Where Did ‘We’ Go?
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 29, 2009
New York Times
I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.
I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.
And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.
Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.
What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.
Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.
Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.
Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.
And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.
Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble. We can’t go 24 years without a legitimate president — not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can’t address them rationally.
The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.
Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.
I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.
We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Where Did ‘We’ Go?
Religious Right Should End 'Demonization' Of Political Opponents, Seek 'Common Ground,' Opinion Piece Says
September 30, 2009
Medical News Today
Since the early 1970s, there has been a "disappearance of an approach to public life in which stark differences could be debated without adversaries slipping into the demonization of one another," David Gushee -- distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights -- writes in a USA Today opinion piece. According to Gushee, a "number of factors have contributed to a national slide from civility to demonization in the past 40 years," but the "1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision and the ensuing religious mobilization into political combat ... have made the greatest difference." He writes that demonization is "viewing those we disagree with as if they are the embodiment of evil" and "involves a profound loss of perspective on the humanity of our opponents."
Roe "drew the battle lines of our current culture wars" and "became the centerpiece for religious-right organizing," Gushee continues. "Not immediately, but within a few years after Roe, abortion policy became viewed not just as another difficult arena where differences could be debated in good faith, but instead as a life-or-death struggle between good and evil," he writes, adding, "Pro-lifers called abortion-rights supporters 'pro-death.' Pro-choicers called those who reviled Roe 'anti-choice.' You get the point."
According to Gushee, "This response and counter-response to Roe have distorted our culture by creating the habit of demonization in American public life." Although this attitude extends to "everything from gay rights to immigration to energy policy," it "remains most obvious whenever anything related to abortion is under consideration -- as with health care reform, in which abortion has played a supporting role in the debate despite the efforts of most Democratic leaders to keep the legislation abortion-neutral," according to Gushee. He writes that although he is "an evangelical Christian who thinks Roe is bad law," he is "also drawn toward any effort to find common ground, whether on abortion reduction strategies or on other issues." He adds, "For this, I have been demonized."
Gushee continues, "I dare to think that it's still not too late to be the kind of nation in which differences are debated honestly, the votes are cast, the decisions are made and we move forward together as one people." He concludes, "I would like to see Christians contribute to that kind of society, rather than to the demonization that undermines it at its foundations" (Gushee, USA Today, 9/28).
"Still you are at the beginning of the road…and you are there, with all your grandeur. You exist…for me you are the light…I will be by your side. I will try to understand you more and to hear you. I will not stop laboring on your behalf. I will live in the enjoyment to know you and discover more about you, retaining all the enthusiasm of the first encounter. I thank you.”
These are the words which a Turkish director Göksel Gülensoy wrote, not for a woman, but for the most brilliant monument of Byzantium - the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. The legends and theories about Hagia Sophia drove Gülensoy to become involved with the monument.
“I desired to see the things which were hidden, not the things above the earth which everyone sees, but to see those things which are below and are yet to be discovered. I wanted if possible to learn whether the legends and theories which I read in the books are true regarding Hagia Sophia’s underground. I began very slowly to “discover” the monument and the fruit of this effort was my first documentary Hagia Sophia which had as its theme the monument itself and the legends associated with it. My work had as much an effect in Turkey as it did to those on the outside, and the recognition of my love was my award that I received," he said in an interview with ANA-MPA.
This same film was awarded in 1994 with the second award for Best Documentary at the Ankara Film Festival and in 1995 with the Best Documentary Award at the Tampere Film Festival. It was also honored with an Honorable Mention at the San Sebastian Film Festival in 1996.
“But my passionate love for Hagia Sophia was born in 1998. I knew that it would be a relationship that would last many years. First, it was necessary for me to see it with my own eyes, to come to recognize it and most significantly to discover it. And this is what I did. In 2000 I finished my second documentary with the title Hagia Sophia and the Cisterns. The cisterns are underground structures which were used in more ancient times for storing water. With the passage of time my love was being transformed into a passion which has overtaken me now for eleven years” added Gülensoy.
Beginning with the theories which sought to link Hagia Sophia’s underground structures with the neighboring Royal Cisterns and with the complex of the Great Palace, the Hippodrome, and even with the Princes' Islands, the Turkish director wished to explore the “depths” of the monument.
“I made a new start. But this time it was necessary to delve into the “depths”, to learn and to bring these things to the surface about which knowledge was lacking. The floor of the main church is mainly tiles, half of which covered the cisterns and the other half tunnels of water. I received a permit from the Ministry of Culture and I started the exploration to see what is in these tunnels under the tiles. I confirmed that the church did not connect with either the Royal Cisterns or with the Great Palace, nor with the Princes' Islands. In the writings of a Russian pilgrim from the Thirteenth Century I had read that in the courtyard of Hagia Sophia Saint Antigonos was buried, who was a youth. Within the tunnels a skeleton of a child was found which possibly belongs to this Saint. However, it is necessary for the archaeologists and other specialists to investigate. They also located in "rooms" in which there were buried priests. In the cisterns canteens were found which dated to 1917 and possibly belonged to British soldiers who maybe were attempting to acquire some holy water. I encountered such beauties they blinded me. I saw things which even kings did not see; I heard the voice of history and became its witness. I was not able to be arrogant before such beauty. I desired to share it with everyone who also marvels at Hagia Sophia. I wanted everyone to see its unfamiliar aspects which are hidden below the earth. For this reason I rushed to document everything I saw with cameras," Gülensoy continued.
All the fruit of this search will become his third documentary that is dedicated to the monument and is titled In the Depths of Hagia Sophia. The documentary has as its assistors and advisors professors of Byzantine archeology from the University of Constantinople, İhsan Tunay and Haluk Çetinkaya.
"Eleven years of work was needed for this documentary to come into existence, which now is in the editing phase and requires about 40,000 euros for completion. There are no sponsors and there is no financing coming from any source. At this moments I have at my disposal 65,000 euros for things pertaining to the film and it was necessary to work outside of Turkey to collect this amount. I know that when the work is completed many will envy me, because I saw unknown aspects of the monument. So be it, let them envy me. Hagia Sophia will always be my great love and I will do other documentaries about it. My next project I will do a documentary about the Christian priests buried at Hagia Sophia” concluded the Turkish director.
(For more on this exciting discovery, visit my previous post here.)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
THE LORD GOD called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" … Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?"
THEN THE LORD SAID to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
THE ISRAELITES QUARRELED and tested the Lord, saying, "Is the Lord among us or not?"
MY GOD, MY GOD, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
IS THERE NO BALM in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored?
WHERE CAN I GO from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?
WHEN I LOOK at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?
TO WHOM then will you compare me, or who is my equal? says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these?
WITH WHAT shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? … He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
JESUS … asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" … He asked them, "But who do you say that I am?"
THEN SOMEONE CAME to him and said, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
FOR WHAT will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
WHAT then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? … How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
WHO WILL SEPARATE US from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
All selections from the NRSV.
Double-Header of Andy Warhol Exhibitions Opening this Fall in Athens
ATHENS- Potnia Thiron Gallery and Haunch of Venison will present a double-header of Warhol exhibitions in Athens this autumn. Opening simultaneously, Warhol/Icon: The Creation of Image at the Byzantine and Christian Museum and Warhol: Screen Tests at Potnia Thiron Gallery, will explore Warhol’s obsession with fame through his work as a painter and filmmaker of ‘icons’. The emphasis across both exhibitions will be on the relationship between his Byzantine religious beliefs, Slavic background and devotion to his mystical mother, and his apparently unfettered celebration of an American celebrity culture. On view 7 October through 10 January, 2010.
Warhol/Icon: the Creation of Image
Set against the backdrop of the world’s greatest collection of Byzantine icons, Warhol/Icon: The Creation of Image brings together a selection of the works which helped Warhol reinvent portraiture in the second half of the twentieth century. Curated by the distinguished Warhol scholar Paul Moorhouse, the exhibition probes the enduring significance and value of the icon, connecting historic sacred antecedents with Warhol’s modern icons: images of the famous created in a celebrity-obsessed secular era.
Common to the historic and modern concepts of an icon, the idea of worship is central. Warhol’s work endorses, dissects – and employs – those processes by which a real person’s identity becomes progressively obscured by their glamorized, iconic representation in the mass-media. Seen in the context of the Byzantine and Christian Museum’s historic icons, Warhol’s modern ‘icons’ are presented as the outcome of a complex metamorphosis in which the real has been transformed into a complex but glorious abstraction.
Highlights of the exhibition include a poignant medley of paintings of the bereaving Jackie Kennedy, and several exceptional images of Marilyn Monroe, Mao and Warhol himself. Each of these figures are idealized to the point where their ‘image’ transcends their private, personal identity.
Warhol: Screen Tests
The exhibition at Potnia Thiron, a few hundred meters from the museum, will present the largest ever assembly of Warhol’s classic Screen Tests. The gallery will screen 100 of the short film portraits in a fascinating counter-point to the Warhol/Icon exhibition. While in his paintings, his declared ambition ‘to make everybody look great’ is perceived unequivocally, the Screen Tests suggest a more ambiguous position.
From 1964-66, 189 individuals came to his Manhattan studio (the silver painted loft known as ‘the Factory’) to sit for portraits; the sittings involved each participant remaining immobile for around three minutes while being filmed. There was no sound, no action, no narrative and no script. Each film was a record of the sitter’s response to the situation Warhol had created.
The range of sitters is diverse – including early Warhol superstar ‘Baby’ Jane Holzer, actor Dennis Hopper, filmmaker and Warhol’s chief assistant Gerard Malanga, actress and socialite Edie Sedgwick, singer Lou Reed and artist Salvador Dali. As with the paintings, the films are underpinned by themes of sequence, repetition and series, but whereas the portraits on canvas focus on the transformation of a media-derived image, the films engage with changes produced by the sitter over time. Projected at a slightly slower speed than the three minutes they took to record, the films reveal the sitter with a dispassionate but ruthless objectivity. Rather than making ‘everybody look great’, the Screen Tests promote an entirely different quality – not fame, but humanity at its most vulnerable.
This pair of exhibitions, which are supported by the Warhol family, the Andy Warhol Foundation and the Andy Warhol Museum, present the twentieth century’s quintessential artist in a new light. Warhol/Icon: The Creation of Image and Warhol: Screen Tests provide an unprecedented and unrepeatable illumination of Warhol’s Byzantine sensibility and his interest in the religious roots of celebrity adulation.
[It seems like the only way Americans know how to argue these days is by committing one logical fallacy after another and basing everything solely on emotional argumentation. And people eat this stuff up. I'll list here some fallacies I see in the way Joy Behar argues for Elton John's right to adopt a child and you can try and spot them in her Commentary: Ad hominem, Naturalistic fallacy, Appeal to ridicule, Burden of proof, Judgmental language, Psychologist's fallacy, Cherry picking, Argumentum ad populum, Appeal to emotion, Appeal to motive, Appeal to wealth, Poisoning the well, and the one that stands out the most is her Appeal to novelty. There are more, but enough said. - J.S.]
Commentary: Let Elton John and his Partner Adopt
by Joy Behar
September 29, 2009
NEW YORK (CNN) -- On a recent tour of a Ukrainian orphanage, Elton John and his partner met Lev, a 14-month old HIV-positive boy.
They immediately fell in love with the child, but their possible bid to adopt the adorable tiny dancer was rejected by Yuriy Pavlenko, Ukraine's Family, Youth and Sports Minister.
Mr. Pavlenko, here are some tips about family, youth and sports. Family doesn't mean a huddle of orphans sharing a few soiled mattresses, it's not youth if you die of AIDS before you reach kindergarten, and wrestling over dinner scraps is not a sport.
But that could be Lev's fate now, because the Ukrainian government said Elton and his beau David Furnish are too old to adopt the boy. It sounds like the real reason is they're too gay.
John and Furnish tied the knot in 2005, becoming one of Britain's first gay civil unions, but Ukraine doesn't recognize gay unions.
Ukrainian Orthodox Church spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev called Elton John a sinner and said, "thank God it's impossible under Ukrainian law for [him] to adopt a child." Apparently in the Ukraine, God's No. 1 priority is preventing gay couples from giving sick kids a better life. God would never want something like that to happen.
Father Gulyaev said homosexuality "represents the dead end of human development." That's odd, I thought the dead end of human development was represented by 14th century thinking like his. This guy's head is stuck in the Dark Ages. He hasn't even progressed to the Middle Ages yet.
Some conservative religious leaders like to harp about the "damage" to families done by gay marriage, as if traditional marriage is so perfect. Since many of them have taken vows of celibacy, they've never witnessed firsthand the damage dinner with the in-laws can cause (one of the few advantages of the celibate life, I guess).
There are even a few married Bible-thumpers spending their time trying to keep sex out of our lives -- yet they talk about sex more than anyone! Sex is usually the first and only factor they consider when judging -- I mean, when "dispensing enlightenment upon" -- others. Watch Joy Behar speak about adoption »
Sure, Elton John may be gay, but he's also a renowned musician, a celebrated humanitarian, and has been knighted by the Queen of England. In fact, for some people he is the Queen of England.
Plus, there's no downside to gay adoption. In the United States, organizations like the National Adoption Center, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree that having homosexual parents does not negatively affect children.
But you know what does negatively affect children? Growing up with no parents. So now 14-month-old Lev is stuck in some depressing orphanage that makes Guantanamo Bay look like the presidential suite at the Waldorf.
He'll likely end up in foster homes and -- if he lives long enough -- maybe he can turn into a bitter, vodka-swilling drunk. All because the Ukrainian government won't let him be adopted by two loving gay parents who are fabulously rich and want to give him a home with the best healthcare available, dressed in Versace jammies and cashmere Huggies. Not to mention all the play dates with Brangelina's kids.
Let's hope Sir Elton finds a different, more tolerant country willing to let him be a poor child's loving father.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joy Behar.
By Monk Moses of the Holy Mountain
Confession is a God-given commandment, and it is one of the Mysteries of our Church. Confession is not a formal, habitual ("to be on the safe side", or, "in view of upcoming feast-days"), forced and unprepared act, springing from an isolated duty or obligation and for psychological relief only. Confession should always be combined with repentance. A Holy Mountain Elder used to say: "Many confess, but few repent!" (Elder Aemilianos of the Simonopetra Monastery, Holy Mountain).
Repentance is a freely-willed, internally cultivated process of contrition and sorrow for having distanced ourselves from God through sin. True repentance has nothing to do with intolerable pain, excessive sorrow and relentless guilty feelings. That would not be sincere repentance, but a secret egotism, a feeling of our "ego" being trampled on; an anger that is directed at our self, which then wreaks revenge because it is exposing itself and is put to shame - a thing that it cannot tolerate. Repentance means a change in our thoughts, our mentality; it is an about-face; it is a grafting of morality and an abhorrence of sin. Repentance also means a love of virtue, benevolence, and a desire, a willingness and a strong disposition to be re-joined to Christ through the Grace of the almighty Holy Spirit. Repentance begins in the depths of the heart, but it culminates necessarily in the Mystery of divine and sacred Confession.
During confession, one confesses sincerely and humbly before the confessor, as though in the presence of Christ. No scientist, psychologist, psychoanalyst, psychiatrist, sociologist, philosopher or theologian can replace the confessor. No icon - not even the most miracle-working one - can provide what the confessor's stole (epitachelion) can: the absolution of sins. The confessor takes the person under his care; he adopts him and ensures he is reborn spiritually, which is why he is called a "spiritual father".
Normally, spiritual paternity is lifelong, sacred and powerful - even more powerful than a family bond. Spiritual birth is a painful process. The confessor must keep track of the confessing soul, with a fear of God (as one who is "accountable to God"), with understanding, humility and love, and guide him with discretion in the ever-upward course of his in-Christ life.
The confessor-priest has been given a special blessing by his bishop for the undertaking of his confessional opus. However, the gift of "binding and unbinding" sins is initially acquired through his ordination as presbyter, when he is rendered a successor to the Apostles. Thus, validity and canonicity in Apostolic succession, through bishops, is of central and great importance. Like all the other Holy Mysteries of our Church, the Mystery of Confession is performed (and it bestows Grace on the faithful), not in conjunction with the skill, the scientism, the literacy, the eloquence, the energy and the artfulness of the priest - not even with his virtue and holiness - but through the canonicity (validity) of his priesthood and through the "Master of Ceremonies" - the Holy Spirit. The possible sins of the priest do not obstruct divine Grace during the Mysteries. Woe to us, if we were to doubt (on account of the unworthiness of the priest) that the bread and the wine actually become the Body and the Blood of Christ during the Divine Liturgy! This of course does not mean that the priest should not have to constantly concern himself with his own "cleanliness". Thus, there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" confessors. Each and every confessor provides the exact same absolution.
However, we do have the right to choose our confessor; and of course we have the right to turn to the one who truly makes us feel at ease with him, spiritually. To constantly change our confessor however, is not a very sober decision; this kind of tendency does not reveal spiritual maturity. But confessors should, respectively, not fret excessively -or even create problems- when a spiritual child of theirs happens to depart from them. This may mean that they were morbidly attached to each other (sentimentally to the person, and not to Christ nor to the Church). They may also regard that departure as an insult; one that is demeaning to them and makes them think there is no one better than them, or, it may give them a feeling that the other "belongs" to them exclusively and they can therefore dominate them and in fact even behave forcibly towards them, as if they are repressed and confined subordinates. We did mention that the confessor is a spiritual father, and that spiritual fatherhood and spiritual childbirth entails labour. Thus, it is only natural for the confessor to feel sorrow upon the departure of his spiritual child. However, it is preferable for him to pray for his child's spiritual progress and its union to the Church, even despite its disengagement from him. He must wish for, and not against that child.
The confessor's opus is not just the superficial hearing of a person's sins and the reciting of the prayer of absolution afterwards. Nor is it restricted to the hour of confession. Like a good father, the confessor continuously cares for his child; he listens to it and observes it carefully, he counsels it appropriately, he guides it along the lines of the Gospel, he highlights its talents, he does not place unnecessary burdens on it, he imposes canons with leniency only when he must, he consoles it when it is disheartened, weighed down, resentful, exhausted, and he heals it accordingly, without ever discouraging it, but constantly pursuing the struggle for the eradication of its passions and the harvesting of virtues; constantly shaping its eternal soul to be Christ-like.
This ever-developing paternal and filial relationship between confessor and spiritual child eventually culminates in a feeling of comfort, trust, respect, sanctity and elation. When confessing, one opens his heart to the confessor and discloses the innermost, the basest and most unclean - in fact, all of his - secrets, his most intimate actions and detrimental desires, even those that he would not want to confess to himself, nor tell his next-of-kin or his closest friend. For this reason, the confessor must have an absolute respect for the unlimited trust that is being shown to him by the person confessing. This trust most assuredly builds up with time, but also by the fact that the confessor is strictly bound (in fact to the death) by the divine and sacred Canons of the Church, to the confidentiality that confession entails.
In Orthodox confession there are of course no general instructions, because the spiritual guidance that each unique soul requires is entirely personalized. Each person is unprecedented, with a particular psychosynthesis, a different character, differing potentials and abilities, limitations, tendencies, tolerances, knowledge, needs and dispositions. With the Grace of God and with divine enlightenment, the confessor must discern all these characteristics, in order to decide what he can utilize best, so that the person confessing will be helped in the best possible manner. At times, leniency will be required, while at other times, austerity. The same thing does not apply to each and every person. Nor should the confessor ALWAYS be strict, just for the sake of being called strict and respected as such; and he should likewise not ALWAYS be excessively lenient, in order to become the preferred choice and be regarded as a "spiritual father of many". What is required of him is a fear of God, discernment, honesty, humility, deliberation, understanding and prayer.
"Economy" (Oikonomia: to make allowances for something, exceptionally) is not demanded of the person confessing, nor is it proper for the confessor to make it a rule. "Economy" must remain an exception. "Economy" must also be a temporary measure (Archmandrite George Gregoriates). When the reasons for implementing it no longer exist, it must naturally be retracted. The same sin can be confronted in numerous ways.
A canon is not always necessary. A canon is not intended as a form of punishment. It is educative by nature. A canon is not imposed for the sake of appeasing an offended God and an atonement of the sinner in the face of Divine Justice; that is an entirely heretical teaching. A canon is usually implemented during an immature confession, with the intent to arouse awareness and a consciousness of the magnitude of one's sin. According to Orthodox teaching, "sin" is not so much the transgression of a law, as it is a lack of love towards God. "Love, and do whatever you want", the blessed Augustine used to say...
A canon is implemented for the purpose of completing one's repentance in view of confession, which is why Fr. Athanasios of Meteora rightly says: "Just as the confessor is not permitted to make public the sins being confessed to him, so must the person confessing not make public the particular canon that the confessor has imposed in his specific case, as it is the resultant of many parameters."
A confessor acts as the provider of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. During the hour of the Mystery of Confession, he does not function as a psychologist and scientist. He functions as a priest, as an experienced doctor, as a caring father. When listening to the sins of the person confessing, he prays to God to give him enlightenment, to advise him what the best "medication" for cure will be, and to gauge the degree and the quality of that confession. The confessor does not place himself opposite a confessing person with curiosity, suspicion, envy, excessive austerity, power and arrogance; but equally not with indifference, thoughtlessly, carelessly and wearily. The humility, love and attention of the confessor will greatly help the person confessing. The confessor should not ask too many, too unnecessary and too indiscreet questions. He must especially interrupt any detailed descriptions of various sins (especially the carnal ones) and even the disclosure of names, to safeguard himself even more. But the person confessing should also not feel afraid, or hesitate and feel embarrassed; he should feel respect, trust, honour and show reverence to the confessor. This feeling of sanctity, mutual respect and trust must be mainly nurtured, inspired and developed by the confessor.
Our holy mother the Orthodox Church is the Body of the Resurrected Christ; She is a vast infirmary, for the healing of frail, sinning faithful from the traumas, the wounds and the illnesses of sin; from pathogenic demons and from the venomous demonic traps and the influences of demonically-driven passions.
Our Church is not a branch office of the Ministry of Social Services, nor does She compete against the various societies for social welfare - without this meaning that She does not acknowledge this significant and well-meaning opus, or that She Herself does not offer such services bounteously, admirably and wondrously; it is because the Church is mainly a provider of a meaning to life, of redemption and salvation of the faithful "for the sake of whom Christ died", through their participation in the Mysteries of the Church. "The priest's stole is a planing instrument" - as the Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain used to say - "that planes and straightens out a person; it is a therapeutic scalpel that excises passions, and not a trowel for workaholics, or a symbol of power. It is a servant's apron intended for ministering to people, for providing therapy and salvation."
God uses the priest for the forgiveness of His creature. It is plainly stated in the absolution blessing: "May God forgive you - through me the sinner - everything, both in the present age and in the future one, and may He render you blameless, before His awesome Seat of Judgment; having no longer any worry for the crimes that have been confessed, may you go forth in peace." Sins that have not been confessed will continue to burden a person, even in the life to come. Confessed sins should not be re-confessed; it would be as though one doesn't believe in the grace of the Mystery. God is of course aware of them, but it is for the sake of absolution, humbling and therapy that they need to be outwardly confessed. As for the occasional penance (canon) imposed for sins, one must realize that it does not negate the Church's love for the person, but that it is simply an educative imposition, for a better awareness of one's offenses.
According to Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, "Confession is a willed, verbal revealing of one's evil deeds and words and thoughts; solemn, accusatory, direct, without shame, decisive, to be executed before a legitimate spiritual father." This God-bearing Saint has succinctly, fully and meaningfully clarified that confession must be willed, free, effortless, without the confessor straining to extract the person's confession. It should be with solemnity, in other words, with an awareness of the sorrow that he caused God with his sin, and not with sentimental, hypocritical, fainthearted tears.
Genuine "solemnity" implies an inner collapsing, remorse, a hatred towards sin, a love of virtue, and a feeling of gratitude to the Gift-Giver God. "Accusatory" implies a responsible confession, without attempts of justification, subterfuge, chicanery, irresponsibility and scapegoating; with sincere self-reproach and genuine self-humiliation that carries the so-called "happy-sorrow" and the "joyous bereavement" defined by the Church. "Direct" implies a confession with all sincerity, directness and precision, valour and courage, severity and bravery. It often happens that during the hour of confession, one avoids admitting his defeat, his fall and his weakness and by means of eloquent and long-winded descriptions attempts to deflect his share of responsibility, with twists and turns and half-truths - or even by accusing others - all for the sake of preserving (even at that hour) a prim and proper ego. A confession "without shame" implies a portrayal of our true, deplorable self. Shame is a good thing to have, prior to sin and not afterwards, and in the presence of the confessor. The shame felt during confession they say will free us from the sin during the Ultimate Judgment, given that whatever the confessor absolves will not be judged again. A "direct" confession implies that it should be clean, specific, sincere, and accompanied by the decision that the faithful will never repeat the sins he has confessed to. Furthermore, confession should be continuous, so that the "willingly recurring" passions (according to Saint John of the Ladder) are not strengthened, but rather, are cured sooner. Thus, old sins will not be entirely blotted out from memory, there will be a regular self-monitoring, self-observation, self-awareness and self-reproach; Divine Grace will not abandon; demonic entrapment will be averted much more easily, and reminiscence of Death will not seem as horrid and terrible.
Another thing that is all too frequently observed - and we admit this with deep pain and abundant love - is that sermons are not always as Orthodox as they should be; in other words, they only manage to sound like just another commentary on an unimportant news item, thus transforming the sacred pulpit into yet another television "frame" where we can air our own opinion on daily events and occurrences. The Orthodox sermon however is by nature mainly ecclesiological, Christological, salvatory, hagiological and beneficial to the soul. The sermon on repentance as delivered by the Prophets, the holy Baptist, the Saviour Christ and all the Saints remains forever opportune and a necessity. A basic prerequisite for partaking in the Holy Mysteries and for an upward spiritual course is a purity of heart; a purity that is rid of miscellaneous sins; the spirit of avarice and blissfulness inspired by today's hyper-consumerist society; the spirit of God-despised pride in a world of narcissism, individualism, non-humility, non-philanthropy, arrogance and the bizarre; the demonic spirit of mischievous thoughts, fantasies and imaginations and unclean and obscure suspicions and envy.
Purity of heart has become a rare ornament - in brotherly and conjugal relations, in obligations towards colleagues, in friendships, in conversations, in thoughts, in desires, in pastoral callings. The so-called Mass Media have lapsed and become mere sources of contamination. Forgotten are neptic awareness, ascetic sobriety, traditional frugality, simplicity and gallantry. This has led to a polluting of the soul's rationalizing ability, an arousal of its desirous aspect towards avarice, while its willpower has become severely blunted, thus drawing a weakened person towards evil, without any impediments or limitations.
Nowadays prevail self-justification, excuses for our passions, beautification of sin, and its reinforcement through modern psychological supports. The admission of mistakes is regarded as belittlement, weakness and generally improper. The constant justification of our self, and the meticulous transferal of responsibilities elsewhere have created a human being that is confused, divided, disturbed, worn-out, miserable and self-absorbed, taunted by the devil, and captured in his dark messes.
There is a prevalence of foolish rationalism nowadays, which observes evangelical virtues and conciliar canons according to its liking, preference and convenience, on important issues such as fasting, abstinence, childbearing, morality, modesty, honesty and precision.
In view of all the above - none of which I believe has been exaggerated - it is our belief that the opus of a confessor is not an easy one. Ordinary coercion to repent and the cultivating of humility are nowadays inadequate; the fold requires catechesis, re-evangelizing, spiritual training, as well as a spiritual about-face, in order to acquire powerful antibodies. Resistance, reaction and the confronting of the powerful current of de-sanctification, of secularization, of demoting heroism, of eudemonism and of amassing wealth are imperative. The young generation is in need of special attention, instruction and love, given that their upbringing has not proven to be of any help in their becoming aware of the meaning and the purpose of life, or of the void and the indecorousness, the lawlessness and the darkness of sin.
Another serious problem - even for our Christians - is the often over-zealous quest for a labour-less, toil-free and grief-free life. We are in search of Cyreneans to carry our crosses. We refuse to lift up our own personal cross. We have no idea of the depth and breadth of our own cross. We bow in reverence before the Cross in church, we cross ourselves, but we do not embrace our personal cross. In the long run, we would like a non-crucified Christianity. But there cannot be an Easter Sunday without a Good Friday.
We honour martyrs and saints, but we ourselves do not want to suffer any hardships, any postponements, any difficulties. Fasting is too difficult a task to accomplish; we feel resentful during an illness; we cannot tolerate any harsh words, not even when we are to blame, therefore how could we possibly tolerate injustice, slander, persecution and exile, the way our saints did? It is an indisputable fact that the contemporary, secular spirit of convenience, leisure and excessive consumerism has greatly affected the measure of spiritual living. Generally speaking, we demand a non-ascetic Christianity. Orthodoxy however has the ascetic Gospel as its basis.
One other serious problem of our time is man's morbid and undue reliance on logic, intellect, knowledge, and personal judgment - we are referring to the over-fed and ultimately tiring rationalization. Neptic Orthodox theology teaches us to consider our Nous a tool, and to lower it, into the Heart. Our Church does not cultivate and produce intellectuals. To us, rationalization is not a philosophical mentality, but a clearly sin-oriented life view - a form of atheism - since it goes contrary to the commandment of placing our faith, hope, love and trust in God. A rationalist judges everything using the filter of his own mind and only with his finite mind, with himself and his sovereign ego as the epicentre, and does not place any trust in divine Providence, divine Grace and divine Assistance in his life. By often regarding himself as infallible, a rationalist does not allow God to intervene in his life and therefore judge him. That way, he is convinced that he is not in need of confession. Saint Symeon the New Theologian says however that, for one to believe he has not fallen into any sins is the greatest of falls and fallacies, and the greatest sin of all. Certain newer theologians speak of "missing the target" and not of "sinning", in their desire to blunt the natural protesting of one's conscience. The self-sufficiency displayed by certain churchgoers and fasting Christians can at times be hiding a latent pharisaic stance, i.e., that "they are not like the others" and therefore are not in need of confession.
According to the Holy Fathers of our Church, the greatest of evils is Pride; it is the mother of all passions, according to Saint John of the Ladder. It is the mother of many offspring, the first ones being vainglory and self-vindication. Pride is a form of denial of God; it is an invention of wicked demons, the result of too much flattery and praise, which in turn results in a debilitation and exhaustion of man, God-despised censure, anger, rage, hypocrisy, the lack of compassion, misanthropy, and blasphemy. Pride is a passion that is formidable, difficult, powerful and hard to cure. Pride is also strong in many ways, and with many faces. It manifests itself as vainglory, boastfulness, conceit, arrogance, presumptuousness, swell-headedness, insolence, self-importance, megalomania, ambition, self-love, vanity, avarice, flesh-loving, a love for leadership, accusations and arguments. Also as smugness, favouritism, insolence, disrespect, outspokenness, insensitivity, contradiction, obstinacy, disobedience, sarcasm, stubbornness, disregard, indignity, perfectionism and hypersensitivity. Finally, pride can lead to impenitence.
The tongue often becomes the instrument of pride, through unchecked, long-winded, useless talking; gossiping, silliness; vain , insincere, indiscreet, two-tongued, diplomatic, pretended and mocking conversations.
Out of the seven deadly sins many other passions spring forth. Having mentioned the offspring of Pride, we then have Avarice, which gives birth to the love of money, greed, stinginess, lack of charity, hardheartedness, fraud, usury, injustice, deceitfulness, simony, bribery, gambling. Fornication manifests itself in myriads of ways, for example, envy - with its underhanded and evil spite, insatiable gluttony, anger, as well as suspect negligence and lack of care.
Special attention should also be paid to many un-Orthodox elements in family life, which we believe should be examined carefully by confessors and the persons involved. The avoidance of childbearing, the idolizing of one's children (when regarded as the extension of the parents' ego), overprotecting them, or constantly watching their moves and savagely oppressing them. Marriage is an arena for exercising humility, mutual leeway and mutual respect, and not the parallel journey of two egotisms despite a lifelong coupling and coexistence. The devil dances for joy whenever there is no forgiveness in human weaknesses and in everyday mistakes. Parents will help their children significantly, not with excessive courtesy outside the home, but with their peaceful, sober and loving example in the home, on a daily basis. The participation of the children together with the parents in the Mystery of Confession will fortify them with divine Grace in an experiential life in Christ. When parents ask for forgiveness with sincerity, they simultaneously teach their children humility, which destroys all demonic plots. In a household where love, harmony, understanding, humility and peace bloom, there the blessings of God will be bounteous and the home becomes a castle that is impervious to the malice of the world around. The upbringing of children with the element of forgiveness creates a healthy family hearth, which will inspire them and strengthen them for their own futures.
One other huge matter that constitutes an obstacle for repentance and confession is self-vindication, which plagues many people of the Church also. Its basis is, as we mentioned earlier, demonic Pride. A classic example is the Pharisee of the Gospel parable. The self-vindicating person has apparently positive elements, which he will over-praise and for which he would like to be honoured and praised. He is happy to be flattered and to demean and humiliate others. He has excessive self-esteem, he vindicates himself to excess and believes that God is necessarily obliged to reward him. In the long run, he is a poor wretch, who, in his wretched state makes others wretched. He is possessed by nervousness and agitation and he is demanding, thus imprisoning himself; these are tendencies that will not allow him to open the door to divine mercy, through his repentance.
An offspring of Pride is censure, which is unfortunately also a habit of many Christians, who tend to concern themselves more with others than themselves. This is a phenomenon of our time and of a society that pushes people into a continuous observation of others, and not of the self. Modern man's myriad occupations and activities do not want him to ever remain alone to study, to contemplate, to pray, to attain self-awareness, self-critique, self-control and to be reminded of death.
The so-called Mass Media are incessantly preoccupied with scandal-seeking, persistently and at length, with human passions, with sins, with others' misdemeanors. These kinds of things provoke, impress, and, even if they do not scandalize, they nevertheless burden the soul and the mind with filth and ugliness and they actually reassure us, by making us believe that "we are better" than those advertised. Thus, a person becomes accustomed to the mediocrity, the tepidity and the transience of superficial day-to-day life, never comparing himself to saints and heroes. This is how censure prevails in our time - by giving man the impression that he is justly imposing a kind of cleansing, by mud-slinging at others, albeit contaminating himself by generating malice, hatred, hostility, resentfulness, envy and frigidity. Saint Maximus the Confessor in fact states that the one who constantly scrutinizes other's sins, or judges his brothers based on a suspicion only, has not even begun to repent, nor has he begun any research into discovering his own sins.
Many and various things can be said; but in the end, only one thing is opportune, significant and outstanding: our salvation, which we do not attend to forever. Salvation is not attained, except only through sincere repentance and clean confession. Repentance not only opens the celestial Paradise, but also the terrestrial one, with the foretasting -albeit partial- of the ineffable joy of the endless reign of the heavens and of wonderful peace, in the present time. Those who uphold the practice of confession can be the truly and genuinely happy people; pacifist and peace-bearing; heralds of repentance, of resurrection, of transformation, freedom, grace, and with the blessing of God in their souls and their lives. "God's bounteous Grace turns the wolf into a lamb", says Saint John Chrysostom. No sin can surpass God's love. There is not one sinner who cannot become a saint, if he desires to. It has been proven, by the innumerable names that are recorded in the Book of Saints.
The confessor listens to confessions and absolves those confessing, under his blessed stole. He cannot however confess himself and place the stole over his own head to obtain forgiveness in the same manner. He must necessarily kneel underneath another stole to confess and be absolved. That is the way the spiritual law functions; that is the way God's Wisdom and Mercy have ordained. We cannot confess others, but not submit ourselves to confession; to not practice what we preach; to talk about repentance, but not to repent; to talk about confession, but not confess ourselves regularly. None of us can dethrone himself, and none can absolve himself. The unadvised, the disobedient, the unconfessed are a serious problem for the Church.
Dear brothers and sisters, the confessor's stole can be a miraculous scalpel for the removal of malignant tumors; it can raise the dead, renew and transform the indecorous world, and bring joy to earth and heaven. Our Church has entrusted this grand ministry, this sacred service, to our priests and not to the angels, so that we might be able to approach them with ease and without fear, as fellow-sufferers and corporeal counterparts.
All the above have been deposited with sincerity and not at all pretentiously, by a co-sinner, who did not aspire to play the teacher, but a co-struggling, co-student, together with you. It was merely his desire to remind you with simple and inartistic words the Tradition of our holy mother, the Church, on the ever-opportune matter of divinely-spun and divinely-blessed Repentance and the divinely-delivered and God-favoured, blessed Mystery of Confession.
(Taken from REPENTANCE AND CONFESSION, by Monk Moses of the Holy Mountain, "Orthodoxi Kypseli" Publications, Thessaloniki. Translated by ORTHODOX OUTLET for DOGMATIC ENQUIRIES.)
[Here is the link to this fascinating interview conducted by Stool Pigeon with Marilyn Manson. However, I realize that if I posted the whole thing it may be too offensive to many of my readers ears, so I've extracted some of the highlights that are less offensive. This is not only a rock star's evaluation of "transgression" in Rock and Roll, but also a way musical artists tend to view society and why they create the art they do. I think even Christians can find a lot here they can agree with...I know I do. - J.S.]
- "You can’t really ever make any art without getting someone’s attention...constantly. You have to say something differently, constantly. Dali said that anyone who doesn’t steal isn’t an artist and you have to take things and make them your own, and then when you’ve done that, you have to realize how not to cannibalize yourself, but how to transform constantly."
- "All music comes from heartache and all music comes from pain and suffering. That’s never going to go away, so it’s how do we learn to adapt to the fact that the whole world is able to talk really loud now? You know, everyone’s a journalist now - everyone’s got an opinion - and I think that just levels the playing field. Andy Warhol told us that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes and he was very accurate. So we have to invent new ways to make it interesting to other people because we’re trying to appeal to other people."
- SP: What is the primary role of the transgressive rock star? Is it to provide a safe space for kids to rebel in? Is it to hold up a mirror to society?
MM: No, it’s for girls. It’s so you can get girls. Perhaps not everyone should be simplified in rock’n’roll or art. It’s not a girl in everyone’s case. But I think the only reason anyone makes anything is because they want to connect with somebody. And I think with rock’n’roll it comes down to being a rock star. It’s not oversimplifying what I do to say that; it would be simplifying the reason why I do it. I’ve said it right from the beginning: that I wanted to share the same feelings that I think everybody has. And I wanted to be a rock star because you get away with doing and saying things and not having to do other things. You sidestep the thing you see in front of you - this horrible future of 9-to-5. Slavery dressed up in the form of a paycheck. Right now if I had to do something else, or if I was not able to do what I do, I don’t think there would be a point. That’s not being cynical - it’s just that I’ve seen so much. I couldn’t work like an everyday person.
- "Art and spirituality go hand in hand. But politics and religion are not spiritual - they take things out of the world. That’s not to say that you can’t believe in God. For me, God is the concept of making something. If you don’t have hope for the future, then you can’t be an artist - there’s no point. Everyone thinks I’m a nihilist or a fatalist and I came dangerously close to thinking like that over the past few years. It was when I started to think that I don’t have any feelings any more, so why bother? That is the end. Boredom. Boredom leads to drugs. Boredom leads to, ‘Let’s invent new things because we’ve done them all.’ It’s funny that you bring up the Roman Empire because the kids have always been too cynical and grown up too fast. Kids are senile now. They forget. They have no history . It’s Twitter, Twitter, download, download. I don’t care about any of that. What are you saying? What do you have to say? Can you say something? Can you say something that is passionate? And sometimes, yeah, do I want to shoot some of these people? Sure. You should be worried about what I’d do, if you’re worried about what my music does. There’s gonna be a day when I shoot someone and it’s gonna be myself or someone who says the wrong thing to me and I’m not afraid to do it. I don’t want to go to jail and right now I don’t want to die, so you have to make that choice. Are you stupid or are you passionate? Pick between the two. And sadly, when kids go wild, it’s stupid. ‘When Kids Go Wild!’ It’s a new TV show and they’re going to put my music on the soundtrack!"
- SP: In the beginning rock’n’roll was a hotbed of subversiveness, whether that was underage sex (Jerry Lee Lewis); homosexuality, or the suggestion of it when that was an absolute no-no (Little Richard); and what I guess would have been called, negrophilia (Elvis Presley).
MM: Yeah, you’re correct. I’m sitting in Berlin doing this interview. I was very fascinated with Berlin because of the birth of Expressionism when artists would be killed for saying, ‘I’m going to paint the sky purple,’ and at the same time they [Nazis] were cursing and damning swing dancing and using expressions like that [‘negrophilia’] and they were using expressions like ‘the downfall of society’. They weren’t around long enough to point at rock’n’roll, but they were there to point at what it came from. Last night I was stuck watching television and saw the new Eminem video in which he makes a parody of ‘Jailhouse Rock’ and I started thinking how relevant ‘Jailhouse Rock’ was to modern imagery in modern society.... So I’m sitting here thinking about ‘Jailhouse Rock’ and thinking, ‘Wow, if this video were done today it would still be unbelievably offensive.' I can’t imagine what it would have been like then... It’s all criminals, rapists, murderers etc. dancing to this guy with a hairdo and fucking hips. It’s unbelievable to me. And if you think about what is the downfall of the world - what destroyed everything - rock’n’roll did. That’s where it started. Well, it is and it isn’t. Rock’n’roll is the soundtrack. When they started putting it on television, that’s when it became a real problem. When you combine visuals with audio it’s a very powerful medium...it’s propaganda. It’s Triumph Of The Will [Leni Riefenstahl 1934 Nazi propaganda film]. It’s where Wagner made opera productions that had swastikas and Hitler - who had a homosexual obsession with Wagner - said: ‘I love the way that looks, I’m going to do something with that. I’m pissed off because I’m a bad watercolour artist.’ Everything is about transgression. Every war. Think about nature where you have a female peacock...whatever, pick an animal. They go with a male from another tribe and then they run back to the male from theirs and he is like, ‘I will defend you and I will kill everyone.’ That is the central transgression. So everything is about relationships and everything is about girlfriends, and rock’n’roll defined it because rock’n’roll happened at exactly the same time as media transformed. Rock’n’roll happened when color television was invented. Ironically, JFK was killed the week after color television came out. Or was it ironic? I would say not. If you want to have a million-hour long conversation with me, go and look up [multinational aerospace manufacturer] Lockheed Martin on the internet. You will be so shocked. They also invented the LP record, and the color television. They also invented satellite, and every bomb ever dropped. They invented the black box. They owned the Twin Towers, and the plane that flew into them. Then you become very cynical and angry about the fact that it’s not a coincidence and everybody since the Roman Empire has figured out: ‘Let’s cause people to fight each other and let’s sell them ways to do it.’ And rock’n’roll became the one thing that really fucked it up for them because they weren’t in charge of it. So they became in charge of it. And don’t think that it’s a coincidence that the people who invented all of the control invented the way to hear rock’n’roll.
- SP: Who are the most important transgressive figures?
MM: Citing them? Number one: Elvis Presley. Number two: Jim Morrison. Number three: Sex Pistols. Number four: David Bowie. And that’s just in my life growing up as a kid....
- "It’s aggravation and fear and that does feed a great deal of rock’n’roll music: Madonna, Prince, Bowie, everyone who has toyed with sexuality."
- "I didn’t invent the words and symbols that everyone associates with me, and I didn’t invent any sort of profanity. I wish I could make up a new curse word, but they’ve all been made up already. Can you blame a kid for taking building blocks with letters on them, throwing them down and having them they spell out ‘fuck a kid’ or ‘kill your parents’? No, you can’t, because it’s what’s in your head. So raise your kids. Let them read books, and let them make their own choices. Don’t tell people how to think - they get mad. And then they’ll either kill themselves or kill you."
Monday, September 28, 2009
The relationship between magic and religion, from the Early Christian era onwards, is examined in a temporary exhibition at the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki, which opens on Friday in the context of observation of the annual European Cultural Heritage Days, and is titled "Magic and Religion: Gods, saints and demons".
The exhibition will run through November 30.
A selection of related objects from the Museum's permanent collections will be on display in a special thematic exhibit between Hall 7 and 8 of the museum.
"Magic and religion are concepts as old as humanity itself," exhibition curator Nikos Bonovas told ANA-MPA, adding that "the exhibition presents these two concepts as interdependent, since both have a common root, which is the human being's fear and hope".
The objects include an 18th century bead talisman that wards off the 'evil eye', which was found in excavations at Vlatadon Monastery in Thessaloniki, other talismans such as copper lamina inscribed with curses placed in lead cylinders found in tombs, a mid-19th century copper engraving depicting St. Haralambos with an anthropomorphic demon as a footrest, a 17th century icon of the Second Coming, and a 19th century Russian copper engraving depicting the "Demons of the soul", in other worlds the passions of the soul personified as winged demons. Also on display are other talismans and icons, reliquaries and copper engravings.
In the context of the European Cultural Days, a series of events will be held from Friday to Sunday, including a role-playing game for adults and teenagers aged 15 and up titled "Magic and Faith", in which participants will be called on to imagine how specific exhibits such as talismans, crosses, vials of myrrh, religious icons and engravings were used in their time.
An event for younger children will also be organised, including readings of folk tales, accompanied by live music.
The Museum of Byzantine Culture aims to present the various aspects of life during the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods: art, ideology, social structure and religion, as well as how historical changes and the political situation affected the everyday life of the people.
At the same time, the activities of the Department of Educational Programmes, the good structure and function of the conservation laboratories and of the archaeological material storerooms, the provision of scientific know-how to Balkan countries, the organisation of scientific meetings and conferences, as well as the editing and publishing work, have rendered the Museum an exceptionally important centre for the preservation, research and promotion of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine culture. Since the Museum's inauguration in 1994, an annual bulletin is published, the first of its kind by a Greek public museum.
You’ve got to wonder what an organization that touts itself for critical thinking is thinking when it sponsors a BLASPHEMY CONTEST:
Maybe Christians should submit Psalm 14:1 or Romans 1:20, but since Darwin is their god a few word's of Darwin's less than divine attributes would suffice. Or maybe just a few words on blasphemy.
Here is my submission:
Title: My Submission for Your Dumb Contest
Dear Center For (bigoted) Inquiry:
Here is my submission that I think we can all agree on:
"Presumption and boastfulness are causes of blasphemy. Avarice and self-esteem are causes of cruelty and hypocrisy." - St. Kosmas Aitolos
I also like:
"Unspeakable blasphemy is the child of dreadful pride." - St. John of the Ladder
"May your blasphemy fall upon your own head." - St. Niketas Stethatos
I'm looking forward to my T-Shirt and mug. :-)
Concerning the Ranks of Churches
New York, NY
On August 4, 2009, a website posted an article presenting some of the recent developments taking place at the Moscow Patriarchate. Specifically, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow had begun reevaluating the ecclesiastical rank of the Orthodox Churches. According to Archpriest Maxim Kozlof, a member of the committee entrusted with this task, the Patriarchate of Moscow is considered a Church of the pentarchy, that is, of the five Churches of ancient Christendom. He also claims that by virtue of its magnitude, the Patriarchate of Moscow maintains such a status. He also declares that the Patriarchate of Moscow has extended its jurisdiction across numerous countries. After reading these comments, Fr. Makarios Griniezakis, a professor of theology and ethics at the Theological Academy of Heraklion in Crete, responded with a different perspective. In what follows, Fr. Makarios frames the claims made by Fr. Maxim in their proper historical, canonical, and ecclesiological setting.
Fr. Makarios Griniezakis is an Archimandrite of the Ecumenical Throne; he is also the official preacher of the Archdiocese of Crete, and the director of the Archdiocese's radio station.
Concerning the Ranks of Churches
A few days ago your reputable website posted an article that discussed a series of efforts by the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia to formulate the Patriarchate of Moscow's position relative to the ranks of the Orthodox Churches. In a recent interview, the Archpriest Maxim Kozlof, a member of this newly formed committee, provided the details of the committee's work. With regard to these comments, but also in response to various ecclesiological and theological uncertainties often put forth by Russian clergymen and theologians, permit me the following thoughts:
1. The fact that an Orthodox Patriarchate has yet to clarify in its conscience who is the First of Orthodoxy incites sadness. During their Synaxis this past October, the Primates of the Orthodox Church signed an official declaration that reemphasized who has the first place in Orthodoxy. We are troubled, however, that only a few months after this historic moment a committee is formed to reevaluate the ranking amongst Orthodox Churches. We remind the reader that the Primates, including the Patriarch of Russia, stated that they gathered "at the invitation and under the presidency of the First among us, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew." If this statement is not sufficient, then our faithful brothers in Russia should refer to the Patriarchal Tome of 1589, which granted to them the Patriarchal Status. In the pages of this document they will discover exactly who signed the Tome, and thus realize who holds the eminent position in Orthodoxy.
2. To question issues that have been settled by Ecumenical Councils and established for centuries is quite dangerous. We speak in terms of "danger" because even a cursory study of history shows us that every heresy, schism and ecclesiastical division stemmed from personal ambition and egotism, only later to be robed in the mantle of dogmatic diversity. Arius, Dioscorus, Nestorius, Apollinarius, and Marcion, were pious and religious; however, they also were men who had tremendous egos and lacked ecclesiastical ethos. If they truly believed in God, if they were obedient to their bishops, if they respected the canons of the Church, and if they recognized the authenticity of the Holy Synods, then they would not have reached the point where they created division in the unified Body of Christ. Consequently, it is not enough for us to uphold the dogma of the Fathers in isolation--even the "old-calendarists" do this. We must also maintain the ethos of the Fathers, which helps to secure the unity of the Church.
3. When we speak about ecclesiastical ethos, we certainly do not identify with the logic based on size and figures. If we did, we would give the impression that we were economists, sociologists, and politicians. In the life of the Church, and especially in our spiritual lives--which the Church of Russia has much fruit to offer--two plus two does not always equal four. When we emphasize our vastness and point to statistical demonstrations, it means that we are not shepherds, but rather operatives of power, exploiting the administrative and spiritual authority that springs forth from our position. Â This is even more so the case when we put forth such efforts to earn the praise of the world and acquire the primary position in Orthodoxy. Given our current condition, those who participate in the administration of the Church must consider that their role is not to compete on stage with Stalin and Hitler. They are called to enter that sacred space where Church Fathers such as Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint John Chrysostom live, and to be inspired by them. This is what we mean when we pronounce, "we who follow the fathers," especially since the patristic era has not ended. Every moment in time has the potential of becoming patristic if it secures and protects the Orthodox ecclesiological criteria for responding to prevalent problems and concerns. This is lost when we follow the philosophy and logic of the world, of arithmetic, of expediency, and of statistics and consequences.
4. It has been noted that, "the place of the Patriarchate of Moscow in the pentarchy of the ancient Patriarchates is very significant." It seems that some have still not realized that which is quite obvious, that is, that the Patriarchate of Moscow has never been a member of the pentarchy of the ancient Patriarchates. The pentarchy is comprised of Old Rome, New Rome (Constantinople) and the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Not only was Moscow never considered a member of the pentarchy, but also there are no ecclesiastical or canonical texts that designate Moscow as the replacement or substitute for Old Rome. This is made clear when we look at some of the central moments in church history: the schism with Old Rome occurred on 1054 during the reign of Michael Kerularios, while Russia was elevated to the status of a Patriarchate in 1589, under Patriarch Jeremiah II. If there was ever a pressing need to replace Old Rome this would have occurred immediately after the schism (1054), and not five centuries later, when Russia was elevated to a Patriarchate.
5. It is also noted "that after the fall of Rome, the Patriarchate of Moscow acquired a seat amongst the five most significant Churches, and extends its jurisdiction over a series of countries." At this point we must emphasize that the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council grants only to the Church of Constantinople the jurisdictional oversight of the "barbaric lands."
The extension of the Patriarch of Russia's jurisdiction across lands outside its ecclesiastical borders is uncanonical and a violation of Church order. This is the case when other Primates act similarly. Local Churches would have been able to extend into lands beyond their established ecclesiastical border if the canon referred to ethnicities ("barbarians") instead of geographical regions ("barabaric lands"). If this were the case we would have been able to say, for example, that the Romanian Patriarch is the spiritual leader of the Romanian people across the world, or that the Russian Patriarch is the leader of every Russian. However, the 28th Canon is unambiguous and mentions geographical jurisdictions and not ethnicities. Every Orthodox Church has a specific geographical border. Constantinople, however, maintains the license to extend throughout the Ecoumene, except, of course, into those areas under the canonical jurisdiction of other autocephalous or synodal Orthodox Churches.
The present ecclesiological circumstances are accepted through ekonomia. After all, it is not ideal to have five Archbishops of America, or to have multiple ecclesiastical jurisdictions in a single European country. We should not forget, however, that our compliance with the current state of affairs through ekonomia should not become an occasion for boastful arrogance and deviation from canonical tradition. Moreover, the uncanonical extension of a Church's jurisdiction should not be viewed as a strict execution of canon law, nor should it be perceived as an a priori right that every Primate enjoys because of their canonical jurisdiction over a specified ecclesiastical geographic region.
The thoughts that we have shared express a much deeper problem concerning what is often said about primacy in the Orthodox Church, about the idea of a "third Rome," about ecclesiastical rank, etc. These ideas would not be taken seriously had some random laymen or clergymen issued them. It is disturbing, however, when an official Church arbitrarily creates a committee (according to Fr. Maxim's comments) to evaluate matters that have already been resolved; to decide on those issues for which the Church has already decided. We would expect a Church such as Russia, which has undergone trials and tribulations, to have a completely different way of thinking. We would expect to see the Church of Russia rely more on faith than on logic, on miracles rather than facts and figures.
It is clear from the discussion that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will certainly not lose the position of primacy that it maintains; the ranking of the Orthodox Churches will not change; and the committee in question--or any other committee that is formed--will not institute rebellious changes in the Orthodox Church. We owe it to the faithful to always speak the truth so that they may hear a different perspective, and in order to avoid stirring false impressions in them. It is important not to forget that truth abides. The truth will release us from our parochial attitude and self-love; the truth will liberate us from spitefulness and our egos; the truth will allow us to move beyond feelings that instigate internal quarrels and erect narcissistic partitions. 'The truth shall set us free.' Irrespective of who we are, as members of the Church we have a constant and sacred duty to actively defend the truth.
September 16, 2009
Interview with Archimandrite Job (Getcha), Doctor of Theology, clergyman of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the significance of the primacy of Constantinople, world inter-Orthodox relations, and the issue of Ukraine.
Archimandrite Job (Getcha) is a member of the Kyivan Religious-Philosophical Society, Society of Eastern Liturgy, Central Committee of the World Council of Churches and the Orthodox-Catholic Work Team of St. Irenaeus, a professor at the Catholic and Orthodox institutions. A year ago he was the only Ukrainian member of the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Ukraine. The Archimandrite is well acquainted with the relations between the world Orthodox centers, is familiar with the state of affairs of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and supports it from the depth of his heart. Therefore, RISU editors approached him with a few urgent questions.
Recently, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) set up a special work team to study the issue of the “primacy” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Bishop Hilarion (Alfieiev), who initiated the establishment of the team and is its head, in an interview to a Greek news site Romfea.gr made the following comment on the purpose of the committee:
“I see two goals for the group. The first is to develop the position of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding the primacy in the Orthodox Church both for the inter-Orthodox dialogue and for the dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics as this subject concerns both these dialogues. In the inter-Orthodox dialogue, it is necessary to develop a position on how we, the Orthodox, view this primacy. Is it a primacy of honor? Primacy of authority? And what are the conditions of these primacies?”
What, in your opinion, is behind this? And can the MP settle such issues on the internal level or should a joint decision of all the Orthodox be made on the global level?
The issue of primacy in the Orthodox Church is not a new issue. It was settled long ago by canonical tradition. As early as 381, the Second Ecumenical Council decreed in its second canon that the primacy among the five ancient patriarchates belongs to the Roman See and that Constantinople holds the second place. Later, Canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 granted the Constantinople Patriarchate special privileges, especially the practice of the right of appeal, about which the famous Russian Church historian A. Kartashov wrote an important article in 1936 (A.V. Kartashov, "The Practice of the Right of Appeal of the Constantinople Patriarchs", Warsaw, 1936).
Certainly, after the divide of the Western and Eastern Church, when the communication between the Roman See and other Eastern patriarchates was broken, Constantinople took the first place in the diptychs of the Orthodox Church according to the canonical tradition and there is no doubt about this. To deny the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate actually means to deny the canonical decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Scripture. If anyone denies that these decrees became “obsolete” and do not satisfy the “present circumstances” any more, one has to stress that no synod of an individual autocephalous Church is authorized to change them, and only an Ecumenical Council might review them if need be.
One should also specify how this primacy is viewed in the Orthodox Church. Some accuse the Constantinople Patriarchate of eastern papism. Therefore, it is necessary to see how this supremacy is exercised within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is exercised in the spirit of Apostolic Canon 34, which envisages that bishops of each region should know who is first among them, recognize him as their head, and should not do anything special without his consent nor should the head do anything without the consent of the bishops. What does it mean? It means that the Ecumenical Patriarch is first of all the acting bishop of the Constantinople Eparchy. As the Patriarch he heads the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate. His place is the head in the Synod and not over the Synod. The patriarch cannot dictate any decree without the consent of other members of the Synod. Like other bishops, he cannot interfere in the matters of other eparchies and cannot even serve a service there without an invitation from the local bishop. Can you imagine: today, the Chalcedon Eparchy is a part of what is now Istanbul. Every time the Ecumenical Patriarch wants to serve a service there, he, as the acting bishop of the Constantinople Eparchy, asks for a blessing from the Chalcedon Metropolitan and can serve in the churches of the Chalcedon Eparchy only with his blessing! The same applies to any other eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What has it to do with papism?
As for the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the Pan-Orthodox level, they are also interpreted from the viewpoint of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the spirit of Apostolic Canon 34. That is, the patriarchs and heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches should know who is first among them, recognize him as their head, and should not do anything special without his consent nor should the head do anything without their consent. The Ecumenical Patriarch has a right to accept letters of appeal and care for the unity of the Church by convening Pan-Orthodox meetings attended by heads of each patriarchate and autocephalous Church (or their representatives) but he cannot decide anything himself, without them, unilaterally. We see this practice was used in the latest meeting of heads in the Phanar in October of last year. And one cannot see here any “eastern papism.”
As for the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox theologians always stress that the dogmatic and canonical provisions of the first millennium constitute the norm for us. Therefore, primacy is understood in the way we have described it for the Pan-Orthodox level. Metropolitan John of Pergamum recently stated that “if we find a concept of the universal primacy of the pope, which would not diminish the fullness of the nature of the local church, it would be acceptable for us.”
In the interview, Archbishop Hilarion ranks the Moscow Patriarchate among the ancient patriarchates even though the Moscow Church was established in the middle of the 15th century as the result of a schism with the Kievan Mother-Church and its patriarchate was recognized only in 1589-1593. Can it be considered ancient like the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople? And what is your general evaluation of the interview?
According to the diptychs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, one should distinguish the “ancient” patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) from the “new” patriarchates (Moscow, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Georgian). Why? The reason is not political! The reason is that the statuses of the “ancient” patriarchates were defined by the Ecumenical Councils in the first millennium and, therefore, we believe that they obligate not only the Orthodox Church but also the Western Church since in the first millennium it was in full communication with the Eastern Church and participated in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The “new” patriarchates, on the other hand, arose during the second millennium and their statuses were recognized only on the Pan-Orthodox level by the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate but were never approved by an Ecumenical Council.
As for the interview of Bishop Hilarion, whom I respect as a friend and theologian, I can only say that, unfortunately, it shows more political subjectivity of a church official than scholarly objectivity of a theologian. For instance, the argument that autocephaly in Ukraine is impossible because Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus constitute one indivisible spiritual space is powerless if we take into account the history and modern system of the Orthodox Church. For instance, the present Greek state is divided between two church centers. Central Greece belongs to the Greek Autocephalous Church, whereas the northern territories, Athos, Dodecanese, and Crete fall within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In addition, if one is to use the argument of the reverend bishop, then the autocephalies of the Polish Orthodox Church, and, perhaps, even, the Orthodox Church of the Slovakian and Czech lands as former parts of the Russian Orthodox Church would be impossible!
After the visit of Patriarch Kirill to Constantinople and the meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew in Moscow, they began to talk about a change of relations between the two Orthodox centers. Experts evaluated these negotiations as an attempt of Moscow to prevent intensification in Constantinople’s participation in Ukrainian church matters. Is it really so and what is the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s evaluation of this meeting and did the attitude to the Ukrainian issue change in the Phanar?
In my opinion, the main success of the visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine last year was the resumption of the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council and the inclusion of the Ukrainian issue in its agenda. In fact, after a decade of tense relations, Patriarch Bartholomew and the late Patriarch Alexis reached an agreement on this and Patriarch Alexis himself took part in the meeting of the heads of the Orthodox Churches at the Phanar in October of last year. It was also attended by Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan), who officially addressed all the heads in writing with a request to jointly settle the Ukrainian issue on the all-Orthodox level. After this meeting, the preparation of the all-Orthodox council became more active. One meeting was already held in Chambesi last June. During Patriarch Kirill’s first visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate after he was elected Patriarch of Moscow, Patriarchs Bartholomew and Kirill had an opportunity to discuss what had been done and had still to be done prior to convening the Pan-Orthodox Council. Certainly, in view of this preparation process, the Ukrainian issue will not be settled soon but it is by no means forgotten. On the contrary! A lot has been achieved in the last year.
The hierarchical council of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) recently addressed Patriarch Bartholomew with a letter requesting His Holiness to actively engage in measures to heal the schism in Ukraine. In particular, the letter says: “We call the Ecumenical Council to develop and implement a complete theological-ecclesial program to establish in Ukraine the catholicity of the Church conscience.” What is your evaluation of this statement and what can the reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate be?
The statement of the UAOC calling the Ecumenical Patriarchate to promote the “establishment in Ukraine of the catholic church conscience” is an important step to settle the matter of division of the Orthodox Church. By this statement the UAOC actually rejected the principle of ethnophiletism which is the main cause of the division of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and seeks communication with the fullness of the Orthodox Church. Certainly, it would be even better and more effective if all the church structures, which are currently in communication with the fullness of the Orthodox Church, would unite and pass such a statement. I am sure that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will welcome such a statement but the process of further settling the Ukrainian issue is connected with the process of the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council, as mentioned earlier.
You are a member of various international ecumenical forums. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian side actually is not represented there as a subject of relations, in particular, no Ukrainian Orthodox church participates in them. What role, in your opinion, can Ukraine play in the world ecumenical process and what is required for that?
Of course, the participants of the official ecumenical forums are appointed by their Churches. Therefore, Orthodox participants are sent from each local Church. Since the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine that is in communion with the fullness of the Orthodox Church is part of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate is mostly represented in the ecumenical forums by workers of the Department of External Church Relations in Moscow, Ukrainian participants rarely attend such forums. But they attend non-official forums. For instance, I, together with Archimandrite Kirill (Hovorun), am a member of a non-official group of the dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics of St. Irenaeus.
The participation of Ukrainians in the ecumenical dialogue is very important, especially, with respect to the dialogue of the Orthodox with Roman Catholics, as they are directly connected with the question of “Uniatism.” In order for the Orthodox Ukrainians to be able to take a more active part in the ecumenical forums, the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is necessary. And the present process of preparation of the all-Orthodox council is very important for that.