Orthodox EP Soft Like Anglicans on Abortion [Ecumenical]

Black Cordelias ^ | July 25, 2008

[NYer]

It’s not just about the filioque or the Immaculate Conception, folks. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have encouraged Catholics to reach out to Orthodox Christians, to respect them and learn their traditions. Catholics by and large have accepted that the Orthodox really are very close to Catholicism in many areas. But many would be surprised to learn that some Orthodox hierarchs (and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs) are soft, even permissive on the issue of abortion–soft like Anglicans.

His Holiness, Patriarch Karekin I of Etchmiadzin of Armenia (Oriental Orthodox) who came on a pastoral visit to the US had this to say about the Oriental Orthodox Church’s position on abortion-

“We don’t issue dogmatic statements and impose dogmatic principles. That is intervening and invading on the freedom of the conscience of the people. When a person is Christianity nurtured and his conscience is shaped by Christian principles, that person should have the freedom to manifest his or her attitude toward specific problems such as abortion or the forms of abortion. The church does not get involved in that kind of detail. Jesus never, never imposed anything upon his followers. If you want to inherit the Kingdom of God, do this, do not do this. if you want, that is the greatest characteristic feature of Christianity. (The Washington Post - 1/20/96 p. B6)

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

Another important quote of the Ecumenical Patriarch from his book, Conversations with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, page 128, is also very telling. Notice the weasel words he uses so as to be sure not to say anything too definitively:

“As for abortion, this is always profoundly dramatic for a woman and deeply injures her femininity. For this reason, abortion for the sake of convenience is, we cannot deny it, extremely serious and must be strongly discouraged. But there are situations of extreme distress when abortion can be a lesser evil, as, for example, when the life of the future mother is in danger.”

Language such as “profoundly dramatic” are a real betrayal here. How about “profoundly sinful?” “Strongly discouraged?” How about “strongly condemned?” “Situations of extreme distress?” So if you are distressed, you may crush, chemically incinerate or dismember the body of an innocent infant? “Future mother?” Did he really say future mother? If life is really human and sacred from inception, then she is already a mother. To deny that she is already a mother is to deny the personhood of the infant, which is to deny its value, and dignity. If she is not yet a mother, then this “thing” is not yet a human being. This is the language of the pro-abortion lobby. It is exactly this kind of language which, wink, wink, makes abortion kinda sorta okay, wink, wink. Please remember to be distressed before your abortion. The above paragraph could easily have been written by the Dr. Rowan Williams.

Dr. Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church had this to say last year about abortion:

We begin with clear, perhaps absolute, principles and, as we honestly confront a hugely complex world, we recognise that clear principles don’t let you off the hook. There is no escaping the tough decisions where no answer will feel completely right and no option is without cost. But when do we get to the point where accepting the inevitability of tough decisions that may hurt the conscience has become so routine that we stop noticing that there ever was a strain on the conscience, let alone why that strain should be there at all?

In Rowan’s world everything is so complex and filled with confusing shades of gray that apparently no clear moral teaching is possible on abortion–or perhaps anything, for that matter. Notice that nowhere in an essay on abortion does he actually decry this evil act. He only decries the lack of moral compunction over it. Apparently, it is okay to have an abortion in Rowan’s world as long as you have some strain of conscience over it.

Notice the legislation of the Episcopal Church:

1988: “All human life is sacred. Hence it is sacred from its inception until death.”
1994 “unequivocal opposition to any … action … that [would] abridge the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of her pregnancy, or that would limit the access of a woman to a safe means of acting upon her decision.”

Life is sacred, but it can still be snuffed out at the whim of the mother.

[NYer]

I knew the Orthodox were soft on artificial birth control but this comes as quite a surprise.

[wideawake]

Indeed, that is very discouraging.

Especially the touchy-feely language in which these statements are couched: very pomo.

[Tax-chick]

Given the extent and variety of Orthodoxy, it might be more accurate to say “some Orthodox,” in this case.

[Joe 6-pack]

"...it might be more accurate to say “some Orthodox,” in this case."

From oca.org, the Orthodox Church in America's website...

"As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God. It must be very clear as well that abortion employed for human comfort or to stop what a contraceptive method failed to prevent, is strictly considered by the canon laws of the Church to be a crime equal to murder."

[NYer]

As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God.

It is absolutely banned in all instances, with some exceptions. That's about as clear as dishwater.

[pgkdan]

I’m really pretty shocked. This attitude is not at all what I expected. What a terrible shame.

[gitmogrunt]

More touchy-feely orthodox stuff on abortion for those with low reading comprehension scores here on FR:

"The Church from the very beginning of existence has sought to protect "the life in the womb" and has considered abortion as a form of murder in its theology and canons. Orthodox Christians are admonished not to encourage women to have abortions, nor to assist in the committing of abortion. Those who perform abortions and those who have sought it are doing an immoral deed, and are called to repentance. "

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8083.asp

[Tax-chick]

They seem to be saying, “It’s immoral, but it’s okay.” Sort of like what many of us (if put to the question) would say about speeding.

[Kolokotronis]

Roman Catholicism is not Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism. The two approach disciplinary canons differently. The very fact that this article was written and posted, together with the reaction to it here, demonstrate just how little reason there is to believe that Orthodoxy could today ever exist within the same “structure” with people who have absolutely no conception of how Orthodoxy understands and deals with sin, which sadly seems to include most Roman Catholics.

Now, here is the statement of the GOA on abortion:

“The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die. Decisions of the Supreme Court and State legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life.”

Here is the statement on pastoral concern concerning abortion:

“The Church from the very beginning of existence has sought to protect “the life in the womb” and has considered abortion as a form of murder in its theology and canons. Orthodox Christians are admonished not to encourage women to have abortions, nor to assist in the committing of abortion. Those who perform abortions and those who have sought it are doing an immoral deed, and are called to repentance.”

I take it the Roman Church and its devotees would be happier
if our official position were the hurling of anathemas; perhaps a condemnation to everlasting hell fire?

The Church, All, is a hospital for sick souls, not a place to either encourage or ignore sickness nor one where the sick are beaten bloody because they are sick!

[vladimir998]

Patriarch K. said: “Jesus never, never imposed anything upon his followers.”

Except the Great Commission...and that rule against divorce and remarriage...and obedience to the Church.,..oh, nevermind.

[Cheverus]

I would be suprised if the Russian Orthodox Patriarch would be wishy washy on this.

And as listed above the Greek Orthodox Patriarch is pretty consistent.

I think the statements by the OCA and Bartholomew II should not be used to color all of the Orthodox Churches, from what I understand some Patriarchs have issues with them already.

[Salvation]

**Life is sacred, but it can still be snuffed out at the whim of the mother.**

Lord, please, we pray, stop this abortion madness.

[Salvation]

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Oriental Orthodox (the Non-Chalcaedonians) are among the most liberal churches on earth. After centuries of persecution by islam they have abandoned all theology and become entirely ethnic enclaves engaged in (usually leftist) politics. If you're a member of the family (ie, the ethnic group) the church is your birthright and they basically don't care what you do, don't do, believe, or don't believe.

They're very much like the de-theologized, politically radicalized American Black Protestant church.

[annalex]

I think the article is unfair to the Orthodox in lumping them with the Armenians and the Anglicans. However, Patriarch Bartholomew’s quote is at odds with the GOA statement that you cite, is it not? I don’t think it is a Roman Catholic perception problem, when “many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion” looks like it’s deliberately going way beyond the life of the mother exception.

[Kolokotronis]

Black Bart of Istanbul, Alex, is a jerk of the first order. He may well be a heretic. His pronouncements on this matter, like those on reunion, are listened to, but are no more dispositive of an issue than my proclamations. This article, which speaks soooooooooooooooooo much about the Roman Church is at the same time a very good example, among others, of the stubborn inability of the Roman Church to understand the eccelsiology of The Church, an inability or perhaps unwillingness which lead to the Great Schism neary 1000 years ago. I’ve copied this article to my own Orthodox email list and am assured that it will get to the “right” Orthodox so they too can perhaps understand that its time to step back from further discussions with Rome, at least for a while. That’s certainly my present intention here.

[annalex]

the stubborn inability of the Roman Church to understand the eccelsiology of The Church

Black Cordelias, whoever that is, is not exactly Roman Church, not anymore than "Black Bart of Istanbul" is a stalwart of Orthodoxy. However, if a Catholic blogger sees an Orthodox patriarch making disturbing statements in San Francisco, and you admit him to be a "jerk of the first order", then why is it a fault of the Black Cordelias to point that out? Especially since Patriarch Bartholomew, with all his faults, happens to be Rome's chief negotiating partner?

[FormerLib]

Because this is clearly a person with an agenda, and that agenda is to smear the Orthodox Christian Church.

[annalex]

I repeat: there is no doubt that the Orthodox position is in aggregate pro-life, and I agree that the article is unfair to the Orthodoxy as a whole, but Patriarch Bartholomew happens to be the Rome’s cheif partner in ecumenical talks, so caution about the position he publicly embraces is advisable, and the article — useful.

[GinaSJ]

As a convert in the Coptic Orthodox Church, I can assure you that the faith among the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) is vibrant and the moral teaching is firm. As has already been pointed out, canonical discipline is approached in a different manner among the Orthodox than in the West. It doesn’t make for good soundbites, but it is arguably more effective than having rigid regulations and public condemnations which most of your church members ignore and priests wink at. Or perhaps sell indulgences for?

[Zionist Conspirator]

As a convert in the Coptic Orthodox Church, I can assure you that the faith among the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) is vibrant and the moral teaching is firm. As has already been pointed out, canonical discipline is approached in a different manner among the Orthodox than in the West. It doesn’t make for good soundbites, but it is arguably more effective than having rigid regulations and public condemnations which most of your church members ignore and priests wink at. Or perhaps sell indulgences for?

I am glad to hear it and am sorry if I overgeneralized and am guilty of falsehood.

My personal experience with the Oriental Orthodox is with the Armenians, and since the genocide of early last century it has been almost entirely an ethnic church with very little theology and a great deal of leftish ethnic politics. I know that there are some exceptions but this seems the general rule. I got that impression of the other Oriental churches from their sites on the Internet.

Again, my apologies for overstating my case.

[ASimpleSinner]

“Because this person clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is to smear the Orthodox Christian Church [sic]”

I am the owner of the quoted blog - The Black Cordelias is a blog, not a person.

The texts are ALL taken from the following article written by an ORTHODOX PRIEST:

•Orthodox Patriarchs “Wink” at Abortion
Fr Edward Pehanich

In the years since the fall of Communism across Eastern Europe the Orthodox faithful of those lands have had the task of facing the unpleasant history of the subjugation of their Church to the Communist regimes. With many clergy and hierarchscompromising the Faith by unequivocally supporting the policies of the atheistic state, the Church lost its prophetic voice in society. There is hardly any room for us in the West to sit in judgment or criticism, we who were safely and comfortably living in thereligious freedom of the West. What is most disturbing to me, however, is to see evidence of such a trend continuing, even here where the voice of the Church was never silenced by persecution. It appears that the leaders of our Church for so long were silenced by hostile Muslim governments and then by Communists that they have forgotten how to allow the Church fulfill her role as a prophetic voice challenging the prevailing values, beliefs, goals, and behavior of the culture. Twice in the past few years we in America have witnessed visiting Orthodox shepherds from abroad “wink” at the prevailing public sentiment on abortion rather than loudly and clearly challenge us with the voice of truth proclaimed by Scriptures, and echoed by the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church.

Patriarchs Speak

Recently Armenian Christians in America welcomed into their midst His Holiness, Patriarch Karekin I of Etchmiadzin in Armenia who came on a pastoral visit to his flock. During a stop at St.Mary’s Church in Washington, D.C. the patriarch was questioned on the Church’s position on abortion.-

QUOTE
“We don’t issue dogmatic statements and impose dogmatic principles. That is intervening and invading on the freedom of the conscience of the people. When a person is Christianity nurtured and his conscience is shaped by Christian principles, that person should have the freedom to manifest his or her attitude toward specific problems such as abortion or the forms of abortion. The church does not get involved in that kind of detail. Jesus never, never imposed anything upon his followers. If you want to inherit the Kingdom of God, do this, do not do this. if you want, that is the greatest characteristic feature of Christianity. (The Washington Post -1/20/96 p. B6)

Nearly identical in tone and spirit, and lack of any clear, prophetic teaching are statements made by His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in1990 as the metropolitan of Chalcedon as part of the entourage ofthe then Patriarch Dimitrios of blessed memory. The San Francisco Chronicle recorded this exchange-

QUOTE
Asked the Orthodox Church’s position on abortion,Bartholomew described a stand more liberal than that of the RomanCatholic Church.“Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize.There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

It is hard to believe that both hierarchs, speaking in the freedom of America so blatantly ignored the clear witness of the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, and the decisions of the Holy Councils in responding to questions on abortion. What issue is there that our Church is willing to stand for? What point will society reach before our bishops begin to take a clear stand of witness? Now with our nation poised to permit physician-assisted suicide will our venerable arch pastors continue to visit here and attempt to be “pastoral” and not offend anyone by remaining silent, or worse,give de facto permission for the killing of the sick and elderly?

What does our Church stand for? Why is it that we will speakout and raise our voice to protest wrongs committed in Macedonia but not in our own neighborhoods? I must admit my great reluctance to criticize such esteemed holy fathers who have borne the cross of persecution for the holy Faith and who are at a point of scholarship and spiritual maturity that I will never attain. Yet I know that our church does not believe in any bishop as an infallible teacher of the Faith but rather the Holy Spirit guards and leads us all, bishops, priests, and laity in all truth. The witness of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, and the decisions of the Councils are clear: abortion is a grave sin equal to murder that is only to be permitted to save the life of a mother.

I rejoice in our hierarchs who have spoken loudly and clearly to us on these issues both by their words and by their presence with us at the March for Life each January in Washington. They have been criticized by segments of their flocks who have been seduced by the media but they are most nobly fulfilling their calling“rightly defining the word of truth”.

Holy Fathers! Venerable Patriarchs! Lead us! Clearly define the word of truth for us! Point out for us the hard, narrow way that leads to life rather than the easy, wide path that leads to hell!
*****************************

What would you say the agenda of Fr Edward Pehanich who penned this article for Orthodox Christians for Life newsletter is?

[ASimpleSinner]

"Roman Catholicism is not Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism. The two approach disciplinary canons differently. The very fact that this article was written and posted, together with the reaction to it here, demonstrate just how little reason there is to believe that Orthodoxy could today ever exist within the same “structure” with people who have absolutely no conception of how Orthodoxy understands and deals with sin, which sadly seems to include most Roman Catholics."

Well take issue with the ORTHODOX priest who wrote it. How is your idea of "The west is too far gone to even address this article" holding up now?

Why is it that time and time and time again we get the same from Orthodox polemicists some tired "Well you are not us and as you are not us you don't understand us and you never will be able to until you are us because you are too mired in being not us" nonsense.

Address the allegations straight on or take the silly "Well you are too western to even respond to" semantics back to the Indiana Orthodox List.

[Kolokotronis]

Fr Edward Pehanich is an OCA priest with the usual agenda of the OCA hierarchy which is thoroughly anti-Constantinople, especially since the reunion of ROCOR and Moscow. The OCA started out with high hopes and big dreams but its autocephally wasn’t recognized by the EP. It failed and has never been able to accept that. You, since you run the quoted blog, ought to know that. But rest easy, A, we don’t want any more to do with you than you do with us.

[FormerLib]

I am the owner of the quoted blog - The Black Cordelias is a blog, not a person.

A blog that is rapidly developing a reputation for anti-Orthodox posts.

[ASimpleSinner]

"A blog that is rapidly developing a reputation for anti-Orthodox posts. "

We are?

With all of TWO posts out of 2000+ posts to date?

Even though the two posts were both 90%+ quotes of Orthodox writers writing on their own Orthodox blogs? That is giving us a reputation for anti-Orthodox posts?

By gum, if two 0.01% of our content is Orthodox related, and 90% of that 0.01% is written by Orthodox about Orthodox... Well if that is what it takes to culminate an "anti-Orthodox reputation" I shudder to think of what level of rabididity must be accorded to blogs that time and time and time again launch tirades against Rome in original content! Wouldn't happen to know any Orthodox blogs like that would you?

Fr Edward Pehanich is an OCA priest with the usual agenda of the OCA hierarchy which is thoroughly anti-Constantinople, especially since the reunion of ROCOR and Moscow. The OCA started out with high hopes and big dreams but its autocephally wasn’t recognized by the EP. It failed and has never been able to accept that.

I understood this, but was of the thinking that the actual objections could be considered and answered beyond appealing to speculation as to the writer's motivation or possible intrigue related to it. So much for that hope.

You, since you run the quoted blog, ought to know that.

I did, again, see above.

But rest easy, A, we don’t want any more to do with you than you do with us.

There is where you are wrong. While I am certain you are more than content to eschew unity of the baptized, as Catholics, we just won't lose interest.