Ohio is part of the Midwestern Diocese of the Orthodox Church in America. The bishop is located in Chicago. Bishop Paul, who was trained as a social worker before becoming a priest, was chosen as its bishop a few years ago. He puts his social work background to good use in his weekly post on his website called Orthodox Family Life. I get it as part of the local parish's weekly e-mail.
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).
There is a depth to these words from Saint Paul that leads me to see that the Sanctity of Life is much more than what one believes regarding Roe vs. Wade. At Saints Peter and Saint Paul Church on Sunday night, in addition to prayers related to abortion, we prayed for those on death row, the elderly in institutional care, victims of gun violence in schools and neighborhoods, those overcome by various addictions, refugees seeking a home, victims of war, and those contemplating suicide.
It is important that we embrace a sanctity of life ethic that covers the entire span of life — from conception to death. Even in cases in which those in the military and law enforcement take the life of another while dutifully protecting citizens from danger, I would expect that any Orthodox Christian who serves in that capacity, who has taken a life, would go to Confession before going to Communion. We don’t justify the taking of a life, but we understand that, given the fallen nature of this world, the act of taking a life to protect another may be necessary. But this is not what we were made for. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).
So, if we want to bring about an end to abortion, we must consider how we would respond to a mother who needs support because she chooses not to abort. This is a far more challenging question to address than merely stating that one is “against abortion.”
I was impressed that after quoting Saint Paul which could be used in a very sharp and devastating way against anyone who is pro-choice, he focuses not upon death and destruction but upon life long reverence for the living temples of God throughout the life span.
I was even more impressed that he summoned up the ancient Christian tradition that even when one committed manslaughter, accidentally or in self defense, or in public service that one should be purified by confession (and in the early church that mean public confession accompanied by a period of fasting from the Eucharist). That ancient attitude stands in the way of modern attempts to be against abortion but for war, and the death penalty.
I am not sure how other Orthodox bishops express themselves on this issues, but typically most of them do not stray far from tradition even if they may emphasize different aspects of it.
If the bishop handles everything as he handles war and law enforcement, I'd call that a seamless garment. Note he says sanctity of life as MORE THAN Roe v. Wade, not INSTEAD OF.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know about the early tradition of penance. I knew that once Christians wouldn't serve in the army. And then they would. As with everyone else, it depended on what's on the banners. In the early days of Gulf War I, when everybody was kvelling in watching our smart bombs "take out targets," i.e., "kill them Iraqis," I felt myself enjoying the war and didn't like the enjoyment. So I wrote a column in which I suggested: "When you go off to war, you should march on your knees." Boy! Did I catch unshirted hell from the readers who didn't like their enjoyment of dead Iraqis rained on.
Initially Christians had trouble serving in the army because they had to sacrifice to the imperial gods, and of course Roman soldiers routinely crucified people who got in their way. Christian also were supposed to avoid games because of their violence and association with the gods.
DeleteOnce the emperor became Christian things changed, especially as bishops found imperial authority to be a ally against not only pagans but heretics.
I didn't know, either, about "...the ancient Christian tradition that even when one committed manslaughter, accidentally or in self defense, or in public service that one should be purified by confession (and in the early church that mean public confession accompanied by a period of fasting from the Eucharist)" But it makes sense. I remember reading about the tradition of certain Native American tribes, that if warriors killed in battle they needed to go through a purifying and healing ritual. These traditions acknowledge the spiritual toll that even justifiable violence takes.
ReplyDeleteJack, many thanks for this. I also found the passage about military and law enforcement personnel to be thought-provoking. I believe the same intuition (presumably supported by social science) underlies the requirement in law enforcement organizations that an officer who shoots someone needs to undergo counseling in order to be reinstated.
ReplyDeleteYes, post traumatic stress syndrome occurs not only because of the shocks and threats which people experience, but also because of the once unthinkable things that they have done, especially coming to terms with their own potential for violence.
DeleteIn doing a little bit of internet research, I found the issue of manslaughter is also treated much more like murder in both Jewish and Islamic traditions, i.e. some sort of penance or reparations are encouraged.
ReplyDeleteI suspect this blurring occurred because before nation states obtained a monopoly of violence, there were always relatives and friends of the victim who might retaliate, because they saw taking a life as murder. Taking the life of another disrupted a whole social network, and some acknowledgment of that was necessary, e.g. that this person was an important part of other peoples lives.
This whole area of manslaughter and accidental death might deserve more study in presenting a consistent ethic of life, especially articulating a psychological and social basis for it.
From the viewpoint of the Catholic tradition, it's notable that, in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the discussion of killing was under the major rubric of the Fifth Commandment, You Shall Not Kill. If one was required to summarize that tradition in four words, that would be it.
DeleteThe actual discussion is more complex because the situations can be morally complicated, and the church has had a couple of thousand years to sort through, reflect and pray. For example: part of reverence for life is the duty to defend life that is under attack, and in defending life, we can take another life. As it pertains to manslaughter, it seems to me that one can err in two ways:
* Insisting that killing is never justified. That may seem admirable at first, but there are circumstances that are too hard to admit no exceptions
* Being too cavalier in granting exceptions. This, I think, is the error to which our age is prone, and is an example of John Paul II's Culture of Death. Not every instance of taking life, even in defending life, is justifiable. There are many people who are tempted to write off all police shootings as justified, especially if the victim is a minority and/or has a criminal record.
There is a stream of tradition of pacifism in Christianity, which says that it's never okay to kill someone else, even if, for example, one's community is under attack by an enemy army. I don't belong to that stream, but that the stream continues to run without rebuke by church leaders illustrates, I think, that our bias should be toward not killing rather than killing.
One further reflection on this: I don't claim to know a lot about this, but from what I do see and understand, it seems to me that the US military, which surely is the most formidably lethal human organization ever to exist, shows great restraint in how it goes about killing, especially when it comes to civilians. That is reflected in that precision of the weapons it deploys, and also in many of its policies. To take an example that is top of mind: I read a newspaper article today announcing that US-backed Kurd and Syrian fighters, supported by US bombers, have the remnants of ISIS surrounded in two small villages, the last crumbs of its once-expansive caliphate. The US-backed forces took care to evacuate civilians, including the families of ISIS fighters, before beginning what is expected to be this final assault against ISIS.
It seems to me that this restraint on the part of the US military, which I admire, is rooted in part by the Judeo-Christian morality of its leaders, probably rooted even more in the practical consideration that wanton destruction breeds retaliatory violence (a perennial human tendency that also gave root to Christian reflection on the moral dangers of killing and revenge).
To be sure, my words of admiration here for the US military are written under the shadow of a nuclear arsenal that knows no precision and makes no distinction between civilian and warrior. I suppose our hope there is on the humane instincts that inform the policies and decisions of our leaders. So far so good.
The U.S. military is pretty good about punishing its malefactors. And there is no doubt plenty of residual Judeo-Christian morality in that. But it is important to note that we almost always insist on a status-of-forces agreement, which reserves the right to try our guys for murder or rape to our military courts -- not to the courts and laws of foreign countries in which the crime may be committed. (I sort of wonder how the current president would handle the status of forces in an egregious case that comes up in our beloved Saudi Arabia where the first son-in-law is so popular. I hope we don't have to find out.)
DeleteOf course, the strongest STATED reason for restricting killing to combat is that both sides hold prisoners, who become hostages for the other side's good behavior. That situation restrained even Hitler in the waning days of WWII.
Two powerful reasons for the bias toward not taking up arms:
Delete1. Jesus did not resist, and told his disciples not to resist.
2. Christianity overcame the Roman Empire by martyrdom not by force. (the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church).
I know little about Orthodox theology, but I find what little I do know to be very interesting, and, sometimes at least, attractive. They have a little give - divorced and remarried Orthodox are not banned from communion and they don't have to go to a tribunal and bare their dirty laundry in order to receive communion. A talk with their pastor is enough, apparently. They don't view the crucifixion/resurrection in terms of atonement theology (as Catholicism and most of the rest of western christianity does), focus more on the incarnation and resurrection than the excruciating torture and death of Jesus as being necessary.
ReplyDeleteI have been to many Orthodox services over the years, as a very close friend is Orthodox. I could not be Orthodox for two reasons - the services are endless and you stand for most of it; their OT views on women are even worse than Rome's. At least the Catholics don't ban women from mass for 40 days after childbirth nor require a special cleansing ceremony before a woman is allowed to return to the eucharist after giving birth.