The Anastasis Dialogue

The chapter titled, "The Ikon in the Home" is especially worth bringing to the attention of those interested in "spiritual ecumenism." Here it is in full:

The Ikons in the churches, in the cathedrals and monasteries and shrines are the symbols of the saints and of God. The Ikons in the homes are the symbols of the Ikons in the churches; they are the symbols to which authority has been delegated; they are the representatives of the original Ikons, as all crosses may be understood as representatives of the original Cross on Calvary. Every Russian home has its Ikons, and every Russian wears below his shirt his baptismal cross. The Ikon claims the home and the man for God, it indicates God's ownership, God's original right. It is in religion what the trade mark is in commerce. So the Russian world, "is every way Bound by gold chains about the feet of God."

The candle before the Ikon is man's finite life shining against the background of the Infinite.

. . .

In every Russian room there is an Ikon, even in railway waiting-rooms, banyas, public houses, doss-houses, prison cells and houses of ill-fame. It occupies what is known as the front corner of every room, that is, the corner towards the rising sun; it is not strictly proper to sit with one's back to it, indeed peasants' tables are often so arranged that it is impossible to sit with one's back to it, the table is-jammed up into the Ikon corner so that it appears as if the Ikons themselves are sitting down to the meals. Before eating, one bows to the Ikon and crosses oneself three times and one repeats the ritual after the meal and then adds " Thank you " addressing the master of the house.

If you sleep in a Russian home, the Ikon with its little lamp before it looks down upon you all night and guards you from evil. It teaches little children not to be afraid of the dark, and even nihilistic students come to regard the Ikon and its little night-lamp with tenderness, for they look back to so many occasions when they wakened on dark nights and felt frightened because of some dream, and then looked at the lamp and the Ikon and were quieted and fell asleep again.

In reverence to the Ikon you remove your hat upon entering a room it is the sign that God is in the room amongst you and about you. The reverence accorded to it by the Russians is the reverence of one who asks himself no questions, and who accepts without doubt the emblems of religion set before him. Certainly the Ikon is a power, it gives an atmosphere to its room. It owns the room, or rather it is a Presence in the room. It reminds, it restrains. Outside are the sun and moon and stars, the beautiful creation to remind; inside, the Ikon takes their place. The value of the Ikon to the Russian is inestimable, in innumerable ways it is of service to him in the consecration of time and place and deed. Is it his birthday; he burns an extra candle before it, and holds a prayer-meeting under its auspices.

Is his daughter to be married: he gives an Ikon to guard the future home. It is perhaps because its service is so often invoked that no thought of its necessity ever occurs; it is because all day long occasion is found to appeal to it that its power is so great.

The whole use of the thing flashed upon me one day when I was in Little Russia staying at the deacon's house. I was whistling a London tune, and a man said sternly to me "Remember God." Someone pointed to the Ikon. I had been committing sacrilege, or invoking the devil, or something of the sort. Let me note in passing that the Russians, though the most musical people in the world, cannot whistles-it is probably because it has been counted irreligious.

I inquired what other restrictions on my behaviour there might be, and was answered that all the homes were as private ante-chambers of the village church, that in passing from the church to the home one's reverence remains unaltered, and that all lived in the remembrance of the immanence and nearness of God. If it appeared that God was forgotten in a song, in angry words or actions, or in anything contrary to the law, the master of the house should .in the name of the Ikon, reprove the forgetful person.

So the Ikon is the " God in the midst " with eyes for highest and for lowest things it is a more live, religious symbol than the Roman Catholic crucifix or rosary, but withal it is something beyond these, something unique. It is so powerful that it suggests itself as the spirit of the room; take away the sacred picture, and you leave the dead body of what was once a living, breathing room. It might be asked " Is then the unconsecrated English room relatively dead?" Certainly the Russian gets much by his Ikon that is wanting in a foreign room. Likewise by his hundred and seventeen holy days in the year he gains something similarly unique. In England to a week, are one holy-day and six week-days; the Russian calls his Sunday "Resurrection Day" and has probably two fast days in his week.

The peasant rejects the secular calendar, even in the arrangement of his agricultural year. He reckons the day before or after a festival or a fast: There is, moreover, scarcely a day in the year that has not its popular name. Ancient customs of bygone Nature worship are also interwoven with Christian chronology, such as the welcoming of Spring in the second week after Easter, and the blessing of the beer in the middle of August. All children are named after one of the saints, and most of them receive in addition some earthly nickname.

Visitors to Russia, if they are observant, will see an unvarnished wooden cross set up wherever a house is in course of building. This also is an Ikon, and it will not be removed till the house is built and the priest comes and performs an opening service.

Then the ritual of the sign of the Cross is most potent in Russian life. It is prayer without words, the assigning of implicit faith. The only words the moujik adds are sentences of supplication or of praise, as "Oh Lord have mercy!" or "Glory be to Thee, O Lord!"

"Nothing is within our powers ; everything is beyond our powers " says a character of Gogol. " Nothing is possible without aid from on high. Prayer concentrates the faculties. A man crosses himself and says 'Oh Lord have mercy,' " then he rows on and reaches the shore." Pereplotchikof told me a story of a peasant servant who had taken a place at Moscow, and his master kept two pet wolves. The servant was called by his mistress, and came suddenly upon these two wolves stretched in the passage like sleeping dogs. He was quite familiar with the physiognomy of wolves, and so was struck with terror. He had to pass them to get to his mistress' room. He hesitated a moment, crossed himself, and then ran for it.

I have seen engine drivers come down the platform at railway stations to bow to the Ikons before proceeding on their way. Cab-drivers, even with fares, will stop before monasteries or churches, and cross themselves. Indeed it is not proper to pass a church without crossing oneself, and even in degenerate Moscow one is struck by the people crossing themselves in the electric trams as the latter shoot past the sacred places.

If a peasant yawns, he makes the sign of the cross over his mouth to prevent the devil getting in which is in itself a little sermon on the dangers of boredom. The good old peasant-wife puts cross-sticks over all empty dishes or jars in her pantry, and these too are Ikons. And if her husband is out, and his plate of soup is left for him, she makes the sign of the cross over it before going to bed.

So by a thousand little gleams of ritual, we see how the Russian has interwoven Christian religion with life. He truly lives as "ever in his great Task-master's eye," only he would not call God a task-master. The Russian people are one in their unanimous loyalty to one idea and thereby they have become all brothers. With far more justice can it be said of the Russian people than of the English, they are a church unless commerce is Our church.

In England are churches and houses; in Russia, churches and consecrated homes! And though God is everywhere, we feel He is absent from unconsecrated places. It has been the consecration of things already holy, that has insinuated the subtle error of distinguishing between the things of God and the things of man. The giving of a tenth of our goods to God has led us to regard nine-tenths as our little own; "the dedicating to. God of the lives of priests has left the laity undedicated; the consecration of churches has placed our houses outside the church.

Was it not vain then, to consecrate at all? Will not all things in time have to be consecrated, and in our thoughts brought up to one level of holiness just because of these initial consecrations? Our days each be given its special holiness; our homes, whether in slum or park, be consecrated to be known as ante-chambers of the church? If so, the Ikon is much already gained: it consecrates the home, the first of those unconsecrated things to be remembered as holy; it reminds the Russian that God is not locked up in the church, that He is even in his own parlour. In all finite and material things it reminds him of the Infinite and the Spiritual.

I, for my part now, wherever I may have an abiding place and a home would always have some Ikon in my room. The Russian says that the Ikon face should have little beauty or interest; he thinks the rude axe-hewn cross the best symbol of all. But in all my wanderings except those that were merely tramping expeditions, I have taken with me my Ikon not a Russian picture, but a copy of Millet's "Angelus". It has been in Little Russia, in Moscow, and the Caucasus, and back to England, and has looked out on all rooms and superintended my writing and reading. It is looking over me now. In its grey depths one can lose oneself, can forget words and thought - words, and kneel in the great grey temple of the Innermost. It may not be in the "front corner," but he who looks to it looks into Infinity. It ever calms and puts into their places noisy thoughts, it is ever a reminder and a restrainer a giver of peace, and of those "still-creation-days" that give strength for combats new.

Let's turn on the comments feature again and see if it's safe!

The family forum is an interesting foray into practical ecumenism. One could quibble with a few aspects, e.g. the annoying reference to the concept of marriage in Orthodox theology as an "eternal union of spouses" as though it were settled Orthodox doctrine rather than being simply a very recent theologoumenon. But the point of the statement was not to explore possible differences or fracture lines. It was to present a united front in the face of the incredible attacks being made by modernity upon the family.

Still, the document does provide ample scope for a little deconstruction, which vice I will try to indulge over the next few weeks....

Sorry, we've had to shut down comments for a time due to spam attack. Yuck.

Well, how would you have gone about pastoring a Church to recovery after 70 years of the most profound persecution since Diocletian?

Yes, he was deeply flawed. Yes, his politics (secular and ecclesial) were, well at times words simply fail.

But on the ecumenical front, the refusal of Patriarch Alexei to deal with Catholics on any terms but those favorable to his own Church may in the end be the best thing to happen to the ecumenical movement since its inception in the 1920s. Russian intransigence may well save us from the catastrophe of a mere ecumenical politeness. True, Communion may be postponed for generations, but when it arrives it will be real, far more real for its being hammered out on the anvil of history.

The Lord will judge. And in that judgement may He give mercy and peace to his servant Alexei and to all whose lives he touched, whether softly or harshly. The Lord will judge. Memory eternal.

As part of our searching for a permanent solution to our location problem, we monks have been in some pretty soul-searching discussions with our nearest and dearest supporters. One of the things that keeps coming up is what exactly a monastery does and how should it relate to the wider church community. What follows is a little reflection on one aspect of this issue. Our Orthodox readers will note that this discussion reflects a very Eastern Catholic problem...but perhaps it is not entirely absent from the Orthodox experience either?

First an important caveat: Decrying the "cult of usefulness" should not be our way of excusing mismanagement. It is not an alibi for accountability. Usefulness and productivity are still important things to strive for, just not to worship. Bread is good to eat, but man does not live by it alone! Just as we repent from sin by striving to avoid the sin again, so we must repent of our other failures by new beginnings.

What is a monastery?

I'd like to begin with the definition of monasticism that you [Note: this reflection came about as part of a correspondence with a supporter] took from a Catholic dictionary:

an institutionalized religious practice or movement whose members attempt to live by a rule that requires works that go beyond those of either the laity or the ordinary spiritual leaders of their religions. Commonly celibate and universally ascetic, the monastic individual separates himself or herself from society either by living as a hermit or anchorite (religious recluse) or by joining a community (coenobium) of others who profess similar intentions. First applied to Christian groups, both Latin and Greek.

Against this I would like to contrast the statement by Pope John Paul II in Orientale Lumen, "in the Christian East monasticism is the reference point for all the baptized." Do you see the difference? One is an institutional definition. The other is a statement of vision and purpose. One of the greatest challenges to our monastery has always been that plenty of people think they know what a monastery is (the institutional definition) but very few really understand why it should be (vision and purpose). Is that because we have failed to explain it? Or is that the challenge posed by the monastic vision is such that people are resistant to it??

Let me put this another way. The late Pope said that monasticism for Eastern Christians is the standard by which their whole Christian existence is to be measured. Good. Then where are the monasteries for Eastern Catholics?

Now this is not just a slam against Eastern Catholics! The reason that monastic life is not real for them is because for several centuries they have been greatly influenced by secular notions coming to them from the West. In the West "religious life" was divided into thousands of orders and congregations, each distinguished by its particular work or charism. This division was itself immensely helped by secular notions of religion as an (at best!) useful way of delivering social services like schools, hospitals and public moral instruction in parish churches.

What was lost in this was that ancient, patristic sense that the pursuit of perfection through prayer and asceticism is not simply one vocation among many, something for an elite, but the Christian vocation pure and simple. All Christians are called to martyrdom, witnessing to all their death to self and life in Christ. All Christians are called to martyrdom, either "red" or "white", witness of blood or marytiria of asceticism.

Sorry for the history lesson. I do have a point here! And the point is that people think they know what a monastery is, but really most people have no clue. Not really. And the reason they have no clue is because many, many people--even among those who attend church services regularly--have lost sight of the reason they were called to become Christians in the first place. The real reason for the decline in monasticism is the decline in fervor for the Christian struggle. Who, in the end, really wants martrydom?

The Cult of Usefulness

Sure, monastic institutions have survived. But they do so largely by conforming in one way or other to the basic secularist mindset. Either they become very active (e.g. in Eastern Catholicism the Basilian Order) and therefore very "useful". Alternatively, they remain absolutely closed off from mainstream church life, remote and "cloistered" and therefore essentially irrelevant to that life. They form part of the "economy" of the Church mainly by their ministry of prayer, which is to say of the surviving pietistic sense that even prayer can be made "useful".

In all this, there is no way to claim with accuracy that it is monasticism that constitutes the essential reference point for all the baptized. In fact it is reversed. Church life is organized first, and monasticism, as a pietistic afterthought or interesting historical relic, is expected to find some useful place within it.

That's what we're up against. Centuries of watering down the content of the Gospel. That's what we're up against, not just in the sense that we have to change the mindset of other people, but first of all that we (I mean the monks themselves) have to change their way of thinking. It would be easier to be "useful," but first we have to repent, to fail and to recover, to die and rise again over and over, day in day out, persevering to the point of blood. It would be easier to be "useful", but first we have to be useless. First we have to be failures. In the end, if you support our monastery, you have to know you are supporting failures, sinners, incompetents. You have to know that, and you have to want that because your faith teaches you that in the end no failure, no sin, no incompetence is beyond the power of Christ's resurrection--not our failure, sin and incompetence, and not yours. That is how, in the most fundamental sense, we can be a "reference point" for the all the baptized.

That is what we're up against: the secular cult of "usefulness" with its deep roots in many Christian hearts.

Sorry about this long hiatus. The whole question of the move has taken more time and energy than anything else (apart from the daily monastic struggle, of course), and something had to give. Well, the location question isn't yet resolved but I think it's time to start up again anyway. I doubt we'll be managing daily posts, but weekly should be possible.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wonder whether you might be interested in listening to a series of radio broadcasts I did on "Recovering a Sacramental World-view" as part of Father Thomas Loya's weekly show, Light of the East. You can hear the shows at this link, or else you can receive the poscasts through i-Tunes. The relelvant shows are nos. 200, 201, 202 and 203.

We also try to provide Fr. Tom with weekly reflections, although I regret to say these have also suffered something of this blog's fate of late. God-willing we will be more regular in this aspect of our ministry as well moving into 2009!

I came across this fascinating article on some of the psychological and social tensions that Orthodox married priests and their families must negotiate: "Between Heaven and Earth: the Clergy Family" by Rev. Vasileios Thermos, M.D. Ph.D. The article is available in PDF format here. Nothing in the article could not equally apply to our many friends among the married clergy of our own diocese and other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions. (Father Vasileios' claim at the end of the article that "Only in Orthodoxy do we live the blessing of combining priesthood and marriage" is, of course, untrue. Married priests in the world-wide Catholic Church number in their thousands.) I also think many of the issues might apply to married deacons, their spouses and children.

I especially like Father Vasileios' contrast of two potential "psychological heresies" to be avoided by clergy families: "psychological nestorianism" and "psychological monophysitism." The first is described as:

The clergy couple organizes its life around the basic motivation of financial security. The care for its children's future may lead to neglect of pastoral mission or to a cold, distant professional ministry. In many such cases, presvyteras may even approve and encourage such an attitude. In this case, the clergyman gets trapped within his own family which develops a kind of collective egocentricity. He is unable to make the critical step of transcendence, to proceed from natural parental love to the spaciousness of the Body of Christ. If the fire of love is not the main motivation in our love for people, how is it possible to love God Who abides in human persons?

Psychological monophysitism, on the other hand, means:

Here we have just the opposite imbalance: a neglect of the family in favor of the Church. The priest tends to pursue the so-thought divine realities of the Church and ignore the human ones of his family. He does not see it as a priority that he should be giving time and energy for personal communication with his wife and children. Instead, he assiduously devotes himself to pastoral activities, thus being physically absent from home and mentally and emotionally absent when he is there. Sometimes his wife imitates him in this imbalance to the degree she gets involved in parish activities.

An unconscious feeling of omnipotence is usually present here: the priest feels invulnerable to fatigue and beyond emotional needs. Probably, he felt so long before he was ordained, by giving first priority to priesthood instead of marriage. There is no need to wonder why: priesthood often provides us with a sense of power whereas being a member of a couple may remind us of our vulnerability and weakness. In pastoral involvement the priest feels influential; in everyday conjugal closeness his wife becomes influential on him. That is the reason many of us prefer spending our time at the Church rather than at home; the former favors a respectful façade, the latter leads to our disclosure. Motivation for work-aholism may be guilt.

Unfortunately the author gives rather more attention to the latter condition. Worldliness among the clergy is just as much a temptation as a psychologically and spiritually inauthentic "religiosity". But I suppose it is also more blatant. There is something much more insidious than the "temptation from the right" that can undermine priests and their families by masquerading as devotion to pastoral work, fidelity to the liturgical typikon and/or moral rectitude.

Meanwhile, I found this remark by the author especially convicting for me as a celibate:

Let us not forget that for celibates their priestly identity reasonably follows from the quality of their own "marriage", namely of their own monastic vocation.

This is something many celibate priests need to remember, whether or not they have formally entered the formal institution of monastic life. A celibate who is not wedded at the deepest level to the Good News which is the Church....well, we know where that leads.

In defence of the insitution of compulsory priestly celibacy, the Roman Catholic Church has developed a deep and highly developed theology of priesthood. What is refreshing about this article is the rather different theological perspective it takes to the interrelationship between the human/natural element in a man and the divine/supernatural element inherent the Mystery of the priesthood. It may well come as a shock to many (including, incidentally many Orthodox) to be told that married priests are "first human beings, then husbands, and after that priests. Thus marriage becomes the first matter of priesthood." But perhaps it makes sense in the context of Father Vasileios' argument concerning the "divine-human" integrity of all Christian reality in the light of the Incarnation. Thoughts?

...Or " Pseudo-Dionysius" if you want to be informal about it. I'm looking forward to reading the actual text of the talk, rather than this brief report. That St. Denis stands at the cross roads of Asian mysticism and Hellenistic rationalism certainly makes him an important authority in Pope Benedict's major theme of the compatibility of faith and reason.

Archpriest George Morelli, a noted Orthodox priest and psychologist, has taken an interest in our discussion on the idea of the confessional "seal" in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Father George kindly sent me the following short article that was intended to be published on Orthodoxy Today. We have it first!

There is much that the Catholic side would absolutely agree with. Most, in fact. But there are some things that I think would be, to say the least, problematic, within the Catholic canonical discipline. Generally speaking, I rather think Orthodox priests are more free to withhold absolution in order to impose conditions on penitents than are Catholic priests.

An interesting article:

The role of clergy, clinicians, and non-professionals in reporting abuse.

What is the role of clinicians, clergy, laity when discovering abuse? Licensed health practitioners (nurses, marriage and family counselors, physicians, psychologists, etc.) are mandated reporters under law. This usually means not only informing appropriate authorities such as the police, but informing and/or intervening with the victim (or potential victim) as well.

A priest may be a mandatory reporter in some jurisdictions. Sacramental confession is excluded. Counseling or communication with a priest in pastoral situations puts the priest (or other clergy) in a very ambiguous and serious position. The priest must act out of love and the purity and clarity of his heart, for both the victim or potential victim and the abuser. If the abuser comes to the priest, the priest must attempt to convince the abuser to accept the fact that they have a serious problem and must seek the help that is needed. This may involve emergency hospitalization or perhaps incarceration. In this case the hospital staff would be mandatory reporters. If a priest is a mandatory reporter, this information must be told to all involved and the laws of the jurisdiction must be followed.

Clergy also have to do all they can to intervene to protect potential victims. This may include referral to appropriate emergency psychological care. In the most serious cases, such as a credible death threat, an immediate call to police and/or emergency services would be warranted.

If a priest is not a licensed mental health practitioner or mandated reporter and situations of abuse (physical, sexual, psychological, or neglect) were disclosed, I would suggest telling the abuser that you will follow up on this like the "hound of heaven." Morally, the priest cannot allow abuse to continue. It may take the priest or someone else to be physically present to guard the abused victim. Whatever it takes to protect and safeguard the victim (or potential victim) must be done.

If the person came "pastorally" to a non-licensed priest and disclosed active abuse, I would recommend telling the abuser, as a last resort, that it has to be reported to protect the victim. Once again, this message has to be made, emphasizing that it is being done out of love and charity. The priest should do everything possible to get the abuser to "sign onto" and "have ownership" of this process. People are more likely to agree to positions they are part of rather than imposed on them by external authority or other factors.

This can be done using the abuser's psychological and spiritual strengths. Appealing to the care or love, the abuser may have had at one time, or is capable of having, and asking them to make a personal decision based on these values. Informing them that priest and God will stand by them during this process is also helpful. Hopefully, all clergy have a list of community resources that handle such situations and appropriate referrals can be made. It is important to treat the abuser with charity, gentleness, and love, but also with a firm hand. The purer the heart of the priest the more clearly he will perceive what actions have to be taken out of love of Christ. Jesus told his apostles: "Peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled: nor let it be afraid" (John 14:27).

An interesting side issue for Eastern Orthodox (and Western Roman) priests is the seal of Confession. Suppose an abuser or victim approaches the priest for the Holy Mystery of Confession. Sometimes it can be anticipated what the person is about to say. Many times others in a parish may know something and word has gotten back to the priest hinting at some serious family trouble. Often a priest can "intuit" the problem through the spiritual gift of discernment.

In such a case, I would inform the 'alleged' abuser that you cannot hear his/her confession at this time. The upcoming discussion will not be a confession (thus under the seal) on a given disclosure. If it can be sensed by the priest that abuse is occurring, a priest-mental health practitioner [like myself] would have to do the same as delineated above except the mandatory reporting law would have to be followed.

While it has never happened that someone slipped by my 'intuitive anticipation' and disclosed abuse in "Confession," I would have to withhold absolution and tell the person they are "without absolution" and "'excommunicated" so to speak, until they report to the authorities. As a  follow-up,  since the seal of confession still holds, I would try to contact the potential/or actual victim(s) and, without violating the seal of confession, do all I can do to protect and guide him/her/them to safety, etc.

If abuse is anticipated, it is actually easier for a priest-licensed mental health practitioner to treat because the disclosure rules can be cited up front before "session" or a communication begins. I want to be perfectly clear that once confession as our Holy Mystery has begun, no law in the nation can contravene the "Seal" -- even to the imprisonment or death of the priest.

Laity cannot be left out. How many non-ordained or professional people come across potential or actual abuse? They too, when encountering abuse, should be enlivened with the love of Christ in their hearts for both the abuser and abused, as well as all involved in the abuse. There are countless stories in the media about relatives, friends or bystanders who had some knowledge of abuse incidents or the effects of abuse and did nothing. Sometimes this lack of action has resulted in dire consequences to the victims.

With laity and other 'non-professionals' there are issues of uncertainty, clash of interests, and family or friend censure or disapproval. Often these issues produce conflict and resultant stress in the person with the knowledge or suspicion of abuse. In such a cases, talking to a knowledgeable priest, mental health professional, or community agency specializing in abuse would be helpful in guiding them in making the right decision for the good and welfare of all involved. It should be remembered we sin not only by commission, but omission as well.

The Church, which Bishop Hierotheos calls a "hospital," has to be brought to bear on curing the soul and enlightening the nous in the hearts of all, hierarchy, presbyters, deacons as well as the royal priesthood of the faithful. Tradition, scripture in tradition, the teachings of our Church Fathers, the Holy Mysteries, the holy icons, the very architecture of the church building reflecting the Kingdom of God, prayer and fasting: the whole life and mind of the church will be the path of the "light of Christ illumining all."

"Acquire the spirit of peace [in the heart] and a thousand souls will be saved around you." (St. Seraphim of Sarov.)

 A couple references on Confession itself.  While the Eastern Church may not use the word "Seal of Confession," the rules and penalties for violation of the absolute secrecy of confession are the practically identical as in the Western Church.  In Chapter 12: That the Spiritual Father is not to Reveal Sins  ( of Part I Instruction to the Spiritual Father) of the Exomologetarion (A Manual for Confession), St Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes: "Nothing else remains after confession, Spiritual Father, except to keep the sins you hear a secret, and to never reveal them, either by word, or by letter, or by bodily gesture, or any other sign, even if you are in danger of death, for that which the wise Sirach says applies to you: "Have you heard a word: Let it die with you." (Sir. 19:10) .....for if you reveal them, firstly, you will be suspended or deposed completely by the Ecclesiastical Canons and according to political laws [of course of the Saint’s day--although this attests to the seriousness of the offense-FrG] you will be thrown in jail for the rest of your life and have your tongue cut out. [Canon 141 (135) of Carthage, PG 138, 424D is cited].

 In other words, let me be in silence or let me be in death. No one, no Emperor, court or bishop can abrogate this.

One of the aims of "spiritual ecumenism" is to identify points of practical connection between Church traditions. And also practical disconnection. I wrote a little article on this point last year, emphasizing some of the things that high level Orthodox/Catholic ecumenists rarely discuss: divorce, fasting, liturgical sensibilities.

But I never thought about the Mystery of Holy Confession.

Some will be aware that, right now, there is a deal of internet buzz on some English-language Orthodox discussion lists and blogs on the extent to which Orthodoxy knows of what Catholics call the "Seal" of Confession. Are there circumstances in which it is permissible (or obligatory) for Orthodox priests to reveal information learned in the course of hearing the confessions of the faithful?

(I won't link to these discussions, as they are connected with a specific set of problems facing one Orthodox jurisdiction in the US. Much of the discussion is not edifying and, in any event, it would be unseemly for this blog to stick its nose into someone else's business. I'm interested in sparking a more informed, and a mucher cooler, conversation about the issue in general.)

One argument I have heard is that a priest is certainly at liberty to report confessional confidences to his bishop. This is on the grounds that the priest is always acting as the bishop's delegate. Also, that the priest is only, in any event, a "witness" to the confession. Of course, no sooner had that argument been made than it was roundly contradicted by an Orthodox priest who presented a theology of the sacrament more in line with the Catholic understanding.

Now I was well aware of certain differences in approach to the sacrament of Confession along the old East/West divide. Westerners have traditionally been more inclined to treat Confession from a forensic point of view, with the priest acting as a kind of judge as well as a spiritual father. Hence the emphasis on insisting the numeration and classification of sins by the penitent ("number and kind"). The model favored by Easterners tends to be therapeutic.

But I must admit that I never realized the differences could run as deep as to call into question the confidentiality of confessions, at least in modern Orthodox praxis. From the Catholic point of view this question is absolutely settled, and the settlement runs very deep. There is room for not even the slightest doubt about the principle of absolute secrecy, even though the application of the principle may run into some grey areas at the margins (e.g. information that comes to a priest both within confession and from other sources).  Yes, there's a little grey at the edges but that margin surrounds a very deep and, to most Catholics, deeply comforting certainty.

I have been reflecting on my own attitude to the seal. It really is very deep--perhaps more so for those of us who have grown up Catholic. If I'm to be honest, I can well imagine myself, under torture, denying any number of doctrines of the faith. I know how weak I am. But I honestly cannot imagine any pressure leading me to give up a secret confided to me in Confession. I don't say this out of pride (admitting the possibility of apostasy is not much of a boast!). It is simply a reflection of how visceral Catholic attachment is to the principle that the Confessional is inviolable. Perhaps it would be easier to betray a doctrine than a person whose face I could remember? I don't know. It's just a really deep sense of obligation.

So what's going on here? Is it just that I'm reading the opinions of a few converts to Orthodoxy whose crypto-protestantism is showing through? Or is this a debate that is really alive amongst Orthodox clergy and laity? What do Orthodox seminaries teach? Is there a strong sense that the Catholic Church is too rigid in this area?

I wonder if there isn't an irony here. Those I have seen arguing against an absolute confessional seal say that there are some "crimes" (child abuse, murder etc) the consequences of which must be visited upon the pentitent as a matter of law. The Catholic canonical discipline is based on the view that no human impediment should stand between a penitent and the sacramental sign of divine Mercy. A confessor may well insist on a penitent suffering the consequences of his actions--but precisely as part of the "penance", that is, the therapy of repentance, and not as a merely "legal" consequence.

It would be irony indeed if, in this case, the Orthodox East turns out to be more legalistic than the West! I'd love the input of our Orthodox brethren in this discussion.

Fairfax VA: The Orientale Lumen Conferences will be held in three different cities in the USA this coming year in Washington, DC, San Diego, CA and Detroit, MI. These ecumenical conferences focus on topics of the Christian East and are open to the public, for both lay persons and clergy. The well known presenters come from four main religious groups: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox. These conferences encourage ecumenical dialogue on a specific theme through presentations and discussions. The conferences include a variety of prayer services, music and liturgy from a wide range of Church traditions. In this way, the conferences provide a learning experience and intellectual discussion, as well as a unique spiritual experience.

The theme for all three locations in 2008 will be “Feast Days of the Eastern Churches.” These special days during the calendar year were established by the Church to commemorate the events of the life of Jesus Christ, Mary the Mother of God, and other saints. On these special days, appropriate prayers, hymns and readings celebrate the occasion. They are times of reflection and joy for the entire Church and its followers.

There are twelve major feast days in the Eastern Church’s calendar year. In these conferences, the Church Feast Days will be explored in their theology, spirituality, liturgy and iconography. The distinguished speakers and guests will be coming from around the world and will represent several different Eastern Churches:

Orientale Lumen XII East will be held in Washington, DC, June 16 – 19, 2008, at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in northeast Washington, DC next to the campus of The Catholic University of America. The speakers will be:

• Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, Greek Orthodox Church, Oxford, England (by pre-recorded video)

• Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, Italy

• Sr. Vassa Larin, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Munich, Germany

• Dr. Richard Schneider, Orthodox Church of America, Toronto, Canada

• Father Daniel Findikyan, Armenian Apostolic Church, New York, NY, USA

• Bishop John Michael Botean (Moderator), Romanian Greek Catholic Church, Canton, OH, USA

OL West Conference

Orientale Lumen XII West will be held in San Diego, CA June 23 – 26, 2008, at the beautiful University of San Diego Campus overlooking Mission Bay. The speakers will be:

• Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, Greek Orthodox Church, Oxford, England (by pre-recorded video)

• Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, Italy

• Sr. Vassa Larin, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Munich, Germany

• Dr. Richard Schneider, Orthodox Church of America, Toronto, Canada

• Father Maximos, Holy Resurrection Monastery Newberry Springs, CA, USA

• Bishop Nicholas Samra (Moderator), Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, Detroit, MI

Orientale Lumen XII North will be held in Detroit, MI, July 7 – 10, 2008, at the Retreat Center at St. John's, sponsored by the Archdiocese of Detroit. It provides a setting where people of faith can be inspired and refreshed. The speakers will be:

• Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, Greek Orthodox Church, Oxford, England (by pre-recorded video)

• Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, Italy

• Sr. Vassa Larin, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Munich, Germany

• Dr. Richard Schneider, Orthodox Church of America, Toronto, Canada

• Father Thomas Loya, Byzantine Catholic Church, Chicago, IL, USA

• Bishop Nicholas Samra (Moderator), Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, Detroit, MI, USA

Each speaker will give a plenary session followed by a panel discussion and questions from the audience. All of the papers presented will be published and provided to the attendees in a Proceedings book after the conference. A variety of liturgical services will be conducted during the conference to provide an opportunity for attendees to pray together for Church unity, including a visit to a local parish. Opening and closing remarks will also be made by various Church leaders in attendance. Church leaders, lay persons, monastics, clergy and students are all welcome and invited to participate. These conferences have been appreciated and discussed all across the world, and have been mentioned in meetings among the religious leaders in the Vatican, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, and many others.

The Pope's visit to Istanbul in November, 2006, as well as the official dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox Churches that was held in September, 2007, demonstrate the improved relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Orientale Lumen conferences function in an unofficial capacity parallel to those official discussions. They are unique because of the extensive participation of lay persons, and because of the involvement of Eastern Catholics -- a small minority within the Catholic Church, and who are rarely represented at other dialogue meetings.

The Orientale Lumen Conferences have been meeting annually since 1997 in Washington, DC and other locations around the world. Primarily sponsored by the Society of Saint John Chrysostom and Eastern Christian Publications, other co-sponsors have included the Halki School of Orthodox Theology in Constantinople, the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, and the University of San Diego, in San Diego, CA. Registration details are available on the website: www.olconference.com. Video recordings of plenary sessions and prayer services of past OL conferences can be seen at www.oltvweb.comand purchased in CD or DVD format.

Contact:

Jack Figel, Orientale Lumen Conferences PO Box 192 Fairfax, VA 22038-0192 (703) 691-8862 info@olconference.com

For further information:

Society of Saint John Chrysostom: www.ssjc.org

Eastern Christian Publications: www.ecpubs.com

The Catholic University of America (Washington, DC): www.cua.edu

The University of San Diego (San Diego): www.sandiego.edu

The Retreat at St. John’s (Detroit): http://www.theretreatcenter.org/

Apparently Patriarch Bartholomew I (the numeration always strikes me as a little optimistic) is one degree less influential than Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, but one degree more than Reserve Bank Chairman Bernanke. Pope Benedict is not in the top 100 at all, nor is Patriarch Alexey. No influence at all, I suppose?

Perhaps I should find better places to do my Bright Week reading??

The Turkish government will not enjoy seeing His All-Holiness referred to as "Ecumenical Patriarch", which title they consider themselves competent to deny him with vehemence. Ah well, if a little international media attention keeps Them off his back, we can perhaps forgive the hype

Sticking my toe in these moving waters....

Pope Benedict has recently praised the "healthy laicism" of the United States, giving something of a qualified endorsement of the American way of reconciling the demands of religion and secularism.

Given the ways in which the Moscow patriarchate has given its support to so many state-imposed curbs on religious freedoms for all groups other than itself, one wonders to what extent any "strategic alliance" against secularism could really work. Wouldn't allies need have substantially the same notion of what's bad about secularism in order to fight it?

If the Pope wants Europe to become more "American" in its attitude toward religion in the public sphere, could that be a goal toward which we can imagine Moscow working as well????