In one breath you state 'church life...is not the place to apply the rational logic of secular society.'
Distinguo. Logic per se is a matter of verifying the relations of conclusions to premises. The "rational logic of secular society" of Fr. Igor is short-hand for applying worldly standards to the church. This often shows up as a kind of soul-devouring reductio ad absurdam, which bubbles forth such propositions as animals and plants having human rights.
Once you dismiss the precepts of logic you can no longer expect one to be consistent.
Nego. Many madmen are consistent.
For to be consistent is to be logical
Nego. Ut supra.
to be logical is to be consistent
having read several academic papers from His Excellency, as well as his books, I disagree with your accusation of inconsistency.
The inconsistency was alleged of his comments, not of his opinions across time. I should emphasize that it was a sneaky inconsistency. He was not speaking (it seem) from prepared notes, he might have been having a Jerry Ford Poland experience.
I thought the discussion was about His Excellency, consistency, and academic honesty.
Omit "His Excellency" and "academic honesty." The only thing that matters to me is the analysis of his opinion.
While I personally view the ordination of gays and women as human rights issues,
This is precisely what I detected and generally oppose in his comments. Human rights are necessary in the context of any civil authority. E.g., I suppose that I have a right to not be deprived of an education, but I do not have a right to an education provided for by a civil authority. The recent multiplication of human and animal rights is due to the hypothesis that human rights are primarily positive, i.e., that anyone has a right to the provision of a positive good by a civil authority.
Au contraire, there is no right to ordination by anyone, male, female or homosexual, since no civil authority can legitimately take it upon himself to furnish citizens indifferently with ordination. The premise entertained by the Met. is that one may work out a reasonable defense of existing practice in case women and homosexuals are not ordained; my premise is that human rights do not generally apply to church canons to the extent that they do not harm people. (On this score, it is interesting that the church eschews self-flagellation, although this exercise of piety surfaces now and again, most recently at Athos.) To apply human rights to a church is like applying canon law to a baseball game.
I also support the right of private organizations to discriminate, though I don't think that respectable people should affiliate themselves with such organizations.
I have perhaps errantly devoted my whole life to an unending battle against respectability. Please do not use that word.
more accurately, your bishops can do as they want, you really don't have a say.
In fact, I am told canon law authorizes little old ladies to tell off bishops. In the church, as in the army, mere rank means nothing if people do not recognize the moral force of the rank-bearing man. I should have thought that a little church history would prevent making such a claim. In fact, your comment makes me think that you see episcopal authority as tantamount to political authority.
I do happen to know that His Excellency is a good and honest person, and a good person, even if he's a religious person, shouldn't have his character assassinated with half-truths and outright libel. Perhaps you should be familiar with someone's works before you choose to tear them apart.
Once again, bdelygmia and ad hominem! Did you look these words up? For that matter, character assassination and libel have pretty specific definitions in English. Do you know what they mean? If so, why are you using them to describe a disagreement of principles?