The Anastasis Dialogue

...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????

One of the many things to happen in the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical world over the period of this blog's hiatus, has been the ramped up rhetoric from the Moscow patriarchate on the need to harness the energies of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches against secularism. The idea is not new, but recently the idea has been given steam by Bishop Hilarion. Now Patriarch Alexey himself is using the same language. Clearly this has become an important theme.

Good and bad in this, I think. Room for an interesting discussion, certainly.

Dear friends:

We have been away from the blog for a long time, due partly to the lateness of the Great Fast and Holy Pascha this year (our monastery follows the so-called "revised Julian calendar"). Many thanks for all of you who have come back to re-read old postings. New ones on their way!

Here's a great way to kick off a new year of discussing Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism!

On January 6, the feast of the Holy Theophany, in Oradea on the western edge of Romania, the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic bishops of the city met together to hold a service of blessing of water. After celebrating the Divine Liturgy in their respective churches, PS Sofronie Drinec (Orthodox, to the left of the photo in blue vestments) and PS Virgil Bercea (Greek-Catholic on the right in white vestments), together with many of their clergy and faithful, met in procession in the town center and proceded to the banks of the river Crisul Repede for the Great Blessing of Water.

You can read more about the event (if your Romanian is better than mine!) here. And there are more pictures here.

It is wonderful to see the ice breaking in a place where so much anger and bitterness has divided our churches.

Incidentally, I've never been to Oradea, but it looks to be an incredibly beautiful city!

I've decided to lay aside the blog for the Feasts of Nativity, Circumcision and Theophany. Good to let it lie fallow for a while. I will pick up the threads again around January 8th or so!

But, in addition to wishing all our readers many blessings on these feasts, I did want to acknowledge the passing of a great friend of our Monastery, His Eminence Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos. His Eminence passed over into eternal life yesterday, December 16th, from complications due to cancer. We pray that the immense longing that he displayed for the unity of the Churches during his earthly life will bear even greater fruit through his translation to a place of light, a place of green pasture, from where all pain, sorrow and sighing have fled away.

OK, possum stirring was not the only motivation behind my posting about the way certain eminent Orthodox institutions dabbled in indulgences in the 17th and 18th centuries. I do actually have a point! It's not just that Orthodox hierarchs and monastics saw an opening in the indulgence market after the Latins were forced to withdraw after the Council of Trent. It's not just that the Phanariotes sorely needed additional revenue streams to support the confiscatory taxes and other impositions of the Ottoman state. These things are true, but they do not quite explain how it was that this practice came to be justified theologically by the Church.

I'm not really engaging here in an apology for indulgences, in the sense that I think they should be embraced today as completely unproblematic. For the reasons I gave yesterday, I worry about the spiritual psychology that too easily flows from a facile apologia, and I fear almost all apologetics on this subject tend to fall quickly into that category. All I'm about today is suggesting one way in which it might be possible to reconcile the theology behind the practice of issuing indulgences with the broader, richer and vastly more important apostolic teaching on sin, salvation, heaven and purification after death.

If indulgences were to be abolished tomorrow, I would not mourn. But I would be worried. I would be concerned because indulgences represent one of the few remaining aspects of that great ascetic enterprise which the patristic and, for the most part, the medieval Church (east and west) saw as essential to its life. Prayer, fasting and almsgiving were taken for granted. They were not extras to be added onto the "process" of salvation. They were essential to it. The human element in the divine/human exchange we call redemption was not simply assent of intellect or a sentiment; it was an assent that required the consecration of every element of one's experience, including the body and the extended communities within which one moved: family, village, city, empire. Put simply, redemption without asceticism was unthinkable. Or, if not unthinkable than at least any such idea was certainly eccentric. Only with the restoration of a new form of pagan idealism toward the end of the Middle Ages in the West (and to an extent also in the Byzantine intellectual world) did large numbers of Christians begin conceiving of their faith as a purely interior experience. Once this happened, asceticism ceased to be an essential element of faithful response to grace, but rather, depending on one's confessional alliegance, satisfaction of a canonical (legal) obligation, a lifestyle choice for the really holy, or to be shunned altogether as works-based attempt to earn one's righteousness.

Of course, these new ways of thinking about asceticism did not entirely displace the ancient apostolic and patristic idea. But this had to limp along, sometimes clothed with ill-fitting rags stolen from the intellectual wardrobe of the revolution. Let's evesdrop on an indulgence marketing seminar circa 1515. "Modern spiritual consumers aren't interested in old fashioned ideas like prayer, fasting and almsgiving for their own sake. People today want results! Holiness on tap! 'What's in it for me? they ask.' If you want them to work, and especially if you want them to pay up, better give them a reason. Tell them how it'll help gramps out of Purgatory. Better still, tell them how it will get them out of the fire!" And so prayer, fasting and almsgiving were re-packaged for the new capitalism, Catholic version, and, as we have seen, even in an Orthodox version.

Now these marketeers did not invent the product they were selling. They exploited it. That is they took something that had a place where it belonged, ripped it out, and turned it into something unrecognizable. The indulgence without askesis has been a sad relic, spinning slowly in space, ever since.

I know I'm simplifying inexcusably, so I hope you'll excuse me We all know that this revolution did not happen overnight. Luther represents, if not the final triumph of the privatization of faith, then an important stage toward that tragedy. But it was a stage that could not, I think, have been reached without the very indulgence hawkers he so rightly loathed. The indulgence industry, as opposed to the indulgence itself, was made possible by the first stirrings of that impulse towards regarding faith as a purely private, and therefore marketable, commodity. When asceticism was a shared consecration of the communal self, the idea of an "indulgence" was itself part of the dynamic pulse of that interchange of rigor and economy on the energy of which authentic asceticism is propelled. Indulgence was just that, an expression of mercy answering the sweated and tearful cry for mercy. It was the cup of water, offered to the fasting pilgrims in token of the joy that awaited them in the longed-for shrine.

This, IMHO, provides us with a clue of how best to return the notion of an indulgence to its proper context. Pope Paul VI seems to have begun the long trek back toward the tradition by emphasizing the communal and ascetic dimension in his Apostolic Constitution, Indulgentiarum Doctrina:

The aim pursued by ecclesiastical authority in granting indulgences is not only that of helping the faithful to expiate the punishment due sin but also that of urging them to perform works of piety, penitence and charity—particularly those which lead to growth in faith and which favor the common good (para. 8.)

Indulgences just a Catholic problem? Not so much.

What we call in Australia, "stirring the possum."

18th century Orthodox indulgence granted by the patriarch Abraham
("Avramie") of Jerusalem, sold by Greek monks. The original is located at the History Museum of Bucharest.