Condemning An Abstraction

Motte and Bailey Fallacy

The recent statement on the war in Ukraine by ROCOR's Bishop Irenei leaves much to be desired. We'll look at the text in a moment. For now, though, let me begin by saying that his statement is illustrative of something I've noticed in a number of conversations both in the Church and in the larger culture about the moral life: the motte and bailey fallacy.

First proposed by the philosopher Nicholas Shackel as a criticism of post-modern thought, the motte and bailey fallacy is a reference to how castles in the medieval era would be constructed and defended (more here)^:

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

[The Bailey] represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.

Some Orthodox Christians (adopting arguments current in the culture) have for example argued for the ordination of women to the priesthood or to admit to Holy Communion those in same-sex marriage. These arguments are examples of "the Bailey."

When pressed, proponents might extend their argument to include an appeal to the dignity of the human person created in the image of God. But at some point, they must make the decision to retreat to the Motte, "the defensible but undesired position." To do so means that they must argue that the moral tradition of the Church is misogynist or homophobic.

While I disagree with this argument, there is certainly sufficient, anecdotal evidence that Orthodox Christians--including Church officials--have not always been charitably when it comes to the concerns of women or LGBTQ individuals. While not outside the norm for other sins, canonical penances for sodomy for example are harsh. That today they are rarely imposed is an important qualification. Nevertheless, such canonical penalties as well as contemporary popular preaching existence certainly lend credibility (if not validity) to criticisms that the Orthodox Church is misogynist or homophobic.

For the Orthodox Christian suggesting that Holy Tradition or the Fathers are wrong is an undesirable position. Going further and positing not just error but moral failure is wholly unwelcome. And yet, it is hard to hold that women should be priests or same-sex couples can receive Holy Communion without at least flirting with these arguments.

The Bailey: War is Evil

This brings me to Bishop Irenei's statement on the war in Ukraine. The Bailey aspect of his statement is summed up when he writes

Responding to media reports that he says "persist in misrepresenting our views, with no attempt to speak directly with us at any stage," goes on to write that "we restate here what we have openly said since the war in Ukraine began: We stand wholly against the war and we call for it to end" before concluding "I do not know how one can be clearer than this. The war is an evil. It cannot be justified. God will bless the peacemakers, as the Lord Himself says."

To be sure, the war in Ukraine is--like all wars--evil. And while like everyone else, ROCOR's bishops, clergy, and faithful "are free ... to speak out against evil whenever it rears its head, and by whomever's hands, and to care for those who are suffering, by whomever's hands." But moral clarity requires that we rise above anodyne condemnations to which we can all agree without risk. While we should not be indifferent or seek to excuse moral failures committed by Ukraine, it is Russia's invasion and criminal prosecution of an unjust war by unjust means that has created the context that makes Ukraine's failures possible.

The Mott: The Church in Russia Has Blessed An Unjust War

For Bishop Irenei and Russia's apologists, less desirable argument--the Bailey--requires that they defend the position that with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church in the person of Patriarch Kirill, Vladimir Putin has launched an unjust war and engaged in war crimes.

We need not be “politicians ... linked with any state or government” or proponents of “any political ideology” to say simply, directly, and in all charity, that Russia has launched a war that is unjust under international law and, more importantly, given Patriarch Kirill's consistent public support of the war, and a grave sin according to the moral tradition of the Orthodox Church.

Moreover, it is not those who condemn Putin, his war, and Kirill's support of both, who serve “political interest,” but those who condemn the consequences of war without calling to repentance those directly responsible for the war.

To oppose the death of innocent men, women, and children, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and private property, and the myriad other injustices committed by troops on one side or the other can't be allowed to obscure that Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Patriarch Kirill's public support is simply unacceptable by any reading of the Church's moral tradition.

The problem with Bishop Irenei’s statement is that he avoids telling us why this is wrong. This is the stronger argument but requires accepting the legitimacy of criticism within the Church and worldwide, that Patriarch Kirill blessed a war that is not morally wrong, but has asserted that the invasion is virtuous. To avoid this position, Bishop Irenei must overlook anything that demonstrates why the invasion of Ukraine specifically is wrong.

None of this is to take away from ROCOR's philanthropic work on behalf of those suffering because of Russia's aggression. At the same time, however, good works don't exempt ROCOR from criticism of its public statements about the war.

Bishop Irenei would have us believe that ROCOR could not have been clearer in its condemnation of the war in Ukraine. I must respectfully disagree. His public statement condemns war as an abstraction (the Bailey) without condemning the specific war instigated by Vladimir Putin with the public support of Patriarch Kirill (the Mott).

We cannot demand heroic virtue from others. But we can expect clarity in public statements about a war launched by one Orthodox nation against another. As it stands now, Bishop Irenei has offered an apology for ROCOR's unwillingness to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. For this, we need to look elsewhere.

While it can be unpleasant and even painful to be on the receiving end of public criticism, this doesn't make ROCOR the victim of a “witch hunt.” It is rather the cost of entering the Public Square with a morally weak argument.