I think what you mean to say is that every priest must deal with every person one on one. That is a given. There is, however, room for the canon even if a priest applies them in pastorally detrimental ways (which has happened on occasion). Be careful not to negate the former because of the failure of the latter. Neither the need for canonical order or the authority of the canons is nullified because a priest might apply them improperly.

John,

You’re setting up a false dichotomy between an objective standard (i.e., a canon) and the person. The moral tradition of the Church helps me understand myself and give the proper moral weight to my actions and to the things that I value. No one here, or to my knowledge anywhere, is suggesting that we not view each person in his or her uniqueness or in “a spiritual context” (though it isn’t clear to me what you mean by this).

When I hear confessions I must be mindful of the tradition and how well or not the person is living in harmony with the teaching of the Church. This an objective criteria. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for a subjective evaluation–there is and must be–but this evaluation is concerned with the moral culpability of the person (i.e., how free is the person relative to his or her behavior).

None of this requires that we turn the Church into a collection of lawyers “who apply strictures.” At the same time, without standards and boundaries we cannot be a community much less can we love one another. Love, in the teaching of the Apostle John, is predicated on our obedience to God. “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it” (2 Jn 1.6). No standards, no obedience, no obedience, no love.

+FrG

The Church is not an ecclesiastical “bar association” of lawyers who apply strictures. We are a ‘koinotis’ [community] who are in Christian love with our members. And the Greek term: ‘ekonomia’ (not quite well known in the West) is what allows us to be Christian with each other. Without this ‘economia’, we are in danger of becoming Church-fascists. And I’m sure that the Lord would not approve.

Even the article you cite mentions that it is not an undisputed fact that this is residence for the Patriarch. It is asserted that this is what it is, but since we don’t know that to be true, or what other purposes it may or may not have, how can you comment on it?

ROCOR is a part of the Moscow Patriarchate. Maybe we need a picture to remind readers of the vacation home the Patriarch is building for himself. Here it is.

http://www.rferl.org/content/internet_photos_patriarch_dacha/2317554.html

Fr. John is it acceptable for a Patriarch to have a such a residence?

A more general perspective is found in VISIONS OF ELDER ANTHONY

I saw the great lengths the universal evil is prepared to go to in a bid to malign the Holy Church, the immaculate Body of Christ! First of all, they shall sling abuse at it in all the papers, on radio and television. The Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christians shall be scoffed and ridiculed, as will be their rites, fasts, the Christian way of life – everything that was always the mainstay of the people´s vitality. Thousands and thousands of destroyers of Orthodoxy shall be infiltrated into the Church itself, among the clergy. Despite an overall outward piety, their spirit will be alien, anti-Christian, and the people shall turn away from the churches where these representatives of the clergy are predominant. So the resurrected, or newly-built churches shall stand empty. However, the light of true sanctity shall continue to flicker in some places. He who seeks shall find… Nobody shall be able to exonerate oneself saying: “Lord, I sought yet did not find!” Amidst the gloom of total lack of Faith and godlessness, lights of Truth flickers all across the land. Yet, the true clergy shall be persecuted and hounded, and subjected to all manner of disparagement. The demon´s henchmen shall not stop short of murder, if the Lord sees it fit for the pious to accept the halo of a martyr. There shall be many of them, pious martyrs of this time!

One of the freedoms that the demon´s henchmen attempt to inculcate in people at any cost is the freedom of moral licentiousness. Alas, people have already accepted it, and made it an inalienable part of contemporary life. Fornication is no longer branded as such, but perceived as sexual freedom. Depravation sets in at an early age in the guise of education in sexual culture and behavior of the sexes. Children are shown naked bodies, the sexual act – all in a bid to fire lustful passions, which they refer to as natural instincts. The press and television are inundated with naked bodies and terrible scenes of fornication. The nakedness in today´s dress is only the beginning. The final aim is much, much more horrible – the feast of Astarte and Baal, where hundreds and hundreds of heathens fornicated, stupefied with alcohol and drugs. That is where the proponents of sexual freedom drag humanity – to worship the demons of fornication. One is a slave to the one who vanquishes one, and people are enticed into this gift-wrapped slavery…

However, even the common sin of fornication is not enough for the demons´ retainers: sodomy and pederasty shall be dished out as ultimate manifestations of freedom. The propaganda of these disgusting sins will gather incredible force – almost stronger than sexual licentiousness! Incidents of homosexual marriages shall receive as much eclat as the discovery of antibiotics in its time! Sodomy will be markedly spreading: initially among the artists and politicians. The sin of sodomy will become a label of the future. Already now licentious debaucheries are held under the guise of annual carnivals of homosexuals in America! All this will become a part of the Russian scene, too, in no less an ugly manifestation. All who resist these ugly demonic onslaughts will be branded as impinging on another´s freedom, as grossly ignorant or even enemies of the state and its interests, since all states shall regard a protection of the demonic freedoms, rather than moral values, as their ultimate goal.

ROCOR has certainly never had rich bishops.

George, allow me to commend to on this quote:

The present system of well-paid (and let’s be honest, if you don’t have a family, any salary over $60K is well-paid), single bishops who live worldly lives (for the most part) is what is causing the destruction of Orthodoxy in America.

You are 100% correct and today our bishops are more concerned with institutional maintenance and keeping up their suburban lifestyle than they are about evangelizing. We can have no Orthodox renewal Until we put an end to the idea that our bishops must be rich.

George, the reason Leadership isn’t as you describe I think is because the ‘compromised hierarchy’ as you term them are leading to great and shameful expenses, expenses that they could have avoided had they acted on them back when they first heard of them.

I mean, seriously, did you see what the bishop wrote in response to the priest soliciting gay sex at truck stops? Asked if that was unethical, the bishop replied ‘not necessarily’. Sure. Ok. Give generously.

Excellent points, Harry. I for one, long for the day in which we have lots of monk-bishops living in actual monastic settings. Not only would their economic needs be taken care of, but they would not be subject to coercion or bribery by wealthy elites. The present system of well-paid (and let’s be honest, if you don’t have a family, any salary over $60K is well-paid), single bishops who live worldly lives (for the most part) is what is causing the destruction of Orthodoxy in America.

The lack of such a situation, in which we have bishops who always carp about money for boondoggles (and not hospitals, soup-kitchens, orphanages), together with worldly elites who like to play Byzantine dress-up ensures the continued diminution of Orthodoxy in America. Make no mistake: these wealthy Leadership 100 types know what the problem is and could reform the entire system overnight, but they like the idea of a compromised heirarchy.

1. all see + won’t tell = high office

2. Non-circumstantial evidence of conduct vs. privacy laws.

3. Higher scriptural requirements regarding appearances for those wanting to continue/engage in church leadership.

4. Because of the current innovation of civil gay marriage, this rule for all our Orthodox churches in such societies:

“Those ordained and any being considered for, or continuing in church office involving decision making over others must be at least one of: presently married in the church, or living with a blood relative, or alone, or in a monastery with more than two adults; with exceptions for students in dorms, or military deployed, or not more than three months per thirty six.”

After all, if there is nothing untoward going on, changing housing so as to avoid being a source of scandal while in leadership can be at most a bother only, a small matter. Who could disagree?

Greg, Thank you for your post. We agree that our Protestant brothers and sisters have much to contribute to this discussion. A few years ago we did this interview with then President of Institute of Religion and Democracy, Jim Tonowich. We asked all the questions one now hears on the blogs. Seems the questions have not changed in years, but it is still imperative we have the answers to them. ” http://peterandhelenevans.com/america-the-great-experiment/interview-with-jim-tonkowich/“

George, I suspect that the reason our elites “go native” is because of their higher education. The ‘above-it-all’ intellectual stance of those who academically compare ‘religion’ and ‘culture’ precludes their own identification with any particular culture except the utopian, symbolized by the ivory tower. They imagine that they have already become like gods. When confronted by ‘natives’ of whatever cultural stripe, intimately and un-apologetically engaged in their own culture, they are immediately struck by the ‘authenticity’ of the culture, a quality they claim to revere. More likely, it is the spiritual/emotional committment of the ‘native,’ his un-abstracted sense of self, immersed in his milieu which seduces the hitherto cloistered academic.

Going native is the perverse consequence of a deep-seated superiority complex, deriving from the spiritual/emotional dessication of their academic/intellectual background. Similarly, the much-touted virtue of ‘tolerance’ is often (but not always) an expression of patronizing condescension.

Well said Deacon Patrick. Keep standing up for what you know is right, even if it means being branded “intolerant.” Jude has something to say on the matter, and the Old Testament more so. The open-minded, anti-Christian koran might end up providing God’s judgement to America for suffering “lusting after strange flesh,” and then all those pie-eyed liberals won’t be too happy.