The Latest Reflections on the Archdiocese

Hello friends:

I am perfectly glad to see people parsing out the linguistic nuances of the written decisions and announcements so as to help us achieve a maximum of understanding. So far it seems like the proportion of light to heat being generated isn't too bad. But in doing so I wonder if we aren't missing a whole other aspect of this situation because we are quite western, indeed modern American, in our assumptions.

Here in the US we drink in with our mother's milk, or at leastt he pablum fed in the elementary schools, that the individual must always be subject to the law. Of course we recognize some exceptions, like speeding to the hospital with someone bleeding to death, but by and large we see it as a badge of honor that even the President must file and pay his taxes and obey just about any other law too. We are so very confident that the rule of law restrains the abuses of power that result when society's leader is superior to its rules, and that the downside of rule supremacy is less harmful than the downside of ruler supremacy.

But in the Middle Eastern view, I believe, there is far less confidence in the rightful supremacy of legislation and regulation-making over the leader. There I believe the assumption is that a strong leader (or in the case of the Holy Synod leadership council) is often better, (at least when one trusts him to be favorable) with Council to act as a court of last resort to restrain any abuse. The resulting rules therefore guide the ruler(s) without ruling the ruler.

Please somebody correct me if you feel I am wrong in fact or degree.

If we approach the whole issue of Antiochian self-rule and the last two years of rulings (on the roles of the bishops who serve with His Eminence) from Damascus with naive western presuppositions about formulating comprehensive rules that are or should be non-modifiable, perfectly comprehensive and comprehensible, perfectly defined and internally completely consistent (isn't this what we tend to believe of our human ability to formulate civil law?), readily applicable literally, and yielding a just result in virtually each and every situation, then we (or at least the people who are primed to criticize) look askance at what appear to be shifts and changes, the gradual grapplings of well-intentioned humans with a set of variables that in important ways have never been seen before. Bad motives are then imputed to explain evolving developments which the non-subtle thinker just isn't primed to look for or see as complex or nuanced.

But the truth about law in our more and more rapidly evolving society is that we have a constant need for review and redaction in light of unfolding experience. Well-meant policies are enacted which have unforeseen consequences and unanticipated gaps in coverage. And so people who prefer change lobby the legislature, testify before regulators, and bring lawsuits before judges - all with the perfectly understandable and necessary purpose of correcting mistakes and abuses and/or fine-tuning that which is seen to work imperfectly. And what human effort is otherwise, even the effort to govern the Church well with the help of God's Spirit?

How are we to define and practice the sharing of ecclesial power in a society and on a continent like ours? It seems to me that we need strong central authority for some purposes and strong diocesans for others. An equation which only a naively western literalism would expect to solve by reference solely to the exegesis of ancient canons or the making of modern manifestos.

It really is harder to listen, think, and pray than to react.

love,

Fr. George

Dear Marc and others:

Thanks for signing your name. No personal problem with the harsh conclusions on me either, although you might want to ask yourself if you tend to be too judgmental.

But on the fundamental issue of whether or not to trust rulers or rule makers as the final authority, the "court of last resort," you don't offer much, if any, reasoning or authority. Just conclusory pronouncements.

It seems pretty clear that, like almost all well-trained Americans in or out of uniform since 1775 or so, you instinctively mistrust "foreign royalty," in this case foreign church royalty. Well learned, forcefully stated!

You will recall that many people in blue and grey uniforms died because our country had trouble sorting out just how to balance states' rights and central authority on this vast continent free of many of the constraints of the traditional societies from which the American people had originated. There had never been such a country or set of circumstances before, and therefore no paint by numbers guide for sorting it all out.

I see some similarities in the current efforts to come to agreement and good working order in our Archdiocese. The generic problems of balancing power among differing levels of authority are almost as old as the hille, but this situation throws into the mix a lot of factors more or less new on the face of the earth which make solution all the more complex.

Such a balance of power is a very, very hard equation to solve in real life so as to embody among fallible men the loving unity and order of the Trinity. I hope and believe I am not surprised or disappointed that it is taking lots of time, repeated consultations and attempts, and various, not-necessarily-congruent statements to try to move toward a consensus that gives each his due. Time will tell.

love,

Fr. George