Alexander Nadson

Пачатак

THE MYSTERY OF THE DIAMOND NECKLACE

The idea of a Greek Catholic seminary for Belarusian candidates for priesthood was by no means new to Magdalena Radzivill: already in 1917 she had donated a valuable diamond necklace for the foundation of such an establishment in Rome.

Belarus was badly affected by the First World War which in 1917 was in its third year, with the front line between German and Russian armies running right through its territory from north to south, cutting it into two parts. The local Belarusian population, apart from usual dangers and hardships of war, had to contend with the unusual concentration of troops (Russian High Command headquarters was situated in Mahilou). There was also a huge refugee problem, which was created by Russians who, while retreating from Western Belarus before the advancing Germans, made about 2 million Belarusian peasants leave their homes. The Belarusian national movement which was slowly gathering strength before the war, also suffered, because its two major centres — Vilna and Minsk, — were separated by the front line.

In Russia the ever growing anger with the worsening economic situation, and frustration with the conduct of war, erupted in February 1917 in an open revolt against the corrupt autocratic regime and led to the abdication of the tsar on 15 March (2 March according to the Julian calendar). Those who assumed the reins of power as a result of this revolution proved to be, if possible, still more inept than their predecessors. Ten months later the communists, profitting from the resulting chaos, staged their own revolution, seized power and established what eventually became to be known as the Soviet Union.

But all this was still to come. At the beginning there was a feeling of freedom, and Belarusians, along with other peoples of the Russian empire, had high hopes to restore their own independent national life.

On 24-25 May (6-7 June according to the Gregorian calendar) 1917 a meeting of Belarusian Roman Catholic priests took place in Minsk. It was probably at this time that Princess Radzivill donated a diamond necklace for the purpose of funding a Belarusian Greek Catholic College in Rome. The choice of Rome was not accidental. The centre of the Catholic Chistianity, it has been always famous as a foremost place of theological studies, attracting scholars and students from all over the world, the latter usually residing in their national colleges. In this truly international atmosphere a Belarusian college would be just one of many similar establishments, where students would have the opportunity to train for their future apostolate in peace and tranquility, undisturbed by political strife and national antagonisms which ravaged their native country.

The Princess gave the necklace to three priests whom she knew and trusted, with instructions to sell it and apply the proceeds of the sale to her project. They were: Father Fabian Abrantovich, doctor of philosophy from the University of Louvain and teacher at the Mahilou diocesan Catholic Seminary in Petrograd; another teacher from the same seminary, Father Lucian Khvetska; and Father Francis Budzka, whom the princess had known for many years and for whom she had a particular respect. Because of the uncertain political situation it was considered necessary to keep the whole project secret. The only other persons who knew about it were Roman Skirmunt, a Belarusian landowner who in 1918 for a short period was head of the government of the Belarusian National Republic; and the great Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrew Szeptyckyi, who, after being freed from Russian captivity, in April and May 1917 visited Petersburg.

The proximity of the German-Russian frontline made Minsk an insecure place. For this reason Father Abrantovich took the necklace with him to Petersburg, where he and Father Khvetska hid it in a safe place in expectation of more propitious times.

Attempts of Belarusians to establish an independent Belarusian state were unsuccessful. Independent Belarusian National Republic (BNR) was proclaimed on 25 March 1918, but its existence was short lived, although it left an indelible mark in the memory and national consciousness of all Belarusians. Belarus at that time became the rapidly changing scene of conflicts between various occupying forces — Russian Communist, German and Polish. In this difficult situation Belarusians did their best to carry on with their national life. On 2 November 1917 the Pope Benedict XIV restored the Minsk Catholic diocese. Its new bishop, Zygmunt Lozinski, a Pole born in Belarus, did not take possession of his see till the middle of 1918. He was joined there by Father Abrantovich, who became rector of the newly founded seminary. On 18 March 19 the Treaty of Riga was signed by Soviet Union and Poland, according to which the eastern Belarus with Minsk as its capital became Belarusian Soviet Republic, while its western part was incorporated into the Polish state, where it became known as “Eastern Borderland (Kresy Wschodnie)”. Bishop Lozinski, after a term of imprisonment by the Soviets, left Minsk and settled at first in Navahradak, from where he administered the Polish-occupied part of his diocese. He was joined there by Father Abrantovich and a few other priests from Minsk.

Princess Radzivill left Belarus towards the end of 1918. After a short stay in Warsaw and Lithuania she eventually settled in Germany. Father Budzka died in 1920. Father Khvetska remained in Petrograd. In 1923 he was arrested by the communists and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Before his arrest, however, he succeeded in saving the diamond necklace by depositing it with his former student, Father Bronislaw Ussas who, as a member of the Polish Revendication Commission, enjoyed diplomatic status.

According to the concordat between the Holy See and Poland in 1925, a new diocese of Pinsk was formed from the remains of the Minsk diocese within the Polish borders, to which some other territories were added. The first bishop of Pinsk was Zygmunt Lozinski. The preparations for the formation of the new diocese started long before the concordat was signed. Father Abrantovich was charged with the building of the seminary. Funds were in short supply. In 1924 Abrantovich went to Petrograd as a Polish diplomatic courier and brought back with him the Princess’ necklace, which he sold for the sum of 15 thousand dollars. For a part of that sum he bought a property in Navahradak, and 10 thousand dollars he lent to Bishop Lozinski for five years at an annual interest of 5 per cent. He told the bishop that he was doing this with the knowledge and consent of the benefactress, whose name he did not disclose.

It is highly improbable that Father Abrantovich who was known as a Belarusian, could obtain a Polish diplomatic passport without help of an influencial Pole. Most likely it was bishop Oozinski himself who helped him to obtain the passport, when Abrantovich promised him to find the much needed funds for the Seminary at Pinsk. Perhaps Abrantovich hoped to become rector of this seminary, but this was not to be: the Polish authorities would never agree to the apppointment of a Belarusian to such an important post. Blessed George Matulevich, bishop of Vilna and a Lithuanian, wrote to Abrantovich on 18 January 1924: “In my view, dear Father will not achieve much there: you will only tire yourself, ruin your nerves, waste much time, and it probaly end with you being obliged to abandon this post”. Matulevich was right: a Pole, Vitold Iwicki, was appointed the rector of the new seminary, whilst Abrantovich was given the post of the spiritual director. Any Belarusian activity was out of question. Disillusioned, Abrantovich in August 1926 abandoned Pinsk and entered the novitiate of Belarusian Marian Fathers in Druia, handing over to them the ownership of the property in Navahradak, as well as the money owed by Bishop Lozinski.

In the meantime in February 1925 the Soviet authorities released Father Khvetska and deported him to Poland. Eight days after his arrival he received a visit from Abrantovich who told him about the fate of the necklace, passing over in silence certain important details. Khvetska, as he later testified in his letter of 23 March 1927, told Abrantovich he had no right to do what he did.

In 1926 Khvetska was appointed rector of the Oriental Institute in Lublin. This institute was established by Edward Ropp, the last archbishop of Mahilou, for the training of future apostles for the “conversion of Russia”.

Having learnt from bishop Lozinski particulars of the deal between him and Abrantovich, Khvetska wrote on 25 February 1927 to the Pinsk Diocesan Management Committee (Rada gospodarcza), requesting them to stop paying interest to the Marian Fathers pending clarification of the whole affair. On 8 March he wrote to Abrantovich: “For some weeks I have been corresponding with bishop Z. Lozinski about the necklace. I learnt from him that (the sum received for) it has not been used entirely, that part of it was retained by the Reverend Monsignor (i.e. Abrantovich – A.N.), that Monsignor made an agreement about the interest, in a word that Monsignor acted as if he were the owner of the object, whereas in reality from the very beginning Monsignor had no right whatsoever do behave in this manner: the fact that you brought it (i.e. the necklace) to Poland from where it was absolutely safe does not give you the right to ownership. Moreover, Monsignor cannot be even considered as a trustee and executor: I dare to say this, because it was entrusted only to two of us, namely to Father Budzka of blessed memory and myself; Monsignor was privy to the secret for the good of the project, to prevent the loss of the item, and not in order to become its owner. All things considered, I demand that you return the remaining part (of money), (together with) the written receipt of bishop Oozinski, because I have to do with this object what should be done. Wishing, however, to conclude this affair peacefully and sensibly, I ask your good counsel”.

Disturbed by this turn of affairs, Abrantovich suddenly remembered princess Radzivill and on 12 March 1927 wrote to her: “In 1916 in Minsk Your Highness gave to Fr Budzka of blessed memory a diamond necklace for the Belarusian Uniate purposes. I took this necklace to Petersburg, where, together with Fr Khvetska we hid it in my lodgings in anticipation of more propitious times, when it could be used as intended… Seeing bishop Lozinski in Navahradak in dire straights, without a suitable place for the seminary, the curia and for himself, and how he, living in Belarus, could do much for the Union, I went to Petersburg as diplomatic courier and brought back the item which Fr Khvetska succeeded in making safe with Fr Ussas, head of the (Polish) Revendication commission. From the sale of the object I obtained nearly 15 thousand dollars and for, two years was building the seminary in Pinsk. Seeing, however, that the aim of the donation would not be achieved there, I secured 10 thousand dollars as a loan to Bishop Lozinski, for five years at an annual interest of 5 percent… I enclose a copy of the receipt. For the remaining sum I bought a property in Navahradak. All this I handed over to the Marian monastery in Druia, which I myself joined. This monastery was founded by the Holy Father for the same purpose, for which Your Highness gave your donation. Father Kvetska was soon afterwards freed by the bolsheviks… I went to see him about the donation. He left everything to my discretion and kept quiet for three years. Today suddenly I have received a letter, from which I see, that attempts are being made to take the money away from us… Perhaps the Princess can kindly write to me, telling me whether I understood rightly the purpose of the donation, and whether I should carry on as I do, or perhaps the monastery has the duty to give (money) to Fr Khvetska. I affirm before God, that what concerns me is not my will, but the purpose of the donation and the will of the Princess”.

The letter leaves the reader with a strange feeling that the author was trying to create an impression of wronged innocence.

The Princess answered on 17 March with a letter, in which, to preserve anonymity, she referred to herself in the third person: “The person, which gave these objects to Fr Budzka, clearly in my presence earmarked her donation for the good of Belarus, and in the first instance for the Greek Catholic Church. To use it for any other purpose would be a clear appropriation of sombody else’s (i.e. Greek Catholic, Belarusian) property. The dream of this person was to establish a Uniate college in Rome… I am happy that at last I learned that this affair is on the right track: nobody ever informed me before about the outcome of Fr Budzka’s mission… I consider the Roman foundation as very useful. There was never a question about Lublin or any other Polish town”.

The letter of the princess leaves no doubt about the purpose of her donation. Obviously she trusted Father Abrantovich and was convinced that he would respect her will, once he knew it.

On 23 March Abrantovich received another letter from Khvetska: “Firstly, I also need money. Secondly — and this is the only and most important thing — not wishing to be a thief, I must inform Metropolitan Szeptyckyi… If the Metropolitan agrees for the item to remain with you, so be it. But if he orders to give it back, then I ask you to find the way to settle the affair, because I shall not lie”.

Abrantovich “settled the affair” in his own way. On 1 April 1927 he made a Will which was witnessed by three priests, M. Boryk, B. Stefanovich and J. Hailevich. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this will read:
“3. Two plots of land with their buildings in Navahradak, Garden Lane 5 (I bequeath) to the House of Marian Fathers in Druia.
4. The loan of H. Exc. bishop Lozinski, according to his receipt given to me in Pinsk on 11 September 1925..: also to the House of Marian Fathers in Druia”.

In the meantime on 19 April the Pinsk Diocesan Management Committee wrote to Abrantovich. “Taking into account the express wish of Fr Kvetska to come to an agreement in this matter with H.E. the Bishop of Pinsk”, it decided “to ask (Abrantovich) to return the receipt, isssued to him by the Management Committee, and to stop paying the interest (to Marian Fathers)”. Abrantovich answered angrily on 23 April: “I cannot, because I have no right to satisfy your demand to give back the said receipt and, consequently, to give up my rights which result from it. I consider the demand of the Honourable Management Committee… on the basis of a letter of Fr Khvetska alone, as at least premature… Apart from the uncontrovertible fact that it was I who brought back the said item…, I have a written document, (with instructions) how and for what purpose I must use it and how must I defend it from unfounded claims. The document was written by the person who donated this object… I therefore ask the Honourable Committee to continue paying the interest… and, in case of my death, to pay back the capital to the Marian Fathers in Druia, to whom I gave over both the money which is now in Pinsk, and the property which was bought in Navahradak and which we are now selling”.

Father Khvetska also wrote to Princess Radzivill. From his letter of 29 April to Abrantovich it appears that he did not get from her what he wanted: “I wrote to the Bishop of Pinsk for reasons known to the Reverend Monsignor. After 3 May I shall write again that I withdraw my demands in the light of the letter of princess Radzivill. My basic argument, however, remains valid, namely that (the gift) was for the use of the Greek Catholics, and I must inform about this Metropolitan Szeptyckyi. P(rincess) R(adzivil) also writes about it”.

Incidentally Khvetska was not against using the gift of the princess for his own ends. He wrote to Abrantovich on 23 March 1927: “I was not concerned with the fact that Monsignor (i.e. Abrantovich) used (money) even in Pinsk, and still more in Druia; what pained me was that the Bishop of Pinsk, who enjoys a state subsidy, makes use of the donation, while we in Lublin must beg and compromise the Institute because of the lack of funds, whereas we could have substantial help…”. He wrote about it also to Mgr K. Okolo-Kulak, vicar general of the Mahilou Diocese (then residing in Warsaw) who intervened with princess Radzivill. The latter wrote to Abrantovich on 25 April 1928: “In the autumn I received a letter from Fr Okolo-Kulak in the matter in which Fr Khvetska writes to the Reverend Father. My view (in this matter) is known to them, but one of the characteristic traits of those people, actively engaged in charitable or religious fields of work, is that they pay no heed to the wishes of the benefactress and quite shamelessly use money, which was given to them for a definite purpose, for something completely different… I wonder whether the Marian Fathers would not behave in the same manner, because, to tell the truth, the building of the seminary in Pinsk did not enter also in the plans…”

This was a delicate rebuke to Abrantovich. All the same she still trusted him, although she seemed resigned to the fact that money given for the construction of the Pinsk seminary might be lost forever. On 18 May 1928 she wrote to Abrantovich: “If the Pinsk seminary will serve to raise the level of the Latin clergy (in which I have no doubt), then by this fact alone it may help to attract the Orthodox to the True Chuch. There are, however, moments when behind every Latin priest I see a fanatical Pole”. When a little later Abrantovich, while visiting her at Godesberg near Cologne, told her that there was no hope of recovering money from Pinsk, she took the news calmly.

Abrantovich completed his novitiate in Druia in August 1927. Early in 1928 the Holy See appointed him head of the Byzantine rite “ordinariate” (diocese) for Russians in Manchuria. He was given a few months to settle his affairs at home and learn the rite (Abrantovich and all Marian Fathers in Druia belonged to the Roman, or Latin, rite).

In March 1928 Abrantovich left Druia for Lviv to see Metropolitan Szeptyckyi, stopping on the way in Pinsk. In a letter of 13 April to Fr Andrew Tsikota, superior of Druia, he wrote: “In Pinsk I snatched 1500 zlotys. I said ’snatched’, because Khvetska, despite the letter which you know, wrote to them again recently, asking them not to give us anything. And the bishop (apparently jokingly) said to me: “You cheated us” (Tys nas nabral)”.

On 16 May Abrantovich wrote again to Tsikota: “I began correspondence with Khvetska again in the sense that either he should start court proceedings against me, or I against him. For a moment — silence!”

It so happened that on the same day Khvetska sent to Abrantovich a letter, in which he, among other things, wrote: “Wishing to end this affair, I had to write to Kyr Andrew (Szeptyckyi — A.N.), whose word would be final. Kyr Andrew answered that he was ready to give me some time, provided Fr F. Abrantovich agrees. Having received this letter, and also having received in January 1928 a letter from Bishop Lozinski, (asking) whether he should pay interest to Fr Abrantovich, I gave the following answer: since Metropolitan Andrew makes the return of this item, or part of it, depend on the consent of Fr Abrantovich, I shall no longer insist, and ask to pay the interest to Fr Abrantovich. I have no intention to start any court proceedings, and personally I don’t need any money; the only authority I recognise is that of Metropolitan Andrew; as to the benefactress, once she gave away an item, then the item and her right to it are ended” (sic! — A.N.).

It seems that Szeptyckyi acted correctly, refusing to make any decision without having listened to both sides.

On 24 August 1928 Abrantovich in Marseilles boarded the ship for Shanghai. With his departure the necklace affair seemed to have quietened down, but not for long. In September 1930 ended he five-year period of the loan, made by Fr Abrantovich to Bishop Lozinski, and the latter, keeping strictly to the terms of the agreement, returned the whole sum to the Marian Fathers in Druia. At that time the name of the benefactress was already known to him (perhaps from Khvetska?). Wishing no doubt to please princess Radzivill, he sent her a letter of thanks. In her answer, dated 15 April 1931, the princess wrote: “In 1917 or 1918 (I don’t remember exact date) I gave to Fr Budzka of the blessed memory a diamond necklace and a diamond of great value, which should have been handed over to fathers Abrantovich and Khvetska, sold, and (proceeds from the sale) used for the establishment in Rome of a Belarusian Greek Catholic College. No one else, apart from Mr Roman Skirmunt, knew about it. I learned about the fate of these valuable items in 1926 (or perhaps in 1927), in Hermsdorf from the letter of Fr Abrantovich who informed me that the funds obtained from their sale were used for the constuction of the Pinsk seminary, a photograph of which he enclosed. Later came a letter from Fr Khvetska, in which he protested against the way the money was used by Fr Abrantovich, because he needed it for the Lublin seminary. It seems that neither of these priests, who are responsible for education of clerics (literally “education of spiritual youth”), had any idea that I might also have something to say in this matter. I abstain from comments, only wishing to add, that apparently similar ideas has Fr Tsikota who took money from Your Excellency without ever letting me know about it, so that I only learnt about it from the letter of Your Excellency. I spoke to Fr Buchys about the behaviour of Fr Abrantovich, and he was not impressed by it. For this reason I cannot accept your gratitude for the help in building the Pinsk seminary, for it was given without my knowledge”.

The next chapter in the necklace affair was the correspondence between princess Radzivill and Bishop Peter (Francis) Buchys, superior general of Marian Fathers. On 8 August 1931 she wrote to him: “In 1917-18, when I was living in Minsk, I entrusted in the keeping of fathers Abrantovich, Khvetska and Budzka a diamond necklace of great value and a ring with large diamond for the purpose that the proceeds from their sale should be used for the benefit of an educational establishment in Rome, in which young men could be educated as priests of the Catholic Eastern rite, destined to teach and spread the Holy Faith among the Belarusian people in the Belarusian language. Now I learn from the letter of bishop Lozinski that part of the sum obtained from the sale of these valuables, which was lent to him by Father Abrantovich… on the instruction of Father Abrantovich, was handed over to the Marian Fathers… Since this money has been intended for another purpose, I kindly ask that it should be returned within three months. If this is not done, I shall refer the whole matter to His Eminence Cardinal Van Rossum, prefect of the (Congregation of) Propaganda in Rome”.

The answer of Buchys was long and confusing. After explaining that the property of a religious (monk) passes over to the congregation only after his death on the basis of his will, he condradicts himself: “Now I know that Fr Abrantovich derives no profit from the above properties. The income from the house and the capital, and perhaps even the capital itself, are used to pay for the education of young clerics and candidates of Belarusian origin. In 1930/31 six of them studied in Rome. Here are their names: Casimir Nailovich, Thomas Padziava, Martin Zdaniukovich, John Vainouski, Casimir Urbanovich and George Kashyra. Five of them study in the Eastern rite, and made a written promise to dedicate their lives to the cause of converting of their non-Catholic countrymen (initially Buchys wrote ‘Russians’ then deleted it — A.N.) of the same rite in Poland or elsewhere as directed by the Holy See”. He finishes his letter thus: “Until now I have had the impression that Father Abrantovich and his friends in Druia with all good heart, sincerely and successfully serve the spiritual needs of the local population. The letter of the Honourable Princess seems to be based on other considerations. Since I cannot close my eyes at the transgressions of my subordinates, I ask you to give me a few hours of your time, during which I hope to hear from you those proofs of their guilt, which Your Highness the Princess for weighty reasons omitted to mention in her letter”.

The Princess answered in a short note without date: “I have read the copy of my letter to Your Lorship and cannot find in it any accusation of guilt of any priest. I only have stated the fact, as confirmed by the letter of His Excellency Bishop Lozinski”.

Buchys again answered with a long letter dated 7 October: “I am happy… that Your Ladyship the Princess does not make any accusations against the Marians in Druia. Father Bishop Lozinski, not being member of a religious congregation, expressed himself inexactly with regard to the legal status of the property, which was entrusted to Father Abrantovich. A person who enters religious congregation not necessarily hands over his property to that congregation, but before pronouncing monastic vows must make a will. The congregation has no right to dispose of the property of that religious, even if (in his wiil) it was bequested to the congregation.

Until now I have been under the impression that Druia Marians manage Father Abrantovich’s property in accordance with the instructions, given by him in his will, and that the aims which were expressed in the act of donation, have been faithfully preserved. If Your Highness the Princess knew about any deviation from these aim, I ask her very insistently to let me know about it.

While confirming my wish to conform strictly to the will of the benefactors, I renew at the same time my words of sincere and warm gratitude to Your Highness the Princess for such generous gifts to our humble congregation”.

Buchys obviously tried to avoid the issue when he asserted that the terms of Abrantovich’s Will were strictly observed, and refused to answer the question whether the latter had the right to make such Will. One can therefore understand the terse answer of Princess Radzivill, written on 10 October: “I fail completely to understand Your Excellency. I did not quote the opinion of Bishop Lozinski, but presented the case for consideration to two superiors of two different (monastic) orders, and also to a learned prelate, and they all were unanimous that the Congregation of Marian Fathers has the duty to return the money appropriated by fathers Abrantovich and Tsikota. I am not giving their names, but I have taken advise of serious persons, and they will guide my actions”.

The last letter of Princess Radzivill was discussed at the meeting of the Marian General Council, after which, on 31 October, Buchys wrote to her: “I received your letter on 10 October. I could not answer earlier, because I came back from my travels on 28 October, and the session of the General Council in the matter of Your Highness took place on 30 October. The Session wishes to draw Your Highness’ attention to the Canon 536 (of the the Canon Law), where in paragraph 2 it is said: “If a religious makes an undertaking without permission of his superiors, then he alone is responsible for it, and not the congregation, province or the house”. As it is, Father Abrantovich has never received any permission from a Marian superior to give an undertaking with regard to Your Highness the Princess.

Apart from this, canon 580-1 says: “Everyone who made simple monastic vows, permanent or temporary, retains the ownership of his belongings and possibility to obtain them back, on condition that the terms of canon 569 are observed”. And canon 569 says, that property of such religious does not pass into ownership of the congregation, only its administration is entrusted to the congregation, or to other person chosen by the religious. Father Abrantovich gave our congregation his house in Navahradak to use, and not to own it. The same canon 569 speaks about the will. Father Abrantovich made such will, as I mentioned in my previous letters. In the Marian constitutions there is no deviation from the canons of the Catholic Church.

From the foregoing arguments, or in court, Your Highness may convince herself that our Congregation had no right of ownership to the property of Father Abrantovich, and for this reason cannot give this right to anybody else. If Father Lorec, C.M. or other respected fathers from the Congregation of Missionary Priests are of different opinion, then the relevant conduct (i.e. in conformity with their opinion — A.N.) may only lead to unnecessary court expenses, because it is the duty of the Marian General Council and mine to conform to the legal norms which are obligatory in the Catholic Church, and that is exctly what I am doing”.

The Princess understood that under the cover of compliance with the norms of the Canon Law was something was concealed, of which Christ rebuked the pharisees: “How ingeniously you get around the commandments of God in order to preserve your own tradition” (Mk 7:9). Her answer on 9 November was short and to the point: “I don’t know Canon Law, but in my life I have seen many swindlers, whom a clever Jewish lawyer saved from prison with the help of texts from the Code which he twisted in all sorts of ways. For me and for many persons, whom I told about the conduct of fathers Abrantovich and Tsikota, the affair, seen in the light of the Seventh Commandment, is quite clear. In general, any action which needs long and subtle explanations to prove its innocence, is suspect. Honest people have no need of eloquent arguments. I consider any further corespondence between us useless. With respects due to Your Excellency. M. Radzivill”.

On 13 November 1931 Buchys wrote to Abrantovich in Harbin: “With the sale of the house in Navahradak there may be difficulties. Princess Magdalena Radzivill demands the return of all that she gave to the Reverend Father (i.e. Abrantovich – A.N.), maintaining that the donation has not been used for the purpose for which it was destined. I answered her that the Marians cannot give back what she gave to Father Abrantovich, because they have no right of ownership. Apart from that I gave her the names of clerics who now are studying with the view of achieving the same aim for which the donation was given. In her last letter the Princess called me a Jewish swindler. I did not answer it”.

A frequent excuse for someone who did something he should not do is that he was acting in good faith. In the case of Buchys, as the last letter shows, no such excuse is possible. His statement about the clerics is as far from the truth as can be. Of the six Marian clerics who studied at that time in Rome, one belonged to the Roman (Latin) rite with no intention of becoming a Greek Catholic priest. The other five were students at the Russian College. Before being admitted there, they had to give written undertaking to dedicate their life to work for “conversion of Russia” — hardly the aim envisaged by Princess Radzivill when she gave her diamond necklace. In any case three of them left the Russicum and Marian Congregation the following year in an atmosphere of recriminations and mutual accusations. The remaining two, after having finished their studies in 1935, were speedily despatched to Harbin in Manchuria to work among Russians.

Then there was the property in Navahradak, bought by Abrantovich in his name, if not with his money. On 17 November 1931 he signed a document (in Latin) in which he “renounced all his rights to the house situated at Garden Lane 5 in the city of Navahradak (Poland) in favour of Father Andrew Tsikota, superior at Druia”. Incidentally, more than one year earlier, the Marian fathers of Druia tried to sell the Navahradak property to the Sisters of Nazareth, but failed to agree on the price. The house was eventually sold in 1933 to a certain Sadowski. So much for the “administration” argument by the Congregation on behalf of the owner.

The last document in this sad story is the letter of Princess Radzivilll to Father Andrew Tsikota, superior of Druia, dated 18 January 1932: “The valuable items which were given by me to Father Abrantovich in 1917 should have been sold, and the money obtained from the sale was designated by me exclusively for the establishment in Rome of a Greek Catholic College, without any restriction with regard to nationality of those who intended to study there.

The first misdeed was the loan of money for the Pinsk seminary together with the false assurance, given to Bishop Lozinski, that this was done with my knowledge and consent. The second lie was the assurance, given to me by Father Abrantovich in Godesberg, that there was no hope of getting this money back. The third act in this dishonest comedy was the so called Will of Father Abrantovich, according to which the money which did not belong to him was given to the Superior of Druia; and also instruction to Bishop Lozinski to pay back the stolen sum. If the manager of an estate received from the owner a sum of money to build a barn or granary, he would be a thief if he lent this money to a friend; and a still worse thief if, having taken back from the friend the said sum, he would use it for a purpose other than that, for which it was designated. And the person who disposes of stolen money becomes an accomplice in theft. This is the teaching of the catechism, which is in accord with the civil law, irrespective of the fact, whether the criminal wears secular or priestly garb. M. Radzivill”.

* * *

“Non mirari, non indignari, sed intelligere” (not to wonder, not to get indignant, but to understand).Those are the words of Father Abrantovich in one of his letter to Khvetska.

Today all the protagonists of the “diamond necklace mystery” have long gone before the seat of the Supreme Judge. We hope and pray that He has shown to them His usual mercy. But the history remains as a lesson to us all.

From what is known of fathers Abrantovich and Tsikota, they were both outstanding men and dedicated priests. They both died in captivity as confessors of faith, steadfast in their fidelity to Christ and His Church. They were doubtlesly also Belarusian patriots, although their role in the Belarusian religious life had been marginal. Many Belarusians had high hopes for them, which unfortunately remained unfulfilled. These hopes must have been entertained also by Princess Radzivill, when she handed over her diamond necklace to three priests whom she respected and trusted. One of those priests was Father Abrantovich. That is why the letter of bishop Lozinski must have been a heavy blow to her.

The fact that the priests in question did not derive any private gain from their action did not make their behaviour any less morally reprehensible. Unfortunately this kind of behaviour has been quite widespread in certain ecclesiastical circles. It is implied in Khvetska’s assertion that “once the benefactress gave away an item, then the item and her right to it are ended”.

The monastery of Druia was officially founded in 1924 on the initiative of blessed George Matulewicz, bishop of Vilna and superior general of the Congregation of Marian Fathers. An exemplary priest, full of apostolic zeal, he wanted to be the pastor and father of all his flock irrespective of their national and ethnic identity. His idea was to establish a strong Belarusian religious centre catering for the spiritual needs of Belarusian faithful of his diocese. His plans were met with hostility on the part of Polish authorities and priests who accused him of fomenting Belarusian nationalism. In any case, after signing of concordat between the Holy See and Poland in 1925, the position of Matulewicz, who was a Lithuanian, became untenbable and he tendered his resignation.

Druia monastery was of the Roman (Latin) rite. On 29 June 1954 Father (later Bishop) Ceslaus Sipovich, himself originally from Druia, wrote to the Belarusian Byzantine rite priest Father Leo Haroshka who was asking, whether all Marian fathers and clerics in Druia belonged to the Eastern rite, or there were among them also a few ‘Latins’: “The Druia monastery was entirely of Latin rite. There was no Eastern chapel or vestments. Only some fathers… assumed the Eastern rite, but they worked in Harbin and not in Druia”. The Fathers in Druia conducted a Polish high school (gimnazjum), where Belarusian boys and girls studied Latin and German, but were forbidden to speak Belarusian among themselves even during the breaks. The Druia parish was also entrusted to Marian Fathers. Of the three sermons at the church services on Sundays, two were in Polish and only one at Vespers in Belarusian, but 1930 even this was discontinued early in 1930. According to the testimony of Tsikota himself, in the parish library out of 1500 books only 4 were in Belarusian, while the rest were in Polish. In the parish there were various religious and cultural societies and organisations, all of them Polish, while Belarusian organisations, which existed before 1924 when the parish priest was (non Marian) Father Anthony Ziankievich, all ceased to exist because of lack of support on the part of Marian Fathers. In 1933 Father Tsikota was elected Superior General of Marian Fathers and was replaced in Druia by a Pole. Thus practically nothing Belarusian remained in Druia, but even the presence of a few Belarusian priests and clerics in Druia was too much for the Polish authorities who expelled them in summer 1938. On 1 September 1938 Father Victor Shutovich, a Belarusian (non Marian) priest, wrote to Father Chrysostom Tarasevich, a Belarusian Benedictine at St Procopius Abbey in Lisle near Chicago: “In Druia every trace of our Marians has disappeared. Everything has been smoothed out and covered up, as if there had never been anything Belarusian there! Two Poles have come from Warsaw and carry out their work in the parish exclusively in Polish”. In another letter on 15 October he wrote: “At this moment I doubt whether the Belarusian members of religious congregations can do anything good for Belarus. I have in mind the example of the Marian Fathers. Tsikota is my friend, he is full of life and energy. He did much for the Belarusians before he joined the (Marian) Congregation. The Congregation broke him and made a cosmopolitan out of him. In Druia he did more for the Poles than for Belarusians. And they repaid him with derision and mudslinging. Now he… is an exile, far from his native country, with no fixed abode in the world. Other Belarusian members (of the Congregation) are also dispersed, not one of them remained in their native land”. One only hopes that the fate was merciful to the 77 years old Princess Radzivill who then lived in Switzerland, and she was spared the ultimate pain of knowing, in whose hands her donation for the Belarusian Greek Catholic seminary had fallen…

It is hard to say whether in the political circumstances of the time Princess Radzivill’s dream of having a Belarusian Greek-Catholic college in Rome had any chance of becoming a reality. What can be said with certainty is that Abrantovich, Tsikota and Buchys made it impossible. The “mystery of the diamond necklace” remains a blot on the memory of those three priests.

By about 1930 so many people were involved in the necklace affair, and it was practically impossible to keep it secret. Rumours began to spread about a “gift of the princess Radzivill to the Marian Fathers in Druia”. However, the true facts remained known only to few persons, and they for obvious reasons were not interested to make them public.

The first to write extensively about the necklace was Father (later Bishop) Ceslaus Sipovich in 1957 in his article about Father Fabian Abrantovich (23). According to him, on entering the Marian Fathers in 1926 Abrantovich brought with him as a ‘dowry’ the procceeds of the sale of the neckalce. Then he continued: “In 1927 Fr Abrantovich informed the princess Radzivill what he did with her gift, and asked her whether it was in accordance with her intentions. The princess confirmed that the gift was given for the benefit of Belarus, and in particular for the Greek Catholic Church, that her dream was the fundation of the Belarusian Uniate college in Rome. She was pleased with the information received from Father Abrantovich and commended the whole affair to the protection of Saint Joseph”. Father Sipovich concludes thus: “From what has been said, it can be seen with what kind of people Fr Abrantovich was dealings, and how courageously and conscientiously he defended them. It also explains where did the Druia monastery get the means for renovation, construction of noviciate premises, the school etc.”.

One would think that if the princess Radzivill needed to be defended, it was from Abrantovich, Tsikota and Buchys who did with her property what they wanted without her knowledge and consent. Sipovich also says nothing about the reason which made Abrantovich write in 1927 to the princess Radzivill in the first place. An unsuspecting reader is left with the impression that princess Radzivill approved of what was done by Abrantovich, while in fact she only expressed her satisfaction on having at last the news of her gift. Thus Sipovich’s account is both incomplete and misleading.

Other authors who dealt with the subject of the necklace had no access to the original documents. At best they followed the Sipovich’s account; but more often relied on hearsay. They contributed nothing new, and merely added to the existing confusion.

In 1983 the present writer saw for the first time the relevant documents relating to the diamond necklace affair. They made him revise his views on the role of certain persons in the history of Belarusian national and religious revival. From the beginning there has been no doubt in his mind that, for the sake of the future of the Greek Catholic Church in Belarus, the true facts must be made known.

There was another reason which urged the author to write the story of the necklace, namely to honour the memory of the good and wise person who was so painfully hurt in her feelings to her people by those, whose duty it was to heal the wounds and relieve pain. During the last few years Belarusians have seen the names of many of their outstanding men and women restored to their national history. It is only just that among them should be also the name of Princess Magdalena Radzivill.

NOTES

(23).Sipovich C., “Aitsets Arkhimandryt Fabian Abrantovich”, Bozhym shliakham, No. 76-81, Paris 1957, p.12.

 

© Fr Alexander Nadson, 2004

Артыкул узяты з сайту "Беларусы ў Вялікабрытаніі" (http://belbritain.blog.tut.by/)

Адрэса артыкулу: http://belbritain.blog.tut.by/nadson-mahdalena_radzivill