Високопреосвященним і Преосвященним владикам,
всесвітлішим, всечеснішим і преподобним отцям,
преподобним ченцям і черницям, дорогим у Христі мирянам
Української Греко-Католицької Церкви

Христос воскрес!

Дорогі в Христі!

Уже третій рік поспіль Українська Греко-Католицька Церква з ініціативи Комісії у справах родини долучилася до проведення в Україні Тижня подружжя – міжнародного руху, який спрямований на поширення в суспільстві сімейних цінностей. Святкування в нашій Церкві розпочалося з Дня матері – 12 травня, а 15 травня ми відзначали Міжнародний день сім’ї. Заохочуємо душпастирів, прородинні організації та сім’ї і надалі докладати всіх зусиль задля підтримки традиційних родинних цінностей, базованих на Божому Об’явленні та науці Христової Церкви.

«Родина, сильна Богом, є силою свого народу», – твердив блаженний Папа Іван Павло ІІ, а ці його слова були неначе відгомоном вчення слуги Божого Митрополита Андрея (Шептицького), який в одному зі своїх послань так писав про християнську родину: «Сміло можна сказати, що щастя і моральна вартість як кожної людини зокрема, так і цілого народу, а в більшому ще ступені й ціла будучність його залежить від того, чи якраз цей корінь суспільного життя і ця ділянка людського життя, в якій скупчуються всі його справи, є здоровий і сильний… Майбутність належить до тих народів, у яких подружжя є річчю святою, у яких родинне життя є чисте й святе! І у таких народів легко найти лад і силу. Такі народи з елементарною силою здобувають собі добробут. А навпаки, нарід, що його точить рак неморального родинного життя, такий нарід не може не розтрачувати свого майна, не може не дійти до упадку!» (Християнська родина, 1900 р.).

Сьогодні усім нам слід пригадати, що сім’я, як нерозривний і плідний союз у любові чоловіка і жінки, установлена самим Творцем (пор. Бут. 1, 27–28). Священне Писання вчить, що всяке інше співжиття, особливо між особами одної статі, є важкою зневагою гідності і самої людини, і сім’ї та важким гріхом супроти Бога-Творця (пор. Рим. 1, 24–32).

Турбота про християнські сім’ї і захист родинних вартостей є сьогодні особливо важливими, оскільки ми із сумом спостерігаємо, як у багатьох країнах світу чиняться спроби знівелювати цінність сім’ї та викривити правду про неї. Ці згубні тенденції не мають кордонів і загрожують також нашому суспільству. Зокрема, певні групи намагаються за допомогою різноманітних технологій переконати суспільство приймати або принаймні закривати очі на небезпеку, яку несуть із собою гомосексуальні зв’язки, котрі вдають і пародіюють «священні подружні вузли», а насправді є відвертим запереченням Божого задуму щодо сім’ї та родини. Проте гріх не можна ані толерувати, ані тим більше пропагувати за посередництвом різних «парадів», поширення аморальності в ЗМІ чи впровадження хибних теорій у навчально-виховний процес. Усі відповідальні за майбутнє нашої країни, особливо наших дітей, – передусім батьки, а відтак освітні інституції та органи влади різних рівнів, – мусять пам’ятати про свою важку відповідальність за це перед Богом і народом.

Господь устами псалмоспівця запевняє нас про своє благословення для сім’ї та родини як спільноти, створеної союзом любові чоловіка та жінки, в якому діти є знаком Божої прихильності і радістю своїх батьків: «Щасливий кожний, хто Господа боїться і хто Його путями ходить!.. Жінка твоя, неначе лоза плодовита, у середині дому твого. Діти твої, мов парості оливки, навколо столу твого. Ось так буде благословенний чоловік, що Господа боїться» (Пс. 128, 1–4). Церква, як любляча мати, закликає всіх своїх дітей до вірності Божому законові, до будування особистого, родинного та суспільного буття на міцній основі Божого Слова і Божої любові.

Пам’ятаючи, що нема християнського життя, нема міцної християнської родини без молитви, закликаю всю Церкву об’єднатися в ревній молитві до Господа про Боже благословення і опіку для української сім’ї та родини. Для цього поручаю душпастирям в неділю, 19 або 26 травня, прочитати цей мій заклик, а після Божественної Літургії спільно з вірними прочитати молитву Митрополита Андрея та «Отче наш» і «Богородице Діво» в наміренні українських родин.

Нехай за молитвами Пресвятої Богородиці, святого Йосифа – опікуна Пресвятої родини, та всіх святих нашого народу всемилостивий Господь зішле на наші сім’ї та родини своє небесне благословення!

+ СВЯТОСЛАВ

Дано в Києві,
при Патріаршому соборі Воскресіння Христового
17 травня 2013 р.Б.
в день св. мч. Пелагії

Молитва Митрополита Андрея Шептицького за українську родину

Боже великий, Боже отців наших! Дай нашому народові якнайбільше добрих, святих християнських родин. Дай нам таких батьків, які голосно й відверто признавалися б до божественної Твоєї Євангелії і до Твоєї служби. Дай нам батьків, які для своїх дітей були б прикладом християнського життя, правдивими опікунами та добрими провідниками в житті. Дай нам таких матерів, що вміли б добре, по-християнськи виховувати своїх дітей, а для своїх чоловіків були б поміччю, потіхою та доброю радою. Дай нам таких дітей, які були б потіхою та славою батьків і красою свого народу. Благослови, всемогутній Боже, український нарід. Даруй йому ласку вірно Тобі служити і доступити колись вічної нагороди в небі, бо Тобі, Боже, у Святій Тройці єдиний, Отче, Сину і Духу Святий, належить вся слава, честь і поклін навіки вічні. Амінь.

Отче наш…

Богородице Діво…

The Commission updated the Vocational Awareness Directives brochure that they had published last year, reviewed seminary programs and policies regarding married seminarians, courses on monastic and religious life, and programs for on-going formation of clergy.

As an identifiable group, the Ukrainians in Canada began settling the Prairie region at the end of the nineteenth century. One of the first institutions from the Old Country that they re-established
there were churches. The earliest of them were built even before there were priests to serve them; when priests finally arrived, they were immediately welcomed and asked to serve liturgies in church buildings that were still under construction.

The sequence of events described above was typical of almost any early community that developed amongst the early Ukrainian immigrants to this country. This presentation will summarize the sudden evolution and eventual decline of Ukrainian-Canadian churches over the last century  (with particular reference to the Albertan experience), and examine the responses of parishioners, the Church, and preservation agencies to the plight of what once was a distinct feature of the Western Canadian landscape.

The Church as Community Component: Cultural Transference

Although not all of them reflect the original faith of the early Ukrainian settlers, the early parishes of the Ukrainian-Canadians were served by three main denominations: Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Ukrainian Greek Orthodox, and Russian Greek Orthodox; they continue to be the three main denominations that serve Ukrainian-Canadians today. All three had their origins in eastern rite Byzantine Christianity. Therefore, there were few features that were noticeably different in the architecture of any of the early Ukrainian-Canadian churches. Even the three-barred crosses used on them (popularly considered to be the “Orthodox cross”) were often acknowledged and used by parishes of all three denominations at first.2

In constructing their churches in Canada, the Ukrainians mimicked the architectural features of churches in their native villages (today located in Western Ukraine).3 That was partially because trained builders with knowledge of appropriate eastern rite church construction were virtually unknown during the early years of immigration. As large tracts of the parkland zone of Western Canada were almost exclusively settled by the Ukrainian settlers, their churches could be found almost every seven or eight miles from Manitoba northwestwardly as far as the districts surrounding Edmonton, Alberta. The main difference between them and those left behind in the homeland was that they could not be constructed as tall as tradition had dictated.4

The Church as Community Mainstay: Reconfirmation

By the mid-1920s, some of the Ukrainian settlers or their descendents were beginning to live in the railway towns and cities of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The churches constructed there were more refined than those erected at the turn of the twentieth century. Not only was that due to the improved financial stability of the evolving community, but it also reflected the arrival of craftsmen/architects (such as the Oblate missionary Father Phillip Rub-originally known as Phillipe Rioux) skilled in constructing churches with more classical features, and in painting interiors according to the dictates of the eastern rite (such as Peter Lipinski). Some older parishes began to enhance their more primitive temples with architectural details and interior painting undertaken
by the new community specialists. Others simply demolished their first structures and had the later or “better” style of church built for them also.5 It was generally believed, at that time, that blessed articles, perhaps even church buildings, would have to be “returned to the earth” by being burned, or just buried. As an alternative, some parishes preferred to leave the first church structure
standing alongside the new one, sometimes recycled to a different use, such as a parish hall. To date, there has been no information found that suggests that those buildings were de-sanctified before being reused.6

While the Depression years of the 1930s were not a cause for continued development of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, the churches genuinely evolved into community mainstays, which did not
occur without some compromise. The original restrictions of Canadian society towards the married clergy of the eastern rite churches, the restrictions of the regulations that governed the rural development of Western Canada (i.e. no tolerance for Old World-styled cluster villages), coupled with restrictions in the homeland on the Church, resulted in a disproportionate number of churches being constructed by Ukrainian-Canadians relative to the number of priests that were available to serve them. The result was the development of a “circuit” system, where a priest would be responsible
for five or more parishes, which he would serve according to the time available and the distance that separated one parish from another. As a result, many of the churches in Western Canada were served about once a month. When considering additional services that were held in the Christmas and Easter seasons as well as funerals, christenings, and marriage ceremonies, it can be said that most of those churches were used about twenty- five times per year.

The period of the Second World War and that directly following it were periods of reconfirmation. Some churches had become too small for their congregations of several generations, and new larger structures were built that reflected refined architectural tradition and interior painting even more than ever. That was buttressed by a fresh in flux of immigrants from Ukraine after WWII. Most of that group settled in the towns and cities of eastern and western Canada, and immediately began to influence the development and operation of eastern rite churches there.

The Church as Heirloom: Preservation, Recycling, or Disposal

By the 1960s, the demographics of the Prairies had changed. It was no longer profitable to farm small parcels of land. Soon there was only one large farm where previously there were ten small family farms. As rural populations drifted to the cities, many of the services offered to rural and semi-urban communities were consolidated. Small schools were transformed into garages, granaries, and chicken coops. Postal services were no longer found at local general stores, and they soon shut down and disappeared as well, along with other services such as the local community halls. Yet , while railway services declined, motor transportation access to those remote areas improved rapidly. During the oil boom in Alberta in the 1970s, for example, the sudden investment into an improved network of paved roads and bridges resulted in an improved accessibility to the superior services of the cities. Abandoned buildings associated with the community services were either removed or fell apart. Soon, the only vestiges of community buildings that could be found in the rural areas were the churches.

The impact of rural community decline on Ukrainian-Canadian churches was not as sudden. After all, many of them had never been used more than about twenty times a year. Thus, improved road access meant that it was possible to attend services in neighbouring communities while still maintaining one’s own ancestral church. Still, as schools were no longer part of the rural farming communities, there was less incentive for families with school-age children to live on the farm and attend services at the churches. In addition, that was also a time of a growing disassociation of society from regular church attendance.

As the number of members in each parish began to decrease, the maintenance of church structures declined proportionately. Still, most people refused to consider the possibility of disbanding completely. The churches had become family heirlooms, and even community heirlooms. They were also considered as sacred places, and it was generally known that sacred places in the eastern rite were not to be abandoned and left derelict. Instead, they were to be destroyed, to be “returned to the earth,” however ceremoniously. For many Ukrainian-Canadians, that solution flew in the face of years of being taught to respect and maintain their heritage. Not only were these churches places of regular worship, but they were also the venues that were associated with the generations-old rites of
passage of birth, marriage, and death. It was expected that they would be preserved for future generations. Therefore, many parishioners felt bound to hold at least a few services per year in their churches, to guarantee that they would have somewhere from which they would be interred in the cemetery and from which their descendants would continue to maintain their ancestral heritage.

By the 1970s, the concept of heritage had taken strength in provincial and municipal jurisdictions and legislation, which suggested a willingness to find resources, even financial, to heighten an awareness of heritage and promote preservation.7 In more exceptional cases, that had included the relocation and restoration of unused Ukrainian church buildings to open-air museums such as the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village near Edmonton, Alberta, the Western Development Museum at North Battleford, Saskatchewan, and at the Selo Ukraina museum on the National Ukrainian Festival grounds near Dauphin, Manitoba.

However, the intent of preservation programs was not to be the main source of income for heritage activities and preservation, but to help defray the costs of such activities. Still, that seemed to bode well for declining churches, rural and urban alike. By the late 1970s, for example, many Ukrainian-Canadian churches in the rural a reas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta conducted only a couple of services a year: one for the blessing of graves in the springtime after Easter, and one on the parish ‘s patron saint’s day. After years of maintaining buildings that were barely used with the efforts of a handful of people, enthusiasm for keeping them open was waning. Even those structures that were used more regularly were becoming costly to heat and maintain structurally, due to
the specific open-domed characteristics of their architecture. Preservation assistance programs reduced the pressure on those groups who wished to maintain their architectural heritage.

Through out the 1970s, it was the very architecture of the Ukrainian -Canadian churches that continued to draw the interest and support of preservation agencies. Some parishes were able to acquire special status or protection and even funding with professional advice through various designation and/or preservation programs that were established in the Prairie Provinces.8 Agencies such as Alberta’s Historical Resource Foundation, for example, subsidized one-time projects that were intended to prolong the life of heritage buildings, projects such as re-roofing, restoration of windows, doors, foundations, domes, painting, engineering studies, interpretive signage, and even researching and publishing building histories. Of course, one of the criteria examined when reviewing the
proposals was whether the overall results would improve viability of the project’s sponsors. Other factors that were taken into account included whether a building or property was unique, sole survivor of its type, or the work of a master craftsman and under threat of demolition. One of the earliest cases where public sentiment confronted the logic of viability when it came to Ukrainian-Canadian churches occurred in the early 1980s. A parish in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, decided to demolish their large church building in favour of a newer structure that was smaller and easier to heat. In that instance, all plans had been reviewed with the clergy, and even received its approval. However, the 1925 church’s architect and its painter of interior finishes were deemed to be of historical significance to some, and both the parish and the Church were criticized for their approach to the problem.9 Nonetheless, other parishes were beginning to quietly close down and dispose of their churches.

The late 1980s saw a temporary “reprieve” to the growing tendency of disposing of Ukrainian churches in Canada. The year 1988 marked the millennium of Christianity in Ukraine. However, it was generally felt that there was no legitimate Church in Ukraine in those years, for it was the era of the Soviet Union with its communistic anti-religious tendencies. The Ukrainian Churches in the Diaspora, including Canada, felt that it was a priority to celebrate that milestone in the most positive of lights, and concentrate on redefinition, instead of decline. That rather successful approach even resulted in the support of government heritage bodies, which funded architectural surveys, published articles and books, and organized driving tours on the topic of Ukrainian-Canadian churches, particularly among the older areas of Ukrainian settlement on the Prairies10•

Still, the passage of time was generally unforgiving, and more and more parishes were being faced with the realization that not all of their churches could be saved. By the 1990s, the denominations
serving Ukrainian churches developed a more formalized approach to the disbanding of parishes. Even the continued preservation or disposal of early church structures was sometimes handled with
rather innovative approaches. Some structures, for example, were sold to other religious groups, but consciously in the spirit of church norms that allowed for churches to be recycled to “profane, but
not sordid”11 use, upon agreement of all affected, including the local bishop. While earlier instances had occurred where individuals or groups had acquired church structures for whatever use they wished, it became rare. In other cases, the temples of disbanded parishes were picked up and physically transported to another parish or religious property rather tha n being demolished.

Not all churches belonging to disbanded parishes can be saved from demolition, but it is becoming rare to have those buildings left derelict. Instead, the Ukrainian Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox, and
Russian Orthodox denominations undertake the disbanding of parishes in a much more ritualistic fashion than before. The rituals provide an appropriate sensitivity to the process of disbanding with appropriate legality, since the by-laws of most parishes inevitably note that property is to revert to the Church upon dissolution. Those rituals can include the celebration of a final liturgy in the church, a memorial service to deceased members of the parish, the removal of any relics that might have been installed in the church, and the dispersal of any church furnishings that might have been donated by a particular family or individual back to the source or their descendants or representatives. Remaining furnishings are removed to a central depository or museum collection. The building is then burned on its original site, or the structure is dismantled so that the materials can be burned in a safer location.

One of the more recent and innovative examples of church building preservation and relocation has been the St. Onuphrius Church project. St. Onuphrius Church was constructed mainly from 1915 to 1925 in a community north of what became Smoky Lake, Alberta (some 140 kilometres northeast of Edmonton). It replaced a smaller chapel that had been constructed at the cemetery as early as 1908. Pieces of the dismantled chapel were reused in the construction of the new building.

As was often the case, the church was improved frequently over time in both its structural components and contents. By the early 1960s, it had been replaced as a “full-time” place of worship by a much larger structure in the nearby townsite of Smoky Lake. Thereafter, it was used mostly for funeral and annual grave-blessing services for people who were interred in the graveyard.

In the early 1990s, St. Onuphrius Church was selected among numerous candidates found throughout the Prairie Provinces to be included in the Canada Hall exhibit of the Canadi an Museum of
Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec. In partnership with the Historic Sites Service of the Department of Community Development, Province of Alberta, the church building and its contents were analyzed and documented in detail. To that time, the Historic Sites Service had acquired quite a lot of experience in working with Ukrainian-Canadian churches, especially with the restoration and presentation of the three located at the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village.

A final church service was conducted by the bishop responsible for the church, complete with a memorial service for its deceased members. Subsequently, artefacts from St. Onuphrius Church that were not in active use in the Smoky Lake parish were donated and transported to the Museum of Civilization. The building was then dismantled board by board and sent on to the museum as packaged components. Only the floor of the church remained at the original site, and was disposed of by burning.

As had been the practice at the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, a specific year of restoration and presentation was selected for St. Onuphrius Church (1952). The building was then reassembled in the Museum of Civilization gallery to its appearance in that year and contents from that period were reinstalled in it. Anything that was added to the structure was done in a fashion that preserved original materials and the patina of wear that had accumulated on them over the ages. Therefore, many of the additions were routed through the new floor structure.

The church was reopened and re-consecrated by the Metropolitan for the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada on St. Onuphrius Day, June 25′h, 1996. Since that time, it has served both as museum exhibit and place of worship. Use of the church in such a manner was developed with members of the former congregation of St. Onuphrius Church, and with representatives of the Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches in Canada. Most recently, members of the original parish came to the museum to hold a memorial service on the ninetieth anniversary of the beginning of construction of the church.

Recent Trends: Creating Landmarks

Now that most grain elevators have been removed from the landscape of the Canadian Prairies, the onion-domed churches of the Ukrainian settlers have taken their place by default as prairie sentinels,
and they draw attention to their continuing decline and potential fate. Over the past decade, several philosophies and trends have emerged from the previous phase of preserving Ukrainian-Canadian churches that are leading to new changes. The philosophy of “preservation ,” for example, has now been confronted with the reality of legal liability. “Liability” is a term that bears ominous tones to parishes, church administrations, and municipal administrations alike, to the point where churches may have been dismantled and destroyed at a faster pace in recent times to avoid any potential legal headache. In other cases, the several decades-old protection offered by preservation authorities through voluntary designation in return for financial assistance have become too restrictive for church administrations and parishes. While that protection was offered in good faith as much as a quarter-century ago, it was not only applied to structures whose parishes were in decline, but also to active churches whose architectural features were deemed to be important to preserve.

Inadvertently, that has created some unease with church authorities, who do not want the continued growth of their Church hampered by having the appearance of their temples regulated by others and frozen in time in an “as-built” condition. As well, the prestige associated with having a church protected by legislation has been transformed into feelings of encumbrance, for it has been the Church that eventually bears the financial brunt of maintaining those protected structures well after a parish has been disbanded. Consequently, church leaders have become less supportive of having their parishes designated as historic resources or sites.

With that in mind, preservation agencies within the Province of Alberta are altering their approach to preserving Ukrainian-Canadian churches. As part of the larger ongoing collaborative “Historic Place Initiative” effort of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and others, the concept of preservation is now being superseded with one of “conservation.”12 In the case of Ukrainian-Canadian churches, that will do well in acknowledging that change can and will continue to occur in their organization and ancestral architecture. It can also serve to redefine the Ukrainian-Canadian churches in the eyes of Canadian society from being considered as only heirlooms of personal ancestry, to being recognized as community Landmarks that should be supported not just by small groups
of parishioners or their sponsoring eparchies, but also by the community at large. That is especially significant in those parishes or communities whose predominant population no longer relates to the origins of those churches through kinship, for it places a stronger onus on those communities to recognize and support the pioneer churches as landmarks that reflect local, regional, and even national history.

Text from “The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship”; Pg. 563

After “Blessed be the Kingdom…”: Heavenly King, Advocate, Spirit of Truth, Who are everywhere present and fill all things, Treasury of Blessings, Bestower of Life, come and dwell within us, cleanse us of all that defiles us, and, O Good One, save our souls.

Questions of life and death always provoke impassioned debates. Recently Canada again considered the possibility of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Shouldn’t we allow these practices in order to respect the freedom and dignity of patients? Don’t we have a right to die at the time and in the circumstances of our choosing? Doesn’t compassion require us to agree to the request of a sick person who wants to die?

It is impossible to remain indifferent to the danger posed to the most vulnerable among us by attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. Being well informed is essential in order to participate effectively in the public debate and to propose truly human and Christian solutions.

In this brochure, written in a clear and accessible style, the COLF answers 14 questions related to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Love, compassion, dignity…discover here the true meaning of these words.

Download PDF Version

Source: Catholic Organization for Life and Family

END OF LIFE VOCABULARY

MEDICAL AID-IN-DYING

“Let’s call a spade a spade. Medical aid-in-dying is euthanasia” (Dr. Yves Robert, Secretary of the College of Physicians of Québec, quoted by L’actualité médicale, January 29, 2013).

EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of someone, with or without that person’s consent, in order to eliminate all suffering.

What does the Criminal Code of Canada say about euthanasia? “A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being” (article 222).

What does the Catholic Church say about it? “I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person” (Blessed John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, no 65).

ASSISTED SUICIDE

Providing a person who wants to kill him or herself with a way to do it – by giving them information, lethal substances (pills or other substances) or a weapon – constitutes assisted suicide.

What does the Criminal Code of Canada say about assisted suicide? “Anyone is guilty of an indictable offence who: a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide” (article 241).

What does the Catholic Church say about it? “Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbour (…). Voluntary cooperation in suicide is contrary to the moral law “(Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2281-2282).

OVER-ZEALOUS TREATMENT

A treatment offered to a sick person is described as “over-zealous” when it is extraordinary or disproportionate to the benefits obtained or expected.

What does the Catholic Church say about over-zealous treatment? “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘over-zealous’ treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 2278).

PALLIATIVE CARE

Palliative care offers a dignified death by providing patients with relief from their pain and the social, emotional and spiritual support they require to face and experience their death with courage. Good palliative care can help the dying to find meaning in their pain and suffering. The last weeks and days of a person’s life are often a time of spiritual journeying and a time of reconciliation with family, with friends and with God. Euthanasia is incompatible with the principles and the goals of palliative care.

THE CHRISTIAN VISION

“No, suffering is not useless. And it does not diminish human dignity. Hanging on the wood of the cross, disfigured, unrecognizable, Christ was not undignified. At the time of our own suffering and death, we do not lose our dignity. Human dignity depends neither on the quality of our lives nor on our autonomy. It finds its source in God, who created us in his image and likeness (…). When we unite our lives and our sufferings to those of Christ through love, they become a prayer offering. We thus give ourselves the opportunity to bring those we love closer to God . . .” (Living, Suffering and Dying . . . What for? Catholic Organization for Life and Family).

TO LEARN MORE

- Living With Dignity: www.vivredignite.com and http://vivredignite.blogspot.ca/

- Physicians Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia : http://www.totalrefusal.blogspot.ca/

- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: www.epcc.ca

- Catholic Organization for Life and Family : www.colf.ca

On May 14th the Working Group met with coordinators of each of the Archeparchies, Eparchies and Exarchates (Archdiocese, Diocese) of Ukraine to review the progress, and challenges of the last few months in Ukraine with regard to the Pastoral Plan.  The coordinators were also introduced to new documents produced by the Working Group to assist parish priests with pastoral planning and the administration of the parishes.

The members of the Working group also had an opportunity to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with clergy from the Sokal-Zhokva Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy who were on their annual retreat.  The Liturgy was celebrated in Blessed Nykyta Budka Chapel.  Blessed Nykyta Budka was the first Ukrainian Catholic Bishop in Canada.

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family will soon join with Catholics from across the country in celebrating Canada’s first National Week for Life and the Family – which will be observed this year between the solemnities of Ascension and Pentecost, from May 12th to 19th. With all the faithful in Canada, we thank our Bishops for setting this week aside as a time of special reflection and celebration around the theme of “The Family: Facing Life’s Challenges Together With Christ”. During this Week, we are invited to think more deeply about the supreme value of human life and all that the family does and can do to uphold and communicate that value. What a great opportunity to celebrate the joys of family life and to acknowledge everything that is being done (and needs to be done) to support the family!

It is in the family that we first encounter love — the love of mother and of father which is called to be an icon or image of God’s tender love. The love that we give – to our family, to our friends, and to the world – is, in large measure, a reflection of the human and divine love that we have received in the home and in the Church—through the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, and through the relationships we build in our parish communities.

It cannot be said too often that our children are our future. If we are ever to succeed in creating a culture of life — a culture where every person is loved and welcomed — we must work together to support and promote the holy sacrament of marriage and the family, providing children with opportunities for an authentic encounter with Jesus Christ who is love incarnate.

Now more than ever, we need to be encouraged and sustained as we strive to live out our baptismal call to holiness in the context of family life. We all know that no family is perfect, and that for too many, family life has entailed great suffering. Our families, imperfect as they are, are nevertheless the key to the New Evangelization, the leaven of transformation for a world desperately in need of the Good News. It is for this reason that the theme for this year’s “Week” in Québec is: “Parents at the heart of the Church today … and tomorrow! ”

Moved by the Holy Spirit, who descended upon the Church at Pentecost and whose gifts we received in Baptism and Confirmation, we can come to understand and experience our sorrows and challenges in the light of Christ’s saving passion, death and resurrection. In so doing, we can extend that light and the hope that accompanies it to everyone we encounter. Jesus assures us, “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Together with Jesus we can face every challenge, confident that “all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

As families, let us make this first National Week for Life and the Family the beginning of a renewed effort to turn to the Lord in prayer, knowing that with Him all things are possible!

May 12th – May 19th: Celebrate life! Celebrate family!
COLF is co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the
Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus

For more information:
Michèle Boulva
(613) 241-9461, ext.141 or mboulva [at] colf [dot] ca