The President and Fellows of Harvard College

The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia, 1914-1944

Author(s): BOHDAN BUDUROWYCZ
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1/4, Ukrainian Church History (2002-2003),
pp. 291-375
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036855 .
Accessed: 17/03/2012 16:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 The GreekCatholicChurchin Galicia,1914-1944

BOHDAN BUDUROWYCZ

A surveyof themostimportant
Introduction: primaryand secondarysources
forthehistory
oftheChurchduringWorldWar/,theinterwarperiod,and the
yearsof WorldWarII.
A definitive studyofthehistory oftheGreekCatholicChurchinGaliciaduring
theperiodsince 1914 requiresunimpededaccess to thearchivalrepositories
of Ukraineand theHoly See as well as to therecordsof thePrzemysl(Pere-
myshl)eparchy andtheLemkoApostolicAdministration onPolishterritory.
The
archivesof theLatinarchdiocesesof Lviv in Lubaczówand of Cracowcould
also shedlightonsomecontroversial problems. Generally speaking,primaryand
secondary sourcesforthestudyoftheperiodfromthebeginning ofWorldWar
I untilthesuppression of theGreekCatholicChurchin Galicia are manyand
varied, but at thesame timefragmentary and noteasilyaccessible.Amongthe
materials are theofficialpublicationsoftheGreekCatholiceparchies,suchas
themonthly L'vivs'ki
Arkhyeparkhiial'niVidomosti,theVistnyk Stanyslavivs'koï
Eparkhiï, and the yearbooksof individualeparchies(schematisms). One ofthe
richestsourcesof information fortheinterwar periodis theUkrainianpress,
especiallytheinfluential dailyDilo (1922-1939), whichdevotedconsiderable
attentiontoChurchaffairs, thesemiweekly NovaZoria (1926-1939),published
inLvivundertheauspicesofBishopHryhorii Khomyshyn, theweekliesBeskyd
(1926-1933) and Ukraïns'kyi Beskyd(1933-1939), financially supportedby
BishopIosafatKotsylovsTcyi, andtheweeklyMeta(1931-1939),whichusually
reflectedtheopinionandsentiments ofthecirclesclose toMetropolitanAndrei
SheptytsTcyi. Severalseriesofpolemical articles
byOsypNazaruk, whichorigi-
nallyappearedin Nova Zoria,weie laterpublishedin bookform,amongthem
hisHreko-katolyts'ka Tserkvai ukraïns'ka
liberal'nainteligentsiia
(Lviv,1935).

HarvardUkrainianStudiesXXVI (1-4) 2002-2003: 291-375.

292 BUDUROWYCZ

Similarly,BishopKhomyshyn's articles"Problemukraiñski," firstpublishedin

thejournalNasza Przysztosc, appearedinthePolishoriginalinWarsawin 1933
and werelatertranslated intoUkrainianand issuedunderthetitleUkraïns'ka
problema(Lviv,1935).ThePolishpress,too,widelydiscussedtheaffairs ofthe
GreekCatholicChurchinPoland,anditseditorial opinion(especiallythatofthe
Lvivdailies)is occasionallyofconsiderable interest.
Documentary materials thatthrowmuchlightontheperiodunderdiscussion
can be found suchpublicationsas Ereignissein der Ukraine1914-1922,
in
derenBedeutung undhistorische Hintergründe, editedbyTheophilHornykie-
wicz (4 vols.; Philadelphia,1966-1969); Ukraineani Poland in Documents,
1918-1922,editedbyTarasHunczak(2 vols.; New York,1983); and,forthe
periodofWorldWarH, Le SaintSiège et la situationreligieuseen Pologneet
dans les Pays Baltes(1939-1945),publishedin theseriesActeset documents
du SaintSiègerelatifsà la secondeguerremondiale(2 vols.;TheVatican,1967).
The developments ofthewaryearsin Galicia,includingUkrainian affairsand
theroleoftheGreekCatholicChurch, arealso discussedinthereports received
by the Polishgovernment-in-exile inLondon, Sprawozdania sytuacyjne z kraju
7
(mimeographed,vols.; London,1939-1944). The collection of eyewitness
accountsandothermaterials dealingwiththefirst SovietoccupationofGalicia,
ZakhidniaUkrai'napid bol'shevykamy IX. 1939-VI. 1941 (New York,1958),
editedbyMilenaRudnytsica, whileoftenhighlysubjective, containssomevalu-
able information abouttheordealoftheGreekCatholicChurch,itsclergyand
its faithfulduringthatbriefbutmomentous period.The Sovietcollectionof
documents, Pravdaprouniiu:Dokumenty i materialy (2nded.,enlarged;Lviv,
is
1968), tendentiously selective, but nevertheless of some use.
Whilethepastorallettersof Metropolitan SheptytsTcyi and thoseof other
GreekCatholicbishopsofGaliciawerepublished insomeUkrainian newspapers
andusuallyappearedas separatebrochures, itis difficult to locatethemin the
fragmentary filesofthepressavailablein theWest.Thus,one mustbe grateful
forsuchextremely helpfulpublications as TvorySluhyBozhohoMytropolyta
AndreiaSheptyts'koho (vol. 1; Toronto,1965),whichpresents documents from
theperiod1899-1901,andwhichalso includesa solidscholarly introduction by
AnatolBazylewycz, discussing inthematic groupsSheptytsTcyi's pastoralletters
andotherwritings overhisentireforty-six-year career.FortheyearsofWorld
WarII,wehavetheindispensable Pys'ma-poslannia Mytropolyta Andreiaz chasiv
bol'shevyts'koï okupatsiï(Yorkton, Sask., 1961) and its continuation, Pys'ma-
poslanniaMytropolyta AndreiaSheptyts'koho ChSWz chasivnimets'koï okupatsiï
(Yorkton,1969). Othercollectedworksby SheptytsTcyi includehis Pastyrs'ki
poslannia do dukhovenstva i virnykh Stanyslavivs'koï Eparkhiï, publishedby
theLvivTheologicalAcademyin 1935; anda secondedition,Holos Pastyria:
Pastyrs'ki lysty,naukovii populiarnirozvidky, stattii promovy (vol. 1; Lviv,
 GREEKCATHOLICCHURCHIN GALICIA,1914- 1944 293

1935),whichwas editedbyPetroDzedzykfortheBiblos printing house.The

Ukrainian CatholicUniversity inRomepublished twovolumesofSheptyts'kyi 's
writings: in
Tvory(asketychno-moral'ni)1978, and Tvory(moral'no-pastoral'ni)
in 1983.Proceedings andresolutions ofvariousChurchconferences conducted
underMetropolitan Sheptyts'kyi's leadership canbe foundinsuchpublications as
Diianniai Postanovy L'vivs'kykhArkhyieparkhiial'nykh Soboriv 1940-41-42-43
(Winnipeg, 1984)and"Konferentsiï Archyiereïv Ukraïnslcoï
Hreko-Katolytsicoï
Tserkvy, 1902-1937,"editedbyAndriiKravchuk, inLogos:A Journal ofEastern
Christian Studies35 (Ottawa,1994).*
Thereareseveralmonographs on Sheptyts'kyi, mostnotablyStepanBaran's
Mytropolyt AndreiSheptyts'kyi: Zhyttiai diial'nist'(Munich,1947); Cyrille
Korolevskij'sMétropolite AndréSzeptyckyj, 1865-1944 (Rome, 1964); and
Der
GregorProkoptschuk's Metropolit: Leben und WirkendesgrossenFörderers
derKirchenunion Graf Andreas Scheptyzkyj (Munich,1955)- all ofthemexces-
sivelylaudatory, andEdwardPrus'sWladyka swiçtojurski:Rzeczo arcybiskupie
AndrzejuSzeptyckim (Warsaw,1985), whichis, in effect,an anti-Ukrainian
denunciation ofthemetropolitan's ecclesiasticalandpoliticalcareer.Sheptyts'kyi
also figures veryprominently, thoughobviouslyina negativelight,insuchscur-
rilouspropaganda publications as SerhiiDanylenko'sDorohoiuhan'byi zrady:
Istorychna khronika (Kyiv, 1970) and VladimirDobrychev'sV tenisviatogo
lura (Moscow,1971).One shouldalso mention thecollectivevolumeTsars'kyi
viazen'(Lviv,1918),detailingSheptyts'kyi 's detentioninRussia,andMykhailo
Marunchak's briefbutsubstantial accountofthemetropolitan's travelsinWestern
Europe and the Americas, Mytropolyt Andrei na
Sheptyts'kyiZakhodi,1920-1923
and
(Winnipeg Edmonton,1981). Much helpfuldata on one of Sheptyts'kyi 's
proudest achievements, thefounding oftheGreekCatholicTheologicalAcademy
in Lviv,and on relatedmatters can be foundin Svityl'nyk istyny: Dzherelado
istoriiUkraïns'koï Katolyts'koïBohoslovs'koï Akademii u L'vovi 1928/29-1944
(3 vols.; Torontoand Chicago, 1973-1983). The mostcomprehensive single
volumedealingwithSheptyts'kyi andwiththeGreekCatholicChurchinGalicia
underhis stewardship is Moralityand Reality:The Lifeand TimesofAndrei
edited
Sheptyts'kyi, by Paul R. MagocsiwiththeassistanceofAndriiKrawchuk
(Edmonton,1989) and based on theproceedingsof theconference"Andrei
Sheptyts'kyi: His LifeandWork,"organizedbytheChairof UkrainianStudies
at theUniversity ofTorontoon 22-24 November1984.Amongbookson other
GreekCatholicChurchleadersinGaliciaoneshouldmention PetroMel'nychuk's
usefulWladyka HryhoriiKhomyshyn: Patriot-misionar-muchenyk (Rome and

The editorsare gratefulto AndriiKrawchukforsupplementing thedocumentary

sourceson Metropolitan andforhisassistancewiththebibliographic
Sheptyts'kyi intro-
ductiontothisarticle.
294 BUDUROWYCZ

Philadelphia,1979), thoughsome partsof it belong to therealmof hagiography

ratherthanto thatof history,and IryneiNazarko's succinctlosafat Kotsylovs'kyi
ChSW: lepyskopperemys'kyi1916-1946 (Toronto,1954).
Of greatimportanceforthestudyof theperiodunderdiscussion are memoirs
of some of itsmostprominentreligiousand politicalpersonalities.They include
Evlogii Georgievskii's Put' moei zhizni: VospominaniiamitropolitaEvlogiia
(Paris, 1947), which details his effortsto convertGalician Greek Catholics to
Russian Orthodoxy;Ivan Kedryn's Zhyttia-podii'-liudy: Spomynyi komentari
(New York, 1976), providing useful background informationabout political
developmentsin Galicia fromthe early 1920s untilthe greatexodus of 1944;
and Kost' PanTtivsTcyi'sindispensable Vid derzhavy do komitetu(New York
and Toronto,1957) and Rokynimets'koïokupatsiï (New York-Toronto,1965),
sheddingmuch light on the historyof the Greek Catholic Church duringthe
dramaticyears of 1941-1944.
A number of publications on the Catholic Church in Poland during the
interwarperiod, oftenincluding much informationabout the Greek Catholic
Church,have appeared in thatcountrysince World War II, includingWieslaw
Myslek's Kosciól katolickiw Polsce w latach 1918-1939 (Warsaw, 1961) and
Z problemów politykiwschodniej Kosciola katolickiego w Polsce w latach
1918-1939 (Warsaw,1967); and JerzyWisiocki's Konkordatpolski z 1925 roku:
Zagadnienia prawno-polityczne(Poznan, 1977) and Uposazenie Kosciola i
duchowieñstwakatolickiegow Polsce 1918-1939 (Poznan, 1981). In addition,
one should mentionbriefstudies dealing specificallywiththe Greek Catholic
Church(some of themtendentiousand containingserious factualerrors),such
as Tadeusz áliwa's "Kosciól greckokatolickiw Polsce w latach 1918-1939" in
Kosciót w Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej(Lublin, 1981), as well as Edward Prus's
"Cerkiew greckokatolickaw okresiewojnyi okupacji hitlerowskiej,"published
in thejournalÉlqskieStudia Historyczne (vol. 1, 1975). The relationshipbetween
the Greek Catholic Church and the Polish state is also discussed in more
generaltermsin MirostawaPapierzyñska-Turek'sSprawa ukrainskaw Drugiej
Rzeczypospolitej1922-1926 (Cracow, 1979) inAndrzejChojnowski'sKoncepcje
politykinarodowosciowejrzqdówpolskichw latach 1921-1939 (Wroclaw,1979),
and in RyszardTorzecki's Kwestia ukrainskaw polityce III Rzeszy 1933-1945
(Warsaw, 1972) and Kwestia ukrainskaw Polsce w latach 1923-1929 (Cracow,
1989).

Beginningwiththelate 1980s, scholarsgained new access to archivesin Poland

and in Ukraine, and the archives of the Vatican also gradually became more
available.* The past fifteenyears have seen a resurgenceof Churchscholarship
bothin Ukraineand in neighboringPoland.

* Sectionon
post-1991 publicationsauthoredby Liliana Hentosh,SeniorResearch
ofLviv.
forHistoricalResearch,NationalUniversity
AssociateoftheInstitute
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 295

The bulkof thenew materialsconsistof archivalsources,particularlyregard-

ing theworkof MetropolitanAndreiSheptyts'kyi. The mostimportantUkrainian
publication on this topic is the multivolume MytropolytAndrei Sheptyts'kyi:
i i
Zhyttia diial'nist'; Dokumenty materialy, 1899-1944 (Lviv, 1995-), editedby
AndriiKrawchukand publishedjointlyby theMetropolitanAndreiSheptyts'kyi
Foundation(Postuliatsiia) and theCentralState HistoricalArchivesof Ukraine
in Lviv (TsDI AL). Two volumes (in threebooks) have appeared to date. The first
volume,Tserkvai tserkovnaiednist'( 1995), comprisesdocumentsfromUkrainian
(StateArchivesof Lviv Oblast,TsDI AL, and theLviv StefanykNationalLibrary)
and Russian archives (State Archives of the Russian Federation [GARF] and
the Central State HistoricalArchives of St. Petersburg).All of thempertainto
the metropolitan'secumenical activityand his attemptsto establish a dialogue
withthe Orthodoxworld. The second volume, Tserkvai suspil'ne pytannia,is
publishedin two books: book 1, Pastyrs'kevchenniai diial'nist' (1998), consists
ofpastorallettersand documentsfromvariousLviv sources; book 2, Lystuvannia
(1999), presentscorrespondencethat,withonlya fewexceptions,had neverbeen
publishedbefore.In Krawchuk'sanalysis,Sheptytslcyi's social thoughtconsisted
of two major components:thepolitical,whichrelatedprimarilyto Church-state
relations,and thesocial, whichdealt withtheChurchin itsrelationswithsociety.
Both aspects are representedin the second volume.
The collectionofdocumentsMytropolyt AndreiSheptyts'kyi i hreko-katolykyv
Rosii' book 1 i
, Dokumenty materialy, 1899-1 91 7 (Lviv, 2004), aims to continue
the work of the series AndreiSheptyts'kyi: Zhyttiai diial'nist' and is published
by TsDI AL in Lviv. These documents,manyappearingin printforthefirsttime,
addressconceptualproblemsgroundedin questionsofecumenismand therecov-
eryof thelost unityof the UniversalChurch.Presentedin a way to complement
and explain each other,theygive a comprehensivepictureof historicalevents
and are theresultof meticulousscholarlywork.The collection is accompanied
by an in-depthintroduction by itseditor,IuriiAvvakumov,scholarlyannotations,
and an index of names augmentedby shortbut veryusefulbiographicalnotes.
A thirdcollection, Mytropolyt Andrei Sheptyts'kyi:Dokumentyi materialy,
1941-1944 (Kyiv, 2003) bringstogetherdocuments thatwere discovered by
Zhanna Kovba in theCentralState Archivesof the HigherAgencies of Govern-
mentof Ukraine (TsDAVO). Compiled by Kovba, edited by AndriiKrawchuk,
and publishedby Dukh i Litera in Kyiv,thesematerialsconcerntheworkof the
metropolitan'sOrdinariateand illustratethe effortsof the Church leadershipto
deal with the complex political circumstancesof the German occupation, and
thenthesecond Soviet occupation,of WesternUkraine.In additionto presenting
newly discovered material,this book was the firstpost-Soviet publication on
Sheptyts'kyi to be produced in easternUkraine.
Some materialshave also been publishedin Poland.JózefWotczanskicompiled
and edited Nieznana korespondencjaArcybiskupówMetropolitan Lwowskich
296 BUDUROWYCZ

JózefaBilczewskiegozAndrzejemSzeptyckim w czasie wojnyPolsko-Ukraiñskiej,

1918-1919 roku(Cracow, 1997), comprisingarchivaldocumentson therelations
betweentheCatholicChurchesofdifferent ritesduringUkrainian-Polishmilitary
in Galicia. The workis precededby Wotczañski's informative,
confrontations if
ratherunobjective,introduction.
A number of importantconferences were organized during the 1990s in
Ukraine and Poland, and theirproceedings subsequently appeared in print.
Among them are MetropolitaAndrzej Szeptycki:Studia i materiaty(Cracow,
1994), edited by Andrzej A. Ziçba (fromthe conference"MetropolitanAndrei
Sheptytsicyi and the SpiritualCultureof East-CentralEurope") and the second
volume of the Churchhistoryscholarlyseries Kovcheh (Lviv, 2000), edited by
Borys Gudziak, IhorSkochylias,and Oleh Turii(fromtheUkrainianconference
dedicatedto the50thanniversary ofMetropolitanSheptytsicyi's
death).Kovcheh,
a publicationof the Ukrainian Catholic University'sInstituteof Church His-
tory,has become a serious forumwherequestions of UkrainianGreek Catholic
Church(UGCC) historyare discussed. Its mostrecentvolume appearedin 2003.
Also, in the 1990s the SoutheasternResearch Institutein Przemyálpublisheda
series of collections entitledPolska-Ukraina: 1000 lat sqsiedztva (vols. 2-4,
Przemysl,1994-1996), wherethemajorityof articlesare devoted to thehistory
of theUGCC on theterritory of contemporaryUkraineand Poland. They are all
highlyinformative, well balanced, and scholarly.
During the periodfrom1991 to 2006, a numberof monographson thehistory
of the UGCC were publishedin Ukraineand abroad. Bohdan Bociurkiw,in his
insightfulUkrainianGreek Catholic Churchand the Soviet State (1939-1950)
(Edmonton,1996), describedthecomplicatedand tragicrelationshipbetweenthe
UGCC and the Soviet regime.AndriiKrawchuk's monographChristianSocial
Ethics in Ukraine: The Legacy of Andrei Sheptytsky (Edmonton, 1997) is an
important contributionto our understanding of the social teachingand practice
of the UGCC in the twentiethcentury.Among otherthings,the book addresses
controversiesaroundthepositionof theUGCC vis-à-vistheGermanand Soviet
occupationregimesduringWorldWar II.
The Polish scholarAdam Kubasik's ArcybiskupaAndrzejaSzeptyckiegowizja
Ukrainskiegonarodu,pañstwa a cerkwi(Lviv and Cracow, 1999) is yetanother
attemptto describe SheptytsTeyi'sviews on the Ukrainian nation, state, and
Church.However,theauthor'sbias and lack of professionalismmake thisbook
farfromflawless.Liubov Voloshyn,a longtimeresearcherof theworksof Ukrai-
nian artistOleksa NovakivsTcyi, has publisheda groundbreaking workabout the
-
artist'srelationshipwithSheptytsicyi Kniazhyi darunok velykohometsenata:
Mytropolyt AndreiSheptyts'kyi u zhyttii tvorchostiOleksyNovakivs'koho(Lviv,
2000).
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 297

Liliana Hentosh'smonographVatykan i vyklykymodernosti:Skhidnoievropeis'ka

polityka papy BenedyktaXV ta ukraïns'ko-pol's'kyi u Halychyni(1914-
konflikt
1923 rr.)(Lviv, 2006) examines theEasternEuropean politicsof Pope Benedict
XV in light of the the Ukrainian-Polishconflict.For Hentosh, the Vatican's
positionduringthe Ukrainian-Polishwar in Galicia (1918-1923) is an example
of the Holy See's adaptabilityto the challenges of the modernworld.

The impactof WorldWarI on the Galician Ukrainiansand the Greek Catholic

Church.MetropolitanSheptyts'kyisMemorandumof 15 August 1914 and his
proposals to restructure
Churchorganizationin Ukraine.TheRussian occupation
of Eastern Galicia: the temporarydisappearance of Greek Catholic hierarchy
and the attemptof occupyingforces to spread Russian Orthodoxy.The retreat
of theRussian armyfromGalicia. Bishop Khomyshynsunsuccessfulattemptto
introducetheGregoriancalendar inhis eparchy.Sheptyts'kyi's
return
fromRussia
and his attemptsto influencepolitical developmentsin Galicia and Dnieper
Ukraine.
The outbreakof WorldWar I seemed to open forthe Ukrainianpeople thegreat
historicopportunityfor which many Ukrainian patriotshad been waiting for
over two centuries:a possibilityof thedownfallof thetsaristempire,presumably
leading, in one formor another,to the creation of an independentUkrainian
state.However,while Ukrainianpoliticalleaders in Galicia had decided as early
as 1912 to throwtheirunqualifiedsupportbehind the Habsburg Empire in the
eventof an Austro-Russianconflict,theirideas about thefutureof Ukraineafter
its liberationremained vague and somewhat confused.1Under these circum-
stances,itwas rathersurprisingthatitwas thehead of theGreekCatholicChurch,
MetropolitanSheptytsicyi,who as early as 15 August 1914 submittedto the
AustrianForeignMinistrya detailedmemorandum,amountingto a far-reaching,
thoughless thanrealistic,attemptto solve the Ukrainianproblemby transform-
ing Ukraine into a national territory completely independentfromthe tsarist
to this
empire.2According SheptytsTcyi, objective could be best accomplished
by revivingthe historicaltraditionsof the country,includingthe restorationof
the officesof the hetmánand of othermilitaryand civil dignitariesof the old
Cossack state,and by introducingtheAustriancode of laws in Ukraine. It was,
however,with regard to Church-relatedmattersthatSheptytsTcyi proposed to
make a complete break withthe past and to place the Ukrainianecclesiastical
organizationwithintheCatholic orbit.This revolutionarychange could be most
expeditiouslyaccomplished by replacingrecalcitrantRussian bishops withpro-
Ukrainianand pro-Austriansympathizersand by freeingthe UkrainianChurch
298 BUDUROWYCZ

fromthe authorityof the St. PetersburgSynod. If circumstancesrequired it,

Sheptyts'kyiwas prepared to take upon himself the leadership of the whole
UkrainianChurchas its metropolitan.
For thetimebeingat least,SheptytsTcyi's plans had to be postponed,since the
anticipatedtriumphant marchof theAustro-Hungarian armiesintoRussia did not
come to pass. Badly routedin several borderbattles,Austriantroopsretreated
in disorder,leaving most of Galicia and Bukovyna to the victoriousRussians.
AlthoughGreek Catholic bishopsjoined otherUkrainianleaders in urgingtheir
flock to prove theirloyalty to the Habsburg Empire, and although Galician
Ukrainiansfoughtvaliantlybothin theranksof theregulararmyand in thoseof
theUkrainianSich Riflemen,rumorsabout"Rutheniantreason"spreadwidelyas
Austriantroopssufferedone humiliatingdefeatafteranotherand theircommand-
ingofficersbegan lookingfora convenientscapegoat.3The Polish administration
of Galicia, includingtheviceroyWitoldKorytowski,eagerlyendorsedthisview,
even tryingto representMetropolitanSheptyts'kyi as a "weakling," surrounded
and dominatedby Russophilesand Russian agents.4It is notsurprisingthatin an
atmospherepermeatedwithwar hysteriatheseaccusations were takenseriously
and that,in the firstweeks of the war,thousandsof Ukrainiansfromall social
strata,includingscores of priests,were arrestedfor theiralleged pro-Russian
sympathies,triedby militarytribunalsand, in manycases, executed.Thousands
morewere internedin concentrationcamps (notablyThalerhofin Styria,among
whose inmatesGreek Catholic priestsconstituted7 percent),where theywere
subjectedto abuses and various otherformsof harassmentby boththe military
guards and the civilian staff.5In the meantime,the hostilities,during which
battlefronts crisscrossed most of Galicia's territory,resulted in a widespread
devastationof the country;many churchbuildings,too, were destroyed,dam-
aged, or desecrated.GreekCatholic bishops wereunable to effectively help their
flock,forMetropolitanSheptyts'kyiwas internedon 19 September 1914 and
deportedto Russia, wherehe was keptunderstrictsupervisionuntilhis release
in March 1917, and did notreturnto his see untilSeptemberof thatyear.6Bishop
Khomyshyn,too, was absent fromhis eparchyuntilthe retreatof the Russian
armies in the springof 1915, while Bishop Chekhovychwas cut offfromany
contactwiththefaithful of his diocese duringthelong siege of Przemysland died
soon afterthecaptureofthatkeyfortressby theRussians in March 1915, leaving
his flock withoutany spiritualguidance untilthe installationof his successor,
Iosafat KotsylovsTtyi,in September1917.
This situationseemed to be highlypropitiousforreclaimingthe recalcitrant
Galician Uniates forOrthodoxy,which had been thereligionof theirancestors
until the end of the seventeenthcentury.With victorious Russian armies in
controlof most of Galicia, the Greek Catholic hierarchydecapitated,and the
local clergydepleted by arrest,deportations,and flight,the Russian Orthodox
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 299

Churchhad an almostunlimitedopportunity to use itsemotionalappeal to attract

thelargelyleaderless and disconcertedUniate faithful. To be sure,Count Georgii
Bobrinskii,themilitarygovernor-general of Galicia, assuredtherepresentativeof
bothCatholic ritesof his tolerantattitudetowardall religions;at the same time,
however,he stressedthathe would not tolerateany anti-Orthodoxpropaganda
and reaffirmedthatGalicia was a partof a single greatRussia, where Russian
language and laws would graduallybe introduced.7Thus, while Russian troops
generally treatedGreek Catholic clergy with deference and did not interfere
withtheiractivities,the Holy Synod on 10 September 1914 entrustedEvlogii
Georgievskii(1868-1946), theformerbishop of Chehn (Kholm) and now arch-
bishop of Volhynia,withthespiritualcare over theOrthodoxChurchin Galicia.
On 15 November he arrivedin theGalician town of Brody,wherea welcoming
ceremonyin his honor was organized; however,only nine out of fiftyinvited
Greek Catholic priestsagreed to,meet him.8Afterhis arrival in Lviv, Evlogii
issued a pastoralletterto the"Galician-Russian people and clergy,"in whichhe
referredto the glorious past of theircountrythathad once been unitedwiththe
restof Rus' by a single Greek Orthodoxfaith,and urged themto returnto the
Orthodoxfold.9However,accordingto thestringent regulations(latersomewhat
relaxed) issued by Count Bobrinskii,Orthodoxpriestscould be sentonlyto those
villages wherethree-quarters of thepopulationrequestedtheirservices,or to the
parishes whose pastors had either abandoned themor been removedbecause of
suspecteddisloyalty to Russia.10
Evlogii 's two visitsto Lviv and hisjourneysthroughtheGalician countryside
proved to be disappointing.He feltthatthe Orthodox Church would face an
uphill strugglein Galician cities and towns where the Ukrainian population
was more "Latinized," but thatit would be able to gain supportamong Greek
Catholic villagers who regarded themselves as "Orthodox." Among various
measuresbeing consideredat thattimein orderto strengthen theOrthodoxfaith
in occupied Galicia were the suppressionof the Jesuitand Basilian orders,the
reestablishmentof the monasteryat Maniava (an Orthodoxstrongholduntilits
closurebytheAustrianauthoritiesin 1785), and theextensionsof theauthority of
thefutureOrthodoxmetropolitanof Halych over all united"Carpatho-Russian"
eparchies,includingBukovyna.11However,Russian officialsand Churchexperts
overestimatedtheirresistible impactof militantOrthodoxyon theGalician Greek
Catholics. In spiteof an energeticcampaign forthe"returnto theancestralfaith"
conductedby Evlogii withthe assistance of the archbishopof Kharkiv,Antonii
Khrapovitskii,and the bishop of Krem'ianets,Dionisii Valedinskii (who after
World War I became the metropolitanof Warsaw), and notwithstanding some
materialincentivesofferedto theconverts,by 1 March 1915 no morethan81 out
of 1,874 Greek Catholic parishes in the occupied area (including some Uniate
parishes scatteredthroughthe mostlyOrthodox Bukovyna), or approximately
300 BUDUROWYCZ

4 percentof thistotal,joined the Orthodoxfold.12Most of these parishes were

located in theeasternpartof the Lviv archeparchy,borderingon Volhynia,and
in thenortheastern partof thePrzemysleparchy,adjacentto theChehn province;
on the otherhand, not a single parish in the Stanyslaviv eparchyjoined the
OrthodoxChurch.13Even so, the returningAustrianarmy(especially some of
itsHungarianunits)summarilyexecuteda numberof GreekCatholic priestsand
manyoftheirflockfortheiralleged Russophilesympathies.At thesame time,the
retreating Russian troopstookwiththemsome prominentGreekCatholic priests
as hostages(including,forexample, IeremiiaLomnytsTcyi, thefirstrectorof the
Greek Catholic seminaryin Stanyslaviv,who died in exile), while some Uniate
clergymen,several of whom had embraced Orthodoxy,leftGalicia voluntarily
to seek refugein Russia. 14
The seriouscrisissufferedby theGreekCatholic Churchin Galicia as a result
ofthewarand itsattendant miserieswas complicatedby thecalendarcontroversy
in the Stanyslaviveparchy.On 15 February1916, Bishop Khomyshynissued a
pastoralletterentitled"AbouttheMission of theUkrainianPeople in theCatholic
Church,"in whichhe decreedthat,startingwiththefeastday oftheAnnunciation
of theVirginMary (25 March) of thatyear,all religious holy days in the epar-
chy would be celebratedaccordingto the Gregoriancalendar.The reasons that
promptedthebishop to make thisdecision were purelypastoral:as he explained
in his letter,he was deeply concernedover thefactthatmanual and white-collar
workersof Greek Catholic faithwere forcedto workduringtheirreligiousfeast
days and thusbecame graduallyalienated fromtheirChurch and theirnation.
MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi was at thattimeconfinedin a Russian monasteryand
could not be consulted,but Khomyshynexpressed his hope thatall bishops of
the Halych Province would soon follow his lead in calendar reform.15
In view of the factthatthe Gregoriancalendar was never popular withthe
Greek Catholic faithfuland thatthe act of the ChurchUnion of 1596 expressly
allowed theUniatesto continueto use theJuliancalendar,itis notsurprisingthat
Khomyshyn'sinitiativemetwitha strongand outspokenopposition.In his second
pastoralletter,dated 25 March 1916, he statedthatwhereashis calendar reform
was, on thewhole, favorablyreceivedby themass of thefaithful, thereactionof
community leaders was decidedly negative. fact, delegationof the County
In a
Committeeof the General UkrainianCouncil asked him on 27 February1916
to postponethereform"untilan appropriatetime,"since theproposed measure
would become an irritant fortheconservative-minded majorityof theUkrainian
in
people Galicia, would violatethe existing"stateof truce"withintheUkrainian
public,and would createan unnecessarybarrierbetweentheGalician Ukrainians
and theircompatriotsin easternUkraine.16AlthoughKhomyshynrejectedthese
argumentsas unconvincing,he was unable to prevailagainstdeterminedopposi-
tionand eventuallyhad to revoke his controversialdecision.
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 30 1

In themeantime,MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi's internment by thetsaristauthori-

tiescame to an unexpectedand dramaticend when,aftertheFebruaryRevolution
of 1917, the Provisional Governmentorderedhis immediaterelease.17Taking
advantage of his regained freedom,he triedfeverishlyto make up forthe lost
two and a halfyears.He traveledto Petrograd,wherehe was received by several
leaders of the new regime,includingPrime MinisterGeorgii L'vov, and estab-
lished personal contactswiththe representativesof the local Ukrainiancolony.
In Petrograd,and even more so duringhis subsequentvisitto Kyiv,SheptytsTcyi
emphasized theneed fornationalsolidarityamong all Ukrainians,which,in his
opinion, could not be achieved withoutthe cement of religious unity.18 These
views, which harked back to the metropolitan's memorandum of August 1914,
remainedessentiallyunchangeduntiltheend of his lifeand wereto be expounded
again in his lettersto the UkrainianOrthodoxbishops and intelligentsiain the
autumnand winterof 1941-1942 (see below). However,thereactionof thelead-
ersof theCentralRada, like thatof themetropolitan's correspondentsa generation
later,was noncommittal,and the only concreteresultof Sheptytsicyi'sefforts
was thefoundingof several GreekCatholic parishesin Dnieper Ukraine.He also
appointedthe Reverend Mykhailo Tsehel'sTcyias apostolic vicar in Kyiv.19
Having leftRussia by the way of neutralSweden, SheptytsTcyi proceeded to
Switzerland,anxious to meet Pope Benedict XV and reportto him both about
his personal experiences and the situationin Galicia, about which he had been
briefedby Ukrainian parliamentaryleaders. Afterthis plan was thwartedby
the French intelligenceservice, Sheptytsicyicrossed the Austrianfrontierand,
having been received in a personal audience by Emperor Charles I, returned
on 10 September 1917 amidst a tumultuouswelcome to his metropolitanseat,
which he had left three years earlier as a prisoner.20His unbounded energy
founditsoutletin far-reaching political activities,rangingfroman unsuccessful
attempt to convene a meetingof all Ukrainian parliamentariansfromGalicia
and Bukovyna aimed at consolidatingtheirpolicies on theeve of the unfolding
criticalevents thatwere to determinethe outcome of the war,21to a speech to
the AustrianHouse of Lords (Herrenhaus) on 28 February 1918, in which he,
withoutmentioningPresidentWilson by name,endorsedthelatter'sprincipleof
theself-determination ofpeoples and advocateda speedyratification of thepeace
treatysigned on 9 Februaryofthatyear at Brest-Litovskby theCentralPowers
and theUkrainianNational Republic.22In a way,themetropolitanhad a personal
stake in thisdocumentthatplaced theChelm regionunderthejurisdictionof the
rebornUkrainianstate,theindependenceof whichhad been formallyproclaimed
only a monthearlier.While on the way to his Russian exile, Sheptytsicyi, using
the discretionarypowers conferredon him by Pope Pius X, had consecratedin
Kyiv the formerrectorof the Theological Seminaryin Lviv, Iosyf Botsian, as
thebishop of Lutsk in Volhynia,which he was expected to bringto theCatholic
302 BUDUROWYCZ

fold.Now, it seemed, anotheropportunitybeckoned in theneighboringeparchy

of Chelm, thelast strongholdof theUnion to be destroyedby thetsaristgovern-
ment,which, togetherwith Volhynia,could become a formidableredoubtof
Greek CatholicismwithinUkraineeven ifGalicia remained,forthetimebeing,
outside its borders.
displayed at least a passing interest
It was also at thattimethatSheptytsTcyi
in thepossibilityof becominga candidateforthepatriarchof theautocephalous
UkrainianChurch- a position thatwould have finallyenabled him to realize
his plans of bringingthe whole of Ukraine into the fold of Rome. However,
the All-Ukrainian Church Council in Kyiv decided to defer the question of
autocephalyindefinitelyand voted instead to recognize the spiritualauthority
of thepatriarchof Moscow.23

II

The role of the Greek Catholic clergyin the liberationstruggleof the Galician
Ukrainians.The GreekCatholic Churchin Galicia duringthePolish-Ukrainian
war of1918-1919 and itssupportfor theWesternUkrainiangovernment-in-exile.
Sheptyts'kyïstravelsto Rome, WesternEurope, Northand SouthAmerica,and
his diplomaticactivitieson behalfof the Ukrainiancause.
The end of WorldWar I broughtabout the dissolutionof theAustro-Hungarian
monarchy,which,in spiteof aberrationsin 1914-1915, was on thewhole rather
benevolentlydisposed towardthe Greek Catholic Church and its faithful,and
was in returntreatedby themwithloyaltyand respect.The proclamationof the
WesternUkrainianNationalRepublic on 1 November 1918 turneda new page in
thehistoryof Galicia, which,afterclose to six centuriesof foreigndomination,
was again becomingan independentstate.These developments,however,proved
to be only a prelude to the Polish-UkrainianWar in Galicia, which lasted until
mid-July of 1919 and once moreturnedmuchofthecountryintoa theaterofbitter
fighting.Withindays Lviv and Przemysl,the seats of two bishops of the Greek
Catholic Church,foundthemselvesunderthecontrolof Polish troops,whichput
an end to any directcontactsbetween the Greek Catholic hierarchsresidingin
thosecities and the Ukrainianauthorities;at the same timeStanyslaviv,Bishop
Khomyshyn'sseat, became the provisional capital of the governmentof the
WesternUkrainianNational Republic. Unfortunately, therelationshipbetween
the bishop and the secular authoritieswas not free of disagreements,despite
thefactthatone of Khomyshyn'sclosest associates and laterhis auxiliary,Ivan
LiatyshevsTcyi,headed thedepartmentof religiousaffairsin theState Secretariat
of Religious Affairsand Education.24The bishop was to claim laterthatthemain
sourceoftensionwas thehostileor,at best,indifferent attitudetowardtheChurch
demonstratedby the anticlerical members of the UkrainianRada (the country's
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 303

parliament),which proposed to secularize Churchproperty, as well as by some

professionalgroups(notablyteachers,who wantedto removereligiouseducation
fromthecurriculaof elementaryand secondaryschools).25The conflictbetween
the bishop and the governmentculminatedin the publicationof Khomyshyn's
pastoral letterof January1919 entitled"At a TurningPoint in the Historyof
the UkrainianPeople," in which he openly criticizedthe new regime.26These
developments,however,did notpreventmanypriestsfromactivelyparticipating
in theUkrainianRada, in countycouncils, in variousadministrative positions,or
fromjoiningtheUkrainianGalician Armyas chaplains.Meanwhile,in thePolish-
occupied areas of Galicia manyUkrainianclergymenwere accused of antistate
activitiesand of fanningan "artificialhatred"against Poland.27This led to the
arrestof hundredsof Greek Catholic priestsand monks,many of whom were
only released afterthe intervention of the papal nuncio withthe Polish chiefof
state,JózefPitsudski.28 At thesame time,Sheptytslcyi's attemptto meetPilsudski
during the latter'svisit to Lviv was thwarted by the local authorities.29
The Ukrainian-PolishWar was followed by thePolish-Sovietconflictwhich,
duringthespringand summermonthsof 1920, once moreputthefateof Western
Ukrainianlands in doubt. The short-livedGalician Socialist Soviet Republic,
which comprised approximatelyone-thirdof Galicia, did not last long enough
to have any permanenteffecton theGreek Catholic Church;however,thecom-
munistauthoritiesbegan to nationalize theestates belongingto the Churchand
the monasteries,encouraged peasants to harveston Church lands, and started
a vigorous antireligiouspropaganda campaign. With the Red Armyready to
stormthe gates of Warsaw and approachingLviv, the threatseemed enough to
promptSheptytsicyito throwhis supportbehinda plan to federateGalicia with
Czechoslovakia, thuspreventingitsimpendingunionwithSoviet Ukraine.30This
idea was apparentlynot given up by the metropolitaneven afterthe end of the
hostilities,when he reportedlyendorsed the proposal of theWesternUkrainian
government-in-exileto establish a bufferstate,consigned to Czechoslovakia
under a mandate of the League of Nations, which would include Galicia and
otherWesternUkrainianterritories.31
In thefallof 1920, Sheptytsicyi obtainedthepermissionof thePolish govern-
mentto pay an officialvisit to the Holy See and, having appointed Reverend
Oleksander BachynsTcyias his vicar,leftthe countryon a tripof almost three
years'duration.This kepthimaway fromtheday-to-daydevelopmentsin Galicia,
butat thesame timeenabled himto presentthecase of his war-torn and devastated
Churchprovinceto theworldat large.32The metropolitan'sprecariousdual role
as a pastor in charge of relief work for the benefitof his flock and a skillful
diplomatactingas a go-betweenfortheWesternUkrainiangovernment-in-exile
came underthe close scrutinyof the Polish intelligenceservice. Sheptytsicyi's
appointmentas an apostolic delegate, and thus an officialrepresentativeof the
304 BUDUROWYCZ

Vatican,opened to him manydoors thatwould have normallyremainedclosed

to an ordinaryChurch dignitary.World leaders whom he met included Popes
Benedict XV and Pius XI, PrimeMinistersAristideBriand of France and David
Lloyd George of theUnitedKingdom,and PresidentWarrenHarding,Secretary
of State Charles Hughes, and Secretaryof Commerce HerbertHoover of the
United States. None of the metropolitan'spredecessorshad ever met such an
illustriousarrayof statesmenand acquainted themfirsthandwiththe problems
of his Churchand his country - and yetthefinaloutcome of all theseconversa-
tionswas frustrating and disappointing,includingthatof theencounterwiththe
chairmanof theCouncil ofAmbassadors,JulesCambon,whomSheptytsTcyi tried
to persuade to change or postpone the Great Powers' decision to place Galicia
underthe sovereigntyof Poland.33MetropolitanSheptytslcyi'sefforts,which
underscoredthefactthattheGreekCatholic Churchsharedand championedthe
nationalaspirationsof Galician Ukrainians,were notentirelyin vain, however,
fortheyimmenselyenhancedhis statureamong his own people. In addition,the
metropolitan'svisits to the Ukrainianimmigrantcommunitiesin Canada, the
United States, Brazil, and Argentinareestablishedthe emotional ties between
themand theirancestralcountry,which had been interrupted by the long war,
and reaffirmed theirspiritualunitywiththeirmotherChurch.
Having been absentfora numberof years,Sheptytsicyidid notfindimmedi-
ate supportforhis visionaryprojects on his return,which reportedlyincluded
a plan to reorganizeand Ukrainize the Greek Catholic Church by establishing
a Ukrainian patriarchateand replacing Old Church Slavonic with Ukrainian
in all Church services.34Feeling frustratedand sufferinghealthproblems,the
considered his and to a monastery
retiring - a solution
metropolitan resigning post
thatmay have appealed to the Polish government, which used plain chicanery
to delay his returnto Poland and thenkept him confinedforseveral weeks to
the conventof the Sisters of Charityin Poznan beforefinallyallowing him to
travelto Lviv. This, however,merelyserved to increase SheptytsTcyi's prestige
in the Ukrainian community,in spite of the fact that,before returningto his
see, he was forcedto pay a visitto the presidentof Poland and take an oath of
allegiance to the Polish state.35

Ill

The Greek Catholic Churchin Galicia underPolish rule. The issue of celibacy
of the clergy.The concordat of 10 February 1925 and its importancefor the
Church. Legal and economic status of the Greek Catholic Church withinthe
Polish state. The "Eastern" and "Western"orientationamong the Ukrainian
Catholic hierarchyand clergy.Growthof theGreek Catholic hierarchy.
One of themostcrucial issues facingtheGreek Catholic Churchin Poland was
its attitudetowardthe Polish state and its institutions.Originally,the Church
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 305

remained scrupulously loyal to the Western Ukrainian National Republic's

government-in-exile led by Ievhen Petrushevych.Thus, in November 1922 the
Greek Catholic bishops expressed,even in Sheptytsicyi'sabsence, theirstrong
objection against the holding of elections to the Polish parliamentin Galicia,
whichtheyregardedas a violationof the special statusofthatterritory;36 none-
theless,only fourmonthslater,on 15 March 1923, theCouncil of Ambassadors
decided to vest in Poland all administrativepowers withregardto Galicia. The
metropolitan, too,remainedin close contactwiththerepresentatives of thePetru-
shevychgovernmentthroughout his stayabroad in 1920-1923, while studiously
refraining fromanyofficialor unofficialmeetingswithPolish diplomats;afterthe
Council's fatefulverdict,he persuaded the Galician leaders to accept the heavy
blow withrestraintand dignity.37 Now, however,new circumstancesdemanded
thatthe Churchchange its policy of defiance to one of at least reluctantloyalty
and acquiescence. The conditionscalled forconsummateskill and diplomacy
on the part of those who dared initiate any rapprochementbetween the two
nationalities,bothof themoutwardlyprofessingthe same Catholic creed albeit
followingtwo different rites,both deeply attachedto theirnative country,and
both emotional ratherthanrationalin theirattitudesand responses to any real
or imaginedchallenge.
The internalsituationof the Greek Catholic Church,too, was farfromsat-
isfactory.The spiritualdevastationbroughtabout by the war was, if anything,
even worse thanitsphysicalconsequences. The generalloosening of moralsand
decline of ethical standardsthat usually accompany any prolonged hostilities
were exacerbated by the fact thatthe Galician Ukrainians were on the losing
side of the greatconflict:the Habsburg monarchy,which foralmost a century
and a half was forthem an embodimentof law and order,had collapsed, and
theirown aspirationsforan independentexistence in theirown statehad been
brutallythwartedby history.The vicissitudesof the world war and of theirown
liberationstrugglemade themcynical and apathetic,and the veryfoundations
of theirreligious beliefs were undermined,firstby the attemptto impose Rus-
sian Orthodoxyon them and then by the new ideas of world revolution.The
unprecedentedupheaval thathad uprootedthetsaristregimewroughthavoc and
confusionin many minds: the age-old, cherishedconservativebeliefs of their
fatherscrumbled.Even theirreligion,whichregulatedtheirdailyexistencedown
to the minutestdetails and gave thema feelingof safetyin an uncertainworld,
no longerseemed relevant.The relationshipbetweentheclergyand the faithful
also underwentconsiderablechange, witholder generationsof priestsfindingit
difficultto grasp thattheircondescendingattitudetowardparishionerswas no
longeracceptable. Underthesecircumstances,theChurch's taskto tryto restore
and rebuildshatteredbeliefs,to alleviate despairand frustration,and to heal rifts
among its faithful
was overwhelming.
In view of thissituation,therewerecalls fordisciplineamong theclergyto be
306 BUDUROWYCZ

tightened,theirmoral fiberstrengthened, and theirdedicationto theirvocation

enhanced. Thus, duringthe meetingof the Greek Catholic episcopate on 20
September1919 it was unanimouslydecided to introducecompulsorycelibacy
of the clergyin all threeeparchies of the Galician ChurchProvince. However,
the implementationof this controversialdecision was only slow and gradual.
While Bishop Khomyshyntookimmediatestepsto introducecelibacy and made
itcompulsoryforthecandidatesforpriesthoodenteringthetheologicalseminary
in Stanyslavivin 1923, and while Bishop Kotsylovsicyifollowedin his footsteps
two yearslater,MetropolitanSheptytsicyi adopted a morecautious attitude,and
itwas notuntilthelate 1930s thatstudentsenrollingin theTheological Academy
in Lviv had to declare formallytheirwillingnessto be ordainedas celibates.38
The controversythatfollowed Khomyshyn'sdecision was bitterand acri-
monious: it was he who, quite willingly,took upon himselfthe bruntof public
discontentand resolutelystood his grounduntilthe commotionsubsided. The
opponentsof thereformclaimed thatone of the essential concessions made by
the Holy See at thetimeof the Union of Brest was being wantonlyabandoned,
thatan ancienttraditionof the EasternChurchwas being violated,and thatthe
Ukrainianintelligentsia,whose rankshad been sorelydepletedby the war,was
to be biologically decimated, since it had been primarilythe progeny of the
priestlyfamiliesthatprovidedintellectualand political leaders forthe Galician
Ukrainians.The animatedand at timesintemperatediscussion conductedon the
pages of the newspapers,in public protestmeetings,and in the lecturerooms
of the seminaries,was exacerbatedby the factthata numberof respectedand
influentialpriestsof the older generationas well as some prominentlaymen
openlydenouncedthereformas unnecessary,untimely, and extremelyharmfulto
thenational interest
and to thecause of Church unity. 1922, a conventionof the
In
Society of St. Paul theApostle decided to send to the Roman Curia a grievance
againstKhomyshyn,whichwas signed by a large numberof priests.39In March
1923, ReverendGiovanni Genocchi, theapostolic visitator,was sentto all three
eparchies and was handed a copy of the grievance; however,he was prevented
frommeetingrepresentatives of studentsexpelled fromthetheologicalseminary
in Stanyslavivforopposing Khomyshyn'sreform,or thedelegationof lay lead-
ers planningto lodge a formalcomplaintagainst the bishop. At the same time,
however,he receivedthedelegatesof thenewlyformedSt. Josaphat'sSocietyof
Celibate Priests,who submittedto hima memorandumdemandingtheintroduc-
tionof compulsorycelibacy throughoutthe Galician ChurchProvince.40
In 1924, thepamphletVysvitlennia do istoriiL'vivs'kykhsynodiv(The Clari-
ficationof the Historyof theLviv Synods),jointlyauthoredby six priests,was
publishedand providedtheopponentsof celibacy withadditionalammunition.41
In March 1925, the studentsof the Stanyslavivseminaryorganized a rebellion
against celibacy, vowing not to returnas long as the rightof choice for the
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 307

candidates for priesthoodto be marriedor to remain single was not restored;

howeverthethreatthattheirexemptionfromcompulsorymilitaryservicewould
come to an end if theylost theirstatusas studentsof theologypromptedmost
of the secessionists to returnto the seminary.42
At the same time,lay leaders in
Przemysllodged a complaintwiththe Holy See against Bishop KotsylovsTcyi,
accusing himof violatingtherightsof theGreek Catholic Churchguaranteedby
the Union of Brest. However,thisgrievancewas officiallydismissed by a letter
fromthe secretaryof the Sacred Congregationfor Oriental Churches dated 9
May 1927, whichstatedthat,farfrombeingan encroachmentupon theprivileges
of theChurch,KotsylovsTcyi'sdecision strengthened it fromwithinby favoring
those who decided voluntarilyand withoutany constraintto live as celibates.43
In spiteof thisrepudiation,thestruggleagainstcelibacy continueduntiltheend
of thedecade, althoughit clearlybegan to lose steam. In the 1930s, thenumber
of candidates forpriesthoodincreased so dramatically(mostly because of the
rampanteconomic depressionwhichresultedin mass unemploymentamong the
Ukrainianintelligentsia)thattheseminarieswere able to accommodateless than
halfof the applicants,and by 1935, thenumberof celibate and widowerpriests
in the Stanyslaviveparchyalmost equaled thatof the marriedclergy.44
Notwithstandingthe reservationsthe Galician Ukrainians mighthave had
withregardto the attitudesof some of theirbishops, most of themregardedthe
Greek Catholic Church as the only national strongholdleftto themaftertheir
struggleforindependenceended in failureand afterthedecision of the Council
of Ambassadors made theirwhole futureappear foreboding.Thus, it was with
understandableapprehensionsthattheyfollowed the negotiationsbetween the
Warsaw governmentand theVaticanfora concordat,which,among otherthings,
was to determinethe statusof theirChurchwithinthePolish stateand to define
its rightsand obligations.
In its final form,the concordat of 10 February 1925 proved to be a mixed
blessing to theGreek Catholic Churchin Poland.45On theone hand,itlegalized
its position as an autonomous unitwithinthe Catholic Church in thatcountry,
recognizedas such notonly by theHoly See butalso by thePolish government.
Thus, the Greek Catholic Ukrainians in Galicia could at least maintain and
preserve theirreligious heritage withoutany interferenceon the part of the
Polish authorities.In addition,theirChurch was able to retainits not inconsid-
erable materialpossessions, which assured it of financial independence quite
apart fromthe nominal salaries thatall membersof the clergywere to receive
fromthe government.On the otherhand, however,the activitiesof the Greek
Catholic Churchoutside Galicia were to be sharplycurtailed,and its dreams of
expanding its missionarywork to Volhynia and the Chehn region- the areas
where the Union had flourishedbeforeits suppressionby the tsaristregime in
the nineteenthcentury - were thwarted the
by provision of the concordat that
308 BUDUROWYCZ

placed all GreekCatholicsoutsidethethreeGalician eparchiesunderthespiritual

care andjurisdictionof local Latin-ritebishops.As a result,theconcordatcould
be used as an importanttool in the nationalitypolicy of thePolish government,
whichwas now freeto restrict theGreekCatholicclergyto thethreesoutheastern
provincesof thecountrywhile sponsoringand activelysupportingtheinfluence
of the Latin clergyin partibus infidelium,where theycould promoteboth the
Roman Catholic religionand militantPolish nationalismwithoutany effective
competition.46 Moreover,since the concordatenumeratedall existingdioceses
withinthePolish state,anyattemptto enlargethenumberof GreekCatholicepar-
chies, even on Galician territory,was automaticallydoomed to failure.47 Finally,
theconcordatreaffirmed therightof patronage,whichallowed local landowners
(usuallyofPolish origin)to vetotheappointment ofpastorsin villagesundertheir
jurisdiction.48These stipulationswere notaccidental; on thecontrary, theywere
the resultof carefulplanningby Poland's chief negotiator,Stanislaw Grabski,
whose anti-Ukrainian attitudewas well knownand whose views prevailedagainst
the wishes of othermembersof the Polish delegation.49
Under these circumstances,it is not surprisingthatthe conclusion of the
concordatwas viewed by theUkrainianpressin Galicia as beingdirectedagainst
Ukrainianinterestsand leading, in its ultimateconsequence, to the liquidation
of theUniate Church.As deputySerhii KhrutsTcyi (himselfa prominentlayman
of the OrthodoxChurch) argued duringthe plenarymeetingof the Sejm on 23
March 1925 debatingthe ratificationof the concordat,the deal concluded by
thePolish governmentand theHoly See deprivedtheGreek Catholic Churchof
its historicalmission and turnedthatmission over to theLatin rite.50Moreover,
the concordat identifiedthe interestsof the Vatican with those of the Polish
stateand reduced the role of the Greek Catholic Churchto thatof a subsidiary
of militantRoman Catholicism: it lost mostof therightsit had acquired during
the threecenturiesof its existence and its clergywere transformedinto a tool
of state administration.51 This highlyemotional discussion, which prevented
the Galician Ukrainiansfromappraisingthe positive and negative sides of the
concordatin a dispassionatemanner,was also reflectedin thedaily press,which
took an even more extremestand: in the words of the prestigiousdaily Dilo,
Ukrainiannationaldignitywas notforsale and the Ukrainianswould not allow
Rome to dismantletheirnationalchurch.If theVaticanpersistedin its attempts
to abolish the Union, it would do well to rememberthatwhile all roads led to
Rome, all of themalso led fromit.52
imposed by theconcordat,thematerialsituation
In spiteof all therestrictions
of theGreekCatholic Churchin Poland was ratheradvantageous.It owned large
landholdingsin threesoutheasternprovinces(Lviv, Stanyslaviv,and Ternopil)
as well as smaller propertiesin the provincesof Cracow, Lublin, Navahrudak
(Nowogródek), and Vilnius (Wilno)- altogether(as of 1938) 143,582 hectares,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 309

including41,046 hectares of wooded areas.53In addition to the income from

Church properties,individual priests were entitledto the so-called stole fees
(iura stolae), paid foradministeringa sacramentor rite,while all membersof
the episcopate, pastors,vicars, monks, students,and professorsof theological
seminariesreceivedmonthlysalaries,rangingfrom54 to 1,460 zlotys(increased
by 10 percentin 1927 and reduced again to previous levels in 1932).54In 1938,
theSejm decided to increasethestate's financialsupportfortheLatin rite,while
leaving themoneyallottedto theGreek Catholic Churchat thepreviouslevel.55
Certainfeudal practices(e.g., couples about to be marriedperformingvarious
services around the parsonage withoutremuneration)also survivedduringthe
interwarperiod in some parishesand contributedto the local priest'sincome.
In orderto eliminateglaringdisparitiesin the incomes of individualpriests,
MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi decided in 1927 thatthe maximum endowmentfor
each priestin the Lviv archeparchymustnotexceed 80 hectaresof land, bring-
ing approximately2 zlotys per hectare,or 160 zlotys per month,in additionto
the priest's intake fromstole fees. Priests enjoying larger endowments were
obligated to returnfromtheirsurplus 2 zlotys per hectare per monthto the
treasuryof the archeparchy,which,in turn,was to use thatmoney to subsidize
priests with smaller incomes.56Similarly, the Stanyslaviv eparchy made an
attemptto equalize the financialburdensand incomes of its priests,withpas-
torsof well-to-doparishesreceivinga lower salary and the surplusfundsbeing
used to subsidize candidates forpriesthoodstudyingabroad, to cover current
administrativeexpenses, and to assist needy priests.57
A considerable portion of the landholdings of the Lviv archeparchywas
parcelled out in the 1920s and 1930s. MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi investedmuch
of themoneyreceived fromthattransactionin the sharesof the UkrainianLand
Mortgage Bank (Zemel'nyiBank Hipotechnyi),while the remainderwas used
to subsidize such institutionsas the Greek Catholic Theological Academy, the
UkrainianNationalMuseum, thePeople's Hospital (Narodnia Lichnytsia),many
shelters,orphanages, and nurseries,as well as to aid needy artists,students,
and the unemployed.58On the other hand, the Stanyslaviv eparchy ran into
considerabledifficultieswhen,havingparceled out a partof itslands in theearly
1930s, it acquired several office buildings in Stanyslaviv and a large landed
propertyin Bohorodchany(Bishop Khomyshyn'sfavoritesummerresidence).
The amountdue to theeparchyforthelands thathad been parceled out was to be
paid by individualbuyersaccordingto an installmentplan, while thereal estate
in Stanyslavivand Bohorodchany,purchased on credit,was to be paid forin a
similarmanner.However,thedevaluationof theAmericandollar and thePolish
currencylaw of 1934 seriouslyunderminedthesolvencyoftheeparchyand of the
Land MortgageBank in whichitowned 40 percentof shares,acquired mostlyon
credit.Withtheconditionsof amortizationfortheChurchlandsradicallychanged
310 BUDUROWYCZ

and with the Land Bank menaced with collapse, the income of the eparchy
was sharplyreduced while its expendituresand debts remained unchanged.
The divergencesbetween the eparchyof Stanyslavivon the one hand and the
archeparchyof Lviv and theLand MortgageBank on theother- exacerbatedby
thethreatof foreclosurehangingover thehead of theeparchy- eventuallyled to
litigation,withPolish courtsactingas an arbiterbetweenthetwo GreekCatholic
dioceses. Effortsto finda mutuallyacceptable solutionof thedifficulties,which
had developed withoutthe personal knowledge of eitherBishop Khomyshyn
or MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi, were blocked by some of theiradvisers,and only
theoutbreakof the Second WorldWar put an end to thisdeplorable situation.59
Obviously,this stateof affairswas not helped by the lack of empathybetween
thetwo brotherbishops,whose backgroundsand personalitieswere so different,
but who, in spite of theirdisagreements,shared the same basic objective- the
continuedgrowthand well-beingof theirChurch.
While theGreekCatholic hierarchyand clergypresenteda unitedfrontas far
as the defense of the rightsand privilegesof theirChurchwas concerned,this
unitywas more apparentthanreal. Althoughthe metropolitanwas the nominal
head of the whole Galician ChurchProvince, his real authorityextendedonly
over theLviv archeparchyand his brotherbishops enjoyed completeautonomy
withintheirrespectiveeparchies.Conferencesof bishops tookplace to establish
joint policy in mattersof common concern,but theirdecisions were not neces-
- -
sarilybindingon individualparticipants,who could and oftendid postpone
theirimplementationor even hold themin abeyance. As a result,the faithfulof
each eparchyhad to come to termswiththe decisions of theirordinaryand to
lead theirspirituallives in accordance with his personal interpretation of the
Church'steachings.In additionto theseadministrative divisions,the individual
membersof the hierarchydifferedsharplyon such basic problemsas the rela-
tionshipbetweentheChurchand thePolish stateand theirown attitudetoward
the Ukrainiannationalmovementand its various manifestations.60 This lack of
solidaritytendedto weaken theChurch'spositionin itsdealings withthePolish
authorities,who were well aware of thisinternaldissension and used it to their
best advantage. The governmentcircles, at both the provincialand ministerial
levels, divided thebishops intofriendsand opponentsof theregimeand treated
themaccordingly.
One of the most importantideological issues thatdivided the hierarchyand
clergyas well as a considerable numberof the laity was the strugglebetween
theEasternizersand Westernizers,or,as theywere sometimesreferredto,"Byz-
antinists"and "Latinizers." Byzantinism,according to its adherents,could be
defined as an ecclesiastical and culturaltrendtakingits inspirationfromthe
old Byzantinecivilization and looking withinit forelementsthatcould bring
about a revival of the Greek Catholic Churchand its culture.While anxious to
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 311

assimilatethebest of Westernculture,theyalso wantedto enrichitwithlost and

forgottenEastern Christianvalues. According to them,the Byzantinismof the
Ukrainians was a reaffirmation of the fact thatfromthe geographical,ethnic,
religious, and cultural pointsof view theybelonged to theEast. Therefore,they
should fostertheirown, originalecclesiastical culture,which had characterized
the UkrainianChurch and the Ukrainianpeople foralmost a millennium,and
continueto develop it,tryingto createa harmonioussynthesisof Byzantineand
WesternEuropeanvalues. This explainedthehighregardthattheByzantinistshad
forold Churchritesand theirnegativeattitudetowardLatinization,which they
definedas thetotalityof concepts,customs,and ritesthatgrew on a completely
alien spiritualground.The resurgenceof Byzantinismwas especially visible
in the returnto ancient liturgicaltraditionsand practices, without,however,
compromisingloyaltyand commitmentto theCatholic Church.In addition,the
UkrainianByzantinistsmaintainedthatthe returnto the old Eastern formsof
worshipwould minimizetheconfessionaldifferencesbetweentheCatholic and
OrthodoxUkrainians,thusraisingthe possibilityof winningover the latterfor
the Union, while at the same timereversingthe trendtowardLatinization,with
all its unforeseeablereligiousand political consequences.61
The opponentsof Byzantinismdid not deny the profoundinfluenceof Byz-
antinecivilizationon Ukrainianculture;although,regardingit as a completely
negativeforce,theydeplored its harmfuleffects.To them,Byzantinismwas the
totalsum of distortedprinciplesand views on ecclesiastical and religiousmatters
thatdeveloped in Byzantiumand eventuallyled to theschism,caesaropapism,and
theChurch's servileattitudetowardsecular authorities.It also overemphasized
the importanceof externalformsof worship,devoid of any contentor deeper
spiritualmeaning,and tendedto magnifyout of proportionthesignificanceof the
nationalelementwhile ignoringthe principleof the universalityof the Church.
Thoroughlyfossilized,it was especially ill suitedforthemodernage because of
its lack of flexibilityand inabilityto adapt to new circumstances.62
The controversybetween the Byzantinists and the Westernizersgrew in
intensityduring the interwarperiod, with MetropolitanSheptytsTtyi taking a
stand as the foremostchampion of Byzantinismin a numberof pastoral letters
and speeches (notablyin his pastoral letter"About Ritual Matters"of 13 April
1931), in which he stressed that it would be counterproductiveto tryto win
over the Eastern Christiansby treatingwithdisrespector even ridiculingtheir
cherishedtraditions,which theyinheritedfromtheirancestorsand which thus
were theirbirthright. Such an attitudecould turnthemaway fromChristianity
itselfand could also resultin the complete alienationof those who valued their
riteand theirculturemorehighlythantheirreligiousbeliefs.63Similarviews were
voiced by Sheptytsicyi'sclosest collaborators,including his futuresuccessor,
Iosyf Slipyi, thenthe rectorof the Greek Catholic Academy in Lviv, whereas
312 BUDUROWYCZ

the pro-Westerncamp was entrenchedespecially firmlyin the Stanyslavivand

Przemysleparchies, with Bishop Khomyshynacting as its chief promoter.In
order to stimulatethe religious faithof his flock, Khomyshynproceeded to
implementservices,devotions,and practicesborrowedfromthe Latin Church,
such as the Holy Hour,novenae, supplicationsand litaniesto the Sacred Heart,
to the VirginMary, St. Joseph,and St. Josaphat,rosary,etc. This, in turn,met
with objections on the part of some priestsand many faithful,who regarded
these innovationsas alien to the spiritof the EasternChurchand also opposed
such changes in theliturgyas thereplacementof thewordpravoslavnyi(which,
in Ukrainian,could be construedas referring to the OrthodoxChurch) withits
approximateequivalentpravovirnyi and the addition of the name of St. Joseph
to thedismissal formula(ptpust)of the liturgy.64
The opposite tendencywas representedby MetropolitanSheptytsicyi,who
in orderto purifyGreekCatholic liturgicaltextsfromimproperchanges,distor-
tions,and accretionsthathad accumulated over the centuriesand to restorethe
Byzantinerite as practicedin Ukraine to its pristineform,convoked in 1928
the IntereparchialLiturgicalCommission, consistingof the representativesof
all Greek Catholic eparchies in Europe and overseas, whose task was to verify
theexistingliturgicalrubricsand textsand to determinetheirstandardversion.
The findingsof thecommissionwere formallysubmittedin 1936 to the Sacred
CongregationforOrientalChurches,which,in 1942, initiatedthepublicationof
a new editionof liturgicalbooks to be used by all Greek Catholic eparchies.65
This developmentfrustrated the effortsof the Latinizers,althoughsome of the
innovationsintroducedby themmanaged to survivein individualparishes.Not
surprisingly,when the commission completed its work, some Polish circles
expressedtheirapprehensionthatSheptytsTcyi and his supporterswould use its
recommendationsto weaken any creativeoppositionwithintheGreek Catholic
Churchand to vanquish themost determinedfoe of Byzantinism,Bishop Kho-
myshyn.66 This was most unfortunate, theyasserted,since SheptytsTcyi, in his
attemptto bringtheEast intotheorbitof theCatholic world, made a fatalmistake
by choosing themethodof Orientalizationratherthanthatof Occidentalization.
Therefore,the resultsof his experimentproved to be quite opposite to those
thathe had hoped to achieve: he succeeded only in underminingthestrengthof
Catholicismon theperipheriesof EasternEurope and failedto registeranygains
forthecause of theChurchUnion.67
In the meantime,the Greek Catholic hierarchyin Galicia began to grow in
numbers.68When Iosyf Botsian (1879-1926), consecrated by Sheptytslcyias
thebishop of Lutsk in Volhynia,was unable to take over his see because of the
refusal of the Polish authoritiesto recognize the legality of his appointment,
he became the auxiliarybishop of the Lviv archeparchyand remained in that
position untilhis death.69Similarly,when Bishop NykytaBudka (1877-1949)
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 313

leftCanada in 1927 (where he had been looked at askance since his appeal in
1914 to the UkrainianCanadians to supportAustria-Hungary'swar effort),he
was assigned to the same archeparchyas a vicar general.70In 1926, Hryhorii
Lakota (1883-1950) was nominated and consecrated as auxiliary bishop of
Przemysl,71and his appointmentwas followed three years later by those of
Ivan Buchko (1891-1974) and Ivan LiatyshevsTcyi(1879-1957) as auxiliary
bishops, respectively,of Lviv and Stanyslaviv.72In 1931, Mykola CharnetsTcyi
(1884-1959) was named apostolic visitator"for the Slavs of Byzantine rite
outside of the Ruthenianeparchies in Poland" and took up his residence firstin
Warsaw and subsequentlyin Kovel in Volhynia;however,afterthe outbreakof
WorldWar II, he was unable to carryout his duties in the vast area assigned to
him and resided mostlyin Lviv.73
Special problems developed in connection with designatinga prospective
successor to SheptytsTcyi. In 1924, when the metropolitanwas in poor health
afterhis returnfromtheWest and the concordatbetweenWarsaw and the Holy
See was still being negotiated,the Polish authoritieswere apprehensive that
Bishop KotsylovsTcyiof Przemysl,a forcefulpersonalitywhom theyregarded
as a convinced Ukrainiannationalistand who, being fluentin Italian,was quite
popular in the Vatican, mightbe appointed to succeed Sheptytsicyi;indeed,
Aleksander Cardinal Kakowski, the archbishop-metropolitan of Warsaw, used
thatpossibilityas an argumentin favorof a speedyconclusionof a bindingtreaty
thatwould give Poland the rightto veto thatnomination.74Later, the Polish
press mentionedoccasionally thecandidacy of Bishop Khomyshynas one most
acceptableto Poland in thepositionof metropolitan. This touchysubjectemerged
again as the topic of discussion betweenPoland and theHoly See in April 1938,
when Count JanSzembek, the undersecretary of statein the Polish Ministryof
Foreign Affairs,informedMsgr. Felipe Cortesi, papal nuncio in Warsaw, that
PresidentMoscicki would veto the rumoredappointmentof Iosyf Slipyi as an
auxiliary bishop for the Lviv archeparchywith the rightof succession. The
justificationgiven was Slipyi's purportedclose association withtheorganization
of Ukrainiannationalistsand political activities,which,accordingto Szembek,
would have a negativeeffecton Polish-Ukrainianrelations.The nuncio assured
Szembek thathe had no officialor privatereportsabout Slipyi's nomination;he
stated,moreover,thatthe"undesirable"situationin Galicia could be improvedby
appointingas bishops persons whose loyaltyto the Polish statewas irreproach-
able.75 Under these circumstances,Slipyi's candidacy, stronglysupportedby
SheptytsTcyi, had to be held in abeyance untilthe beginningof World War II,
when on 25 November 1939 he was formallyappointed archbishop-coadjutor
cum iure successions and was thenduly consecrated in a secretceremonyon
22 December of thesame year; however,his elevation to theepiscopate was not
formallyannounced to the Greek Catholic faithfuluntiltwo years later.76
314 BUDUROWYCZ

IV

Thesocial and culturalactivitiesoftheGreekCatholicclergyduringtheinterwar

period. The Catholic Actionand theorganizationsof Ukrainian Catholic laity.
The associations of the Greek Catholic clergy.Ukrainian Catholic press and
publishing. Religious and monastic life. Religious education, theological
seminaries,and thefoundingof the Greek Catholic Theological Academy.The
involvementof theGreek Catholic hierarchyand clergyin workfor the Church
Union. The introductionof theByzantine-Slavicriteand its repercussions.The
creationof theLemkoApostolicAdministration.
The networkof GreekCatholic parishesspread over all threeeparchiesnotonly
providedreligiouscare but also played an importantpartin the cultural,social,
and even political life of the faithful.Indeed, it was generallyassumed by lay-
men- and oftenreaffirmed by the clergy- thatthe priestshad a moral dutyto
act as leaders and organizersof secular activitiesinvolvingtheirparishioners,
as mediatorsbetween them and the state authorities,and as ever-readyhelp-
ers and advisers in all mattersconcerningtheirwelfare.77As a result,Greek
Catholic priestsoftendisplayed initiativein foundingenlightenment societies,
readingcircles,entertainment groups,cooperatives,and otherorganizationsand
institutions,which, strictlyspeaking, were outside the realm of religious life.
They were occasionally activelyengaged in arousingthenationalconsciousness
of theirflock and in urgingthem to become involved in the strugglefor the
political rightsof theiroppressed nation. This was the role thatmany Greek
Catholic priestscontinuedto play duringtheinterwarperiod,thoughwithsome
important modifications. The new politicaland intellectualclimate,whichcaused
many organizationsto swerve theirorientationto the far left or right,made
it inopportunefor the members of the clergy to participateactively in their
work,all the more so since some of theirlay membersresentedsuch behavior
as encroachmentof theirown rights.Secondly, the emergenceof a numberof
new groups and associations, sponsored by the Catholic Action and strongly
supportedby the Church hierarchy,made themthe object of special attention
on the partof the clergy.
To be sure,theterm"CatholicAction"was rathervague and subjectto various
interpretations. Defined by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical "Ubi Arcano Dei"
(1922) as "theparticipationof thelaityin theapostolateof theChurchhierarchy,"
it tendedto assume different formsin various countries,rangingfromstrictly
authoritarian, regulatedand supervisedby the local bishop, to looser and more
liberal, giving considerable leeway to the initiativeof lay members.It is not
surprising,therefore,that similarlydivergentattitudesprevailed also in the
Galician ChurchProvince,wherethepaternalistictendencywas representedby
Bishop Khomyshynand theliberalone by MetropolitanSheptytsicyi. In orderto
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 315

make themovementmoreattractiveto thosewho espoused nationalistideology,

itwas pointedoutthattheuncompromisingattitudeof theCatholic Churchin the
mattersof faithand morals,itsdogmaticinflexibility, hierarchicaladministration,
and organizationalefficiencycould proveveryhelpfulin strengthening themoral
fiberof the Ukrainianpeople, thus enabling themto withstandthe dangers of
Polonizationand Russification.At thesame time,however,thepromotersof the
CatholicActionin theLviv archeparchyfeltthatthecreationof separateCatholic
organizations,analogous to those already in existence, could lead to chaotic
conditionsand underminethe whole organizationalstructureof the Ukrainian
communityin Galicia. Even so, it was argued,themembersof Catholic Action
could contributeto raising the level of spirituallife by assisting local priests
in theirwork, by combating the growing influenceof various religious sects,
by tryingto preventthe alienation of the youngergenerationfromthe Church
and Church-sponsoredorganizations,and by generallyexertinga constructive
influenceon public life.78
The firstassociationof UkrainianCatholiclaityto come intoexistencewas the
UkrainianChristianOrganization(since 1930 knownas the UkrainianCatholic
Organization),established in 1925. It derived its strengthfromthe unqualified
backingitreceivedfromBishop Khomyshynand his followers,and itsideological
platformreflectedthe views of its sponsors. It had, as its primaryobjective,the
spreadingof theteachingof theCatholic Churchto all aspects of public lifeand
took a firmstandagainstbothcommunismand extremenationalism.79In 1926,
it threwits supportbehindthe newly foundedweekly (later semiweekly)Nova
Zoria, which became the chief and most effectivemouthpieceof its ideology.
Encouragedbythegenerallyfavorablereceptionofthatpaperbythereadingpub-
lic, theleadersof theorganizationconcluded thatthedifferentiation of Ukrainian
political lifehad reached a stage thatcalled fortheformationof an independent
partyreflectingtheideological and political aspirationsof UkrainianCatholics.
Accordingly,theyproceeded to found,on 24 September 1930, the Ukrainian
Catholic People's Party(UKNP), which in 1932 changed its name to Ukrainian
National Renewal (UNO). The programof thenew partywas draftedby Stepan
TomashivsTcyi, a notedhistorian.Like theUkrainianChristianOrganization,the
UKNP was based on conservativeCatholic ideology. It took a dim view of the
existingUkrainianpoliticalpartiesbecause of theirideological heterogeneity and
theirgenerallyliberal tendencies;it was also criticalof thefactthattheylooked
at theCatholic Churchfroma purelyutilitarianpointof view, which sometimes
led to theirinterferencein theChurch's internalaffairsand caused themto value
emptyritualisticformsmorehighlythanthe ideological contentof the Catholic
faith.In additionto stressingits commitmentto the idea of Catholic education
and its oppositionto communism,the UkrainianNational Renewal rejectedthe
negative attitudeof Ukrainiannationaliststoward Poland and triedto replace
316 BUDUROWYCZ

it witha more constructiveapproach,advocating a territorial autonomyforall

Ukrainianlands withinthePolish state.80On thewhole,theinfluenceof thenew
partyon thepolitical life of the Ukrainianminorityin Poland was marginal.In
1935, duringtheheydayof theso-called normalization,it succeeded in electing
one deputyand one senatorto thePolish parliament,butthiswas accomplished
on the basis of a deal withtheexecutive of the UkrainianNational Democratic
Alliance (UNDO) ratherthanbecause of any inherentstrengthof the party.81
Anotherorganizationbased on Catholic ideology was theUkrainianCatholic
Union (UKS), the activitiesof which were limitedto the Lviv archeparchy.It
was establishedin January1931, aftertheconstitutionalstatuteof the Catholic
Action had been formallyapproved by the Greek Catholic episcopate, with
Metropolitan SheptytsTcyi'spersonal blessing and in response to his call to
redefinethe nation's political, social, and cultural objectives in the light of
Christianethicsand morals.Accordingly,it aimed at imbuingall aspects of life
withtrueChristianspiritand triedto enhance thequalityof educationand raise
the level of public life by enrichingthemwithChristianprinciples.82While it
had no political ambitionsof its own, it generallysupportedthe policies of the
UNDO, whose prominentmember,VolodymyrKuz'movych,was editor-in-chief
of theweeklyMeta, publishedsince 1931 undertheauspices of theUKS. Other
cognateorganizationsweretheCatholicActionof theUkrainianYouth(KAUM),
establishedunderthesponsorshipof all bishops of theGalician ChurchProvince
afterthe"UkrainianYouthforChrist"festivalin 1933;83theyouthorganization
Orly (The Eagles); and the association of UkrainianCatholic studentsObnova
(The Renewal), foundedin 1930, theavowed objective of which was to deepen
theChristiancommitmentof its membersand to follow theguidingprincipleof
the Catholic Action "to renew all thingsin Christ."84
A special position among these organizationswas occupied by the reading
association Skala (The Rock), foundedin 1934 by Bishop Khomyshynwiththe
purposeof "helping,expanding,and defendingtheeducationand cultureof the
Ukrainianpeople and theirreligiousand morallifeon thebasis oftheteachingsof
theHoly CatholicChurch."85Oftenat odds withUkrainiansecularorganizations,
whose approach to various problems of contemporarylife did not meet with
his approval, Khomyshynaimed primarilyat creatingan effectivecounterpart
to the networkof the popular Prosvita (Enlightenment)readinghouses, which
would be supervisedand controlledby the Churchand thusremainimmuneto
any harmfulinfluenceof non-Catholicideologies. While Skala was basically
apolitical,itsmemberswereencouragedtojoin politicalpartiesthatwere guided
in theiractivitiesby theteachingsand rules of theCatholic Church,notablythe
UkrainianNational Renewal.86In his pastoralletterof 22 July1935 addressed
to theclergyof his eparchy,Khomyshynurgedthemto establishSkala reading
houses in all parishesand to activelypromotetheirgrowth.87 Two yearslater,he
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 317

wenta stepfurther by forbiddinghis clergyto belongto anysecularorganizations,

withtheexceptionofthosein whichpriestsparticipatedex officioand whichwere
eithersubsidized by theChurchor had as theirprimaryobjective the supportof
the Churchand its teachings.88While thisdecision was widely criticizedin the
Ukrainianpressas runningcounterto nationalinterestsand seriouslyweakening
theorganizedlifeof theUkrainiancommunity,thepapal nuncio Cortesisentthe
bishop a congratulatoryletter,praisinghim forfollowingthe exhortationsand
instructionsof the Holy See.89
In January1936, theGreekCatholichierarchyin Galicia issued a joint pastoral
letterin supportof the Catholic Action.90Originally,it had been decided that
the Catholic Action in the Galician Church Province would be directedby the
General Instituteof the Catholic Action, which was to coordinatethe activities
of all organizationsinvolved in the secular apostolate.91In practice,however,
each eparchycontinuedto follow theguidelinedrawnby thelocal ordinaryand
jealousy guarded its autonomous status.Lacking the traditionsof a strongand
healthyCatholic lay movement,the Church-sponsoredorganizationswere able
to make only slow headway against the seeming indifferenceof the mass of
the faithful.92To be sure,Churchbrotherhoodshad a long and proud historyin
Galicia, but after thePolish Sejm in 1674 forbadethemto maintainany contacts
withthe patriarchof Constantinople,theybecame completelysubordinatedto
local bishops,and, aftertheofficialintroduction of theUnion in 1700, theywere
of
effectivelydeprived any remaining influence.
In any case, the activitiesof Ukrainian Catholic lay organizationsdid not
reflectto any appreciable degree the real power wielded by the Churchand its
unique positionin Ukrainiansocietyin Galicia. As theUkrainianCatholic press
frequentlycomplained, even the practisingCatholics among the intelligentsia
usuallylimitedthemselvesto demonstrating theirreligiousconvictionsin Church,
were apologetic ratherthan aggressive in defendingthem,and feltno need to
spread themto theirenvironment.As a result,theCatholic movementitselfhad
no firmideological foundationsand lacked even an effectivemethodologyof
communitywork,lagging farbehind its WesternEuropean models in both the
scope and in the intensityof its work.93Accordingly,its achievementsduring
the interwarperiod were rathermodest and consisted chieflyin assertingitself
against the suspicious or indifferent attitudeof the public and in winningthe
loyaltyof a comparativelysmall but enthusiasticgroup of adherents.
In additionto theorganizationssponsoredby,or connectedwith,theCatholic
Action,thereexisted scores of otherCatholic lay associations- some of them
of purelylocal significance,limitedto individual eparchies or even groups of
parishes,mostof themdedicatedto eithercharitableor devotionalactivities(the
Society of St. Johnthe Almsgiver,theApostolate of Prayer,etc.).94The Greek
Catholic clergy,while playing an active partin the lay organizations,also had
318 BUDUROWYCZ

its own associations in all eparchies.Though theiraims varied,theirprograms

generally stressed the deepening of a contemplative spiritand piety among
the clergy and the faithful,assistance for the Catholic press, and charitable
work.The oldest among them,the Society of St. Paul theApostle (founded in
1897), became deeply involved in the struggleagainst compulsorycelibacy in
the Stanyslaviv and Przemysleparchies and was eventuallydissolved in 1925
for lodging a protestwith the League of Nations against the persecution of
Ukrainianpriestsby thePolish authorities.95 Its successor was the St. Andrew's
Society,foundedin 1930 as a resultof MetropolitanSheptytsicyi'sinitiative,to
whichover 80 percentof thepriestsof theLviv archeparchybelonged.96It stood
firmlybehindthetraditionalisme approach to all mattersof worshipand Church
discipline,whileitscounterpart in theStanyslaviveparchy,St. Josaphat'sSociety
of Celibate Priests(founded in 1922), was the staunchestsupporterof Bishop
Khomyshyn'spolicies and sponsored the publicationof the semiweeklyNova
Zoria.91A special position was occupied by the Theological Learned Society
(Bohoslovs'ke Naukove Tovarystvo),established in 1923 to fostertheological
scholarshipand to publishtheologicalmonographsand periodicals.It embraced
membersfromall threeeparchiesand sponsoredthepublicationof thequarterly
Bohosloviia (17 vols, by 1939) as well as the series Fraisi BNT (13 vols.) and
VydanniaBohosloviï (23 vols.).98
While the actions of Greek Catholic lay organizationsin Galicia sometimes
appeared sluggish and ineffective,the Ukrainian Catholic press was, on the
whole, strongand vigorous,and exhibiteda considerabledegree of varietyand
sophistication.Its networkexpanded greatlyduring the interwarperiod and
compriseda stringof general-informative, devotional,and scholarlynewspapers,
journals, and otherserial and non-serial publicationsforchildren,young read-
ers, adults,the intelligentsia,and the clergy.Althoughtherewas no Ukrainian
Catholicdaily,thisgap was partlyfilledby thesemiweeklyNova Zoria, founded
in 1926 as the organof the UkrainianChristianOrganizationand reflectingthe
views of Bishop Khomyshyn.It was at firstpublished underthe editorshipof
the ReverendTytHalushchynsTcyi, OSBM, and after1928, underthatof Osyp
Nazaruk, a brilliant,astute,and farsightedwriterand journalist.From the very
beginningof its existence,it became an articulateand oftenaggressivecriticof
thenegativistattitudethatseemed to dominatethelifeof theUkrainianminority
in Poland. Controversialbutintellectuallystimulating, ittookan uncompromising
standagainstbothcommunismand extremenationalism,whiletryingto promote
a realistic policy of accommodation between the Ukrainians and the Polish
government.At the same time,it also advanced the Catholic point of view in
social and culturallife,advocatingsocial, economic, and educationalreformsin
accordancewiththeteachingsof theCatholicChurch,and staunchlydefendedthe
policies of theHoly See and its officialrepresentatives, even whentheyseemed
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 319

to collide withUkrainiannationalinterests."Its sisterpublication,the popular

weeklyPravda (startedin 1927), was aimed primarilyto peasant audiences and,
in additionto surveyingcurrentpolitical and religiousdevelopments,provided
good coverage of economic and business affairs.100
The weekly Meta, the organ of the Ukrainian Catholic Union that began
publishingin 1931, was closely connectedwiththecircles aroundMetropolitan
SheptytsTcyi. Rather staid and uninspiredwhen compared to the lively Nova
Zoria, it often engaged in ideological disputes with its opponents fromthe
nationalistand liberal camp and triedto work out guidelines forthe Ukrainian
Catholic movement.Meta sponsored the publication of the popular biweekly,
KhrystosNasha Syla, which appeared as its supplement,and of the literaryand
scholarlymagazineDzvony(1931-1939), appealingto thetasteof a moresophis-
ticatedreader.Ideologically close to these publicationswas the monthlyNyva
(1904-1939), sponsoredby theSociety of Catechistsand devotedto Churchand
social affairs.Othernoteworthy Catholicnewspapersand periodicalsincludedthe
weeklyBeskyd(1926-1933) and itssuccessor,Ukrains'kyiBeskyd(1933-1939),
bothpublished in Przemyslwiththe financialsupportof Bishop KotsylovsTcyi,
themonthliesDobryi Pastyr (Stanyslaviv), Katolyts'kaAktsiia(publishedby the
GeneralInstituteof CatholicAction),Misionar PresviatohoSertsia Khrystovoho
(published by the Basilian Fathersin Zhovkva), Nash PryiateV(for children),
and Ukraïns'keIunatstvo(for young readers). Finally,one should mentionthe
non-periodical scholarly series Analecta Ordinis S. Basilii Magni, published
since 1924 by the Basilian Fathersin Zhovkva and devoted to thehistoryof the
Churchand the historyof Ukraine.101
The organizationsof thelaityand theclergyand theCatholic press formedan
importantlinkbetweentheChurchand themass of thefaithful, on whose active
supportit depended for its very survival. At the same time,however,it drew
much of its innerstrengthand inspirationfromthe work of its elite corps- the
monastic orders and congregations.The foremostand most numerousamong
themwas theBasilian Orderof St. Josaphat(thename formallyapprovedby Pope
Pius XI in 1932), which beforeWorldWar II counted 378 monksin its Galician
province(out of a total686). Combiningtheirtraditionallife of prayerwithan
activeapostolate,theywereengaged in education,scholarship,and parochialand
missionarywork. The ordermaintainedtheological and philosophical schools
fornovices in Lviv, Lavriv, Dobromyl, and Krystynopil,directeda boys' high
school in Buchach and thepontificalUkrainianCollege of St. Josaphatin Rome,
and operated a large publishingcenterin Zhovkva. Having been reformedby
the Jesuitorder,the Basilians retainedan occidental outlook and were among
the most eager supportersof westernizingtendencies in the Greek Catholic
Church.Two of the Galician ordinaries,MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi and Bishop
KotsylovsTcyi, came from the ranksof theBasilians, butSheptytsTcyi
's penchant
320 BUDUROWYCZ

forrevivingold Byzantinetraditionslatercaused himto transfer his sympathies

to theStuditeorder.In 1931, theReverendDionysii Tkachuk (1867-1944) was
elected by thegeneralchapterheld at Dobromylas thefirstarchimandrite of the
Basilians and took up residence in Rome, fromwherehe directedthe activities
of the orderthroughoutthe world.102
The orderof theStuditeswas reestablishedby SheptytsTcyi withthepurpose
of revivingthe ancientmonastictraditionsof the ChristianEast. He personally
compiled theirrule book (typicon) and headed them as theirarchimandrite.
In 1919, they moved fromSknyliv near Lviv to Univ, where they opened a
monastery.They engaged in agricultureand manual work,ran orphanagesand
residencesforstudents,a paintingschool,a bookbindingshop,and a librarycalled
Studionin Lviv. By 1939, theyhad 8 monasteriesand 3 missionarystationswith
225 monks,among them22 ordained priests.103 The metropolitanalso played
an importantrole in giving an impetusto the activitiesof the easternbranchof
theCongregationof RedemptoristFathers,who arrivedin Galicia fromBelgium
in 1911 at his invitation.They settledfirstin Univ and then in Zboiska near
Lviv, wheretheyopened a secondaryschool witha residenceforstudents.They
maintaineda philosophicaland theologicalschool in Holosko VelykenearLviv,
and monasteriesin Lviv, Stanyslaviv,Ternopil,and Kovel in Volhynia. Until
1933, theirGalician viceprovincewas administeredby theirchieforganizerand
firstprotohegumen, JosephSchrijvers(1876-1945). Bishop Mykola Charnetsicyi
(appointedapostolic visitatorforthe Slavs of Byzantineritein Poland in 1931)
was a member of the congregation. In the 1930s, the eastern branch of the
Redemptoristshad 9 monasteriesand 151 monks (96 in Galicia).104
The most numerousmonasticcongregationforwomen was thatof the Sister
Servantsof Mary Immaculate.As of 1938, it had 22 houses (convents) in the
Lviv archeparchy, 35 in thePrzemysleparchy,and 30 in theStanyslaviveparchy,
with389 sisters(out of 628 worldwide).Their activitiesembracedsuch diverse
occupationsas doing domesticworkand managingbusiness affairsin theologi-
cal seminaries;maintainingkindergartens, orphanages,elementary,vocational,
and home economics schools for girls; supervisingworkshops,convalescent
homes and resorthouses; providingcatechetical instructionfor childrenand
adults; workingwithwomen in individualparishes,giving themcorporal and
spiritualassistance; and tryingto alleviate such social problemsas destitution,
poverty,sickness,and so forth.105 The second-largestcongregationwas thatof
the Basilian Sisters, which in 1938-1939 had 26 houses and over 300 nuns.
Their work centeredmainlyon runningkindergartens, elementary,vocational,
and secondaryschools forgirls,and shelters and orphanages.106Among other
congregations,the JosephiteSisters (25 houses and close to 100 nuns,chiefly
in the Przemysleparchy)took care of the aged and the sick, while the Studite
Sisters(witha motherhousein Iakhtorivand homes in Haï nearTernopil,Lviv,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 321

and Pidhaitsi)engaged in agriculturalwork,sewing,makingliturgicalvestments,

runningnurseries,kindergartens, and orphanages.107
As the above outline indicates,practicallyall monastic orders and congre-
gations were deeply involved in education, which was also one of the chief
concerns of the secular clergyand of the Church as a whole. According to the
provisions of the concordat of 1925, compulsoryreligious instructionwas to
be provided in all elementary,secondary,and vocational schools,108and Greek
Catholic pupils attendingschools wherethe studentsbelongingto theLatin rite
formedthemajorityhad therightto receivethatinstruction fromtheirown priest.
The programof religious education offeredby secondary schools (especially
in the so-called gymnasia) was ratherextensive and included such subjects as
Biblical history,historyof the Church, liturgies,dogmatics, and ethics, and
usuallyorganizedgroups,circles,and societies aimed at enhancingthestudents'
religiouscommitment,the most popular among thembeing the Marian Sodali-
ties (Mariis'ki Druzhyny).109 Chaplains were also appointedto take care of the
spiritualneeds of universitystudents,and some of them participatedactively
in the ideological strugglebetween the adherentsand opponents of extreme
nationalism,whichdeeply splittheranksof the Ukrainianacademic youth(see,
forexample, the Reverend Mykola Konrad in a series of articlespublished in
the weeklyMeta).m
In orderto encouragepromisingcandidatesto entertheologicalseminariesand
also to assist studentswho, because of theirinvolvementin undergroundactivi-
ties,were barredfromcompletingtheirsecondaryeducationin state-supervised
schools,MetropolitanSheptytsicyi founded,undertheauspices oftheGreekCath-
olic Church,the so-called minorseminariesin Lviv and Rohatyn,thegraduates
of which were readilyaccepted by foreigninstitutionsof higherlearning,even
IU
thoughtheirmatriculation diplomaswerenotrecognizedbyPolish universities.
Candidates forthe priesthoodattendedthe theological seminariesthatexisted
in each eparchy.The oldest among themwas the seminaryin Lviv (founded in
1783), which counted among its graduates over 50 bishops, archbishops,and
metropolitansas well as some 8,000 priests.112 In 1928, SheptytsTeyi raised its
statusby transforming it into the Greek Catholic Theological Academy (with
a five-yearcourse of study)as the firststep towardthe creationof a Ukrainian
Catholic university. The solemnopeningof theAcademytookplace on 6 October
1929.113The need fora school of thattypebecame especially urgentduringthe
interwarperiod, since the Polish governmentabolished the existingUkrainian
chairs at the Universityof Lviv and never carried out its promise to found a
Ukrainianuniversity. Undertheleadershipof itsrector,IosyfSlipyi,theAcademy
soon gained international recognition.It had two faculties,thoseof theologyand
philosophy(the latteropened in 1932), staffedby some of themostoutstanding
scholars in the Ukrainian community,but the plans to establish a facultyof
322 BUDUROWYCZ

law and possibly a medical school based on the UkrainianNational Hospital

(Narodnia Lichnytsia)were disruptedby theoutbreakof WorldWar II as well as
by thehostileattitudeof thePolish government,whichwas concernedabout the
possibilityof theAcademy's expansion intoa full-fledgeduniversityand made
representations to theHoly See to preventthisfromhappening.114 The Academy
was forcedto close its doors duringthe Soviet occupation of 1939-1941, but
was reopened withthe permissionof the German authoritiesduringthe years
1941-1944.115In addition to the Academy, Greek Catholic candidates for the
priesthoodwere trainedin the theological seminary(established in 1907) and
theologicallyceumin Stanyslaviv (bothwitha four-yearcourse of study)and in
the theological seminaryin Przemysl,which began to offera complete course
of studyonly in 1921. Promisingundergraduateand graduatestudentsof theol-
ogy fromall threeeparchies were sentto studyabroad, mostlyin thepontifical
universitiesin Rome and at the universitiesof Munich and Innsbruck.In 1932,
the PontificalSeminaryof St. Josaphatwas opened in Rome to accommodate
Greek Catholic studentsfromEuropean countriesand overseas.116
One of Sheptytsicyi'smost cherisheddreams,to which he devoted much of
his energyand which apparentlyalways preoccupied his mind,was the idea of
bringingthe ChristianEast back into unitywith the Catholic Church. It was
primarilyto realize thatidea that he, a humble Basilian monk, accepted the
episcopal office.Subsequently,while servingas themetropolitanof his Church
province,Sheptytsicyi was constantlywaitingfora greathistoricalopportunity
thatwould enable himto bringhis dreamcloser to fulfillment. At timesthehour
ofdestinyseemed to be tantalizingly close, butin theend his hopes always turned
to ashes. Thus,duringhis stayin PetrogradaftertheFebruaryRevolutionof 1917,
Sheptytsicyi chairedthefirstRussian Catholicsynod,whichelectedLeonid Fedo-
rov (1879-1935), a Studitemonk,as theexarchof theRussian Catholic Church,
butthelatterwas able to carryout his functionsonly untilhis imprisonment by
theSoviet authorities Also typicalof SheptytsTcyi's
in 1923.117 grandioseplanning
was the fact thatafterthe Soviet occupation of WesternUkraine and Western
Belarus he appointed,using thepowers vested in him by Pope Pius X in 1907,
some of his closest collaboratorsas exarchsforthewhole territory of theUSSR,
allotting Great Russia and Siberia to his brother Klymentii;Volhynia,Polissia,
and Podlachia to Bishop Mykola Charnetsicyi;Dnieper Ukraineto IosyfSlipyi;
and Belarus to theReverendAntoniiNiemancewycz,S.J.118 The metropolitan's
special powers were rescinded by Pope Pius XII on 30 May 1940 and replaced
withmorelimitedprerogatives.119 the
However, Holy See confirmed his appoint-
mentof exarchs,althoughthisbecame a dead letterbecause of the militaryand
political developmentsof WorldWar II and its aftermath.120
Even beforeWorldWar I, Sheptytsleyiwas one of the mostenthusiasticand
dedicatedorganizersoftheUnion congressesat Velehradin Moravia. These were
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 323

aimed at removingthe prejudices and mistrustthathad accumulated over the

centuriesbetweentheChristianEast and West and broughttogetherrepresenta-
tives of the Catholic and OrthodoxChurches (mostlyfromSlavic countries)in
a free,unconstrainedatmosphereof ecumenical rapprochement.Althoughthe
tense political situationpreventedthe metropolitanfromattendingthe fourth
(firstpostwar) congress in 1924, he was invitedto chair the fifthcongress in
1927, which was also attendedby Bishops KotsylovsTcyiand Lakota. During
thesubsequenttwo congresses,theGreekCatholic hierarchywas representedby
Bishops KotsylovsTcyi(in 1932) and CharnetsTcyi (in 1936), withRector Iosyf
Slipyi actingas Sheptytsicyi'sproxy.121The Greek Catholic clergyalso actively
participatedin thesix Union conferencesheld in Pinsk in Polissia between 1930
and 1937.122However,themostimpressivecontributionof theGalician Church
Province to the cause of the Union was the FirstUnion Congress in Lviv, held
on 22-25 December 1936 to commemoratethe 300th anniversaryof the death
of MetropolitanVeliamynRutsTcyi. The congress,whichbroughttogetherabout
150 participants fromall eparchies,was formallyopened by itshost,Metropolitan
Sheptytsicyi,and was attendedby Bishops Buchko, Budka, CharnetsTcyi, and
Its
Liatyshevslcyi. program,preparedby the rectorSlipyi,emphasized thefact that
the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia embodied the idea of the Union and was
itselfthebest proofof thatidea's feasibilityand viability.A series of resolutions
adoptedby thecongressstressed,among otherthings,therelevanceof Rutsicyi's
ideas forthefurther developmentoftheUkrainianCatholicChurch,includingthat
of a Kyivan patriarchate,and asked theHoly See to createa separateeparchyof
the Byzantine-Slavicritein Poland and to use its influenceto enable RutsTcyi's
spiritualheirs- the Greek Catholic clergy- to participatefreelyin missionary
workamong the Orthodoxpopulationofthatcountry.123
The action to spread the Union in the mainly Orthodox areas of Volhynia,
Polissia, and Poland's northeastern provinceshad been initiatedin 1923 by the
Roman Catholicbishopof Siedice, HenrykPrzezdziecki.124 In 1931, a jurisdiction
of the Eastern riteembracingthese territorieswas created underthe authority
of local Latin bishops, with Bishop Mykola Charnetsicyi,CSSR, appointed as
apostolicvisitator"fortheSlavs of ByzantineriteoutsidetheRuthenianeparchies
in Poland."125The new Byzantine-Slavicritegrewveryslowly,however,and on 1
June1938 countedonly43 parisheswith16,644 faithfuland 51 priests,of whom
22 declared themselvesas Ukrainians;in addition,29 candidates forpriesthood
studiedin the pontificalOrientalseminaryat Dubno in Volhynia.126
The situationof the Byzantine-Slavicritewas somewhatimprovedafterthe
Sacred CongregationforOrientalChurcheson 27 May 1937 issued itsinstruction
"Pro cura pastorali Orientalium"to all Roman Catholic ordinariesof Poland,
specifyingthat they must not, withoutexpress permission of the Holy See,
introduceany changes in Easternritesand discipline. It was also specifiedthat
324 BUDUROWYCZ

a separateparishof theEasternritehad to be establishedin everylocalitywhere

the numberof Uniates exceeded one hundredand thatthe parishioners'native
language had to be used both in sermonsand in religious instruction.127 Even
so, the Polish authoritiestook an unfriendlyattitudetowardthe priestsand the
faithfulof the new rite,exposing themto constantharassmentand chicanery,
and the Warsaw governmentrejected the proposal of the Holy See to create a
Byzantine-Slaviceparchy,withthe Volhyniancity of Kovel as its center,that
would embrace all easternterritories of Poland withthe exception of the met-
ropolitansee of Halych.128
A similarlycontroversialsituationdeveloped in the southwesterncornerof
thePrzemysleparchy,knownas the Lemko lands, wherethe OrthodoxChurch
and the Old Ruthenianmovementwere still able to maintaina tenuous hold
over a part of the local population. In the summer of 1933, a delegation of
Old Rutheniansfromthatarea approached the papal nuncio in Poland, Msgr.
Francesco Marmaggi,and theprimateof Poland, AugustCardinal Hlond, witha
requestthattheHoly See createa new episcopal see fortheLemko lands because
of thedissatisfactionof the faithfulwithBishop KotsylovsTcyi'spro-Ukrainian
policies. This petitionwas inspired,or at least supported,by Polish authori-
ties, who wanted to separate the thus farpoliticallydormantLemkos fromthe
"disruptive"influenceof Galician Ukrainians.129 As a resultof this initiative,
the Sacred CongregationforOrientalChurchesissued on 10 February1934 its
decree "Quo aptius consularet,"establishingthe Lemko Apostolic Administra-
tion,comprising9 deaneries of the Przemysleparchy(Buków, Dukla, Dynów,
Gorlice, Grybów,Krosno, Muszyna, Rymanów,and Sanok), with 121 parishes
and approximately130,000 faithful.130 This area was to be separatedfromthe
eparchyand, for all practicalpurposes,became an independentadministrative
unit, although the jurisdiction of the bishop of Przemysl was formallyonly
"suspended,"and thefictionoftheintegrity oftheeparchycould
and indivisibility
thusbe maintained.The decision was explained in detail in thenuncio's letterto
MetropolitanSheptytsicyias having been taken in accordance withthe maxim
"salus animarumsuprema lex est." As Marmaggi claimed, the intensification
of Orthodoxpropaganda in the Lemko area called forurgentcountermeasures
in orderto stop thatmovement,to restoreCatholic unity,and thusremove the
dangerto which the "beloved Lemko faithful"had been exposed.131
Not surprisingly, theCentralCommitteeof theUkrainianNationalDemocratic
Union in its resolutionof 10 March 1934 deploredthecreationof the apostolic
administration as a "political act, directedagainstthereligiousand ecclesiastic
integrity and national unityof theGalician Province."132To complicatematters
fortheHoly See, thefirstappointeeto thepositionof apostolicadministrator, the
dean of the Greek Catholic chaplains of thePolish armyMykola NahoriansTcyi
(Nagórzañski), declined that dubious honor.133The second nominee, Vasyl'
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 325

Mastsiukh,himselfof Lemko origin,stressedin his pastoral letterof 2 March

1935, writtenin "the Ruthenian-Galicianlanguage," the differencesbetween
the Lemkos and the Ukrainiansand praised Poland's nationaltolerance,which
had permittedthe Lemkos to surviveto the presentas an ethnicentity.134 After
Mastsiukh'suntimelydeathon 12 March 1936, Iakiv Medvetsicyi,a professorof
the theological seminaryin Stanyslavivand well known forhis Old Ruthenian
sympathies,became the new apostolic administratorand held thatofficeuntil
his death on 27 January1941. 135On 30 April 1938, the seat of the apostolic
administratorwas transferredfrom Rymanów-Zdrój to Sanok.136A plan to
transformthe Lemko administrationinto a regulareparchywas considered by
the Holy See and the Polish government,but the coming of the war prevented
itsrealization.137Moreover,theestablishmentof theLemko administration was
followed by demands in the Polish press to create a similaradministrativeunit
forthe Hutsul area, whereby6 deaneries with 129 parishes would be separated
fromthe Stanyslaviveparchy.138
The Old Ruthenianorientationfosteredby both Mastsiukhand Medvetsicyi
prevailed withoutany change even underthe Germán occupation and resulted
in a series of conflicts between the Lemko administratorand the Ukrainian
National Council in Sanok representingthe interestsof the Ukrainiangroup.139
In August 1940, MedvetsTcyi,incapacitatedby a serious illness, appointed as
his vicar general Oleksander MalynovsTcyi,a well-knownUkrainianpatriot.At
first,
MalynovsTcyi was unable to make muchheadwayagainsttheOld Ruthenian
in
sympathizers the consistoryin Sanok, but aftera renewed interventionby
the Ukrainian Central Committeein Cracow, he began to run the adminstra-
tion withouttoo much interference. AfterMedvetsTcyi'sdeath,the intervention
by the Ukrainian Central Committee with Msgr. Cesare Orsenigo, the papal
nuncio in Berlin, frustratedthe effortsof the consistoryto regain control,and
on 1 February 1941 Malynovslcyiwas formallyappointed by the Holy See as
full-fledgedapostolic administrator.140
He reversedtheOld Rutheriantendencies
of his predecessorsand initiateda stronglypro-Ukrainiantrend.However, after
thebeginningof theresettlement of theLemkos to Soviet Ukrainein the fall of
1945, he was forcedto abandon his positionand lefthis deputy,AndriiZlupko, to
presideoverthedissolutionof theapostolicadministration duringthedeportation
of theLemko populationfromits nativeregion to remoteareas of Poland.141

TheattitudeoftheGreekCatholic ChurchtowardthePolish State. The expansion

of the O UN and its repercussions. The pacification of 1930: Sheptyts'kyïs
interventionwiththe Polish governmentand the pastoral letterof the Greek
Catholic hierarchy.The problem of the young generation and the Church's
326 BUDUROWYCZ

attemptto wean itfromextremenationalism.Sheptyts'kyis pastoral letterof 1932

andthe "UkrainianYouth for Christ"festivalof1933. The Church'sdenunciation
"
ofpolitical terrorismand itssupportofthe "normalization of 1935. The threat
of communismand Sheptyts'kyïs pastoral letterof 3 August 1936.
While tryingto renderunto Caesar those thingsthatare Caesar's, the Greek
Catholic Churchin Galicia ran intodifficultiesduringthe two world wars and
theuneasy peace betweenthem,if only because its sympathyforthe Ukrainian
nationalcause tendedto call intoquestionitsprofessedallegiance to thesecular
authorities,who, notwithstanding several changes in jurisdictionduringthose
threedecades, invariablyexpectedand demandedtheChurch'sloyalty,ifnotsub-
missive compliance. In addition,of course, theChurch's supportof thenational
aspirationsof its faithfulwas circumscribedby its even deeper commitmentto
the Catholic doctrineand its obligationto follow the policies of the Holy See,
even iftheyseemed to contradictUkrainiannationalinterests.Not surprisingly,
thisprecarioussituationoccasionally led, especially among thelower clergy,to
splitloyaltiesor to a simplisticview wherebythe welfareof the nationbecame
automaticallyidentifiedwiththatof the Church.
The concordatof 1925, while grantingthe Churchvarious rightsand privi-
leges, demanded some reciprocityon itspart,specifyingthatboththehierarchy
and the clergywould not participatein any activitiesharmfulto the state and
In addition,the Church's attitude
would take an active interestin its welfare.142
had to be governed by the Catholic view that all authorityultimatelyderived
fromGod and that,consequently,all citizens,regardlessoftheirnationality, were
obliged to be loyal to thestatein whichtheylived. Obviously, thisdid notprevent
theUkrainiansin Poland fromdefendingtheirnationalrights,but theirstruggle
had to be legal and exclude any means incompatiblewithChristianethics.
Some members of the Greek Catholic hierarchy,notably Metropolitan
SheptytsTcyiand Bishop Kotsylovslcyi,neverwentbeyonda grudgingacceptance
of the factthattheirsees were now under Polish sovereigntyand that,accord-
ingly,theyhad to bow to the inevitable and tryto find some kind of modus
vivendiwiththeWarsawgovernment. Obviously,thisattitudeof studiedcoolness,
combined witha persistentrefusalto acknowledge any benefitsof Polish rule,
was far fromsatisfactoryfromthe Polish point of view. Afterall, as a Polish
deputywas to remindSheptytsTcyi in theSejm, he and his brotherbishops could
carryout theirfunctionsonly thanksto theprotectionof thePolish army,which
alone preventedthe incorporationof Galicia into the Soviet Union withall its
attendantconsequences.143Indeed, similarsentimentswere expressed even by
Bishop Khomyshyn,who, in his pastoralletterof 23 February1931, openlytook
issue withthepolicies pursuedby theUkrainianpartiesin Poland, claimingthat
the Ukrainiansnever had wise and circumspectpolitical leaders and thattheir
persistentattitudeof stubbornresistancehad broughtthem to the edge of an
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 327

abyss. In Khomyshyn'swords,itwas nottheCouncil ofAmbassadorsbutDivine

Providence thatplaced a partof the Ukrainianpeople underthe sovereigntyof
Poland, and theyhad no choice butto accept thatfactof life.Even ifthePoles left
Galicia, he argued,the Ukrainianstherewould be unable to establishtheirown
state,forPolish rule would be replaced by theSoviet regime.That regime,Kho-
myshyncontinued,would destroyall theirnationalaccomplishments, liquidateor
deport their clergyand and
intelligentsia, introduce a system of state-administered
serfdom,underwhich peasants would be deprivedof theirland and thefruitsof
theirlabor.Galician Ukrainians,he said, had been carriedaway by theidea of an
independentand unitedUkraine,whichhad now become an unrealizableaspira-
tion; theyshould rathertryto consolidate theirscatteredforcesand strengthen
theirpotentialin theirown home province. Ukrainiansin Poland, Khomyshyn
advised, thougha minority, could become an importantfactorin internalPolish
politics: they should become loyal citizens of the Polish state,which, in turn,
should reciprocateby fulfillingtheirrightfulnational and culturalaspirations.
This loyalty,according to Khomyshyn,was to go beyond simplycarryingout
one's dutiestowardthestate,fora good Christianoughtalso to be a model citizen
of the stateand striveto make it strongand impregnable.144
Not surprisingly, while Khomyshyn'sviews were hailed by thePolish side as
an expressionof politicalsagacity,theUkrainianpress was bitterlycriticalof his
conceptof "active loyalty"towardPoland.145While manyadmiredthebishop for
his civil courage,othersaccused himof attempting to initiatea policyof appease-
mentthatcould only lead to a situationin which theGalician Ukrainianswould
remainforeversecond-class citizens of an alien state,selling theirbirthright for
a bowl of pottage,treatedwithcondescension and contemptby theirmasters,
and gratefulforwhateverhandoutstheydeigned to bestow on them.
In a way,theproblemof therelationshipbetweentheGreek Catholic Church
and thePolish authoritieswas inextricablyconnectedwithanotherfundamental
issue: the Church's attitudetoward Ukrainian nationalismin its most militant
and aggressive form,the upsurgeof whichduringtheinterwarperiod posed the
boldest challenge to the Church's moral and spiritualsupremacy.In 1929, the
UkrainianMilitaryOrganization(UVO), an elitist,paramilitarygroup engaged
in sporadic anti-Polishterroristactivities,was transformedinto a mass move-
ment,consistingto a large extentof secondaryschool and universitystudents,
with a liberal sprinklingof peasant and working-classyouth.The ideological
basis forthe new undergroundparty,known as the Organizationof Ukrainian
Nationalists(OUN), was provided by DmytroDontsov, the editorof what had
once been one of the most respectedUkrainianjournals, Literaturno-Naukovyi
Vistnyk. Dontsov proceeded to make thejournal intotheplatformof an extreme
and intolerant brandof nationalism,rejectingall moraland ethicalconstraintsand
glorifying ruthlessnessand violence as long as theywere employedforthegood
328 BUDUROWYCZ

of thenation.146 His doctrinesnegatedtheveryessence of Christianity - indeed,

some nationalistmilitantsseemed to rejectthe Churchas a dangerouscompeti-
torin theirstruggleforthe spiritualallegiance of the youngergeneration,over
which theywantedto exercise full and undividedcontrol.In theiropinion,the
Ukrainiannationalistmovementcould achieve its objectives only by making
its ideology into a quasi religion and by replacingGod with the nation as the
absolute truth.147Dontsov's disciples were only too eager to follow his precepts
in
by engaging largelycounterproductive anti-Polishterroristactivitiesand by
using strong-armtactics withinthe Ukrainian communityitselfto coerce its
leaders intoabandoningany attemptto reach accommodationwiththeWarsaw
government.148 Under these circumstances,the Church was forcedto take an
unequivocal stand against an ideology thatnot only underminedits teachings,
but made religionitselfappear meaninglessand irrelevant.
One of the most explosive problemsto confrontthe Greek Catholic Church
in Galicia at thattimewas theso-called pacificationof 1930 and its long-lasting
impacton Polish-Ukrainianrelations.This repressiveaction,takenbythegovern-
mentin response to hundredsof acts of terrorismby the OUN directedagainst
Polish privateand publicproperty, involvedsendingpunitiveexpeditionsconsist-
ing of militaryand police unitsintoregionswherearson and sabotage activities
wereespecially rampant.149 A relentlessapplicationof theprincipleof collective
responsibility resulted in widespread damage inflictedon Ukrainian cultural
institutionsand cooperativestoresas well as in a liberal use of corporalpunish-
mentagainst many Ukrainianactivists,includinga numberof Greek Catholic
priests.The auxiliary bishop of the Lviv archeparchy,Ivan Buchko, traveled
widelythroughtheareas affectedby thepacificationto comfortitsvictims.150 In
thisalmostdesperatesituationtherepresentativesof Ukrainianpolitical parties
approached MetropolitanSheptytsicyiwith a request to intervenepersonally
withtheleaders of thePolish governmentin orderto putan end to thedraconian
measuresdirectedagainstthe Ukrainiancommunity.151 The metropolitanmade
two tripsto Warsaw during which he failed to obtain an audience withMarshal
Pilsudski, thenthe Prime Ministerof Poland, or with PresidentMoscicki; he
succeeded, however,in meetingotherPolish dignitaries,among themDeputy
PrimeMinisterBeck and Ministerof the InteriorGeneral Slawoj-Skladkowski.
In spite of theirassurances thatthe repressive action would be curtailed and
thatthe governmenthad no intentionof destroyingthe culturaland economic
achievementsof theUkrainianminority, thepacificationcontinuedunabatedfor
several more weeks.152The two-facedattitudeof the Polish leaders induced all
Greek Catholic bishops of Galicia to issue, on 13 October,a joint pastoralletter
to theirflock,in which theycondemned all acts of terrorismbut also deplored
themeasuresdirectedagainsttheinnocentpopulation.When thebishopsrefused
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 329

to tone down the language of theirletter,its publication was blocked by the

Polish authorities.153
The pacificationand its aftermathforcedthe Greek Catholic episcopate to
examine and reassess theproblemof theyoungergeneration,which,thwartedin
its attemptsto findpersonal fulfillment, joined the ranksof the nationalistand,
to a lesser extent,thecommunistundergroundin large numbers.The Ukrainian
Catholic press (notably Nova Zoria and Meta) had fromthe very beginning
condemned Dontsov's brand of nationalism,which placed the vague slogan
"the good of the nation" above all religious dogmas, as a grave and fatalerror,
the consequences of which could prove tragicto the whole nation- bringingit
154
discord,ruin,and death. Italso complainedthat,in theirattemptto achieve total
controlovertheUkrainianyouth,nationalistmilitantsweretryingto discreditthe
Greek Catholic Churchat any cost, accusing it of backwardness,obscurantism,
and subservienceto a foreignauthority.155 This alienationof theyouth,coupled
with growingreligious indifferenceamong the intelligentsiaand the working
class, did notaugur well forthefutureof theChurchas theleading spiritualand
moral forceof the Ukrainiancommunityin Galicia.
While the Catholic press was engaged in a frontalattack against extreme
nationalism,MetropolitanSheptytsicyi chose a moresubtleapproach.In a special
statementaddressed to the Ukrainianyouthin May 1932, he extolled its deep
patriotismand readinessforself-sacrifice,butat thesame timecriticizeditslack
of tolerance,a contemptuousattitudetowardthose who did notshare its views,
and itsrejectionof the authorityof its elders.156The Church's attemptto regain
its influenceamong the youngergenerationculminatedin thereligious festival
"UkrainianYouthforChrist,"held in Lviv on 6-7 May 1933 to markthenineteen-
hundredthanniversaryof the institutionof the Sacramentof the Eucharistand
Christ'sPassion and Resurrection.Althoughthecelebrationwas to be devoid of
any political character,it was generallyregardedas an affirmation of the bonds
between the Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian national idea and, as
such,as an opportunity to demonstratethestrengthof theUkrainiancommunity
in the Galician ChurchProvince. In addition,as its organizersstated,it was to
be a public protestagainst the underminingof the religious foundationof the
Ukrainiannational life in Galicia as well as against militantatheismin Soviet
Ukraine.The spiritualrallyattractedclose to one hundredthousandparticipants,
mostlyfromtheGalician countryside, who manifestedtheirreligiousand patriotic
convictionsin an impressivehomage to MetropolitanSheptytsicyi.157
Althoughmass celebrations in Lviv demonstratedthatthe Greek Catholic
Church could still musterconsiderable strength,it was also obvious thatthe
nationalistundergroundwas not mollifiedby any persuasion and continuedto
expand itsterrorist activities.Thus, whentheassassinationof BronislawPieracki,
330 BUDUROWYCZ

Poland's ministerof theinterior, by a memberof theOUN in June1934 was fol-

lowed a fewweeks laterby themurderof Ivan Babii, a widelyrespectededucator
and theprincipalof a prestigiousgymnasiumin Lviv,forhis alleged collaboration
withthe Polish police, Sheptytsicyiabandoned his conciliatoryattitudetoward
themilitantsin theOUN and forcefullycondemnedboththeinstigatorsand the
perpetrators of thecrimeas madmenand enemies of thepeople who were using
Ukrainianchildrento kill theirparents.158
The metropolitan'sviews about nationalismwere expounded ratherfullyin
May 1935 in his interviewwith the Polish weekly TygodnikIlustrowany.He
regardedcontemporarynationalism,especially its extremistversion,as being
akin to paganism in its tendencyto substitutethe nationor stateforthe highest
religious values, and feltthatthe Catholic Church had to defend itselfagainst
its encroachments.At the same time, however, he thoughtthat it was often
in the Church's best interestnot to reject everythingthatwas connected with
nationalism,since a wholesale condemnationof the nationalistdoctrineby the
Churchor its individualrepresentativeswould preclude any chance of a future
reconciliationbetweenthetwo and would make itvirtuallyimpossibleto winover
nationalistsympathizers. Thus,whiletheChurchhad to denounceunconditionally
acts committedby the nationalists,it should notcastigatethe youth
all terrorist
forfosteringthe nationalidea. Moreover,while nationalismwas harmfulfrom
theChurch's pointof view, it could also play a positiverole as a unifyingforce
withinthe Ukrainiancommunity.159
One way in which the nationalistundergroundcould be renderedcompara-
tivelyharmlesswas throughan accommodationbetweentheUkrainianminority
and the Polish authorities - a solution firstproposed by Bishop Khomyshyn
and formallyendorsed in the summerof 1935 by the Central Committee of
the UNDO, the most influentialUkrainianlegal partyin Poland. The attempt
to reconcile Poland's securityconcerns with the legitimateaspirationsof the
Ukrainiancommunity,generallyknownas the "normalization,"was supported
by Sheptytsicyi and othermembersof theGreekCatholicepiscopate,althoughthe
l60
practicalgains thatitbroughtfortheUkrainianside werefarfromspectacular.
However,whereasthemetropolitan and otherbishopswereanxiousto back forces
of moderationin orderto minimizethe influenceof nationalistextremists,they
were equally determinedto mobilize theirfaithfulagainst what theyregarded
as the deadliest enemy of the Church and of the Ukrainianpeople alike- the
Soviet Union and the internationalcommunistmovement.
The uncompromisingstand of the Greek Catholic episcopate against com-
munismhad been expressedunequivocallyin itsjoint statement, "Ukrainein the
Throes of Death," issued to all "people of goodwill" on 24 July1933, as well as
in its pastoral letterof 17 October 1933 on the subject of the faminein Soviet
Ukraine.161 Now, however,the risinginfluenceof communismbegan to be felt
 GREEKCATHOLICCHURCHIN GALICIA,1914- 1944 331

in Galicia itself,especiallywhenthebloodycommunist-inspired riotsof 16

April1936,whichshookthecityofLviv outofitscomplacency, werefollowed
by violent confrontationsin Nastasiv,Nahuievychi, Brody, and other places.162
The intensification ofthestruggle betweentheforcesoftheleftandtherightin
variousEuropeancountries, whichculminated in theoutbreakof theSpanish
Civil Warin Julyof thesame year,seemedto bringthemomentof a general
conflagration closer;indeed,thatconflictservedas a catalyst,withtheUkrainian
nationalistand Catholicpressenthusiastically supporting General Francoand
denouncing SpanishLoyalistsas communists.163 The tenseinternational situa-
tionwas complicatedbya determined effort
by the of
parties the leftto create
antifascistpopularfronts, and Sheptyts'kyi feltthatat thiscriticalmomentthe
Church'sstandin theunfolding ideologicalstrugglebetweenthesupporters
andenemiesofcommunism had to be restatedin thestrongestpossibleterms.
Thus,in hispastoralletterof3 August1936(whichactuallyprecededa similar
letterissuedbythePolishepiscopateon 25 August),he triedto givea general
critiqueofMarxistideologyandcommunist practice,accusingthecommunists
of schemingto "destroy" and "obliterate" theUkrainian peopleandcriticizing
theirRadicaland socialistallies forhelpingthemin theirnefarious activities.
Theletter, whichspecifically condemned thosewhoorganizedpopularfronts as
traitorsoftheirmotherland, also defended "nationalparties"invariousEuropean
countries againstthelabeloffascismliberally appliedtothembythecommunists
andtheirsupporters. The metropolitan's appealsuggestedthatonlyan alliance
ofall religiousandnational-minded Ukrainians couldsave thecountry fromthe
impending danger, thus the
implying possibility of reconciliationbetween the
Churchandthenationalist underground.164

VI

Theexacerbationof therelationship betweentheGreekCatholicChurchand

thePolishgovernment. RepressivemeasuresagainsttheGreekCatholicclergy
"
for the Ukrainization" of surnames.The questionof mixedmarriages.The
Old Rutheniansin theGreekCatholicChurch.The issue of GreekCatholic
Poles and thestate-sponsored attemptsto convertGreekCatholicstotheLatin
rite.PersonalattacksagainstSheptyts'kyi in thePolishSejm.Theproblemof
"post-Uniate"Churchlands.Sheptyts'kyi s pastoralletterprotestingagainst
thedestruction of Orthodox churches
in the Chelm region.The celebrationof
the950thanniversary of theChristianization of KyivanRus'. The Carpatho-
Ukrainianissueand the "secondpacification"of 1938. Thevisitofthepapal
nunciotoEasternGalicia and hiscallforPolish-Ukrainian reconciliation.
The
missionofIosyfSlipyito Warsaw.Thecelebration the
of fortieth anniversary of
Sheptyts'kyis consecration.
Theoutbreak ofWorldWarII and themetropolitan s
332 BUDUROWYCZ

declaration of loyaltyto thePolish state. The Galician ChurchProvince comes

underSoviet occupation.
In the meantime,the policy of "normalization,"originally supportedby the
Greek Catholic hierarchy,was runninginto considerable difficulties,and after
theforcesopposed to any concessions to nationalminoritiesgained ascendancy
in thePolish government,thechances forregulatingPolish-Ukrainianrelations
became more remotethanever.165In view of this situation,the circles around
MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi decided to dissociate themselvesfromtheUNDO fac-
tionbackingthenormalization,althoughBishop Khomyshynand his adherents
continued,at least forthetimebeing,a policy of restraintin theirdealings with
thegovernment.166 The Polish administration, however,particularlyat thelocal
level, was hardlyin a conciliatorymood, as was amply proven by a series of
trials of Greek Catholic priestsof all threeeparchies charged with "forging"
birthand baptismalcertificatesby enteringtheirparishioners'familynames in
theirUkrainianformratherthanfollowingtheoriginalPolonized spelling(e.g.,
"LewycTcyj"ratherthan"Lewicki"). Greek Catholic priestsalso had to abandon
theuse of Ukrainianin theirmonthlyand quarterlystatisticalreportssubmitted
to the countyauthorities(starostwa) and were in many cases finedheavily for
noncompliance.167Moreover, many members of the clergy were accused of
disloyaltybecause of theiralleged failureto praypubliclyforthe prosperityof
Poland and its president,as specifiedin theconcordatof 1925, and of engaging
The measures taken against some of
in various kinds of antistateactivities.168
thedefendantsincluded,in additionto finesand jail terms,expulsion fromtheir
parishes,especially ifthe accused happened to live in the so-called borderbelt,
which was 30 kilometerswide and covered some 28 percentof the territory of
Poland.169
In spiteof livingin an almostperpetualstateof tensionwiththegovernment,
theGreekCatholicChurchin Poland grewin numbersduringtheinterwarperiod
and by 1938-1939 had 2,491 parishes with3,660 churches,2,284 priests,and
3,587,000 faithful,thuscomprisingover 10 percentofthecountry'spopulation.17°
At the same time, the Church faced serious internalproblems, which, under
normalcircumstances, could have been easily overcomeby a dynamicinstitution,
but which,because of the unfriendlyattitudeof the stateauthorities,tendedto
become increasinglyacute and remainedpracticallyinsoluble.
In additionto losing many of its membersas willing or forcedconvertsto
the Latin rite,the Greek Catholic Church was weakened as a resultof mixed
Ukrainian-Polishmarriages.Operatingin a countrywitha heterogeneouspopula-
tion,theChurchhad been forcedto deal withthisunavoidable phenomenonfor
centuriesand, underthe auspices of the Austriangovernment,had developed
certaintime-honoredpractices,which,howeverrigidand mechanical,helped to
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 333

alleviate themostdelicate issue of all: thatof religiousloyaltyof theoffspringof

thesemarriages.Withtheboys being baptized in theriteof theirfathersand the
girlsfollowingtheconfessionof theirmothers,at least some elementaryfairness
and internalbalance were assured; however, these common-sense principles
were no longer operable in a situationwhere inflamednational passions and
antagonismsseemed to preclude any reasonable compromiseand wheremixed
maritalunionsoftenset thestage fornationalconflictsand confrontations within
the respectivefamilies. Under these circumstances,even some comparatively
minorissues, such as theuse of two different calendarsby themarriagepartners,
could lead to serious misunderstandingsin which the Greek Catholic spouse
oftensacrificedthe loyaltyto his or herriteforthe sake of maritalharmony.An
additional difficultywas created by the fact thatthe relationshipbetween the
Greek Catholic and Latin clergywas seldom amicable: more often,theywere
acting as competitors,with Latin priestssometimes using theirclout with the
administrativeauthoritiesto persuade Greek Catholic partnersto convertto the
riteof theirspouses and have all theirchildrenbaptized in Latin-ritechurches.
Thus, while close to 20 percentof all marriagesenteredupon by GreekCatholics
in Galicia were mixed Ukrainian-Polishunions, it was estimatedthatapproxi-
mately70 percentof theiroffspringwere lost to theGreek Catholic Churchand,
consequently,to the Ukrainiannationalcause.171
Paradoxically,it was duringthisperiod of tensionand confrontation thatthe
"nationalization"oftheGreekCatholicChurchoccurredas theUkrainiannational
elementfirmlyand irrevocablytook over the controlof its affairs.While this
developmentwas welcomed by theoverwhelmingmajorityof theGreekCatholic
faithful,it alienated those groups which did not share its nationalallegiance. A
special problemwas presentedby theOld Ruthenianmovement,which was in a
stateof generaldecline butstillexercised controlover itstwo main strongholds,
theNational Home and theStauropegianInstitutein Lviv, and maintainedsome
strengthin a few ruralareas (notably the Lemko lands). At one time,the Old
Ruthenianswieldedconsiderableinfluencein theGreekCatholicChurch,and two
of theirsympathizers, AndreiBiletsicyiand OleksanderBachynsTcyi, carriedout
thefunctionsof SheptytsTcyi's vicarsduringhis absence fromLviv in 1914-1917
and 1920-1923; however, theirpower waned throughattritionas theirmost
prominentrepresentativeseitherretiredor died and were usually replaced by
dedicated Ukrainians.172 Now thecreationof theLemko Apostolic Administra-
tion seemed to give thema new lease on life,since the firsttwo administrators
appointedby the Holy See had definiteOld Ruthenianleanings and surrounded
themselveswithadvisorswho sharedtheirviews.173The Polish government, too,
was favorablyinclinedtowardthisgroup,whichitregardedas a usefulcounter-
poise to Ukrainiannationalistextremists.In spiteof theirnumericalweakness,the
Old Ruthenianswere quite articulate,and whenApostolic VisitatorJanHudecek
334 BUDUROWYCZ

arrivedin Lviv in November 1934, a delegationfromthe StauropegianInstitute

presentedhim witha long list of complaints,includingthe alleged violationof
the Institute'spatronagerights;arbitrarychanges in liturgicalbooks, services,
and ritesof the Greek Catholic Church;readingof the Gospels and Lessons in
the"artificial"Ukrainianlanguage; thesingingin churchesof secularsongs with
politicalcontent;themisuse of sermonsforpoliticalpropaganda;thepersecution
oftheOld Ruthenianclergyand faithful; theintroductionofcompulsorycelibacy;
thesale of Churchlands and theuse ofreturnsforsecularpurposes,and so on.174
Indeed, the Old RutheniannewspaperZemlia i Volia not only protestedagainst
the supposedlypreferential treatmentgiven to Ukrainianpriestsover theirOld
Rutheniancounterparts,but also demanded the appointmentof a Ruthenian
bishop forthewhole of Galicia and the division of Greek Catholic consistories
intoUkrainianand Ruthenian.175 The Old Ruthenianpriestsfeltthatthestrongest
discriminationagainst themwas takingplace in the Lviv archeparchy,where,
as theyclaimed, they were sometimes forced to resign theirpositions under
politicalpressure.While theUkrainianpressgenerallytooka sharplycriticaland
intolerantattitudetowardtheOld Ruthenians,regardingthemalmostas traitors
of the Ukrainiannationalcause,176the semiweeklyNova Zoria adopted a more
enlightenedview, urginga moderateand understandingapproach to the group
which had preservedmanyenduringvalues forthe Greek Catholic Churchand
Ukrainianculture.177
A similarand yet potentiallymore dangerous situationarose withregardto
anothergroupthatdid notshare the nationalallegiance of most Galician Greek
Catholics- thePolish.178It is difficult
to give anypreciseinformation abouttheir
numericalstrength, forwhile thePolish press tendedto inflatetheirnumbersto
close to 450,000, or approximately15 percentof all GreekCatholicsin Poland,179
theUkrainianswere inclinedto denytheirexistenceas a separatecommunity,180
althoughMetropolitanSheptytsicyi earlyin his careerpublisheda special pastoral
letterto them,assuringthemthathe respectedtheirnationalconvictionsand had
no intentionof imposing"RuthenianpatriotisnTonthem.181 The monthlyPolak
Greko-Katolik(publishedoriginallyin Cracow,thenin Lviv), whichpurportedto
representtheinterestsof thisgroup,demanded thecreationof special divisions
in all GreekCatholictheologicalseminariesforcandidatesregardingthemselves
as Poles, the appointmentof an ordinaryin Przemysland an auxiliarybishop
in Lviv of "Greek Polish" persuasion,and a preferentialtreatmentin fillingall
Church vacancies for candidates fromtheirranks.182In addition,plans were
underway to expand the Roman Catholic hierarchyin Galicia, representedby
the archbishopof Lviv with his auxiliarybishop and the bishop of Przemysl,
by creatinga new bishopric in Stanyslaviv and by making Ternopil the seat
of an auxiliarybishop.183At the same time,the Polish press claimed that,as a
resultof assimilation,as manyas 1.2 millionpersonsof Polish descentbecame
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 335

Ukrainizedand eventuallyshould be reclaimedby thePolish nation.184 Accord-

ingly,sporadic and organized attemptsto persuade Greek Catholics to convert
to the Latin rite,in which some unitsand chaplains of the Polish armyplayed
an active part,assumed unprecedentedproportions,focusingespecially on the
membersof thepettygentryin the Carpathianregion,who were urgedto return
to thefold of thePolish nationby severingtheirties withtheirChurch.185 These
appeals became increasinglyvocal during the last years of the interwarperiod,
thus serving as a barometerof worseningPolish-Ukrainianrelations. Indeed,
even the more moderatePolish circles criticizedthe Greek Catholic Church in
Galicia forservingprimarilythepoliticalinterestsof one groupand of gradually
losing one of thebasic attributesof theCatholic Church,mainlyits universality,
while assuming instead the characteristicsof a national Church, completely
subordinatedto the Ukrainianraison d'etat.1*6
This explosive situationbecame even more exacerbated as a resultof a per-
sonal attackagainst SheptytsTcyi in the Polish Sejm on 3 February1938 by the
deputyrepresentingtheelectoraldistrictof Stryi,Bronislaw Wojciechowski. He
accused the metropolitanof having deliberatelyrejectedtherequestof military
authoritiesto allow the officialparticipationof some units of the Polish army
in the celebrationof the feastof the Epiphany at the marketplaceof Lviv, thus
violatingbothhis oath of allegiance to Poland and theprovisionsof theconcor-
dat. Wojciechowski also claimed that,underSheptytsTcyi 's direction,the Greek
Catholic Church had become a strongholdof Ukrainiannationalismin which
thepro-Polishsentimentsof moderateUkrainianand Old Ruthenianpriestswere
ignored and where militantlychauvinisticelements were holding sway. This
deplorablesituationwas allegedlybroughtabout as a resultof thelax regulations
of theconcordatof 1925, whichallowed theGreekCatholichierarchyfullcontrol
over the Church's propertyand which,therefore,would have to be changed in
accordance withthe interestsof the Polish state.187
In the meantime,the Polish governmentand the Holy See were engaged in
negotiationsconcerning the so-called post-Uniate lands, once owned by the
Uniate Church in Poland and later confiscated by the tsaristauthoritiesand
placed under the administrationof the Russian Orthodox Church- altogether
approximately47,000 hectares,out of which close to 40,000 had been already
parceled out, mostlyto the veteransof the Polish army.188 On 20 June 1938, a
preliminaryagreementwas signed by Polish Foreign MinisterJózefBeck and
the papal nuncio, which leftin the possession of the Roman Catholic Church
lands and churchbuildingsthathad remained underits provisionalcontrol.At
thesame time,theHoly See gave up itsclaim to theremainingpost-Uniatelands
in returnfor3.5 million zlotys,to be paid forin bonds and obligations.189 This
agreementwas bitterlyattackedby the Ukrainianparliamentarians,who stated
thatneitherthePolish statenortheRoman Catholic Churchhad any rightto the
336 BUDUROWYCZ

lands owned by theformerUniate Church,to whichtheonlylegitimateheirwas

theGreek Catholic Church.190 The Vatican,too, was criticizedby theUkrainian
press forhavingplayed therole of an accessory in a questionable deal directed
againsttheinterestsof boththeOrthodoxChurchin Poland (mostof whose faith-
fulwere Ukrainian)and of the Ukrainianpeople.191Accordingly,the Ukrainian
deputiesin theSejm, mostof themCatholics,votedagainsttheratification of the
agreement - a factwhich the Polish government was to use laterin its attemptto
discredittheGreek Catholic Churchin vthe eyes of the Holy See.192
The issue of the post-Uniatelands was closely connected- at least in the
opinion of many Galician Ukrainians- with the destructionor transferto the
Roman Catholic Churchof manyallegedly unused Orthodoxchurchesand cha-
pels, especially in the Chelm region,where over a hundredhouses of worship
were closed, sealed, destroyed,or burneddown.193The feelingsin theUkrainian
communityin Galicia againstboththePolish governmentand theVaticanwere
runningso highthatMetropolitanSheptytsicyi, in his pastoralletterof 2 August
1938 (which was censored in its entiretyby thePolish authoritiesbutcirculated
widely in illegal copies and leaflets),triedto exoneratethe Holy See fromany
suspicion of wrongdoing,while at the same time condemningthe perpetrators
of misdeeds in the Chelm area as "secretenemies of the UniversalChurchand
Christianity"and expressinghis deep sympathyforthe "persecutedOrthodox
brethren,"who were connectedby blood ties to Galician Ukrainians.194 In this
way SheptytsTcyi acted not only as the head of the Greek Catholic Church in
Poland butalso played,in a subtleyet unmistakable manner, the role of leader and
chiefdefenderof therightsof thewhole Ukrainianminorityin thatcountry.The
metropolitan'smessage was followed on 10 September1938 by Khomyshyn's
statementto theclergyand thefaithfulof his eparchy,in which he leftunspeci-
fied"recentevents" to thejudgmentof God and history.He describedas purely
coincidental the fact that negotiationsbetween the Holy See and the Polish
governmentwere takingplace at the same time as the excesses in the Chelm
region.He further deploredand triedto dispel thewidespreadfeelingsof alien-
ation and mistrustdirectedagainst the Vatican and the papal nuncio among the
Greek Catholic faithfulin Galicia by assertingthatthe pope, who in any case
had an inalienablerightto dispose of all Churchpropertyin thewhole Catholic
Churchas he pleased, had spentenormoussums of moneyto subsidize various
projectsbeneficialto the Ukrainians.195
It was amidst such a somber atmosphereof uncertaintyand suspicion that
theUkrainiansof Galicia celebratedthe950thanniversaryof theintroduction of
in
Christianity Kyivan Rus'. The honorary committee of the "Festival of Christian
Ukraine," formedunder the protectorateof the Greek Catholic hierarchyto
organize the ceremony,publisheda special manifestoto the faithful.However,
thejoint pastoral letterissued by the Greek Catholic Bishops of the Galician
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 337

Provinceto markthissupposedlyjoyfuloccasion was pessimisticintone,deploring

thelack of unityamongcontemporary Ukrainiansand tracingitsrootsback to the
timesof VolodimertheGreat."From internecinefeudsin princelyfamiliesto the
presentday split intoparties,"the message stated,"our whole historyhas been
markedby the same sad sign . . . Domestic discord,like a black thread,extends
fromone centuryintoanother."196
In the meantime,Polish-Ukrainianantagonismin Galicia reached an even
higherdegree of intensityas a resultof theCzechoslovak government'screation
of an autonomousSubcarpathianRus' (laterknownas Carpatho-Ukraine),which
was regardedby many as a step towardestablishingan independentUkrainian
state.Ukrainianmarchesand demonstrationsin Lviv and othercities of Galicia
led to Polish counterdemonstrations and pogromsof Ukrainianinstitutionsand
communal enterprises,and the Warsaw governmentreacted to these devel-
opments with a series of repressive measures reminiscentof the pacification
of 1930.197A solemn protestagainst the principleof collective responsibility,
signed by MetropolitanSheptytslcyiand otherreligious and political leaders
of the Ukrainiancommunity,198 proved to be of no avail. The Greek Catholic
hierarchy also foundit difficult
to remainaloof fromthe political turmoilsouth
of the Carpathiansand its reverberationsin Galicia: thus,Sheptytslcyigave his
moral supportto Msgr. AvhustynVoloshynon the occasion of his appointment
as premierof Carpatho-Ukraine,conferringat thesame timehis blessing on the
governmentand thepeople ofthatprovince.199 The metropolitan'spreoccupation
withthesituationin Carpatho-Ukraineand itspossible repercussionsin his own
see was also shown when,afterthe arbitrationof Vienna of 2 November 1938,
and especially aftertheoccupation of thewhole provinceby Hungaryin March
1939, he triedto comforthis flock in the hourof "greatnationalsuffering"and
also warnedagainst any precipitousaction thatcould prove disastrousnot only
to the Greek Catholic Church,but also to the whole Ukrainiancommunityin
Poland.200
The explosive situationin Galicia, which threatenedat times to eruptinto
overtPolish-Ukrainianconflict,promptedMsgr.Felipe Cortesi,thepapal nuncio
in Warsaw,to pay a personal visit to the troubledprovince in December 1938.
Indeed, fromthe Vatican's point of view it was both scandalous and tragicto
watch two Catholic communities,living beside each other for centuries and
linkedby innumerablefamilyties, now bitterlyconfrontingeach otherwithan
implacable hatredthatseemed to extinguishany memoriesof past friendships
and make a mockeryof theirprofessed Christianity.Afterhis courtesycalls
on Greek and Roman Catholic bishops in Lviv, Stanyslaviv,and Przemysl,the
nuncio issued an appeal forreconciliation,stressingthatthe Holy See looked
withgreatanxietyat "divisions,antagonisms,and strugglesintowhichthe sons
of this countryhave been drawn, which have already broughtso much harm
338 BUDUROWYCZ

and are threateningto bringeven more," and calling upon the faithfulof both
rites to seek a solution of all problems with "the arms of light,charity,and
justice."201Cortesi's visit was widely commentedupon in the Ukrainianpress,
which regardedit as a major event and used this opportunityto remindRome
of some importantmattersthatconcerned the UkrainianCatholic faithfuland
thatwould eventuallydemanda satisfactory solution:theproblemof theLemko
Apostolic Administration,the efforts
to spreadtheUnion on Ukrainianethnicter-
ritoriesin Poland outsideGalicia, and thenecessityof creatinga GreekCatholic
patriarchateas a superstructure thatwould bringtogetherUkrainianCatholics
in nine countrieson two continents.202
Obviously,this was an inopportunemomentforraisingsuch concerns.The
fall of Carpatho-Ukrainehad a devastatingeffecton manyGalician Ukrainians,
who now regardedtheGreek Catholic Churchas theirlast and only stronghold.
However,thisattitudetendedtocreatea siege mentality, whichwas notconducive
to clear and rationalthinking.The harshmeasures of administrativeauthorities
againstthe Ukrainianpopulationpromptedeven Bishop Khomyshyn,his loyal
attitudeto the Polish state notwithstanding, to complain to the papal nuncio
about these abuses.203At the same timeBishop Kotsylovsicyiprotestedagainst
theexpulsion of a numberof priestsin his eparchyfromtheirparishes without
his havingbeen informedabout thereason forthisdraconic action,which con-
stituteda violation of the concordatof 1925.204In a tactical countermove,the
Polish governmentsubmittedto theVatican'sSecretariatof Statea memorandum
accusing the Greek Catholic clergyof being remiss in theirduties toward the
state and of generallyengaging in anti-Polishutterancesand activities.205In
orderto defuse the situation,MetropolitanSheptytsicyimade what was to be
his last effortto improvePolish-Ukrainianrelationsby approachingtheWarsaw
government throughhis mosttrustedcollaborator,IosyfSlipyi.However,Slipyi's
conversationswithCountJanSzembek,theundersecretary of statein theMinistry
of ForeignAffairs,remainedinconclusive,thoughthePolish side showed some
interestin continuingthese contacts.206
Under these inauspicious circumstances,SheptytsTcyi observed on 18 June
1939 the fortiethanniversaryof his consecration as a bishop- a celebration
fromwhichtherepresentatives of theStanyslaviveparchy,wherehe had entered
his episcopal office,were conspicuouslyabsent.207 The occasion was solemnly
markedby thefaithful, forthereverencein whichhe was generallyheld had by
now grownto immenseproportions.208 His portraitwas paintedby innumerable
his
portraitists, larger-than-lifestatue was erectedin thegardenof theTheological
Academy,209 his name was conferred on many of them
countless institutions,
-
foundedand supportedbyhimself210 and yetthisacclaim now seemed strangely
hollow in theface of thecrucibleawaitinghis people and his Church.
The springand summerof 1939 witnessedtheunstoppableslide of theEuro-
 GREEKCATHOLICCHURCHIN GALICIA,1914-1944 339

pean continent intotheabyssof war,withPolandslatedto becomethenext

victimofHitler'saggression. The GreekCatholicChurchcouldnowplayonly
a waitinggame,whiletrying to persuadethenationalist underground torefrain
fromanyactionsthatmightprovokepunitivemeasuresby thePolishauthori-
ties.The Germaninvasionof Polandon 1 September1939 madethesituation
evenmoredelicate.In accordancewithhis policyofrestraint and moderation,
SheptytsTcyijoinedVasyl'Mudryi, leaderof the UNDO and the deputyspeaker
oftheSejm,inissuinga statement ofloyaltytothePolishstateinitshouroftrial
anddenying thereports thatUkrainian unitswereallegedlyfighting on theside
ofGermany.211 Itseemslikelythatthistimelyintervention prevented thePolish
population of Lviv and other citiesof Galicia from ventingitsire on thelocal
Ukrainians, who were of
suspected harboring pro-German sympathies.
After thePolish-German warandtheSovietinvasionof 17 September 1939,
theGalicianChurchProvincewas splitintotwo,withtheriverSan forming the
boundary between theterritories
incorporated intotheUSSR and the German-
occupiedGeneralgouvernement. Thus,on9 December1939,theauxiliary bishop
ofthePrzemysleparchy, Hryhorii Lakota,informed thepapal nuncioin Berlin
thatas of 25 September he residedin thecityofJaroslaw(Iaroslav)as Bishop
vicar
KotsylovsTcyi's general,takingspiritual careof216,910GreekCatholics
in 136 parisheswith195priests, including34 clergymen whohadfledacrossthe
San fromtheSoviet-occupied area.212The stagewas nowsetfortheChurch's
uneasycoexistencewithtwototalitarian regimesfromwhich,inthelongrun,it
couldexpectneither forbearance nortolerance.

VII

TheimpactoftheSovietinvasionon thepopulationofGalicia. Theattitude of

theSovietauthoritiestowardtheGreekCatholicChurch.The Church'seffort
to adjustto thesecularizationof Ukrainiansocietyin Galicia. Metropolitan
pastoralletterof 9 October1939 and his decisionto keepthe
Sheptyts'kyi's
Churchoutofpolitics.Theintensification ofharassingtechniques usedagainst
theChurchandSheptyts 'kyis requesttoPiusXII todesignatehimfora martyr 's
death.Themetropolitan'sattempts toexpandtheactivitiesofthe GreekCatholic
ChurchtoSovietUkraineandtocombattheatheistic propagandainGalicia.His
appeal totheyouthtodesistfromactsofterrorism and indirect
contactswiththe
nationalist
underground. Theattempts toundermine theGreekCatholicChurch
frominsideand to bringabout its "reunion"withtheMoscowPatriarchate.
The beginning of theGerman-Soviet Warand its repercussionson theGreek
CatholicChurch.
ThenewsabouttheRedArmy'sforthcoming ofGaliciawasgenerally
occupation
receivedwithdisbelief
andforeboding
bytheUkrainian
andPolishpopulation
of
340 BUDUROWYCZ

thatarea, althoughthe handwritingon the wall had been clearly visible at least
since the signingof the German-Sovietnonaggressionpact of 23 August 1939.
While the Soviet Union was Poland's next-doorneighborand shared withit a
boundarythatwas over 1,400 kilometerslong,thecontactsbetweenthetwocoun-
trieshad been minimal,withonly a negligible amountof tradeand practically
nonexistent It is notsurprising,
personalinteraction.213 thatthecollision
therefore,
of thesetwo societies thatoccurredwiththe Soviet invasion of Poland resulted
in considerableculturalshock forboth sides. Thus, while it is not our purpose
to detail the far-reachingchanges broughtby the Soviet occupation,it mustbe
statedthattheywere so fundamentalin theirnaturethatGalician society,which
had remainedalmost staticsince theend of WorldWar I and its aftermath, was
now forcedto undergowithinless thantwo yearsthemostthoroughand painful
transformation in its history,one which profoundlyaffectedalmost all aspects
of both personal and communal life.214Religious life was not exempted from
these changes- on the contrary,the Catholic Church of both Greek and Latin
riteswas exposed to theoccasionally stillmutedbutat thesame timeobviously
implacable hostilityof theCommunistPartyand the Soviet state.
It soon became clear thattheGreekCatholicChurch,whichhad been regarded
as particularlyodious by thetsaristauthorities,was unlikelyto findmore favor
withtheirSoviet counterparts, who deemed it to be not only theirmost danger-
ous ideological opponentbut also the chief bulwarkof Ukrainiannationalism.
Althoughthefirstofficialpronouncementsof the Soviet governmenttendedto
emphasize theprinciplesof thefreedomof conscience and of worshipenshrined
in theconstitutionof theUSSR, theactionsof thenew rulersmade itimpossible
to take theirwords at face value.
Soon aftertheRed Army'soccupationofeasternPoland and thesigningof the
German-Soviet"Friendshipand FrontierTreaty"of 28 September1939, which
was to definitivelydelimitthe spheres of influenceof those two countrieson
Polish territory,Moscow set intomotionpreparationsfortheso-called "national
assemblies" of WesternUkraineand WesternBelarus thatwere to meet,respec-
tively,in Lviv and Biatystokto determinethe futurestatusof those territories.
Carefullystage-managedby the Soviet authorities,both assemblies decided to
ask theSupreme Soviet of theUSSR to "accept thepeoples of WesternUkraine
and WesternBelarus intothe greatfamilyof Soviet peoples."215
Even before the National Assembly of WesternUkraine met in Lviv, the
Soviet Ukrainianpress publisheda numberof articleshighlycriticalof therole
of the Greek Catholic Church in Poland, accusing its clergyof acting as tools
of the Polish governmentin its policy of oppression and exploitation of the
workingmasses.216These sentimentswere also voiced in the speeches of some
delegates duringthemeetingof the assembly,thuspreparingthegroundforthe
declarationadopted by thatbody on 27 October thatdecreed thenationalization
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 341

of all landed propertybelonging to large landowners,high state officials,and

monasteries,includinglivestock,dead stock,and statebuildings.217 While this
decree did not specifically referto propertyowned by individual churches,
parishes,and eparchies,itwas obvious thatsooneror lateritwould meeta similar
fate: indeed, some of it had been seized even before the National Assembly
adopted its declaration,and eventuallyall Church lands were firstdistributed
among the villagers and thencollectivized.218At the same time,punitivetaxes
were imposed on church buildings as well as on individual "servants of the
cult," exceeding in some cases several times the priest'sreal income.219As the
state stopped subsidizing the clergy with monthlystipends and the eparchies
had no fundsthatcould be used forthatpurpose,some priestsand theirfamilies
were reduced to extremepoverty,promptingMetropolitanSheptytsTcyi to urge
the faithfulto take care of the materialneeds of theirpastors; he also warned
thatthose who were deprivingthe Church of the means to supportthe parish
priestwere guiltyof sacrilege and subjectto excommunication.220 Since Church
discipline became lax underthese abnormal conditionsand some priestswere
abandoning theirparishes or even leaving the territory of the archeparchy,the
metropolitan'schancery issued a severe reprimandcensuringthatpracticeas a
violationof the regulationsof canon law.221
The Church's warmestcompassion in these difficulttimes was reservedfor
the membersof monastic orders,the most active and dedicated promotersof
religiouslife in Galicia, who were deprivedof theirlivelihood by thedecree of
the National Assembly.222 Thus, in his letterof 13 March 1940 to the superiors
of male monastic orders,Sheptytsicyidescribed the Greek Catholic monks as
victimsof a grave injusticethatat the same timerepresenteda gross affrontto
the Church,made even more painfulby the factthatthose responsibleclaimed
to represent"all the people," not realizing that,filled with fear for theirvery
lives, theywere merelya blind tool in the hands of the enemy.For his partthe
metropolitan, in his capacityas thehead of theGreekCatholic Churchin Galicia,
expressed his solemn protestagainst this "outrage" and voiced deep distressat
what he described as a prejudicial and unlawfulact.223
Anotherblow dealt to the Church was the thoroughgoingsecularizationof
a societythathithertohad been to a large extentChurch-orientedand, in some
instances,even Church-dominated.224 All religiousorganizationsand groupsas
well as Church-sponsoredpolitical partieswere eitherdissolved or voluntarily
ceased to exist; at the same time all printingpresses owned by the Churchand
Church-relatedinstitutionswere nationalized, all newspapers and periodicals
appearingunderits auspices had to stop publication,and all religious literature
available in bookstores and libraries was either destroyed or removed from
circulation.225 In accordance witharticle 124 of the Soviet constitution,which
specified that in the USSR theChurchwas to be separatefromthe stateand the
342 BUDUROWYCZ

school fromtheChurch,religiousinstructionin all schools came to an end. The

Church thus lost controlover all educational institutions,fromkindergartens
and orphanagesto theologicalseminaries,which were eitherplaced understate
jurisdictionor forcedto close down.226Priestswere barredfromenteringschool
premisesand it was leftto theiringenuityto findways of reachingyoungpeople
of school age. They were also forbiddento take confessions frompatientsin
hospitals or to bringthem communion,and so were forced to performthese
functionsin secret.227 Finally,such religioussymbolsas crosses, statues,icons,
and otherholyimages wereremovedfromschools and otherpublic places, while
most of the roadside chapels and crosses thatdottedthe Galician countryside
were eitherdismantledor destroyed.228
Deprived of its unique positionin Ukrainiansocietyin Galicia and subjected
to persistentattacksin the Soviet press,229the Greek Catholic hierarchyfound
it difficultto come to termswiththe new situation,althoughgenerallyChurch
leadersacceptedthediminutionof theirauthority and painfulmateriallosses with
considerablecomposure and equanimity.230 Thus, forexample, the hierarchy's
very attemptto define theirattitudeto the Soviet regime in view of both the
latter'soverthostilitytowardtheChurchand theirown pressingneed to establish,
howeverreluctantly, a kindof modus vivendiwiththeregimethatwould allow
theirflock to practice theirreligion withouttoo much interference, called for
some pragmaticand unconventionalthinking.These considerationsprompted
MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi to issue on 9 October 1939 a pastoralletterto theclergy
of his archeparchy, in whichhe showed his awareness of theunique significance
of themoment,statingthat"a page of historyhas turned"and "a new epoch has
begun." All thepriestswere instructedto obey the authoritiesand comply with
Soviet laws "as long as theydo notcontradictdivinelaw"; at thesame time,they
wereurgednotto "meddle in politicsand secularaffairs,"butto continueto work
forthe cause of Christamong theirpeople.231This studiouslyapolitical stance
was assumed by SheptytsTcyi again in his pastoralletterof 9 December 1940, less
thana week beforetheelectionto thelocal sovietsin WesternUkraine,whichhe
regardedas the"nextopportunity" to carryintoeffecttheprincipleof refraining
fromall kindsof politics:accordingly,he urgedhis clergynotto tryto influence
theirparishionersby persuadingthemto vote or not to vote, while leaving to
individualprieststhefreedomto decide forthemselveswhethertheyshouldcast
theballot.232In a similarvein,he forbadethehoistingof any "state,regional,or
nationalflag" on churchbuildingsor parsonages,because such a practicecould
bringharmto thechurch.233 Anotherprohibitioncoveredthesingingin churches
of the popular chorale Mnohaia lita (Many Years) in honorof any layperson.234
Since this happened duringthe ascendancy of Stalin's personalitycult in the
USSR, it is likely thatthe metropolitanaimed, in his customaryroundabout
fashion,at preventingthe churchesunderhis jurisdictionfrombeing forcedto
pay homage to the Soviet dictator.
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 343

In the meantime,the unrelentingpressureon the Church began to intensify

and the members of the hierarchythemselves were continuouslyspied upon
by the NKVD. The secretpolice searched the residence of Bishop Khomyshyn
and took him away forinterrogation, butlaterreleased him,235 althougha house
servantwas instructedto reporton all the bishop's activitiesand eventuallyto
poison him.236 The complex of buildingson St. George's Hill in Lviv, wherethe
metropolitan'sresidence and chancerywere located, also came underthe close
surveillance of the NKVD, and some of Sheptytsicyi'sold acquaintances and
membersof religiousorderswho were imprisonedby theSoviet authoritieswere
pressuredto furnishincriminatingevidence against him and his associates.237
These actions were accompanied by many instancesof pettyharassment,such
as theconfiscationof desks, typewriters, cyclostyles,hectographs,and even the
supplyof paper in thechanceryoffice,in orderto preventthemetropolitanfrom
communicatingwithhis clergyand his flock.238
It is in this contextthatone should appraise SheptytsTcyi's request to Pope
Pius XII thathe be formallydesignated to die as a martyrforthe faithand the
unityof the Church;239not surprisingly,the pope declined this unusual peti-
tion.240It is not entirelyclear what the metropolitanhoped to achieve by this
ratherquixotic gesture,forits consequences forhis Churchand his flockwould
probably have been disastrous. By remainingat the helm of his Church, he
could- and indeed did- performa unique and vitallyimportantfunction:after
the utterroutof the Ukrainianpolitical establishmentin Galicia, he was widely
regardedas the strongestlink to the recentpast and a symbol of resistanceto
the Soviet regime.241
In an undatedpastoralletterto theUkrainianyouthwrittenat approximately
the same time,SheptytsTcyi took leave of them since, in his words, he did not
know whetherGod would allow him to continueto workand prayforthem:he
asked them,therefore, to regardthatmessage as his testamentand paternalbless-
ing and urged them to prayfordivine wisdom to distinguishbetween truthand
falsehoodand toremainfaithful to theChurch,thebetrayalof whichhe described
as a "repugnantcrime."242Later,in the springof 1940, when mass deportations
of the populationof Galicia to CentralAsia, northernRussia, and otherremote
areas of theSoviet Union were in progress,themetropolitaninformedhis clergy
thathe intendedto request the governmentof the USSR to allow him and ten
priestsappointed by him to take spiritualcare of the deportees,243 though,in
view of his physicaldisability,he hardlywould have been able to carryout that
demandingtask.
Having secured the appointmentof his closest collaborator,Iosyf Slipyi, as
his coadjutorwiththerightof succession,244and havingmade use of thespecial
powers grantedto him more thanthirtyyears earlierby Pope Pius X to appoint
exarchs forthe whole territory of the Soviet Union,245SheptytsTcyi proceeded
to announce a competitionfor Greek Catholic parishes in Kyiv, Odesa, Vin-
344 BUDUROWYCZ

nytsia,Kharkiv,and Poltava, while demandingthatthe candidates be ready to

make all necessarysacrificesforthe cause of the unificationof Greek Catholic
and Orthodox faithfuland atheists,both baptized and unbaptized246He also
boldly statedin a letterto his clergythat,God willing,many of themmightbe
privilegedto preachin thechurchesof Dnieper Ukraineand as faras theKuban,
theCaucasus, Moscow, and Tobolsk.247These visionaryprojectscoexisted with
pressingcurrentconsiderations,and the metropolitanhad to turnhis attention
to mattersof more immediateconcern, instructinghis clergy how to combat
aggressiveatheisticpropagandaand how to deal withtheOrthodoxor formally
nondenominationalarrivalsfromDnieper Ukraineand otherpartsof the Soviet
Union who were seekingreligiousconsolationin GreekCatholic churches.248 In
addition,a numberofformerGreekCatholicswho had abandoned theirriteunder
pressurefromPolish authoritieswere now eager to rejointheiroriginalfold,and
SheptytsTcyi outlinedin detail the procedureto be followed in such cases.249
In his pastorallettersand addressesto thearcheparchialsynod,250SheptytsTcyi
made occasional referencesto thecontinuouspersecutionof theGreekCatholic
Churchin Galicia, some of themcouched in crypticlanguage, which,however,
his audience could readilyunderstand:thus,forexample, in his closing address
to the synod he mentioned"two of our fellow priestswho died as victimsof
present-dayconditions in Lviv." He also referredto the arrestof four of his
closest associates as well as ten otherparticipantsin the deliberationsof the
synodand latermade public thenames of eighteenpriestswho had been arrested
and notyetreleased, one of whom had been sentencedto six years in prison.251
The activities of the Ukrainian nationalistunderground,engaged in random
hit-and-runattacksagainst the Soviet authoritiesand mercilesslyhounded by
theNKVD, were also deeply worrisometo themetropolitan.In an appeal to the
clergyand thefaithfulissued on 31 October 1940, he turnedhis special attention
to the young people, urgingthemnot to cause theirparentseven greatergrief
thanthatwhich theywere alreadyexperiencingand not to endangerthe whole
people by exposing them to "painful sorrow,"especially since the suffering
thattheywere so gratuitouslybringingon themselvesand theirfamiliescould
only resultin immeasurableharmforeveryoneconcerned.252In spite of these
reservations,however,SheptytsTcyi apparentlymaintainedsome indirectcontact
withtheOUN, whose regional commander (kraiovyipwvidnyk),IevhenLegenda
(Ivan Klymiv),occasionallyconveyedinformation to himthrougha trustedpriest
about theactions of thenationalistleadershipand othermattersthatcould be of
interestto themetropolitan.253
Generallyspeaking,atheisticpropaganda in Galicia proved to be singularly
unsuccessful,especially amongchildrenand youngpeople, althoughsome intel-
lectuals shunnedtheChurchin ordernotto compromisetheircareers.254 This, in
turn,prompted theSoviet to
authorities to
resort othermeans in theirendeavor to
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 345

underminetheauthority of theGreekCatholicChurchwithoutformallysuppress-
ing it. One of theirstratagemsconsisted in fomentingdissentamong theclergy,
tryingto turnthemagainst theirsuperiorsand promisingsupportforattempts
to secure more independence fromtheirbishops;255in some cases the priests
were encouragedto forsaketheirreligiousbeliefsand to breakall ties withtheir
Church. However, while a numberof themsoughtrefugein German-occupied
Poland, the vast majoritystayed with theirparishes and even triedto expand
theirpastoralactivities.256In addition,an unsuccessfulattemptwas made to sow
distrustand discord among the Church hierarchyitselfby persuadingBishops
Khomyshynand LiatyshevsTcyi to claim fortheireparchythedistrictof Halych
fromwhich the metropolitansee of Galicia derivedits name and which,though
geographicallycloser to Stanyslaviv,had been forcenturiesconnectedwiththe
archeparchyof Lviv.257
At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church was eager to expand its
proselytizingactivitiesinto the newly annexed territoriesof the Soviet Union.
Thus, toward the end of 1940 ArchbishopNikolai Iarushevich was appointed
as exarch of the Moscow Patriarchateforthe westernprovincesof Ukraineand
Belarus. Aftera visit to Lviv in February 1941, he suggested to Metropolitan
Sergii of Moscow, the locum tenens of the patriarchalthrone,thata bishop be
appointedto further the"apostolic" workforthe"reunion"oftheGalician Uniates
withtheRussian OrthodoxChurch.A suitablecandidatewas foundin theperson
of PanteleimonRudyk,the archimandriteof the famous Pochaïv monasteryin
Volhynia,and in April 1941 he was duly consecratedin Moscow as the bishop
of Lviv in a ceremonyattendedby representativesof the Orthodox hierarchy
fromWesternUkraine,WesternBelarus, and theBaltic countries.258 Because of
theoutbreakof the German-Sovietwar two monthslater,he was unable to take
chargeof his see, whichwas to compriseonlynineparishes;however,soon after
thebeginningof hostilities,on 15 July194 1, ArchbishopIarushevichhimselfwas
elevated to the "vacant" post of metropolitanof Kyiv and Halych and exarch of
all Ukraine.259In anotherdevelopmentthatwas takingplace almost simultane-
ously,clandestineconversationswere conductedby the Soviet authoritieswith
some Greek Catholic priestswho were knownfortheiranti-Vatican sentiments
in orderto preparetheway fora "spontaneous"movementaimingat a "reunion"
of the Greek Catholic Church withthe Moscow Patriarchate.260 However, this
plan of actionwas notyetbroughtto fruitionbecause of theKremlin'sreluctance
to antagonize the Ukrainianpopulation of Galicia completelyby launching a
concertedattackagainstits mostcherishedreligiousinstitution on theeve of the
Soviet Union's impendingconfrontation withNazi Germany.
Even so, thefirstdays of theSoviet-Germanwar were marredby some bloody
incidentswhen theretreatingRed Armysoldiers and NKVD troopsturnedtheir
ire againsttheChurchand its servants,murderingor torturing to deatha number
346 BUDUROWYCZ

of priestsand threateningSheptytsTcyi'scoadjutor,IosyfSlipyi, Bishop Nykyta

Budka, and several prominentclergymenfromthe metropolitan'sentourage
withsummaryexecution;261in addition,thousandsof othervictimswere found
massacredin theprisonsof manyGalician citiesand towns.262 However,in spite
of all these tragiclosses and painfulmemories, the Church's prestigeamong
the masses of the faithfulwas now in the ascendant: indeed, it seemed to have
emergedfroman unprecedentedperiodof trialand adversitymorevigorousand
resilientthanever.263

VIII

The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the German occupation of Galicia.
The Church's relationshipwiththe German regime. Sheptyts'kyïsattemptto
heal the split in the O UN and his role in the Council of Seniors (later known
as the UkrainianNational Council). The metropolitanslettersto the Orthodox
bishops and intelligentsiain Ukraineand his attemptto bringabout religious
unityamong the Ukrainians. His ultimatedisillusionmentwith the German
regime.The Greek Catholic Churchand theJews.Sheptyts'kyi's pastoral letter
"
"Thou Shalt Not Kill. The growthof the Church'spolitical influencewithin
the Ukrainiancommunity.The effortsto spread the Church Union in Dnieper
"
Ukraine.The attitudeof the Churchtowardthe Waffen-SSDivision "Galicia.
The state of virtual civil war and anarchy in Galicia in 1943-1944 and the
Church'sreaction.Sheptyts'kyi's role in theAll-UkrainianNational Council. On
theeve of thesecond Soviet occupation of Galicia.
The outbreakof the German-Sovietwar on 22 June 1941 representedboth a
threatand a major challenge to the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia. On the
one hand, its ratherdubious loyaltyto the Soviet regime could easily provoke
harsh,repressivemeasures threateningits verysurvival; on the other,a Soviet
defeatcould give it almost limitlessopportunitiesin the East and a historical
chance to spread the Church Union all over Dnieper Ukraine and beyond. In
theebullientatmospherefollowingthe occupation of Lviv by Nazi troops,and
in a ratherunusual departurefromthe cautious policy normallypursuedby the
CatholicChurchin such circumstances,MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi in his pastoral
letterof 1 July1941 openly welcomed the German army as "delivererfromthe
enemy."At thesame time,he conferredhis blessingon the"StateAdministration
of Ukraine"headed by Iaroslav Stetsicoand delegatedhis archbishop-coadjutor,
IosyfSlipyi, to representhim duringthe installationceremonyof the new gov-
ernment.264 Similarly,on 6 JulyBishop Khomyshynbestowed his benediction
on the"Ukrainianindependentstate" and declared thathe was prayingfor"the
happiness,prosperity, and peaceful life of all citizens of Ukraine,regardlessof
theirreligious,national,and social differences."265
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 347

The enthusiasm displayed by the aging metropolitanand his most senior

colleague was undoubtedlysincere:as theystatedin theirmessages to thepapal
nuncio in Budapest, theyand theirclergy had just barely survivedthe Soviet
occupation withall its attendantperils and miseries.266 Still, it seems surprising
thattheirunderstandablejoy at theirChurch's unexpecteddeliverance should
have made themoblivious of thehorrorsthatbegan to unfoldimmediatelyafter
the arrival of German troops,includingpogroms, mass executions, and other
atrocities.It took some time forSheptytsicyiand his collaborators- men who
thoughtin categories of the First World War- to realize the whole depth of
depravityand brutalityto which Germany,whichtheyrememberedas a strong-
hold of law and orderand a seat of culture,had sunk underHitler's regime.267
The Germans,fortheirpart,triedto maintaina correct,if distant,relationship
withtheGreek Catholic hierarchy,whose help theyneeded to urgethepeasants
to fulfilltheirdeliveryquotas and to encourage young people to volunteerfor
work in Germany.They also provided the clergy with small materialbenefits
such as paying them monthlysalaries of 50 Reichsmarks as "voluntarysup-
port,"permittedthe reintroduction of religious instructionintothe curriculaof
elementary and secondaryschools, and allowed theological seminaries,closed
down duringthe Soviet interval,to reopen.268
AlthoughSheptytsTcyi's complex relationshipwiththeOUN bothbeforeand
during World War II has not yetbeen fullyexplored,it is obvious thathe deeply
deplored the split thathad occurredwithinits ranks,which he regardedas an
"intolerablenationalcrime,"and hoped to be able to heal it by appealing to the
leader of one of the two warringfactions,Colonel Andrii Mel'nyk,whom he
knew well as theformerchiefinspectorof theestatesof themetropolitansee.269
The breach, however,proved to be much more serious than SheptytsTcyi real-
ized, and he was finallyforcedto give up his conciliatoryefforts.Similarly,his
involvementin theworkof theCouncil of Seniors (laterknownas theUkrainian
National Council), over which he assumed an honoraryprotectorate,turned
out to be almost completelyunproductive,althoughthe metropolitanprobably
enjoyed a returnto his customaryrole at thecenterof Ukrainianpolitical life as
its arbiter.270
The sole rightto representthe Ukrainiansin theGeneralgouverne-
mentwas now vested in the UkrainianCentral Committeein Cracow, and the
head of itsLviv branch,Kosf Panicivsicyi,became Sheptytsicyi'sfrequentvisitor
and confidant.
Frustrated by his unsuccessful attempts to influence political events,
Sheptytsicyiturnedhis attentionto a more familiarand appropriatefield- that
of religion. In a series of messages to UkrainianOrthodoxArchbishopIlarion
Ohiienkoof Cheta (21 October 1941), to theOrthodoxepiscopateof Ukraine(30
December 1941), and to the UkrainianOrthodoxintelligentsia(3 March 1942),
themetropolitanrevivedonce more his dream of bringingabout religiousunity
348 BUDUROWYCZ

among Ukrainians,which,in his words,would give them"a mightyimpetusto

achieve nationalunityas well."271The argumentsSheptytsTcyi used in his plea
were so self-evidentand well known that,by now, they seemed almost trite;
however, the replies he received, though invariablycourteous, proved to be
evasive and disappointing.
As time progressed,the views of the metropolitanand the Greek Catho-
lic hierarchyregardingthe new occupiers became increasinglycritical.On 14
January1942, SheptytsTcyi was one of five signatoriesof a letterto Hitlerthat
criticizedGerman policy in the occupied territoriesand the negative attitude
of the Germanauthoritiesto thepolitical,social, and culturalaspirationsof the
Ukrainianpeople.272Later,in his letterof 29-31 August 1942 to Pope Pius XII,
themetropolitan expressedhis completecondemnationof theNazi regime,which
he regardedwith a combinationof horrorand contemptas a "systemof lies,
deceit,and plunder"and a mockeryof all notionsof civilizationand order.Even
moredangerouswas thecorruptiveinfluenceof Nazi ideology,whichremoved
all moralconstraints,expungedall humandecency,and seemed to give those in
power thelicense to kill and plunderwithimpunity.273
It was in thiscontextthatSheptytsTcyi viewed the so-called finalsolutionof
theJewishquestion,whichposed an immense moraland ethicalproblemforboth
theGreekCatholic and theRoman Catholic churches. For thefirsttimein living
memory,pogroms and mass murderswere takingplace in Galicia practically
in theopen, withone groupof its citizens singled out forannihilation,and with
the membersof the two othercommunitieseitherplaying the role of passive
spectatorsor,in some cases, activeparticipantsin theunspeakablecrimes.In the
past,theattitudeof theGreek Catholic ChurchtowardtheJewshad been rather
ambivalent,foralthoughsome membersof the hierarchyand the clergywere
known for theirpro-Jewishsympathies,anti-Semiticstatementswere voiced
occasionally even in the Catholic press, and individualpriestsand laymen did
notalways followtheirbishops' guidance in treatingtheirJewishfellowcitizens
withfairnessand Christiancharity.274 SheptytsTcyi's personal relationshipwith
Jews had always been correct,even cordial. In a gestureof respect,he would
speak Hebrew to theleaders of theJewishcommunities,who greetedhim with
theTorahduringhis regularpastoralvisitationsthroughoutGalicia. Thus, when
he celebratedhis seventiethbirthdayin July1935, theexecutiveand thecouncil
of theJewishcommunityin Lviv paid homage to himas a "real representative of
cultureand of thehighestethicalvalues, who had always assumed an attitudeof
understanding and justice towardIsrael."275Now, at a timeof theJews' greatest
trial,the metropolitanofferedsanctuaryto numerousJewishvictimsof Nazi
persecutionin his own residenceat St. George's and in a numberof monasteries
underhisjurisdiction,especiallytheStuditeLavra in Univ.276 In February1942 he
senta personalletterto theReichsführer of theSS, HeinrichHimmler,deploring
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 349

themass exterminationof theJewsand beseechinghimto exempttheUkrainian

auxiliarypolice- membersof Sheptytslcyi'sflock- fromparticipatingin these
massacres.277 Finally,in his mostfamousand, in manyways,mosttragicpastoral
"Thou
letter, Shalt Not Kill," dated 21 November O.S./4 December N.S. 1942,
themetropolitancondemnedall formsof homicide.The textof themessage did
not indicate clearly whom SheptytsTtyi had in mind- the Jews, hunteddown
by theirtormentors;the Ukrainiansand thePoles, locked in a relentlesscombat
of mutual annihilation;or nationalistextremists,engaged in a fratricidaland
self-destructivemurderousspree. However, while not mentioninganyone in
particular,theletterspoke in a powerfulvoice about thesacrednessof humanlife
and denouncedthosewho, by sheddinginnocentblood, wereplacing themselves
beyond the pale of human society.278
As variouspoliticalgroupsand factionswithintheUkrainiancommunitywere
losing theirfollowing,the influenceof the Greek Catholic Church seemed to
increase.279WhereasduringthefirstmonthsoftheGermanoccupationtheChurch
kepta comparativelylow profileand allowed themilitaryand politicalarmof the
OUN to dominatethesituation,itneverlost itsuniquepositionamong itsfaithful.
Now thattheeffortsof militantnationalistsproved to be counterproductive and
seemed to be leading nowhere,theChurchhierarchytriedto exercise a pacifying
influenceby reducingtheintensityof theUkrainian-Polishconfrontation and by
preventing, to the best of its ability,any extremistexcesses.280 Meanwhile, the
regrouping of forceswithin the Ukrainian community enhanced the importance
of MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi as a primarypolitical factor.Indeed, even Polish
undergroundcircles acknowledged in a reportto theirgovernment-in-exile in
London thatthemetropolitanwas showinggreatindependenceand civil courage
and exerteda positive influenceon his clergy.281
At the same time, the Greek Catholic Church did not abandon its hopes
of spreading the Union in Dnieper Ukraine. Afterthe Holy See confirmed
the appointmentof exarchs for the whole territory of the USSR (see above),
SheptytsTcyi urgedyoungpriestsfromhis archeparchyto prepareformissionary
work.As a resultof theseefforts, Greek Catholic parisheswere foundedin Kyiv,
Zhytomyr,Vinnytsia,Kam'ianets-Podilskyi, Proskuriv,and other cities, and
Ukrainianmonasticorders(theBasilians, Redemptorists, and Studites)were also
preparingthemselvesto preachtheGospel in theconquered areas of theEast.282
These endeavors were repeatedlythwartedby thenegativeattititudeof theNazi
authorities.The clergyof theLatin riteregardedSheptytsTcyi 's missionaryzeal as
a purelypolitical ploy withoutany chance of lastingsuccess283and resentedthe
failureof theGreekCatholic hierarchyto participatein conferencesof thePolish
episcopate in the Generalgouvernement,which were held regularlyunder the
chairmanshipofArchbishopAdam Sapieha of Cracow.284Ironically,at thesame
timetheUkrainianpress in theGeneralgouvernement, actingwithouttheofficial
350 BUDUROWYCZ

sanctionof theGreek Catholic hierarchy, starteda vigorouscampaign aimed at

persuadingLatin-riteCatholics who were supposedly of Ukrainianoriginand
whose numberswereestimatedat between600,000 and 700,000, to returnto the
nationalityof theirancestors.285However,these effortsremainedlargelyunsuc-
cessful,and some of the"Latins" (latynnyky),as theywerepopularlycalled, were
laterto pay withtheirlives fortheirfailureto comply withthatappeal.
The policyoftheNazi authorities fromtheverybeginningaimed at embroiling
thePoles withtheUkrainians,thusmakingiteasier forthemselvesto controlthe
countrywitha minimumof effort.286 Small favorsgrantedto one group were
carefullybalanced by those given to anothercommunity,but in such a way
thatneitherof them would feel sufficientlystrongor secure to challenge the
supremeauthorityof theirGerman overlords.Generally,of course, the Ukrai-
nians, if only because of theirnumerical superiorityin Galicia, enjoyed the
more advantageous position,but deprived of any effectivepolitical leadership
and split in theirloyalties,theycould hardlyhope to create a counterpoiseto
the powerfulmilitaryand administrativemachineryof the occupying regime.
Frustratedaftertheirhoped-forindependentstatehad once more been brutally
and contemptuouslythwarted,theywere in a sullen and uncooperativemood,
whilethePolish community, morecohesive and disciplined,was neverreadyfor
any compromisewiththeenemy.287 Nevertheless,as long as the Germanswere
able to continuetheirvictoriousmarch to the east, which duringthe summer
of 1942 carriedthemto the Volga and the oil fields of the Caucasus, the Nazi
administrationwas able to maintainat least a semblance of order in subdued
Galicia and exercise an effectualcontrolover the local population. However,
thecrushingdefeatat Stalingradradicallychanged the situation.Afterthe aura
of invincibilitysurroundingthe Wehrmachthad dissipated,all open and secret
enemies of the Third Reich as well as many opportunisticelements prepared
themselvesto fight,or at least to harass,the Germanarmyas it was slowly but
relentlesslypushed back fromSoviet territory.288
It was at thatcrucial momentthatthe governorof Galicia, Otto Wächter,
presentedto the leaders of the Ukrainian Central Committeein the General-
gouvernement a proposalto forma Ukrainianmilitaryunitthatwould participate
in Germany'sstruggleagainsttheSoviet Union. The offerwas highlycontrover-
sial, althoughit seemed to fulfilla desire to play a more active role in the war
thatmanyUkrainianspokesmenhad voiced. Both factionsof theOUN rejected
thissuggestionand urgedtheirmembersnotto participatein an undertaking that
promised few concrete advantagesto the Ukrainian side, while at the same time
taintingthe good name of the whole Ukrainiannationalmovementby making
it appear a loyal ally of theThirdReich. However, the leaders of the Ukrainian
Central Committeefeltthata disciplined and well-trainedmilitaryformation
could conceivablybecome thenucleusof a Ukrainiannationalarmy,whichwould
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 351

enhance thestatusof theUkrainiancause in futurepeace negotiationsand could

also offerprotectionto the Ukrainianpopulation of Galicia against the Polish
underground.289 The Greek Catholic hierarchyand clergyalso played a certain
role in the inaugurationof theWaffen-SSDivision "Galicia," whose formation
was marked on 29 April 1943 by a special liturgycelebrated by Archbishop
Slipyi.MetropolitanSheptytsTcyi himselfappointeda numberofpriests,including
his close collaborator,Vasyl' Laba, as chaplains forthe new militaryunit,but
in spite of encouragementsand statementsof supportforthe Division thathe
reportedlymade in privateconversationswithvarious individuals,he studiously
refrainedfromissuing any writtenmessage or officialproclamationwelcoming
itscreation.290However,in theirsermonsmanyGreekCatholicpriestspraisedthe
Division, which some regardedas a continuationof thetraditionsof theUkrainian
Sich Riflemenand the UkrainianGalician Army,and theyurgedthe faithfulto
join its ranks and participateactivelyin the life-and-deathstruggleagainst the
approachingdanger fromthe east. At the same time,the attitudeof the Church
hierarchytowardthe UkrainianInsurgentArmy(UPA), which came intobeing
withtheavowed purposeof fighting boththeGermansand theSoviets,was much
morereserved,althoughsome individualmembersof theGreek Catholic clergy
willinglycooperated withit and endorsed its political objectives.291
The situationbecame moreexplosiveduringthesummerof 1943, whenSoviet
partisanunitsmanaged to make an incursioninto Galicia forthe firsttime and
to crisscrossthe whole provincefromthebordersof Volhyniato theCarpathian
Mountains.Althoughthe militarysignificanceof this operationwas limited,it
set offa series of sabotages and terroristattacksagainst the Germans and their
collaborators.Moreover,thePolish-Ukrainianconflicteruptedwithrenewedfury
as thebloodyconfrontation betweenthetwo communitiesspreadfromtheChelm
lands and VolhyniaintoGalicia, resultingin indiscriminateassassinations and,
in some cases, mass murders.To make the situationeven worse,theinternecine
feud festeringwithinthe Ukrainian nationalistmovement led to new acts of
violence, inevitablyresultingin whatSheptytsTcyi describedas thedegeneration
of the nationalconscience and the spiritof patriotism,eventuallydestroyingall
values and standardsof humanbehavior.292 While thesemisdeeds involved only
a small percentageof the faithful,theyscandalized the whole communityand
compromisedits moral principles.
As the pastorallettersand public utterancesof the Greek Catholic hierarchy
and SheptytsTcyi's correspondencewithPope Pius XII indicate,he and his brother
bishops wereengaged in an agonizingself-examination at thattime.They became
painfullyaware thatin spite of theirtotaldedication to the spiritualwelfareof
theirflock theyhad not preparedand inuredthem adequately forthis hour of
trial.It seemed thattheelaborateritualand therichliturgicalheritage,so highly
valued by theirfaithful,did not imbue themwithChristianvalues, and thatthe
352 BUDUROWYCZ

hierarchyand the clergy- theirshepherds,who were supposed to guide them

and watchover them- had somehow failed to convey theveryessence of their
religion- its gospel of brotherlylove and human dignity.Indeed, the interwar
years,in whichthebishopshad triedto buildup thenetworkofCatholicorganiza-
tionsand institutions and to fosterChristianvirtues,seemed strangelyirrelevant
in thisnew,apocalypticage, in which all primitiveinstinctsand passions were
unleashed and where therewas no place leftforChristiancharityor even for
humanunderstanding.
It was underthesetragiccircumstancesthattheGreekCatholic bishops of the
Galician ChurchProvince issued theirjoint pastoral letterof November 1943,
warningtheirflockthatutterdarknesswas about to descend upon theircountry,
posing a deadly threatnot only to the existingsocial order,but also to the very
survivalof the Ukrainianpeople.293As SheptytsTcyi was laterto observe in his
addressto thecouncil ofpriestsoftheLviv archeparchy, whichheld veryproduc-
tive sessions duringtheperiod of boththe Soviet and the Germanoccupations,
an unprecedentedhistoricalcatastropheof the greatestmagnitudewas at hand,
broughtabout not only by externaldevelopments,but also by the Ukrainians'
own actions, and its repercussionscould determinethe fate of the Ukrainian
people forcenturiesto come.294
In the existingsituation,it was essential to preventthe growthof political
extremismand social radicalism, which, if unchecked,could eventuallyturn
againstthe Churchitself.Generally,the metropolitanbecame more cautious in
his pronouncements and, whenasked by theGermanauthoritiesto denouncethe-
counciloftheRussian OrthodoxChurch(whichon 8 September1943 had elected
Sergii Stragorodskiias the patriarchof Moscow and of the whole of Rus7),he
refusedto issue any officialstatementregardingthatmatter.295 Also, in spite of
pressureby GovernorWächterand thelatter's deputyBauer,SheptytsTcyi did not
includeanyanti-Sovietcommentsin theChristmasmessage to his flockthatwas
broadcastin January1944- most likely in ordernot to antagonize the Soviets,
whose victoriousarmies had just crossed the prewarfrontierof Poland.296As
thePolish-Ukrainianclashes increasedin intensity, themetropolitanreportedly
made knownhis willingnessto address a joint pastoralletterto thetwo warring
communities,signed by himselfand the Roman Catholic archbishopof Lviv,
Twardowski;the latter,however,refusedto cooperate,claiming thatthe Polish
communitybore no responsibilityforthatconflict.297
In early March 1944, the Soviet armyenteredthe territory of the Galician
Church Province and by Septemberof thatyear broughtmost of it (with the
exceptionof theLemko ApostolicAdministration) underitscontrol.Thoroughly
disgusted by the behavior of the German administration,now retreating,and
horrifiedby theatrocitiesperpetratedby the Ukrainianand Polish underground
forces,Sheptytsicyiresignedhimselfto theinevitablereturnof theSoviet regime,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 353

which,he hoped, would at least put an end to the stateof absolute anarchyand
chaos rampantall over Galicia.298At the same time,however,he reaffirmed his
commitmentto the idea of a sovereignand unitedUkrainianstate by agreeing
tojoin theAll-UkrainianNational Council as its firstvice-chairmanand by co-
signingits declarationof 22 April 1944, which vowed to continuethe struggle
forthe self-determination of the Ukrainianpeople against all odds.299
In the meantime,the advance of the Soviet armyinto Galicia set offa mass
exodus of the Ukrainianpopulationfromthatprovince,withmost of those who
had workedin any administrativecapacity fortheNazi authoritiesbeingjoined
by many professionals,businessmen,and representativesof otheroccupations
and social groups, including the clergy.With many pastors abandoning their
parishes in orderto escape the vengeance of the Soviet regime or to get away
fromunpredictableforaysby Polish and Ukrainianundergroundunits,theLviv
archeparchywas forcedto forbidall priestsunderitsjurisdictionto leave their
posts withoutthe metropolitan'sexpress consent.300Yet, althoughSheptytsicyi
deeply deplored the flightof so many membersof his flock,which was under-
miningthe position of the Ukrainianpeople in Galicia, he could hardlydeny
permissionto leave to those who believed thattheirlives were endangeredor
whose moral fiberwas not strongenough to cope withthe coming ordeal.
As the Soviet armies,having brokenthroughthe German lines and crushed
theDivision "Galicia" in thebattleof Brody,approached thecityof Lviv in July
1944, thefutureof theGreek Catholic Churchhungin thebalance. Deserted by
manyof itsfaithfuland itspriests,deprivedof theleadingrole thatitused to play
in the life of the community,and withits moral prestigeand power weakened
by accusations of association withthe Nazi regime,it could hardlycontinueas
the chief national institutionof the Ukrainianpeople in Galicia, such as it had
become under MetropolitanSheptytsTtyi'sstewardship.However, if it really
was deeply rooted in the masses and representedtheirspiritualaspirations,it
needed not regretthe demise of the Ukrainian establishmentin Galicia with
which it had, perhaps imprudently, allied itself.Strippedof its privileges and
materialpossessions and cleansed of those who had associated withitforpurely
opportunisticreasons,itcould now demonstrateitsvitalityas a veritableChurch
of the people by survivingand adjusting to the new conditions. Rather than
succumb to despair,the Churchcould prove its mettleby confidentlytakingup
the challenge thatloomed ahead.
354 BUDUROWYCZ

Notes

i, Istoriici ' ukra-

1. See, forexample,Kost'LevytsTcy vyzvol'nykh zmahanhalyts
'kykh
z chasusvitovoiviiny,
i'ntsiv pt. 1 (Lviv, 1929), 10-11.

2. TheoriginalGermantextofthememorandum is giveninTheophilHornykiewicz,
ed., Ereignissein der Ukraine1914-1922, derenBedeutungund historische
Hintergründe, vol. 1 (Philadelphia,1966), 8-11; Englishtranslation in Osyp
Kravcheniuk,Veleten'zo Sviatoiurs'ko'i
hory:prychynky do biohrafiï
SluhyBozhoho
AndreiaSheptyts'koho na pidstavichuzhomovnykh dzherel,BibliotekaLohosu
34 (Yorkton,Sask., 1963), 121-24. For a detaileddiscussionof thisdocument,
see PetroIsaiv,"Memorandum mytropolyta AndreiaSheptyts'koho do uriadiv
derzhav,"
tsentral'nykh Bohosloviia32 (1968): 30-76.

3. Ereignisse,1:18-19.
See, forexample,Hornykiewicz,

4. Ibid.,21.

5. Fordetails,see M. H. Tsehlynslcyi, Halyts'kipohromy:

Tragichna storinka
z zhyttia
halyts'kykhukraïntsiv v chasyevropeis'koïviiny 1914-1915rr.(Cleveland,1917);
Talergofskiial'manakhy 4 vols.(Lviv,1924-1932),reprinted as Voennyeprestup-
leniia Gabsburgskoi monarkhii 1914-1917 gg.: Galitskaiagolgofa(Trumbull,
Conn., 1964); and Vasyl'Makovsicyi,Talerhof:Spohadyi dokumenty (Lviv,
1934).

6. See DmytroDoroshenko, A. Sheptitskago

"Aresti ssylkamitropolita (iz nedavniago
Na
proshlago)," chuzhoistoronie(Berlin)13 (1925): 160-66;thecollectivevolume
viazen'(Lviv,1918); and IvanMuzychka,"SheptytsTcyi
Tsars'kyi in theRussian
Empire,"in Moralityand Reality:TheLifeand TimesofAndreiSheptyts'kyi, ed.
Paul R. Magocsi withtheassistanceof AndriiKravchuk,313-27 (Edmonton,
1989).

7. MykhailoKornylovych, "Plany'vozsoiedyneniia' uniiativ

halyts'kykh v 1914-1915
rr.,"Ukraïna(Kyiv) 1, no. 4 (1924): 134-35. For details,see Ivan Petrovych,
Halychynapidchas rosiis'koïokupatsiï,serpen'1914-cherven'1915 (Vienna,
1915).

8. Kornylovych, 136 (thedatesgivenaccordingto the

"Plany'vozsoiedyneniia,'"
Old Stylehavebeenchangedto theNew Style).

9. Ibid.,137.

10. Ibid.See also T. K., "MoskovsTdzamyslyprotyhr.-kat. v

Tserkvyv Halychyni
1914i 1915rr.,"NovaZoria (Lviv),27 January1935,6.

11. 6.
T. K., "MoskovsTdzamysly,"
' 138.
12. "Plany vozsoiedyneniia,'"
Kornylovych,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 355

13. Ibid.,144.

14. diietseziï,"NovaZoria,28 April1935,9.

"NarysistoriiStanyslavivsTcoï

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. See R. P. BrowderandA. F. Kerensky,eds.,TheRussianProvisionalGovernment,

1917: Documents(Stanford, 1961),2:838.

18. BohdanBudurowycz, "SheptytsTcyi and theUkrainianNationalMovementafter

1914,"inMoralityand Reality,ed. Magocsi,49.

19. intheRussianEmpire,"324.
Muzychka,"SheptytsTtyi

20. See LevytsTcyi,

lstoriiavyzvol'nykh pt.3 (1930), 595-96.
zrnahan',

21. Ibid.,652-53.

22. überdieSitzungen
Protokolle
Stenographische desHerrenhausesdes Reichsrates,
22ndsession,28thSitzung,28 February1918 (Vienna,1918),809-12.

23. V. O. Bunchenko etal.,comp.,Pravdaprouniiu:Dokumenty 2ndrev.

i materialy,
ed. (Lviv,1968),147-48;UonhynTsehelYkyi, Vidlegenddo pravdy:Spomynypro
podiivUkraïni zv'iazaniz PershymLystopadom1918(NewYorkandPhiladelphia,
1960),193-94.See also IvanVlasovsicyi, NarysistoriiUkraïns'koïPravoslavnoï
Tserkvy, vol. 4, 1
pt. (New Yorkand BoundBrook, N. J.,1961),45^7.

24. "NarysistoriiStanyslavivsTcoï
diietseziï,"9.

25. See Hryhorii

Khomyshyn, "Z ostannikh
lit:Moï spomynyi reflieksiï,"
NovaZoria,
3 November1938, 1-2; and PetroMel'nychuk, VladykaHryhoriiKhomyshyn:
(RomeandPhiladelphia,
Patriot-misionar-muchenyk 1979), 115-16.

26. Mel'nychuk,
VladykaHryhorii 116.
Khomyshyn,

27. See theletterof GeneralTadeusz Rozwadowski,thecommander of thePolish

forcesin Lviv,to Metropolitan as quotedin CyrilleKorolevskij,
SheptytsTcyi,
AndréSzeptyckyj
Métropolite 1865-1944,OperaTheologicaeSocietatis
Scientificae
Ucrainorum 16-17 (Rome,1964),407-8.

28. IosafatZhan[Josaphat
Jean]andBohdanKazymyra,
Velykyi (Edmonton,
Mytropolyt
1954),7-8.

29. Taras Hunczak,ed., Ukraineand Poland in Documents,1918-1922, pt. 1,

ShevchenkoScientific
Society,SourcesfortheHistoryof Rus'-Ukraine
12 (New
York,1983),209-11.
356 BUDUROWYCZ

30. Zhan,Velykyi 11-12.

Mytropolyt,

31. See Hunczak,Ukraineand Poland,pt.2, 3 11- 12.

32. travels,see MykhailoH. Marunchak,

For a detailedaccountof Sheptytsicyi's
MytropolytAndrei na
Sheptyts'kyi Zakhodi1920-1923(Winnipeg andEdmonton,
1981).

33. Zhan,Velykyi 14-15.

Mytropolyt,

34. Marunchak,
Mytropolyt 36.
AndreiSheptyts'kyi,

35. Sprawaukrainska
Ibid.,39-45.See alsoMiroslawaPapierzyñska-Turek, wDrugiej
Rzeczypospoiltej1922-1926(Cracow,1979),198-200.Somescholarsoftheperiod,
e.g.,LilianaHentosh,havequestionedtheinformation regardingSheptyts'kyi's
desireforretirement,notinga lackofdocumentaryevidenceforsucha claim.

36. See Jerzy polskiz 1925 roku:Zagadnieniaprawno-polityczne

Wislocki, Konkordat
(Poznan,1977), 127.

37. Zhan,Velykyi 14-15.

Mytropolyt,

38. Fordetailssee Hryhorii

Khomyshyn, "Katolytsyzm chysubiektyvizmi psykhichna
vdacha: 'Vinets"antytselibatnoï
borofby;Vidpovid' IeremiïTeol'ogovy," Nova
Zoria, 15 September1935, 1-3; 22 September1935,3-4; 26 September1935,
3-4; and29 September1935,3. See also "NarysistoriiStanyslavivslcoï
diietseziï,"
9-10; Mel'nychuk,VladykaHryhorii Khomyshyn, 247; andPapierzyñska-Turek,
Sprawaukrainska, 97-99.

39. See Papierzyñska-Turek, 98.

Sprawaukrainska,

40. Ibid. For detailson Genocchi'sGalicianvisitsee GiovanniChôma,"La Visita

Apostolica delPadreGiovanniGenocchiinGalizia(UcrainaOccidentale) nell'anno
1923 [pt.2]," AnalectaOSBM, ser.2, sec. 2, vol. 3 (9), fase.3-4 (1960): 495-
512.

4 1. "NarysistoriiStanyslavivslcoidiietseziï,"9-10.

42. 356.
Khomyshyn,
VladykaHryhorii
Mel'nychuk,

43. 98-99.
Sprawaukrainska,
Papierzyñska-Turek,

44. Diietseziiav 1935 rotsi,"NovaZoria,28 April1935, 11.

"StanyslavivsTca

45. Fora detaileddiscussionoftheadvantages anddisadvantages oftheconcordat for

theUkrainiansinPolandseeWislocki,Konkordat polski,132-37;EdmundPrzekop,
"Der Griechisch-Katholische(unierte)Ritusimpolnischen KonkordatvomJahre
1925,"OstkirchlicheStudien(Würzburg) 28, no. 2-3 (September1979): 145-67;
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 357

andAndrzejZiçba,"Metropolita Kwartalnik
AndrzejSzeptycki," 92,
Historyczny
no. 4 (1985): 895.

46. polski,133.
Konkordat
Wistocki,

47. Ibid.,133-34.

48. Ibid.,134.

49. Ibid.,133-34.

50. See "Derzhavai tserkva:Promovapos. S. Khrutslcoho

na plenumisoimuz 24.III,
March1925,1-2; 1April1925,
znahodyratyfikatsiïkonkordatu,"D(7o(Lviv),31
2-3; and2 April1925,1.

51. Di/o,2 April1925,1.

52. "Bez poludyna ochakh,"Dilo, 2 February1925,2.

53. See table6 inJerzy

Wislocki,UposazenieKosciotai duchowieñstwa
katolickiego
w Polsce 1918-1939(Poznan,1981),92.

54. Ibid.,219.

55. Ibid.,306.

56. Ibid.,243.

57. loan Lutsyk,"Vidpovid'na dopysu 'Dili,'" Nova Zoria,29 December1938,3.

58. See "Nechuvanyi

vystupu soimi,"Meta (Lviv), 13 February1938,4-5.

59. Fora detailedaccountofthesedifficulties,

see "LystDr.AntonaPerehintsia,
advo-
katau Stanyslavovi,"in Mel'nychuk,
VladykaHryhorii Khomyshyn,345-53.

60. Inthisconnection,
see Papierzyñska-Turek, 94-96,andAndrzej
Sprawaukraiñska,
ki
Chojnowski,Koncepcjepolity narodowosciowej rzqdowpolskichw latach
1921-1939(Wroclaw,1979), 187-89.

61. For a concisediscussionof thebasic elementsof Byzantinismsee Ivan Kedryn,

"Ostrakhperedpovtorenniam istorii(Shcho tse takevyzantynizm?),"Meta, 3
September1933,3.

62. For an articulatecritiqueof Byzantinism,see Khomyshyn'spamphletPro

vyzantiistvo
(Stanyslaviv,1931);andTytHalushchynslcyi, i pochatky
"Osnuvannia
'NovoïZori,'"Nova Zoria,6 January1935,5.
358 BUDUROWYCZ

63. AndreiSheptytslcyi
as quotedin IosyfSlipyi,"Vyzantynizm
iak formakul'tury,"
Meta,22 October1933,3.

64. See Mel'nychuk,

VladykaHryhoriiKhomyshyn, 149 and 315. These and other
fromtheLatin-rite
borrowings listedinVictorJ.Pospishil,
Churchareconveniently
and
"SheptytsTcyi LiturgicalReform,"in Moralityand •,ed. Magocsi,
Reality
206-7.

65. andLiturgical
Fordetails,see Pospishil,"Sheptytslcyi 218-21.
Reform,"

66. See, forexample,Slowo (Vilnius),5 June1935,as quotedin Oko., "Novitnii

(Z pryvodu vystupu'spetsiv'u spravakhUnii'),"Meta, 23 June
tsezaropapizm
1935,2-3.

67. tezyv spravi

SlowoNarodowe(Lviv), 19 December1938,as quotedin"EndetsTci
Unii,"Dilo, 21 December1938,4.

68. Fordetails,seeTadeuszSliwa,"Kosciólgreckokatolicki w Polscew latach1918-

1939," inKosciólw DrugiejRzeczypospolitej(Lublin,1981),153-55.Someofthe
datesgiveninthatarticledifferfromthoseinothersources,notably Entsyklopediia
ukrainoznavstva:Slovnykova ed.Volodymyr
chastyna, Kubiiovych[Kubijovyö],10
vols.(ParisandNewYork,1955-1984),anditsupdatedEnglish-language version,
Encyclopedia ofUkraine,ed. Kubijovyõ[vols.1-2] andDanyloHusarStruk[vols.
3-5], 5 vols.(Toronto,1984-1993).

69. ofUkraine,vol. 1 ( 1984), 287.

Encyclopedia

70. Ibid.,1:312.

71. ukrainoznavstva:
Entsyklopediia vol.4 (1962), 1255.
chastyna,
Slovnykova

72. On Buchko,see Athanasius Velyky,"Buchko,Ivan,"inEncyclopedia ofUkraine,

1:308;and Pavlo Senytsia,ed.,Svityl'nyk Dzherelado istoriiUkraïns'koï
istyny:
Akademiiu L'vovi,pl.1 (TorontoandChicago,1973),
Bohoslovs'koï
Katolyts'koï
seeAtanasiiPekar,"Preosv.IvanLiatyshevsTcyi
215-16.OnLiatyshevsicyi, vladyka-
inAl'manakh
strazhdal'nyk," Stanyslavivs'koi materiialiv
zemli:Zbirnyk do istorii
Stanyslavova vol. 2 (New York,1985),381-83.
i Stanyslavivshchyny,

73. AtanasiiPekar,"Velykyipravednyk - VladykaMykolaCharnetsTcyi ChNIzb

(1884-1959)," in Al'manakh zemli,
Stanyslavivs'koi 2:379-81; and Senytsia,
Svityl'nyk
istyny,pt. 1,286-89.

74. See MaciejRataj,Pamietniki Konkordat

(Warsaw,1965),202; andWislocki, polski,
133-34.

75. Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka(1935-1945),vol. 4 (London,1972), 122-23 and

281.
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 359

76. On Slipyi'sappointment
and consecration,
see Senytsia,Svityl'nyk pt. 1,
istyny,
198-99.

77. See, forexample,IosyfOstashevsTcyi,

"Do pytan'hromadiansicoï
diial'nosty
ukraínsTcoho Meta,25 February1934,2-3.
dukhovenstva,"

78. Volodymyr Kuz'movych, "ChyukramsTcyikatolytsyzm sebe opravdav?(Do ioho

hromadsicoi Meta,28 April1935,3. See alsoTytHalushchynsTcyi,
probliematyky),"
i polity
"KatolytslcaAktsiia ka/'NovaZoria,13August1936,1-3; 16August1936,
4-5; and20 August1936,6.

79. Melnychuk,VladykaHryhorii 210-11.

Khomyshyn,

80. See "UNO,"NovaZoria,11August1935, 1-2; andMel'nychuk,

VladykaHryhorii
Khomyshyn,293.

8 1. VladykaHryhorii
Mel'nychuk, 3 18.
Khomyshyn,

82. See IuliianDzerovych,"Dumkypro praktychnu diial'nist'U.K.S.," Meta, 18

March1934,5; and25 March1934,5. Formoredetailsconsult"StatutTovarystva
UkrainsTcyi Soiuzu L'vovi,"Meta,25 August1935,3; and1 September
KatolytsTcyi
1935,3-4.

83. See M. P.,"K.A.U.M.,"Meta,27 October1935,4; and3 November1935,4-5.

84. M. P.,"KatolytsTca
Aktsiiai molod',"Meta, 17 November1935,2-3.

85. "NarysistoriiStanyslavivs'koïdiietseziï,"10.

86. See "Proorganizatsiini VidozvaPreosviashchennoho

osnovykatolykiv: Hryhoriia
Khomyshyna, do Vsech.Dukovenstva
EpyskopaStanyslavivsicoho, StanyslavivsTcoï
Eparkhiïz pryvoduPastyrsTcoho
Lystupro KatolytslaiAktsiiu,"Nova Zoria, 4
November1934,3; and 11 November1934,5-6.

87. Hryhorii Khomyshyn, "Natsional'nachyobiavlenavira,abo rozvalchyshliakh

tvorchosty: PastyrsTcyi
lyst... do dukhovenstva Stanyslavivslcoïeparkhiï,"
Nova
Zoria, 5 December1935, 1-3; 8 December1935,4; and 12 December1935,4
(also publishedas a separatepamphlet).See also OsypNazaruk,"Uzasadnennisf
'Skaly,'"NovaZona, 3 May 1936,3-6; and7 May 1936,3-4; MarkoGil',"'Skala'
i natsionalisty:
Za katolytsTcyitypchytalen,"Nova Zoria,20 August1936, 1-2;
and23 August1936,1-2; Teofil'Kostruba, "'Skala' i nashifashysty,"
NovaZoria,
8 October1936,4; andMel'nychuk, VladykaHryhorii Khomyshyn, 261.

88. Thisprohibition
was publishedin no. 10-12 of Vistnyk slavivs'koïEparkhiï
Stany
for1937.

89. ThetextofCortesi'sletterwas publishedin Vistnyk

Stanyslavivs'koïEparkhiï,no.
1-3 (1938): 3-5; andinthearticle"Sviashchenstvo
i organizatsiï,"
NovaZoria,16
360 BUDUROWYCZ

January1938,inwhichKhomyshyn hisprohibition.
reaffirmed Forthereaction of
theUkrainian secularpress,see "Zasluzhenapokhvalaza dobryiuchynok," Dilo,
16 January1938,6; and "KatolytsTcyi pidkhidta ukraínslca
diisnisf(Z pryvodu
ingerentsiï
Apostol'sTcoi
Nuntsiiatury v korysfzaboronystanyslavivsicoho vla-
dyky),"Dilo, 25 January1938,1-2.

90. Forthetextofthelettersee Meta,7 January

1936,2.

9 1. Meta,11 November1934, 6.

92. See, forexample,Volodymyr "Dumkyna temupraktyky

Kuz'movych, U.K.S.,"
Meta,1 January1936,5-6.

93. Ibid.,5.

94. See "NarysistoriiStanyslavivslcoï

diietseziï,"10; see also IosyfOstashevsTcyi,
"Tserkovni
bratstva,"Meta,27 March1938,3; and 17April1938,3.

95. "Societyof SaintPaul theApostle,"in Encyclopediaof Ukraine,vol. 4 (1993),

798.

96. Ibid.,797. See also "Zahal'niZborystanovoïorganizatsiï Meta,

sviashchenykiv,"
27 January 1935,1; and"VidTovarystva sv.Andreia- Zahal'niZbory,"Meta,24
July1938,5-6.

97. "NarysistoriiStanyslavivslcoïdiietseziï,"10.

98. BNT v Halychyni

See "Diial'nist' vid 1923r.do uv'iaznenniaMytropolyta Iosyfa
11kvitnia1945r.(50-littiaBNT)," inSvityl'nyk ed. Senytsia,pt.2 (1976),
istyny,
13-63.

99. Fordetailssee A. Ch.,"V 10-littia'NovoïZori,'"NovaZoria,6 January 1935,2;

TytHalushchynsTcyi,"Osnuvannia i 'Novoï
pochatky Zori/"Nova Zoria,6 January
1935,4-5; "Rolia 'Novoï Zori' i spravapolitychnoho ukrainsTcoho
otverezinnia
hromadianstva v Halychyni,"Nova Zoria,6 January 1935,6-7; "'Nova Zoria' v
1939rotsi,"NovaZoria,29 December1938,1; andMel'nychuk, Vladyka Hryhorii
Khomyshyn, 210-18.

100. Mel'nychuk, 216-18.

Khomyshyn,
VladykaHryhorii

101. Fordetails,see O. Ch. Ia., "UkraínsTca presa,"Meta,9 February

katolytsTca 1936,
3-4; andentriesformostof theabove titlesin EntsyklopediiaukraXnoznavstva:
Slovnykova chastynaandEncyclopediaofUkraine.

102. For details,see PetroB. T. Bilaniuk,"Basilians,"in TheModernEncyclopedia

ofRussianand SovietHistory,vol. 47 (GulfBreeze,Fla., 1988),60-65; Irynei
Nazarko,"BasilianMonasticOrder," inEncyclopedia ofUkraine,1: 182-84; Isydor
"Narys
Patrylo, istorii
Halytsicoï ChSVV,"
provintsiï AnalectaOSBM 17 (1982):
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 361

43-130; and MeletiusM. Wojnar,"Basilians(ByzantineRite),"New Catholic

Encyclopedia,vol. 2 (New York,1967), 152-54.

103. B. K., "Studyty,"inEntsyklopediia

ukrainoznavstva:
Slovnykova vol. 8
chastyna,
(1976),3086.See also IvanKhoma,"StuditeFathers,"
inEncyclopedia
ofUkraine,
vol. 5 (1993), 83.

104. Volodymyr Malanchuk,"Redemptorysty," in Entsyklopediia

ukrainoznavstva:
Slovnykovachastyna,vol. 7 (1973), 2481; and WasylLencykand Volodymyr
Malanchuk,"Redemptorist Fathers,"inEncyclopediaofUkraine, 4:327. See also
"O.O. Redemptorysty
v Stanyslavovi," Meta, 18 March1934,3^.

105. OleksanderMokh,"NashiSestrySluzhebnytsi P.N.D. Mariiv 1938rotsi,"Nova

Zoria, 10 November1938,4-5; and 13 November1938,4-5. See also Mykhailo
Vavryk,"SestrySluzhebnytsiPreneporochnoï Divy Marii,"in Entsyklopediia
ukrainoznavstva:
Slovnykova
chastyna,7:2783;andIvanKhoma,"SistersServants
ofMaryImmaculate," in Encyclopediaof Ukraine,4:719-20.

106. MykhailoVavryk,"SestryVasyliianky," in Entsyklopediiaukrainoznavstva:

Slovnykovachastyna,7:2782-83; and"BasilianOrderofNuns,"inEncyclopedia
of Ukraine,1:184-85.

107. See theentriesforthesecongregations ("Sistersof SaintJoseph"and "Studite

Sisters")in Encyclopediaof Ukraine,4:719; and 5:84; and for"Iosyfitky" and
"Studytky" inEntsyklopediia ukrainoznavstva:
Slovnykova chastyna,vol.3 (1959),
9-10; and vol. 8 (1976), 3086. OtherGreekCatholicmonasticcongregations for
womenactivein Galicia includedtheSt. Josaphat'sSisters(Iosafatky), founded
in 1911,whichin 1939 had 10 housesand close to 40 nuns,and theso-called
Myronosytsi (Myrrh-Bearing Women),with3 housesand94 sisters. Fordetails,see
"SistersofSaintJosaphat," ofUkraine,
Encyclopedia 4:719; andIvanKorovytsTcyi
and IsydorPatrylo, "Chernetstvo,"Entsyklopediiaukrainoznavstva:Slovnykova
chastyna, vol. 10 (1984), 3711.

108. See article13 of theconcordatin Wistocki,Konkordat

polski,264 (theFrench
original)and274 (theofficialPolishtranslation).

109. IryneiNazarko,"MariisTdTovarystva,"in Entsyklopediiaukrainoznavstva:

Slovnykova chastyna,4: 1466;and"MarianSocieties,"inEncyclopedia
ofUkraine,
vol. 3 (1993), 311.

110. In thisconnectionsee "Ukrainsicyi

neonatsionalizm
i katolytsyzm,"
Meta, 17
December1933,2; "Propovid'dlia AkademichnoiMolodi,"Meta,24 December
1933,2; "Natsiiaponaduse,"Meta, 14 January
1934,3-4; and "Natsionalizm
i
Meta,18 August1934,3-4.
katolytsyzm,"

111. See Ann SlusarczukSirka,"Sheptytsicyi in Educationand Philanthropy,"

in
Moralityand Reality,ed. Magocsi,275-76.
362 BUDUROWYCZ

112. "Apostol'sTcyi
Nuntsiiu L'vovi,"Meta,25 December1938, 2.

113. See "ZasnuvanniaBohoslovsTcoï

Akademiï"in Svityl'nyk ed. Senytsia,pt.
istyny,
1,41-56.

114. See Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,

4:488 and494-95.

115. For details,see "BohoslovsTcaAkademiiapidchasdruhoïsvitovoïviiny,"in

Svityl'nyk
istyny,ed. Senytsia,
pt.2, 71-87.

116. See "Inshidukhovniseminariiv XIX i XX st.,"in Svityl'nyk ed. Senytsia,

istyny,
pt.1,36-38; and"StanyslavivsltaDiietseziiav 1935rotsi,"11.

in theRussianEmpire,"322-24.
117. Muzychka,"Sheptytslcyi

118. Le SaintSiège et la situationreligieuseen Pologneet dans les Pays Baltes,pt.

2, 1942-1945,Acteset documentsdu SaintSiège relatifsà la secondeguerre
mondiale,éd. PierreBletet al., 3 (VaticanCity,1967),565-66.

119. Ibid.,565.

120. Ibid.

121. For details,see "Velehradslti in Svityl'nyk

kongresy" ed. Senytsia,pt. 1,
istyny,
548-55.

in Svityl'nyk
v PynsTcu,"
122. See "Uniinikonferentsiï ed. Senytsia,pt. 1,
istyny,
555-74.

123. "Uniinyiz'ïzd u L'vovi,"Svityl'nyk

istyny, pt. 1,574-92.
ed. Senytsia,

124. WieslawMystek, wPolsce wlatach1918-1939(Warsaw,1966),

Kosciótkatolicki
540.

125. Le SaintSiègent. 2, 929.

126. Mystek, 171.

Kosciólkatolicki,

127. See "Uniiane daie ïm spaty,"Meta,6 February1938,2.

4:328, 330, 500, 502.

128. Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,

129. Fordetails,see Vasyl'Lentsyk's

unpaginated ("Vstup")toShematyzm
introduction
dukhovenstva
hreko-katolyts'koho s'koi
Apóstol' administratsiï , 2nd
Lemkivshchyny
ed. (Stamford,Conn.,1970); andWisiocki,Konkordatpolski,131-32.

Meta, 4 March 1934,

dlia Lemkivshchyny,"
130. See "ApostolYkyiAdministrator
1; "LemkivsTca
Apostola Administratura,"
Meta,4 March1934,2; Wisiocki,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 363

Konkordatpolski,132;"Lemkivslta inEntsyklopediia
ApostolicaAdministratura,"
ukrai'noznavstva:Slovnykovachastyna,4:1280-81; and "Lemko Apostolic
in EncyclopediaofUkraine,3:76.
Administration,"

Nuntsiiav Varshavido I.E.

131. Forthetextofthelettersee "LystI.E. Apostol'sTcoho
ta
Mytropoly Meta,
Andreia," 25 March 1934, 1.

na
132. "Rezoliutsiï UND-a v spravi utvorenniaApostol's'koïAdministratury
Lemivshchynu," Meta,25 March1934,6.

133. "ApóstolYkyi
Administrator," to
Meta,4 March 1934, 1; Lentsyk,introduction
andWistocki,
Shematyzm', polski,132.
Konkordat

134. "PershePastyrsTcePoslaniieD-ra VasyliaMastsiukha,"Nova Zoria, 14 March

polski,132.
1935,5; and 17 March1935,5. See also Wislocki,Konkordat

135. See "NovyiAdministrator Nova Zoria, 16 July1936, 1; and

Lemkivshchny,"
toShematyzm.
introduction
Lentsyk,

toShematyzm.
introduction
136. Lentsyk,

"Zakhidn'o-
137. Diariuszi tekiJana Szembeka,4:327. See also MykolaAndrusiak,
ukrainsTce in
piemialemkiv," Lemkivs'kyi kalendar 1966 1966),126;and
(Toronto,
Lentsyk,introductionto Shematyzm.

138. "Treba vyzvolyty Hutsul'shchynu zpid ukrainsTcykh vplyviv':Za Apostol'sicu

Administratsiiu
dlia Hutsul'shchyny"(an in
article IlustrowanyKurierCodzienny
no.
[Cracow], 161 for1935, as quotedin Nova Zoria, 16 June1935, 4).

139. See Volodymyr

Kubiiovych, vHeneraVnii
Ukraïntsi HuberniX 1939-1941:lstoriia
Tsentral'noho
Ukraïns'koho (Chicago,1975),24 and289-91.
Komitetu

140. Ibid.,290-91.

introduction
141. Lentsyk, toShematyzm.

polski,264 (theFrench
142. See article12 of theconcordatin Wislocki,Konkordat
original)and274 (theofficialPolishtranslation).

143. "Nastroïl'vivsTcoi
vulytsiu varshavsicomusoimi:Druhaprotyukrainsica
promova
posla VoitsiekhovsTcoho," Dilo, 17 nichu
February1938, 3; and "UkrainsTca
varshavsTcomu soimi:Prodovzhennia dyskusiïnadbudzhetom vnu-
ministerstva
trishnikhsprav,"Dilo, 18 February1938,7.

144. Fortheabridgedtextof theletter, ks. biskupaChomyszyna,"

see "Listpasterski
SprawyNarodowosciowe5, no. 2-3 (May-July1931): 274-79. See also "Dva
vystupy vladykyv natsional'no-hromadsTcykh
stanyslavivsicoho Dilo,
spravakh,"
22 and24 March1931,1-3.
364 BUDUROWYCZ

145. For a summary of theseviewssee "Pislia poiavyPastyrsTtoho Lysta,"Dilo, 25

March1931,1-2; "Politychnyi vystupstanyslavivsicoho
vladyky v zerkalipolYkoï
presy,"Dilo,27 March1931, 1; "Z holosiv ukramsicoï Dilo,28 March1931,
presy,"
2-3. Inthisconnection,
see also "Vidnoshennia EpyskopaHryhoriia Khomyshyna
do PolYkoïDerzhavy,"Nova Zoria, 5 February1935,3 (an articleby Henryk
Lubieñskioriginallypublishedin Czas [Vilnius],29 January1935).

146. A detaileddiscussionofDontsov'sideologyis givenbyMykhailoSosnovsTcyi

in
Dmytro Dontsov:Politychnyi
portret(NewYork,1974);see alsoAlexander
Motyl,
The Turnto theRight:TheIdeologicalOriginsand Development of Ukrainian
Nationalism,7979-7929(Boulder,Colo., 1980).

147. Fora Catholiccritique 's ideology,

ofDontsov seeOsyp Nazaruk, na,"
"Dontsovshchy
NovaZona, 15 May 1938,2.

Zhyttia-podii-liudy(New York,1976),144-45and288-90.
148. See IvanKedryn,

"PolandandtheUkrainian
149. Fordetails,see BohdanBudurowycz, Problem,1921-
1939,"CanadianSlavonicPapers25, no.4 (December1983):486-88.

150. Kedryn,
Zhyttia-podii-liudy, 436-37; seealsoVolodymyrMatsidv,"Patsy
fikatsiia
in ShliakhamyZolotohoPodillia: Regional'nyizbirnyk
v Ternopil'shchyni,"
vol. 2 (Philadelphia,
TernopiVshchyny, 1970), 120.

AndreiSheptyts'kyi:
151. StepanBaran,Mytropolyt i diial'nist1
Zhyttia (Munich,1947),
96-97.

152. FordetailsofSheptyts'kyi see Dilo, 1 October1930,1; 2 October

's intervention,
1930,4; 3 October1930,4; 4 October1930,4; 5 October1930,1; 7 October1930,
1; 10 October1930,4; 11 October1930,3; and 14 October1930,4.

153. "Pisliakonfiskaty lysta,"Dilo, 21 October1930,4, and"Konfiskata

pastyrsTcoho
pastyrsicoho epyskopatu,"
hreko-katolytsTcoho
lysta Dilo, 21 October1930,5.

neonatsionalizm
154. See,forexample,"Ukrainslcyi Meta,17 December
i katolytsyzm,"
1933,2.

za volodinniadushamy,'"
155. "Manivtsi'borofby 1933,2.
Meta,10 September

molodi,"Dilo, 22 May 1932,1.

156. "Slovo do ukrainsTcoï

see "SviatoU.M.Kh.,"Dilo, 9 May 1933,

157. Fora detailedaccountofthefestivities,
1-2.

Dilo, 5 August1934, 3.
158. "Holos Mytropolyta,"

159. Interviewconductedby J. Radzimiñski,publishedin TygodnikIlustrowany

(Warsaw),5 May 1935, as reportedin "'Shukaiemo mostuporozuminnia':
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 365

MytropolytSheptytsTcyi
propolVko-ukraínsia Dilo, 5 May 1935,3;
probliemy,"
and in "Mytropolyt
KyrAndreipropoiyko-ukraínsice
pytannia,"Meta, 12 May
1935,3.

160. Fordetailsonthe"normalization,"see Kedryn, Zhyttia-podiï-liudy,252-58;and

Budurowycz, "Poland and theUkrainian Problem," 490-92. The of the
attitude
GreekCatholichierarchy tothispolicyis discussedin IvanMakukh,Na narodnii
sluzhbi(Detroit,1958), 458 and469-70.

161. See " UkrainsTcy

i KatolytsTcy
i EpyskopatHalytsTcoïTserkovnoïProvintsiï
v spravi
podii na Vel. Ukraïni
do vsikh liudeidobroï
voli,"Meta, 30 July1933, 1; and29
October1933, 1.

162. See "Krovavidemonstratsii u L'vovi,"Dilo, 17April1936,5; and 18April1936,

nauka,"Nova Zoria,23 April1936,1-2; "V oblychchi
1 and5; "L'vivsTca komu-
nistychnoïnebezpeky," NovaZoria, 14 May 1936,1-2; "Ubyvstvokomunaramy
ukrainslcohodiiachav Nastasovi, Dilo,3 September
pov.Ternopil'," 1936,1; Stepan
Baran,"Iak tsebulov Nastasovi?"Dilo, 4 September 1936,2-4; "Nastasiv,"Dilo,
5 September1936, 1-2; "Odnymfrontom protykomuny!"Meta, 13 September
1936,2; and"Kryvavanediliav Nastasovi,"Meta, 13 September1936,3-4.

i pidlozheviinyv Espaniï,"Meta,30 August1936,3.

163. See, forexample,"Prychyny

164. "PastyrsTcyi
lystMytropolyta Dilo, 8 August
protykomunizmu,"
Sheptytsicoho
1936,3-4.

165. See Budurowycz,

"PolandandtheUkrainian 492-94.
Problem,"

166. Makukh,Na narodniisluzhbi,469-70.

167. See DenysTelishchuk, "V oboronipravukrainsicoï movy,"Meta, 23 February

1936, 2-3; and 22 March 1936, 4-5; "Masovi protsesyprotyukrainsicykh
sviashchenykiv,"Dilo, 22 December 1937, 7; Lev Hankevych,"UkraïnsTce
prizvyshchev metrykal'nykhknyhakh i karnepravo,"Dilo, 17August1938,6-7;
"Nikhtone zakhytaienashohodoviriai poshanydo nashohodukhovenstva," Dilo,
17September 1938,2-3; andKost'LevytsTcyi, ta 'Novakovski,'"
"'NovakovsTcyi'
Dilo, 3 March1939,2. See also Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,4:614.

168. Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,4:614.

169. See, forexample,thecase of FatherBadan,theGreekCatholicparishpriestof

Zavadka (theeparchyof Przemysl),on whosebehalfMsgr.Felipe Cortesi,the
papalnuncioinWarsaw,interceded withJanSzembek,undersecretaryofstatein
thePolishMinistryofForeignAffairs(ibid.,4:599, 610, 613).

170. Ukraine:A Concise Encyclopedia,ed. Volodymyr Kubijovyõ,vol. 2 (Toronto,

1971), 193.AccordingtothePolishbiweeklyWolai Czyn,in 1938therewereon
theterritory
ofGalicia(i.e.,inthePolishprovinces[województwa]
ofStanyslaviv
366 BUDUROWYCZ

andTernopiland in thepartof theprovinceof Lviv eastoftheriverSan) 2,121

GreekCatholicparishes,
2,160churches,1,030missionchurches andchapels,and
whiletheRomanCatholicshadin thesamearea707 parishes,730
2,002priests,
1,032chapels,and 1,018priests(see Nova Zoria,7 August1938,3).
churches,

171. See S. K., "Mishanipodruzhav svitlichysel,"Meta, 18 November1934,7; 25

November1934,7; 9 December1934,6; and 16 December1934,6. See also
"Mishanipodruzha," Meta,23 January 1938,2; "Porazminyty kalien-
iuliiansicyi
dar"(an articlein GoniecWarszawski, 7 March1939,as quotedinDilo, 9 March
essenondébet:Chylatynka,
1939,4); "Fidesex necessitate kalien-
hryhoriianslcyi
dari psevdo-statystykanablyzyf dva narody?"Dilo, 11 March1939,3.

172. See Baran,Mytropolyt

AndreiSheptyts
'kyi,25-26.

173. Kubiiovych, v Heneral'niiHuberniï,24, 289-90.

Ukraintsi

174. "Kyrynia Meta,18November1934,2. Forotherdetailsof

pidvydom'oborony,'"
Hudeoek'svisit,see "Vidvidyny
BohoslovsTcoï
AkademiïpapsTcym vizytatorom
Eksts,o. d-romIvanomHudechkom Ch.N.Izb.,"inSvityl'nyk ed. Senytsia,
istyny,
pt.1,592-95.

175. Zemliai voliaas quotedin "'Katolytsyzm' vozhakiv,"

halytsico-moskvofil'sTcykh
Meta,23 December1934,3 and6.

176. See, forexample,"PisliaSt.GrabsTcoho Z ukraínsTcoho

Br.VoitsiekhovsTcyi: dniau
soimi,"Dilo, 20 February1938,7; "Myrchyviinaz moskvofilamy?" Dilo, 1April
1938,1-2; "Chymozhnapomyrytysia z moskovfilamy?"Dilo, 9 April1938,1-2;
"Nashestanovyshche v spravi'myrachyviiny'z moskvofilamy," Dilo, 3 August
1938,1-2; 4 August1938: 1-2; and5 August1938: 1-2.

Na ïkh tliparudumokpro zrizuvannia

177. Osyp Nazaruk,"Velykodnivrazhinnia:
TalierhofsTcykh Nova 1
khrestiv," Zoria, May 1938,1-2.

toDr.AndrzejA. ZiçbaofthePoloniaResearchInstitute,
178. I amgrateful Jagiellonian
forhavingmade availableto me his unpublished
University, paper,"National
- ReligiousMinority:
Majority PolishGreekCatholicsin the20thCentury."

179. See "Vidkry v

pidozrile:IezuitproPoliakiv hreko-katolyki
vanei trokhy
ttianespodi
[articlebyRev.JanUrbaninthebimonthly OriensforMarch-April 1938],"Nova
Zoria, 15 May 1938,3.

'poliaky,'"Dilo, 12 February1939,2.
180. See "Hreko-katolyky

181. AndreiShepty tslcy (Zhovkva, 1904),

i,Do Polakówobrzadkugrecko-katolickiego
6, as quotedbyRyszardTorzecki,"Shepty i andPolishSociety,"in Morality
tsicy
and Reality,ed. Magosci,77.

182. "Kul'turanovykhbaktsylivrozkladu(Z pryvodu poiavynovoï hreko-pol'sTcoi

Meta,7 April1935,2.
'orientatsiï'),"
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 367

183. Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,4:327,492, 562-63, 598-99,613.

184. See "Khochufrevindykuvaty 1.200.000dush,"Nova Zoria, 3 November1938,

3; and "ProtyavtonomiïHalychyny," Nova Zoria, 4 December 1938, 2. The
sameproblemis examinedin "P. NovakovsTcyi bez rukavychok"[a discussionof
Zygmunt Nowakowski's "Milion
article dusz" in Kurier
Ilustrowany Codzienny,
5 June1939],Dilo, 7 June1939,3-4.

185. Fordetails,seeChojnowski
, Koncepcjepolityki
narodowosciowej, 226-32,andPiotr
Stawecki,
Nastçpcy Komendanta: a ka II
Wojsko polity wewnçtrznaRzeczypospolitej
wlatach1935-1939(Warsaw,1969), 188-99.See also"Khochuf pol'sTcykhtserkov
Zïzd 'shliakhty
ta zminykaliendaria: Dilo, 21 April
zagrodovei'v Stanyslavovi,"
1938,4.

186. StanislawStarzewski,"Ksiçgistanucywilnego,"DziennikPolski(Lviv), no. 15 1

for1938,as quotedin "Knyhytsyvil'nohostanu,"NovaZoria,9 June1938,3.

187. See "Atakyna sv. Iur,"Dilo, 5 February1938, 1-2; "Nechuvanyinapadposla

na mytr.
VoitsiekhovsTcoho Dilo, 5 February
SheptytsTcoho," 1938,8; "Istorychnyi
dokument na
napasty Mytropolyta: Avtentychnyi tekst
nakhabnoïpromovy posla
VoitsiekhovsTcoho v budzhetoviikomisiïsoimu,"Dilo, 6 February1938, 7;
"Vidpovid'pos.Volodymyra Tselevycha Dilo,6 February
pos.VoitsiekhovsTcomu,"
1938,7-8.

188. VolodymyrKuz'movych, "Z aktuformal'no-pravnoho - politychnyi

(Z pryvodu
dohovorupropouniinidobra),"Meta, 17 July1938,2.

112-13.
189. Myslek,Kosciólkatolicki,

190. "Zi soimu,"Dilo, 3 July1938,13.

191. "Ostanniiakt:DohovirmizhPol'shcheiuta Vatykanom

u spravipouniiatslcykh
tserkovnykhzemel',"
Dilo, 9 July1938, 1-2.

192. See "Udarv Pravoslavnu narid,"Dilo, 10 July1938,4-6;

Tserkvui ukraïnsicyi
andDiariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,4:212,495-96, 499, 501.

193. PiotrStaweckiputsthenumber as highas 127,including 91 churches,10chapels,

and26 housesofprayer(NastçpcyKomendanta, 194). In thisconnection,
see also
poslad-raStepanaBaranado PanaPremiiera
"Interpeliatsiia RadyMinistriv,"
Dilo,
24 July1938,12-13.

194. The textofSheptytsTcyi's

letteris givenin Baran,Mytropolyt
AndreiSheptyts'kyi,
108-10.

195. HryhoriiKhomyshyn,"Vidozva do vsechesnohodukhovenstvai virnykh

Stanyslavivsicoï
eparkhiï," 27 October1938,1-2.
Nova Teoria,
368 BUDUROWYCZ

196. "SpiinePastyrsTœPoslanniaEpyskopatu
HalytsTcoï z nahodyIuvyleiu
Provintsiï
950-littiaKhreshchennia Meta,7 August1938, 1-2; and Nova
Rusy-Ukraïny,"
Zona, 4 August1938,1-2.

"PolandandtheUkrainian
197. Fordetails,see Budurowycz, 495-96.
Problem,"

198. "Zaiava,"Dilo, 20 November1938, 1.

199. "Pryviti blahoslovenniaMytropolytaKyrAndreiadlia PremiieraKarpatsTcoï

Ukraïny,"Meta,4 December 1938, 1.
" z
200. See "PoklykMytropolyta,"Dilo,5 November1938, 1; and 'Potishy
tykozhnoho
-
Vas tsemiioboviazok. . . ': Pastyrslcyi v zviazku
Sheptytsicoho
lystMytropolyta
z ostannimy Dilo, 25 March1939,4.
podiiamy,"

201. ForthetextofCortesi's appeal,see "WizytaNuncjuszaApostolskiego,"Sprawy

Narodowosciowe Korteziiaz nahody
12,no.6 (1938): 637-38;and"Slovonuntsiia
iohopobutuu L'vovi,"Dilo, 16 December1938,4.

Apost.Nuntsiiai ioho 'slovo,'" Dilo, 16 December1938,4.

202. See K., "Vidvidyny

4:563.
203. Diariuszi tekiJanaSzembeka,

204. Ibid.,4:599.

205. Ibid.,4:614.

206. Ibid.,4:530-3land 536.

Hori,"Dilo, 20 June1939, 1; and "'Slovo

207. See "VelykeSviatona Sviatoiurslcii
Narodove'pro sviato40-litn'oho
iepyskopstvamytropolyta A. SheptytsTcoho,"
Dilo, 23 June1939,3.

208. Thus,forexample,laudatory articlesabouthimwerepublishedannuallyon the

occasionofhisnameday(13 December;i.e.,30 November according totheJulian
calendar)not onlyby the archeparchial weekly Meta, but also by thesecular
Ukrainianpress, and even routinereferencesto himwere couched in a reverential
tone.Afterhehadbeencriticized inthePolishSejm,massmeetings anddemonstra-
tionswereheldinhisdefensebyGalicianUkrainians as wellas bysomeOrthodox
Volhynians (see a seriesofreportsin Dilo forFebruaryandMarch1938underthe
generaltitle"V oboroniTserkvy taïï Holovy").

as Patronof theArts,"in
209. For details,see MyroslavaM. Mudrak,"SheptytsTcyi
and ed.
Morality Reality, Magocsi, 300.

whichwasoriginally
2 10. OneofthesewastheNationalHospital(NarodniaLichnytsia),
to bearSt. Josaphat's
intended Shpytaliaim.Mytropolyta
name("Posviachennia
Andreia,"Meta,17April1938,1).
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 369

211. See Kedryn,

Zhyttia-podiï-liudy, 595 dnivsoviets'kym
3 18; andIvanNimchuk,
viaznem(Toronto,1950), 12.

212. Le SaintSiège,pt. 1, 1939-1941,145-46.

Relations,1932-1939 (New
Polish-Soviet
213. Fordetails,see BohdanBudurowycz,
York,1963).

processis givenin KeithSword,ed.,

discussionofthismultifaceted
214. An insightful
TheSovietTakeoverofthePolishEasternProvinces,1939-41 (London,1991).

215. Fordetails,see B . M. Babii, Vozz'iednannia

ZakhidnoïUkraïny 'koiuRSR
z Ukräins
(Kyiv,1954); andH. I. Lomov,NarodnizboryZakhidnoïUkraïny (Lviv,1959).

2 16. See, forexample,thearticlebyF. Iastrebov, dukhivnytstvo

"UniatsTce na sluzhbiu
polYkohopanstva,"publishedin theKyivdailyKomunist on 9 October1939and
subsequently intheWestern
reprinted press,as quotedin"Bol'shevytsTca
Ukrainian
relihiina ka v ZakhidniiUkraïni,"
polity inZakhidniaUkrainapidbol'shevykamy,
IX. 1939-VI.1941,ed. MilenaRudnytsTca, 117-18(New York,1958).

Pravdapro uniiu,291-93.
is givenin Bunchenko,
217. The textofthedeclaration

218. In thisconnection,see, forexample,AndreiSheptytsTcyi, Pys'ma-poslannia

Mytropolyta Andreiaz chasivbol'shevyts'koi
okupatsiï(Yorkton,Sask., 1961),
4; and Bunchenko,Pravdapro uniiu,293. On thedivisionand subsequentcol-
relihiinapolityka,"119.
ofChurchlands,see "Bol'shevytslca
lectivization

219. "Bol'shevytsTcarelihiinapolityka,"120; see also "Martyrolohiia ukrainsTcoho

dukhovenstvapid panuvanniambol'shevykiv,"in Zakhidnia Ukraina pid
bol'shevykamy,ed. RudnytsTca,139. SheptytsTcyi'sappeal to NikitaKhrushchev
(thenFirstSecretaryoftheCentralCommittee oftheCommunist PartyofUkraine)
seemsto haveeased thissituation(ibid.,142).

220. . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koi
Pys'ma-poslannia
SheptytsTcyi, okupatsiï,4-5 and
10.

221. Ibid., 11 and 67. In orderto alleviatethissituation,SheptytsTcyitriedto recruit

newcandidatesforthepriesthood and organizedinformal coursesof instruction
totrainthemforthatpurpose(ibid.,13 and 17-18),buttheresponsetohisefforts
was less thanencouraging (see Le SaintSiège,pt. 1, 440).

222. TheordealoftheGreekCatholicmonksandmonasteries inGaliciaduringthefirst

Sovietoccupation(September1939-June1941)is vividlydescribedbyMarkoM.
Dyrda(himselfa Basilianmonk)in "Shliakhomsviashchenyka: 1933-1946,"in
Na Khrystovii
nyvi(New York,1978),26-61.

223. Sheptyts'kyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia. . . z chasiv bol'shevyts'koi
okupatsiï,36-37.
370 BUDUROWYCZ

Similarsentiments inthemetropolitan's
werealso expressed messageof 19March
1940to all GreekCatholicnunsin Galicia(ibid.,39-40).

224. Inthisconnection
see,forexample,John-PaulHimka,TheGreekCatholicChurch
SocietyinAustrianGalicia (Cambridge,
and Ukrainian Mass., 1986).

225. See BohdanR. Bociurkiw, andtheUkrainian

"SheptytsTcyi GreekCatholicChurch
undertheSovietOccupationof 1939-1941," inMorality ed. Magocsi,
andReality,
102andll8n7.

226. Ibid.,102-3. Interestingly enough,SheptytsTcyi usedthesamearticle,whichalso

recognized freedom ofconscienceandguaranteed freedom ofreligious
worshipfor
all citizens,as hischiefweaponinarguing, inhisletteraddressedtotheprovincial
department ofeducation inLviv,thatthespirit
oftheconstitution
wasbeingviolated
by those who were turning schools intotools of propagandaand that
atheistic
this,in turn,was boundtoimpairtheprestigeoftheSovietregime(SheptytsTcyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï
okupatsiï,44-46).

227. SheptytsTcyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia okupatsiï,17.
. . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

52 and55.
228. See, forexample,Dyrda,"Shliakhomsviashchenyka,"

229. Thus,forexample,inoneoftheletters tohisclergySheptytsTcyi

addressed referred
tothearticle"Glavauniiatov," published intheMoscowweeklyBezbozhnikof 11
April1940,whichcontaineda numberofpersonalaccusationsagainsthim- see
hisPys'ma-poslannia. . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï 60.
okupatsiï,

230. In thisconnection,
see a detailedaccountof theattitudeof theSovietauthori-
ties towardBishop Khomyshyn and his associates,thegradualseizureof the
propertyof theStanyslaviveparchy,and thebishop'sreactionto thesedevelop-
ments,in AvksentiiBoichuk(therectorof theGreekCatholictheologicalsemi-
naryinStanyslaviv),"Moï perezhyvanniapidbol'shevykamy: 1939-1940,"inNa
Khrystoviinyvi,105-56.

231. SheptytsTcyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia okupatsiï,1-2.
. . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

232. Ibid.,75-76.

233. Ibid.,15.

234. Ibid.,16.

vannia,"115-18.
235. Boichuk,"Moï perezhy

236. Le SaintSiège,pt.1, 424.

237. See StepanBiliak,"V sitiakhNKVD," in ZakhidniaUkraïnapid bol'shevykamy,

ed. RudnytsTca,415-16; and Olena Viter,"47 dopytivMateriIhumeni,"ibid.,
399-403.
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 371

238. SheptytsTcyi, . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

Pys'ma-poslannia 62 and63.
okupatsiï,

's letterof 26 December1939 to Eugène CardinalTisserant,

239. See SheptytsTcyi
of theCongregation
Secretary fortheEasternChurches,in Le SaintSiège,pt. 1,
172.

refersto thepope's refusalto granthis requestin his letterto Pope

240. SheptytsTcyi
PiusXII of29-31 August1942(Le SaintSiège,pt.2, 629).

241. In thisconnection,
see Budurowycz, and theUkrainianNational
"SheptytsTcyi
Movement," 60.

242. Sheptytslcyi, . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

Pys'ma-poslannia 6-8.
okupatsiï,

243. Ibid.,61.

244. See pt.3 ofthisarticle;andSenytsia,Svityl'nyk pt. 1, 198-99.

istyny,

245. See pt.4 ofthisarticle;Le SaintSiège,pt.2, 565-66; andBociurki

w,"SheptytsTcyi
andtheUkrainian GreekCatholicChurch,"108-9.

246. SheptytsTcyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia okupatsiï,12-13.
. . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

247. Ibid.,43.

248. Ibid.,19-20,21-24, 43, 44-46, 53-54, 59-61.

249. Ibid.,24 and56.

250. Thissynod(2 May-20December1940), whichdevelopedfromregularThursday

conferences oftheclergyheldat themetropolitan's residence,
adoptedthirty-one
decreesas well as manyrulesand regulations; it was concernedprimarily with
theological,pastoral,and organizationalproblems(see SheptytsTcyi, Pys'ma-
poslannia. . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï
okupatsiï,33-36,62-66,and68-71). Another
synodwas convokedin thespringof 1941, butit was unableto completeits
workbecauseoftheoutbreak oftheGerman-Soviet war.The rulesthatitadopted
are listedin Sheptytslcyi's Pys'ma-poslanniaMytropolyta AndreiaSheptyts'koho
ChSW z chasivnimets'koï Sask.,1969), 106-117.Fora more
okupatsiï(Yorkton,
comprehensive discussionof bothsynods,see Bociurkiw, "SheptytsTcyiand the
Ukrainian GreekCatholicChurch,"110-12.

251. SheptytsTcyi,
Pys'ma-poslannia . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï
okupatsiï,68 and75.
These figuresincreaseddramatically on theeve and duringthefirstdaysof the
German-Soviet war,withsome twelvepriestsmurdered or presumeddead and
thirty-three
imprisoned anddeported intheLvivarcheparchy alone,closetotwenty
victimsamongtheclergyof thePrzemysleparchy, whiletheChurch'slosses in
theStanyslaviv eparchyamounted tothreepriestskilledandeightimprisoned and
deported.See Le Saint 1
Siège,pt. , 425, 439, and491.
372 BUDUROWYCZ

252. SheptytsTcyí, . . . z chasivbol'shevyts'koï

Pys'ma-poslannia 72-73.
okupatsiï,

30 chervnia1941: Proholoshennia
253. IaroslavS. Stetslco, derzhavnosty
vidnovlenniq
Ukrainy (Toronto,1967),186-87.

254. See SheptytsTcyi's

rather in Le SaintSiège,pt. 1, 492.
causticcomments

255. "Bol'shevytsica in ZakhidniaUkraïnapid bol'shevykamy,

relihiinapolityka," ed.
123.
Rudnytsica,

256. Bociurkiw, and theUkrainianGreekCatholicChurch,"105; see

"Sheptytslcyi
also BishopKhomyshyn'sstatement thatonly3 ofover500 priestsinhiseparchy
abandonedtheCatholicfaith(Le SaintSiège,pt. 1,424).

257. "Bol'shevytsica
relihiina 123.
polityka,"

Narys istoriiUkraïns'koï
258. Fordetails,see VlasovsTcyi, PravoslavnoïTserkvy,
vol.
4,pt. 2(1966), 196-98.

259. Ibid.,198.

260. Bociurkiw, andtheUkrainian

"Sheptytslcyi GreekCatholicChurch,"114-15and
116;see also "Bol'shevytslca
relihiina 133-35;andDyrda,"Shliakhom
polityka,"
sviashchenyka," 93.

261. See Le SaintSiège,pt.1, 424,439, and49 1-92; and"Martyrolohiia

ukraïnsicoho
dukhovenstva," in Zakhidnia Ukraïna ed. 140-
pid bol'shevykamy, Rudnytsica,
41.

in Zakhidnia
262. Fordetails,see MykhailoRosliak,"Masakrav tiurmi'Brygidky,'"
Ukraïnapid bol'shevykamy, 441-44; M. P.,"Tyzhden'
ed. RudnytsTca, chervonoho
zhakhuu L'vovi,"inZakhidniaUkraïna ed.
pidbol'shevykamy,RudnytsTca, 465-70;
"Likvidatsiia
verkhivky," ed.Rudnytsica,
inZakhidniaUkraïnapidbol'shevykamy,
471-76; and "Kryvavyitanok,"in ZakhidniaUkraïnapid bol'shevykamy, ed.
Rudnytsica,477-92.

remarks
263. See, forexample,Sheptytslcyi's inLe SaintSiège,pt.
aboutthissituation
1,492.

pastoralletter
264. ThetextofSheptytslcyi's Vidderzhavy
is giveninKostPanTcivslcyi,
do komitetu(New Yorkand Toronto,1957), 112-13. The circumstances under
whichthemetropolitan
delegatedArchbishop himduringthe
Slipyito represent
meetingofthe"NationalAssembly"on 30 June1941arediscussedinStetslco, 30
chervnia7947, 186.

265. See "BlahoslovenniaIepyskopaHryhoriia Khomyshyna Ukraïnslcii

samostiinii
30 chervnia1941 r.,"inAl'manakhStanyslavivs'koï
Derzhavividnovlenii zemli,
2:7.
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 1914-1944 373

266. See KhomyshynandSheptytslcyi's

letters
toMsgr.AngeloRottaof6 and30 August
1941inLe SaintSiège,pt.1,423-25 and437^2.

267. In thisconnection,
see,forexample,Panicivsicy
i, Vidderzhavy
do komitetu,
87.

268. Le SaintSiège,pt.2, 627.

269. Panicivsicyi,
Vidderzhavydo komitetu,
42; and Bunchenko,Pravda pro uniiu,
301-2.

270. On Sheptytslcyi's
rolein thisbody,see PanTcivsTcyi,
Vidderzhavy
do komitetu,
73
and 86-87.

271. For the textof theseletters,see Sheptytsicyi,

Pys'ma-poslannia. . . z chasiv
nimets'koï 339-42;
okupatsiï, and Baran,
MytropolytAndreiSheptyts'kyi, 123-24,
127-28,and 130-31.

272. Germany, Reichsministerium

fürdiebesetzten Ostgebiete,microcopyno.T-454,roll
no.92,doc.EAP 99/434.Fora Ukrainiantranslation,seeTarasHunchak[Hunczak]
andRomanSol'chanyk [Solchanyk],eds.,Ukraïns'ka dumka
suspil'no-politychna
v 20 stolitti:
Dokumentyi materiialy,
vol. 3 (n.p.,1983),44-47.

273. Le SaintSiège,pt.2, 625-29.

274. See,forexample,thearticle
"Bozhakara,"Meta,13 December1936,2,byReverend
IosyfOstashevslcyi,
a regularcontributor
tothatpaperandin 1943-1944 a professor
at theGreekCatholicTheologicalAcademyin Lviv.

275. Chwila(Lviv),31 July1935,as quotedin "Cholobytnia

Zhydivsicoï Hromadyu
L'voviMytropolytovi Dilo, 1 August1935, 1; and "ZhydivsTca
Sheptytsicomu,"
Hromadau L'vovi- Mytropolytovi AndreieviSheptytsTcomu,"Meta, 11 August
1935. 1.

276. ShimonRedlich,"Shepty tslcyiandtheJewsduring WorldWarII," inMorality

and
Reality,ed. Magocsi,156; and KurtI. Lewin,"Metropolitan
AndreiSheptytslcyi
duringtheYears 1942-1944: Recollectionsof an Eyewitness,"
in Moralityand
Reality,ed. Magocsi,499.

277. Whiletheactualtextofthisletterhas notyetbeenfound,KosfPanicivsTcyi gives

itscontents
in Rokynimets'koïokupatsiï(New YorkandToronto,1965),29-30;
and Sheptytsicyi
himselfrefersto it in his reportto Pope Pius XII dated29-31
August1942(Le SaintSiège,pt.2, 628).

278. The textof thisletteris givenin Sheptytslcyi's . . . z chasiv

Pys'ma-poslannia
nimets'koï
okupatsiï,222-31.

279. Inthisconnection,
see Poland,Ministerstwo
SprawWewnçtrznych, Sprawozdanie
z Ziem Wschodnich
sytuacyjne za pierwszykwartal1943 r. (Sprawozdanieno.
5/43;London,1943),54.
374 BUDUROWYCZ

280. Ibid.,55.

281. Ibid.,85.

282. EdwardPrus,"Cerkiewgreckokatolicka w okresiewojnyi okupacjihitlerowskiej,"

1 (1975): 76.
ÉlqskieStudiaHistoryczne

283. See Poland,Ministerstwo

SprawWewnçtrznych, SprawozdanieDelegataRzaduza
pierwszykwartat1942 r.,pt.2, no. 5/42(Sprawozdanieno.5/42;London,1942),
263.

74.
284. Prus,"Cerkiewgreckokatolicka,"

285. Poland,Ministerstwo
SprawWewnçtrznych, Sprawozdaniesytuacyjne z krajuza
1942r.(Sprawozdanie
okresod26sierpniado Wpazdziernika no. l-a/43;London,
1943),23; andSprawozdanie
sytuacyjnez ZiemWschodnich za pierwszy kwartal
1943 r., 100.

286. In thisconnection,see, forexample,the statementsmade by the governor-

generalof occupiedPoland,Hans Frank,in Das Diensttagebuch
des deutschen
Generalgouverneurs in Polen 1939-1945, ed. WernerPräg and Wolfgang
Jacobmeyer 1975),458 and542.
(Stuttgart,

287. See Raportsytuacyjny okupacjiniemieckiej za czas od 29. VIL-30. VIII. 40 r.

(London 1941),20; Materialo sytuacjiw krajuw okresieod 1 listopada1941
rokudo 15. 1. 1942roku(London,1942),55; andSprawozdanie sytuacyjnez Ziem
Wschodnich za pierwszykwartal1943 r.,30.

at thattimein Volhyniaand partsof Galicia is

288. The stateof anarchyprevailing
letterto CardinalTisserantof 8 May 1943 (Le Saint
describedin SheptytsTcyi's
Siègent. 2,790-91).

Rokynimets'koï
289. See Patfkivsityi, okupatsiï, A. Armstrong,
224; andJohn Ukrainian
2nded. (New York,1963), 173.
Nationalism,

290. On SheptytsTcyi'sattitude Heike,Sie wollten

to theDivision,see Wolf-Dietrich
dieFreiheit:Die GeschichtederUkrainischenDivision1943-1945(Dornheim/H.,
n.d.),16; RomanKrokhmaliuk, Zahravana Skhodi:Spohadyi dokumenty zpratsi
u Viis'koviiUpravi<(Halychyna" v 1943-1945 rokakh(Torontoand New York,
1978),24 and 278; and Budurowycz, "Sheptytslcyiand theUkrainianNational
Movement," 65-66 and74nn102-3.

291. See IvanHryn'okh,SluhaBozhyiAndrei-blahovisnyk (Munich,1961),

iednosty
23-24; andLe SaintSiège,pt.2, 190-91.

292. Sheptytsicyi, . . . z chasivnimets'koï

Pys'ma-poslannia 230.
okupatsiï,

see ¡bid.,4 17-25.

293. Forthetextofthisletter,
 GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GALICIA, 19 14- 1944 375

294. Ibid.,440-43.

no. 5/44(London,1944),33.
z ZiemWschodnich,
295. Sprawozdaniesytuacyjne

no. 10/44(London,1944),50.
z ZiemWschodnich,
296. Sprawozdaniesytuacyjne

297. Ibid.,62.

SlunaBozhyiAndrei,23.
298. Hrynokh,

299. For thetextof thedeclaration,see Hunchakand Sol'chanyk,eds., Ukraïns'ka

chnadumka,3:95-96.
no-polity
suspiV

300. "Obov'iazokdushpastyriv
lyshatysia v parokhiïi v naitiazhchykh
khvylynakh,"
Pys'ma-poslannia z chasivnimets'koï
in Sheptytsicyi, . . . okupatsiï'433-35; see
also Hrynokh,SluhaBozhyiAndrei,22-23.