The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-05-23
"Mission to Moscow"

Although the matter has been con- cluded we cannot ignore the repeated exceptions expressions given to the de- fense of the unauthorized flight to Mos COW of Father StanislauS OrlemanSki and his subsequent discipline by church authorities.
 Without indulging in open defense of the clergyman these persons who take this attitude have adopted a paterna- listic attitude toward him with intent tc show indirectly their disapproval of the methods of discipline adopted by the church. We would have felt unbelievable disappointment if the church had adopted lesser measures
 There were many issues involved in the subsequent discipline. Foremost of these was the prestige and dignity of the posi- ton of the church. Father OrlemansN was thoughtlessly negligent ill his duty to this position of the church when he assumed the liberty to undertake such trip. The church today as in the past is proving it's strength and dignity, its firm ness of foundation in the midst of tur- n,oil raging about it. It is recognized by world leaders as force for good and an equity of the peoples of this world which cannot be destroyed by man made arma- ments or political chicanery.
 Surely in view of this the church's dis cipline was mildly severe particularly when we stop to realize what would have be0n the fate of an unauthorized govern ment employe for example, indulging in such liberties with the diplomacieS of his government-or more comparative, if Russian worker suddenly took upon him. self the responsibility of approaching church authorities on similar mission.
 There was the question of Father Orle- manski as clergyman and as man. The church first censured him as a priest and then as a man. It was done with the con- sistency of policy whereby the censure was inflicted and the matter dropped.
 Religious freedom in Russia today is a gesture and has a future dependent solely upon the political whimS of Stalin Religion as an inherent, inStinctive force il. man is truism earmarked especially by Stalin as possible soporific for future use in mulling together the people Of Russia under communal way of life. If through deliberate politically scientific methods this instinct for religion can be anaesthetized in the minds of the Russian people then and only then will we again see fortnight stand on religion taken by Stalin-even though negative.
 The church was one of the first to rec ognize the dangers of communism as she did with fascism. She has not re- linquished that vigilance. In 'her role she has first and foremost consid- cred the welfare of her people. AL though giving due recognition to the courage of the Russian people in defending their soil and homes she has never in- dulged and never will in SubServient attitude toward Premier Stalin refusing to believe as have some of our leaders that he is "a lovable man upon whose knee little children delight in climbing
 Let no more be said about the Spring field Mission to Moscow. It is closed issue. The church has in the past and continues today to steadfastly portray her stand on matters of religion in Russia. She has never taken an attitude of de- ssase in her position-hers has been one mRintenance of principle.