DIRECT
EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS,
Professor
Thomas E. Bird,
Queens College,
The City of New York
by Mr.
Smorodsky:
p. 97
Q.
Now, in 1921 with the Ukraine Autocephalous
Church created itself or resurrected from old tradition, did it develop a
structure?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And what was that structure?
A. Because of the circumstances
I have sketched of having been alienated, isolated, ignored by the Russian
Orthodox Church,
its hierarchy, its
structure, the creators of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in 1921
designed it very
specifically, very intentionally,
and with self-conscious legality as they confected their rules, bylaws,
constitutions, organized
it in such a way as
to be democratic at every level. So that while externally it had the structure
of a Metropolitan at its head,
of archbishops,
bishops, eparchies slash diocese, deanaries, at every level it was the people
who were involved in the
voting, in the
election, in the naming, in the appointing. That was a policy that was very
clear in the creation of this new
church, and, or this resurrected church, and
a policy that has continued down to the mid '90s.
Q.
Now,
earlier in the day we had testimony from Father Zawierucha with regards to the
structures of the UOC-USA in 1998. In
the Church of 1921, what was the
primary organ of authority?
A. The Church Sobor, meaning Council, which was a body of the clergy and laity, which was the supreme organ.
Q. Now, did the Sobor of the Church of
1921elect the Bishops and the Metropolitan?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did the Sobor of 1921 have an
administrative body similar to what is now known as the Consistory?
A. They used several different terms in the course of the '20s and '30s, but, yes, they had a similar body to the Consistory.
Q. Now, in that structure, they had eparchies?
A. Yes.
Q. Deanaries?
A. Yes.
Q. Parishes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this structure was all written in the
Canons of 1921?
A. Carefully developed and explained and defined in the Constitution of 1921. Right.
Q. What was the attitude of the rest of the
Orthodox world to this church?
A. Tragic because there
was a lack of understanding of the national feelings in Eastern Europe by the
great powers, by the
powers that be, by
church authorities and political leaders, and especially on the part of world
orthodoxy, ecumenical
orthodoxy. The notion
that bishops could be brought into being in any way other than by the laying
hands by other bishops
was totally
unacceptable. A term of insult and derision,
"samosvity," S-A-M-O-S-V-I-T-Y, was coined, meaning
self-consecrated
rather than legitimately ecclesiastically consecrated was coined. The leaders
of the Ukraine Autocephalous
Orthodox Church appealed to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, were anxious to settle their status, received
no reply from
the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
and were, of course, snubbed, I will begin to say, by the Russian Orthodox
Church;
indeed, and, in fact, attacked,
insulted, subverted, sabotaged in every possible way by the Moscow Patriarchate
who wanted
to destroy this upstart
organization. And since the Moscow Patriarchate was still functioning and a
recognized body,
Constantinople, similarly in
communion with Moscow, did not recognize the Ukrainian Church. And with those
two titans,
with those two giants of world
orthodoxy declaring this new church to be illegitimate, the Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox
Church was isolated, was treated as a pariah, was marginalized and ridiculed, and that
continued down until the mid 1990s.
Q.
Now, how did the structure of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church in Ukraine of 1921, how did that differ from the structure of
the other orthodox churches?
A. In externals, the terminology was the
canonical, the recognizable, the familiar terminology. The very real
substantive
difference was that -- I used the Word earlier --
democratic. Each level of the structure of the UAOC, the Autocephalous
Church, was
democratically arrived at. The priests were elected and invited, the bishops
were elected, something unknown in
the rest of the
orthodox world. Indeed, we got the clearest expression of world orthodoxy and
what is considered to be well-
regulated orthodox
church life in the Archdiocese of America, of the Greek Orthodox Church, where
a new charter has just
been granted by
Constantinople, and it is very clear that all decisions about the appointment,
naming, and consecration of
bishops is to come from the Holy Synod in
Constantinople.
Q. Now, going back to the chart that was used this morning as an
exhibit, at the bottom level, parishes, they own their own
property, correct?
A. Yes. As Father Bazyl
testified this morning, yes.
Q. The parishes also elected their own clergy,
correct?
A. Absolutely. So I would
-- I would quibble with the chart putting clergy on top of parish because it
was the parish that chose
the priest.
Q. Now --
MR.
REHILL: Excuse me. I don't
mean to interrupt.
THE
WITNESS: Please.
MR.
REHILL: Your testimony, you
are talking about in the Ukraine under the Constitution of 1921?
MR.
SMORODSKY: That is correct.
THE
WITNESS: Yes.
MR.
REHILL: Okay. Because the
chart is not that. The chart is the Church in the United States today.
THE
WITNESS: With respect,
Counsellor, the structures are identical. They have been maintained. 1921, 1936,
1950, 19 –
yes. So that
for all practical purposes, the chart is --
MR.
REHILL: Accurate?
THE WITNESS: -- it is
accurate and equivalent for both time periods.
MR. REHILL: Okay. I thought I just heard you testify that the priests of the Church today are elected by the congregation.
THE WITNESS: That the
priests in the UAOC traditionally in the United States has been elected, has
been chosen by the
parish.
MR.
SMORODSKY: I'll get to that part.
THE WITNESS: Whether
I say elect or choose, I mean that it is a parish, it is a lay parochial
decision that decides who the
parish priest will be.
BY
MR. SMORODSKY:
Q. Now, going back to this exhibit P-21, and
the level of the parish and the clergy.
A. Yes.
Q. In the Church in the Ukraine in 1921,
Professor -- you want some water?
A. Just a moment. Thank
you. Go ahead, Counsellor.
Q. In the Church of 1921, did the parishes
have the right to come and go from the Ukraine Orthodox Autocephalous Church?
A. It was defined that
way, yes.
Q. This was a voluntary association?
A. It was made very clear that it was voluntary at every point, at every level.
Q. And historical documents show that
parishes did, in fact, come and go?
A. They do indeed. Their own documents, the church's own periodicals indicate that.
Q. Now, going back to 1921 -- oh. With
regards to the Church of 1921 in Ukraine, was there ever any co-celebration of
the
liturgy between clergy of the Ukraine
Orthodox Church of 1921 in the Ukraine and the Greek Orthodox Church?
A.
Counsellor, the Ukrainian Church of 1921 were renegades. They were rebels.
They were outcasts. There was no possibility
that any Orthodox
clergy would concelebrate with the clergy of that Church.
Q. Now, at that time, did the other Orthodox
churches treat the Church of '21 as a separate denomination?
A. In the sense that they
ignored it, that they isolated it, that they would have no association, no
communion, no -- would not be
found in UAOC
churches, would not permit UAOC clergy in their churches, yes, there was, there
was no communication
whatsoever.
Q. Now, in 1921, was Bishop Theodorovich a
Bishop of the Church, the Autocephalous Church of the Ukraine?
THE COURT: Spell it.
Q. Excuse me. Spell
the name please.
A.
T-E-O-D-O-R-O-V-I-C-H, Archbishop, John.
MR. SMORODSKY: For the purposes of the record, I will refer to
bishops by their last name because some of them may have
the same first name.
Q.
Bishop
Theodorovich –
A.
-- was one of the bishops consecrated in 1921 that began the UAOC.
Q. Now, coming back to
the United States, how did the Ukrainian parishes, the independent,
Orthodox parishes -- did they call
themselves the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United
States of America?
A.
There was no such entity until several independent churches invited
a bishop from Ukraine, and Archbishop John
Theodorovich came,
at which time he came with that name. So that with his arrival in America,
those independent parishes
who chose to submit
to his jurisdiction, then began calling themselves by that title, yes, UAOC in
the U.S.A.
Q. Now, the churches in the United States
invited Theodorovich, correct?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. Did Theodorovich, Bishop Theodorovich
create a diocese here?
A. Yes. That was the normal orthodox procedure, that a bishop heads a number of parishes which are called a diocese.
Q. And -- one moment,
your Honor. I am just going to steal some water from my adversary. When Bishop
Theodorovich came
over to the United States and created the diocese --
A. Right.
Q. -- did he start
organizing the parishes in the same structure as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
in Ukraine?
A. He did, yes. He was absolutely loyal to the
spirit, the practices and the letter of the law of the Church of 1921 and its
Constitution.
Q.
Now,
there is a stipulated fact in this case -- I don't want to go into detail,
trying to speed up the history -- that the parish in
Passaic created itself as a result of
the Concordat in 1924. Could you tell me what the Concordat is?
A.
Concordat is a technical legal term that is used predominantly by
the Holy See, by the Vatican, when it engages in
negotiations and agreements with another
sovereign state, and in this case the Holy See and Poland agreed that the
Ukrainian
Catholic clergy
would, who found themselves in the Polish Republic, would be obliged to take an
oath of loyalty not only to
The Polish State
which was a reasonable request, but to all things Polish, to holidays, to
heros, to customs. It was very – it
was a very
intrusive, and as far as Ukrainian national sensitivities were concerned, very
offensive series of demands that the
Vatican and Poland
arrived at. And this was one more reason why Ukrainian Catholics in America
said if that's what the
Catholic Church is
asking, that is insulting to our nationality, it's insulting to our history,
and is one more reason why we find
association with the
Roman Catholic Church unacceptable, and drove many more Eastern Catholic uniat
parishes out of
communion with Rome
and into Holy Orthodoxy.
Q.
In
1924 or 1925, or 1926, was there any other Ukrainian Orthodox diocese in the
United States other than the Church of
Theodorovich?
A.
No, sir, there was not.
Q.
Was
there any other Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine?
A.
No. It was being persecuted and by the early '30s was ameliorated and
was very much on its way out by the mid '20s in
terms of leadership, people, property rights, etcetera.
Q.
Now,
in 1927, was there a Sobor in Ukraine?
A. Right.
Q. That was of the Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church?
A. Right.
Q. Did Bishop
Theodorovich report to that?
A.
Bishop Theodorovich recognized that that was the superior instance for
him, and made a report as the ruling Bishop of the
Diocese in America about his parishes, about his diocese,
reported to that Council, to that Sobor.
Q.
Now,
in 1929, did the Vatican issue another edict?
A.
As I mentioned, the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States by that time
were so concerned about the large numbers
of Eastern Catholic parishes and
Eastern Catholic priests who were married that they asked Rome to issue a
Decree for the
United States indicating that no more married priests were to be allowed to come to the United States and function.
Q.
Now,
as a result of that edict –
A.
Many Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russan parishes left and left Catholic
unity, became Orthodox. The Ukraine, for the most
part, approached Bishop Theodorovich
here. The Carpatho-Russans, under Father Arresteze Khoenyak (phonetical),
appealed to Constantinople, and
Constantinople created a diocese for the Carpatho-Russans.
Q.
Was
there also something that created the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America?
A.
The early '30s saw a number of attempts to create new Orthodox entities,
jurisdictions, and among them a group called the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America came into being that was associated
with Constantinople.
Q.
Now,
when you say "associated with Constantinople," what do you mean?
A.
I mean that it received its Episcopal consecration of Father Bohdan
Shpilka. No. I am wrong. He was the
second bishop
after Joseph Zhuk, Z-H-U-K. Received
orders from Constantinople. Were considered "stavropegial,"
S-T-A-V-R-O-P-E-G-I-A-L, meaning
directly subject to the Patriarch. They were constituted as a diocese, and as
Father
Bazyl testified this morning similar
to the current situation of the South Bound Brook bishops, they relate to the
Patriarchate
of Constantinople through the
Ecumenical Patriarchal Exarch who is the Archbishop, Greek Orthodox Archbishop
of New
York. Just as the South Bound Brook
bishops relate to him in that way, so Bishop Zhuk and Shpilka related to
Constantinople. He was their
superior, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Holy Synod was the ultimate
authority for this
very small -- never, never a large organization
-- this very small, new, early 1930s
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America.
Q.
Now,
how did the structure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, Bishop
Shpilka's church, differ from the structure
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in
the United States of America,
Theodorovich's church?
A.
On paper, I suppose it looked very similar, but it was so small
that it did not have the development of this chart. It did not
have deanaries because there was no
need. We're talking about, I suppose, less than 20 parishes at most, and more
typically
in the neighborhood of a dozen parishes. With that small organization,
there was not need for the elaborate structure that
Father Bazyl discussed this
morning.
Q.
Now,
in 1936, were there negotiations about merger between the two churches?
A. No. Archbishop Theodorovich was concerned about his isolation, not his but about his church's isolation, about the
isolation of his clergy. That was a
neuralgic problem for him, and he discussed this problem with various church
authorities,
and including Constantinople. The
laity at this time were not sophisticated, and they were concerned that any
such
conversations, any such
negotiations, might lead to the loss of the identity which they were most
concerned about, their
orthodoxy first of all and their
autocephaly equally. They were worried that any discussions Archbishop John
might have
might compromise that status. And
so were -- there were rumors that he was negotiating, that he was going to in
some way
dilute this status. He made very clear at all times, he never
wavered from the position, that that was not his intention; that he
would do no such thing; that he
would not in any way be involved with the Church of Constantinople or for that
matter any
other church in Holy Orthodoxy, in
Ecumenical Orthodoxy, that would compromise the autocephaly of his church. They
were rumors; that's all they were.
There was no foundation to them. And at the Sobor of 1936, he spoke out very
forcefully,
and through all of the '30s
wrote very explicitly of his maintenance of
autocephaly.
Q.
Now,
in this particular case, your Honor -- before we go into that, in 1936, there
was a Sobor of the Ukraine Orthodox
Church of the United States of America
under I will call for purposes of clarity the Theodorovich church, correct?
A.
Yes, exactly.
Q.
There
are stipulated in this case resolutions that were adopted that address the
issue to which you testified.
A.
Okay.
Q.
With
regards to the 1936 Constitution of the Ukraine Orthodox Church of the United
States of America.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Did it adopt a
Constitution that created a structure?
A.
It did. There was 15 years after 1921 and by this time there was an
understanding and a need to update some of the
terminology. As I said earlier, the
terminology has been somewhat different at various times in the constitutions
and the
bylaws. There has been no
difference, there has been no movement away, there has been no change from the
structure of
1921. 1936 reaffirmed the 1921
structure.
Q.
Now,
in 1936, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church in Ukraine was destroyed –
A.
In 1936 it had been ameliorated. The clergy had been killed, the
bishops had been exiled or killed, the faithful had no
leadership, the Church
for all intents and purposes, UAOC had ceased to exit in the Soviet Union by
1936.
Q. Now, did the
Theodorovich church in the United States continue to claim that it was a
diocese of that deceased church?
A.
I should amend that last sentence. That Metropolitan Lypkiwsky, the
Founder of 1921, died in 1937. So there was one living