Religion and Identity in the Carpathians [Volume: 7(1988), pp. 87-107]

RELIGION AND IDENTITY
99
the so-called "iron laws" of Marxist historical evolution, albeit helped along
by administrative decree and legal enforcement. This meant that the nearly
century-old question of who the East Slavic Rus' population of the Carpathians was in national terms-Russian, Ukrainian, or a distinct Rusyn
nationality-was decided. They were Ukrainian. But like the religious question, the nationality question turned out to be not so easily resolved.43
When in 1952, the Rusyn population of northeastern Czechoslovakia
was administratively declared to be Ukrainian, which meant among other
things having Ukrainian instead of Russian taught in the nearly 322 elementary and secondary schools, large numbers of people reacted by voluntarily declaring themselves to be Slovak and demanding-and receivingSlovak schools in their villages. By 1966, there were only 72 elementary
and secondary schools left in Rusyn communities that were not Slovak,
i.e., that provided instruction in Ukrainian. Then, with the heady days
of the Prague Spring when demands of all kinds were being made to correct
the injustices of the neo-Stalinist past, alongside the demand for a return
of the Greek Catholic faith there was a call for the return of Rusyn schools
and for recognition of Rusyns as a distinct nationality. Indeed, planning
was begun to restore instruction in the local Rusyn dialect in the schoolswhich would have meant a rejection of Ukrainian instruction and the return
of Slovak schools-but then the Warsaw Pact intervention put an end to
those and all other "counterrevolutionary" ideas. As we have seen, Czechoslovakia's Rusyns did get back their Greek Catholic Church, but at what
cost?
The price, in fact, has been to see that church become an instrument
of Slovakization. Indeed, the general trend toward assimilation was already
well underway. For instance, if in the 1930 census, 91,079 persons in
northeastern Czechoslovakia claimed Rusyn as their nationality, in 1959-60,
when Ukrainian was the only possible choice, a mere 35,435 opted to do
so.44 It is uncertain whether the several proposals for changes away from
the Ukrainian cultural and educational policy made in 1968-1969 would
have made any difference in an individual's decision to emphasize a sense
of Rusyn identity. The brutal destruction of the Czechoslovak experiment
from the East only convinced many traditionally pro-Czechoslovak Rusyns
that they had better throw in their lot fully with their West Slavic brethren
by identifying with them nationally as well as linguistically and politically.
In this context, the Greek Catholic Church has been an unwitting
partner in the assimilation process. At the moment of its restoration in
June 1968, the question of who was to serve as bishop in the restored
diocese of Presov became acute. The last bishop, Pavel Gojdic had died
in prison in 1960, but his auxiliary and successor Vasyl' Hopko survived,
was released in 1964 for confinement in an old-age home, and finally in
1968 was rehabilitated and allowed to return to Presov to lead the restoration process of the Greek Catholic Church. However, from the very onset,