Bishop Sipovich new file

51 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