In my opinion, the diagnosis you offer (in the final handful of paragraphs) around the "... same gracelessness has infected Orthodox Christians..." might be missing something. In my experience (limited of course as it is) of typical Orthodox parish life these last nearly 30 years, I have been struck by not the lack of "...mutual understanding, compassion, tolerance, and even forgiveness..." but rather the abundance of these virtues, such that their misuse and lack of connection to other virtues (such as courage and prudence) become all too obvious.
I am thinking of your writing on "Cheap Grace", your recent quoting of Chesterton's famous "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good..." passage and wondering if the problem in a typical Orthodox parish in our culture is not a lack of understanding/compassion/forgiveness, but rather an understanding of them that is not classically Christian but rather taken from the culture. I would be interested in your thoughts.
I agree with you, the problem is that many Orthodox Christians tend to NOT have a classical understanding of the life of virtue. Of course, the question is if my understanding of the virtues is wrong am I really being virtuous?
Your comment also got me thinking--and maybe you can help me here--assuming that virtue is the mean between extremes as Aristotle tells us, what are the extremes for understanding/compassion/forgiveness?
I know in the parish, "forgiveness" often mean "forgetting" or minimizing injustice. We likewise tend to confuse forgiveness (i.e., the other person is more than the offense he's committed or the harm he's done) with reconciliation (i.e., the restoration of sacramental communion and/or trust).
Likewise, and as you say, we follow the culture's lead in how we think about understanding, compassion, and tolerance. Yes, they're all good things as far as they go but what are the vices they are meant to correct? Understanding and ignorance? Compassion, indifference? Tolerance, hatred? Any ideas?
Well, my first thought is the "Gospel" and the "commandments of Christ" and the direction/writings of the Apostles (St. Paul, the catholic epistles, etc.) can not be framed/circumscribed by what is essentially another metaphysical assertion/viewpoint (i.e. Aristotle's mean). In other words, the commandment to love enemies is a transcendence of dialectical/discursive reasoning itself, and can not be moderated in a virtue ethic on a theoretical level...unless I am mistaken...perhaps this very thing is part of the Greek (Aristotelian)/Christian "synthesis" of the Fathers of the first millennium??
Regardless, we don't live in an Aristotelian world and have not for at least a 1000 years. Descartes/Kant/Locke/Nietzsche are our philosophical (and indeed spiritual) "Fathers" in our culture. We are all nominalists now, even if few understand the implications. I probably should have used the word "formation" or "praxis" or something similar instead of "understand".
So how is it that leadership (both clerical and lay) within the RC and (I am asserting) Orthodox parishes situated within western culture, can on the one hand be steeped in Christian formation/morality (through the praxis of parish/sacramental life and varying compliance to normative ascetical prescription) yet get something as wrong as the institutional *response* to clergy sexual misconduct? Is it a simple failure of courage/steadfastness understood in a Christian (virtue?) context, or is "Cheap Grace" and the actual application of this "forgiveness" and "tolerance" not actually (classically) Christian at all, being an ethic from somewhere other than Christianity? The latter in my opinion.
I have never experienced clerical (or any other kind) of sexual abuse, but in parish life I have experienced the "toxic personality" who abused people in other ways (psychological, spiritual). What struck me was not the existence of such people and circumstances, but the institutional *response* of lay & clerical leadership. Cheap grace and a bourgeois "tolerance" (a "live and let live" ethic) was the order of the day, and a kind of fundamental avoidance within a "it's complicated" mindset.
I have been pondering why this is so, and how much of it can be explained by formation in an (virtue?) ethic that is not at root Christian. This is of course related to many other questions of what it means to 'be' an Orthodox (classic) Christian within a non Christian culture. It is difficult, to say the least, to stay on "The Way" (or the ladder or....), but what happens when the majority of lay/clerical leadership are not formed in Christian morality really at all, but whether in modern answers to what is moral?
Thank you for your comment and patience in my getting back with you!
I'd be hesitant to say that Orthodox theology DOESN'T use Aristotelian categories or dialectics. To be sure, we don't use Hegelian or Marxist dialectics but Aristotle was part of the intellectual culture of the early Church. Hovorun in Eastern Christianity in Its Texts (pp. 26ff), argues that the Church adopted (and modified) categories. For example, he says that (among other things) different understand of commonality and particularity were at the basis of the Trinitarian debates
As for virtue as the mean between extremes, this is simply an assumed part of Orthodox theological anthropology. Fr Seraphim Rose, for example, writes:
<<The teaching of this "royal path" is set forth, for example, in the tenth of St. Abba Dorotheus' Spiritual lnstructions, where he quotes especially the Book of Deuteronomy: Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but go by the royal path (Deut. 5:32, 17:11), and St. Basil the Great: "Upright of heart is he whose thought does not turn away either to excess or to lack, but is directed only to the mean of virtue." But perhaps this teaching is most clearly expressed by the great Orthodox Father of the 5th century, St. John Cassian, who was faced with a task not unlike our own Orthodox task today: to present the pure teaching of the Eastern Fathers to Western peoples who were spiritually immature and did not yet understand the depth and subtlety of the Eastern spiritual doctrine and were therefore inclined to go to extremes, either of laxness or over-strictness, in applying it to life. St. Cassian sets forth the Orthodox doctrine of the royal path in his Conference on "sober-mindedness" (or "discretion")—the Conference praised by St. John of the Ladder (Step 4:105) for its "beautiful and sublime philosophy.">>
You are right, however, that for many of us nominalism is the default philosophical position regardless of our religious faith.
As for getting it wrong about clergy sexual misconduct, I think there are as many explanations as their are people dealing with these sad situations. You summarize some of them quite ably here.
After dealing with the issue for almost the whole of my priestly and diaconal ministries, let me suggest that often what I've seen is a concern for status. As long as the Church is embarrassed the crime (and, yes, it is a canonical crime not merely a moral infraction) is "forgiven." I know there are priests who are still serving after committing adultery or other serious sexual sins.
If the offense remains "private," it is likely the priest will be allowed to continue to serve. if it becomes public (usually in a court case), then it is less likely that he will continue to serve. It's not uncommon for the Church to pay out to avoid a court case and allow the priest to continue to serve.
Basically, we seem to care about status. This leads to turning a blind eye to misconduct but also use moralizing language and engage in sectarian thinking that borders (or even crosses over into) apocalyptic thinking. It amazes me how many Orthodox Christians look around and fail to see the immense opportunity and need for the Gospel. They see a corrupt culture and they shrink back in fear. Or what's worse, the respond with anger and judgment.
I have been meaning to thank you for the above (in the past 3 weeks my wife has managed to contract Covid and severely twist her ankle), particularly the citations. Some day I hope to make more of a study of the 'virtue tradition' of the first millennium and the Faith ;)
Fr. Gregory,
In my opinion, the diagnosis you offer (in the final handful of paragraphs) around the "... same gracelessness has infected Orthodox Christians..." might be missing something. In my experience (limited of course as it is) of typical Orthodox parish life these last nearly 30 years, I have been struck by not the lack of "...mutual understanding, compassion, tolerance, and even forgiveness..." but rather the abundance of these virtues, such that their misuse and lack of connection to other virtues (such as courage and prudence) become all too obvious.
I am thinking of your writing on "Cheap Grace", your recent quoting of Chesterton's famous "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good..." passage and wondering if the problem in a typical Orthodox parish in our culture is not a lack of understanding/compassion/forgiveness, but rather an understanding of them that is not classically Christian but rather taken from the culture. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Christopher
Dear Christopher,
Thank you for your comment.
I agree with you, the problem is that many Orthodox Christians tend to NOT have a classical understanding of the life of virtue. Of course, the question is if my understanding of the virtues is wrong am I really being virtuous?
Your comment also got me thinking--and maybe you can help me here--assuming that virtue is the mean between extremes as Aristotle tells us, what are the extremes for understanding/compassion/forgiveness?
I know in the parish, "forgiveness" often mean "forgetting" or minimizing injustice. We likewise tend to confuse forgiveness (i.e., the other person is more than the offense he's committed or the harm he's done) with reconciliation (i.e., the restoration of sacramental communion and/or trust).
Likewise, and as you say, we follow the culture's lead in how we think about understanding, compassion, and tolerance. Yes, they're all good things as far as they go but what are the vices they are meant to correct? Understanding and ignorance? Compassion, indifference? Tolerance, hatred? Any ideas?
Well, my first thought is the "Gospel" and the "commandments of Christ" and the direction/writings of the Apostles (St. Paul, the catholic epistles, etc.) can not be framed/circumscribed by what is essentially another metaphysical assertion/viewpoint (i.e. Aristotle's mean). In other words, the commandment to love enemies is a transcendence of dialectical/discursive reasoning itself, and can not be moderated in a virtue ethic on a theoretical level...unless I am mistaken...perhaps this very thing is part of the Greek (Aristotelian)/Christian "synthesis" of the Fathers of the first millennium??
Regardless, we don't live in an Aristotelian world and have not for at least a 1000 years. Descartes/Kant/Locke/Nietzsche are our philosophical (and indeed spiritual) "Fathers" in our culture. We are all nominalists now, even if few understand the implications. I probably should have used the word "formation" or "praxis" or something similar instead of "understand".
So how is it that leadership (both clerical and lay) within the RC and (I am asserting) Orthodox parishes situated within western culture, can on the one hand be steeped in Christian formation/morality (through the praxis of parish/sacramental life and varying compliance to normative ascetical prescription) yet get something as wrong as the institutional *response* to clergy sexual misconduct? Is it a simple failure of courage/steadfastness understood in a Christian (virtue?) context, or is "Cheap Grace" and the actual application of this "forgiveness" and "tolerance" not actually (classically) Christian at all, being an ethic from somewhere other than Christianity? The latter in my opinion.
I have never experienced clerical (or any other kind) of sexual abuse, but in parish life I have experienced the "toxic personality" who abused people in other ways (psychological, spiritual). What struck me was not the existence of such people and circumstances, but the institutional *response* of lay & clerical leadership. Cheap grace and a bourgeois "tolerance" (a "live and let live" ethic) was the order of the day, and a kind of fundamental avoidance within a "it's complicated" mindset.
I have been pondering why this is so, and how much of it can be explained by formation in an (virtue?) ethic that is not at root Christian. This is of course related to many other questions of what it means to 'be' an Orthodox (classic) Christian within a non Christian culture. It is difficult, to say the least, to stay on "The Way" (or the ladder or....), but what happens when the majority of lay/clerical leadership are not formed in Christian morality really at all, but whether in modern answers to what is moral?
How's that to avoiding your questions? lol! :)
Christopher
Thank you for your comment and patience in my getting back with you!
I'd be hesitant to say that Orthodox theology DOESN'T use Aristotelian categories or dialectics. To be sure, we don't use Hegelian or Marxist dialectics but Aristotle was part of the intellectual culture of the early Church. Hovorun in Eastern Christianity in Its Texts (pp. 26ff), argues that the Church adopted (and modified) categories. For example, he says that (among other things) different understand of commonality and particularity were at the basis of the Trinitarian debates
As for virtue as the mean between extremes, this is simply an assumed part of Orthodox theological anthropology. Fr Seraphim Rose, for example, writes:
<<The teaching of this "royal path" is set forth, for example, in the tenth of St. Abba Dorotheus' Spiritual lnstructions, where he quotes especially the Book of Deuteronomy: Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but go by the royal path (Deut. 5:32, 17:11), and St. Basil the Great: "Upright of heart is he whose thought does not turn away either to excess or to lack, but is directed only to the mean of virtue." But perhaps this teaching is most clearly expressed by the great Orthodox Father of the 5th century, St. John Cassian, who was faced with a task not unlike our own Orthodox task today: to present the pure teaching of the Eastern Fathers to Western peoples who were spiritually immature and did not yet understand the depth and subtlety of the Eastern spiritual doctrine and were therefore inclined to go to extremes, either of laxness or over-strictness, in applying it to life. St. Cassian sets forth the Orthodox doctrine of the royal path in his Conference on "sober-mindedness" (or "discretion")—the Conference praised by St. John of the Ladder (Step 4:105) for its "beautiful and sublime philosophy.">>
You are right, however, that for many of us nominalism is the default philosophical position regardless of our religious faith.
As for getting it wrong about clergy sexual misconduct, I think there are as many explanations as their are people dealing with these sad situations. You summarize some of them quite ably here.
After dealing with the issue for almost the whole of my priestly and diaconal ministries, let me suggest that often what I've seen is a concern for status. As long as the Church is embarrassed the crime (and, yes, it is a canonical crime not merely a moral infraction) is "forgiven." I know there are priests who are still serving after committing adultery or other serious sexual sins.
If the offense remains "private," it is likely the priest will be allowed to continue to serve. if it becomes public (usually in a court case), then it is less likely that he will continue to serve. It's not uncommon for the Church to pay out to avoid a court case and allow the priest to continue to serve.
Basically, we seem to care about status. This leads to turning a blind eye to misconduct but also use moralizing language and engage in sectarian thinking that borders (or even crosses over into) apocalyptic thinking. It amazes me how many Orthodox Christians look around and fail to see the immense opportunity and need for the Gospel. They see a corrupt culture and they shrink back in fear. Or what's worse, the respond with anger and judgment.
Ah well.
I have been meaning to thank you for the above (in the past 3 weeks my wife has managed to contract Covid and severely twist her ankle), particularly the citations. Some day I hope to make more of a study of the 'virtue tradition' of the first millennium and the Faith ;)