parliament.

For the occasion, Ottawa was dressed up for the occasion. A city of about 250,000 inhabitants, it hosted in recent days a huge number of visitors, coming from all the provinces of Canada, a number which, according to the pious exaggeration of journalists, amounted to over 200,000 people.

The visit was particularly important because it was the first trip that Elizabeth II made here as Queen (when she came in 1951 she was still Princess) and also because, in the history of Canada, it was the first time that the Sovereign opened Parliament in person.

The evening after her arrival she spoke on television in English and French. His words were much appreciated and the French Canadians were happy with what he said to them in particular, recalling the visit made in 1951 to the Province of Quebec: 

“The souvenir of the trip that I made to the Province of Quebec, a few years ago, obliges me to say again with her: “Je Me Souviens.”

Je me souviens (I will remember) not only the charm of its care, the beauty of its ancient heritage, but I also remember that other things here are eternal. Because I know your love for this Canadian land where your ancestors rest. I also know that you are passionate about your ancestral Faith and your mother tongue. In uniting your efforts faithfully with your fellow citizens, you have helped Canada to play a role in the world that will never cease to grow.”

The next day, October 14, the opening of the Houses of Parliament took place in a very official ceremony, to which I was invited.

The Speech from the Throne laid out the program of the new Conservative Government of Mr. Diefenbaker, who had come to power after the elections of June 10 last.

Towards the end of the address, the Queen quoted some words of Elizabeth I, pronounced at the opening of the last Parliament of her life: “Though God hath raised me High, yet this I count the Glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves.” Some have observed that the reference was not a felicitous one nor historically accurate, because Elizabeth I – a staunch Protestant – had used all means to destroy the Catholic elements of her Parliament.

In the evening of the same day, an “official lunch” was offered at the Governor’ [General]'s House, followed by a large reception.

During this reception, while some privileged people among the 1,500 present were being presented to the Queen, the Governor General, Mr. Vincent Massey, introduced me to the Sovereign, despite the large number of personalities who were waiting in vain for their turn. I was able to speak for over five minutes with her and the Prince Consort and our conversation was interrupted by the national anthem of Canada and Great Britain. Immediately afterwards, the Queen withdrew from the great hall, where she had remained for only half an hour. [...]

Pius XII Against Forced Repatriation

 Letter of Bishop Ivan Buchko to Pope Pius XII

Pax Christi in Regno Christi!

Rome, December 16, 1945.

Most Holy Father,

prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I humbly implore Your most benevolent paternal intercession with the American military authorities in Germany on behalf of the Soviet Ukrainian refugees, who, despite repeated assurances given by the aforementioned authorities that they will no longer be subject to forced repatriation, are being forced in these very days to that unwanted repatriation on the basis of an order given to all refugees of former Soviet citizenship, who are in the American occupation zone, to move by the 8th of December to concentration camps under Soviet command in Neunkirchen and Stuttgart and to surrender themselves into the hands of the Bolsheviks. Today, within the  hour, I received an urgent telegram from the Ukrainian Aid Committee in Malines, Belgium, which informed us that 22,000 (twenty-two thousand) refugees are threatened with forced repatriation, to whom the American command has already refused to give food and lodging in the American camps. The recalcitrant Ukrainian refugees, refusing to surrender to the Soviet command and preferring death, have asked for 15 days of delay or postponement to be able to prepare for a Christian death. The postponement was granted by the friendly officials but the deadline expires on the 23rd of December. In the meantime, refugees in the Hannai camp, refusing to be transferred to the Soviet camps in Stuttgart and Neunkirchen, have committed suicide. Those who are still alive have only hope in the paternal benevolence of Your Holiness, whose powerful intercession and most benevolent paternal protection could still save their lives. On behalf of those unfortunate beings, as a most humble son of Your Holiness, I have permitted myself to submit before the feet of Your Holiness this my most humble supplication, imploring at the same time for them and for myself the most benevolent paternal Apostolic Blessing.

 Audience of Cardinal Eugène Tisserant with Pope Pius XII

Msgr. Bučko informed the Sacred Congregation that he had humbly placed in the hands of the Holy Father through His Excellency Msgr. Montini a petition aimed at obtaining the intervention of His Holiness with the American authorities in order to prevent the forced handover to the Soviets of 22,000 Ukrainian refugees from their zone of occupation, a handover that would be carried out despite the assurances given to the contrary.

The Sacred Congregation is profoundly grateful to the Holy Father for all that has already been done and will be done to avoid the forced repatriation of those refugees, who prefer death by suicide to handover to the Soviets.

Ex audientia Sanctissimi 22 December 1945

The Holy Father expressed His desire to see all Ukrainian refugees spared and to assist them in every way.

Andrey Sheptytsky and Oleksander Koshetz

Koshetz and Sheptytsky, Chicago 1922

On 21 September 2024 we mark the 80th anniversary of the death of the great Ukrainian composer, director, and musicologist, Oleksander Koshyts (often spelled Koshetz). Among his achievements are his Ukrainian folk, sacred, and religious choral compositions. The choral ensembles he directed made history under his baton. He was best known internationally for the performances of the Ukrainian National Chorus, commissioned by the fledgeling Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) to spread the good word about Ukrainian identity and culture to the world, during Ukraine’s struggle for independence from 1918–1923. 

Koshetz had a special link to the city of Winnipeg, where he spent his final years teaching and where his mortal remains are entombed, awaiting the trumpet call of the Final Resurrection. He was one of those, together with fellow musician, Dr Paul Matsenko, who worked to unite the Ukrainian community through music and cultural formation. The two men were Orthodox Christians who worked closely with Catholics and others for the greater Ukrainian cause. Their work gave rise to a number of choirs that fostered ecumenical collaboration in the Province of Manitoba and beyond. The most prominent among them is the O. Koshetz Choir.

Oleksander Koshetz died in 1944, two weeks before another of his great countrymen, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, whom he knew and much admired. The feeling was mutual. The two met had met in Chicago in 1922, when the maestro was touring with his UNR choir and Sheptytsky was visiting his own church communities in Canada, USA, Brazil, and Argentina. 

Koshetz remembered the grand success of his Chicago concert, after which a dinner was held at a fine hotel. His diary entry for 31 October 1922 recalled: “There were closed to 500 guests all Ukrainian organizations came together, even Catholics with Orthodox which, as they said, was the first such occasion in the history of Ukrainian emigration. Greek Catholic Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky gave a wonderful speech.” It took the work of those two men to achieve such a feat. Although they saw each other again the following day, this were probably the only occasion when they met.

When researching Sheptytsky’s visit to Canada, I stumbled upon correspondence between the Metropolitan and the Maestro. It consists of two letters about a concert which the Ukrainian community in New York had arranged in May 1936 to mark Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s 70th birthday and 35th episcopal anniversary. Koshetz had agreed to conduct a mass ensemble made up of eight Ukrainian choirs from New York and New Jersey. The community had booked Carnegie Hall, where he debuted the-famous Schedryk or Carol of the Bells performed in 1919. The leaflet for the event read as follows:  

 

UKRAINIAN CHOIRS IN A NEW YORK KEY

These are: Boyan Choir from Newark, directed by Teodoziy Kaskiv; Lysenko Choir from Jersey City, dir. Vasyl Hel; the Ukrainian Choir of New York, dir. Teodor Onufryk; Ukrainian Youth Choir from Brooklyn, dir. Vasyl Savytsky; Boyan Choir from Yonkers, dir. Mykhailo Fatyuk; Boyan Choir from Bayon, dir. Vasyl Melnychuk; Boyan from Elizabeth, dir. Mykhailo Yadlovsky; Boyan Choir from Passaic, dir. Stefan Grabar. 

Together, these choirs, forming a total of 300 voices under the general direction of the famous conductor and composer 

PROF. OLEKSANDER KOSHYTS,

will give a concert at New York's largest music hall, Carnegie Hall, 6th Ave. & 57th St., New York City, on Green Holiday (Pentecost), Sunday, 31 May 1936, at 8:15 PM.

The Concert will include a sample program of Ukrainian Church Music. Newspapers will provide details. Prominent American church and public representatives have been invited.

This concert is organized to honour

ANDRIY SHEPTYTSKY, METROPOLITAN OF HALYCH,

the greatest living Ukrainian, the true father of the nation, the founder of national Ukrainian institutions, a protector of youth, patron of Ukrainian art and scholarship, martyr of the sufferings of the Ukrainian church and people, well known throughout the world and highly esteemed by his own and others, in celebration of the 70th anniversary of his life and the 35th anniversary of his mission and important office.

We ask all Ukrainians, from near and far, to come en masse to this important holiday in order to honour one whom the world honours and esteems. […]

Metropolitan Andrey was not much honoured in Rome, during most of Pius XI’s pontificate, and congratulations were not forthcoming from the Roman Curia on this occasion. (This attitude began to change the month after the concert, when Cardinal Eugène Tisserant was appointed head of the Vatican department for the Eastern Churches).

            In his citadel on Saint George’s Hill in Lviv (then under Polish rule), Sheptytsky was informed of the American celebrations and sent the following letter to Koshetz:

 

Lviv, 31 May 1936.

Dear Professor, I have heard that the Professor was kind enough to take the trouble to arrange a concert on the occasion of my anniversary, so I hasten to thank you for your efforts and wish you all the best on that occasion. May God bless you.

+Andrey M.[etropolitan]

 

            After the concert, the following article appeared in the American Ukrainian newspaper Svoboda:

 

TRIUMPH OF UKRAINIAN SONG AT CARNEGIE HALL IN NEW YORK

About 2,000 people from New York and the surrounding suburbs had the opportunity to experience the kind of musical pleasure that you can rarely experience in your life. And this pleasure was even more precious for them because it was evoked by enchanting Ukrainian music performed by Ukrainian-American youth with the masterful direction of the great Oleksandr Koshetz. And it was at the Concert of Ukrainian Church Music, which took place on Sunday, May 31, at B Carnegie Hall in New York on the occasion of the 35-year anniversary of the Halych Metropolitan Andrii Sheptytsky.

The grand choir consisted of eight smaller choirs. About 300 male and female singers performed on stage together, all in national Ukrainian costumes. […]

The celebration was opened by Dr. S. Demydchuk in English, and then in Ukrainian, and in the general introduction he explained the reasons for this festivity, as well as the role played by Metropolitan Sheptytsky in Ukrainian public life. Metropolitan Sheptytsky, the interlocutor said, is no longer the name of a person, but of a certain social and cultural movement. The reason is, that name is not only connected with the church, but also with the creation of various public institutions, schools, museums, hospitals, banks, etc. In gratitude, Ukrainians in emigration celebrate this festivity, "in the biggest city, in the biggest concert hall, under the artistic guidance of the greatest conductor, and for the greatest living "son of the Ukrainian nation."

Choral Performances

After the introductory speech, the curtain was opened, and something appeared before the eyes of the audience that touched Ukrainian hearts and filled them with national pride. Three hundred male and female choristers stood in exemplary order on the large stage. Professsor Koshetz then appeared after having been given a loud ovation by the audience during the introduction.

At the magical gesture of the great conductor's hand, the sounds of the music emerged from three hundred breasts, sometimes stronger, sometimes quieter, which immediately captivated the listeners and transported them into a realm of artistic bliss. Koshetz conducted while wonderful human harmonies flowed from his hands. Three hundred faces were turned to the hands of the conductor, and it seemed that they saw nothing else but him. Koshetz went through three hundred keys with his fingers and infused the listeners with a charm for which they will be inexpressibly grateful.

The choir performed ten pieces entirely of a religious character, among which were compositions by Koshetz himself, then Lysenko, Stetsenko, Bortnyansky, and finally a difficult composition from the 18th century by Vedel.

In addition to the performances of the choir, it was pleasant to hear the performance by Miss Luba Kaskiv, who played a composition by Nardini on the violin accompanied by Mr. Kuzmiak on the piano.

Greetings From Americans

Representing Americans was John Lafarge, co-editor of the National Catholic Weekly "America", and Monsignor M. Lavel also spoke on behalf of Cardinal Hayes of New York. Father Lafarge recalled his personal acquaintance with Metropolitan Sheptytsky and emphasized his services to the great Ukrainian people and the Catholic Church. At the end, he wished him a long life. Father Lavelle also remembered that he first met the Metropolitan in 1904 in Rome. His personality was so impressive, Fr. Lavelle remembered, that he was given more attention (here Fr. Lavel humbly apologized) than the Pope himself. Father Lavel also praised the beauty of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite and declared that the Roman Catholic Rite does not in any way want to Romanize Ukrainian Catholics but, on the contrary, wants Ukrainians concisely adhered to their rite, in which they can be just as good and perhaps better Catholics than in the Roman Rite.

 

            Oleksander Koshetz sent Sheptytsky an commemorative album of the event inscribed with a personal dedication. This prompted the following reply from the Metropolitan several months later:

 

Lviv, 29 October 1936.

Dear Maestro, Thank you very much for remembering me and for sending me such a beautiful album with your dedication. I apologize for responding so late but, for a month, a serious illness did not give me the opportunity to read and respond to letters. I would also like to thank all the Ladies and Gentlemen who worked to arrange of the concert on 13 [sic. 31] May 1936. May God bless your work and grant that you may achieve great success. With expressions of the highest regard

+Andrey M.[etropolitan]

 

Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk (1911–1996) was a pioneer of ecumenism and made great efforts to establish good relations and to work closely with Orthodox churchmen and laity for the good of the Ukrainian people. Shortly after becoming Archbishop of Winnipeg, he gave his blessing to the Redemptorist Fathers to open a minor seminary in Roblin, Manitoba, to foster priestly and religious vocations among high school boys. For many years, Professor Matsenko would teach the young men who frequented Saint Vladimir’s College and conduct their choir, and those of several Orthodox institutions. The Matsenko Choir and Hoosli Ensemble were founded by the college alumni. In March 1982, the Professor forwarded this Sheptytsky-Koshetz correspondence to Metropolitan Hermaniuk. Upon his death, Paul Matsenko was entombed in the mausoleum in Glen Eden Cemetery, very close to his friend and colleague Oleksander Koshetz.

Postwar Ukrainian Parishes in Winnipeg

While preparing a work on the history of the Ukrainian (Greek-)Catholic Church in Canada from the 1930s to 1950s, I came across a few reports referring to the foundation of a number of parish churches in Winnipeg, some of which are this year celebrating significant anniversaries.

            A third wave of Ukrainian immigrants came to Canada after the Second World War. This necessitated pastoral ministry to areas of the city where Ukrainians were migrating from their original base. The North End already had three churches located very close to one another: Saints Vladimir and Olga (as it was historically known in English, rather than Volodymyr and Olha), Saint Nicholas, and Protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary (or Boyd Church). Vladimir and Olga was oldest and smallest building and Saint Nicholas belonged to the Basilian Order.

            When the single Greek-Catholic Ordinariate was divided into three apostolic exarchates, on 3 March 1948, Vladimir and Olga was designated the cathedral church of the Central Exarchate. Since the existing building was unsuitable, its parish priest Father Vasyl Kushnir began to build a large stone and brick edifice modelled after Saint Boniface Cathedral. Saint Nicholas, located directly across the street, also began to build a large church but was only able to complete the basement as a hall. Local Roman Catholic bishops, the Apostolic Delegate, and Auxiliary Bishop Andriy Roboretsky recommended that Saint Nicholas be transferred further north to new suburbs where Canadian Ukrainians were migrating. Nevertheless, Archbishop Ladyka was determined to keep the Basilians at the original location. After fraught negotiations, a new location was agreed upon in 1963 and the current Saint Nicholas was completed in 1966. 

The area further north, where Bishop Roboretsky recommended the Basilians move in 1949, was left without ministry. In 1951, Roboretsky was replaced as auxiliary bishop by Redemptorist Father Maxim Hermaniuk and the Winnipeg Exarchate invited the Redemptorists to begin a mission in West Kildonan. On 17 December 1952, Hermaniuk’s successor as Redemptorist Superior, Father Volodymyr Malanchuk, reported the following to Cardinal Tisserant in Rome:

 

… One of our Fathers has begun work in Winnipeg, in the area of North Main Street, among our neglected people. We are hoping to establish a new community there together with a new centre of pastoral zeal [parish]…

 

And on 15 December 1954, Malanchuk gave the following update:

 

… In Winnipeg, in West Kildonan, our Fathers organized a new parish with 300 families and they have already built a basement which can serve as a temporary church.

 

An agreement establishing Saint Joseph's Parish and its boundaries was signed by Archbishop Ladyka in Winnipeg and Redemptorist Superior General Gaudreau in Rome on 12 April and 24 May 1955. The first parish priest was Father Joseph Denischuk, CSsR.

 

On 17 December 1956, Malanchuk wrote to Father Coussa, Assessor (second-in-command) of the Eastern Congregation: 

 

… In Winnipeg-West Kildonan we have just finished building our monastery next to the parish church. We hope to transfer … the seat of the superior of the vice-province. Winnipeg is situated at the centre of communication between western and eastern Canada and the USA.

            

This year, Saints Peter and Paul Church Ukrainian Catholic Parish celebrates its 75th Anniversary. Archbishop Vasyliy Ladyka mentioned its foundation and progress to Cardinal Tisserant, in a letter darted 29 December 1949:

 

Last year we began the erection of a new a new church in St. Boniface, St. Peters and Paul Church, and we are pleased to say that it is nearing completion, and that the upper part will be used for services this January 7^th, 1950, for the first time. The basement has been used till now, as it had been completed quite some time ago. The Catholics of the Roman Rite will be using this basement regularly till they erect their own church in this district. Father Constantine Hawryliw, a newly arrived priest from Europe, is very zealously carrying out his work, helping in many ways in the work itself, and in the spiritual development of this district. The average attendance at this new parish is also well over 200.

 

The Pontifical Ruthenian College, 1897–1915

Between Roman Universalism and National Consciousness

The Collegio Ruteno in Rome was founded, in 1897, to educate Ruthenian-Ukrainian seminarians from Austrian Galicia in a Catholic universalist spirit (Romanitas). The Ruthenian College eventually fulfilled its purpose, but its early years were characterized by mediocre leadership and burnout among the superiors, and factionalism among the students. College life was played out against the backdrops of political-religious events in Rome and in Galicia. Rather than simply imbuing Ukrainians with Romanitas, the College also brought Ukrainian problems to Rome. 

Very little has been written about the College’s early years perhaps because of the many tragedies and difficulties that occurred. The few works that exist are quasi-hagiographical chronologies that scrupulously avoided controversies. Based on archival sources, this paper seeks to present a contextualized view of the its early history and to reveal aspects passed over by its official chroniclers.

 

Ruthenians in Urbe

            In 1596, a portion of the Orthodox Kyivan Metropolia entered into full communion with the Roman Church (Union of Brest). The same year, two Ruthenian seminarians were sent to Rome to study at the Greek College for three years. One of them, Yosyf Veliamyn Rutsky, later become Kyivan Metropolitan. He obtained four places for his seminarians at the College in 1615, expanded to six in 1623. Thenceforth to 1803, when the College was closed during the Napoleonic occupation, thirty-nine Ruthenian seminarians graduated from the Greek College, including most of the Uniate hierarchy.

Under Austria, Ruthenian seminarians studied at Propaganda Fide’s Theatine College in Lemberg (Lviv). But in 1784, Joseph II abolished the College and founded a Greek-Catholic Major Seminary. After the Greek College was reopened, in 1845, the Austrian Government retuned the Theatine Fund to Propaganda, which facilitated the return of Ruthenian seminarians to Rome. As the proportion of Ruthenians within that College increased, its name was changed to Pontificium Collegium Graecorum et Ruthenorum. From 1845 to 1897, sixty-two Ruthenian seminarians graduated, including the future Cardinal Sylvester Sembratovych, the spiritus movens behind the foundation of a separate college. Besides the Lviv Seminary, Joseph II also founded a college in Vienna known as the Barbareum, next to Saint Barbara’s, the Ruthenian Church in Vienna. Gifted seminarians boarded there and studied at Vienna University.

 

Their Own College

The creation of a Ruthenian seminary in Rome was primarily the result of political-religious issues in Austria. Until the late nineteenth century, the Greek-Catholic clergy was the elite class in Galician Ruthenian society. In the 1840s, the Lviv Greek-Catholic Seminary was one of centres of the Ruthenian national movement. But by the 1870s, both the Lviv and the Vienna seminaries had become nests of Moscophilism, and state and church officials demanded their reform. This was to be one of Sylvester Sembratovych’s primary tasks. His crowning achievement was holding a Provincial Council (the Lviv Synod). The Synod called for the reorganization of the seminary system and praised clerical celibacy. The married clergy saw it as an attempt to assimilate the Ruthenians to the Latin Church and Polish culture.

The Austrian Government had been wanting to suppress the Barbareum in Vienna since 1874. The college was abruptly closed in 1893 after Sembratovych was attacked by Moscophile students (including 2 seminarians). In compensation, the Ministry of Religion and Education agreed to send six more seminarians to the Greek College, bringing the total to ten). The Government also promised to establish seminaries in Lviv’s suffragan eparchies of Przemyśl and Stanyslaviv.

With Leo XIII’s Unionist reforms in full swing, the Greek-Ruthenian College needed a larger building just at the time when Ruthenians were enrolling there in greater numbers. Their increased number provoked conflicts with the College's other nationalities such as Italo-Greeks and especially Romanians. As a result, Sembratovych and his suffragans began to lobby for the creation of a college exclusively for Ruthenians. In his dying year, Sembratovych convinced Propaganda Fide to build a new 4-story building with room for 16 students. It was adjacent to the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Piazza Madonna dei Monti, where the Ruthenian procurature had stood since the 1640s. Emperor Franz Joseph paid 100,000 Lire, Propaganda loaned the College 42,301, and the rest of the total 181,807 Lire was paid by benefactors.

On 18 December 1897, Leo XIII issued the bull Paternam benevolentiam, founding the institution specifically for the Greek-Catholic Ruthenians of the Metropolitan Province of Lviv-Halych (Later, Hungarian eparchs also sent seminarians). In the College, Sembratovych saw one of his principal goals accomplished but he was too ill to attend its opening and died of cancer the following year. In his stead he deputized Bishop Konstantyn Chekhovych of Przemyśl to perform the inaugural blessing on 19 December 1897. Twelve seminarians transferred from the Greek College.

 

Jesuit Superiors (1897–1904)

Sembratovych settled for the Jesuits of the Roman Province, who were already administering the Greek College of St. Athanasius, but only until the Basilian Order could assume command. The Jesuits were very unpopular among Ukrainians in Austria, and tensions between them and their pupils had already shown themselves ta the Greco-Ruthenian College. As a result, Ukrainians were reluctant study in Rome. Another difficulty was that the Italian Jesuits were not familiar with the Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite nor with the Ukrainian language, and culture. They were unable to identify challenges faced by the Greek-Catholic clergy and did not sympathize with their national concerns.

At the beginning of the academic year, the autumn of 1897, Jesuit superiors transferred from the Greek to the Ruthenian College and the Greek College was entrusted to Benedictines. The Jesuit superiors consisted in three priests: a Rector, a Minister, and a Spiritual Director. Two or three Jesuit brothers also served as cooks and sacristans. In addition, lay servants were engaged as porters, cleaners, and waiters. The Minister responsible for all matters concerning discipline and provisions. the spiritual director offered Confessions and spiritual talks, counselling, and preached the annual retreat. Unlike the Greek-College, seminarians worshipped liturgically in the Byzantine Rite only. Nevertheless, outside of the liturgy parallel disciplines were maintained: Latin for the Jesuits and the servants, and Byzantine for the Ukrainians. The Jesuits prayed privately except for the Spiritual Director, who administered Benediction at the end of the day according to the Latin Ritual. Dual disciplines meant that, on certain days, the superiors were feasting while the seminarians were fasting, and vice versa. In addition, the Jesuits also passed on their Latin-style non-liturgical practices and devotions to their charges.

College food was local and of a high standard. The Jesuits maintained a regimented system of meals in which the number and kind of foods was regulated according to the rank of the liturgical feast. In addition to Latin and Ruthenian Feasts, the feasts of major Jesuit Saints were also commemorated, at which the Superiors were served coffee with rosolio (liqueurs) and deserts. Meals were held in silence with readings from spiritual books, as was the custom in all Catholic seminaries. The Superiors took their daily recreation separately.

The first Rectors were Rodolfo Isolani (1897–1899) and Eugenio Polidori (1899–1903). Isolani published books on spirituality and Marian sodalities. Polidori published on the history of Italy (1886), on the exclusion of religion from Italian public education (1892), and a refutation of von Harnack’s rationalist exegesis (The Fourth Gospel, 1903). It is likely that Polidori was appointed to impose stricter discipline, as he appears to have been more austere than others. For example, he discontinued the traditional fave dei morti on All Souls Day, to the disappointment of staff and students alike. 

Polidori’s heart was at the Civiltà Cattolica where he often lunched. After four years, he was appointed superior of that apostolate. On 4 October 1903, Father Giovanni Maria Nobili Vitelleschi (1853–1908) was transferred from the elite Mondragone College to succeed him. The last and most popular Jesuit rector of the college has been airbrushed out of the College’s history by Ukrainian chroniclers. Vitelleschi, was well known for his pedagogical skills. He was a musician and tolerant in discipline. One of his compositions had been admired by Giacomo Puccini. In November, he restored the fave dei morti to everyone’s delight. He made various improvements to the college, including installing electric lighting and buying a pianoforte. He was also the only rector whose biography was published.

The Minister of the College was Father Galeassi. He kept the college chronicle meticulously and oversaw the finances and the day to day running of the instruction. After it was announced that the Jesuits were withdrawing, he lost his initiative and forgot to arrange for festive meals on several Byzantine Rite feast days. In the last month of the Jesuit administration, he was replaced, due to exhaustion. In December 1902 the Spiritual director Pietro Borselli became ill (dying 4 months later) and had to be replaced temporarily by Giovanni Soriani and Pietro Castelloni, and permanently by Pio De Mandato from May 1903.

The Jesuits accepted the charge over the Ruthenians seminarians but, as their chronicle reveals, their concerns were with their Order’s affairs. They prayed privately and continued to teach and hear confessions in other colleges and churches. Guests at the College were mainly Italian Jesuits in transit or on retreat, and alumni from their institutions such as the elite Mondragone college near Frascati. In turn, the College superiors lodged at other Jesuit institutions to rest or make their own retreats

In July 1904, Cardinal Gotti informed the Jesuit General that the College was to be entrusted to the Ukrainian Basilians in November. The College Superiors were officially informed on this on 28 July. On 9 October, shortly after the seminary had returned from summer vacation, Vitelleschi left for his new assignment, leaving the Minister and Spiritual Director in charge until the Basilians took office. The remaining two Jesuits left at the end of the October 1904.

 

Ukrainian teacher and Prefects

The Greek College had to engage a priest of their nationality to teach the Ruthenian seminarians their particular liturgical ritual and music. This arrangement was maintained at the Ruthenian College, but the priest also had an additional duty of celebrating Divine services for the seminarians. The only priest in Rome was the bishops’ procurator, Vasyl Levytsky, who was already functioning in this role at the Greek College. After only a short time, however, he stepped on toes by complaining, on behalf of Bishop Chekhovych, that Jesuits were introducing Latin devotions to the seminarians. By the autumn of 1902, he had lost interest in the College and had to be replaced by Aleksander Ulytsky, who abandoned his post without warning after serving only five months. The new Procurator, Mykhailo Jatskovsky, took over the role in April 1903. On Sundays and feast days, Bulgarian Bishop Lazar Mladenov celebrated Divine Liturgy in the church for the seminarians. Otherwise, services were held in the domestic chapel, especially in winter.

            Given the Jesuits’ reserve, greater influence was exercised over the students by the prefect (a student priest) or the vice-prefect. The Prefects were a go-between between staff and students and wrote the instructions for seminarians in their native tongue. In 1903, Ivan Lutsyk was named prefect after his ordination, and seminarian Yosyf Kotsylovsky was made vice-prefect who was known as the beadle.

 

Basilians (1904–1915)

The Jesuits had been charged, in 1882, with reforming the decadent Basilians into zealous reformers that would educate a clerical and lay elite in a loyal Catholic spirit. By the end of the nineteenth century, Government and Church officials were clamouring for reformed Basilians to take charge of the Greek-Catholic seminary system. In Ruthenian-Ukrainian society, there were heated debates over the role of the Jesuits, which hastened to end their direct involvement in the Greek-Catholic Church. 

Some of the Ruthenian clergy thought it should have been given to Basilians from the beginning. Already in September 1902, the conflict between the Bishops’ procurator and the Jesuits led Sembratovych’s successor, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, to suggest that members of his own Order might be more suited to run the College. The following summer, the Prefect of Propaganda Fide asked Sheptytsky and the Jesuit Provincial of the Basilians, Father Peter Bapst, if the Basilians were prepared to do so. Sheptytsky dithered for a year, to the annoyance of Bapst, who demanded a decision. In July 1904, Sheptytsky finally agreed, and Bapst accepted on the Basilians’ behalf.

Bapst consulted Sheptytsky on the choice of personnel. He first proposed priests who had studied in Rome and knew Italian, Luka Ivantsiv as Rector and Pavlo Demchuk as Spiritual Director. A brother scholastic was to serve as prefect and a lay brother as cook. Before the decision could be made, the Jesuits resigned from the Basilian reform and the new superiors had to make their own selection. Arseniy Lozynsky was selected over Ivantsiv (fortuitously, it turned out) and he and Demchuk arrived in Rome on 14 October 1904. For two weeks, they observed the workings of the college under the two remaining Jesuits. The Basilians took charge on 1 November 1904.

Like their predecessors, the Basilians stood somewhat aloof from their diocesan seminarians although they were more austere than Jesuits, for instance, in diet. Nevertheless, were unable to deal with the nationalistic conflicts between seminarians. The stress caused Lozynsky to lose his health and, by the end of the academic year, the new Basilian Provincial, Platonid Filas, proposed that he be replaced by Demchuk. Propaganda would not permit this because, as spiritual director, Demchuk had been privy to the seminarians’ private faults. This would constitute a violation of the canonical separation between the internal and the external forums. The Basilian Provincial Council recommended Adrian Davyda, superior of Drohobych. Filas presented the candidate and Cardinal Gotti appointed him rector after obtaining Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s approval.

Father Davyda had a stronger character but was unable to resolve the conflict between the different national tendencies. In June 1907 a group of seminarians complained to the Congregation of about the tensions within the College. Davyda favoured the majority Ukrainophiles and tried to ban Moscophile seminarians, but his proposed rules were not approved by the Congregation.

Father Demchuk’s health also began to fail, and he was recalled to Galicia and replaced with Ivantsiv in March 1908. Luka Ivantsiv suffered from mania and severe scruples and began to complain incessantly to Propaganda about the rector. In July 1908, he had a complete mental collapse and was confined to a religious house in Ancona, where he died.

To resolve the situation, Filas proposed to replace Davyda with Lazar Berezovsky, who had been student prefect in the Lviv Seminary and superior of the Basilian community and press in Zhovkva. Metropolitan Sheptytsky suggested that Davyda remain for a time and later be recalled for health reasons, since Ivantsiv’s accusations had been exaggerated. Gotti asked Father Filas to do just that, but Davyda did not return to Rome so, on 23 September 1908, Berezovsky was named rector.

Lazar Berezovsky’s tenure, from 1908 until the closure of the College in 1915, brought peace and stability to the College. By 1910, the superiors were adding the title, “ad S. Josaphat” to the name of the College, a title which replaced the designation “Ruteno” in 1932. In July 1910, Berezovsky prepared a fresh draft of the College rules, which were approved by Pius X ad experimentum in September 1911. The following year, the esteemed pedagogue Teodoziy Halushchynsky was named spiritual director. During this period, the College rectors became consultants to the Roman Curia on Ruthenian-Ukrainian affairs. 

 

National Identity

Indoctrinating the young Ruthenian-Ukrainians with Roman Universalism was difficult, since their hearts and minds were oriented toward their native land. The principal question among the Ruthenians was national identity and national rights within the Empire. Indeed, this question was the principal problem in Austrian politics of the time. In the year of thew College’s opening, the nationalities question led to a parliamentary crisis and the fall of the government. And a month before the opening, a group of seminarians protested the Propaganda that devotions at the college should be in their own language.

There were two main tendencies of Ruthenian national identity in Galicia: Ukrainophile and Russophile (the Russophiles, in turn, were divided between Old Ruthenophoiles, who were basically church traditionalists, and Moscophiles). Moscophiles saw themselves as a branch of Russian imperial culture; Ukrainophiles saw themselves as part to the culture of Little Rus from Russian Ukraine. In addition, Ruthenians struggled against the assimilation program by the Polish ruling classes. 

Moscophiles were religiously conservative but pro-Orthodox and politically pro-Russian. Ukrainophiles were ideological liberals some of whom gravitated toward anticlericalism and socialism. At first, the Greek-Catholic hierarchy favour one or the other. The student prefects were ordered to write instructions in the neutral phonetic script used by Greek-Catholic chanceries, which was neither Church Slavonic nor vernacular Ukrainian. Many of the Moscophile seminarians belonged to the Lviv Archeparchy because Metropolitan Sheptytsky had not yet made up his mind on the issue. In 1902, he issued a pastoral letter to his clergy, admonishing them not to bicker over national identity. And Fathers Ivantsiv and Demchuk had been proposed for the College because they were neutral, while the majority of Basilians were Ukrainophiles.

In May 1905, the simmering tensions between the factions exploded. The first-year alumni were due to swear the oath that they would be ordained in celibacy. When the Secretary of Propaganda came to receive their oath, five out of eight had scruples about the contents of Alexander VII’s bull, which had been read in the refectory the day before. Rolleri told them that everything would be clarified by the rector but Lozynsky was unable to provide a convincing explanation and had to call for backup from his deputy. Demchuk argued that the archaic contents of the bull was not binding, only the oath. Lozynsky was unable to cope and confined himself to his room. Solemnities were cancelled and a tense atmosphere hung over the college. Lozynsky tried to lay the blame others and sought to expel the leaders of both factions, including the future Bishop Kotsylovsky, the student prefect and a leader of the Ukrainophiles.

Meanwhile, both factions wrote to the Pope and to Cardinal Gotti. The first Basilian chronicler of the College wrote that the Pope threatened to close the college unless harmony was restored. In fact, the Pope’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, called Cardinal Gotti of Propaganda to discuss the situation, but did not propose any drastic measures. Lozynsky assured Propaganda that harmony had been restored but he had lost control and was allowed to leave gracefully, in October 1905.

The conflict simmered quietly for the next two years. Rector Davyda allowed Ukrainian newspapers but forbade the Moscophile Galichanin and wrote to the bishops not to send any more Moscophile seminarians. Lviv Archeparchy ignored him and sent two out of four. The Ukrainophile party gained a permanent foothold in the 1907 Austrian elections. Metropolitan Sheptytsky began to favour the Ukrainophiles and isolate the Moscophiles. The Rector did the same at the College. In 1906, he expelled four seminarians and, in December 1907, dismissed the leader of the Moscophiles, Ivan Kozorovsky. In March 1908, Davyda attempted to enshrine the ban on Moscophile seminarians in the College rules. Although his draft was rejected his successor’s (approved in 1911) included “inciting political discord” as grounds for expulsion. The national identity conflict was never mentioned in the chronicle after 1906 and the College appears to have avoided any reverberations from the fierce battle waged at the Lviv seminary, in February 1912, which resulted in its closing for several months. At the beginning of that year, several seminarians left the Ruthenian College rather than take the mandatory celibacy oath envisioned in the new rules.

Father Davyda was credited with having given the College a Ukrainian character. Thenceforth it became a place to visit Ukrainian hierarchs, clergy, and pilgrims, as well as leading intellectual figures such as Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Vadym Scherbakivsky, and Modest Sosenko. Metropolitan Sheptytsky made annual visits and Bishop Soter Ortynsky was given a grand send off on his way to the United States to become the first Greek-Catholic bishop in the Americas. 

Despite their Ukrainian focus, students participated in the principal Roman holidays (such as All Saints and All Souls and Corpus Domini) and annual festivities such as the anniversary of the College’s founder, Pope Leo XIII. On occasion, they spoke with Pope Leo and more often with Pius X at private audiences. Each year, superiors and students celebrated the onomastic, birthday, and regnal anniversaries of Emperor Franz Joseph, and brought greetings to the Austro-Hungarian embassy. Seminarians went to the Vatican to see visiting monarchs such as Britain’s Edward VII and Germany’s Wilhelm II. They took part in the mourning for the death of Leo XIII and celebrated the election and coronation of Pius X. The college chronicler also recorded the rector and students attending a rally at the French College to protest the anti-clerical laws, in 1907.

On 28 June 1914, the Basilian chronicler recorded their shock and disappointment at the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. Ukrainians considered the Austrian heir to the throne sympathetic to their cause. This event and the ensuing First World war completely eclipsed the death of Pius X and the election of Benedict XV, which were passed over by the chronicler.

 

Celibacy

The second major issue at the College was mandatory celibacy, which was tightly connected with the question of national identity. Pressure from the Roman Curia to promote clerical celibacy was looked on as a Polish plot to decapitate one of the core Ukrainian institutions. Ukrainians looked up their married priestly class, highly engaged in national affairs, as a cornerstone of their national movement. And many seminarians were themselves sons of priests. The Papal Legate had attempted to favour celibacy at the 1891 Lviv Synod, prompting fierce opposition from the clergy. 

Some Ukrainian seminarians were reluctant to study in Rome because they had to swear the oath prescribed by Urban VIII and Alexander VII to remain in celibacy. In addition, before receiving a doctorate, they had to have been ordained a deacon. Many chose to return home at their end of their fourth year of theology, without a doctorate, so they could be married before being ordained.

The Jesuit Rectors took a very moderate approach to the issue. Their philosophy was that it was better to encourage voluntary celibacy than force the seminarians. The Jesuits allowed the old oaths to fallen into disuse. Father Polidori had wanted to make the oaths into partial promises because the Ukrainian bishops were more concerned with forced celibacy than with the normative married clergy. Yet, Propaganda Fide ordered him to bring the oath back int practice. Polidori had to call the seminarians together to inform them of the decision. In addition, on 31 May 1900, he gave them a long talk about the oath and the educational and financial benefits of studying in Rome. He also called each seminarian to his room to have a personal discussion about the oath. Most were still reluctant but 12 finally took the oath and two left. The following year, everybody accepted the oath without protest. Polidori continued to promote celibacy as a free choice because he believed that a Roman education was already exerting a powerful influence in that direction.

The debate over the status of the celibacy oath considerably delayed approval the college rules. After approving a draft, on 12 July 1910, Pius X added the proviso that no one was to be formally admitted unless they promised to live in celibacy. Nevertheless, the oath could be delayed for a year after their arrival. In July 1912, Cardinal Gotti ordered that anyone seeking to prolong the oath beyond a year had to be sent home.

 

College Life

The course of theological studies lasted four years. Ukrainians were slightly older than many of their other Roman counterparts because the Austrian authorities required them to complete gymnasium before entering the seminary. The pontifical education system was stricter than in Austria and mature seminarians found it difficult to accept being deprived of previously held freedoms. The seminarians spoke Ukrainian and Polish among themselves but very little Italian, leading Vitelleschi to remark: “In an attempt to be understood, I spoke to them in Trastevere (Roman) dialect and Germanize the endings.”

The academic year began on 1 November. New students wore secular attire for six months or a year, until they swore their oath. After this they were clothed in the blue college cassock with a yellow sash, the Ukrainian national colours, chosen by Sembratovych. Correspondence with outsiders was discouraged except with family, their bishop, and benefactors. During the month of May, each seminarian had to preach a short practice sermon in his native language. Inside College, they were to keep silent in corridors and required permission had from the prefect or beadle to speak with other seminarians. Conversations were limited to 4 to 5 minutes and then only at the student’s door, as they were forbidden from entering their rooms. During free time, they were permitted to speak with others in common room and to go for walks but only in pairs. Cash was to be deposited with the rector. Seminarians were permitted to bathe weekly but not more, except during vacation when they stayed near the sea and groups went swimming daily.

The daily schedule was virtually identical to that of other Roman Colleges. Awards were handed out annually to the best students at Propaganda Fide College. During their last year, seminarians were to dedicate an hour daily to studying the liturgical services and Church Slavonic. Those who remained for higher studies, beyond the fourth year, could be ordained in Rome after taking ordination exams from the Vicariate of Rome. From 1897 to 1915, the Bulgarian Bishop performed these ordinations.

Although it had an historical connection, Piazza Madonna die Monti was not particularly suited for seminary life due to the clamour in the streets. In the piazza, fish, meat, and fruit mongers sold their wares in the morning. At night and into the early morning hours, revellers shouted and sang, accompanied by mandolin and guitar. Father Vitelleschi, whose window faced the Piazza degli Zingari, compared the atmosphere disparagingly to Naples. The Roman climate and diet did not agree with all the seminarians or even the superiors, and some returned home for health reasons. Each year, the college left Rome for the summer. The Jesuits had arranged to rent the seminary in Tivoli. Gita or outings were organized regularly for sightseeing and exercise.

 

The First World War

On 28 July 1914, the College chronicler recorded Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia, when the seminary was still on vacation. They returned to Rome, as usual, in October, but no new diocesan seminarians arrived that year, only three Basilian scholastics, who had been forced to study abroad due to the Russian occupation of Galicia. The College celebrated Christmas but there was to be no Easter because, once Italy entered the war on the Entente side, 8 May 1915, the Austrian Embassy informed its subjects they they must leave the country. On 9 and 10 May, the superiors and eleven seminarians left via Zurich for Vienna, where they were met by Father Filas. The diocesans went to a temporary seminary in Kromeriž, Moravia, run by Father Kotsylovsky. (Among them was future Archbishop Ivan Buchko, who was ordained a priest in Kromeriž. From 1942 until his death in 1974, he resided at the new College building on the Janiculum.) Father Halushchynsky took the Basilian scholastics to a seminary near Vienna owned by the Verbite order. They all returned home once the Russians retreated from Galicia.

Father Berezovsky retuned to direct the College when it was reopened, in 1921. At that time, Ukrainian identity and self-determination became a major issue. To eliminate the title “Ruthenian” but without adopting “Ukrainian” which was banned in Galicia (under Polish rule), the name was changed to “Pontifical College of Saint Josaphat.”

Both Berezovsky and Halushchynsky were destined to spend a lifetime in the Eternal City. Berezovsky served as rector for a second time from in 1921 to 1925 and returned to Rome as a General Counsellor of the Basilian Curia from 1932 to 1946. Halushchynsky became Spiritual Director for a second time in 1931 and served in that position until his appointment as Basilian Superior General, in 1949. Both men died in 1952.

I am very grateful to my friends and colleagues Father Yeronim Hrim, OSBM, Father Joseph Koczera, SJ, and Dr Gianfranco Armando, who lent assistance and advice on this topic.

Presented on 15 December 2023  the international academic conference I collegi per stranieri a Roma, 1850–1915, hosted by the Instituto Nazionale per i Studi Romani. Publication forthcoming in February 2024.