www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News U.S. Romanian Catholic Eprach Forbids the Participation of his Flock

dear AmdG

(and might I add, what a great moniker!)

Whether Orthodox inComm. Eparchs are properly members of the "National Episcopal Conferences" are a matter of some controversy.

I think there has been some hashing out of same on the Byz Forum in previous threads.

I am myself unsure how national episcopal conferences intersect with Synods, Metropolias of Autonomous Churches, but it is not fait accompli.

I venture to say that it is part of the same controversy which has to do with limiting the Autonomous Churches to "Traditional Patriarchal Territories", and purported placing Orthodox InComm. Eparchs directly under the Latin Patriarch rather than with their own Synods etc., etc.

Herb

Herb,

I am not a monk or a priest but merely an uneducated layman so the title of �Father� is not correct.

I see great differences between the pastoral letters of the USCCB and the Antiochian Orthodox Archbishop.

In the first paragraph he states that countless children will be harmed by the collation effort to liberate Iraq yet fails to mention that Hussein has literally fed children into shredders before their parents eyes. He claim that liberation of Iraq will destabilize the entire region yet fails to state that it is not very stable to begin with.

In the second paragraph, Archbishop Philip compares Iraq with Israel and puts them on the same moral plane but Israel has not killed over 1.5 million of its own citizens. Israel has not killed more than 500,000 of its own citizens with chemical weapons. I find it odd that the entire second paragraph is a condemnation of Israel and Hussein is only mentioned in the last sentence of that paragraph. [And I strongly support the creation of Palestine and making Jerusalem an international city.] Israel�s many faults simply do not measure up to those of Hussein � even though we are well aware of how Israel discriminates against Christians and Moslems.

In the third paragraph, the letter states that: �It is said that our government will �rebuild Iraq and help the people of Iraq to form a democratic government.� History has proven that this rarely comes to fruition. We need only look to the Balkans and Afghanistan as recent examples.� Does the good archbishop actually believe that the Balkans and Afghanistan would be completely rebuilt in only a few years? Does he believe that these countries would be better off if left alone? With all due respect to Archbishop Philip I think his argument misses the mark. The harm Hussein has inflicted has been over 25 years. It will not be rebuilt overnight. It would be better for him to use what we did to re-build post-WWI Europe and Japan as examples.

The letter of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the other hand is entirely different in spirit. It gives a renewed call on the �Iraqi leadership clearly to abandon efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and to meet its obligations to destroy such weapons� and echoes Pope John Paul II�s call for Iraq to make ��concrete commitments� to meet the legitimate demands of the international community and to avoid war.� It states that the bishops find it difficult to justify military intervention (but always leaving the door open). It also states urges Catholics �to review carefully the teaching of our Church and to speak out strongly in accord with their conscience�. Those last words �in accord with their conscience� shows great respect for people on both sides of the issue. Surely this respect for individual conscience in something that is not a matter of faith is missing from both Bishop John Michael Botean�s and Archbishop Philip�s pastoral letters.

Admin

Believe it or not, I have been agonizing over Bishop John's words since they were first pointed out by a poster a number of days ago. I am conflicted, but have been leaning toward the opinion that this war may indeed be just (after reading Michael Novak, etc.).

I think it is one thing to condemn this war as unjust, and another to proclaim that those who participate in it incur "mortal sin."

I'm not sure what the Holy Father would say about the matter, but I have NOT heard him say that participation in the war incurs mortal sin.

I know that only about 10 members of Bishop John's eparchy are in the military service, but I wonder what agony his message has caused them. (I understand how they actually fall under the military archdiocese, and I pointed out a while ago that the military Archbishop's statement appeared to have a different tone than Bishop John's.)

Bishop Wilton, however, indicates: "The role of conscience. While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). We also affirm that "[p]ublic authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms" (#2311). We support those who have accepted the call to serve their country in a conscientious way in the armed services and we reiterate our long-standing support for those who pursue conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection."

Martin

P.S.: I think it's interesting how some of the BC posters who usually eschew things Western and Latin are in this case supportive of "Just War" theory.

I offer two excerpts below from the letter given here of March 19, by Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, President of USCCB. In my opinion, he offers a more balanced and fair estimation of the Iraq crisis than did the Romanian eparch. Particularly applicable to our discussion on this thread are the following paragraphs:

"While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309)."

"We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310)." It does continue on to mention those who are conscientious objectors.

Furthermore, both he Metropolitan Saliba make mention of the danger associated with the behavior and disregard for human life that Saddam Hussein has displayed in the past and the present, which was, as we know, completely disregarded by the Romanian eparch. Also mentioned by Bishop Gregory, is the moral responsibility of the US to protect civilian lives in as much as possible and also provide for a humanitarian process for the future, once Iraq is liberated from Hussein's oppression. These are things that I have no doubt are important to our government, and the letter acknowledges that Hussein has not given priority to these same objectives.

In regard to this above concern, although Metropolitan Saliba's statement is somewhat more balanced in its scope than Bishop Botean's, I must disagree with (among other items), the following Antiochian excerpt,

"It is said that our government will �rebuild Iraq and help the people of Iraq to form a democratic government.� History has proven that this rarely comes to fruition.

While no great feat can be accomplished overnight, testimony from the people in Afghanistan recently, would refute this statement. As reported by news correspondents present in Afghanistan this week, many citizens have enthusiastically stated that they are most grateful for the assistance the US has and continues to give to their plight and that, while undoubtedly still in a impoverished state, their situation has greatly improved and will hopefully continue to do so, with the help of American humanitarian aid, much of which is integrated with the help of our troops present there. I do not believe that we have or will abandon the needs of the Afghani people.


I believe that the USCCB letter helps bring discussion of the conflict into much better focus. I commend Bishop Gregory for his fair estimation of the various aspects of the "entire" situation, something that Bishop Botean and to a lesser extent, Metropolitan Saliba did not do.

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"I think it's interesting how some of the BC posters who usually eschew things Western and Latin are in this case supportive of "Just War" theory."

It's only the stuff that doesn't work that we Orthodox object to -- like the Roman Catholic theology of the Trinity.

In all seriousness, I've long considered Thomas Aquinas an honorary Greek Father and think my brethren in the East who despise Scholasticism ought to take a closer look at what Thomas actually thought and wrote -- and perhaps look a bit closer at what the Greek Fathers thought and wrote.

As for the just war theory? I find it consistent with much of what the Eastern Fathers wrote (which is not to say, however, that there isn't a strong strain of pacifism there as well).

In Christ,
Theophilos

If the CCC was so authoritative and binding, then why was #2310 surreptitiously ignored, especially when #2309 and #2313, both immediatedly near it, were being referenced? This seems to be a cafeteria-style approach to basing one's argument on the CCC to make a point.

Of course, if #2310 was evoked, then the argument being made would be weakened.

The bishop uses the word "conniving" in referring to those who loosely interpret the Catholic Just War Theory. Yet those principles were not spelled out in any detail. If they were, then I missed it.

"Connive" means: to feign ignorance of or fail to take measures against a known wrong.

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does the Lenten letter itemize one act of wrong done by Saddam Hussein or pretend to give credence to the possibility of his regime's inhumanity to man. The wrong that IS highlighted is the participation of his church members as being akin to abortionists.

Joe

Shlomo Theophilos,
I am not Byzantine, I belong to the Antiochene-Edessan School of the Church. Also, for the general group, I have noticed that no one has commented on my post about the Maronite Patriarch's comments. Here is a synopis of what he said:

For us Maronites he trumps the Bishops' Conference and the Military Archbishop.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Ya know, I really hesitate to mention this for charity's sake, but the Romanians long have had a special relationship with the French....

I truly am sad that the U.S., Britain, and Spain were unable to forge a diplomatic solution to this crisis. But diplomacy requires good faith negotiation by ALL parties involved. There was plenty of intransigence on all sides to go around. The current situation is the result of a global failure.

I believe there are cases when, in confronting unrepentant evil, peaceful solutions (which must be attempted) are exhausted, and aggression becomes necessary.

Have any posters from the Romanian eparchy weighed in on this discussion?

Yuhannon:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"I am not Byzantine..."

Thanks, but I don't believe I referred to you as such in any of my posts.

"...US 'war machine moving in the Middle East'..."

Give me a break. It's hyperbole such as this that forces one to bite his tongue. What could possibly be said to someone who believes this describes American intentions that would have any effect whatsoever?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Shlomo Theophilos,
It still comes back to the fact that my Patriarch, who is my spiritual "Father", has stated such, and that as a Maronite I have to refect deeply on what he has stated in his office as Patriarch.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Orthodox Churches oppose war:

http://www.incommunion.org/resources/iraq.asp

Hello:


The thing is that statements issued by a Conference of Bishops has pastoral value only. It is not legally binding for anyone anywhere.

On the other hand, a Bishop has legislative, executive and judicial powers withing his Diocese.

Therefore, if Bishop John Michael wants to hold his subjects accountable for participating in this war, he has the authority to do so.

If the Conference of Bishops wants to wash their collective hands by issuing a document that essentially says nothing new (quoting articles from the CCC is nice, but we all have the CCC, we can read it ourselves, thank you), in no circumstance means that the statement from Bishop John Michael looses any of its legitimate authority.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo writes: "A Bishop has legislative, executive and judicial powers within his Diocese. Therefore, if Bishop John Michael wants to hold his subjects accountable for participating in this war, he has the authority to do so."

Memo is absolutely right about this. And this is why Bishop John's message causes me so much consternation. The Church's legitimate authority is something I take very seriously. I do not take Humanae Vitae, for example, lightly. Unfortunately, authority is something that many (at least American) Catholics seem to fail to acknowledge (the "nobody is gonna tell me what to do" syndrome).

I'm glad that Bishop John's directive does not apply to me, because I would be "torn up" about it. I continue to maintain that other bishops, including the Holy See (it would appear) have strongly condemned this war as unjust, but have not gone so far as to indicate that participation in it automatically incurs mortal sin. Does leaving open the possibility of exercising one's own conscience in this matter indicate that these other bishops are "weaseling out" or being cowardly?

Martin

Dear Friends,

Ah, the endless debate on American and Coalition motives. Only time will settle this debate (like the one on whether Hussein was stock piling the weapons he's now firing at our forces). With an Armenian communinity of over 15,000 in Baghdad, I rejoice for the day when the tyrant is dead or gone. We have a few families in our parish from Iraq. As one member of my parish, who was from Iraq has said, "when the U.S. removes him, there is going to be a cry of freedom that country has never known."

I have a little hint about what he speaks. I saw that look of gratitude and freedom from the Kuwaitis when I was honored to serve our nation in the first gulf war. I saw the torture bunkers of Saddam's death machine from which we delivered them, (not to mention the other attrocities). No pontificating statements by an hierarch can erase this reality or condemn those who fight to erradicate it.

How intelligent men can compare our nation's motives to his is really beyond me. But that is the beauty of America. You all can call our own President a name fitting for Hussein, Hitler and Stalin, and you will not be punished for it.

I would only echo the calls of prayer for the innocent on both sides.

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Armenian Catholic Christian
www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/ [geocities.com]

Dear Martin:

Some of the statements of Bishop Ioan and other prelates on the sinfulness of this war are being misundrestood in some things. American and British soldiers who participate in this war are certainly not commting any sin since it is their duty to defend their country, even if they are aware that this war is not based on moral principles. Once the war is declared British people have the duty to support their troops and to be at their side, one thing is to support your troops, and a different thing is to aid the war.