Are All Paid Ministers Guilty Of Priestcraft?

[MiserereNobis]

My assumption is that the general authorites are paid by the LDS church for their services. Is this true? How does it work?

If so, then it seems that from the LDS point-of-view, being a paid minister is not sufficient to constitute priestcraft, which would answer the OP's question.

ETA: I just found the other thread and am reading there, so you can disregard this post. Thanks!

Edited December 29, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[juliann]

Yes, in many cases that is exactly what they are doing. Those who are not of our faith are not seeking the welfare of Zion! Because Zion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I do not know of any other religion who promotes the welfare of Zion. So under that point I would say yes. I do not think any do knowingly... yet that is how it works out. Christ Himself declared: "They are all wrong..." you know the rest. It is a hard saying, but you either believe the Church is Zion or it is not. One cannot have it both ways.

That is a horrible thing to say and the kind of thing I expect to see on anti-Mormon sites.

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued on 15 February 1978:

"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. . . .

"Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come. . . .

D & C 84.46-8: "And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit. And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father. And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world"

David O. McKay: "Members of the Church are admonished to acquire learning by study, and also by faith and prayer, and to seek after everything that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy. In this seeking after truth they are not confined to narrow limits of dogma or creed, but are free to launch into the realm of the infinite, for they know that 'truth is truth where ere 'tis found, whether on Christian or on heathen ground'" (McKay, Gospel Ideals, SLC, 1942: 440; the latter couplet is quoted frequently by Elder Orson F. Whitney: e.g., his pamphlet, Strength of the Mormon Position (1917): 33, and earlier as a Bishop and newspaper editor in Ogden.

"My beloved brothers and sisters, on behalf of the worldwide membership of this Church, I extend to our Catholic neighbors and friends our heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow. Pope John Paul II has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of Christianity, to lift the burdens of the poor, and to speak fearlessly in behalf of moral values and human dignity. He will be greatly missed, particularly by the very many who have looked to him for leadership." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Opening Remarks,” Ensign, May 2005, 4)

[Duncan]

one thing I feel for other churches and glad our church has mostly, but not entirely done away with, is fundraising. That is a hard roe to hoe

[DavidB]

C'mon folks! We are supposed to be outraged that anyone would take a thin dime in the course of ministering so the hypocricy of the Latter-day Saints can be revealed in the bright light of day.

You aren't playing along.

An interesting statement, likely in gest, but represents what many LDS think they are suppose to believe; that paid clergy/minister is a sin - which is represented by the other thread and the wrangling that General Authorities are paid for being CEOs. If we weren't suppose to be outraged then why the outrage over suggesting that LDS General Authorities receive monies.

I have no issue with the living allowance General Authorities receive, nor do I think a non-LDS clergy who is paid is automatically engaged in priestcraft.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is a non-LDS paid minister, pastor, religious leader guilty of priestcraft because that person receives monies for their services as a ministering?

No.

[DavidB]

My assumption is that the general authorites are paid by the LDS church for their services. Is this true? How does it work?

If so, then it seems that from the LDS point-of-view, being a paid minister is not sufficient to constitute priestcraft, which would answer the OP's question.

ETA: I just found the other thread and am reading there, so you can disregard this post. Thanks!

Which is kind of my point. Paid clergy isn't something to run from nor ridicule others for.

[Damien the Leper]

That is a horrible thing to say and the kind of thing I expect to see on anti-Mormon sites.

His little rant reminds me of the quotes Mr. Bowman cited in his thread that consisted of GAs badmouthing other churches. The bigotry does live on, unfortunately. And it would seem many LDS will continue to pay for it on behalf of the bigots.

I wish I could give you more points.

[Alan]

Are you more comfortable with GAs writing books to supplement their income or taking more in stipends?

More in stipends.

Writing books for profit smacks of exploitation to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

My assumption is that the general authorites are paid by the LDS church for their services. Is this true? How does it work?

If so, then it seems that from the LDS point-of-view, being a paid minister is not sufficient to constitute priestcraft, which would answer the OP's question.

I agree with what you have said in the successive posts, and could add that any LDS General Authority who is not independently wealthy would of course be taken care of financially. There are also full-time paid Church Educational System (CES) employees who staff seminaries and institutes worldwide and whose job is to teach religion to young people at the high school and college level. Missionaries are of course fulltime ministers of the Gospel, but usually pay their own way.

LDS ward bishops are almost as busy as RC parish priests and perform most of the same functions, but without pay, and are assisted in very well-organized fashion by many other lay members of the ward, some of whom have themselves been bishops for about 5 years.

[rongo]

While I can understand the point you are trying to make, I'd like to counter by saying that Catholic priests do not find themselves in this "ivory tower" isolation of which you speak. In fact, if I may be so bold, a parish priest is most likely even more in the trenches, albeit in a different way. Yes, he does not have a wife and child . . . .

I consider celibacy to be a big, big isolator for Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals. I don't begrudge them their pay, but man, not having the experience of fatherhood, marriage, etc. takes them out of the trenches, in a big way. Despite their best efforts (and they do much good).

[Calm]

The bottom line is that they have committed themselves full-time to God and do so by committing themselves full-time to helping His children. This should be applauded, not denigrated as priestcraft (I know you weren't doing that rongo, but I'm just wanting to make my point to others who are reading). Anyone who thinks that being a parish priest is easier than having a family and a "job" has never spent much time in a parish nor has spoken with many priests.

ETA: Also, in a Catholic parish, MANY ministries are run by lay volunteers. It's not like we sit around and do nothing while the priest does it all

And, I believe, a parish priest is completely dependent on the Church to take care of him not only when he is functioning as a priest, but when he retires. He has to trust he will be taken care of because when he is ordained he turns all his personal possessions over to the Church. Is this correct?

[Alan]

I used to work in the financial services industry (got out nearly 20 years ago, whoopee!) and met a number of clergy during the course of my work. I remember very well a Catholic priest I had as a client. I would go up to the Parochial house to see him. The house was very large and was probably worth around £500,000 in today's money. He was also provided with a car. The priest had a house keeper who did all of the cooking, cleaning, washing, shopping etc. He had a personal fortune of around £1million. I don't know how he got this money, but he certainly wasn't turning it over to the church.

[mfbukowski]

When I was called as a bishop, my counselors and I had one week (Sunday to the next Sunday ---- curtain up) to completely staff a newly formed ward. Multiple presidencies, bunches of teachers, and everyone needed to be ready to go by Sunday. All of this while working our day jobs and spending time with our families.

You have my sympathies. We had a recent massive stake merger eliminating one stake and doubling the size of another. In one meeting alone, 45 people had to be set apart on one Sunday afternoon. Just the setting apart took nearly 3 hours!

[mfbukowski]

And, I believe, a parish priest is completely dependent on the Church to take care of him not only when he is functioning as a priest, but when he retires. He has to trust he will be taken care of because when he is ordained he turns all his personal possessions over to the Church. Is this correct?

I might be wrong on this, but as far as I know, there are two types of priests- those who join a religious order which causes them to take a vow of poverty, and those who do not join such an order.

Those who do not practice poverty as a vow receive a regular salary from their diocese (a church unit like a stake, but probably larger in most cases).

The salary is theirs to spend as they see fit, but they are usually also provided with a place to live and often a car, etc, paid for by the diocese. I think they usually get a pension as well after retirement. I don't know if the use of a home extends into retirement or not.

Those who take a vow of poverty turn everything over to the church, and it is not unlike living what we would call "the law of consecration". These orders are often monastic orders, some such priests often are teachers in high schools and colleges and seminaries and of course have living quarters provided etc. Others live lives of contemplation and study.

[mfbukowski]

While I can understand the point you are trying to make, I'd like to counter by saying that Catholic priests do not find themselves in this "ivory tower" isolation of which you speak. In fact, if I may be so bold, a parish priest is most likely even more in the trenches, albeit in a different way. Yes, he does not have a wife and child, but he does have a job, and his job includes everything from counseling to economics. The priests I know spend WAY more than 40 hours a week at their "jobs." They work every weekend and holiday. They live in the rectory, which is right next to the church (or sometimes in the same building) and are always "on call" and get called often. They are hardly paid anything. Also, they hear confessions of all sins, which certainly helps them remain grounded in what is going on in the lives of their parishioners. They visit hospitals and prisons, the sick and the old. They give counsel. They teach classes. They work in the community.

The bottom line is that they have committed themselves full-time to God and do so by committing themselves full-time to helping His children. This should be applauded, not denigrated as priestcraft (I know you weren't doing that rongo, but I'm just wanting to make my point to others who are reading). Anyone who thinks that being a parish priest is easier than having a family and a "job" has never spent much time in a parish nor has spoken with many priests.

ETA: Also, in a Catholic parish, MANY ministries are run by lay volunteers. It's not like we sit around and do nothing while the priest does it all

It would be like being a Mormon bishop for life, but without family worries.

Having been a Catholic taught by Augustinians and Franciscans and having served mass as an altar boy in a parish church and known my Monsignor well, as well as being a former Mormon bishop, I think I kind of "get" this and how it might be

On one side, it would definitely be MUCH easier to serve as a leader of a congregation without a job and family responsibilities, but on the other side, Mormon bishops don't serve for a life-time.

Yet still on another hand, once you are in Mormon leadership you are in leadership. Though I am no longer a bishop, I have a very demanding calling which takes a lot of time and I still get to worry about my family and work responsibilities. In many ways I am putting in as much time now, but the responsibilities are less, so there is less stress.

You can't really put it all in scale to compare!

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be like being a Mormon bishop for life, but without family worries.

Having been a Catholic taught by Augustinians and Franciscans and having served mass as an altar boy in a parish church and known my Monsignor well, as well as being a former Mormon bishop, I think I kind of "get" this and how it might be

On one side, it would definitely be MUCH easier to serve as a leader of a congregation without a job and family responsibilities, but on the other side, Mormon bishops don't serve for a life-time.

Yet still on another hand, once you are in Mormon leadership you are in leadership. Though I am no longer a bishop, I have a very demanding calling which takes a lot of time and I still get to worry about my family and work responsibilities. In many ways I am putting in as much time now, but the responsibilities are less, so there is less stress.

You can't really put it all in scale to compare!

There are, of course, some Roman Catholic priests with wives and children, many of whom came over from the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, and they live pretty much as they did in their former posts. Others have become priests after raising a family and becoming widowers.

[Questing Beast]

OP question answered: No....

[mfbukowski]

There are, of course, some Roman Catholic priests with wives and children, many of whom came over from the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, and they live pretty much as they did in their former posts. Others have become priests after raising a family and becoming widowers.

What is largely not known among non-Catholics is that the entire Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church not only allows married priests but actively encourages it among those who are not called to a monastic life. The entire history and practices of the various Rites within the Catholic church is in itself a fascinating study.

We are not talking about "Eastern Orthodox" here but "Eastern Catholic" churches which have just as much allegiance to the pope as any Catholic community in the west. In fact I once considered changing rites and becoming a Byzantine Catholic so that I could be a priest and be married as well.

Their major liturgical language is Old Slavonic instead of Latin and they follow some fascinating customs which relate in my opinion to the temple as we know it. They still employ a screen or "veil" for example between the people and the most sacred portions of the church which include the altar.

I think you will find these links interesting.

Orarion: the stole, worn over the left shoulder; deacons may be given the double orarion as an award, which is worn over the left shoulder, wrapped around the chest and back, and brought back over the left shoulder to the front; in Greek practice, all deacons wear the double orarion

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Vestments#Eastern_Rite

http://books.google.com/books?id=TX0rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA535&lpg=PA535&dq=omophoron+left+shoulder&source=bl&ots=UVsktRhUAU&sig=AVfXww0mQ_MPndD_owkxsm4eyQo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=34XiUJ7lLeiWjALbwYEo&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=omophoron%20left%20shoulder&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omophor

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=683930

Edited January 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

What is largely not known among non-Catholics is that the entire Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church not only allows married priests but actively encourages it among those who are not called to a monastic life. The entire history and practices of the various Rites within the Catholic church is in itself a fascinating study.

We are not talking about "Eastern Orthodox" here but "Eastern Catholic" churches which have just as much allegiance to the pope as any Catholic community in the west. In fact I once considered changing rites and becoming a Byzantine Catholic so that I could be a priest and be married as well.

It turns out that some of my ancestors were Uniates.

[Robert F. Smith]

What is largely not known among non-Catholics is that the entire Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church not only allows married priests but actively encourages it among those who are not called to a monastic life. The entire history and practices of the various Rites within the Catholic church is in itself a fascinating study.

We are not talking about "Eastern Orthodox" here but "Eastern Catholic" churches which have just as much allegiance to the pope as any Catholic community in the west. In fact I once considered changing rites and becoming a Byzantine Catholic so that I could be a priest and be married as well.

Isn't that known as the Latin Patriarchate?

Thanks for that other excellent information, by the way.

And Happy New Year!!

[mfbukowski]

Isn't that known as the Latin Patriarchate?

Thanks for that other excellent information, by the way.

And Happy New Year!!

According to my understanding, in a word, no.

As I understand it the Latin Patriarchate is an administrative office and has nothing to do with the form of liturgy used in the Mass or what languages are used etc. The difference is roughly the difference between a traditional form of worship and what that tradition entails and the worldly administration of a geographic territory of believers.

The Eastern Rites reflect a different outward appearance in the way the sacraments or ordinances are performed, but the belief is that they are done with the same authority and power, but just done differently and in different languages, perhaps not unlike a sacrament meeting in a Samoan ward vs a Spanish or English ward. Of course the differences are much more radical, with different vestments and actually different prayers, but those differences are seen as "external" and no more important than the kind of food one might bring to a ward dinner in a different culture.

So if a Rite is the cultural context in which sacraments are done, the patriarchate has to do with administrative hierarchy over the church and who is in charge of what.

So the Latin Patriarch would be seen as perhaps like an Area Authority Seventy over an area which includes wards speaking different languages etc. One really doesn't have much to do with the other except for who is in charge of what is going on.

At least that is my limited understanding!

And Happy New Year to you as well!

[mfbukowski]

It turns out that some of my ancestors were Uniates.

I think if one is from Eastern Europe that is highly likely. Between the orthodox and the Uniates and even groups which have broken away from Catholicism like the Polish National Church, there are quite a variety of groups which are variants of one type or other of Catholicism without really being "Protestant" at all- and then there are the Protestants besides!

I remember some relatives who went to the Polish National Church because it was closer to home than their traditional parish until horrified relatives told them that "those people aren't Catholic!" The reality was though that they never noticed the difference, just that the mass "was a little different".

[media=]

So it's all a mixing pot of variations. The differences between a Byzantine mass (which is "legally Catholic") would be pretty radical and instantly noticeable to a traditional Roman Catholic, but as shown in this video, this breakaway "Non-Catholic" church has a mass which is virtually indistinguishable to traditional Catholics. On the other hand, the Byzantine Rite and other Uniate rites may be almost indistinguishable to someone who was raised Orthodox.

If you are not well educated in doctrinal nuances, it might make no difference to you where you attend anyway.

Anyway, it's pretty interesting. Here in the US we think of Catholics and Protestants as the main Christian groups, and they are very distinguishable. In Eastern Europe it is a whole different ball game!

But it might be instructive to Mormons to know what it is like to see no difference between the various "Mormon" groups and lump them all together as perhaps Mormons might lump all these folks together. And again, I will take this opportunity to emphasize why we call ourselves "Latter Day Saints" rather than Mormons.

I mean quick- are Moravians Christian? Are they Orthodox?

Did you have to think about it to know that yes they are Christian Protestants?

Using the name Moravian is just about as descriptive to others as Mormon is to non-members. Just because WE know all these nuances of our beliefs we should not assume that others make any distinction whatsoever.

Edited January 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

I think if one is from Eastern Europe that is highly likely.

What makes it particularly intriguing is that they were baptised Jews who kept up an Austro-Hungarian identity yet married almost entirely among themselves and kept moving in and out of the Jewish orbit. There is so much still to learn about the incredibly complex place that Eastern Europe was, and to a great extent, still is.

Between the orthodox and the Uniates and even groups which have broken away from Catholicism like the Polish National Church, there are quite a variety of groups which are variants of one type or other of Catholicism without really being "Protestant" at all- and then there are the Protestants besides!

To make it even more confusing, the Russian Orthodox Church was influenced by Lutherans for several centuries, and the Uniates and Kiev Patriarchy by the RCC.

I remember some relatives who went to the Polish National Church because it was closer to home than their traditional parish until horrified relatives told them that "those people aren't Catholic!" The reality was though that they never noticed the difference, just that the mass "was a little different".

[media=]

Lovely story.

So it's all a mixing pot of variations. The differences between a Byzantine mass (which is "legally Catholic") would be pretty radical and instantly noticeable to a traditional Roman Catholic, but as shown in this video, this breakaway "Non-Catholic" church has a mass which is virtually indistinguishable to traditional Catholics. On the other hand, the Byzantine Rite and other Uniate rites may be almost indistinguishable to someone who was raised Orthodox.

If you are not well educated in doctrinal nuances, it might make no difference to you where you attend anyway.

Anyway, it's pretty interesting. Here in the US we think of Catholics and Protestants as the main Christian groups, and they are very distinguishable. In Eastern Europe it is a whole different ball game!

But it might be instructive to Mormons to know what it is like to see no difference between the various "Mormon" groups and lump them all together as perhaps Mormons might lump all these folks together. And again, I will take this opportunity to emphasize why we call ourselves "Latter Day Saints" rather than Mormons.

The 17th century schism in the Russian Orthodox Church was an incredibly bloody and brutal affair complete with a civil war, so what triggered it? The use of three fingers to make the sign of the cross instead of two, and some changes to a few lines in the prayer books. People were willing to go to their death rather than use one finger more in crossing themselves.

To outsiders it can seem incomprehensible, even trivial, yet to these changes were attached very deep feelings of love to ancestors and loyalty to received tradition and its authority.

Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky, head of the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine during WWII, is a good illustration of the complex issues of rite and identity in Eastern Europe. As part of the Ukrainian-Polish aristocracy, Sheptytsky was born Roman Catholic, and was deeply devoted to the Pope. As Sheptytsky grew older, he drew closer to his Ukrainian roots, and left his military carreer and high society life to become a Greek Catholic priest. He never lost his allegiance to the Pope, but dedicated himself to the Byzantine rite of his people. He was even very supportive of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (as opposed to the Russian one of the Moscow Patriarchy) and its authority- they shared the same rite- helping to save it from both the Moscow Patriarchy and the Soviet Union, as well as defending it against Polish Catholic discrimination. One of Sheptytsky's brothers, OTOH, retained a Polish identity, being staunchly Roman Catholic til the end of his life.

My wife, deeply knowledgable on Ukrainian history, mentioned that Cossack leaders in the 16th and 17th centuries were actually Roman Catholic or Uniate (sometimes both), yet pretended to be Orthodox to the Cossack rank and file, who utterly detested Catholics. Even the infamous Khmelnytsky was Catholic.

I mean quick- are Moravians Christian? Are they Orthodox?

Did you have to think about it to know that yes they are Christian Protestants?

Using the name Moravian is just about as descriptive to others as Mormon is to non-members. Just because WE know all these nuances of our beliefs we should not assume that others make any distinction whatsoever.

The former Stalingrad was home to a Moravian colony (and, ironically, a large number of ethnic Germans) which later became Lutheran.

[Antoni]

To me one of the most powerful signs that the LDS church was for me and that it was true/ordained by God is its belief/stance on the dangers of and stand against priestcraft.

Let's not forget the first several hundred years of Church history existed without a paid clergy, to me it really is the sign of the apostasy, as it came in under the romanisation of Christianity under Constantine.

Now I know this will sound VERY judgemental and it really is not meant that way. However having been around ministers of numerous churches, being trained to be one myself and having a few in my family. I think the dangers of priestcraft are more prevalent than many think. I'm sure a great many go into it for reasons they feel are justifiable, but the danger to my mind is the moment their financial position (and therefore their sociological and physchological positions too) depends on them promoting a specific (and each denomination is specific) doctrine/view of world they are automatically in a rut.

I know of several pastors who have admited to me, they simply do it as they are now at an age when they can do nothing else.

Many churches, the LDS included prove that you don't need to be "trained" to be a minister. God equips us, yes it is good to learn about presentation skills, how to structure a lesson, and to have time to delve into the scriptures, but if these are done divorced from the reality of family and work life there is limited use to them. The LDS by pushing its members out of their comfort zones mean we have to take responsiblity and develop skills we might otherwise not do. Likesise the fact that we rotate roles is a great strength and stops stagnation.

I am especially wary of those that have left school, gone to Bible college and then gone straight into ministry. How on earth can they relate to the day to day grind of real life? This applies even more to a celibate Roman Catholic priest, how they can have the audacity to lecture on sexual/marital issues is again something I find purely hypocritical.

Many ministers are lovely people I'm sure, but I honestly believe that a sublte and perhaps even subconscious reason many hate/rail against the LDS is because they know they'd be out of job if they or others listen to us.

Also I can give examples of many people that have become ministers simply because they couldn't do anything else and knew it would be an easier job for them. There was a TV program on BBC recently looking at an intake to the Anglican's Welsh vicar college, I was dismayed at the standard of people they were accepting. Smoking and swearing seemed part of course, as did father of three young children who left them for the three years of the course! A dear friend of mine who is a committed, learned and loving man has been trying for over 10 years to be accepted by the Anglican communion to be trained as a vicar and yet he's turned down and other more "trendy" people are accepted.

I have a personal rule that I do not discuss religion with paid ministers, as I don't find them open to discussion but rather they are salesmen for their own brands.

Sorry if this reads like a rant, it reallt isn't, I'm just very passionate about this topic and believe it is a key doctrine for us.

[mfbukowski]

What makes it particularly intriguing is that they were baptised Jews who kept up an Austro-Hungarian identity yet married almost entirely among themselves and kept moving in and out of the Jewish orbit. There is so much still to learn about the incredibly complex place that Eastern Europe was, and to a great extent, still is.

To make it even more confusing, the Russian Orthodox Church was influenced by Lutherans for several centuries, and the Uniates and Kiev Patriarchy by the RCC.

Lovely story.

The 17th century schism in the Russian Orthodox Church was an incredibly bloody and brutal affair complete with a civil war, so what triggered it? The use of three fingers to make the sign of the cross instead of two, and some changes to a few lines in the prayer books. People were willing to go to their death rather than use one finger more in crossing themselves.

To outsiders it can seem incomprehensible, even trivial, yet to these changes were attached very deep feelings of love to ancestors and loyalty to received tradition and its authority.

Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky, head of the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine during WWII, is a good illustration of the complex issues of rite and identity in Eastern Europe. As part of the Ukrainian-Polish aristocracy, Sheptytsky was born Roman Catholic, and was deeply devoted to the Pope. As Sheptytsky grew older, he drew closer to his Ukrainian roots, and left his military carreer and high society life to become a Greek Catholic priest. He never lost his allegiance to the Pope, but dedicated himself to the Byzantine rite of his people. He was even very supportive of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (as opposed to the Russian one of the Moscow Patriarchy) and its authority- they shared the same rite- helping to save it from both the Moscow Patriarchy and the Soviet Union, as well as defending it against Polish Catholic discrimination. One of Sheptytsky's brothers, OTOH, retained a Polish identity, being staunchly Roman Catholic til the end of his life.

My wife, deeply knowledgable on Ukrainian history, mentioned that Cossack leaders in the 16th and 17th centuries were actually Roman Catholic or Uniate (sometimes both), yet pretended to be Orthodox to the Cossack rank and file, who utterly detested Catholics. Even the infamous Khmelnytsky was Catholic.

The former Stalingrad was home to a Moravian colony (and, ironically, a large number of ethnic Germans) which later became Lutheran.

There are two strong strong drives, it seems to me, in Eastern Europeans and perhaps I am most familiar with those drives as they manifest themselves in the Polish "Character" if such a thing can be defined- and those two drives are first, a fierce tendency toward freedom and independence and yet, second, just as fierce a need to keep to tradition. These are always in conflict.

All you have to do is look at the history of Poland to see this recurring conflict displayed again and again. They want to keep the monarchy, but don't really want a monarchy, so they decide to elect their kings.

I mean what is that about? Then they don't like how all that is working so they form perhaps the first parliament in Europe, but it can only rule by unanimous agreement.

They are fiercely aligned with Catholicism (or I presume Judaism or whatever is traditional to the individual group) and yet they want to adjust it just a little bit.

That is the root of the problem in my opinion. "Tradition" mixed with "Freedom".

No wonder so many emigrated to the US!