Bishop Sipovich new file

52 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