Ana səhifə

Prefetto S. E. R. Mons. Pompedda Mario Francesco Archiv. Tit di Bisarcio


Yüklə 33 Kb.
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü33 Kb.
Clarification as for our recourses

Pidhirci 13th July 2005


Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica

Prefetto


S.E.R. Mons. Pompedda Mario Francesco

Archiv. Tit. di Bisarcio

Glory to Jesus Christ!


Your Eminence,
In regard to the seriousness of situation, we are sending You some information which can clarify our matter, the recourses against the exclusion from the OSBM Order: Fr. Roman V. Šelepko, Fr. Metoděj R. Špiřík, Fr. Eliáš A Dohnal.

First of all, the OSBM leadership blames us for disobedience, especially from 1st August 2004.

Explanation: On Sunday 1st August 2004 at about 4p.m., the monastery in Pidhirci was visited by the Provincial Superior Fr. Hryhorij Hrynkiv, OSBM. Because he had not announced the visitation of the monastery, there were only the Superior Fr. Roman Šelepko, Fr. Eliáš Dohnal and two brothers present. Fr. Metoděj Špiřík, Fr. Markian Hitiuk and Fr. Samuel Oberhauser were not present due to a mission. The Provincial Superior (Fr. H. Hrynkiv) came with Fr. D. Kiča, with the General Consultor Fr. G. Viomar and with two brothers. He wanted to speak only with Fr. Roman. Fr. Eliáš asked Fr. Hryhorij to allow him to be present at the initial interview due to the fact that there was the issue of the monastery sui iuris, for which we (8 monks) applied, under discussion at that time. This was not just a question of Fr. Roman, but of all of us. We proposed that after the initial interview he could speak with each individually. This claim by Fr. Eliáš was qualified as an extremely serious display of disobedience. The events that followed are a testimony that this claim of Fr. Eliáš was grounded:


  1. Within an hour about 20 monks arrived to throw us out from the monastery by force (without any decree). The aim was to destroy our request for a monastery sui iuris at its very core.

  2. Another evidence was the General Superior and the Provincial Superior visiting Card. L. Huzar and asking him to turn in writing to the state authorities with an aim to deport Fr. Eliáš, Fr. Metoděj and Fr. Samuel, citizens of Czech and Slovak Republics, as well as to prohibit the entrance to Ukraine to other 20 members of the Czech delegature (we can send that letter – from 6th August 2004 prot.№ P 2004/399).

  3. As a response to our (8 monks) application for a monastery sui iuris (4th July 2004), the Czech delegature was abolished (13th July 2004) and within several months all its members were systematically excluded. (The exception is one priest who is waiting for an exclusion.)

  4. The Bishop Pavlo Vasylyk gave us a decree dated 6th August 2004, with a consent to establish a monastery sui iuris in his diocese. The response was a pressure on him by the OSBM authorities so that he withdraw the decree. The Bishop died soon after.

  5. Another pressure by the OSBM authorities was put on the Bishop’s Synod (by means of visiting some of the bishops). The fruit was a negative attitude of the Synod towards the establishment of a monastery sui iuris.

  6. In October 2004 we received a decree according to which we were to be deported to the territory of the Slovak Republic, to a non-existent delegature and to a non-existent monastery in Nitra. When we pointed at a fault in the decree, this likewise was regarded as disobedience.

Conclusion: On 4th July 2004 we applied to the General Assembly OSBM and on 16th July 2004 to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches for a monastery sui iuris. By that time none of us had ever had any canonical reproof. After the application was made and after the events on 1st August 2004, we were marked as disobedient. This abstract phrase about disobedience was used against us without any juridical evidence of guilt in all canonical reproofs and exclusion decrees within half a year.

The image of obedience in the eyes of the OSBM authorities was like this: in the name of obedience to renounce our request for a transition from the OSBM Order into a monastery sui iuris subordinate to a bishop.

The response to our application for a monastery sui iuris was our procedural exclusion and moral blackening. The evidence is a quickened process of exclusion without observation of the Canonical law norms and without any opportunity for a defence.


In Christ,

Fr. Eliáš A. Dohnal, ThDr., OSBM




Fr. Roman V. Šelepko, ThLic., OSBM

Fr. Metoděj R. Špiřík, ThDr., OSBM


Fr. Markian V. Hitiuk, ThLic., OSBM

P.S.: If You would consider it necessary, we are willing to provide You with the analysis of most of the false accusations in individual canonical reproofs and exclusion decrees.



We enclose the letter with 14 questions related to the visitation on 9th July 2005, which we sent to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches through His Excellence Hlib Lonchina.


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət