Appointment of Apostolic Administrator sede vacante of the eparchy of Parma of the Ruthenians, United States of America

vatican.va - The Holy Father has appointed as Apostolic Administrator sede vacante of the eparchy of Parma of the Ruthenians, United States of America, H.E. Msgr. Milan Lach, S.J., currently auxiliary bishop of Prešov of the Byzantines, Slovakia.

Msgr. Milan Lach, S.J.

Msgr. Milan Lach, S.J. was born on 18 November 1973 in Kežmarok, in the Archieparchy of Prešov of the Byzantines, Slovakia.

From 1992 to 1995 he attended the Greek Catholic Theological Faculty of Prešov and in 1995 he entered the Jesuit novitiate in Trnava.

After his theological studies in the theological faculty of the University of Trnava (1997-2001) he was ordained a priest in 2001 in Košice.

From 2001 to 2003 he worked in the scientific area of the Centre of Spirituality East-West of Michal Lacko in Košice and later (2009-2011) he was Superior of the same centre.

In 2009 he graduated in Oriental Ecclesiastical Sciences from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. At the same time he served as spiritual father at the Pontifical Collegium Russicum and also as spiritual assistant of the Federation of Scouts of Europe in Rome.

Full Story: https://www.byzcath.org/index.php/n...ic-administrator-of-the-eparchy-of-parma
Many years! Though, why not just name a permanent Bishop already?
Does this appointment have any deeper meaning? Given that the BCC is not blessed with the most energetic or dynamic leadership, the appointment of a young Jesuit from the old country, where the Church seems to be much more dynamic and alive, may have a deeper meaning than the simple appointment of a temporary administrator.
Perhaps a European has been named to help bring back the Byzantine [Ruthenian] Catholics to their roots. They've lost their identity.
Just guessing here, but at 43 Bishop Milan is relatively young, and he is from a different country. So, the thinking behind making him Apostolic Administrator instead of eparchial Bishop could be something like this: let's see how it works out for a couple of years and then decide what to do next.
Yet, Most Reverend Benedykt Aleksiychuk, who will become the Exarch of St. Nicholas for Ukrainians on Thursday of this week is 49 years of age and comes to Chicago directly from Ukraine.
Whatever the "hidden reason" behind these appointments, both seem excellent choices. Is not the message clear: return to ancestral tradition?!
I was under the impression the Arch Bishop Skula submits a list 3 candidates to Rome. Was this done? or was he just named by Rome without his imput?
According to CCEO, c.168, the Council of Hierarchs (not just the Metropolitan) submits a list of at least 3 of the most suitable candiates to the Apostolic See.

I can't imagine that this hasn't been done...
I thought that since the days of either Bishop Evancho or Bishop Elko only American-born candidates are allowed...maybe I am wrong?
Mark R: There are some examples of this kind of policy in the Church. For example, there is a policy that the Archbishops of Malines-Bruxelles (Mechelen-Brussel) in Belgium should be alternately Flemish and Walloon (i.e. Dutch and French speaking, respectively). Also, there seems to be a policy in parts of Africa that the bishop should not belong to the main ethnic group in his diocese (Google the dioceses of Ahiara and Makeni for examples). However, unless this has been established as a canonical rule by proper ecclesiastical authority, it is simply a policy which can be changed or disregarded in particular cases.

I don't know if there is a policy in place in the Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States that only American-born clerics should be made bishops. If there is, this could help explain why Bishop Milan has been given a temporary assignment, to see if it works out or not.

Also, the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Slovak Greek-Catholic Church are canonically two separate Metropolias, whereas the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is canonically one Major Archiepiscopate—and yes, I agree it should be a Patriarchate! So, transferring Bishop Benedykt from Lviv to Chicago is still only a transfer within one Church sui iuris, whereas transferring Bishop Milan from Prešov to Parma is a transfer from one Church sui iuris to another. So that, too, could be seen as making it a slightly bigger deal.

Does this make sense?
I am sorry I did not make myself clearer...my memory is less precise with age. What I was driving at were the specific conditions under which hierarchical life was established among the Ruthenians only in the United States. I was given to understand by older priests I knew in Pittsburgh (all now deceased) that from a certain point which I mentioned above only American-born clergy would be considered episcopal candidates for the Ruthenians in the US. This also may have been nothing official and more of a gentleman's agreement.
While it is not true in the United States, there are laws and concordat agreemens in some countrties that require a "ruling" bishop (ordinary) to be a citizen f the country.

Ths is the case in Italy. Bishop GEORGE [Gallaro], the Italo-Greek Bishop of Piana degli Albanesi is a case in point. Although he is an American citizen, being born in Italy he has dual Italian and American citizenship. His Italian citizenshop allowed him to be a ruling bishop in Italy.

I believe tnat both France (by concordat) and Mexico (by law) are two other examples - and there are a number of others as well.
© The Byzantine Forum