The Anastasis Dialogue - Spiritual Ecumenism

When I am weak....

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:02:12 -0500

I read this today from the "internet monk", a protestant evangelical with an ecumenical, radically Christian attitude to repentance:

I fall down. I get up….and believe. Over and over again. That’s as
good as it gets in this world. This life of faith, is a battle full of
weakness and brokenness. The only soldiers in this battle are wounded
ones. There are moments of total candor- I am a “wretched man” living
in a “body” of death. Denying this, spinning this, ignoring this or
distorting this reality is nothing but trouble in the true Christian
experience.

I tried to find things to disagree with. The only thing is that he seems to think nature is the problem, rather than a potential ally in the fight (when disciplined by asceticism). Our tradition would probably want to speak of external forces (demons and death especially) as much as the enemy nature:

The sin we are killing in Romans 8
is, in a sense, ourselves. Not some demon or serpent external to us.
Our battle is with ourselves, and embracing this fact is the compass
and foundation of the Gospel’s power in our lives.

It needn't be either/or. It's both, as the fathers teach and scripture makes plain.

And does Christ only dwell in sinners (per Luther)? Change "sinners" for "humble" to include the saints who know nothing other than their complete need for Christ. Make that change and I'm happy.

God in the bread

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:22:56 -0500

I was thinking about repentance again yesterday during Vespers. That's the good news.

The bad news is that these pious thoughts occupied me while I was fiddling around a little at the Altar (where it's my week to serve), re-arranging the Gospel book and peeking into the little artophorion where we keep the consecrated Lambs for the Presanctified Liturgies this week. One of the Lambs was on its side, so I reached in and righted it, so the little purple stain was facing up, showing where I daubed a bit of the Precious Blood last Sunday before putting the Gifts away into their small golden box.

And it occurred to me that I had just touched God. I had just touched the God of the universe, creator of heaven and earth, Lord of glory worshiped by myriads of angels and archangels, borne upon the Cherubim, who makes his spirits messengers and his ministers as flames of fire. I had touched God, and He felt just like a small piece of dried up bread.

I wish I could say that this realization struck me with force, sent me to my knees in awe, wonder, regret for my impiety, an overwhelming sense of unworthiness. The truth is, it came as a purely intellectual event. The thought was no more electrifying than the feel of dried up bread to the finger. "Oh, that's right. This isn't bread. It's God."

In my preaching and retreat work this year I've found myself coming back often to the 18th Step of the Ladder of Divine Ascent in which St. John Climacus deals with the passion he calls, anaisthesis, "insensitivity." He defines it thus:

Insensitivity both in the body and in the spirit is deadened feeling, which, from long sickness and negligence, lapses into loss of feeling.

Insensitivity is negligence that has become habit, numbed thought...

Among its effects, he says, are a complete loss of reverence, or compassion or indeed any sense of the truth of things. In paragraph 5, the passion itself is made to say:

My subjects laugh when they see corpses. When they stand at prayer, they are completely stony, hard and darkened. When they see the holy altar they feel nothing; when they partake of the holy Gift, it is as if they had eaten ordinary bread.

How has it come to this? I thought. How have I become so anesthetized in mind and spirit that I cannot recognize my God in the bread? Where has this heart of stone, this darkened mind, this body inured to impiety, where has it come from?

That's for me and my God to work out of course, with some help from my spiritual father. But it seems to me at least raising the question as a way of helping to amplify what I said in my last post on repentance.

The point I want to make is this. If repentance is seen primarily as an event, causally related to other events we might call sins, then what happened to me in my thoughts at the altar last night was a simple intellectual tussle with a temptation to doubt. From a forensic point of view I was not doing anything wrong in performing my ministry at the altar. Nor is it a spiritual crime to have a moment of doubt (if that is what it was), provided one immediately makes an act of religious assent to the truth of faith under question.

Thinking of sin and repentance as discrete moments, means that nothing terribly interesting happened to me at all last night. I've had confessors who would have told me this. "Don't beat yourself up." "Where's the sin in that?" In one sense they'd be right. Yet in another....well they'd have missed the very force at work in me that is sending me to hell, that is in fact making life hellish for me at this very moment by killing all sense of God's presence. The very force that sends God away, hiding in the bread.

Anaisthesis, like many of the passions cannot be reduced to events. You don't "commit" insensitivity. It takes root in you and grows. It's fed by a thousand, a hundred thousand little acts and omissions. A sarcastic word here, an angry silence there, hypocritical gestures, a mind open to theories of charity while despising people in need of it. Insensitivity metastasizes until you stand at an altar one day and, by God's mercy, realize that you have no idea what you're touching.

This is a spiritual cancer. And like any such disease it cannot just be wished or legislated away; it can only be treated, cut out or at least shrunk by powerful, and sometimes painful, medicines.

This is a spiritual cancer, and it's widespread. How else can people not see God in the poor, the unborn, the aged, the unlovely? We live in an age full of righteous anger fuelled by theories and ideologies, philosophies and policies. But it's all talk and no action, because the talk deadens and does not enliven. This is spiritual cancer, and treating the symptoms--abortion, pollution, violence, prejudice, whatever--will not make the cancer go away. We need to repent more deeply than that if we are ever to see God in the other, God in the ordinary, God in the bread.

Repentance is not worthy of the name unless it really gets to the heart of the disease. Repentance is nothing unless it touches every part of life, not just the sinful events, but above all the diseased motivations, the darkened sight, the hardened heart.

This is not a "east vs west" issue. It's basic Christianity. But I do think that the Eastern Churches have been able to preserve in their liturgical and spiritual praxis a clear reminder of this most basic of all Christ's words, "repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15). Repent and believe that He is here in the ordinary, that He washes us in water, strengthens us in oil, feeds us in bread, comforts us in wine. That He is the face that asks for help in hunger, prison, sickness, pain and grief. Repent and believe; repent so that you can believe, and trust what you believe. Repent so that you can come to life inside, raised up from the tomb of your deadened, anesthetized, numbed heart.

The forensic attitude to sin and repentance can get in the way of this deep, fundamental notion of sin and repentance not as different moments in life, but as different modes of life. Repentance is nothing if it is not a way of being, a lifestyle choice at its most urgent. It is not something you endure for a time so that you can get on with the business of changing the world, ending abortion or social inequity or environmental degradation or whatever the agenda must be. Repentance isn't the thing you do before you move on, it is how you move at all, its your motive force.

There's a reason why God hides in the bread. It's not to fool us, but to draw us in, to give us Someone to find. As every child knows, hide and seek doesn't work unless you keep getting warmer and warmer, not cooler and colder. God is always in the bread. Waiting.

Great Canon, great need

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:49:11 -0500

I've done the Great Canon twice this year. That's one of the perks of being an Old Paschalion island in a New Paschalion ocean.

I really mean that it's a perk. What a joy to be able to serve this most beautiful office twice, and to hear again the life of St. Mary of Egypt! I've never known anyone who has experienced this service of repentance seriously to grumble at the length, or the arduous prostrations and bows, or the repetitive refrain sung hundreds of times, "Have mercy, on me, O God, have mercy on me."

Last week I was in Aurora, IL serving at the Romanian Catholic parish of St. George. While serving in the parish I enjoyed the hospitality of a large Benedictine Monastery. The morning before the evening service I was in conversation with one of the OSB's, and I told him about the Great Canon Matins that would be served that evening. "It's about four hours long" I told him. He looked thoughtful and said, "But what do you do for four hours?"

I've got to admit this question set me aback. What do we do for those four hours? "Oh," I said lamely, "it's a beautiful reflection on scripture."

Ok, that's true. But somehow it just seems so ludicrously inadequate to characterize the Great Canon of St. Andrew and the Life of St. Mary as a kind of extended Bible study. The service challenges and engages us in such deeper ways. It's not a study, for a start, it's an action.

A better answer I could have given him was, "What do we do for four hours? We repent."

Why didn't I give that answer? Largely because I know that between the Eastern and Western mind lies a considerable distance on what repentance means. I've heard some Orthodox say the distance is un-bridgeable. I beg to differ. But I do believe very strongly that it is almost impossible to span the gulf by words.

The best answer I could have given my monk friend was, "What do we do for four hours? Come and see."

Come and experience for yourself a spiritual and moral vision in which repentance produces joy, not shame. Come and see a way to repent that requires less examination of conscience and more prostration, less concentration on self and more worship of what transcends the self. Come and see, and hear, and feel.

This is why I really believe to be so important about what my monastery is doing by moving next to another western monastery. If I'm right that the distance between traditions can be bridged, then it is in just such a place and in just that kind of relationship.

Oh and maybe by preaching repentance to others by inviting them to see our liturgy, I'll finally learn to do it myself!

Orientale Lumen XIII June 15-18 2009, Washington DC

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:22:47 -0500

The theme of this year's conference is "Monastic Spirituality in Everyday Life." This should be near and dear to anyone who reads this blog!

Among the speakers being advertised are Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, Bishop Hlib (Lonchyna) of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Mother Lois, a nun of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and Sr. Barbara Jean Mihalchik, OSBM of the Byzantine Catholic Church. Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) and Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, are scheduled to deliver talks by pre-recorded video.

The organizer, Jack Figel, has made a real effort to keep costs as low as possible in these tough times. Please visit his website to register online, or by fax/mail.

Conference registration deadline: May 25, 2009

Fasting for the Environment

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:39:48 -0500

Here's a Canadian Jesuit fasting "to draw attention to society's responsibility to protect the environment, particularly the beauty and diversity of his native Newfoundland and Labrador."

In the East, Christians tend to fast entirely to change themselves. It seems to be a Western trait to want to use the discipline as an attempt to change other people.

Much as I admire this priest's ideals and aspirations, I cannot help wondering about what happens in a church culture in which asceticism becomes a means of ideological propaganda.

Gaming Symposium on Eastern Catholic Churches

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:36:50 -0500

Here's a conference we wish we could have attended. Communique here as PDF.

Among the highlights:

In a world in which black and white binary oppositions of a categorical “either/or” nature no longer are sufficient to explain or embrace the complexities of human experience, the conference constituted that the confessional and denominational division between “Orthodox” and “Catholic” have been ossified by an “either/or” approach. The Greek Catholic Churches refuse to be categorized in a manner that either lessens their Eastern identity or negates their Catholic communion. The participants renewed their commitment to the arduous task of living in the middle of a divided Christian world, hoping and working for its unity.

Hmmmm. I can see what they're saying, but I think this needs a little more unpacking. Not all either/or statements are wrong! Still, you can't say too much in a statement like this.

I'm much happier with the next paragraph:

The urgent and life-giving vocation of the Greek Catholics is to integrate and synthesize the patristic, liturgical, canonical, cultural, and mystical tradition of the Christian East with a living witness to the catholicity and universality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this regard, Eastern Catholics have much to offer to their Latin brothers and sisters. Roman Catholic participants of the conference, especially its convener, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, reiterated the hope of Western Christians that Greek Catholics, as well as Orthodox, can help people in the West better experience liturgical beauty and holiness, offsetting a “flattened” sense of the sacred in a increasingly secularized post-Enlightenment world.

And this is very concrete:

In a letter addressing the symposium, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar quoted statements of Pope Benedict XVI, which stressed that Greek Catholic Churches are called to be faithful to the Eastern tradition, to witness to it in the Catholic communion, thus being an example to Orthodox Christians of what living communion with the Catholic Church means. This communion has led to a multifaceted mutual enrichment of the Eastern and Western traditions. With humility and commitment, Greek Catholics recognize that through historical circumstance, cultural and social pressure, or lack of internal resolve, their Churches had in some cases allowed Western practices and mindsets to obscure or to displace ancient rites and spiritual traditions. Today, with the encouragement of the highest authorities in the Catholic Church, the recovery of authentic Eastern Christian identity is being actively fostered.

Pope Benedict on St. John Climacus

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:36:49 -0600

Preparing for the Great Fast means, for most monastics in the Byzantine tradition, preparing to hear again the reading of the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. This audience address by Pope Benedict XVI is most timely.

I was especially struck by these passages:

At this point, a last question arises: "The Ladder," a work written by
a hermit monk who lived 1,400 years ago: Can it say something to us
today? The existential itinerary of a man who always lived on the
mountain of Sinai in a time so long ago: Can it be current for us? At
first glance, it seems the answer should be "no" because John Climacus
is very far from us. But if we look a little closer, we see that such a
monastic life is only a great symbol of the life of the baptized, of
Christian life. It shows, to say it one way, in large letters what we
write every day with little letters. It is a prophetic symbol that
reveals what is the life of the baptized, in communion with Christ,
with his death and resurrection. For me, it is of particularly
importance the fact that the culmination of the scale, the last rungs
are at the same time the fundamental, initial, simplest virtues: faith,
hope and charity.

These are not virtues accessible only to moral
heroes, but are the gift of God for all the baptized. In them our life
too grows. The beginning is also the end; the starting point is also
the arriving point: The whole path goes toward an ever more radical
fulfillment of faith, hope and charity. In these virtues, the ladder is
present. Fundamentally is faith, because this virtue implies that I
renounce arrogance, my thoughts, the pretension to judge for myself,
without entrusting myself to others.

"Eternal Marriage" in Orthodox theology

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:49:00 -0600

The Priestly Pugilist has commented on my article in America magazine of last year. Welcome comments, and even the criticisms I agree with...my treatment of marriage was too cursory, but that's the problem with working to a word limit.

Still, it begs a question which, since I can't see a way of adding comments on that blog, I'll post here. What exactly is the patristic warrant for the notion that, in Orthodox theology, there marriage is "eternal." It is a notion that is tossed out so casually in so many places (remember, it turned up recently in that statement from Europe on contemporary moral questions). But where exactly is the evidence that this notion satisfies the classic test of Tradition, "believed always and by all?"

Priests and their families...

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:46:21 -0500

IÂ 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 faÃ§ade, 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?

Archpriest George Morelli on Confession, Counselling & Confidentiality

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:43:49 -0500

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 areÂ 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 aÂ follow-up,Â 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.)

<
p>Before moving on to a further discussion of the "Seal of Confession," a word about ordination. One has to distinguish the grace of instrumental episcopacy and priesthood, versus the permission to exercise this grace.Â As a bishop must be in communion with the Church (other Orthodox Bishops)to exercise his episcopacy,Â so too, a priest must be under the omophorion of his bishop to functionally perform (exercise) his priesthood.Â Too lengthy to go into now, but the various canons as listed and interpreted in The Rudder, attest to this. [E.g. neither episcopal or presbyteral "reordinadation" ever take place after reconciliation with the Church]

Â A couple references on Confession itself.Â 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.Â In Chapter 12: That the Spiritual Father is not to Reveal SinsÂ ( 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 Saintâ€™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].

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

Confession

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:14:57 -0500

One of theÂ 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 toÂ 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 unseemlyÂ for this blogÂ to stickÂ its noseÂ intoÂ 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,Â 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).Â 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 justÂ 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 wellÂ 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.

A "Strategic Alliance"

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:12:53 -0500

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.

Post modernism again

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:40:46 -0500

There seems to be something already a little passe about trying to talk about "post-modernism." Not that the deconstructed world is passing away, of course. Nor has the debris of past stabilities ceased to crash about our ears. But perhaps, as the shards of orthodoxies shatter against a thousand wavering certainties, the clatter has become a simple fact of life. By now we have all decided what we like to do as the rain falls. Some of us are Christopher Robins striding gleefully through the puddling runoff, senses attuned to the squelch and splash of liquid ideas. Others of us stare banefully at the watery world like, if I may continue in winsome mode, Eeyore glumly enduring the torrent of sensations and images and narrative streams. We're long past the point where post modernism can be stopped.

I must say I think that I am among the gloom-shrouded shades that haunt the drowned ruins: far more Eeyore than Christopher Robin. But even I recognize that cursing the rain doesn't stop it. The world is what it is, and the question, for Christians, is how do we live with it while not in it and, even more, how might it be redeemed? My good friend, Melkite Greek-Catholic Priest Justin Rose, is much happier than I spashing about in the floods of post-modernism. He has written an interesting reflection for us Eeyores, (PostModernMinistryinaPostBedouinChurchx.doc) preparing the way for his reflections on how the sanity of Eastern Christianity is, in his opinion, uniquely positioned to survive, and even thrive, the insanity of post-modernity. His thesis is, as far as I can see, that the uncertainties of today can bring us closer to the Truths of eternity than the pettier orthodoxies of yesterday.

He may have a point. After all modernity was not all that hospitable to the fact of the Resurrection (danke Herr Schleiermacher). Perhaps the post-rational does indeed offer more room for the transcendent than the rational. I can already hear hackles rising. Christianity is, as Pope Benedict is constantly reminding us, a distinctly rational faith. But when we think about how easily we Christians accept this tension (a rational faith??) this suggests that we carry in our spiritual DNA a yearning for the bracing splash of paradox on our faces. Fr. Justin believes that this capacity for mystery was precisely what helped the Church speak to that great wave of "post modernism" we call Late Antiquity (everything new is old again!).

Anyway, it may spark an interesting conversation. I'll be interested in reading part 2 when he writes it....

America the Sacred

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:57:51 -0600

The Catholic Church today remembers the great feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Is it really a coincidence that the Orthodox Church in America remembers today the greatest of her American saints, Our Venerable and God-bearing Father Herman of Alaska?

"Mercy and truth have met, justice and peace have kissed" (Ps. 85/6).Â So it is with these feasts.Â Above all, they meet and kiss and declare the Lord's loving care for the native inhabitants of the American continents. At the height of colonial oppression, God spoke words of comfort beyond words. He sent His All-Holy Mother, He raised up new saints, and together these all insisted by their tenacious humility on the absolute value of every single soul in this "New World."

Many sermons today will, rightly, remind us of the blasphemous devaluing of so many today: the unborn, the aged and poor, the prisoner and the immigrant. But spare a thought, and a prayer, for the way in which we divided Christians teach this New World by our actions that these blasphemies are acceptable. Which of us can claim to be a true son or daughter either of the Virgin of Tepeyac or the Monk of Spruce Island? Which of us, then, can really speak that word of comfort for which these saints were raised up?

From the Stichera of Lauds in honor of St. Herman of Alaska:

Tone 8

"From this day and from this very hour

let us love God above all, and let us do His holy will,

that we may inherit good things!"

So you said, O venerable Herman,

wondrous teacher, confirmation of Orthodoxy,

preaching the glory of God and teaching us sinners.

From the Aposticha ofÂ Great Vespers in honor of the Mother of God of Guadalupe:

Tone 8

"Listen, my most beloved children:

the things that afflict you are nothing!

For I have given birth to the Conquerer of Hades;

The Lord Who removes the sting of death.

Let not your faces be abashed

nor your hearts be disturbed.

Am I not here, I who am your Mother?

Are you not under my shadow and protection?

Am I not the source of your joy?

Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms?

Do you need anything more?

Then return to the Lord and He will make all things new!"

Name that monk

nospam@example.com (Hieromonk Maximos) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:41:27 -0600

I wish America hadn't called me "Maximos Davies." Eastern monks typically don't use surnames. Admittedly there's a continuum here: Romanians seem quite indifferent to that tradition, Russians tend to be obsessive about parentheses, use a Coptic monk's last name and he (or she) will likely faint from embarrassment.

One thing I really dislike is being called "Father Davies" or even, as has happened recently, the really bizarre, "Hieromonk Davies." People think they're being polite, of course, so I have to be civil. For us the use of the first name is not informality, but a kind of summary of the monastic vows by which we cut ourselves off from the usual kinds of secular marks of identity in favor of a more radical dependence on divine Providence.

As I understand it, that's still the preferred style even for western religious, at least those of the ancient and medieval orders. Nice point of continuity, there, and worth keeping I think!