8. "Peoples of Russia"

In 1951 there were six Belarusian Catholic priests in Western Europe. Four of them belonged to the Byzantine rite. They were: Leo Haroshka in France, Ceslaus Sipovich in England, Michael Maskalik in Northern and Uladzimier Salaviej in Southern Germany. Of the Roman rite priests, Father Francis Charniauski worked in Northern France and Peter Tatarynovich remained in Rome,where he was in charge of Belarusian programmes on Vatican Radio and published a religious quarterly journal Znic. In addition there were two students in Rome studying for the priesthood. Unfortunately there was no one in charge who could coordinate their work and represent them and their needs before the higher church authorities. During the first study week of the Belarusian Catholic University Union "Run'" on 16-21 July 1951 at Chevetogne this problem was the subject of discussion between the priests who took part in the Week and Bishop Boleslaus Sloskans who was also present there. The result of these discussions was the petition on 11 September 1951 of Belarusian priests to the Holy Father, asking him to appoint Sloskans the Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians of both rites. Bishop Sloskans (1893-1981) was a Latvian who came from the province of Latgalia wich has a mixed Latvian-Belarusian population. It was said that his mother was Belarusian. In any case he spoke Belarusian fluently. Educated in the Mahilou Archdiocesan Seminary in St Petersburg, he was ordained priest in 1917 and then worked in the parishes in St Petersburg, Moscow and Vitebsk (Belarus). In 1926 he was secretly consecrated Bishop by d'Herbigny and appointed Apostolic Administrator of Mahilou and Minsk. A year later he was arrested by the Soviet authorities and spent the next seven years in prison camps (including the notorious Solovki) or in exile in Siberia. In 1933 he was exchanged by the Latvian government for a Communist. After the Second World War he found himself in the West, and eventually settled at the Kaiserberg (Mont Cear) Benedictine Abbey at Leuven (Louvain) in Belgium. He was a holy man in the true sense of the word. The years of imprisonment, when he had to bear witness to Christ alongside Orthodox bishops and priests, followed by life in exile among ordinary Russians, gave him a profound knowledge and love of the Russian people and strengthened desire for the Union of Catholics and Orthodox. This did not prevent him from treating with equal love and respect other people, including Belarusians. A man of peace, far removed from politics, it pained him to see national antagonisms and conflicts.

Incidentally Cardinal Tisserant was of the same opinion as the Belarusian priests. On 28 April 1951 Sipovich wrote to Tatarynovich that he had seen and read a private letter of Tisserant of 4 April to a correspondent in England. In it the Cardinal agreed that having two missions at Marian House had created an impossible situation, and said that he wished to remove the Russians. Then Sipovich continued: "Secondly, and more importantly, he has expressed an opinion in favour of uniting all Belarusians of Eastern and Latin rites under the jurisdiction of the Oriental Congregation, and his intention to speak about this to Monsignor Tardini before writing a formal letter. He makes mention of Bishop Sloskans who could be the Apostolic Visitor for all. He says literally: 'I think you are right when you say that it would be advantageous for Belarusians to be under one jurisdiction. It seems to me that Mgr Sloskans could be visitor for all'"[32].

Six months had passed since the Belarusian priests' letter and there was no answer from Rome. On 25 March 1952 a ceremony was held to bless the new Belarusian students' house at Leuven (Louvain). The blessing was performed by Cardinal Eugene Tisserant who came from Rome specially for this occasion. The Belarusian priests Sipovich, Haroshka and Charniauski, who were also present, took this opportunity to raise once again the question of the Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians. On the following day they met Bishop Sloskans, who told them that on 9 January he had been called to the Apostolic Nunciature in Brussels and asked whether he would agree to become Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians of both rites. Sloskans gave his consent but after that heard nothing. The priests also had a meeting with Cardinal Tisserant who said that, while himself in favour of one Apostolic Visitor for both rites, in the case of the Roman (Latin) rite the consent of the Consistorial Congregation was needed.

All this Father Sipovich described to Father Tatarynovich in a letter of 31 March 1952.

After such great expectations, the letter of Bishop Sloskans, dated 13 June 1952 to Sipovich, Haroshka and other priests, must have been something of a shock. In it the Bishop informed them that on 24 May the Holy Father appointed him Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians and Russians of the Byzantine (Eastern) rite in Western Europe, except Italy. This news was conveyed to him in a letter from the Oriental Congregation of 29 May. Since the letter said nothing about his competences, he asked that his appointment should be kept secret for a moment.

This was not what Belarusians expected. They were disappointed that the Roman rite faithful were not included, and did not in the least like being placed "in one basket" with the Russians, foreseeing nothing but difficulties and complications.

Their forebodings proved right sooner that they expected. On 7 July 1952, the feast of SS Cyril and Methodius according to the Roman calendar, Pope Pius XII published his Apostolic letter "Sacro vergente anno", directed "to all peoples of Russia (ad universos Russiae populos)" and consecrating them to the Immaculate Heart of Mary the Mother of God.

The letter caused consternation among Belarusians and Ukrainians. It was not the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that made them anxious, but the equivocal terminology used by the Pope. Indeed "peoples of Russia" was very reminiscent of the old imperial Russian doctrine of one Russian nation consisting of three branches, namely Great Russians (i. e. Russians in the proper sense of the word), Little Russians (Ukrainians) and White Russians (Belarusians). In the light of this doctrine, which was shared by most Russians irrespective of their political orientation, Belarusians and Ukrainians who affirmed separate national identities and the right to an independent existence were nothing but separatists who wanted to shatter the unity of the Russian nation. The terminology used by the Pope in his Letter seemed to give support to this point of view. Indeed that is how it was understood by Russians, as could be seen from the reports in their press. Thus the Brussels-based Russian Catholic journal Russki Katolicheski Vestnik (Russian Catholic Messenger) wrote in its July-August issue that the Papal letter was addressed to the "Russian peoples". Incidentally in the same issue Russians jumped the gun by announcing the appointment of Bishop Sloskans as Apostolic Visitor for Russians alone.

The reaction of the Ukrainian and Belarusian press to the Papal letter was critical, ranging from perplexity to hostility. It was up to the clergy to start a "damage limitation exercise". Bishop Ivan Buchko, the Apostolic Visitor for Ukrainians in Western Europe, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the Apostolic Letter, but appealed to the people to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. In England the Ukrainian priests at a synod in Manchester   signed a joint letter to the Holy Father in which, while affirming their loyalty, they criticised the Papal Letter for its equivocal terminology and historical inaccuracies.

Belarusian priests were faced with two problems: to try to clarify the competence of the Apostolic Visitor; and give an answer to the Papal "Letter to the peoples of Russia". The first problem was discussed during the second study week of "Run'" on 20-27 July in London (the second problem had not as yet "sunk in"). A draft text of the petition to the Holy Father was agreed. The final text, dated 8 September 1952, was signed by Leo Haroshka, Ceslaus Sipovich, Michael Maskalik, Peter Tatarynovich, Francis Charniauski and the chaplain of the Belarusian students at Leuven University, Robert van Cauwelaert, O.S.B. In the petition they asked the Holy Father to extend the faculties of the Apostolic Visitor to include also Belarusian Roman (Latin) rite Catholics "who are dispersed throughout the world and for the most part deprived of spiritual care". Then they continued: "There remains another very grave problem, namely that of one person having jurisdiction for two hostile nations, i. e. Russians and Belarusians... which for many reasons seems to us inconvenient. It is generally known that Russians have their own political aims ("one and indivisible empire") with regard to other nations, whom they have deprived of their freedom, and at the same time call 'extreme separatists' those who try even by legal means to oppose their policy. In these circumstances the appointment of one Visitor for the two peoples seems to favour the political aims of Russians. What is certain is that the leaders and active members of Belarusian communities use this argument against us, the few Belarusian priests, and against the Holy See. Hence such a nomination of the Apostolic Visitor, rather than producing the desired good, has become a cause of discord and contention in religious matters between the two nations.

The language and character of Belarusians differ considerably from Russians... Thus different methods should be applied when dealing in spiritual matters among Belarusians and Russians, which is hardly possible so long as one and the same person is appointed for both (nations)".

There was no joint Belarusian reaction to the Papal "Letter to the peoples of Russia". Father Haroshka wrote his own letter on 25 November 1952 directly to the Holy Father, in which he pointed out the inappropriateness of the expression "peoples of Russia". He then continued: "The Belarusian faithful consider Your Holiness as common father of all people. Just as in a family the father calls all his sons by their proper name, in the same way Belarusians are certain that Your Holiness, when addressing Belarusian people, would use the proper name of this people". He then suggested that in order to repair the damage, the Pope should appoint a separate Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians of both rites.

Shortly afterwards Father Haroshka received a terse note from Cardinal Tisserant, telling him in the future to use proper channels, i.e. send his letters to the Oriental Congregation which may eventually pass them on to the Pope with its own comments.

Sipovich also wrote a letter on 6 December 1952, but, unlike Father Haroshka, he did not sent it directly to the Pope, but to the Apostolic Delegate, asking him to make use of it as he thought fit. It was more of a report than a letter, and comprised texts (in English or Italian translations) of the relevant articles from the Belarusian press, as well as description of the reaction to the papal letter of Belarusians in England. Here are a few extracts: "After the publication of the Apostolic Letter to the peoples of Russia the doors of many Orthodox brethren became closed to the Catholic priest. In Manchester the Belarusian community refused even to see me, and some members of the Association of Belarusians (of which I am also a member) have written offensive letters against the Catholic Church, the Pope and against me... In Bradford... they showed me the Holy Father's "Letter to the peoples of Russia" with anger and sarcasm, repeating that injustice has been done to Belarusian people... No Orthodox Belarusian comes any longer to my chapel at Holden Avenue. The Catholic faithful, disconcerted, say nothing offensive against the Holy Church, but feel oppressed by the Holy Father's Letter".

The main causes of discontent, according to Sipovich, were: the inappropriate antiquated terminology; historical inaccuracy; the reaction of Russians who interpreted the Papal terminology as approval of their political views; and the comments on the letter in the official Vatican paper L'Osservatore Romano, which made the already confused situation even worse.

Father Sipovich's final judgement on the document is of considerable importance. After quoting the L'Osservatore Romano of 3 August 1952, where the "Letter to Peoples of Russia" was described as "An Apostolic Letter which stands out as one of the most extraordinary religious events in the Church and  the whole of Christendom", he continues: "It pains me (to say) that those to whom the letter was supposed to be addressed, think otherwise. All Belarusian and Ukrainian journals acknowledge the great authority of the Pope, and at the same time they underline their disappointment with a document which should have been a milestone in the religious orientation of the Slavs. In all my priestly conscience I can say that in my opinion this letter 'to the peoples of Russia' will for many years constitute the greatest obstacle for nearly 30 million Ukrainians and 10 million Belarusians for their return to union with the See of Rome. And here lies a cause of profound sorrow for us priests, unworthy but faithful servants of the Catholic Church which gave us the authority to work for the salvation of souls".

Father Sipovich's was the most thorough and profound analysis of the Pope's "Letter to the peoples of Russia" and its consequences. Writing it did not come easily to him, and one can feel that considerations of a pastoral nature and justice for his people were foremost in his mind. Coming from a comparatively young and unknown priest it required considerable moral courage, because at that time any criticism of the Pope was received with ill grace. To soften the effect his letter might produce on those who might read it, he finished it with affirmation of unreserved loyalty to the Holy Church and the Successor of Saint Peter.

Incidentally in his letter to Father Tatarynovich of of 16 September, Father Sipovich makes the following comment on  the Papal "Letter to the Peoples of Russia": "It is difficult to find anything more inept during the last fifty years of Pontifical history".

Bishop Sloskans in a letter to Father Haroshka on 5 December 1952 wrote: "It is against my principles ever to show the Pope our dissatisfaction or fears". He did not see the need to change the terms of his appointment as Visitor for both Belarusians and Russians, and was not pleased with the criticisms of the Pope's "Letter to the Peoples of Russia". Personally he did not find anything wrong in the letter, on the contrary he approved of it. According to him, the chief "culprit" responsible for the letter was none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, who in her apparition at Fatima in 1917 had requested that Russia should be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. According to Bishop Sloskans, She never defined the exact limits of the territory to which the name "Russia" could be applied... He concludes his letter as follows: "The time has come for me personally to defend the Holy Father, because the Ukrainians and Belarusians have begun to discredit the Vicar of Christ".

Father Haroshka answered him on 8 December. Among other things he wrote: "It is our duty to tell the cardinals and especially the Holy Father all that ails us. To whom should we address our religious problems if not to him?!". With regard to the Fatima apparition he had this to say: "In my opinion there is nothing more dangerous than when evil human intentions are hidden under the cover of holiness; or, as in this case; under the authority of the Mother of God and the Holy Father. Where, when and in what apparition did the Mother of God use equivocal political terminology? Does the Mother of God know only Russia, and  not know Belarus and Ukraine?" Finally: "With regard to your last remark that Belarusians and Ukrainians have begun to discredit the Vicar of Christ, there must be some misunderstanding, because the aim of their letters, reports and even protests... is not to discredit, but to defend the authority of the Holy Father before those who serve Russian interests, and prevent them from using him for their dishonest political ends".

Despite this sharp exchange of views, Bishop Sloskans and Father Haroshka remained  friends.

True to the age-long habit of never acknowledging its own mistakes, the Vatican did not reply to the petitions and letters of Belarusian priests. But there were signs that their demands were noticed. Sloskans was not relieved of the post of Visitor for Russians, but his appointment was allowed to fall into abeyance, especially since Russians themselves were not too keen to have him. On the other hand he played an increasingly important role in the religious life of the Belarusian community. In the beginning of 1953 there at last appeared in Bozhym shliakham and Znic the announcement of Sloskans's apppointment as Apostolic Visitor for Belarusians (without any mention of Russians). On 14 February the Consistorial Congregation, on behalf of the Pontifical Council for Emigres (established by Pope Pius XII in 1952), appointed Sloskans Director of Missionaries (chaplains) to Belarusian Emigres in Western Europe (Director Missionariorum Alboruthenorum in Europa ad Occidentem versa), thus giving him authority also over Belarusians of the Roman (Latin) rite. On the occasion of his 60th birthday a special article on him appeared in Znic , and Bozhym shliakham began to publish Sloskans's memoirs (edited by Father Haroshka) from 1920s and early 30s, i.e. the period covering his pastoral work as priest and bishop in Belarus, as well as his imprisonment and exile.

In 1954 Father Francis Charniauski moved from France to Belgium, where he stayed at the Mont Cesar Abbey in Louvain together with Bishop Sloskans, acting as his Belarusian secretary and at the same time doing pastoral work among the Belarusians in Belgium and Northern France. Belarusian Catholic students at Louvain University used to come to serve at the Bishop's daily mass.

Bishop Sloskans was present at most study weeks of the Belarusian Catholic University Union"Run'". He took a keen interest in the Belarusian students training for the priesthood. In 1960 Bishop Sloskans played a crucial role in elevating Father Sipovich to the bishopric.

There was another sign of changing attitude towards Belarusians. In 1953 a young Belarusian from London decided to become a priest and asked the Oriental Congregation to be admitted to the Greek College in Rome, which had strong historical links with Belarus from  the 16th century right up to the beginning of the 19th, when the Belarusian Greek Catholic Church was suppressed by Russians. The Congregation agreed. This was the first time since 1929 that a Belarusian Byzantine rite candidate had not been sent to the Russicum.

Note: