“Josephus Flavius” at the Byzantine, TX blog aggregates a lot of Orthodoxy-related stories from around the world, often without comment. But something about a recent Vatican Insider column/story set him off. His introduction in particular caught my eye:
It’s interesting to see the Catholic view of differences in position among Orthodox patriarchates. This article, entitled “Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialogue,” sees these differences as an impediment to the end of the Schism. I, on the other hand, see this as the way the Church works. We work by consensus, by conciliarity, and not by top-down fiats. It does take a long time and is certainly not as “clean” as a papal bull, but it has vouchsafed the Church and Tradition for millennia.
(Emphasis added) He then goes on the quote, and interlineate his own comments, the Vatican Insider story.
If I may distill: The Vatican Insider story incorrectly sees Bartholemew I, Patriarch of Constantinople and thus “Ecumenical Patriarch,” as the Orthodox pope, and the Russians as reactionary but powerful dissidents. It thinks that the seductiveness and fervor of Pope Francis will change the Orthodox response. It may be right about “change,” but we’re not easily seduced.
Josephus Flavius also (in a separate blog) posts an interesting comment Pope Francis (“The Seductively Fervid”) had about the Orthodox approach to divorce and remarriage.
I see in Orthodoxy what seems to me to be some laxity about remarriage after divorce, exceeding legitimate oikonomia. Tut that call really is above my pay grade. I’m not privy to what is said in confession, and within canonical limits, I cannot judge without so knowing.
I see the same laxity in Rome about annulment, only with more expense, red tape and transparent fiction about there never having been a real marriage (as opposed to a real marriage having ended because of human sinfulness). That, too, is above my pay grade and really not even my own “back yard.”
I think the approach of oikonomia is correct in principle, and may God have mercy on the Priests and Bishops who must exercise it.
The local newspaper is soliciting Rapid Responses (i.e. free and popular content volunteered by readers) on a civic prayer case:
Question: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up Town of Greece v. Galloway, which seeks to clarify whether and when formal prayers should be allowed before government meetings. (The Indiana attorney general has filed a friend of the court brief in the case, asking that prayers be allowed “without requiring legislative leaders to screen prayers for sectarian references.”) How should the Supreme Court rule in the case?
50 word (the limit, but it seems to flex at times) isn’t really adequate. For instance, the Amici Curiae seem to agree that this is the issue:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative-prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity.
(Emphasis added) That’s 33 words just to get the correct issue on the table.
“Absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers” presumably means they’re not consistently picking clergy favored by a majority of the City Council (or whatever the body is). Absence of “forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity” presumably means they haven’t had clergy up there proselytizing or otherwise doing something other than invoking God’s blessings on the meeting and the community as they deem that should be done.
So defined, I can hardly imagine a less appropriate case for requiring pre-screening of prayers. But I venture a guess that come Sunday, when the top Rapid Responses are aggregated, most (including my intimate friend, who has already responded) will not engage that issue, but will go off on a tangent about walls of separation being required, or being mythical, or about how we’re a Christian Nation or how we’re not.
But stop picking teams for just a minute, please.
- Religious person: What the heck kind of “prayer” is a bowdlerized, nonsectarian, government-approved “prayer” anyway?
- Secularist person: Are you sure you want to stop people from getting up and giving “To whom it may concern” pseudo-prayers that bring religion into disrepute?
95%+ of prayers in government-controlled settings leave me cold. They’re almost invariably
- Grasping efforts to reclaim the diffuse Protestant hegemony of my youth
- Evangelical sermons in disguise (do Evangelicals ever truly address God rather than their auditors
when they pray aloud?) - Deracinated ecumenical gestures spiritward
Government editing of prayers to make them acceptable – the third (or maybe the first) option – makes my blood run cold – and that’s even worse than being “left cold.”
How can we pretend we have no established religion if the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decree (“if you must pray, pray a sort of fatuous little unitarian universalist ditty, okay?”) is allowed to stand?
[The Becket Fund, which I greatly respect, filed an Amicus Brief. The section beginning at page 28 (PDF page 38) is one of the better arguments I’ve heard for not only allowing legislative prayer constitutionally but actually engaging in it – if only the Becket Fund weren’t alone today in the understanding they outline there.]
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 