Month: October 2011

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon: Delegation to Syria

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Source: Antiochian Archdiocese | Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

During this past September 13-18, I was part of a delegation sent to Syria by Metropolitan PHILIP to investigate the internal political situation in that country, particularly with respect to its Christian minority. Our group consisted of six priests of the Antiochian Archdiocese: Fathers Dimitri Darwich (our guide and the only Arabic-speaker), Timothy Ferguson, Joseph Honeycutt, John Winfrey, David Bleam, and myself; two Protestant pastors: Bonn Clayton and Norman Wilson; and an expert in international law, James Perry, accompanied by his wife, Martha, who served as the delegation’s secretary. Attached to the delegation as a reporter for Ancient Faith Radio was John Maddex, its executive director.

The following narrative is my own assessment of that experience, along with some account of what I learned.

Let me begin by expressing a deep, sincere gratitude to Metropolitan Philip, both for the golden opportunity to visit Syria and for the confidence he placed in myself and the others he sent.

Most of this trip was devoted to matters not directly related to its purpose—namely, visits to shrines and other places of cultural interest. We began, in fact, by first paying our respects at the house of St. Ananias, the first bishop of Damascus, who baptized Saul of Tarsus. We also saw the window in the city wall, through which the Apostle was lowered in a basket. We walked many blocks along and around the “street called Straight,” passing through the Christian and Jewish sections of the city. (There are still 3,000 Jews in Syria, by the way, another of the minorities who find a secure home in that country.)

Also in Damascus (the world’s oldest, continually existing city) we spent some time at the National Archeological Museum, which displays many of the excavated articles (those not absconded in former times by the occupying French!) which reflect the very long and rich history of the region. Foremost among these, in my opinion was the entire 4th century synagogue from Dura Europos, on the Tigris River, uncovered in 1932. If we had seen nothing else, the sight of the frescoes on the walls of that synagogue would have made the entire trip more than worthwhile. I could have stayed in that museum for the whole time!

In addition to Damascus, our group was privileged to pray at the shrine and tomb of St. Thecla in the village of Maalula and to visit the monastery in Saydnaya, where we reverenced St. Luke’s icon of the Virgin Mary and her young Son.

Security

When my parishioners in Chicago learned that Metropolitan Philip was sending me as part of the delegation to Syria, their reaction was uniformly negative. Simply put, the people were concerned for my physical safety. I tried to reassure them that the Metropolitan would never send his priests into danger. I also mentioned that our new bishops-elect would be going to Syria later in the year for their episcopal consecration. That could not happen, if their safety was in doubt.

My argument, however, was to no avail. Parishioners pleaded with me—some with tears—“Don’t go, Father Pat!”

I recognized that my parishioners were taking their cue from the view popularized by CNN, FOX News, and other media outlets that have been, for months, promoting a general and irresponsible hysteria about Syria. As for myself, I was not the slightest bit concerned about safety.

Candor compels the confession, nonetheless, that at one point in the journey, I did feel just a wee bit unsafe: Our little group was conducted into a large room full of scary-looking people, where a security force of more than twenty husky uniformed officers met us, all of them carrying side arms, and several holding assault rifles. As we walked through their midst, this security force gave our group a suspicious once-over. It is worth mentioning that this scene took place in the boarding area in an airport. The city was Chicago.

From the moment we actually boarded our plane, however, and during the entire remainder of the trip—in Jordan and Syria—I did not see a single side arm on any person at all, and I saw only two rifles: one held by a guard in front of the Defense Ministry in Damascus, and the other by the man who opened the front gate for us at the Presidential Palace.

During our whole time in Syria, I saw not a single armed policeman, nor—except for that guard at the Defense Ministry—a single soldier. I saw only one military vehicle, and that was near the Defense Ministry.

The only other weapons I saw in Syria were the 10-inch batons used by the local police to direct the flow of traffic in Damascus. Indeed, the only moments of apprehension we felt in Syria were occasioned by extraordinary displays of spontaneity and boldness on the part of its cab drivers.

In Syria our delegation—together and singly—was permitted to walk wherever we wished and to ask any questions of anybody we wanted. There was only one restriction: the tourist agency, assigned to guide us, mentioned two cities where, out of concern for our safety, it could not take responsibility for us. This concern, they said, was prompted by patterns of violence among some of the “armed gangs and criminal elements” active in those cities—not the Syrian government.

Prior to traveling to Syria, I had checked out the web page of our State Department, where I was warned that travel in Syria was currently very dangerous. Normally I would take such warnings seriously.

Over many years, however, I have done a lot of foreign travel, so I also trust my instincts with respect to safety. Long ago I walked the dark streets of Athens during a period when there were riots and insurrections throughout Greece. That same year—just after the civil war in Cyprus—I roamed all over that island, which was policed by U.N. peacekeepers.

In Kosovo not long ago, again at night, I strolled from the south (Albanian) side of Mitrovica, across the bridge, to the north (Serbian) side—and back again—without incident. I have walked around, after dark, in the neighborhoods of numerous foreign cities, such as London, Paris, Milan, Istanbul, and Tel-Aviv. In 1973 I was at the Athens airport, when terrorists stormed the El-Al customer desk with grenades and machine guns. I believe I can recognize danger when I see it.

I also know what it feels like to move around in a police state. Last year, for instance, I spent a week in Guatemala, where there were guns galore on nearly every street. At the time, the murder statistics in Guatemala City were staggering. One of our group on the Syrian trip, Father Timothy Ferguson, had spent a year in Guatemala, during which he followed the murder reports in the newspaper; he told me that there were 87 women murdered in his immediate neighborhood during that year, but not a single person was ever arrested for those murders. As for myself, within five minutes of entering Guatemala City, I was aware of danger.

So, let me sum up my impression of security in Syria. On a security scale of 1-to-10, I would give Syria 9.7. Using that same scale, I would give Detroit 4, Philadelphia 6, and Disney World 8.5.

Greeting the President

When Metropolitan Philip sent our little delegation to visit Syria, he asked us to make an honest and polite inquiry about the current political situation in that country, especially with regard to its Christian minority. Our interview with President Assad of Syria was probably the centerpiece of that inquiry.

We met with the President for about 90 minutes in the early evening. As the appointed spokesman for our delegation, I endeavored to set the tone in my introductory statement:

Fr. Reardon and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Mr. President, Bashar al-Assad, we are a delegation of American Christians, sent by Metropolitan Philip, our archbishop in the United States and Canada, as a renewed expression of his loyal friendship with you and his concern for the people of Syria.

Metropolitan Philip has charged us with the responsibility of learning—first-hand—your assessment of the political conditions in Syria.

Our mission here is likewise an expression of the concern of American Christians for the well-being of this beloved country of Syria, to which our debt is incalculable with respect to religion, history, and culture. To most of the members of this delegation, and certainly to myself, our visit to Damascus represents the dream of a lifetime.

To us, Syria is not just any country in the world. It is, rather, the hearth of our culture as Christians. To the extent that anyone in this room can be described as a cultured person, he is indebted to Syria.

Our journey to Damascus, therefore, expresses a return to the roots of our identity. Please, believe this declaration of our deep respect for Syria and our love for its people.

In the inquiries we humbly make of you today, we beg you to see both this respect and this love.

We bring you the warmest greeting of Metropolitan Philip, who holds your name and person in the highest honor, and we sincerely thank you for meeting with us.

I confess that our experience of the previous few days disposed us to think favorably of President Assad, right from the start. For example, the abbess at the Shrine of St. Thecla in Maalula, described his visit there this past Pascha. According to her, Dr. Assad drove his car, accompanied only by his wife—with no one else in attendance, neither security personnel nor press. They dined with the orphans who live near the shrine and are cared for by the nuns.

The couple spent the rest of the day with the orphans, who—the abbess said—look upon the President as a father. I think I speak for our whole delegation in remarking that the testimony of the abbess seemed very sincere and was most convincing. An identical impression was also conveyed to us, when we met with two Antiochian bishops at the Patriarchate the next day.

Such impressions were difficult to reconcile with the usual image of President Assad on American TV, where he is referred to as a murderer and “butcher.”

President Assad

After my greeting to President Assad, he invited us to ask any questions we wished, and he promised to be as open and frank as possible.

For our part, the delegation kept Metropolitan Philip’s directive in mind. Although he had not dictated or limited the scope of our inquiry, he had made clear what he did want: Information about the current internal order in Syria, particularly with respect to that country’s Christians.

Without exception, our group adhered to that focus. Consequently, we made no inquiries about Syrian foreign policy or its role in geopolitics. We never mentioned Syria’s relationship to Iran. We spoke not one word about Hezbollah, or Lebanon, or Israel. These subjects would have been distractions, so we stuck to the subject indicated by Metropolitan Philip.

As we entered the building, it was very instructive to observe the lack of security surrounding the executive leader of a nation. No one in our group was frisked or patted down, nor were we obliged to pass through a metal detector. We were simply escorted into the Presidential Palace and greeted at the door of the conference room by President Assad himself.

Dr. Assad, speaking excellent English, showed himself to be very cordial and personable. There was not the faintest suggestion of a maniacal dictator like Castro, Noriega, Hussein, or Ghadafi. This was a man of obvious culture, refinement, modesty, and gentility. Our meeting, which lasted nearly 90 minutes, was informal, candid, and unhurried.

The President said the economy—chiefly widespread poverty—was at the heart of the problem in Syria. He went on to declare, however, that the originally peaceful demonstrators were later infiltrated by right wing extremists, including the Muslim Brotherhood and a small very dangerous group from Iraq. He confessed that neither he nor his government was prepared for the violence that erupted so suddenly.

In response to a specific question on the subject, President Assad admitted that the military force over-reacted to this violence, on occasion, so that some demonstrators were killed and others tortured. These developments, he insisted, were contrary to his own policies. Other reported tortures, according to the President, were actually acts of revenge undertaken by emotional military personnel, who had lost colleagues during the demonstrations.

The President estimated that the demonstrators represented about 150 to 200 thousand people, out of a population of 23 million.

Syria’s greater problem, he believed, came from the portrayal of Syria conveyed in the Western media. The latter were allowed free range in the country in the first month of the uprisings, but when their depiction of the situation became unfair, distorted, and unbalanced, the government determined to send them packing.

The President believed the Syrian people were ready for reform, and he declared his intention to give it to them. He already started with educational and election reforms and made a start towards weeding out political corruption. Much more is planned, he said, but it takes time.

One of our questioners, persuaded that the Syrian government employed a large number of secret informants, make inquiry of President Assad on this point. He responded, “If I really had a large number of secret informants eavesdropping on the population, I don’t know how the strength of the uprising could take me by surprise. If we had a larger intelligence service, we would not need such a large army.”

In answer to a direct question from myself, President Assad insisted that no aircraft of any kind has been used against Syria’s demonstrators—a flat contradiction to TV reporting in the United States—and that no shots have been fired on the crowds from the tanks used as cover by Syrian soldiers under attack. (This was confirmed by Michel Kilo, a representative of Opposition, about whom I will write shortly.)

Our group was particularly interested in the President’s view of Syria’s Christian minority, which he believes is necessary in order to keep the country “secular.” (By this adjective, he explained, he meant a political setting in which no one religion can dictate to, or have advantage over, another.) Christianity has a moderating influence on Islam in Syria, he declared, and people are free to practice whatever religion they choose. “There can be no democracy in Syria,” said President Assad, “without Christians. A completely Muslim country would have not the counterbalance of influence necessary for democracy.”

Other Testimonies

In addition to our conversation with President Assad, our delegation also met with other important Syrians:

First among these were the two bishops who spent more than an hour with us at the cathedral office of the Antiochian Patriarchate. Both of them were very vocal about the current situation in Syria. Testifying that they had visited the sites where the reports of large-scale violence had taken place, they expressed a vehement protest against the inaccurate portrayal of their country in the Western news media. They claimed to have regular contact with their people in those communities, who insist that the local uprisings are blown completely out of proportion on American and European television.

These bishops also could not say enough positive things about the President, Bashar al Assad. We found this message to be a consistent and common theme from virtually everyone we talked with on the trip.

This was true even with respect to the “opposition figures” with whom we met. Chief and most outspoken among these was Michel Kilo, a representative of the Intellectual Party, who has consistently been a peaceful member of the opposition. A former Marxist, Kilo described himself as very pro-democracy but not necessarily anti-regime. In fact, he said, if President Assad is successful in introducing reforms, such as a fair and democratic election, he would vote for him!

Kilo acknowledged that there is much more than meets the eye with respect to the demonstrators, and he avowed that they do not all have the same agenda. He also believed the peaceful demonstrators’ agenda was being hi-jacked by extremists who, even among themselves, pursued other agendas, or none at all! Kilo called for an end to the violence on both sides and a faster pace toward needed reforms in the country, especially those dealing with corruption in the government.

On our last day in Damascus, we had an unexpected meeting with seven sheiks from northeast Syria (if memory serves), who learned of our presence in the country and journeyed to meet with us. These men, who represented 7 million Syrians, were dressed in the traditional garb common in Bedouin areas. They insisted on three points: (1) There is one God; (2) There is one Syria; and (3) There is one President Assad. These men, let me say, were in no mood to compromise!

The Grand Mufti of Syria and Fr. Reardon

Our last meeting, which lasted until about three o’clock in the morning of our final day in Syria, was with the leading Islamic cleric in the country known as the Grand Mufti, the spiritual father of Syria’s 70% Sunni majority. We found him to be very charismatic, warm, and friendly. Indeed, he was so irenic that I caught myself fancying I was talking with a Hindu! He deplored violence of any kind and preached to us about the dignity of humanity whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, or otherwise.

The Grand Mufti was also very pro-Assad and criticized what he called the huge fabrication the Western media was advancing by using unverified You-Tube films in its reports. He had been at those locations, he declared, exactly when some of the alleged uprisings and violence were occurring, and he saw nothing to support the exaggerations of the Western press. The Grand Mufti speculated that there was a 90% approval rating for President Assad in Syria, compared to the current 39% approval for President Obama in the United States.

Conclusions and Speculations

Let me summarize my impressions of the political situation in Syria:

First, I can only form opinions on what we saw and heard which did not include the alleged “hot spots.” I specifically requested to be taken to one of these places, explaining that, as a normal Chicagoan, I am completely devoid of fear. Concerned about safety, however, they politely declined my request.

Second, given the fact Damascus is the capital and the most populous region of Syria, one imagines we would see at least a hint of a revolution if there really were one. We did not.

Third, Christians in Syria are safe and happy. They worship in freedom without oppression. Both before and after this trip, several friends suggested that Christian support for the government in Syria is an example of the “Stockholm Syndrome.” That is to say, they speculated that the Christians in Syria are identifying with their oppressors to the point of supporting them. Let me affirm categorically that this is not the case in Syria. Christians in that country are not an oppressed minority, as they are, for example, in Egypt. Muslims in Syria have no political advantage over Christians.

Fourth, the TV reporting on Syria in this country is anything but “fair and balanced.” With a view to correcting this problem, our delegation suggested to President Assad that he begin by inviting one well-trusted television reporter from the United States to sit and talk with him, much as we did. Our recommendation was specific; we named such a reporter, who happens to be Orthodox. The President said he would give it serious consideration.

Fifth, it is my impression (and I speak for myself alone) that the stability of Middle Eastern governments, including the Syrian, depends a great deal on the support of the military. For this reason, it is not unknown for the leaders of such countries to have only a limited authority over their military establishments. If this is the case in Syria, it would explain, at least in part, why President Assad has not been able to stop all violence from the government’s side, even though such violence is diametrically at odds with his own policies.

Sixth, unless I am dreadfully mistaken, the current Syrian government is in no immediate danger from an internal revolution. There is far more rioting in the United States, and in almost every country of Western Europe, than there is in Syria. Even as I write this, there are more demonstrators camping out on Wall Street (where they voice utter vacuities, at all hours, to the press corps) than there are anywhere in Syria.

More Recent Developments

Since our return from Syria, two related developments have come to my attention:

First, shortly after we left Syria, a journalist from the BBC, Lyce Doucet, filed a report called “Inside Damascus, a city on edge” (9/26/11). This title (surely chosen by someone else) disguises Doucet’s actual report, which is compatible with everything I have written above. The distress she found in Damascus was chiefly related to the city’s loss of tourism, the result of the bad press the county has endured through most of this year. As I commend Doucet’s carefully crafted account, I also would like to believe it represents a much-needed return to factual reporting about Syria in the Western press.

Second, there continue to be targeted assassinations of Syria’s cultural and religious leaders, such as Hassan Eid, a surgeon at Homs’ general hospital; Aws Abdel Karim Khalil, a nuclear engineering specialist and charge d’affaires at al-Baath University; Mohammad Ali Aqil, deputy dean of its architecture faculty; Nael Dakhil, director of the military petrochemical school; and Saria Hassoun, the young son of the Grand Mufti himself.

Of these recent victims of violence, Khalil and Eid belonged to the Alawite sect (to which President Assad also belongs), Aqil was a Shiite Muslim, Dakhil a Christian, and Hassoun a Sunni.

What did these men have in common? Two things: First, they were all supporters of President Assad. Second, their murders have gone almost unmentioned in the Western press. For the Western media to report such murders, after all, would undermine the biased impression it wants to convey about the nature of the disturbances in Syria.

A Final Word

As the chosen spokesman for our delegation while we were in Syria, it fell to me to give two television interviews while we were there, the first one for SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency) and the second for a private commercial channel.

My first interviewer, who was an Antiochian Orthodox Christian, began with the hope that I would consider Syria my “second home.” “No,” I replied, “Syria is my first home.” I went on to explain my regard for Syria, because it is the geographical and historical link between the cultures of the Fertile Crescent and the Mediterranean Basin. As such Syria is the capstone, the link that holds Western Civilization together. It was Syria—specifically Ras Shamra—that taught us the alphabet. Consequently, if anyone wants to disagree about his level of debt to Syria, I will insist that he communicates the disagreement in either cuneiform or hieroglyphics; he certainly has no right to use the alphabet. Syria is, in short, at the absolute root of who we are.

Let me end by expressing, once more, my profound gratitude to Metropolitan Philip, to our Syrian hosts, to all those who made this journey possible, and to everyone who prayed for us.

La Stampa: Divisions in Orthodox Church Hinder Pope’s Meeting with Patriarch of Moscow


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

We are getting more news from the Catholic/Italian press than we are from Orthodox sources. This report appears reliable; the author has a good grasp of the ecclessiological disagreements between Constantinople and Moscow, particularly the conflict about what constitutes primacy in Orthodoxy. This question must be settled before a Pan-Orthodox Council can take place and before dialogue with Rome can proceed with any seriousness.

Both Constantinople and Moscow have different interests at stake. Moscow sees a working alliance with Rome (not unity) as a practical necessity to re-Christianize Europe in order to roll back the hedonism, moral relativism, lowered value of human life and other afflictions associated with secularism. Constantinople has expressed little interest in Moscow’s (and Rome’s) agenda and prefers instead to focus on global warming and other boutique issues.

Highlights from the article:

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

Full article follows.

Source: La Stampa (Vatican Insider) | October 3, 2011

The Orthodox Church has become convinced that together with the primacy, synodality buttresses the government and the Church’s organisation

Giacomo Galeazzi, vatican city

After metropolitan Hilarion’s visit to Castel Gandolfo had brought the meeting between Benedict XVI and Moscow’s Patriarch, Kyril, closer, the primacy dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Churches, has re-emerged as an obstacle. Internal divisions between Orthodoxy seem capable of slowing the Pope’s path towards his historic face to face meeting with the Russian Patriarch, which would probably take place on “neutral ground”, Bari for example.

One of the main sore points, are the principles for the declaration of the Orthodox Churches’ autonomy (an autocephalous proclamation). This has caused the most friction between the, especially between the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. The latter holds the majority in Orthodoxy, as it has been autocephalous since 1488. Still, now, more than ever, significant steps are being taken towards advancing dialogue between the Holy See and the Orthodox faith, on the relationship between primacy and synodality in the Church and on the importance of spiritual ecumenism, in view of a complete and clear unity between all Christians. Even Vatican Radio wrote that Hilarion’s arrival in Castel Gandolfo opened the way for new hope.

Between Rome and Moscow, the situation already seems clear, particularly the question of the “prótos-kephalé” ministry – the “supreme head” of the Church – on a local level (the Bishop), on a regional level (the Patriarch) and on a universal level (the Bishop of Rome), applying Canon 34 of the Apostles (a fundamental text for Eastern ecclesiology) to all three levels, in a similar way. In this sense, under Benedict XVI’s pontificate, a fundamental agreement was reached between Catholics and the Orthodox Church made on a common theological, ecclesiological platform, on which the two denominations based the discussion regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox Church reached the conclusion that, just like primacy, synodality constitutes the government and the Church organisation’s supporting framework. An encouraging move towards mutual understanding and the identification of common elements between them. The only problems that remain are essentially related to hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of the word of God, as it is testified in the Holy Scriptures and in the living tradition of the Church. There are also urgent questions related to anthropology and ecclesiology.

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow acknowledged Benedict XVI in light of the new situation between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow: “We have overcome all the tensions that have existed over the years and our relations are now normal, peaceful and even positive and constructive.” Hilarion expressed the high esteem he felt towards Benedict XVI, who is thought very highly of within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Archbishop reflected on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church’s communion during the first millennium, when the Great Schism of 1054 had not yet taken place.

The focus is on how the content of the primacy of St. Peter’s successor, evolved during the second millennium, after the split between the two confessions, particularly after the First and Second Vatican Council. The subject had already been discussed in depth on occasion of the tenth Plenary Assembly of the mixed Commission which met in the Italian city of Ravenna, between 8 and 14 October 2007. Thirty Catholic delegates and 30 Orthodox representatives gathered to reflect on the topic: “The ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature the Church: ecclesiastic communion, conciliarity and authority in the Church.”

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” [Like Estonia?] In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

At the end of August, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I and metropolitan Hilarion, met on the Turkish Island of Imbros (not in Fanar, the Headquarters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The visit was interpreted as a sign of détente between them. The Patriarchate of Moscow pointed out that the meeting lasted two days, 21 and 22 August. This Sunday, Patriarch Bartholomew who is originally from Imbros, wanted to show metropolitan Hilarion the places where he grew up.

After reciting the vespers together, in the Church of the Dormition of the St. Theodores, the Patriarch publicly addressed the metropolitan, thanking him for the work his Department did for relations between the two Patriarchates. “Naturally, this does not mean that no clouds will ever form over their relationship, that no problems will ever arise, but we are trying to overcome them and resolve them together, in order to carry on our harmonious collaboration,” he concluded. Thus, divisions over authority between Orthodox churches are slowing the Benedict XVI and Kyril’s reciprocal efforts to bring the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closer together.

Interview with Met. Hilarion on Unity and Primacy in the Orthodox Church [AUDIO]


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Metropolitan Hilarion

I published the article below earlier, but after listening to the recording of the interview, there’s a lot more to report. The planning for a Pan-Orthodox Council continues, and one of the benefits is that thorny issues raised in the past such as the granting of autocephaly, the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople in world Orthodoxy and others are finally getting serious attention. Reading between the lines, it is clear that Constantinople’s claims to universal supremacy have been rejected although they still possess a primacy of honor and limited authority to call a council and so forth.

Met. Hilarion speaks highly of Pope Benedict calling him a “man of faith” and expressing particular appreciation of Benedict’s knowledge of Orthodoxy. No promises concerning a meeting between Rome and Moscow are promised, although the newest date mentioned is 2013 which represents the 1700th anniversary of the signing of the Edict of Milan.

Listen here:

Source: Catholic News Agency | Benjamin Mann

Orthodox archbishop: we’re internally divided on question of “primacy”

Castel Gandolfo, Italy, Sep 30, 2011 / 12:51 am (CNA).- A leading Russian Orthodox official says the Eastern Orthodox churches have yet to resolve the question of authority among themselves, a condition for future progress on the issue of the papacy.

“I would say that there are certain divergences, and there are different positions, of the Orthodox churches on the question of the primacy,” said Metropolitan Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, in a Vatican Radio interview following his Sept. 29 meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at Castel Gandolfo.

“As we discuss the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, within the framework of the next commission, we do not only discuss the primacy of Rome; but we have to touch the issue of the primacy in general,” noted the Orthodox metropolitan, apparently referring to future proceedings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

“And here, of course, we have different traditions – not only between the Catholics and the Orthodox, because we never had such a centralized system as the Catholics have – but we also have some difference among the Orthodox, as to what should be the role of the ‘first hierarch’ in the Orthodox Church.” The Patriarch of Constantinople occupies that role, but his prerogatives are not fully defined.

Metropolitan Hilarion was scheduled to participate in the last session of the Catholic-Orthodox commission, held in 2007 to discuss the question of papal primacy. But an internal dispute between Constantinople and Moscow, over an Orthodox group in Estonia, prompted the Russian representative to walk out. The two churches also dispute the status of the Orthodox Church in America.

On Thursday, the metropolitan made an apparent reference to these types of difficulties between the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople, saying that “if a particular Orthodox church will want to impose its own vision of this primacy on other churches, then of course we will encounter difficulties. And this is what is happening at the moment.”

Meanwhile, the world’s local self-governing Orthodox churches are also attempting to organize a historic Pan-Orthodox Council, comparable to the Church councils held in the Byzantine empire during the first millennium.

The new gathering has been in preparation for 50 years, as the Orthodox world seeks to determine how the Patriarch of Constantinople should exercise his authority.

“We believe that his role should be the primacy of honor, and also he is afforded some coordinating role: for example, he can convene the Pan-Orthodox Council,” said Archbishop Hilarion. “Of course, previously – in the history of the ecumenical councils – it was not the Patriarch of Constantinople, neither was it the Pope of Rome, but it was the (Byzantine) Emperor, who convened the councils.”

“So we have this model (of primacy), which is emerging in the Orthodox tradition. But generally, for centuries we had a very decentalized administration. Each autocephalous church is fully independent from other churches in its self-governance. And therefore we do not have a very clear picture as to what should be the role of the primate in the Orthodox tradition.”

“Without having this clear and unified vision, we cannot easily discuss the issue of how we see the role of the ‘Primus Inter Pares’ (‘first among equals,’ an Orthodox concept of the papacy) in the universal Church,” Metropolitan Hilarion admitted.

The phrase “first among equals” signifies the typical Orthodox view of the Pope as having a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction. In his 2010 book Light of the World, Pope Benedict said the “first among equals” view of the Pope was “not exactly the formula that we believe as Catholics,” due to the Pope’s “specific functions and tasks.”

Until Orthodoxy clarifies its own systems of authority, Archbishop Hilarion said, hopes for progress on the question of the papacy between Catholics and Orthodox are “probably not too high.”

“But still, there is hope, because if there is willingness to accommodate different positions and to produce a paper – or several papers, maybe – which would clearly state the differences, which would outline the way forward, then we can progress.”

The Moscow Patriarchate’s ecumenical representative also expressed hesitation about a possible meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow, which has never occurred in the centuries since Moscow’s elevation to patriarchal status in 1589.

There are hopes that such a meeting could take place in 2013, on the 1,700th anniversary of Christianity’s legalization by the Emperor Constantine. But Archbishop Hilarion said Catholics and Russian Orthodox believers should not jump to conclusions about when a meeting may occur between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow.

“We believe that such a meeting will take place at some time in the future. We are not yet ready to discuss the date, or the place, or the protocol of such a meeting – because what matters for us, primarily, is the content of this meeting.

“As soon as we agree on the content, on the points on which we still disagree or have divergent opinions, then I believe we can have this meeting. But it requires a very careful preparation, and we should not be hurrying up, and we should not be pressed to have this meeting at a particular point of time.”

Despite his cautious attitude toward this meeting and other ecumenical matters, Metropolitan Hilarion spoke warmly of Pope Benedict XVI himself.

During his recent trip to Germany, the Pope met with representatives of the Orthodox churches in the country, and spoke of a “common engagement” among Christians to ensure that “the human person is given the respect which is his due.”

“His Holiness is a man of faith and whenever I meet with him I’m encouraged by his spirit, his courage and his dedication to the life of the Church worldwide,” Metropolitan Hilarion said after his meeting with the Pope on Thursday.

“Of course I’m very impressed by his knowledge of the Orthodox tradition and the attention he pays to the dialogue between the Catholics and the Orthodox… I believe that this attitude of the Primate of the Roman Catholic Church will greatly help us in our way towards better mutual understanding.”

The Legacy of Communism, Abortion, and Other Anti-Life Philosophies in Russia [VIDEO]


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Population Research Institute

Ideas have consequences, and the legacy of bad ideas is self-destruction. This video examines the legacy of the anti-life and anti-family ideas of that Communist ideology imposed on Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. These same ideas that ravaged the Russian nation are today prevalent in the West. Abortion, the redefinition of marriage, the elevation of homosexuality and so forth conspire towards demographic suicide where a civilization and culture cannot sustain itself and starts to collapse from within. The collapse is gradual, it may take several generations before the point of no return is reached, and it starts not merely with the behaviors, but with the ideas that justify them. Bad behavior can atrophy the soul, but the mind must first be convinced that a lie is truth in order to quiet the soul’s desire for life. If enough people believe the lie, civilization perishes.

Hadley Arkes. From California: Another Front in the Culture Wars


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: Ruth Institute | By Hadley Arkes

From California again we get a glimpse of the future – or the future that a political class is consciously seeking to prepare for us in reshaping the culture. During the summer the legislature enacted, and Governor Jerry Brown signed into law, SB48, as an amendment to “the Education Code, relating to instruction.” That Code had already made ample provision to instruct the children of California in the contributions made by all racial and ethnic groups supplying votes for politicians. But there was an appreciation also for the contributors who were “entrepreneurs” and labor unions, and whose stories deserved to be told. With SB48 the legislature took a further step by adding: “Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”

The schools were directed to give only favorable accounts of these groups in telling the story. But on the other side, teachers and administrators were enjoined not to offer any instruction or “sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation.” There is not the least doubt about the intention to enforce this law. Nor is there much doubt about the main target of the law. SB48 bars “any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.”

For religious teaching, read: any teaching offering a claim to truth rivaling the moral teaching in the law. That alternative moral teaching will be regarded as merely beliefs of a “denominational” character or a version of “propaganda.”

Make no mistake, Fr. Schall was quite right in his recent column: We are in the midst of a culture war. And a chief purpose of that war is to make it untenable to teach Catholic doctrine in public settings, or for Catholic institutions, in their work, to respect that teaching. But we would fall into a gentle mistake if we assumed that we are facing mainly the force of “relativism,” or that the appeal now is to the rights of parents to provide for the moral shaping of their children.

Yes, in part, to both. The force of relativism was felt first in teaching the wrongness of casting moral judgments, including judgments on the “styles” of sexuality. But there is nothing relativistic about the law in California. There is no willingness to tolerate the views of those who bear moral reservations about the homosexual life. The people who brought forth this law would draw on the “logic of morals” as Aquinas had it, and as it will ever be: they would commend and even require what is “right,” and they would condemn and forbid what they regard as “wrong.”

Lincoln had all of this long ago: “If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away.” He could conceivably grant then the authority to bar the abolitionist literature from the mails – if slavery were right. And if it were wrong to cast adverse moral judgments on the homosexual life, the understandings supporting those judgments could indeed be driven out of the schools.


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58