principle of subsidiarity<\/a>; that is to say, the higher level exists to serve the lower levels.\u201d As a result, \u201cthe individual cooperatives have the right to leave the corporation; participation is voluntary.\u201d For these reasons it is \u201cimpossible for a centralized authority to ‘lord it over’ the member cooperatives\u201d and as result the \u201ccorporation itself is ruled not by outside investors (there are none) but by the workers themselves. You might call this an inverted model of corporate organization. The firm is built from the ground up rather than the top down.\u201d<\/p>\nWhen I read this description, I realized that (theological considerations aside for the moment) there is clear parallel between Mondrag\u00f3n and the situation of Orthodoxy in American. In both case (and again let me ask you to put ecclesiology aside for the moment) we are looking at volunteer associations of individuals. But where Mondrag\u00f3n is governed by a clear application of the principle of subsidiarity, this is not necessarily the case with the Orthodox Church here in the States. Rather what we see (at least in America) is a tension (and not always a healthy tension) between diocese and parish, between priest and parish council, between bishops and lower clergy, between clergy and laity, and between a monastic and a non-monastic model of the Church. It is I think the last tension that I think M\u00e9daille most illumines for me.<\/p>\n
As I rule, I think it is better that we avoid defining things by an act of negation\u2014call it a rejection of the \u201cYou throw like a girl\u201d model of social discourse and criticism. While it may be accurate, mere negation is rarely helpful. And yet in the current pastoral situation of the American Orthodox Church, I think the phrase \u201cnon-monastic\u201d is accurate. It is not all together clear I think that those who (justly and unjustly) criticize monastic life as the standard of parish life have an alternative model that offers a practical way to structure the life of the Church that is both consonant with the Tradition of the Church and compatible with the pastoral challenges facing the Church in America. M\u00e9daille’s comments on Mondrag\u00f3n offers us I think a provocative starting point to help move forward the conversation about how we can structure our life here as Orthodox Christians in an American context.<\/p>\n
M\u00e9daille’s argues that Mondrag\u00f3n is built on two fundamental principles \u201csubsidiarity and solidarity.\u201d Both of these, he points out, are based in \u201cCatholic social doctrine\u201d and seeks to turn its vision of the relationship between person and society into a living reality. And a successful one at that.\u201d What the company demonstrates is that while many in the business world<\/p>\n
fear of implementing a \u201cmorality-based\u201d system [because] . . . it might compromise the necessary business goals. . . . the opposite seems to be the case; the cooperative model doesn\u2019t merely work, it works to produce a strong and growing network of firms that are fully profitable and competitive in local and world markets. Moreover, it lessens the need for big government by providing social services from its own resources. But more than these successes, what Mondrag\u00f3n really builds up is community, that sense of mutual caring and obligation that must be the real point of any sane economic system.<\/p>\n
This community based on subsidiarity and solidarity make Mondrag\u00f3n<\/p>\n
more than just a business enterprise; it is a social one. It is of course a profit-making enterprise, but profit is not an end in itself, it is merely a means to a much broader set of ends. In addition to its normal business enterprises, Mondrag\u00f3n runs an education system, a university, social safety networks, retirement systems, research and training institutes\u2014things normally provided by governments through taxes\u2014and provides all on its own resources, without the help of government. The guiding principle is solidarity, people caring for each other with the help formal structures and institutions.<\/p>\n
Reading this the thought I have is this: I wonder if one way to re-organize the inner life of the Church here in America might be to surrender our non-profit status? Granted this is a radical thought experiment, but as Mondrag\u00f3n illustrates, profit making and a social institution that is effective in helping people care for each other are not necessarily opposed. In fact, and again as Mondrag\u00f3n illustrates, profit making and care for others can even be mutually sustaining institutional goals.<\/p>\n
In my own pastoral experience I have come to more and more suspect that what trips up the life of the Church is not that we do too little, our vision for ourselves and what Christ has for us is too narrow. While yes, we do engage in outreach and evangelism as well as philanthropic work, these often seem ancillary to the real focus, the Sunday synaxis<\/em>. While I value the liturgical tradition of the Church, I think our non-profit status has forced us to see ourselves in terms of being merely one more religious community among others. By pursuing non-profit status we have, I think, unintentionally limited ourselves largely to liturgy, catechesis and internal social functions with a food festival through in now and then for good measure.<\/p>\nBut what if profit making were added to the mix? What if our goal was not simply to keep the parish open, but actually run the parish and\/or the diocese with the idea that we would turn a profit with the goal of re-investing those profits, as Mondrag\u00f3n does, so that the diocese had the resources to run \u201can education system, a university, social safety networks, retirement systems, research and training institutes\u201d?<\/p>\n
Whether or not any of this is possible, to say nothing of desirable or consonant with the Tradition of the Church, is a question I leave to others. But I would simply like to raise the issue that maybe, just maybe, there are better ways to structure the Church in America. And maybe, just maybe, a move from non-profit to profit making (or maybe a not for profit) status might be the starting point for such a restructuring.<\/p>\n
As always, you questions, comments and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively invited.<\/p>\n
In Christ,<\/p>\n
+Fr Gregory<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cThen he who had received the one talent came and said, \u2018Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.\u2019 \u201cBut […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1784],"tags":[11,6,296],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3169"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3169"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3172,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3169\/revisions\/3172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}