The purge of the traditonalists begins.
Boston Globe April 10, 2005
HARTFORD — Connecticut’s Episcopal bishop has warned six priests in the state who opposed the election of the first openly gay bishop that they could be removed as rectors of their parishes by Friday.
Bishop Andrew D. Smith said in letters sent to the priests that they had ”abandoned the communion of the church,” which would mean the priests would no longer lead their parishes. The priests could later be defrocked.
According to Smith’s letter, the dispute between the bishop and the rectors was put before the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese, which comprises clergy and lay leaders. The group concluded on March 29 that the six rectors were not in accordance with church canons and were out of communion, The Hartford Courant reported yesterday.
And so, slowly but surely, the destruction of traditional Christianity continues. What communism could not accomplish, radical secularism, leftist-liberalism, and depraved minds are gradually bringing forth. Lord Have Mercy!
I hope my fellow Orthodox who read and contribute to this blog will not think it strange if I invoke the intercession of the late John Paul II, that the churches will recover and guard the strength of Christian teaching which can resist and defeat such attacks by secularists. He was a great leader in this effort and his inspiration need not end now.
Interesting Anglican Website
Go to http://www.anglican.tk for some a great collection of articles on this subject. From what I read the action against the pastors was quite totalitarian. The pastors were told that they were “out of communion” but they weren’t told expressly what actions or statements moved them “out of communion.”
Why Buy Raisin Bread If You’re Going to Remove The Raisins?
As Missourian said, if you don’t like the tenets of the faith and the rulings of your superiors, change your denomination (and this was over eating fish on Friday). If you don’t like the birth control stance of Catholicism, switch to Orthodoxy and you can still go to Heaven. If you don’t really think Christ is present in the Eucharist, become a Baptist and say the “Sinner’s Prayer”© instead of the Creed.
Perhaps you’re right. Eat the whole wafer or don’t eat it at all. Better to do as Luther did and start your own religion. Perhaps Robinson should have done likewise. Why bother with loyalty to an institution that in general has no reciprocal feelings?
Violating My Own Rules
I try to stay out of theological discussion for I generally know very little. I don’t want to support endless subdivision of the Church but, if someone is at odds with fundamental doctrine, they need to rethink their allegiance to the religious institution. We Americans do have considerable religious freedom to choose our co-religionists.
I think my exasperation was with a the self-styled lesbian who knowingly joined a church that had recently rejected homosexual clergy. She entered the seminary is a somewhat dishonest way only to reveal her true colors AFTER she had earned her seminary degree and AFTER she had been assigned to a Church. Isn’t there something wrong about taking support from the tithes of generally traditional parishioners who have no idea, in the beginning, what they are supporting. Of course, after she is entrenched, she can rely on extensive and expensive and wrenching internal disciiplinary proceedings. All through the disciplinary proceedings she assumes the posture of the victim. She could have joined a church that openly accepts gay clergy. Those churches, however, tend to be less well-established and funded than many UMC churches are because they haven’t benefited from generations of faithful tithing.
No, Bill, I do not think it strange to invoke John Paul II (John Paul the Great as many Catholics are even now calling him). We should follow his witness and pray that Christians throughout the world are able to resist the demonic forces that try to break them apart and leave them yolked to worldly things and desires.
Bill and Daniel,
I’m with you on this one. We need all the prayers available (especially from men of God like John Paull II) to help us oppose the massive evil of secularism, communism, and radical-liberalism that continues to spread. In this ideological war, we must find common ground with those men and women who still are following Christ and the true faith, regardless of the label they worship under. The seriousness of the assault on all of us requires us to find worthy allies and friends that will help us stay sane and true to our Christian Tradition.
Daniel, Christian, you’ve no doubt read it already, but if not, take a look at Joseph Bottum’s article currently on the front page of this blog, “John Paul the Great.” It’s the best reflection on the man and his work I’ve read yet.
I’m also looking forward to the third edition of Weigel’s bio of JPII, which Bottum helpfully mentions.
Bill, Daniel, and all
Have you seen this? This is not good! What on earth is happening to the Holy Orthodox Church?
Hoping a New Leader Will Soothe Internal Conflicts
A new Greek Orthodox metropolitan bishop for seven states takes office today.
http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/166/Hoping%20a%20New%20Leader.htm
Excerpts – New Greek Orthodox Bishop:
In a wide-ranging interview, [Metropolitan] Gerasimos spoke of such things as the TV show “Desperate Housewives,” gay marriage, the war in Iraq and the politicization of the Terri Schiavo case.
He admitted he is an unabashed fan of “Desperate Housewives.” Said Gerasimos: “That little bit sultry TV program has so many truths in it. I’m watching it every time it’s on.” He said the show is popular because it depicts what goes on in many families and connects with viewers.
“What I’m saying to the church is, can we do that?”
One of his first plans, to be unveiled at his enthronement today, is to launch an institute to serve families and educate priests on family issues. At the moment, Gerasimos said, many priests merely bless a troubled couple and they go about their business. “But what is your business? If Christ is not involved in your business, I’m missing something. I’m not doing my job,” Gerasimos said.
He also spoke of moral issues that have straddled religious and political thinking.
On the war in Iraq, he criticized President Bush’s policy: “Was it a preemptive war? We did start it, but it was very much premeditated?. ‘Preemptive’ means you’re going to try to prevent something. What war did we prevent? The politics have their own place. They have their own culture. They have their principles. But when they try to get them sanctified by God and by faith, that’s when I get very angry.”
Asked if same-sex unions were a threat to the traditional family, he said, “Absolutely not. I don’t see that at all?. I would say God bless you, but I will not sanctify a marriage. But at the same time I will not tell them that you’re condemned to die, that you’re going to hell.”
The Greek Orthodox church does not have any set rules on the kind of end-of-life issues raised by the Schiavo case, according to Father Paul Schroeder, chancellor of the metropolis.
Metropolitan Gerasimos questioned the intervention by Congress and the White House in efforts to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube.
“This family has an inherent responsibility to choose and decide for their own,” he said a day before Schiavo died. “So here comes the government and says, ‘No! I’m going to become something over you. I’m going to tell you this is wrong, this is a sin.’
“This is the way we’re politicizing issues, like abortion, like same-sex marriages. We politicize them to the point that you divide the nation, you divide neighbors, you divide everybody ? face to face, black and white. It’s not a black-and-white issue here.”
Great. Just great. One more squishy, lovable, middle-of-the-road Greek Metropolitan with a thing for soft-core porn.
Nice. This is exactly what the Greek Church in the United States needs. Clear, concise moral leadership like this is going to make all the difference. Never mind the fact that almost everything he said in his interview directly contradicts both the OCA bishops and Bishop Maximos on the Terri Schiavo case. Never mind that the SCOBA synod condemned gay marriage.
Oh, never mind all that, now we have a new Greek in town who is going to help us all get in touch with our inner child or some such nonsense.
‘Bishop Jerry?’ Instead of bowing to receive his blessing, perhaps I should just shake his hand? Maybe just chuck him on the shoulder and say, ‘What’s up?’
I can understand wanting to emphasize a love ethic. Protestant fundamentalists often come across as angry Pharisees, so our hierarchs can easily sound very different by being both more loving and wide ranging in their concern. But this kind of tone? From a bishop?
No thanks. Can I quit the Greek Archdiocese, again?
Glen, is it what he’s saying or the way he’s saying it? Does the tone simply lack the solemnity we would expect from a Bishop? I don’t see how a greater involvement of the clergy in the lives (and marriages) of their parishioners, less government involvement in the private decisions of the people or a consistent adherence to the tenets of the faith while respecting the right of God alone to judge the souls of others is a controversial approach.
Am I missing something?
First, bishops should conduct themselves with a decorum befitting their office. Bishop Jerry is simply too informal. A bishop should have more dignity than that, in my opinion. That does not mean that the bishop is supposed to be haughty or arrogant. He should reflect the humility of Christ and he should preside in love. But, asking the faithful to call you by a nickname is not humility, in fact, it is the height of arrogance to unilaterally change the manner in which the laity are to relate to the bishop. A bishop can’t be just ‘one-of-the-guys.’
Second, it is just plain silly if ‘Bishop Jerry’ thinks that a show like Desperate Housewives actually represents what is happening in American suburbs. If he is making decisions based on this show as some kind of reality, then he is dangerously out-of-touch. Also, this show is an abomination. I have never watched the wretched thing, but from the previews it looks like a sleazy show. For the Bishop to claim himself the fan of such salicious fare shows a real lack of judgment, in my opinion.
Third, his comments on gay marriage are completely out-of-step with other hierarchs, SCOBA, and the Greek Archdiocese. Gay marriage has been condemned by SCOBA in a pastoral epistle. The Greek Archdiocese discusses the matter in the following way:
“The Orthodox Church recognizes marriage as the only moral and spiritually appropriate context for sexual relations. Thus, all other forms of sexual activity such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, all forms of prostitution, and similar forms of behavior are sins that are inappropriate for the Orthodox Christian. Marriage is only conducted and recognized in the Orthodox Church as taking place between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. The Orthodox Church does not allow for same-sex marriages.”
The bishop takes a very different approach. He doesn’t consider it a big deal. He won’t bless such a union, but far be it for him to call it SINFUL!!! After all, what is he? A bishop or something? Why should a little matter such as living in sin with a same-sex lover preclude someone from Eternal Life?
Fourth, his comments on the Schiavo case are completely uncalled for. Bishop Maximos and the bishops of the OCA all condemned the actions of the government in bringing about Terri’s death. Now, here comes Bishop Jerry saying that it was all a question for Michael Schiavo, and the other hierarchs must have been simply wrong.
Finally, his comments on the politicizing of moral issues are ridiculous. Yes, some groups have glammed onto abortion and other moral issues as a way of raising direct-mail contributions. These issues have been abused for political gain by both the left and the right. But that does not mean that the issues aren’t black-and-white. In fact, concerning abortion, for example, the church is extremely clear, as stated on the Greek Archdiocese Website:
“The Church from the very beginning of existence has sought to protect “the life in the womb” and has considered abortion as a form of murder in its theology and canons. Orthodox Christians are admonished not to encourage women to have abortions, nor to assist in the committing of abortion. Those who perform abortions and those who have sought it are doing an immoral deed, and are called to repentance.”
Seems pretty black-and-white to me. If he wanted to criticize the way abortion is used as a political bludgeon, that would be fine. But the way he said this, makes it seems as if there is no clear cut teaching on the subject, which is just PLAIN BUNK!
I don’t know the state of this Bishop’s soul. I can’t judge that. What I can judge are content of his comments, as presented in this article. He may have been misquoted, or there may be some kind of context to what he is saying that I am not privy to. I have no idea.
All I can say, if that these comments as presented are any indication what ‘Bishop Jerry’ has in store, the Greek Archdiocese needs a lot of help in the West.
Glen,
Excellent points! All I can add to this is a hearty and passionate AMEN!
BTW, would you be interested in writing editorials, commentaries, or any other articles that you would like and contribute to http://www.OrthodoxNet.com? We need more men like you that speak with moral clarity, wisdom, and conviction. Just this latest response can be worked into an article by itself. I would be my pleasure to post them on our site…
Thanks Christian. I would be honored. I’ll take a look at your site to get to know the kind of material it publishes.
Wow! Interesting article about my new Bishop, Metropolitan Gerasimos. While I personally tend to agree with some of his thoughts I thought the way expressed them was somewhat cavalier, tactless and potentially divisive.
We are at a very stressful time for religion in America where the Red-Blue divide is intruding itself into our parishes and dividing denominations. If you value the unity of the Orthodox Church you should recognize that there is a diversity of opinion on a whole range of emotionally charged issues, and a real need to be sensitive to people’s feelings and beliefs.
It’s one thing to call George Bush a warmonger in a private capacity as one’s own personal opinion (I do it all the time). It’s quite another thing to express that thought in one’s official capacity as spiritual leader of a religious community, where you risk alienating people with a different opinion whose support you depend on. Does Metropolitan Gerasimos understand that Alex Spanos, the largest financiall benefactor of the Greek Orthodox Church on the West Coast is a Republican?
I may disagree with the political opinions of others in this chatroom, but I would consider it a heart-breaking tragedy if we couldn’t all worship together in the same church. The point at which one’s politics threatens the unity of the church is the point where you stop and pause.
I actually think I agree with Dean on this point (mostly). I also think his comments about Met. Anthony were uncalled for.
Glen, as for your statement, “He may have been misquoted, or there may be some kind of context to what he is saying that I am not privy to. I have no idea.” Well, I hope you are right but it does not look good. Check out this article: http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/mod/news/view.php?article_id=4095
His comments about John Paul II are baffling.
Christian, I had not seen those comments. When our priest announced him as the new Metropolitan, he had nothing but good things to say. I read his bio and thought, “Uh, oh. He’s an academic.” Read his biography:
“… received … B.A. … in 1973. That same year, he was admitted to Holy Cross School of Theology, …completed his M.Div. Degree in 1976…”
“In 1977 he joined the administration of Hellenic College/Holy Cross, serving as Registrar until 1979.”
“He was ordained to the diaconate in 1979 and was called to serve as Archdeacon to His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, a position he held until 1996. Concurrently, he was appointed Dean of Students at Hellenic College/Holy Cross from 1980 until 1999.”
“In 1984 he enrolled in the Master?s Degree Program in Counseling and School Psychology at Boston College. After receiving his degree in 1986, he entered the doctoral program. He received his Doctorate in Counseling and School Psychology in 1993”
“In 1998, he became Director of Admissions and Records at Hellenic College/Holy Cross. In 2000, he became Administrative Assistant to the Rev. Nicholas Triantafilou, President of Hellenic College/Holy Cross, a post he held until he was elected Bishop of Krateia by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in December of 2001.”
From before 1973 to at least 2001 he has served in various functions, not in a parish, but in academia. When my wife and I read that we both where left wondering what experience he has in actually running a church. Am I the only one that thinks this might be rather important?
So, in effect, I am not surprised by these statements. I expected Bishop Gerasimos to be a man devoted to the liberal causes espoused by academia. I prayed that I would be wrong, that spending more then 30 years in an academic environment wouldn’t make him a devotee to the causes that warms Dean’s heart. It looks like these prayers have gone unanswered.
Bishop Gerasimos will fit right in in San Francisco, and those of us who find his views repugnant have no one to go to.
Let’s see there is “Bishop Jerry” with the GOA and Bishop Tikhon with the OCA. What is the deal with Bishops out here in the west?
I do not think that these are the comments of a man who fully embraces Sancity of Life:”Seen in a different light, [Terri Schiavo’s case] is about quality of life and about who life belongs to. Life is a gift from God. I would not condone taking the tube out just because you are suffering. Then I become God. But to prolong life for 300 years is not right either. It is not our life.” Perhaps Bishop Gerasimo’s can tell us who was talking about prolonging Terri’s life for 300 years.
Now this, “The pope has drawn a line in the sand.” Gerasimos said. “The ecumenical movement has been placed on ice for the last 25 years” is just plain dumb. How many trips did Pope John Paul II make to Orthodox nations in the last 25 years? And how many times did Orthodox Bishops travel to Rome?
I have to sadly admit to myself that this is not the church I want to be part of.
Immediate Corrective Action
If the Greeks want to protect their doctrine, they need to get control of Bishop Jerry now. When a disruptive event occurs in an organization everyone holds their breath and waits to see what the people in charge will do. If the people in charge do nothing, then the wrongdoers are emboldened.
In law enforcement, this is called the “broken windows” theory. It is better to immediately repair the broken windows of an unoccupied building, if they are not repaired low lifes correctly assume that no one is watching, no one cares what happens. The building is vandalized and becomes a rat’s nest of crime.
If I were this gentleman’s superior I would have a brisk talk with him immediately. At a minimum, his comments lack the dignity required of an official of a Church speaking in public. I don’t think any religious organization is safe from attack by the Robinson virus. The ineffectual response of the Anglicans have emboldened the gay activists.
Comments on Bishop Jerry from a theological midget
If corrrectly quoted:
Bishop Jerry states:
Asked if same-sex unions were a threat to the traditional family, he said, ?Absolutely not. I don?t see that at all?. I would say God bless you, but I will not sanctify a marriage. But at the same time I will not tell them that you?re condemned to die, that you?re going to hell.?
Missourian asks? Isn’t that what St. Paul precisely warned homosexuals about? Losing their salvation? Hmmmm…… well I’m no Bishop
The problem is, Missourian, as far as I know, his “superior” is the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul. Fr. Jacobse, please correct me if I’m mistaken on that. No one is going to say anything about these comments, let alone try and “reign him in”.
If Orthodox bishops, priests and laity can run around with the NCC year after year, despite that organization’s obvious apostasy, with nary a comment from anyone other than few here at this blog, what chance do we have of hearing outrage, let alone seeing correction, when a newly enthroned Metropolitan does a few prostrations before the gods of liberal ideology?
Often wondered about the NCC
I wondered about the Orthodox connection to the NCC. Hmm….it’s all beyond me.
Note 22. His “superior” is first the Synod of Metropolitans, and then the Ecumenical Patriarch. Of course there is also the ‘unofficial superiors’ of the laity, who also could weigh in on this.
Bishop Jerry’s comments indicate a captivity to liberal/secular categories, and no experience with family life. I can imagine concerned parents reacting with “oh-no” when he praised “Desperate Housewifes.” Just what we need, a Metropolitan who praises the vulgarization of culture as parents are trying to filter out the garbage from reaching their children, like I am with my daughter.
The NCC involvement stems from the liberal slant of certain activist laity, plus the promise of more recognition in ecclesiastical circles. It’s a short-sighted move; the NCC needed the Orthodox because their credibility took such a hit due to financial mismanagement, and their pro-communism took a huge hit after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They almost went bankrupt — financially and politically.
Think of them as the religious arm of the Viet Nam era peace movement types. That’s who they were. Events have chastened them a bit, but they long for those days when people believed they had moral authority — a lot like Jim Wallis searching today for the voice and authority he once enjoyed.
I think a lot of the problem is that the leadership does not understand yet the dynamics of American culture, and how affected the parishes are by it. Some of it is generational.
When you hear comments by Bishop Gerry however, it’s clear he is thoroughly American in his thinking, but it is shallow and uninformed. He really has no idea what parents face in a culture hostile to the stability of their children, what the cultural ramifications of homosexual marriages would be (doesn’t the fact that even blue states reject it tell him something?), or why the Schiavo case got politicized in the first place.
Missourian is correct that Met. Jerry’s comments need correction either by himself, or a superior. It needs to be clear he was taken to the woodshed by someone.
Missourian, elsewhere at this blog you wrote, “People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early.”
Think about that and then read Bishop Gerasimo’s comment, “This is the way we’re politicizing issues, like abortion, like same-sex marriages. We politicize them to the point that you divide the nation, you divide neighbors, you divide everybody – face to face, black and white. It’s not a black-and-white issue here.”
Given that the Bishop’s specialty is psychology I wonder if he acknowledges that the Evil One “prowls everywhere”, including the halls of our legislatures and courtrooms. If we don’t act at the political and legal level, as well as the personal level, then we are handing the Evil One a victory without even a fight.
The most worrisome aspect of Metropolitan Gerasimos interview remarks were their potential to divide and weaken the Church. The Greek Orthodox Church is already dealing with several difficult issues, such as the role of Greek language in increasingly American parishes, and the relationship with the Patriarchate in Istanbul. Why, on top of all that, would you want to alienate people with politically divisive comments?
That Metropolitan Gerasimos was apparently unaware that his comments might trouble or even offend people does suggest that he comes from the more insular background that others have noted above, and lacks contact with a wide range of laity and familarity with their views. He should have also realized that comments that are acceptable from a professor in a free-wheeling academic setting may not be appropriate coming from a church heirarch where they may be interpreted as policy.
My suspicion is that “the trip to the woodshed”, if there is one, may involve some unhappy phone calls from big financial donors. The gossip is that the people who write the big checks to the Church have also, from time to time, exerted some influence over its personnel and policy decsions.
Limits of My Expertise
Look, I don’t want to get over my head on this topic, but, my most sincere opinion is that Christians need to recognize that a battle is going on and be properly prepared. No one standing up for Good should be surprised at the counterattack that awaits him, he should be prepared for it.
I am sure that everyone here has enjoyed a moment where they felt the distinct presence of Good, maybe in a Church, maybe surrounded by the beauty of nature, maybe after an encounter with a holy loving person. Well, at least twice in my life I think I was in the distinct presence of Evil. One was in a law office (no lawyer jokes here!!) and the other was in a maximum security prison. It’s real, folks, no joke. But, as someone said, if you fear God, you need fear nothing else.
As to Bishop Jerry, I probably shouldn’t comment on him very much. I am not familiar with the structure of the Greek Orthodox Church here in America, as has been obvious from my previous comments. As a friendly observer, I would strongly recommend that the Orthodox in the Greek Orthodox respond vigorously and immediately and not let his statements gain credibility through acquiescence or silence. Might be tough for priests under his jurisdiction, I am sure it is complicated.
Does anyone have a feel for what is going on in the Orthodox seminaries? Is Bishop Jerry normal? What kind of priests are they producing? I have only been “officially”Orthodox for about a year and I am pretty limited in my exposure to the goings on in those realms, but this makes me a little nervous.
Glen writes: “Never mind the fact that almost everything he said in his interview directly contradicts both the OCA bishops and Bishop Maximos on the Terri Schiavo case.”
I have only found a couple of Orthodox statements on the Schiavo case. One was a very confused statement including a speculation that Terri Schiavo “with appropriate therapy . . . might return to her former state” which was hopeful but ludicrous.
According to another statement the problem with withdrawing tube feeding is that there was “no clear concensus” on either her condition or her prognosis. I believe that to a large extent the “no clear concensus” is due to a massive disinformation campaign waged over the last couple of years. For example, it took me something like three months of discussions in this venue with continual references to actual court orders before people here — reluctantly — stopped saying that Michael Schiavo “alone” decided to discontinue tube feeding, so powerful had the myths become.
A lot of web sites talked about how Terri Schiavo was “alert” and “responsive.” Some of the web sites practically made it sound like Terri Schiavo was playing bridge and going out for drinks with the hospice staff after work. All we learn from this is that it is possible to cast doubt on virtually ANYTHING when people do not bother to check the facts for themselves. That does not equate to “no clear concensus.”
But aside from the actual concensus the question I have is why it is considered inappropriate for an Orthodox bishop to take a personal position on an issue with respect to the facts of a case? Whether or not there was a “clear concensus” is a matter of interpretation of the facts, not of theology. Why is one interpretation of the facts the “Orthodox” interpretation, and another interpretation is not?
Jim,
You may want to review these official statements from several Orthodox Christian jurisdictions:
OCA responds to the case of Terri Schaivo
http://www.oca.org/NewsPrintable.asp?ID=764
Greek Orthodox Leader: Schiavo “deserves to live”
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artprint5/RodgersMetMaximoP.shtml
The full text of the article here.
Bishop Maximos said, “We acknowledge that there are times when artificial life support is more expressive of a fear of death than concern for loved ones in tragic circumstances. We affirm that, in light of the body functioning only by artificial and mechanical means, when it is unable to sustain life on its own in any manner, the cessation of such means is often acceptable, since this is not actually causing death. We do not view feeding and hydration in such terms, for in the case of Terri Schiavo and others who are in similar conditions, death is not imminent as long as the body is nourished.
Therefore, the removal of Mrs. Schiavo from feeding tubes so as to hasten her death can in no way be accepted or supported. Doing so demonstrates both a blatant lack of wise stewardship of God’s sacred gift of life and an extraordinary means of hastening her death by starvation.”
The article continues as below:
“Metropolitan Maximos’ comments and the Metropolis of Chicago’s statement followed a statement issued from the (Russian) Orthodox Church in America last week: “Extraordinary means of prolonging life, as well as extraordinary means of ending life, are inconsistent with wise stewardship of God’s gift of life. This is especially crucial in cases in which no clear consensus has been determined with regard to a person’s state, as in the case of Mrs. Terri Schiavo. As such, the removal of Mrs. Schiavo from feeding tubes as a means of hastening her death can in no way be condoned or supported,” according to the OCA.”
I don’t see anything confused here. Terri Schiavo was not dying. Food and water are palliative care, regardless of means administered, not extraordinary care. Her parents wanted her to live and were willing to care for her. Her husband wanted her to die. The method used to bring about her death is rejected prima facie as immoral by the authentic teachings of the Orthodox Church.
It is irrelevent to me what Terri may have told her husband in passing a full seven years prior to Michael wanting to starve her to death. It is also irrelevent to the teachings of the Church what the judge decided as a finding of fact, or that this judge was upheld on appeal. Process and morality are not synonyms.
Bishops aren’t allowed personal opinions. Anytime a bishop makes a statement on a topic, the subtext is that he is representing his church. That is why bishops must be circumspect as to their public utterances.
An opinion expressed by a bishop is not automatically Orthodox simply because that bishop was duly elevated and consecrated. His consecration only applies to his ability to administer valid sacraments, and is not a license to teach whatever strikes his fancy. Arius, Nestorius, and many other bishops were duly consecrated and elevated, only to turn into heretics through their fallacious teaching. A miter and a staff are not an absolute guarantee that an individual will exercise his office correctly.
What ‘Bishop Jerry’ said concerning the Schiavo case violates the fundamental teaching of the Orthodox Church as expressed in numerous publications and as expressed by the Synod of the OCA. His view is insupportable, as is his view on homosexual marriage.
If its the behavior of the Republican Party that concerns him, then he could have stated so, while affirming the essential doctrine of the Orthodox Church that life is sacred and Terri’s should have been protected by the law, not ended by it.
Jim, the teachings of the Orthodox Church are irrelevent to you. That is apparent. So are those of the Roman Catholic Church on this topic. You find no big deal in what this Bishop said, and will defend it. That is also irrelevent to those of us who are Orthodox. As a member of the Orthodox Church, I am bound to accept certain fundamental principles. If I cannot accept them, then I am honor bound to refuse the chalice and find my way elsewhere. It is the same for a bishop. If he can’t abide the rules of the faith, then he needs to retire to academia where he is free to espouse whatever silliness pops in his head.
Note 28. Our seminaries don’t examine examine contemporary culture on any serious level for a variety of reasons, most of them having to deal with the fact that Orthodoxy in America was initially an ethnic religion. This has changed somewhat, especially with pastoral consideratons (inter-religious marriage, sexualization of the youth culture, etc.) but obviously more needs to be done.
Bishop Jerry probably just does not understand how culture functions, especially the relationship between religion/morality and culture. His responses were politically correct from a leftist perspective, but this most likely is because he does not recognize that the political dimension of the culture war is a secondary phenomena (religion/morality is first). He is confused by the rhetoric from the secular left that borrows the terminology and concepts of the Christian moral tradition, but applies them in ways that violate that tradition. Call it the seduction of the ignorant.
What should have held him back is that our Bishops have already spoken out about homosexual marriage, and two Bishops condemned the Schiavo killing. He was reckless though. It appears he thinks a bifurcation exists between church (the moral tradition) and society that makes, in this case, gay marriage right in one situation and wrong in another. You can’t have it both ways of course, but he doesn’t seem to understand this.
His comments on the Schiavo case confirms this. His comments were essentially useless (we know the case was politicized) but still illustrative. By confining his comments solely to the political dimension, he ignores the reasons it became political: the court ordered the death of an innocent woman; a profound moral principle was violated by judical decree. In American society the moral always becomes political because there is no institution of moral ajudication in American society (monarch, national church, etc.). Some judges are trying to usurp this role, but it properly belongs to religious bodies given that the founders predicated freedom on the moral virtue of the individual and not the state (including the judiciary). Bp. Jerry doesn’t understand this, hence his shallow critique and his inability to offer the condemnation of her killing that is called for (and which Bps. Iakovos and Maximos, as well as the OCA provided).
In any case, I’m hammering out an essay on his interview that explains these ideas a bit more clearly and with more detail. Rest assured that other Bishops and priests are clearer on these issues than Bp. Jerry seems to be.
Father, it may well be so that Bishop Jerry “does not understand how culture functions, especially the relationship between religion/morality and culture.” I would be surprised by that, however, given that his entire professional life has been on the East Coast of the United States working in some very well-heeled locales in academia.
I think he understands perfectly well the relationship between religion/morality and culture, but like many people he suffers from Terminal Non-Judgementalism or T.N.J. as Wesley Smith puts in Forced Exit.
Daniel, my guess is that a professional life limited to the “well-heeled locales of academia” (nice phrase) might be the reason he doesn’t understand what is really going on. He might suffer from T.N.J., but you would think that he realizes that as a Metropolitan he can’t entertain this malady.
Glen writes: “Jim, the teachings of the Orthodox Church are irrelevent to you.”
I wouldn’t say irrelevant. I at least try to understand.
Glen: “The full text of the article here.”
Thanks for the reference. I knew there had to be something more than what I had found.
A couple of preliminary comments. It seems to me that the Schiavo cases rests to a large extent on the facts of the case and how those facts are interpreted. To me, the facts are very clear and support the outcome. For others the facts are not clear, or are clear in a different direction. I understand that. At a minimum I think that we could all agree that the facts admit different interpretations.
Given that there can be different interpretations of the facts, nonetheless there are facts to interpret. The question I have is the extent to which the Orthodox position (as articulated by most church officials), if I may call it that, is not based on the facts.
For example: “A miracle is always possible for her to be restored from minimum consciousness to full consciousness.” Well….I supppose in the realm of the miraculous anything is possible. That is not a basis for making a decision in this case. Why discontinue ANY medical treatment, if a miracle is always possible? With all due respect to the bishop, this is a pretty weak point.
Another example: “Murder is a strong word that nobody wants to use, but that is what it is,” he said of her husband’s decision to remove her source of food and water.”
Anyone who knows much about the facts of the case knows that the husband did not “decide” that. This tells me that that bishop is operating from a fairly limited information base or is unaware of some very important distinctions related to this case.
The bishop is quoted as saying that “We affirm that, in light of the body functioning only by artificial and mechanical means, when it is unable to sustain life on its own in any manner, the cessation of such means is often acceptable, since this is not actually causing death. We do not view feeding and hydration in such terms, for in the case of Terri Schiavo and others who are in similar conditions, death is not imminent as long as the body is nourished.”
Here I have a hard time understanding the meaning. For example, in many cases people on ventilators can live a very long time through that artificial and mechanical means. Many times people assume that ventilators only sustain people who are in danger of imminent death. But that is not the case. So I’m not sure what is being asserted here — that a medical intervention can be withdrawn if doing so causes the imminent death of the patient — or that a medical intervention can be withdrawn only if the patient, for other reasons, is in danger of imminent death. This is not a trivial distinction. For example, it would be odd to say that someone who is permanently comatose would have to be maintained for years on a ventilator merely because the patient was not in danger of imminent death.
Another example: “This is especially crucial in cases in which no clear consensus has been determined with regard to a person’s state, as in the case of Mrs. Terri Schiavo.” Here the idea seems to be that a Republican and Baptist judge, upon hearing days of testimony under oath from a number of physicians who have actually examined Terri Schiavo, is not competent to determine if there is a medical concensus. But an Orthodox bishop, relying on — what? — blogs? Worldnet.Daily? — the Weekly Standard? — is competent to judge that there is no medical concensus.
Completely missing from the entire discussion is the idea that the patient’s wishes have to be honored. This is THE major point of dispute of the entire case, and the lack of any mention of it makes me again doubt the extent to which the bishop was actually in possession of the facts of the case.
Fundamental Legal Doctrine and Due Process
Jim. Medical facts are not the determining factor in this debate. The true issue is:
Whether the humanitarian mission of the probate court, which was defined and developed through centuries of Common Law jurisprudence in England and America and which was based on the the Common Law position that suicide is illegal, should be perverted to reject its historic role of protecting the ward against all others, even if and especially if the ward needs protection from family members
AND
whether a different legal philosophy should be grafted by judges, without legislative impact or active debate by the electorate, onto the existing probate system which reverses the fundamental policy position of the common law in favor of life to that which gives protection NOT to life but to a “right to die”
AND whether the continued existence of an innocent human life should be determined without the procedural due process protections in favor of life given to criminals
The individual medical facts of the case do not change the definition of the issues above.