Andriy Sheptytsky: Conscience of the Ukrainian Nation or Uniates' Idol?
The UGCC has established an order in honor of Andrey Sheptytsky to be awarded for upholding the ideals he espoused. But are those ideals truly universal for all Ukrainians?
On 16 October, the leadership of the UGCC decided to institute a new church award – the Order of Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky.
In the decree announcing this order, Sviatoslav Shevchuk described Sheptytsky as follows: “This righteous man was not only the head of the Local Church, which he led through difficult times with tireless responsibility, but also the spiritual leader of his people, a voice of conscience for them, a bearer of extraordinary qualities and deeds.”
From information published on the UGCC website, we learn that this award will be conferred “for outstanding personal merit in the spheres of ascetic endeavor and church–state–society relations, in which are embodied the values and ideals professed by the righteous Metropolitan Andriy.” It is specified that grounds for conferral should include “active civic commitment in confronting evil... civic courage, self-sacrifice, heroic acts of public significance, devotion to interethnic reconciliation, interreligious and ecumenical dialogue, church–state–society relations... sustained and consistent state activity on Christian foundations.”
And all this would be unobjectionable if Greek Catholics were creating the order solely for figures within their own ecclesiastical structure and did not seek to make Sheptytsky’s person the conscience of the entire Ukrainian nation – if they were not so aggressively promoting him across Ukraine as a moral and spiritual authority, a sort of exemplar to be revered not only by Greek Catholics but by all Ukrainians. Monuments to Sheptytsky are being unveiled with the participation of the President, streets in cities across Ukraine are being named after him, and scholarly conferences and television programs are devoted to his memory.
But does Sheptytsky’s personality truly merit the pedestal on which he is now enthroned?
Yes, he played a significant role in the development of his Church, but historical documents suggest that this was a man whose moral and spiritual qualities are hardly worthy of being called a model or the conscience of the entire Ukrainian nation – let alone of Orthodox Christians. To avoid empty assertions, let us recall some facts from his biography.
Sheptytsky’s ideals in church–state relations: Russia and Austria
What values and ideals did Andriy Sheptytsky actually profess in the sphere of church–state relations? They were varied – indeed, mutually contradictory. Everything depended on external circumstances. In other words, Sheptytsky had no firm moral principles or standards. He was capable of changing his views with remarkable ease, and his skill in adapting to circumstances inspires nothing but astonishment.
At the very start of the First World War, Sheptytsky wrote:
“As soon as the victorious Austrian army crosses the border of Ukraine, we will face a triple task: military, social, and ecclesiastical organization of the country. The resolution of these tasks must... contribute to the anticipated uprising in Ukraine and also ensure that these territories are separated from Russia as decisively as possible, to give them the character of a national territory independent of Russia and alien to the tsarist state.”
Here, “decisive separation from Russia” and “alien to the tsarist state” were Sheptytsky’s first priorities after an Austrian victory.
Yet literally a few months later (in March 1914) he sent a letter to Emperor Nicholas II, assuring him of his loyalty and calling him “the unifier of Slavdom”:
“The Orthodox–Catholic Metropolitan of Galicia and Lviv, who for many years has wished and is daily ready to sacrifice his life for the good and salvation of Holy Rus and Your Imperial Majesty, humbly lays at Your Majesty’s feet his heartfelt good wishes and joyful greetings on the occasion of the final reunification of the remaining parts of Russian Land.”
(Published in the newspaper Novoye Vremya, Petrograd, August 1917, cited in Semen V. Savchuk and Yuriy Mulyk-Lutsyk, History of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church in Canada, vol. 2, p. 619.)
From this text it is evident that Sheptytsky’s views had shifted – and he was now sending “heartfelt good wishes” to the very “tsarist state” he previously denounced.
Perhaps the Uniate metropolitan had repented? Not at all. Already in August 1914 he issued a pastoral message to the faithful in border villages, calling on them to fight against Russia, since the Uniates were “going into battle for the holy faith, bound by God’s mercy to the Austrian state and the Habsburg dynasty.”
But this position, too, quickly changed as soon as he was brought from Lviv to Kyiv. In September 1914 (just a month after urging his flock to war against “tsarism”), he wrote another letter to the Russian emperor about the “successes of the Russian army and the reunification of Galicia with Russia, which the three-million population of Galicia joyfully welcomes as brothers.”
These examples show that Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky did not burden his conscience with any serious moral position regarding relations with the authorities – when the political winds shifted, so did his views. For him, the side in the right was simply the side that was stronger. Apparently this is what Uniates call “sustained and consistent state activity on Christian foundations.” With one caveat: these foundations were anything but Christian.
“Active civic position in confronting evil,” or Sheptytsky, Hitler, and Stalin
The same pattern is evident during the Second World War.
It is well-known that Metropolitan Sheptytsky welcomed the fascist German occupiers and fervently wished Hitler victory. On 5 July 1941 (five days after the occupation of Lviv began), Sheptytsky addressed his flock with these words:
“By the will of Almighty and All-Merciful God, a new era is beginning in the life of our homeland. We greet with joy the victorious German army, which has already occupied almost the entire region, and we express gratitude for our liberation from the enemy. In this historic moment, I call on you, fathers and brethren... on the nearest Sunday after receiving this call, to serve a thanksgiving service, and after the hymn ‘We Praise Thee, O God,’ to proclaim many years to the German army and to the Ukrainian people.”
(State Archive in Lviv, f. 358, op. 1, d. 11.)
Moreover, in a personal letter to Adolf Hitler, Sheptytsky wrote:
“Your Excellency! As head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, I send to Your Excellency my heartfelt congratulations on taking possession of the capital of Ukraine, the golden-domed city on the Dnieper – Kyiv! ... We see in You the invincible commander of the incomparable and glorious German army. The cause of destroying and eradicating Bolshevism, which You, the Führer of the Great German Reich, have set yourself in this campaign, assures Your Excellency the gratitude of the entire Christian world. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church knows the true meaning of the mighty movement of the German people under Your leadership... I will pray to God for a blessing on your victory, which will be the guarantee of lasting peace for Your Excellency, the German Army, and the German People.”
(Former PAI PP under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, f. 57, op. 4, d. 338, l. 131–132.)
Yet just as with Austria, Sheptytsky’s views changed abruptly when he realized Germany was losing. In 1944, the day after Soviet troops took Lviv, Sheptytsky sent Stalin a congratulatory message, calling him the “Supreme Leader,” “Ruler of the USSR, Commander-in-Chief, and Great Marshal of the Invincible Red Army,” and wrote:
“These bright events and the tolerance with which you treat our Church have inspired in our Church the hope that it, like the whole people, will find under your leadership complete freedom for work and development in prosperity and happiness.”
In a conversation with the USSR’s Commissioner for Religious Cults, Sheptytsky added:
“I am sincerely glad that Soviet power has freed us from those Germans, and I have spoken and continue to speak to the faithful and clergy about this joy and the duties it entails. Just today I held a council of local clergy and some visitors. I hold such councils every Thursday. I instructed them on how to be grateful and obedient to Soviet power, sent to us by God, and the clergy sincerely accepted my instructions.”
These quotations clearly show that Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky was simply an opportunist, eager to ingratiate himself with whoever held power. The image of Sheptytsky as a man of “active civic commitment in confronting evil” collapses under the slightest scrutiny.
One might think that the era in which Sheptytsky lived offered more than enough opportunities to show self-sacrifice, heroism, or moral courage – after all, there was Hitler, Stalin, the Gulag, concentration camps, gas chambers, and mass murder. What better moment to denounce evil and set hearts aflame with truth? Yet instead of condemning Hitler and Stalin, Sheptytsky sang their praises and fawned over them in hopes of securing some dividends. Perhaps for Greek Catholics this is an example worthy of imitation – but Orthodox Christians have very different notions of dignity and moral example.
"Values and ideals espoused by the Righteous Metropolitan Andriy,” or Sheptytsky and nationalism
Modern Uniates see Andriy Sheptytsky not only as a “spiritual authority” but also as the model of a true pastor and genuine patriot of Ukraine. However, those who lived at the same time as Sheptytsky had a very different view.
For example, UGCC Bishop Hryhoriy Khomyshyn, who was tortured to death by the Soviet authorities and in 2001 was beatified by Pope John Paul II, believed that Sheptytsky’s flirtation with nationalists inflicted great harm on the Ukrainian people and that his sole aim was “self-aggrandizement.” In his book Two Kingdoms, Bishop Khomyshyn wrote:
“The Metropolitan, who claimed to be the father of the people, failed in this. He silently, passively, turned a blind eye to all our missteps and even indirectly assisted them. As a result, he indeed became a great patriot, but he did us more harm than an outright enemy, because he did not care about the good of the Ukrainian people – he cared about his own greatness.”
This specifically relates to Metropolitan Andrey’s position toward the OUN-UPA and various terrorist groups that, under the guise of a national-liberation struggle, carried out murders and other atrocities. Khomyshyn writes:
“Instead of sober and reasonable policy, there began a course of terrorist actions among our youth... On the occasion of the death or execution of some prominent terrorist or leader, memorial services were held in St. George’s Cathedral. When the young men Bilas and Danylyshyn were hanged for the murder of Holówko (Tadeusz Hołówko – a prominent Polish statesman), the bells of St. George’s rang at the moment the sentence was carried out. This despite Bilas and Danylyshyn being blind instruments in the hands of the GPU...”
Moreover, Khomyshyn argued that such a position by Sheptytsky was inexcusable:
“He was obliged by every possible means, even unsuccessfully and even at the cost of suffering, to oppose that murderous nationalist fervor, to resist the actions of Ukrainian terrorist organizations – all the more since they harmed not only the Ukrainian people but also the Church, the faith, and ethics...”
According to Khomyshyn, instead of condemning the terrorists, Andriy Sheptytsky justified their “sacrifice,” thereby provoking further acts of terrorism:
“In his ‘Word to Ukrainian Youth,’ the Metropolitan spoke cautiously, ‘paternally,’ about the terrorist activities of Ukrainian youth, and at the very beginning he said that in the ‘sacrifice’ of terrorists there was a ‘fundamentally Christian’ quality.”
But, Khomyshyn insisted, such a position was indefensible “either dogmatically or ethically,” because
“He who kills his neighbor out of national or patriotic hatred, and does so treacherously, cannot be considered a victim and possesses no Christian qualities at all – he is simply a murderer... That ‘Word’ of the Metropolitan could not make the youth reconsider. On the contrary, the terrorists interpreted it in their own spirit and were further encouraged in their terrorist actions...”
Another telling example of Sheptytsky’s attitude toward nationalist ideals was his blessing of the flag of the youth organization Plast unit called the “Forest Devils.” On this, Khomyshyn writes with astonishment and deep pain:
“Some of Your Excellency’s actions simply cannot be explained. For example, blessing in the cathedral the flag of Ukrainian Plast members bearing the name ‘Forest Devils’... Shouldn’t this be a cause of grief for every believing Christian who sees in this a contempt for Christ?... That these young Plast members chose such a name can be explained by their folly (although in any case it speaks to a lack of awareness and Christian faith), but that Your Excellency paid no attention to this and did not wish at least to change the name, and even allowed the blessing of their flag – this is a sorrow for every believing Christian.”
“Some of Your Excellency’s actions simply cannot be explained. For example, blessing in the cathedral the flag of Ukrainian Plast members bearing the name ‘Forest Devils’... Shouldn’t this be a cause of grief for every believing Christian who sees in this a contempt for Christ?”
(Hryhoriy Khomyshyn, Two Kingdoms)
If such testimony had come from Orthodox bishops or priests, Ukrainian Uniates might object that it was biased or unfair. But when the criticism comes from someone whom they themselves recognize as a saint (unlike Sheptytsky so far), those objections fall flat.
Especially striking is that the publication of Khomyshyn’s book caused a scandal in Ukraine. Its editors and publishers – Catholic Bishop Marian Buczek, UGCC priest Ihor Pelekhatyi, and Professor Volodymyr Osadchy – were branded “Putin propagandists,” and the book itself was labeled a forgery. The presentation of Two Kingdoms in Lviv in 2016 was broken up by nationalists, the UGCC leadership pulled the book from public libraries, and it was banned from distribution in Ukraine. Ihor Pelekhatyi was fired from the “Nova Zoria” publishing house, which he had successfully led for many years, and was brought before a church court. He was forced to write an open letter to UGCC head Shevchuk asking him to stop the reprisals.
Isn’t that an unusual attitude toward a book written by a canonized saint? Could it be because the facts laid out in it cast an unflattering light on a widely promoted idol whose reputation is now so aggressively advanced?
But these facts cannot be dismissed: flirting with terrorist groups, justifying murder, fawning over politicians, blessing acts completely unacceptable for a Christian – all this truly shows that the “righteous Metropolitan” does not quite match the rosy portrait painted of him by Greek Catholics.
In truth, Sheptytsky did much for the Unia, including organizing its spread throughout Soviet Ukraine with the help of fascists. And in pursuit of this goal, Sheptytsky was not above anything – including outright deceit.
“Asceticism in interreligious and ecumenical dialogue” and Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky
Many Uniates call themselves Orthodox. Yet at the same time, they view Orthodoxy itself as an outright enemy, while in their hearts they see themselves as Catholics. The chief distinguishing feature of this brand of Greek Catholicism is not faith in Jesus Christ but recognition of the Roman Pope as the head of the Church. And it was precisely to this category of Uniates that Andrey Sheptytsky belonged.
Addressing his flock with a call to go work in Germany, Sheptytsky wrote:
“Above all, hold fast to your Catholic faith and avoid, as you would fire, any temptation to abandon it... Our faith is Catholic faith, it is marked by recognizing the Roman Pontiff as head of the entire Church and Vicar of Christ... This is the faith of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers going back to St. Vladimir...”
Sheptytsky considered the spread of the Unia to be the main task of his life, and for that mission he was prepared to sacrifice everything – faith, conscience, convictions. According to one member of the Polish underground, W. Piechowska, Sheptytsky “made it quite clear that if the Soviet authorities allowed the spread of the Unia throughout all of Ukraine, then at that very moment he, along with the entire Greek Catholic Church, would be ready to cooperate with the USSR.”
The German occupation opened new horizons for the Metropolitan to expand the Unia. In 1942 alone he convened three archdiocesan synods, the real purpose of which was explained by leading UGCC ideologist Ivan Hryniokh:
“All preparations for the foundation of union must proceed in one direction: it is necessary to change the spirituality of our unconverted brethren so that they themselves will want union with the Catholic Church and will strive for it.”
For example, on 7 May 1942 during the second archdiocesan synod, the so-called Main Rules of Pastoral Care were issued, placing chief emphasis on spreading the Unia and creating new parishes throughout the USSR. In section IV of these Rules, written by Sheptytsky, we read:
“If any member of the clergy finds himself in the territory of a [non-Uniate] Orthodox Church, he has the right to establish a parish... In doing so, one must keep several points in mind, in particular, in such parishes all traditions in rites, teachings of faith, and morality that do not contradict Catholic faith should be preserved in their original form. Mention of the Pope’s name in the Liturgy should only be introduced with careful consideration of the situation so as not to repel the faithful at first contact... It is also permissible to leave in such churches icons of saints not recognized in the Catholic Church so as not to provoke accusations of Latinization...”
“If any member of the clergy finds himself in the territory of a [non-Uniate] Orthodox Church, he has the right to establish a parish... Mention of the Pope’s name in the Liturgy should only be introduced with careful consideration of the situation so as not to repel the faithful at first contact... It is also permissible to leave in such churches icons of saints not recognized in the Catholic Church so as not to provoke accusations of Latinization...”
(Andriy Sheptytsky, Main Rules of Pastoral Care)
In other words, the very Latinization and conversion of Orthodox populations to the Unia were to be carried out covertly, through manipulation and the most blatant deceit.
Conclusions
Today, as the glorification of Sheptytsky gains ever greater momentum in our society and his ideas are adopted by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, it is worth asking: who really was this man? A principled Christian pastor concerned with the salvation of his flock, or a corporate-minded manager who closed his eyes to many actions utterly incompatible with the teachings of Christ in order to advance his own institution?
If we strip away all the propaganda-laden, pseudo-patriotic syrup currently being poured over us by pro-Uniate religious and secular media outlets, it becomes easy to conclude that Andriy Sheptytsky’s personality may be of interest solely to Greek Catholics themselves and to scholars specializing in the history of Ukraine in the first half of the 20th century. But all efforts to present him as the “conscience of the Ukrainian nation” are an open insult both to the very concept of Christian conscience and to the Ukrainian nation itself.
We now live in an era of “post-truth,” when what actually happens (or happened) is less important than how it is spun in the media. It is a swampy age of cynical lies and manipulations. And only a Christian has the chance to remain standing on the solid ground of true truth.
Without a doubt, even in such times there will be true ascetics of the faith whom the Lord will glorify. But such people, in their lifetime, unfailingly follow and do His will. If the figure being so aggressively promoted does not match any striving for truth, or a pure heart, or humility, then it is worth remembering the second commandment given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
