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.

Yosyf Botsian: The Forgotten Ukrainian Bishop

In memory of 

Bishop 

YOSYF BOTSIAN
on the ninetieth anniversary of his death

Lviv, 21 November 1926

-Born in Busk of Kamienets, 10 March 1879

-seminary companion of Blessed Nykyta Budka, Innsbruck 1902

-ordained priest, Univ, 21 August 1904

-doctor of theology, Vienna 1905

-rector of the Lviv Greek-Catholic Seminary, 9 October 1910

-ordained Bishop of Lutsk, Hotel Continental, Kyiv, 21 September 1914

-arrested by Russian occupiers, Lviv, 18 February 1915

-exiled to Yenissey, Siberia, 28 May 1915

-released by Provisional Government, 3 March 1917

-assisted at recognition of relics of St. Josaphat, Vienna, 31 August 1917

-returned to Lviv and resumed rectorship, 10 September 1917

-appointed vicar for Kholm Eparchy, March 1918

-interned in Lviv Seminary by Polish army, 3 November 1918

-resigned as rector due to ill health, April 1919

-Benedict XV confirmed as Bishop of Lutsk, 23 February 1921

-scholarly work at Pidhirtsi Monastery (old Lutsk Eparchy) 1922

-auxiliary bishop of Lviv, 20 October 1924
-ordained Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky (future Bishop of Lutsk) to the priesthood, 9 October 1925

-presented as archpriest of Lviv Metropolitan Chapter of Canons, July 1926.

longer article to follow

Controversies over the Bishopric of Halych

It is very difficult to find an adequate explanation of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian episcopal title of Halych. I had planned to write an article on the confused identity of this bishopric on the occasion of the creation of multiple Greek-Catholic metropolitan-archeparchies in Ukraine. However, most of my time was taken up with Nykyta Budka research.  In the meantime, I came across a Vatican translation which referred to Sviatoslav Shevchuk as “Major Archbishop of Kyiv and Galicia.” Although I congratulated the service for following the Ukrainian government directive that city names be transliterated from Ukrainian and not from the commonly accepted Russian forms (Ukr. "Kyiv" as opposed to Russian "Kiev"), I pointed out that, in no way could Shevchuk be titled archbishop of “Galicia.” To my correction I received a courteous response stating that an official Ukrainian Catholic source had provided this rendering of “Верховний Архиєпископ Києво-Галицький.”

My maternal great-grandparents immigrated to Canada in 1907 from what today is western Ukraine. I remember my grandmother often reminiscing that Angliky (Anglophone Canadians) used to call the early Ukrainian immigrants “Galicians” or even “garlic Galicians.” This derogatory appellative undoubtedly referred to the fact that Anglos were unfamiliar with the pungent odor of garlic, which Ukrainian settlers generously used in their cuisine.  In late nineteenth and early twentieth-century correspondence, we often find Canadian churchmen using “Galician” to refer to Ukrainian and sometimes to Polish immigrants from a province of the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria-Hungary known officially as “Galicia.”

The English form “Galicia” derrives from “Galitia,” the Latin chancery form of the German “Galizien.”  Toward the end of the 18^th century, not wanting to unilaterally annex the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Tsarist Russia was able to enlist the collusion of Prussia and Austria, each of which agreed to accept a portion of Polish territory.  The Catholic Empress-Queen Maria Theresa is recorded as having had strong scruples about stealing lands from the Polish king.  Regarding such protests, her archrival and fellow partitioner, Fredrick the Great of Prussia, mockingly observed, “The more she weeps the more she takes.”

Outright annexation has always been frowned upon.  Today invaders might use a political paradigm such as “liberation” or “spreading democracy,” but in the eighteenth century a dynastic solution was in order.  The principalities, duchies and counties of a given territory were transferred from the feudal lordship of one sovereign to another. Russia, which got the bulk of Poland-Lithuania, dethroned the king of Poland altogether and the Tsarina assumed the crown of Poland for herself and her successors.  Prussia got a few duchies in the west but under what guise could the heterogeneous portion be included into Austrian lands?  Imperial chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, was charged with finding a solution. The Habsburgs had been hereditary kings of Hungary since 1527 and Kaunitz researched the historical claims of that particular crown.

In enlisting the expertise of Greek-Catholic priest-historian Mykhaylo Harasevych, Kaunitz reasoned that the territories partitioned were more-or-less those of the ancient Rus (Ruthenian) principalities Halych and Volodymyr. As the Mongols extended their control of Kyivan-Rus lands, Halych passed under Hungarian suzerainty from 1214–1221 and was conquered by King Casmir the Great in 1349.  Under Poland the area was known as the wojewódstwo ruskie (Ruthenian Palatinate or Duchy). But given fact that Pope Innocent IV had sent a royal crown to Prince Danylo of Halych in 1253, it was decided that the territory could be appropriately denoted Königreiche Galizien und Lodomerien (Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria). And the new hereditary king was Maria Theresa’s son and co-ruler Josef II, who was sent to three times in the 1780s to visit and inspect the new province, whose capital Lemberg (Lviv) had been named after Danylo’s son.

Austria-Hungary

Governed by Austria until the end of the First World War, Galicia contained a multi-ethnic population of Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Germans and Armenians.  The western half (eventually including Krakow) was mainly Polish, while the eastern part was predominantly Ukrainian in the countryside.  The cities were dominated by the Polish elites. From November 1918 to July 1919 Ukrainians fought to establish a western Ukrainian state in Eastern Galicia but by July 1919 the stronger Polish forces had defeated them and incorporated the territory (albeit provisorialy until 1923) into the Second Polish Republic, which renamed it Małopolska Wschodnia (Eastern Little Poland).  In 1939 the occupying Soviets staged a plebiscite to join the Ukrainian SSR, a move made permanent in 1945.

Arms of Galicia and Lodomeria

The term “Galicia” is widely known in historical publications but relatively unknown among Ukrainians today. When referring to the territory and even to the Austrian province, they generally used the Ukrainian rendering Halychyna.  Having been brought up on John-Paul Himka’s articles on the Ukrainians in Austrian Galicia, I was surprised and amused when one Greek-Catholic priest took exception to my use of the term, claiming that, even in English, the territory should be called Halychyna because the name Galicia applies to a province of Spain.

Confusion between the terms Galicia and Halych continued long after Austrian Galicia had ceased to exist politically.  Ukrainians who had been forcefully incorporated into the Polish State after 1920 were reluctant to use the term “Little Poland” to refer to the provinces of Lviv, Stanyslaviv, and Ternopil, and so they continued to refer to the territory as Halychyna. Along side this appellative, the Halytska mytropolia (Metropolitan See of Halych) continued to exist and the Halytskyi mytropolyt was looked upon not merely as a religious leader but also as a national leader (ethnarch) by the stateless Ukrainians.

In view of Ukrainian resistance, the Polish Government sought to limit the influence of the Greek-Catholic Church, in particular the church's primate, Halytsky Mytropolyt Andrey Sheptytsky.  In 1921 the government sacked its first envoy to the Holy See and appointed Count Wladysław Skrzyński, Sheptytsky’s own cousin, who was tasked with taking a harder line against Ukrainian interests in the Vatican. After failing to achieve Sheptytsky's removal, Skrzyński engineered a compromise which allowed the metropolitan to return to Lviv, and was rewarded with by being named ambassador proper to the Holy See when the Polish legation was raised to the rank of a full embassy in 1925.

Poland had achieved independence and had consolidated is territory largely due to the efforts of Marshall Józef Piłsudski, who had taken power by a military coup in November 1918.  From then until the first presidential elections of 1922, Piłsudski acted as interim head of state, after which he retired from the political scene.  However, after four years of weak government, parliamentary factionalism, and economic woe, in May 1926 Piłsudski emerged from retirement and staged a second coup, establishing an authoritarian, semi-parliamentary regime over which he was de facto dictator. This hybrid political experiment proved to be a failure and in June 1930 the opposition parties called for the abolition of the dictatorship.  Piłsudski retaliated by disbanding parliament, arresting, imprisoning, and torturing the opposition, which included Ukrainian parliamentarians. 

After dealing with his Polish opponents, Piłsudski gave orders to crush Ukrainian opposition.  In response to raids on Polish landowners by the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Piłsudski ordered a massive counterattack in the form of a bloody “Pacification” campaign.  Police detachments were raided hundreds of Ukrainian villages and demolished buildings. The nationally conscious Greek-Catholic clergy were not spared in and even Sheptytsky’s auxiliary, Bishop Ivan Buchko, was mistreated and prevented from carrying out pastoral visitations.  Despite protests from around the world including censure from the British and Canadian Parliaments, the infamous “Pacification” lasted into 1931, with the regime assigning collective responsibility to the entire Ukrainian people for OUN attacks.  

In 1930 Sheptytsky traveled to Warsaw in an attempt to personally meet with Marshall Piłsudski. The metropolitan sought to convince the dictator that harsh measures against the Ukrainians would only result in gains for both the OUN and communist radicals.  Unfortunately the request for an audience was refused and the regime made several provocative gestures against the Ukrainian primate, convinced that he was behind Ukrainian political opposition. The first incident occured when police raided the metropolitan’s orphanage on the very evening when he received the Polish Primate, Cardinal Hlond. A pastoral letter issued by Sheptytsky and his fellow bishops was later confiscated, in contravention of the Concordat’s stipulations.

The same pastoral letter gave rise to Polish complaints to the Vatican regarding Sheptytsky’s title. On 28 May 1931, Ambassador Skrzyński dispatched a note to Cardinal Pacelli, Secretary of State to Pius XI, complaining that Sheptytsky was using the title “Metropolita Halicki.” Skrzyński noted that, according to Article IX B of the Concordat, he was listed only as “Archbishop of the Greek-Catholic Rite and of the Archdiocese of Lwów,” and that use of the other was intended for “purely political ends.”

Cardinal Pacelli forwarded the complaint to the competent Vatican department, the Congregation for the Eastern Church, but the department’s staff were unable to find legal arguments for the title’s use in their records (This Oriental Congregation was a relitively new department and so it’s archival materials did not extend further back than 1862).  On 16 June, the Congregation’s head, Cardinal Luigi Sincero, enlisted two of his expert advisors (consulters), Father Cyrille Korolevskij and Monsignor Enrico Benedetti. The following is a translation of Korolevskij’s report, explaining the origins and use of the title of Halych:

The Ruthenian Hierarchy of the so-called Little Poland traces its origins from the Kievan Metropolia of the patriarchate of Constantinople. This was the only metropolia to which they belonged since the conversion of  the Ruthenians to Christianity (from the XII–XIII centuries divided into two branches, Great Russians and Little Russians known today as Ukrainians).

The first document in which we can obtain a reliable list of the suffragan sees of Kiev is the Record of Manuel I Comnenus, published a little after 1170, in which there are eleven bishoprics, among which is that of Halych.

Halych was raised to metropolitan rank perhaps already in 1303 and for sure by 1345, at the request of the local princes, when the Kievan metropolitan, after the conquest and burning of Kiev by Mongol invaders (Tatars) in 1299, went to live in Vladimir on the Klazma and later to Moscow. At the request of the Metropolitan of Kiev Teognost and the Grand Prince of Moscow Simeon Ioanovych Gordij, this erection was annulled by the Byzantine Emperor John VI Paleologus and this annulment was confirmed by Patriarch Isidore I in September 1347.

After the Lithuanians had conquered Kiev and Podolia, in the first half of the 14^th century, the Lithuanian King Olgherd obtained in 1355 from Patriarch Philoteus I Koskinos a special metropolitan see for all the Lithuanian domains. This metropolia lasted until 1419, the year during which the eparchies that made up returned under the Metropolitan of Kiev, still resident in Moscow.  Halych and Leopolis belonged to this metropolia or ceased to belong to according to political viscidities.

Thus, when the Polish King Casmir III the Great had conquered Galicia from the Mongol-Tatars in 1362, he again obtained from the same Patriarch Philoteus in 1371 that Antonii, the bishop of Halych, became a metropolitan and had for suffragans all the Ruthenians bishops of Casmir’s domains.  In case the patriarch refused, the king threatened to re-baptize all the Ruthenians as Latins.  Halych received as its suffragan sees Kholm, Turov, Peremysl and Vladimir Volynsk. No mention was made of Leopolis because that bishopric did not exist until 1540, when it was established by the Kievan Metropolitan Makarii II.

After the death of Antonii in 1380, the metropolia of Halych had no bishop and was administered by one of the suffragan bishops with the title of patriarchal exarch, either from the Greek Archbishop of Bethlehem or by the Metropolitan of Kiev by means of a vicar.  This situation lasted until 1412, after which, for a second time, the metropolia of Halych ceased to exist.  Halych did not even continue as a bishopric and, in the meantime, in 1595 the second and definitive union with Rome occurred (The first lasted from  about 1439 to 1517 but has no bearing here.)

In 1626, the Catholic metropolitan of Kiev, Yosyf Veliamin Rutsky, wanted to obtain a coadjutor with the right of succession, chose the priest-monk Rafail Korsak and obtained for the latter the royal nomination to the bishopric of Halych.  He believed that he could do this, as for all of his other suffragans, without the intervention of Rome, in virtue of Clement VIII’s bull Decet Romanum Pontificem of 23 February 1596, which confirmed the rights and privileges of the Metropolitan of Kiev.  Being that this pertained to a coadjutor and future successor, The Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide did not consider it necessary to obtain a dispensation from of the Holy See.  In fact, confirmation of the nomination occurred [without an special decree] in the papal Consistory of 31 July 1628.

In 1631, since Rutsky wanted the See of Halych to remain joined to the Metropolia of Kiev in the person of Korsak after he had suceeeded as metropolitan, until the latter chose for himself a coadjutor upon whom he would confer the same title of Halych.  It was then judged necessary a new proposition in Consistory and a the dispatch of a new papal bull.  In the following year 1632, Korsak also became Bishop of Pinsk and soon listed in documents only as Bishop of Pinsk.  Metropolitan Rutsky died on 5 February 1637 and Korsak succeeded him, but the latter himself died suddenly in Rome in 1640 without having chosen a coadjutor.  As far as I know, the Church (See) of Halych was no longer mentioned but the fact remained that, from 1631, the episcopal see of Halych was united to the metropolitan see of Kiev.

The entire story had been completely forgotten and the documents buried in archival dust when, from 1774, discussions began for establishing a metropolia separate from Kiev for the Ruthenian eparchies that had passed under Austrian rule after the partition of Poland. It was the Ruthenian bishops of Austria that petitioned Pius VII to re-establish the ancient metropolitan see of Halych.  In order to do so, they needed to prove the ancient existence of that metropolia, and it was not deemed to be a good idea to base it on the decrees of non-Catholic patriarchs.  Thus they invoked the bull of [the anti-pope] John XXIII dated the V before the calends of September in the third year of his reign (= 28 August 1412), by which “antequam sedem Haliciensem transferret in metropolitanam sub invocatione Beatae Mariae Viriginis, tunc fuerat erecta (= Leopoliensis cathedralis ecclesia) ac deinceps ad simplicis episcopalis Ecclesiae statum redacta.” 

Yet the bull of John XXIII was not issued for the Ruthenian see but for the Latin diocese. How such a mistake could be made, has to be attributed to either a complete ignorance of history, easily explained in this period, or in the usual craftiness of the Austrian Imperial Chancellery and of the excessively-praised Ruthenian Canon Mykhaylo Harasevych.  The fact is that, despite an illusion to the union of the See of Halych to that of Kiev, something that only happened in the case of the Ruthenian see (the Latin diocese of Kiev has always been a simple bishopric and never an archbishopric or metropolitan see), the entire bull of Pius VII, In universalis Ecclesiae regimine of 22 March 1807 which reestablishes the Ruthenian Metropolia of Halych, is based on the bull of John XXIII issued for the Latin dioceses.

Whatever the case may be, it is necessary here to apply to law the theological principle that, even a dogmatic definition can be historically or theologically inexact, but that the definition itself is still true. In 1807 Pius VII established a Ruthenian metropoitanate of Halych and, at the same time, applied to the Ruthenian see of Lviv an archiepiscopal title which was considered very old but which, in reality, had never existed as such, only as a Latin archdiocese.

Thus it can be explained why today, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky may sign “Metropolitan of Halych, Archbishop Lviv.” I believe that, until now, no one has ever noticed the confusion: the editors of the introduction of the Schematism of the Ruthenian Archparchy of Lviv, as can be seen in add the editors anterior to the [First World] War, base themselves on the bull, In universalis Ecclesiae, on an event which took place in 1412 but which did not pertain to the Ruthenians.

He also signs “Bishop of Kamenets-Podolsk”.  It’s not completely certain that a Ruthenian bishopric existed in the Middle Ages in Kamenets, a city founded in the 13^th century, a commercial centre and thus soon populated by all sorts of people: Russians, Ruthenians, Poles, Armenians, Jews, Tatars.  Only one of the old Russian chronicles speaks of a Bishop of Kamenets, whom it does not name.  The non-Catholic Orthodox eparchy was not established before 1798.  I saw a quantity of Ruthenian documents dated before 1808: but I don’t even remember seeing in the any sort of title of Kamenets used by a Ruthenian bishop of Lviv. And Michael Harasevych, provost of the Ruthenian Chapter of Lviv and great collector of Ruthenian documents, who put this title back into use, which is demonstrated in the speeches given on the occasion of the first Metropolitan of Halych after the restoration by  Pius VII, Antonii Anhelovych.  Since that time, all the metropolitans have also added to their titles that of Kamenets.

Even the listing of the titles of this metropolitante varied.  In a pastoral letter of 1840, Mykhaylo Levytsky, later cardinal, took the titles of  Metropolita Ruthenorum unitorum Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis Episcopus Camenecensis.  Ad in another pastoral of 1841 (the old-slavonic version) which I have before me, used the version: Archbishop and Metropolitan of Lvov and of Halych of the Ruthenians United to the Church of Rome.” In 1855 he signed the pastoral letter promulgating the bull Ineffabilis in this way: Metropolita Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis, Episcopus Kamenecensis.  And thenceforth all his successors have done so, including Metropolitan Sheptytsky.

This is not the first time that Metropolitan Sheptytsky has used the sole title of Metropolitan of Halych.  He does it when he writes pastoral letters of a general theme addressed either to the entire ecclesiastical province or to the Ruthenians of Canada (it is known that before the nomination of the Ruthenian Bishop of Canada, he was very concerned to preserve the faith of the Ruthenian emigrants, and who could blame him?).  I have a few examples, one from 1902, the first of its kind translated into Polish.

II.

Now I move to the question inquiry.  After the Concordat of 1925... It is evident to whomever objectively reads point B of Article IX of the said Concordat that this point is not about titles but rather represents a simple list of dioceses (or eparchies) of the three rites in Poland according to French terminology which is the language of the Concordat.  If it were not thus, it would be necessary also to prohibit the Ruthenian Bishop of  Przemysl from entitling himself, as he continues to do, “Bishop of Przemysl, Sanok, and Sambor,”  because that is more-or-less the ancient usage, as the last two titles do not appear in the Concordat.  Throughout the world, bishops use titles more or less long, which recall suppressed sees or historical memories, etc.  Such titles are never listed in concordats because those deal with geographical divisions, not titles.

Does the qualification “ “Metropolitan of Halych” have a political meaning?  I really don’t think so because it did not have any such meaning in 1902 nor in the years following.  Therefore I believe that this [complaint] is simply a ruse to vex Sheptytsky. The Metropolitan’s situation is very sad indeed!...

At present, the Ruthenian Ecclesiastical Province of Halych is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff: not as its ordinary metropolitan (because it has never been part of the patriarchate of Rome) but rather that of Constantinople; nor as an autocephalous metropolitan, because it has suffragan sees and because it has never been autocephalous.  It is an authentic autonomous archbishopric with patriarchal jurisdiction.  Although, at present, it has only a single ecclesiastical province, according to the constitution of the Eastern Church, one day it could also have others subject to it.

Kyr Sheptytsky is both archbishop and metropolitan together: as archbishop he presides over an autonomous Church, distinct from the other Churches of the Byzantine Rite.  In addition, he also has a suffragan ecclesiastical province of Halych with two bishoprics of Przemysl and Stanislaviv, just as the Archbishop of Ocrida had... as the Archbishop of Cyprus and other ancient bishoprics of  Nova Justiniana which have vanished.

Therefore, the proper titular protocol for Sheptytsky, even when he writes to the entire ecclesiastical province, should be “Archbishop of Lviv, Metropolitan of Halych.” There is no need to mention the bishopric of Kamenets because, in eastern terminology, when a bishopric is suppressed it is not longer mentioned.  But all this was unknown to Canon Mykhaylo Harasevych as it continues to be to the Ruthenians today.

Андрей шептицький Митрополит Галицький

[Korolevskij missed another title used by at least one Halych Metropolitan.  In 1856, Metropolitan Levytsky wrote a letter announcing his elevation to the cardinalte which began thus:

Michael Lewicki, Dei et Apostolicae Sedis Gratia Sacrae Romanae Ecclesiae Presbyter Cardinalis, Metropolita Haliciensis, Archiepiscopus Leopoliensis, Episcopus Kamenecensis, Sacrae Caesareo-Regiae et Apostolicae Majestatis actualis intimus Consiliarius, insignis Ordinis Leopoldi Magnae Crucis Eques, Rengorum Galiciae et Lodomiriae Primas, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor etc. Venerablili Clero saeculari et regulari ac fideli populo Hierarchiae Metropolitanae ritus gr. cath. Haliciensis et Archipraesuleam Benedictionem! (Harasevych, Annales, p. 1181)  Perhaps Harasevych also invented the title "primate of the Kingdoms of Galicia and Lodomeria,"since it is not found in the official church or state documents pertaining to Levytsky's elevation.

In addition, Korolevskij's disdain for title of Kamianets-Podilsk is somewhat ironic since, when he was first accepted under the metropolitan’s canonical jurisdiction, Sheptytsky ascribed him under the title of the Eparchy of Kamianets, which Metropolitan Andrey had been using as a legal precedent to engage in missionary actibvity in the Tsarist Empire. In any case, it had been one of the dorment eparchies listed in the extraordinary secret faculties granted Sheptytsky by Pius X in 1907.]

           Monsignor Benedetti added the following interesting historical data:

After the Principality of Halych was conquered by the Poles, all the Greek bishops were soon expelled and their cathedrals were occupied by Latin bishops. (Gregorio XI Id. Febr. 1375) Later, considering that Halych was remote and undefended, the metropolitan see was transferred to Lviv (John XXIII, 28 August 1412). The Orthodox Ruthenians lost their own bishops and passed under the Latin Metropolitan of Halych and Lviv, who exercised his jurisdiction via a vicar protopresbyter nominated for him by the [Orthodox] Metropolitan of Kiev who had added to his own title that of Metropolitan of Halych.

But taking into account the difficulties which the Orthodox priests encountered in making the long journey to Kiev to be ordained, Zygmunt I, King of Poland, in 1539 reestablished a Greek bishopric in Lviv “ut a Metropolitano suo Kioviensi ad dignitatem Vladicatus insignitus, possit... omnia quae ad ritum fidei eorum pertinere videbuntur administrare... nei distretti Haliciensi Leopoliensi, Camenecensi, Snyatinensi, Trembowliensi...” Certainly the erection of this bishopric cannot be considered to have been canonical but its illegitimacy does not change the fact of its existance. Thus the current Ruthenian bishopric of Lviv, Halych and Kamianets originated with Zygmunt I.

From the documents that we have until the beginning of the XIX century, the bishops of Lviv were simply entitled “Bishop of Lviv, Halych and Kamianets Podilsk.”  At the Synod of Zamost (1720) Atanasii Sheptytsky signed the acts with the formula “Athanasius Szeptycki Episcopus Leopoliensis, Haliciensis et Camenariensis Podoliae.”  It is known that Bishop Gedeon Balaban of Lviv and the bishop of Peremysl did not sign the act of union.

On 6 August 1931 the Nuncio to Poland, Francesco Marmaggi, added his opinion that the title was legitimate, despite any confusion regarding its origins, and that the concordat was not competent to alter such titles.  He noted, in fact, that the title “Primate of Poland” is not listed in the concordat, despite its use by the Archbishop of Gniezno and Poznan.

In Cardinal Sincero’s audience with Pius XI of 25 August, based on the Congregation’s research, the Pope decided to instruct Sheptytsky, so as to avoid conflicts with the Polish government, never to use the title “Metropolitan of Halych” on its own but after “Archbishop of Lviv.”

As a piece of historical trivia and perhaps an impetus for further research, it may be noted that, in 1774 Austrian officials did not chose the Ruthenian form “Halych” for the name of their new kingdom, but "Galicia," certainly closer to Polish usage but perhaps also the form borne by Hungarian monarchs. On the other hand, inn 1807 the papal chancery used the Ruthenian form “Haliciensis” in transferring and re-creating the metropolitan see. The different forms indicate that, despite their common origins, church and statesmen intended Halych and Halychyna to be two very different things.  This being said, both laymen and clerics sometimes crossed the lines between politics and religion, making 'Halych' and 'Galich' synonymous.

In his efforts to establish the Ukrainian patriarchate, Sheptytsky’s successor, Cardinal Yosyf Slipyj (1892–1984, metropolitan from 1944) had his seals inscribed “Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych and Bishop of Kamianets Podilsk.” When the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church first emerged from the underground, some tension arose between the Archeparchy of Lviv, which was united to the Halych metropolia, and the Eparchy of Ivano-Frankivsk, in which territory the insignificant city of Halych was located.  With the return of the primatial see to Kyiv in 2004,  the title of Halych was re-united with that of Kyiv. In turn, in 2011, the bishoprics of Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk, among others, were raised to metropolitan sees.

The 1925 Concordat with Poland

It is time to lay to rest the claim that the 1925 Concordat between Poland and the Holy See granted practical autonomy to the Greek-Catholic Church.  This claim continues to be repeated by various authors. However, if we examine the historical evidence we discover that although the concordat granted legal status to the Greek-Catholic Church in interwar Poland, it also deprived it of several rights and freedoms.

Following the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, nation states in the nineteenth century delineated their rights and responsibilities by written constitutions.  After the First World War, the Catholic Church negotiated written concordats with the new states, each of which also sought diplomatic recognition for itself.  In this historical context, the Holy See considered the concordat arrangement to be the best way to secure the Church’s independence and to establish a working relationship with new regimes.

Several years of preparation went into the Concordat with Poland.  The first soundings for this treaty came in July 1918 from the Regency Government of Austro-German-occupied Poland. However, negotiations had to be put on hold due to the fall of the Regency that November.  Its successor regime, the Second Republic, appeared to be unstable so the Vatican waited to see if a durable government would emerge with which it could negotiate a lasting agreement.

The Holy See began negotiations with the Polish government in 1919 but ran into opposition from a group of Polish bishops (Teodorowicz, Sapieha, and Dalbor) which wanted to negotiate directly with the government.  A compromise was reached whereby members of the Polish episcopate and religious superiors were appointed to negotiate a draft text with government representatives.  The Polish parliament adopted a federal constitution on 21 March 1921, article 114 of which stated that “relations between the state and the Church will be fixed based on an agreement with the Holy See, which must be ratified by parliament”. 

Historically, Poland is looked upon as a bastion of Catholicism but the government of the interwar Second Republic often pursued policies detrimental to the Catholic Church. Many of its politicians, who were ostensibly Catholics, had been educated in the liberal or Josephist ideologies of Austria and Germany.  They made sure that Catholicism was not declared the official religion in the March Constitution, but merely the religion of the majority.  They also sought to reproduce in the concordat, clauses favourable to the type of state interference that had existed during the previous imperial regimes.  They were surprised that the Apostolic See was reluctant to give their ostensibly Catholic state the rights which had been previously accorded to the Lutheran kaiser and the Orthodox tsar. 

It is interesting to examine the Greek-Catholics’ issues that were discussed in the concordat negotiations and how much initiative Vatican representatives took to ensure the protection of Greek-Catholic rights. The Russian regime had confiscated a large  number of churches and large portions of revenue-producing lands, especially those belonging to Eastern Catholics.  When he was nuncio in Poland, Pope Pius XI had appointed two Greek-Catholic representatives to a committee charged with drafting a proposal for the parceling of church properties.  Perhaps the most intricate question, the land reform issue, took years to negotiate, further  prolonged by the frequent changing of governments, each with  its own views  on the issue. Finally, in 1924, a draft concordat was agreed upon by church and state delegates in Poland, following which the government sent its envoy, Stanislas Grabski, to Rome to make the final negotiations with Monsignor Francesco Borgongini Duca of the Holy See. 

Before the Vatican negotiations began, Francesco Marmaggi, the apostolic nuncio to Poland, sent the draft text to both Latin and Greek-Catholic bishops and major superiors, asking for their comments and concerns.  The Ukrainian bishops expressed two principal concerns.  The first pertained to government interference in church appointments.  The bishops proposed that the church be freed of any interference in these matters, and that bishops be appointed directly by the Pope.  The second concern  related to the Eastern Catholic faithful residing in the Kholm, Pidlasia and Volyn regions. Eastern Catholic eparchies had been forcibly supressed in these regions by the Russian Empire, and the Polish regime had not permitted them to be restored, hoping that the Eastern faithful would thus come to adopt the Latin Rite. 

Bishop Przezdziecki of Lutsk pointed out that the first draft of the constutition had not mentioned the Eastern Rites, except in the context of their obligations towards the state.  He suggested that more emphasis be placed on the equality of all rites of the Catholic Church.  Przezdziecki was also concerned that the Eastern Catholics in the former uniate eparchies not be deprived of any pastoral care, as the first draft of the concordat text seemed to imply by prohibiting Greek-Catholic bishops from exercising jurisdiction outside their eparchies. His solution was for the Latin bishops of those regions to coordinate the Eastern Rite missions outside of Galicia.

Marmaggi's report to the Vatican took into account this feedback from the episcopate, giving special concern to the Greek-Catholic issues. All of his suggestions were incorporated into the Vatican’s proposals during the first phase of negotiations. These took place at the Vatican over 17 sessions between 1 October and 5 November 1924.  The Holy See was able to obtain concessions for Greek-Catholics but in some cases the government imposed restrictions.  Let us look at some of the details in the Articles of the proposed Concordat.  This will reveal where concessions by the Polish Government to the Greek Catholic Rites were sought, and where restrictions against the latter were still to continue in force. 

Article 1  was changed to read:  “The Catholic Church in all its rites will enjoy complete liberty”. Article 9 stipulated that diocesan boundaries had to be readjusted so that no bishop outside Poland had jurisdiction within the republic and that religious superiors had to be Polish citizens.  Article 11,  while stating in principal that episcopal appointments were the prerogative of the Holy See, nevertheless conceded a veto to the president of the Republic for any candidate considered politically dangerous to Poland’s interests. Article 12 enjoined that all bishops would swear before the President an oath of allegiance to the Republic.  Although Article 13 required the use of the Polish language, Grabski  promised that the government would also ensure education in the mother tongue for elementary schools.  Article 14 protected Church property from state expropriation. Article 18 stated that Oriental Catholics outside their diocesan boundaries would be placed under the jurisdiction of Latin ordinaries, a restriction that brought some debate before being included.  Article 19 stated that those dangerous to security be excluded from parochial benefices. A clause was added that, if the government did not present objections within a 30 day period, the church could proceed with parochial nominations.  Article 20 mandated that conflicts between the government and the church over appointments had to be resolved within 3 months, after which the matter would go before a commission..  To article 22, on the use of the Polish language, the Holy See added the words “in the latin rite”, so as to avoid the government mixing into Greek-Catholic affairs. 

The nuncio sent these negotiated wordings to certain bishops and clergy in Poland for comments. A second set of 8 sessions of negotiations began on 5 January and ended 2 February, 1925.  During these sessions, changes to the text included the following: In Article 2, the Holy See insisted on emphasising the complete freedom for clerics to communicate with Rome and the freedom from government censure of episcopal letters (government officials had blocked Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s pastoral letter in 1923 and would do so again in 1938).  The Holy See had been asking for the Peremysl Eparchy to be divided in two.  In this regard, Grabski signed a secret note to article 9, promising that after parliamentary ratification of the concordat one Greek and one Latin diocese would be established in Galicia.  (These promises were never fulfilled).  A comment on article 12 stated that any further concessions for the Greek-Catholic bishops regarding the oath of allegiance to the republic could not be obtained.  At the last session on 5 February, an agreement was reached on article 18 regarding Latin patronage appointments.  Cardinal Dalbor’s proposal was accepted whereby the patron of the benefice or parish had to choose one of three candidates selected by the bishop.  Despite flexibility towards the Latin Church, the Government refused to concede any liberty on this point to the Greek-Catholics.

Bishop Szelazek had been sent to Rome as a delegate of the Polish episcopate, to assist in the final negotiations.  He wrote several letters to Nuncio Marmaggi, informing him of the final phases of the work.  Szelazek stated that the last days of talks had been very difficult and he was in great fear of the outcome. He nevertheless believed that the Holy See had obtained all possible concessions from the government.  While 2 February had been scheduled as the last session, Vatican representatives insisted on returning to the table, to further negotiate “grave issues”.  Interestingly, at the very last minute (6 February), Nuncio Marmaggi asked Szelazek to lobby for the division of the Peremysl Eparchy and submitted information regarding state persecution of Ukrainian schoolteachers. These interventions did not enter into the discussion, which were concluded on 8 February.  The final draft was signed by both parties on 10 February in the evening.  Following a single-session examination by a commission of cardinals, Pope Pius XI promulgated the concordat on 18t February. As had been stipulated in the Polish Constitution, the agreement was put before parliament, which duly ratified it on 23 April 1925.  The Concordat between the Holy See and Poland entered into effect as church and civil law on 3 August 1925.

Those authors who claim that the concordat granted autonomy to the Greek Catholic Church are likely following quasi-official publications which came out shortly after the ratification of the treaty.  Monsignor Olexander Bachynsky was probably asked by Metropolitan Sheptytsky to publish an officially positive pamphlet entitled “Konkordat”.  Bachynsky noted, among other things, that the state recognized the equality of all Catholics without distinction of rites, the state is not competent in Church affairs, and the Church had the right to govern its own internal affairs. 

Despite such publications, the Ukrainian reaction to the concordat was not favourable.  Even the nuncio noted that: “The Ruthenian Catholics are not satisfied with their situation resulting from the recent Concordat.”  In July 1925, the head of the ZUNR in exile, Jevhen Petrushevych, wrote to the Holy See protesting the subjugation of the Ukrainians in Poland.  Father Let Gillet also noted Ukrainian discontent in his journal entry of 26 August 1925.

The concordat had immediate repercussions for the Greek-Catholic Church.  First, all the bishops had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Polish state and abandon any official support for a Ukrainian separatist movement.  The liturgical prayers for the head of state in the Liturgy were modifed. In the first issue of his diocesan bulletin for 1926, Metropolitan Sheptytsky decreed: “In virtue of Article VIII of the Concordat of the Holy Apostolic See with the Republic of Poland and the decision of the Polish episcopate in Warsaw (1925), it is prescribed that, in future, on all Sundays and on 3 May, during the Holy Mass, after the dismissal during the prayer “ad multos annos” which begins with the words “through their holy prayers”, leaving aside the words: “to our most faithful emperor”, after the expression: “all of our fathers and brothers”, the following words must be said: “save, O Lord, our state and its president (N.N.)”, together with the words following to the end of the prayer. In all other places in the Liturgy, only the church authorities are to be commemorated.”

Perhaps the most disappointing feature  of the concordat for the Greek-Catholic Church was  the restriction of pastoral activities to the three eparchies of Galicia (renamed Little Poland). This meant that Bishop Josyf Botsian, who had been secretly consecrated in 1914, had to refrain from the public use of his title as bishop of Lutsk because it was not recognized by the concordat.  Although there was no specific mention of this eparchy in the negotiations, it was clear that the government was unwilling to lift its moratorium on Greek-Catholic clergy ministering in the borderlands of Poland,  fearing the people in such regions region would come to support Ukrainian nationalism. 

The Ukrainian bishops had warned the Holy See that a concordat would likely be used against the Greek-Catholics by government officials because in Poland the laws were not applied equitably.  This became more and more the case in the 1930’s as Poland’s ethnic minorities began to rebel and because, in the words of Bishop Szelazek, of the government’s “tendency towards totalitarianism”.

Except for a single school, Ukrainian-language elementary education was abolished at the beginning of the 1930s's. At the end of the decade, the Ministry of Religion began to refuse consent to the appointment of certain Greek-Catholic pastors and, without providing specific charges, ordered their removal from border zones. The Nuncio drew the attention of the ministry of foreign affairs to such arbitrary procedures, which were in violation of the concordat.  In turn, the government complained that the Ukrainian clergy were openly violating the concordat’s loyalty clauses. 

The veto for residential bishops began to be used against candidates who had disagreed with the regime over any issue.  The military regime was opposed to the the Eastern-Rite missions in Poland. In 1934, the president vetoed the candidacy of Auxillary-Bishop Cieslaw Sokolowski for the vacant Sandomierz diocese, simply because his bishop had placed him in charge of the Byzantine-Rite in Podlachia.  Nuncio Marmaggi informed the government that the Holy See could not even enter into a discussion regarding the existence of the Eastern-Catholics.  When the nuncio suggested another candidate, Pius XI replied that abandoning a worthy candidate would "bring shame on the Holy See". Even after local Polish notables testified to the worthiness of Sokolowski, the foreign minister told the nuncio that questioning the president's reasons was an offense against the dignity of the head of state.  After all negotiations failed, the Nuncio was instructed simply to inform the foreign minister of that the pope had appointed an interim apostolic administrator.

By 1937, the accord between the Vatican and Warsaw had become a burden to the ruling regime's anti-Catholic and totalitarian policies.  The state moved to grant similar legal status to non-Catholic confessions which were heavily under state control.  The concordat ceased to have any legal status with the German and Soviet invasions of 1939, following which the Holy See proceeded to appoint Polish bishops without the consent of any government. Perhaps the most significant was the appointment of Josyf Slipyj, secretly named archbishop-coadjutor to Metropolitan Sheptytsky in 1939.  This elicited a protest from the government-in-exile when it was finally informed of the appointment, after the war.  However, With the establishment of a communist republic in 1945, it was in the interest of both Church and State to declare the concordat as having been voided in 1940.