19. The Heavy Bishop's Mitre

Bishop Sipovich's powers as Apostolic Visitor to Belarusians of the Byzantine rite outside Belarus were somewhat restricted. However he was the first and only Belarusian Catholic bishop in nearly one and a half centuries. Because of this he felt a moral responsibility for all Belarusian Catholics irrespective of their rite, in or outside Belarus. The Belarusian Catholics on their part,   looked to Bishop Sipovich as their spiritual leader and expected from him perhaps more than he could deliver. Thus his task was not an easy one, and was not made easier when he was elected to the post of Superior General of Marian Fathers, which was in itself a full-time job. This double burden must have put a considerable strain on him, as a result of which his health deteriorated. He tried not to show it, but those who knew him well could see the worrying signs, which became worse as time progressed. What remained unchanged was his energy and enthusiasm.

Back in London Bishop Sipovich found himself in the centre of a not very numerous but lively Belarusian community, something which he had missed in Rome. Free from the burden of responsibility for the Marian Congregation, it did not take him much time to throw himself headlong into Belarusian affairs. Thus only a few weeks after his arrival from Rome he embarked on the project of his lifetime, namely the founding of a Belarusian library in London.

Bishop Sipovich always tried to be present at all Belarusian functions – meetings, lectures, conferences, literary evenings – which  usually were held at the conference hall at St Peter's House, or in the Francis Skaryna Library. He liked to play host to visitors from all over the world – priests, Belarusians from the United States or Australia on a tourist visit in London, or scholars coming to work in the Library. Among the visitors there were also Belarusians from Poland and from Soviet Belarus. For the latter, who had been conditioned to identify "Catholic" with "Polish" and "Orthodox" with "Russian", the existence of a Belarusian Greek Catholic Church and a Belarusian Catholic Bishop in London was a revelation. For obvious reasons they preferred to keep their visit quiet.

One of the most distinguished visitors was Cardinal Joseph Slipyi, Archbishop Major of the Ukrainians, who came on 12 May 1970. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the chapel of St Peter and Paul at Marian House in concelebration with bishops Augustine Hornyak, the Exarch of the Ukrainians in Great Britain, and Ceslaus Sipovich. During the Liturgy he gave a sermon in which he appealed to Belarusians to cherish and preserve their religious and national heritage. After the Liturgy Cardinal Slipyi visited Marian House, St Cyril's House and the library in which building and decorating work was in progress.

Bishop Sipovich had known Archbishop Slipyi since 1963 when the latter was released from Soviet prison. He had a sincere and deep respect for him, but did not necessarily agree with all his ideas. In particular he was critical about the idea of a Ukrainian, or Kiev-Halych,  Patriarchate, which in the minds of those who proposed it should include Ukraine and Belarus on the grounds that both these countries in the past had formed one ecclesiastical Metropolitan province of Kiev. Not all Ukrainian bishops were in favour of the patriarchate. One of them was Bishop Augustine Hornyak, the Exarch of the Ukrainians in Great Britain who had serious reservations about it. On 30 November 1971 he showed Bishop Sipovich, who was his guest at dinner, copies of letters from the Oriental Congregation and the Holy Father himself, in which the petition for the establishment of the Ukrainian Patriarchate was politely but firmly refused on canonical, pastoral and ecumenical grounds.

On 2 June 1972 Cardinal Slipyi, despite the negative answer of the Holy See, wrote to Bishop Sipovich the following short letter: "On the basis of history I wish to ask you, whether you wish or not to belong to our Patriarchate, whose definitive constitution we are now in the course of formulating, obviously preserving your own autonomy? I look forward to your quick kind answer".

On 30 June Bishop Sipovich sent a long answer, in which among other things he said: "In your short letter you have raised an important problem of the Belarusian Catholic Church belonging to the Ukrainian Patriarchate. Until now I had no opportunity to express my views about the Ukrainian Patriarchate... I thought that it was unseemly for a Belarusian bishop to interfere in strictly internal affairs of the Ukrainian Church. With regard to a Belarusian patriarchate – and I can talk about no other, – I can express my personal view which probably will not differ from that of the rest of Belarusian Catholic clergy in emigration. A Belarusian Patriarchate is possible only on the following conditions:

1. When there will be religious unity among the Belarusian nation, and when it, or at least its greater part, will recognise the Successor of St Peter as its Head.

2. The question of a Belarusian Patriarchate is unrealistic in exile. It can be resolved in Belarus, when the appropriate circumstances arise.

3. The historical linkage of Belarusians and Ukrainians in one Metropolitan province of Kiev is not of divine institution; therefore under the new changed circumstances it is impossible to preserve the old organisational structure; Christ Himself advises against pouring new wine into old wine-skins.

4. The question of a Belarusian Patriarchate can be only decided either by the Ecumenical Council or by the Holy See.

In view of what has been said... my humble request is... that in the proposed constitution of the Ukrainian Patriarchate no mention should be made of a Belarusian Patriarchate".

It seems that Bishop Sipovich deliberately "misunderstood" the meaning of Cardinal Slipyi's letter and chose to talk about a hypothetical Belarusian patriarchate, instead of the proposed Ukrainian one.

If there was any body of the faithful who deserved to be honoured, it was without any doubt the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church for their heroic stand in defence of their faith. Nonetheless the idea of the Ukrainian Patriarchate was controversial, not so much in itself, but because it was launched at the wrong time, when Ukraine was not free; and in the wrong place, i. e. in emigration and not in their native country. At the same time the position of Bishop Sipovich was basically "correct", because he had no mandate to commit the whole Belarusian church to such an important step as the establishment of a patriarchate, whether separately or jointly with the Ukrainians. The somewhat peremptory and "ultramontane" tone of his letter was perhaps a reaction to the Cardinal Slipyi's curt note requiring a "yes" or "no" answer. Sadly after this the relations between the two became noticeably cool.

One of the difficulties of the Belarusian priests working in different countries was their isolation. One way to remedy this, at least in part, were the regular visits of the Apostolic Visitor, which, according with the instruction of the Oriental Congregation of 1960, was one of his duties. During his term as Superior General of the Marian Fathers, Bishop Sipovich tried to combine his travels on the business of the Marian Congregation with meetings with local Belarusian communities. The Marian Fathers picked up the travel bills, thus their affairs took precedence on the principle that "he, who pays the piper, calls the tune". This was not very satisfactory from the Belarusian point of view, but under the circumstances it was the best Bishop Sipovich could do. After 1969, relieved of the duties of Superior General of Marian Fathers, he could dedicate himself fully to Belarusian affairs. During the years 1970-1976 he made frequent visits to Germany, France and Belgium and also five long trips to the United States and Canada. Those were pastoral visits in the true sense of the word, consisting not only of official functions, but also visiting Belarusian families and attending to their problems, often going out of his way to go and see someone living alone far from other Belarusians. But whatever his American itinerary, it always included New York, Chicago and Toronto with their large Belarusian communities. Chicago was the Belarusian Greek Catholic centre, with the church of  Christ the Redeemer and a parish with rich religious and cultural life. The parish priest was Father Uladzimier Tarasevitch O.S.B. In 1975 Bishop Sipovich conferred on him the honorary title of Archimandrite (abbot). Incidentally in 1976 Father Tarasevitch won general praise for his organisational abilities, which he showed during the World Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia, at which a large Belarusian group, headed by Bishop Sipovich, was present.

Another important way to keep in touch were through the reunions of priests. One of the recommendations at the memorable reunion in 1960 in Rome, which resulted in the Belarusians receiving their first bishop, was that similar reunions should take place regularly every few years. The second reunion was in 1961 at Koenigstein during the Congress "Kirche in Not", but it had the character of an informal meeting. The same may be said about the meeting in 1962 in Rome on the occasion of the World Pilgrimage of Emigres. Then in 1963 Bishop Sipovich became "otherwise engaged". It was not till ten years later that the next reunion took place, on 2-6 August 1972 in London. On Tuesday 2 August Bishop Sipovich had a spiritual talk to the members. In it he drew attention to the place of the priest in the post-conciliar period, when laymen regained their rightful place in the affairs of the Church. He said: "The message of the priest, his mission, his responsibility, is the same as the message of the Church, to which it was entrusted by Christ. It is not political, economical or social, but religious". Then he continued: "The priest must lead the people to salvation, but the Church knows no other way to this goal, except through teaching (the Word of God) and administration of the holy sacraments. The word of God, proclaimed by the priest must lead to the sacraments which are the food of Christian life. The priest in his ministry is the centre of a church nucleus, which is variously called parish, mission, chaplaincy etc". He then went on to say more about the sacraments: "The mystical interior life in the Church, which comes through the sacraments, is not from men, but from God. There is no sense in receiving the Sacraments out of habit; still worse – without faith. Therefore they require good preparation from the Christian faithful, and unshakeable faith on the part of the priest". There are considerable difficulties created by the new situation: "Today the Church lets the faithful approach the altar, and to decide on many Church and related matters. One does not know why, but some priests have concluded from this that they should also try to be like all other people. But in what way? Not only in exterior appearance, but in their way of life, completely secularised. That was the beginning of the crisis among our brethren, especially in such weighty matters as celibacy and chastity. In all countries there is a crisis of vocations. There are considerable difficulties in relations between bishops and priests". He concludes: "The fact remains that there is a need of profound faith so that the priest can see an apostle in his bishop, and the bishop in the person of a priest can see his son, born by the imposition of his hands through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Also relations between priests without faith in their supernatural mission, without patience and love cannot serve as an example to the faithful, and their apostolic work cannot bring abundant fruit". Having thus touched on the general problems in the Church, Bishop Sipovich went on to analyse their implications for Belarusians. These became the subject of discussion during the days that followed. First there was an exchange of experiences of work in different countries (England, Germany, United States). It was followed by discussion of the problems of pastoral work among Belarusians and their religious needs. Among the resolutions the most important  were the necessity to renew effort to obtain a Belarusian Catholic Bishop in Belarus; the problem of priestly vocations and the possibility of the ordination of married men; the need for religious literature, and in particular the Bible and liturgical texts in the Belarusian language; the role of the religious press as means of keeping in touch with the faithful; the problem of closer cooperation, without closing one's eyes to the existing divisions, with the Orthodox Belarusians in the spirit of love and mutual respect; and greater involvement of the faithful in the affairs of the Church.

It was an important reunion, with great emphasis on pastoral matters. On the basis of its resolutions Bishop Sipovich wrote a memorandum to the Holy Father Paul VI and presented it at a private audience on 22 February 1973. One of the problems raised again was that of the Catholic Roman rite bishop in Belarus, to which the Holy Father said "Tutto riconsideremo di nuovo e lo faremo tutto ch'e possibile (we shall reconsider everything again and do everything possible)". Bishop Sipovich also raised the question of the pastoral care of Roman rite Belarusians outside Belarus. To this the Holy Father said: "Fate tutto come finora. Occupatevi di loro (Do everything as you have been doing till now. Take care of them)". Bishop Sipovich made the following comment in his diary: "The Holy Father said this so clearly, so that I understood beyond any doubt that he does not want to get involved in any formalities but simply wishes me to take care of them". It was thus an informal approval of what Bishop Sipovich had been doing all along.

Bishop Sipovich could not see Archbishop Casaroli, the "Foreign Secretary" of the Vatican, who was at that time in Czechoslovakia. He was the chief spokesman of the Vatican's "Ostpolitik". Unlike the era of Pope Pius XII and his uncompromising stand against communism, Paul VI tried to ease the lot of Catholics in the Communist countries by open means, through negotiations with the Communist authorities. In order not to anger the Communist authorities they kept quiet about certain things such as the suppression of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, or the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia etc. This brought accusations from some quarters of Vatican pro-communist sympathies. The impression was strengthened by the fact that the Vatican achieved nothing, except some small concessions such as release of Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary, while all the gain went to the Communist side who, while giving up nothing, appeared to get exactly what they wanted, namely "respectability". The following episode can serve as an example. On 7 March 1973 while waiting for an audience with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Villiot, Bishop Siopovich met Cardinal Doepfner of Berlin. The Bishop recorded in his diary: "He (Doepfner –A.N.) asks me: Are you satisfied with the activities of Archbishop Casaroli in the Soviet Union? I answer: Yes, because he is doing what he can. In his question I felt doubts and dissatisfaction with the trip of Mgr Casaroli to East Germany". A little later, in conversation with Cardinal Villiot, Bishop Sipovich said: "I remarked that usually people consider every trip of Archbishop Casaroli to the Soviet Union as a sign of the pro-Soviet policy of the Vatican. To this His Eminence replied: We strive to broaden and strengthen the already existing religious centres in the Soviet Union".

Incidentally, on 4 March, while in Rome, Bishop Sipovich made the following entry in his diary: "I had a talk with Fr Jakimowicz about Polish-Belarusian misunderstandings. He considers himself to be a Pole, speaks Belarusian, his father was from a Uniate family, was born in Hrodna district. He calls Fr Hermanovich a nationalist for his letter to Fr Chruscielewski (unfortunately unavailable – A.N.). I took this opportunity to say something about the attitude of certain Polish Marians towards Belarusians: they burned Belarusian religious books; did not let young (Belarusians – A.N.) to come to Rome to study; after the expulsion of the (Belarusian) Fathers from Druia tried to incorporate the Druia monastery into their (Polish - A.N.) province, in which they were opposed by Fathers Abrantovich and Tsikota".

Early in June Bishop Sipovich was again called to Rome. On 4 June he met Archbishop Casaroli. Here is his account of the meeting: "His Exc. Casaroli explains: The Holy Father has agreed to reopen the question of a bishopric in Belarus. He left (it to me) to decide on the manner of proceeding in this matter: either to send Bishop Sipovich to the Soviet Union for talks, or to call Father Ul. Charniauski. One cannot trust everything the Soviets say, but one has to do something. I thanked the Holy Father and His Exc. Casaroli. On my part I explained my reasons in favour of my remaining in the shadow, and not to come forward in talks with the Soviets. Here are those reasons:

1. The letter of Father Charniauski, where he writes that if I cannot come, then it is best to invite him.

2. In order not to compromise my work among the (Belarusian) diaspora.

3. One should try to answer the question: why do the Soviet authorities want me to come to the Soviet Union? Obviously in order to try to get from me as much information about the Vatican as possible. About Belarus they know more than I do. My position in the Soviet Union would be very difficult ... and I, without wishing it, could compromise the Apostolic See .... Having listened to all I had to say, Archbishop Casaroli agreed with me".

In spring 1974 Bishop Sipovich was again in Rome. One of the reasons for going there was to take part in the work of the Commission (of which he was a member) for the revision of the Oriental Canon Law. One of the observers present at the sittings of the commission was a representative of Russian Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Herman. The Ukrainian Archbishop Hermaniuk from Canada on 20 March questioned the presence of observers from the churches which had acquiesced in the Communist suppression of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine. He was supported by the Romanian bishop Cristea, whose church had suffered a similar fate. During the concluding session on 23 March Bishop Cristea read a declaration about the state of the Romanian and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches. Bishop Sipovich wrote in his diary: "It seemed to me that Father Rezac, a Jesuit who acted as interpreter to Bishop Herman, kept quiet and did not translate the declaration".

Also on 20 March Bishop Sipovich met Mgr Montalvo from the Secretariat of State. The talk turned to the recent meeting of Pope Paul VI and the Soviet Foreign Minister Hramyka. The Bishop wrote in  his diary: "The Pope clearly and unequivocally told Hramyka about the criticisms directed at him (the Pope – A.N.) on account of his "Ostpolitik", while the Soviet Union does not do anything to satisfy certain basic demands of the Pope... When I remarked that the newspapers write that apparently Hramyka tried to impose certain conditions on the Apostolic See (the Ukrainian church affair must be considered as closed etc.), Mgr Montalvo said that this was not true. In a few days Archbishop Casaroli is going to meet the Soviet representative with concrete proposals in the matter of the appointment of a bishop in Belarus... Mgr Montalvo said that Archbishop Casaroli was somewhat despondent because of the many criticisms of the Holy Father and of him personally. The cause (of these criticisms – A.N.) is the famous cardinals Slipyi and Mindszenty, and not so much the cardinals as politicians who surround them".

The politicians seemed to be not only in the entourage of cardinals Slipyi and Mindszenty. On 27 March in the Secretariat of State Bishop Sipovich met the former Apostolic Delegate to Great Britain, Archbishop Domenico Enrici, who in 1971 had performed the blessing of the Francis Skaryna Library. The Bishop wrote in his diary: "We talk about what has happened in the world and in the Church. When I remarked that one should not ignore some recent events (Ukrainian demands, Cardinal Mindszenty, Solzhenitsyn), he asked me to put it in writing in order to present it to Archbishop Benelli. I promised to do this when I come back to London". In fact Bishop Sipovich made a rough copy of the proposed letter while still in Rome, and showed it to Mgr Montalvo at the Secretariate of State on 30 March. Here is what he wrote about it: "He (Mgr Montalvo – A.N.) listened very carefully. Then he asked for a copy for Archbishop Casaroli. During the conversation that followed he discreetly but firmly said the following: if His Holiness the Pope got hold of my notes before Easter, – and there is such a possibility, – he might say in his Easter message things which would cause much embarrassment, especially if they were not accompanied by proper comments. In the papal curia there are also opponents of Archbishop Casaroli's "Ostpolitik", and some of my remarks could be used as arguments in their favour... We discussed all this in greater detail, and I began to feel sadness and heaviness in my heart: when all is said, politics remains politics. And it seemed to me that it (i.e. politics – A.N.) tried to hide Christ himself. In my notes I  wanted to draw attention to some things which diminish the authority of the Apostolic See and the person of Paul VI, especially now, when there have appeared such personalities as Slipyi, Mindszenty, Solzhenitsyn. The latter told the truth (In December 1973 there appeared in Paris Solshzenitsyn's famous Gulag Artchipelago, in which the author described the horrors of Soviet prison camps – A. N.) which should have been first said by the Holy Father himself. And here they are even afraid to show him certain facts. After this conversation I promised to revise my notes once again and post them later from London. I am accustomed to  obey my superiors. In this matter I am completely free, but in my soul a confusion reigns: what have I got myself into? And is all this which I have written necessary? But I, the last and least of the apostles, wanted only to help the good Paul VI who is carrying such a heavy burden. Holy Spirit, enlighten my reason!"

It is not known whether Bishop Sipovich actually did send his letter from London. Most probably he had second thoughts, because there is no record of it among his papers.

If Bishop Sipovich was disturbed by what he had learned, he did not show it. In  September 1975 he was invited to preach a retreat for the priests of the Ruthenian diocese of Passaic in the United States. On 16 September there was a general discussion. Bishop Sipovich made the following entry in his diary: "At 10 a.m., after breakfast, there was a dialogue-discussion. The following subjects were raised: the Jews...; the attitude of the Vatican towards Eastern Catholics: why are there no Orientals in the Oriental Congregation? The Vatican's 'Ostpolitik' and its (diplomatic) game with Moscow. A priest asked me a question: 'In 1968 Your Excellency, while in New Zealand, declared that there was not even one bishop in Belarus. What did the Vatican do in this matter?' I was surprised not at the question, but because there was a priest who was closely following our church affairs. All my answers were in the spirit of 'sentire cum Ecclesia (to be at one with the Church)'. One of the priests called me an incorrigible optimist".

On 21 July 1974 Auberon Herbert, one of the founders of the Anglo-Belarusian Society and its chairman for many years, died suddenly. A descendant of an old Anglo-Welsh noble family and a Catholic, during last years of his life he considered himself to be a parishioner of  SS Peter and Paul Belarusian church in London. The boys from St Cyril's House had their summer camps on his estate at Dulverton in Somerset. It was his wish to be buried by  Bishop, Sipovich. The funeral took place on 23 July.

On 17 August 1974 in Germany Father Uladizmier Salaviej at the age of 56 died as the result of a road accident. He had acted as Bishop Sipovich's secretary in 1960 during the Eucharistic Congress in Munich, and later during the Vatican II Ecumenical Council. He was a man of great goodness and generosity, liked by everyone who knew him. His love of liturgical prayer was well known, and people were always impressed by his piety and the beautiful manner in which he celebrated the Liturgy. At his funeral on 22 August in Munich the Liturgy was celebrated by two bishops, Ceslaus Sipovich and the Exarch of the Ukrainian Catholics in Germany Platon Kornylak, together with several priests. Also present were the Ukrainian Orthodox bishop Orestes and many people of different nationalities, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

A month later, on 19 September 1974 the Ukrainian Archbishop Ivan Buchko died in Rome. He had been the chief consecrator of Bishop Sipovich in 1960. Bishop Sipovich had a great respect for him and valued his advice. He always paid him a visit when he was in Rome. They met for the last time in March 1974.

Bishop Sipovich also suffered a personal loss at this time. On 26 October 1974 his mother Jadviha died at the age of 84 in the village of Dziedzina in Belarus. Bishop Sipovich had not seen her since 1938 when he was expelled from Druia and left for Rome. He often used to say that he owed his faith and his consciousness of Belarusian national identity to his mother. His father died in 1957.

The year 1974 was a difficult one for Bishop Sipovich in many respects. There were also difficult decisions to be made. Thanks to Father Leo Haroshka the Belarusian broadcasts on the Vatican Radio had markedly improved. This did not go unnoticed by those in charge of the Radio, and there was talk of expanding the work of the Belarusian section by allotting it more time. At the same time the Communist authorities in Soviet Belarus launched a bitter press attack against the Vatican Radio and Father Haroshka personally. This was a sure sign that people in Belarus were listening to the Belarusian broadcasts. However Father Haroshka who had turned 63 in 1974 found it difficult to cope alone with the increased workload, and needed an assistant. It was therefore decided to send Father Robert Tamushanski to Rome In summer 1974 he had obtained the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the London University. In October he left London, leaving behind only one priest under 60. For this reason, and also because of the deteriorating economic situation, it was regretfully decided to phase out the St Cyril's House boarding house, while giving of course the remaining boys the opportunity to finish their studies. Father Nadson continued to be in charge of them, combining these duties with those of acting rector of the Belarusian Mission and librarian of the Francis Skaryna Library.

In 1973 Cardinal Paul Philippe, a French Dominican, became the new prefect of the Oriental Congregation. He and Bishop Sipovich had known each other for many years, and his appointment did not bring about any changes as far as Belarusians were concerned. On the other hand, in June 1974 Mgr Gabriel Montalvo who for almost ten years had been in charge of Belarusian affairs, and in particular of the Charniauski case, in the Secretariat of State became an archbishop and was appointed Nuncio to Honduras and Nicaragua. His place was taken by Mgr Ivan Dias. Bishop Sipovich met him for the first time one year later, on 21 June 1975. Here are his impressions: "Meeting in the Secretariat of State with Mgr Ivan Dias who replaced Mgr Montalvo. An Indian. Draws attention to prayer. Often repeats: Fatima, Madonna ha detto... (Fatima, Our Lady has said...). Is in charge of Slavonic and Chinese affairs. Says that lately 'Mosca e irrigidita (Moscow became more rigid)'". The second meeting was on 2 July: "Before lunch I go to the Secretariat of State and talk with Mgr Ivan Dias. This mystic talks about Fatima, about prayer. One can feel bitterness against Cardinal Mindszenty, against all national groups in the Free World".

On 2 October 1975 another Belarusian priest, Father Thomas Padziava died in London at the age of 69. He had been sent to study in Rome at the Russicum in 1929. In 1935, after having obtained ae doctor's degree in Philosophy and licenciate in Theology, and being ordained priest, he was sent to Harbin, where he spent 14 years working among Russians. Arrested by the Communists at Christmas 1948 he was sentenced to 25 years hard labour in Soviet prison camps in Siberia, but was released in 1955 after the death of Stalin and deported to Poland. In 1969 he managed to get to Rome where he declared that he wanted to work for the rest of his life among his own people. Unable to return to Belarus he settled in London at Marian House. His health did not allow him to lead an active life, but he wrote a great deal. Some of his works appeared in Bozhym shliakham and Znic, but most of them still remain in manuscript form. He had an astonishing memory, a wide knowledge coupled with a lively intellect and the ability to explain the most complicated matters clearly. In different circumstances Father Padziava might have become an outstanding philosopher and spiritual writer, of whom Belarusians could be justly proud. As it is we are left only with a glimpse of what might have been and a memory of an exemplary and saintly man and priest. Bishop Sipovich was in the United States when Father Padziava died, and the funeral was conducted by Father Nadson.

The 41st International Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia on 1-8 August 1976 was the last big international event in which Bishop Sipovich took part. The motto of the Congress was "Christ, the Bread of Life" as an answer to the "Hungers of the Human Family". There was a large and well organised Belarusian group at the Congress, mainly thanks to the efforts and organisational talents of Father Uladzimir Tarasevitch, pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Chicago. Apart from taking part in the general events, Belarusians had a special church assigned to them for their own functions. It was there, during the special Liturgy on 7 August that Bishop Sipovich gave a homily in English and Belarusian, in which among other things he said: "The Liturgy – it is true – demands of us faith, but at the same time it is a powerful means of sustaining that same faith. Such truths as the Incarnation of Christ, His salvific action as Redeemer, the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Divine Motherhood of Our Lady, the mystical life of Jesus in the Eucharist – in no other prayer or public ceremony are they so intensely made manifest as in our Liturgy. But to recognise all of these truths and to live them, requires a strong faith... This is one reason why our Liturgy always demands the reading or singing of the Nicean Creed: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things both visible and invisible... So it is that throughout our ancient Liturgy earthly and heavenly things are visibly intermingled, and everyday acts are wonderfully sanctified by liturgical prayers and hymns. Let us then draw inspiration from our Liturgy and enrich our everyday life".

On 28 July 1977 Father Leo Haroshka died in a hospital in Paris, following an unsuccessful operation. He was 66 years old. His death was deeply felt not only by Belarusian Catholics, but by the whole Belarusian community. All those who met Father Haroshka had a strong awareness of being in the presence of a man who lived the truth of his religion. His sermons and articles on religious subjects only strengthened this impression. As a scholar he did much to show the Belarusians the Christian roots of their culture, whether he was writing about the 12th century Saint Euphrosinia of Polatsak, Belarusian church architecture, devotion to the Mother of God in Belarus, or religious elements in Belarusian folk culture. He constantly defended the right of Belarusians to be what they were and develop freely their God-given talents. He was particularly indignant with those who used religion for their political ends. His work  "Under the sign of the Russian and Polish Faith"[46], published in Bozhym shliakham , was a study, the first of its kind, of the "Kulturkampf", under the guise of religion, of the neighbours of Belarus from the East and West against everything Belarusian. His dream was the restoration of the Belarusian Greek Catholic Church. He respected all rites in the Church, but had never been tempted to become "biritualist", i.e. to be allowed to celebrate in both the Roman and Byzantine rites, according to need (or convenience). He believed in the equality of all rites in the Catholic Church, and felt that by becoming a biritualist he would diminish the value of his own Byzantine rite. His death had a very wide echo among the Belarusian community throughout the world. Numerous messages of sympathy were received, among them from Pope Paul VI and the head of the Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Metropolitan Andrew Kryt. The funeral took place on 8 August in London, where his body was brought from Paris by Father Nadson.

The death of Father Haroshka created new problems for the rapidly diminishing community of Belarusian priests. This was discussed at their reunion in Rome on 14-21 October 1977. The main problem was how to continue to do all the work with an ever decreasing number of priests. Father Tamushanski became the head of the Belarusian programmes on Vatican Radio, while Father Nadson, in addition to his duties in England, was appointed chaplain to the Belarusians in France, and from then on he had to shuttle between London and Paris. Because of the Synod of Bishops which was taking place at that time in Rome, the petition to the Pope requesting the appointment of a Belarusian bishop in Belarus was handed to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean Villiot. A visit to Monsignor Tatarynovich, now in a nursing home for old priests, was a poignant reminder that their number would soon be still smaller.

The year 1978 saw many changes in the Catholic Church. On 6 August Pope Paul VI died. He had reigned in the very difficult post-conciliar period. A man of peace, it was he who made the first  step towards healing the nearly thousand-year old rift between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. On the other hand his attempts to bring relief to the Catholics in the Soviet Union and other Communist-dominated countries by open means were viewed by many with mixed feelings and even brought accusations of cooperation with the Communists. In a conversation with Mgr Monatlvo on 20 March 1974 Bishop Sipovich mentioned the rumours in the newspapers, alleging that the Soviet Foreign minister Hramyka had spelled out to the Pope the conditions for further talks with the Holy See, one of them being that the question of the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine, which had been destroyed by the Communists in 1946, must be considered a "closed" issue. Monsignor Montalvo denied this. As far as Belarusians were concerned, the Vatican's attempts to obtain the consent of the Soviet authorities for the appointment of a bishop in Belarus could hardly be called a success. After the death of Paul VI and the brief pontificate of John Paul I, on 16 October 1978 Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Cracow, was elected the new successor of Saint Peter. The First non-Italian Pope for nearly 400 years, and the first Head of the Catholic Church from a Communist-dominated country. (Later, on 19 January 1979 he would say to Bishop Sipovich that while he was well familiar with Communist politics, Vatican politics remained still a mystery for him...). Belarusians were somewhat apprehensive, not knowing what to expect from the Polish Pope. What gave them reason to hope was that Belarusian was among the 48 languages, in which Pope John Paul II greeted the world on the first Christmas of his pontificate.

This was also a year in which Belarusians suffered new lossess. Although not unexpected, they were nevertheless painful. On 11 June Father Chrysostom Tarasevitch OSB, the founder of the Belarusian parish of Christ the Redeemer in Chicago, died at the age of 86. Just under three months later, on 3 September, came the death at the age of 82 of Monsignor Peter Tatarynovich who for thirty years had been a one-man Belarusian institution in the Eternal City. Finally on 26 December Father Joseph Hermanovich died in London in the 89th year of his life and 66th of priesthood. A priest, poet and teacher, he was one of the best-known and best-loved people among the Belarusian community throughout the world. Because of the Christmas holidays the funeral did not take place till 8 January. A huge congregation of people of many nationalities and religions attended. The funeral Liturgy was celebrated by Bishop Ceslaus Sipovich in concelebration with Father Nadson. Those present included the Superior General of Marian Fathers Joseph Sielski who preached a short sermon which Bishop Sipovich characterised in his diary as "pleasant, 'sweet' and 'tactful'". In his own eulogy Bishop Sipovich stressed the fact that "without Father Joseph and his educational work in Druia there would be no Belarusian bishop, just as without Polish Cardinal Wyszynski there would be no Polish Pope".

The Belarusian priests who gathered in Rome on 14 January 1979 were in a subdued mood. Apart from Bishop Sipovich there were only four other priests present, namely Fathers Uladzimir Tarasevitch from Chicago, Alexander Nadson from London, Robert Tamushanski and Constantine Maskalik from Rome. The problems of pastoral work with an ever decreasing number of priests were discussed, including the possiblility of ordaining married men and the need of religious literature and liturgical texts in Belarusian. But the main item the petition to the Pope to renew the efforts of his predecessor to appoint a Belarusian bishop there. On 19 January they had private audience with the Pope. The Holy Father first received Bishop Sipovich alone. Afterwards the Bishop wrote in his diary: "I said that the Holy Father knew why we were coming, namely to ask him to appoint a bishop for Belarus in the person of Father Charniauski, because there is periculum in mora (it is dangerous to wait – A.N.) and the Catholic Church may disappear. The Holy Father agreed that the Church in Belarus is danger of extinction... He asks: 'When you talk about Belarus, what do you understand by it?' I say: 'The BSSR (i.e. the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic – A.N.) in its post-war form, consisting of the (former – A. N.) BSSR and Western Belarus which had been under the Polish rule'... The Pope said: 'Polish bishops and Cardinal Wyszynski watch the situation in Belarus and from time to time send their priests there, thinking in this way to save the situation; but I think that a bishop is needed there'... Then the Pope delicately remarked that in Belarus they pray in Polish and the Soviet authorities consider Catholics as a foreign element... Here I tried to explain that young people in Belarus don't know the Polish language, and that not all educated Belarusians are atheists or hostile to religion. We must help them. The Pope asks about Father Charniauski; he says: 'This name is familiar to me. Who is he, a Marian?' I say: 'Yes!'. 'Well, perhaps something may be done!'... Then our priests began coming in... I briefly present each one, giving his name and position... Then he invited us to the middle of the room, and when everyone stood alongside the Pope, I read the greetings and explained in a few words the purpose of the present reunion and this audience... Then we went back to the Belarusian (Service of the Vatican) Radio, and there I informed the Fathers about my conversation with the Pope. Father Nadson remarked: 'I am sure the Polish bishops will try to impose on the Pope their own solution of the problem of Belarus and a Belarusian bishop'. I had no doubts about it even before the audience".

From the above account of the audience it appears that the new Pope was not very well informed about the religious situation in Belarus. This was not surprising; until his election less than three months earlier he had been Bishop of Cracow and not directly involved in Belarusian affairs. Most probably his main informants were Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish bishops from Bialystok and Drohiczyn, whose dioceses bordered on Belarus. In the Polish emigre press articles about the religious situation in Belarus appeared from time to time, most of them hostile to the use of Belarusian in the Catholic churches and attacking Father Charniauski as a "Belarusian nationalist". Thus a certain J. Mirski (most probably a pseudonym of a Polish priest) who visited Soviet Union in 1970-73, responding to the Belarusian author, W. Bryleuski, wrote in the Polish influential monthly Kultura  in 1976: "In fact I don't like the activity of Father Charniauski insofar as he attempts to impose on the people his personal Belarusian ideas, thus harming their faith, if he does it against their will. Moreover, speaking objectively, he serves not so much Belarus as the Soviet Union, because from the Belarusian language in the church it is nearer to Russian, to the Orthodox faith and Russification, than from Polish and Latin"[47]. Further on he asserts: "Now the pressure of Russification has been intensified. Does Mr Bryleuski realise what their (i.e. the local Catholic population – A.N.) reaction would be if the priests began using Belarusian consistently? It would be considered as a shameful betrayal both of the Church and of themselves, abandoning them as booty to the Soviet Leviathan who in any case is swallowing them"[48]. If one overlooks the emotional language, what the author was trying to say was that the Catholic Church in Belarus could survive only in the Polish form and with the Polish language. There was nothing new in this argument: it was used by the Poles in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was wrong then, but after the Vatican II Council, which proclaimed the equality of all languages in the Catholic Church, it sounded preposterous and positively antedeluvian. But of course it was not concern for the Church that prompted Mirski to use this argument. In this earlier article in the same journal he wrote: "The only mainstay of the Polish spirit and Catholicism in Belarus are the few remaining Polish churches"[49]. Another author, P. Lida, writing in 1980, spelled it out even more clearly: "Liquidation of the Church would mean liquidation of the last bastion of the Polish presence, which for over six centuries has exercised its influence in the formation of the spirit and culture of these lands"[50].

It is hard to say whether the Pope was familiar with these and similar publications. It seems, however, that he was much better informed about Belarus, when he and Bishop Sipovich met again in March 1980.

Bishop Sipovich had left London for Rome on 13 March. At Rome airport he met Fiorenzo Tagliabue, editor of the weekly Il Sabato, who offered him and a Polish priest from Cracow, Father Styczen, a lift in his car. During the drive the conversation turned to the situation in Belarus. Bishop Sipovich wrote: "Father Styczen said that Father Dzwonkowski, who writes for the Paris Kultura, visits Belarus every year. I say: 'Is his pseudonym Mirski?' He answered it was very likely, although his memory was not certain. When I began to criticise strongly  Mirski's article, in which he wrote that the Polish spirit in Belarus was maintained by the priests alone, Father Styczen was sorry that he had ever mentioned the name of Dzwonkowski. The conversation was interesting, but the Polish idea of the apostolate in Belarus proved to be not much different  form that in the pre-war Poland, so well known to me".

On the next day Bishop Sipovich went to the Vatican to try to arrange an audience with the Holy Father. He wrote in his diary: "Soon after the liturgy, which I offered for Belarus, for Father Charniauski and for successful outcome of my affairs in Rome, I went to St Peter's Basilica to pay a visit to the First Pope (i.e. Saint Peter – A.N.)... I made my confession and prayed at the tomb of St Peter and near the relics of St Josaphat, Archbishop of Polatsak... From the Basilica – and it was raining, – I went to the Papal Prefecture to arrange an audience with Pope John Paul II. Bishop J. Martin (prefect of the Papal household – A.N.) received me kindly... Bishop Martin asks me when I arrivd, how long I intend to remain. He hints that the Pope is overloaded with audiences, but because of my insistence to obtain a private audience, asks me to write a short application. He leaves me again alone... I wrote a short letter-request in Italian and gave it to Bishop Martin. He read it and said: 'Good!" I asked him to make a photocopy of my letter, and he kindly did so, then said: 'Wait here, I shall go and ask my 'superiors' about your audience'. He returned quickly and said: 'Fifty-fifty'. I don't know who this 'superior' of Bishop Martin is. Before, a year ago everything depended on him. Now everything has changed. Some people say that everything depends now on the Cracow priest Dziwosz who is the Pope's private secretary. Be it as it may, I have decided to follow the direct route, not to sneak round the corner and engage in behind-the-scenes diplomacy. In any case, I have commended my case to Saint Peter and have full confidence in him. There has never been a case in my life when he disappointed me".

From the Papal prefecture Bishop Sipovich went to the Oriental Congregation. There, as he wrote in his diary "someone said that the successor of Cardinal Philippe (he will be 75 in April) is going be Cardinal Rubin. I remarked that the Ukrainians and Belarusians will not be pleased". Cardinal Wladyslaw Rubin was a Pole.

Bishop's diary: "Saturday 15 III.1980. I stay at home (via Corsica 1). Make photocopies of articles from Kultura, especially one interesting article by a P. Lida (Father Dzwonkowski?) who writes against the use of the Belarusian language by Father Ul. Charniauski, and against his behaviour. He defends the old tradition which was forced on us by the Poles and Russians: Pole means Catholic, Russian – Orthodox. For the Belarusian there is no place in heaven or on earth!...

Wednesday 19 III.80. I cannot sleep at night. Various thoughts keep me awake, especially what to say to the Pope and what to ask him, when I succeed in getting an audience. What pains me most is that none of the Poles has showed any deeper interest in Belarus, her culture, her people. For them Belarus is just (part of) Russia, where the homegrown apostles make their missionary experiments. I want to tell this to Pope John Paul II. But how? And when?".

The audience took place on Friday 22 March. Here is how Bishop Sipovich described it: "... I see Bishop Martin. We greet each other. He conducts me to the room, where together with a bishop from Africa I wait for my turn. Then I talk to Mgr Pec, a Pole from the Poznan region, who is in charge of the order of audiences. 12.15 p.m. I hear the bell at Mgr Pec's table, and he goes first to see the Pope who gives the sign for me to enter. I say  'Praised be Jesus Christ'. Simultaneously the Pope says in Polish 'Praised be Jesus Christ'. He asks me to sit down. The Pope himself sits by the table. Before him there is an open atlas. I see in it the map of Belarus. The Pope says: 'I have prayed several times for Belarus. Now I have her before my eyes'. He shows the map. 'Il paese chiuso... (closed country...)', he repeats literally... I say: 'This is our request: give us a bishop in the person of Father Charniauski'. .... The Pope says: 'The Bishop of Drohiczyn came to see me. He spoke much about Belarus'. Then he repeated: 'Il mondo chiuso... (closed world)'. I want to draw the Pope's attention to the attitude of the Poles towards Belarus and Belarusians. I quote part of my memorandum in Latin, where I say that the Poles, no one knows why, call Belarus Russia, and describe Belarus as poor and miserable; but if you ask them about Belarus, they know nothing: neither language, nor history or culture. I say: 'Belarus today has many things that are beautiful in many respects'. The Pope listens carefuly, follows with his eyes the text which I read. I felt at that moment some uneasiness, because the Pope was prepared to hear about 'poor and miserable Belarus'; instead, he heard something different... I say once again: 'If you can, please appoint a bishop in Belarus'. He says: 'I have heard about Father Charniauski. There are some objections against him'. I say: 'At this moment we have no one better than him. If for some reason you reject him, we shall try to find someone else...' My audience lasted about 30 minutes. I thank God, His Mother and Saint Peter for everything".

From this account it is evident that this time the Holy Father was well prepared for the audience. In particular he knew about Father Charniauski and the objections against him. It may be a coincidence, but the expression "closed world" had been used by J. Mirski in his 1976 article: "My intention was to give some facts and observations which could shed a ray of light on this closed and little known world"[51].

It was a momentous audience: For the first time a Belarusian bishop had told a Polish Pope the truth about the attitude of the Poles towards his nation. He did it with dignity and charity, but nonetheless firmly and without hiding anything, however painful. Perhaps Bishop Sipovich had a feeling that this might be his last meeting here on earth with the Vicar of Christ, and he owed it to his people to tell him what weighed heavily in his heart.

.

Note: