Month: March 2011

On Contemporary Narrow Mindedness in Orthodoxy

25 Comments

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: Mystagogy

By Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia

Alas, the element of nationalism, of ethnic narrowness, is a fact that we can see very widely in the contemporary Orthodox Church. And it has of course deep historical roots. It is not only a problem of today.

Phyletism, setting nationalism above Orthodox catholicity, was defined as a heresy by the Church of Constantinople in 1872. We must keep in mind, however, that there is nothing wrong in itself with nationhood and our loyalty to our own particular people. In fact it is good. Patriotism is a noble feeling. But this feeling of national identity that humans have when they lead a balanced, full life, has to undergo metanoia, repentance, a change of mind. It has to be baptized. And very often this repentance, this change of mind, hasn’t taken place and we have an untransformed nationalism. So while nationhood is precious and can be a means of grace, we must remember that Christ stands higher than all ethnic differences. “There is no longer Jew or Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Saint Paul instructs us [Galatians 3:28]. And we have to emphasize that what matters about the Church is its universality, its catholicity. Nationalism can be a servant but it must not be allowed to become master of our heart. And, as we said, there is a negative narrowness in the kind of intense national feelings that one encounters in Greece, and in Russia and also among British people, of course. None of us is without sin.

Actually, I have noticed while visiting Romania that though Romanians are proud of their nation they don’t have the hostile, aggressive attitude toward the West and the fear of non-Orthodox churches that I encounter in other Orthodox countries. In Romania I don’t hear, or only very occasionally hear, people talking about ‘Judeo-Masonic conspiracies’ against the Orthodox world. So, in my experience at least, Romanians seem to be more balanced than many other Orthodox in their views about the rest of the world.

But of course we mustn’t generalize. In Greece, in Russia, there are also people with a wonderful vision of the universality of Orthodoxy, who value and love their native land, their national tradition, Greek or Russian, but who at the same time are universalists; and this is surely what the Western world needs. Not an Orthodoxy that is ethnic but a Catholic Orthodoxy. Not an Orthodoxy that is always condemning, but an Orthodoxy that is generous, humble, kenotic [self-emptying]. Not compromising, but not attacking the others.

This could be the kairos, the moment of opportunity for Orthodoxy. But we Orthodox are not ready. We are not Orthodox enough.

The Left’s sloppy thinking concerning the defense of human life

20 Comments

Source: Wintery Knight

Secular leftists (as well as many religious leftists) hold the views they do not because the views are internally coherent, but because they they fear being ostracized by their peers for holding conservative opinions. Moral posturing — holding politically correct viewpoints — is more important than clear thinking in the secularist canon. This explains why the moral and cultural conservative is so often greeted with pejoratives rather than any reasoned rebuttal of his opinions. It is also why the defender of abortion loathes direct questioning. He knows his views are weak (applause is more important than any search for truth), and an informed moral and cultural conservative can dispense with them without too much effort.

In the video below Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform debates Dr. Mark Mercer, head of the Philosophy Department of Saint Mary’s University held at Dalhousie University on March 8, 2011. Gray knows her stuff. Mercer knows very little although he thinks he knows a lot. What Mercers holds as self-evidently true is not so self-evident when faced with an interlocutor better educated and more independent minded than he is.

Unfortunately, Mercer’s ignorance is reflected in Orthodox Church life as well despite the clear teachings of the Orthodox moral tradition which line up squarely with Gray’s defense of the intrinsic value of human life. In fact, these teachings are the foundation of Gray’s apologetic. It is important too that the Orthodox Christians who understand that a clear defense of human life in the public square is needed today more than ever also recognize where these weaknesses lie. We have to be clear, coherent, and brave in our defense of human life. If we fail, a tide of dehumanization will be unleashed that will leave us weeping like the Israelites by the waters of Babylon over what was lost.

One area of weakness I have in mind lies here: A patriarch who ‘generally speaking, respects human life’. Such muddled thinking in the upper reaches of Orthodox leadership is disconcerting to say the least, but it must be revealed and challenged if we hope to avoid a deeper confusion down the road over the questions that inevitably flow from the primary ones addressed in the debate. Secondly, the Patriarch’s statement does not conform to the teachings of the Fathers on abortion. This too must be clarified.

75 out of every 100 Victims of Religious Intolerance are Christian

2 Comments

Out of every 100 victims of religious intolerance in the world, 75 are Christians. After the terrorist attack on 20 January 2011 in Alexandria, the European Parliament adopted a resolution acknowledging the fact of violation of the rights of Christians. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, in his interview to Izvestiya daily (Issue 50 (28311), 24 March 2011), speaks of the persecution of Christians today.

What is your opinion of the European Parliament’s resolution on the violation of the rights of Christians? How and why at all did it appear?

The European Parliament has adopted the Resolution on the Situation of Christians in the Context of Freedom of Religion, and the EU Committee of Foreign Ministers in its statement on February 22 expressed concern for ‘the increasing number of acts of religious intolerance and discrimination, as epitomised by recent violence and acts of terrorism, in various countries, against Christians’. These two decisions were to a considerable extent a result of the intensive efforts of Christian Churches. I should also mention the New Year message of Pope Benedict XVI who called Christians ‘the religious group who suffer most from persecution on account of their faith’. The protection of the rights of Christians is an urgent task today. The reason for the European Parliament’s resolution was the terrorist attack made at one of the Coptic churches in Alexandria on January the 1^st this year.

A week after, the foreign ministers of several European states appealed to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to react to this act of terrorism. The reaction followed in the form of this document of the European Parliament, which can be called revolutionary since the European parliamentarians finally spoke up on a problem which they preferred previously to hush up.

According to the non-governmental organization ‘Aid to the Church in Need’, out of every 100 victims killed in the manifestations of religious intolerance in recent years, 75 are Christians.

The enemy image

What has caused the violation of the rights of Christians in the countries mentioned in the resolution?

Every country has a specific character of interreligious relations. Christians used to live in most of these states for ages, even at times when local political regimes claimed to be much more radical than they are today. But in our days, when all the states are committed to the protection of human rights, the exodus of Christians from some states has only increased. In my view, this suggests a failure of today’s world policy in the area of religious freedom and a lack of interest in religious education. As a result, many draw their religious identity from setting off their own beliefs against those of others. Religious ignorance becomes a ground for cultivating hatred towards adherents to a different faith and even for calling for physical destruction. In addition, Christians have become victims of political miscalculations made by Western states. The situation is bad in Iraq. According to some estimates, a half of its 1, 4 million-strong Christian population has already left the country since 2003. Without assessing the internal political situation in Iraq as it was before the NATO interference, we can state that the affairs there had never come to the physical destruction of Christians. The foreign military invasion has made local Christians hostages to the ill-considered actions of NATO countries.

There is a grave situation in India, too. Since 2001, there have been some 130 attacks against Christian annually, and there were 149 attacks in 2010. In Pakistan, Christians often become victims of the so-called law on blasphemy which provides for capital punishment. On March 2, the Pakistani Minister for Religious Minorities, Mr. Shakhbaz Bhatti, a Catholic, was assassinated. He managed to do much for relieving the religious tension in the country, and he was not afraid of speaking in public against the initiatives of religious extremists.

Can this wave of violence be stopped?

Historically, many states including Russia claimed to protect Christian communities which lived in a minority situation. In our time, such external guarantees of the rights of minorities are impossible since they are viewed as interference in the internal affairs of a country. However, it does not give cause for refusal to support Christian communities in different ways such as raising this problem at international organizations or developing cooperation programs to foster interreligious peace in whole regions. The European Parliament’s resolution proposes a concrete action plan. It can be boiled down to the following fundamental principle: economic and financial support in exchange for ensuring human rights in the countries to which this support is given. This principle should become one of the factors in the foreign policy of Western states. The rights of Christians can be ensured only through dialogue between traditional religions both within states and on international level. That is why the Russian Orthodox Church participates in the work of the Interreligious Council in Russia and the CIS and advocates the establishment of a mechanism of dialogue between religious communities and UNESCO.

Uniting of confessions

Are violations of the rights of Christians happen only outside Europe?

Certainly, Europe does not allow of direct violence against people of any religion. However, the tendency towards secularization of the societal life has led to the emergence of political and legislative realities unacceptable to Christians. Religion is sought to be simply ousted from public domain. Let us remember the ruling of the European Court in the case of Lautsi versus Italy, which banned the presence of Christian symbols in schools. Discouraging are also attempts made by some EU states to introduce the so-call sexual education of children. Christians in Europe also see the violation of their rights in sexual minorities’ parades in Paris, Berlin and other once Christian cities. Therefore, it is difficult to speak of absolute respect with regard to the rights of Christians in Europe. So, it is a universal problem. For this reason, the Russian Orthodox Church keeps calling for an open, interested and equitable discussion on this issue.

Nobody should be lured away

What are the prospects for the joint efforts of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians in protecting the rights of Christian minorities?

Unfortunately, even some states in Western Europe today increasingly seek to restrict the expressions of Christian religiosity in public life, arguing that the rights of people of other religions and those of atheists should be respected. For this reason, Christians of various confessions need to engage in joint actions to protect Europe’s Christian identity and to defend the Christian tradition of European culture.

In case of the Lautsi versus Italy proceedings, this solidarity has led to concrete results. The Moscow Patriarchate supported the protest of the Roman Catholic Church against the court decision and contributed to Russia’s support for the appeal lodged by the Government of Italy with the Grand Chamber of the European Court. The appeal was supported by some other European states as well.

And quite recently, on March 18, this position was supported by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which ruled that crucifixes can hang in classrooms in European schools.

What is the role played by proselytism?

Proselytism, that is, luring believers away from one Christian confession to another, has long proved to be harmful for the development of dialogue between Christian Churches. In a situation where Christian have to face manifestations of Islamic extremism, solidarity of Christian, whatever Church or community they may belong to, become a vital task. Christians in the Middle East have long realized it and seek to give each other all possible help. The Middle East is the cradle of Christianity and it is very important that Christian presence should be preserved there. This can be achieved only with the help of the international community.

Vatican: Human Sexuality … Is Not an “Identity”

16 Comments

More arguments for my thesis that “Sexual Orientation” is not an ontological category.

GENEVA, MARCH 24, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, permanent representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, delivered Tuesday at the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council on "sexual orientation."

Mr. President,

The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviors.

We would also like to make several observations about the debates regarding "sexual orientation."

First, there has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term "sexual orientation," as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the UN human rights system. The confusion is unnecessary because, in international law, a term must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, unless the document has given it a different meaning.[1] The ordinary meaning of "sexual orientation" refers to feelings and thoughts, not to behavior.[2]

Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.

Third, the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension: It is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an "identity." In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or "sexual orientations" may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity. This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.

And finally, Mr. President, we wish to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatized, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session.[3] The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. President.

NOTES

[1] Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, Article 31(1): "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose" (emphasis added). Article 31(4): " A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended. " These rules of treaty interpretation are based on customary international law, and are applicable to "soft law."

[2] Moreover, many publications have given definitions of "sexual orientation," and all of the ones that we have seen are similar: they do not refer to behavior; they refer to sexual feelings and thoughts. E.g.:

(1) "sexual orientation means the general attraction you feel towards" another person or persons. Equality Commission (The United Kingdom); See, www.equalityhumanrights.com, under "What does sexual orientation mean?

(2) "sexual orientation may be broadly defined as a preference for sexual partners …." International Labour Office, ABC of Women Workers’ Rights and Gender Equality (2nd ed., 2007), p. 167). A "preference" is a mental-emotional state; it is not conduct.

(3) "sexual orientation refers to a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to people …." Amnesty International, Crimes of Hate, Conspiracy of Silence (Amnesty International Publications, London, 2001), p. vii (emphasis omitted).

(4) "’Sexual orientation’ refers to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations …." Asia Pacific Forum, ACJ Report: Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (15th Annual Meeting, Bali, 3-5 Aug. 2010), p. 8.

[3] L-10 on freedom of opinion and expression; L.14 on freedom of religion or belief; L. 38 on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization.

Met. Hilarion Confident Pan-Orthodox Synod will Resume in “Near Future”

Leave a comment

Source: Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Church Relations

Your Eminence! You have recently led a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church at the meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission held in Chambesy near Geneva. Which questions did you discuss?

The Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission is a working body which prepares the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. It elaborates items included in the Council’s agenda. The catalogue of the items was compiled in 1976 and includes ten topics demanding the elaboration of common position of the Orthodox Church. According to the regulation, proposals made by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission are to be approved by the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference.

The major part of the mentioned catalogue has been elaborated in the last decades, while in 2009 the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference approved the decisions on the ordering of cooperation among the Churches in Orthodox diaspora. That same year the Commission formulated the unanimous opinion on the method of granting the autonomy (self-governing) to a church province within a Local Church and considered in part a method of promulgating a new autocephalous (completely independent) Church.

This time the Commission had to complete consideration of the issue of church autocephaly and discuss the topic of the holy diptychs – the lists, according to which the Primates of the Local Churches are commemorated during divine services.

The Commission’ meetings, chaired by Metropolitan John of Pergamon from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, took place on 21-27 February 2011. With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church was represented by myself, by Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), and by my deputy, archpriest Nikolai Balashov.

Was an agreed decision on the mentioned questions taken?

The Commission’s work has shown that both mentioned questions need serious complementary exploration. The discussion in Chambesy was not an easy one and disclosed different positions, while the decision must be taken only by consensus in accordance with regulations.

The major debate developed on the method of signing a document on the promulgation of autocephaly called “Tomos.” Some participants, including those of the Russian Church, made the following proposal: In keeping with the practice of the former Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, common decision of all the heads of the Churches sign their common decision without any distinction, beginning, certainly, with the first among them – the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In the end it was recognized that this topic needs further exploration.

As to the topic of diptychs, the Commission has thoroughly studied all its aspects and analyzed the criteria used for the inclusion of the name of a Primate of a Church into diptychs. Having compared the differences in the present diptychs, the Commission considered it useful to reach a uniform opinion on this matter.

Also considered were opinions on the place of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches of Georgia, Cyprus, Poland and Albania and the variant reading in the diptychs that exist because of the lack of common opinion on the number of Churches recognized as autocephalous. This refers to the Orthodox Church in America, which is recognized as autocephalous by five Local Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church, while other Churches do not have the name of its Primate in their diptychs. Unfortunately, mutual consent has not been obtained on all these questions.

Is it really true that convocation of the Holy and Great Council is postponed for an indefinite period? What should be done to reach the unity of sentiment on disputed questions?

The situation should not be excessively dramatized. It is true that we have encountered certain difficulties in the process of obtaining consensus on certain questions. However, it only means that we all should seriously ponder over the overcoming of these difficulties. After all, it was difficult to obtain consensus in the past.

Participants in the discussion in Chambesy are aware of their responsibility for the destiny of inter-Orthodox dialogue. They understand the necessity to continue in a constructive way the preparation for the Holy and Great Council. They understand the importance of thorough elaboration of all questions included in the agenda. We should seek to hear those points of view that do not concur with ours and try to comprehend them. In the process of seeking other solutions the voice of each participant in the dialogue should be heard and the opinion of each Local Church should be taken into account. This principle is reflected in the regulations of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission and the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference.

Our common aim is not to convene the Council as soon as possible, but to do all we can to make its decisions show the majesty of the Orthodox faith to the world, to bring witness of the intransient meaning of the Holy Tradition of the Church, and to confirm the unity of the Church.

I am confident that preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council will continue in the near future.

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