Bishop Sipovich new file

59 Westminster, I was granted permission to collect money for the purchase of ‘Marian House’ for the Belarusian Marians... To make things clear I enclose the necessary documents and humbly ask Your Eminence’s assistance in buying the house, leaving it to your consideration and generosity". Tisserant answered on 25 February 1955: "With regard to the purchase of the House for the Mission, since the contract is going to be an internal affair within the same Religious Congregation (between Lithuanian Marian Fathers of Latin rite and Belarusian Marian Fathers of Byzantine rite), this Sacred Congregation (for the Eastern Churches – A.N. ) has no particular interest in it; if, on the other hand, the purchase were made for the Belarusian Catholic Mission of Byzantine rite in England ‘sic et simpliciter’ (thus and simply), then and only then would this Sacred Congregation examine its possibilities with the view of making a contribution". The Belarusian community abroad after the Second World War consisted mainly of "new" emigrés, i.e. those who remained in the West as refugees, unable to return to Belarus which was then part of the Soviet Union. Most of them were young, and in the early 1950s they were just beginning to build new lives in the countries of their final settlement. They worked hard and, if not exactly suffering extreme hardship, certainly needed every penny they earned. At the same time they showed great understanding of matters concerning Belarusian interests and the preservation of their national identity. Many of them appreciated the value of a permanent Belarusian religious centre, and that was the reason for their generous response to the appeal for the purchase of Marian House, not only from the Catholics, but also from the Orthodox. However, if the appeal had been made on behalf of the Marian Fathers, the Belarusians response would have been no different from that of Cardinal Tisserant. For the younger generation of Belarusians who grew up during the war, the Marian Fathers meant nothing. Older people, on the other hand, might have remembered the fate of Druia and that would have made them cautious. The life of Father Sipovich was closely bound up with the Congregation of Marian Fathers since the moment when as a young peasant boy he joined the juniorate at Druia. He remained faithful and emotionally attached to them to the end. The years spent at Druia left a deep impression on him. With the passage of time the importance of that establishment in the religious life of Belarus grew in his imagination out of all proportions. Marian House, in Sipovich’s plans, was to become a continuation of Druia, at least in spirit, or a "New Druia", as he wrote to Cardinal Tisserant. On the whole, however, he kept the idea of "New Druia" to himself and shared it only with a few persons who in his opinion would appreciate it. Thus on 27 August 1954 he wrote to Father Michael Urbanovich, a Belarusian Marian Father who spent practically all his life working among Poles and Lithuanians in the United States: "Marian House is going to be a New Druia which, ruined and profaned by the atheists, will always glory in the fact that our holy Fathers Abrantovich, Tsikota and Hermanovich, who gave their lives and shed blood for the faith, worked there. I, the only survivor, would like to continue with the help of God the traditions of Druia, of my dear Fathers who educated me. That is why it is necessary to establish a house of Belarusian Marian Fathers in exile". A little more succintly Sipovich wrote on 1 October 1954 to Dr Stanislaus Hrynkievich in Cleveland: "Marian House is a New Druia. Here a place must be found for Belarusian archives, museum etc. It is very difficult to make this plan come true, but with the help of God everything is possible".