Topic: Ecumenical Patriarch & Abortion

[orthonorm]

Actually being dejected by something is pretty much the exact opposite of triumphalism.

Oh, one can make a triumph of just about anything.

[William]

Actually being dejected by something is pretty much the exact opposite of triumphalism.

Oh, one can make a triumph of just about anything.

Disappointment can be made into a triumph?

[orthonorm]

Actually being dejected by something is pretty much the exact opposite of triumphalism.

Oh, one can make a triumph of just about anything.

Disappointment can be made into a triumph?

You have to be kidding? The Good Lord musta blessed you with some kinda family. Good for you.

The victory of disappointment is food for many relationships. I can't stop the mixed metaphors.

[William]

Actually being dejected by something is pretty much the exact opposite of triumphalism.

Oh, one can make a triumph of just about anything.

Disappointment can be made into a triumph?

You have to be kidding? The Good Lord musta blessed you with some kinda family. Good for you.

The victory of disappointment is food for many relationships. I can't stop the mixed metaphors.

Okay, I see your point. I feel like I'm more despairing than trying to feel superior or triumphant or anything. See my sig you inspired.

[orthonorm]

Actually being dejected by something is pretty much the exact opposite of triumphalism.

Oh, one can make a triumph of just about anything.

Disappointment can be made into a triumph?

You have to be kidding? The Good Lord musta blessed you with some kinda family. Good for you.

The victory of disappointment is food for many relationships. I can't stop the mixed metaphors.

Okay, I see your point. I feel like I'm more despairing than trying to feel superior or triumphant or anything. See my sig you inspired.

You should really ignore whatever the EP is saying or doing. It has almost exactly no relevance to you or the parish you are attending.

It's one thing to talk Church politics writ large. It's another to confuse it for the Church.

Be careful to try to maintain that possibly artificial albeit helpful difference most of the time.

[Kerdy]

The Ecumenical Patriarch made a statement about abortion I was wondering your thoughts on it:

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally
speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy, the church also respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples...We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.

Source

This statement makes me somewhat uneasy, the only justifiable reason I could see from an Orthodox standpoint for abortion is if it threatens the health of the mother. But, the EP doesn't seem to mention that at all, rather, he says that there are "many reasons" and makes no mention to health. Likewise, notice he says "Christian" couples, I find that to be somewhat of an oxymoron, since canonically speaking, you cannot be an Orthodox Christian and have abortions with no good health reason to justify it.

Thoughts?

The EP is dead wrong here.
There is no excuse for killing the unborn. Abortion is murder.

Even in an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo has implanted itself in the walls of the Fallopian tube, there is still a chance that the life of that embryo can be saved. Daily, we are developing new technology and methods to save lives. 

Perhaps he is saying that as with any sin, we should not set ourselves up as judge and jury of a person who has committed that sin, even one as gravely wrong as abortion. It is for God to judge the person, and not us.

So, we're not to say that a sin is a sin?

Of course not. That would be judgmental and may offend someone.

[Shanghaiski]

I think it's a matter of matching the teaching to the audience. When a hierarch such as the EP says something, he may be speaking to a particular group of people, but this may not be clearly defined, and it's easy to take phrases out of context--or even entire actions, for that matter. Being a chief bishop for many years, he has a different sort of role than that of a spiritual father or a diocesan bishop.

I thought that telling people what they want to hear is a form of dishonesty.  Shouldn't Truth be Truth whatever the audience?

Not really. For example, a spiritual father may tell you to do one thing based on what you've got going, and another person to do another. One size does not fit all in every situation. (Just explaining. Personally, I can't do that with infanticide.)

[Opus118]

The Ecumenical Patriarch made a statement about abortion I was wondering your thoughts on it:

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally
speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy, the church also respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples...We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.

Source

This statement makes me somewhat uneasy, the only justifiable reason I could see from an Orthodox standpoint for abortion is if it threatens the health of the mother. But, the EP doesn't seem to mention that at all, rather, he says that there are "many reasons" and makes no mention to health. Likewise, notice he says "Christian" couples, I find that to be somewhat of an oxymoron, since canonically speaking, you cannot be an Orthodox Christian and have abortions with no good health reason to justify it.

Thoughts?

I remember this statement that priests aren't going to enter the bedroom. It dates from the 1960s. I seem to remember it was about contraception. Perhaps Patriarch Bartholomew was a spokesperson for Patriarch Athenogoras at the time. I do not know. Having read the San Francisco Chronicle from the time I learned to read (comics mostly) to when I left the Bay Area in 1980, I recommend taking the quote from this paper with more than a grain of salt.

I have decided to quote myself. Usually I consider being ignored a blessing. However, this thread which I believe to be based on false premises has gone on too long.

Parts of my memory may be bad, but this one is not. This statement, in one form or another, originated in the 1960s (prior to my leaving home to go to college). My recollection is that it had nothing to do with abortion, I could be wrong, so there is an opportunity for those that want to condemn to condemn, given that I am unsure.

I would think that it would be unusual for a paper that dealt mostly with the controversy of Foster English muffins being bought out by Kilpatricks because their muffins were pre-sliced and the demise of Larraburru (sour dough) French bread, to have someone go to Constantinople to interview Metropolitan Bartholomew.

I cannot address this issue, even though my memory is firm, because I have not seen the article and more importantly I cannot write to the author directly.

I consider threads like this as a form of tribal rage,  not unlike what occurs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, where people die in riots based on events that have never occurred.

The ability of people on this forum to condemn individuals with so little evidence (which should not have required my ignored post) astounds me.

I welcome any substantive posts that may follow, but I consider what has been going on here sick. This is my opinion.

[NicholasMyra]

The real problem here should be the fact the EP thinks a soul enters a body at conception. That is the strangest and most problematic thing about his statement. Maybe something is lost in translation.

I don't think it's overly problematic. It's just your typical Hellenic Christian reading of Genesis 2:7.

[J Michael]

The real problem here should be the fact the EP thinks a soul enters a body at conception. That is the strangest and most problematic thing about his statement. Maybe something is lost in translation.

I don't think it's overly problematic. It's just your typical Hellenic Christian reading of Genesis 2:7.

Great signature, NicholasMyra!  Fr. Tom's talk on the Prodigal Son parable, where he re-works it without ever losing its original meaning, is brilliant!  One I'll never forget. 

[Fabio Leite]

I don't think people who willingly choose to abort understand themselves as murderers, nevertheless the act *is* murder. I don't know how it works in other countries laws, but here in Brazil there is a distinctin between "murder with guilt" and "murder with intention".

Murder with guilt is any kind of muder where you are responsible for the death of the person. For example, if I get drunk and drive and kill someone in the process I am responsible for this death although I did not intend to kill anyone. I'd be charged of "murder with guilt". If I decide to run over a person I don't like and I kill this person, I'd be charged of "murder with intention" which is considered worse with heavier penalties. I'm sure lawyers could expand on the technicalities and grey areas, but that's the idea.

People who commit abortion are "murders with guilt". Some don't think there is a human being there, some are in doubt. They take the chance though, putting aside the possibility that they may be killing someone. It's like I chose to set fire to a house that may or may not have a baby there. It obviously is not the same thing as doing it being sure there is, but the person did find it was worth the risk. Since, in the end, there was an actual baby in the house, it was "murder with guilt". Saying "I never believed for a moment there was a baby there" doesn't change anything, just like the drunk driver who says "I never believed I'd hit someone" doesn't change the nature of the fact. At the very least, they gambled with other people's lives at stake, not their own. And lost it.

[J Michael]

I don't think people who willingly choose to abort understand themselves as murderers, nevertheless the act *is* murder. I don't know how it works in other countries laws, but here in Brazil there is a distinctin between "murder with guilt" and "murder with intention".

Murder with guilt is any kind of muder where you are responsible for the death of the person. For example, if I get drunk and drive and kill someone in the process I am responsible for this death although I did not intend to kill anyone. I'd be charged of "murder with guilt". If I decide to run over a person I don't like and I kill this person, I'd be charged of "murder with intention" which is considered worse with heavier penalties. I'm sure lawyers could expand on the technicalities and grey areas, but that's the idea.

People who commit abortion are "murders with guilt". Some don't think there is a human being there, some are in doubt. They take the chance though, putting aside the possibility that they may be killing someone. It's like I chose to set fire to a house that may or may not have a baby there. It obviously is not the same thing as doing it being sure there is, but the person did find it was worth the risk. Since, in the end, there was an actual baby in the house, it was "murder with guilt". Saying "I never believed for a moment there was a baby there" doesn't change anything, just like the drunk driver who says "I never believed I'd hit someone" doesn't change the nature of the fact. At the very least, they gambled with other people's lives at stake, not their own. And lost it.

Very nicely said!

[KBN1]

The Ecumenical Patriarch made a statement about abortion I was wondering your thoughts on it:

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally
speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy, the church also respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples...We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.

Source

This statement makes me somewhat uneasy, the only justifiable reason I could see from an Orthodox standpoint for abortion is if it threatens the health of the mother. But, the EP doesn't seem to mention that at all, rather, he says that there are "many reasons" and makes no mention to health. Likewise, notice he says "Christian" couples, I find that to be somewhat of an oxymoron, since canonically speaking, you cannot be an Orthodox Christian and have abortions with no good health reason to justify it.

Thoughts?

I remember this statement that priests aren't going to enter the bedroom. It dates from the 1960s. I seem to remember it was about contraception. Perhaps Patriarch Bartholomew was a spokesperson for Patriarch Athenogoras at the time. I do not know. Having read the San Francisco Chronicle from the time I learned to read (comics mostly) to when I left the Bay Area in 1980, I recommend taking the quote from this paper with more than a grain of salt.

I have decided to quote myself. Usually I consider being ignored a blessing. However, this thread which I believe to be based on false premises has gone on too long.

Parts of my memory may be bad, but this one is not. This statement, in one form or another, originated in the 1960s (prior to my leaving home to go to college). My recollection is that it had nothing to do with abortion, I could be wrong, so there is an opportunity for those that want to condemn to condemn, given that I am unsure.

I would think that it would be unusual for a paper that dealt mostly with the controversy of Foster English muffins being bought out by Kilpatricks because their muffins were pre-sliced and the demise of Larraburru (sour dough) French bread, to have someone go to Constantinople to interview Metropolitan Bartholomew.

I cannot address this issue, even though my memory is firm, because I have not seen the article and more importantly I cannot write to the author directly.

I consider threads like this as a form of tribal rage,  not unlike what occurs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, where people die in riots based on events that have never occurred.

The ability of people on this forum to condemn individuals with so little evidence (which should not have required my ignored post) astounds me.

I welcome any substantive posts that may follow, but I consider what has been going on here sick. This is my opinion.

I would be very interested in the original context and full quote.  The ellipsis needs to be taken note of. 

[KBN1]

It seems that the quote in the OP needs to be corrected.  As I have found it in other articles, the quote is from the SanFran Chronicle, but only portions of it being the words of Patriarch Bartholomew.

Asked the Orthodox church’s position on abortion, Bartholomais described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which condemns abortion in all cases and whose clergy have, in some cities, excommunicated leading pro-choice Catholics.

Although the Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, ”generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,” Bartholomais said, the church also ”respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples.”

”We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he said. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”

http://www.frpeterpreble.com/2009/11/abortion-an-orthodox-view.html

The bit about the soul entering the body at conception might be more the writer than what His Holiness actually said.  We also don't know the questions he was responding to.  Just sayin'.

[choy]

It seems that the quote in the OP needs to be corrected.  As I have found it in other articles, the quote is from the SanFran Chronicle, but only portions of it being the words of Patriarch Bartholomew.

Asked the Orthodox church’s position on abortion, Bartholomais described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which condemns abortion in all cases and whose clergy have, in some cities, excommunicated leading pro-choice Catholics.

Although the Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, ”generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,” Bartholomais said, the church also ”respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples.”

”We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he said. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”

http://www.frpeterpreble.com/2009/11/abortion-an-orthodox-view.html

The bit about the soul entering the body at conception might be more the writer than what His Holiness actually said.  We also don't know the questions he was responding to.  Just sayin'.

Agreed.  And we don't know what the context was.  Journalism today is all about marketing and sales, trying to come up with a story that you think people will be interested in so they will read your paper (or browse your web page and you get more hits and more advertising dollars).  So they will take things out of context and sensationalize the headlines and whatever to draw an audience.

[JoeS2]

We know that Abortion is wrong and so does the EP.  Why he is taking this stance is unknown, but as an Orthodox Christian I can not agree with his stand on mitigated circumstances involving the taking of an infant's life.   Patriarchs, and Popes have been wrong from time to time.
Maybe the next EP will sing a different tune.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Here are my thoughts.

JamesR's source was an article, Orthodox Patriarchs “Wink” at Abortion by Fr Edward Pehanich, where he criticized both Patriarch Karekin I of Etchmiadzin, Armenia and Patriarch Bartholemew (for a statement he was reported to have said as Metropolitan of Chalcedon). His sad conclusion was "It appears that the leaders of our Church for so long were silenced by hostile Muslim governments and then by Communists that they have forgotten how to allow the Church fulfill her role as a prophetic voice challenging the prevailing values, beliefs, goals, and behavior of the culture." http://web.archive.org/web/20040407123705/http://www.oclife.org/vnine.pdf

A quick search of the Internet produced another lead, this time in A Not So Pro-life Patriarch . . . by Hunter Baker, that refers to an article by John Couretas (a contributor to AOI). He concludes "The statement was made in 1990, but Couretas goes on to highlight the same theme in the patriarch’s thought through the years. For a church that talks about being founded in 32 b.c. this is quite a divergence from early Christian practice, which consistently exhibited tremendous concern for the value of human life." http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/

The problem here is that the link to Mr. Couretas' 2009 article in AOI goes nowhere. So, I would appreciate if anyone can locate a copy of the Couretas article as the key here is not the SF Chronicle interview but Couretas' alleged highlighting of the  theme in the Patrirarch's thoughts through the years. In case I have lost the reader, the theme would be "”We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he said. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”

I think there are good reasons why many folks think the Patriarch is "soft" on abortion, aside from his thoughts on the matter. Father Pehanich's accusation may be correct and bears repeating "they have forgotten how to allow the Church fulfill her role as a prophetic voice challenging the prevailing values, beliefs, goals, and behavior of the culture." This is clear from the lack of emphasis on issues such as abortion by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the United States. Indeed, if one were to list the issues that the Greek-Americans are concerned with, one would not see any social issue (or something that is specific to the United States). Here is a list of their concerns at the national level "Aegean dispute, Cyprus dispute, Macedonia naming dispute, Greek genocide" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_politics_in_the_United_States

My conclusion is that it is up to the Patriarch to disprove the serious allegation contained in the quoted SF Chronicle article.

[orthonorm]

A quick search of the Internet produced another lead, this time in A Not So Pro-life Patriarch . . . by Hunter Baker, that refers to an article by John Couretas (a contributor to AOI). He concludes "The statement was made in 1990, but Couretas goes on to highlight the same theme in the patriarch’s thought through the years. For a church that talks about being founded in 32 b.c. this is quite a divergence from early Christian practice, which consistently exhibited tremendous concern for the value of human life." http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/

Carl,

Dunno if this is helpful, maybe you already saw it, but here is a blog entry by Mr. Couretas where he summarizes some of his arguments contra the Patriarch (includes links posts on the subject)

http://blog.acton.org/archives/12601-green-patriarchs-web-of-life-has-a-gaping-hole-in-it.html

I literally googled for 40 seconds trying to find your source article. Time is tight.

FWIW.

[choy]

We know that Abortion is wrong and so does the EP.  Why he is taking this stance is unknown, but as an Orthodox Christian I can not agree with his stand on mitigated circumstances involving the taking of an infant's life.   Patriarchs, and Popes have been wrong from time to time.
Maybe the next EP will sing a different tune.

Maybe he already does, given this statement was made some time ago.  Maybe he was just ill informed of the medical realities of abortion of the time.  Or perhaps again the statement was made in a context other than showing support for abortion.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

A quick search of the Internet produced another lead, this time in A Not So Pro-life Patriarch . . . by Hunter Baker, that refers to an article by John Couretas (a contributor to AOI). He concludes "The statement was made in 1990, but Couretas goes on to highlight the same theme in the patriarch’s thought through the years. For a church that talks about being founded in 32 b.c. this is quite a divergence from early Christian practice, which consistently exhibited tremendous concern for the value of human life." http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/

Carl,

Dunno if this is helpful, maybe you already saw it, but here is a blog entry by Mr. Couretas where he summarizes some of his arguments contra the Patriarch (includes links posts on the subject)

http://blog.acton.org/archives/12601-green-patriarchs-web-of-life-has-a-gaping-hole-in-it.html

I literally googled for 40 seconds trying to find your source article. Time is tight.

FWIW.

Thanks! Although this later article by John Couretas confirms the reference by Hunter baker, it would be good if we can unearth the earlier Couretas article. Could it be this one?:

A patriarch who ‘generally speaking, respects human life’
October 24, 2009 10:37 PM
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/a-patriarch-who-generally-speaking-respects-human-life/

[orthonorm]

A quick search of the Internet produced another lead, this time in A Not So Pro-life Patriarch . . . by Hunter Baker, that refers to an article by John Couretas (a contributor to AOI). He concludes "The statement was made in 1990, but Couretas goes on to highlight the same theme in the patriarch’s thought through the years. For a church that talks about being founded in 32 b.c. this is quite a divergence from early Christian practice, which consistently exhibited tremendous concern for the value of human life." http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/

Carl,

Dunno if this is helpful, maybe you already saw it, but here is a blog entry by Mr. Couretas where he summarizes some of his arguments contra the Patriarch (includes links posts on the subject)

http://blog.acton.org/archives/12601-green-patriarchs-web-of-life-has-a-gaping-hole-in-it.html

I literally googled for 40 seconds trying to find your source article. Time is tight.

FWIW.

Thanks! Although this later article by John Couretas confirms the reference by Hunter baker, it would be good if we can unearth the earlier Couretas article. Could it be this one?:

A patriarch who ‘generally speaking, respects human life’
October 24, 2009 10:37 PM
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/a-patriarch-who-generally-speaking-respects-human-life/

The SF Chronicle article is not archived on their website. They start from 1992.

This post I found however does cite the article as well along with a quote from a WP article, which I verified, and a quote from a book, Conversations with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, which I also verified within context.

Orthodox EP Soft Like Anglicans on Abortion [Ecumenical]:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2053256/posts

FWIW.

EDIT: The poster obviously draws their own conclusions based on the three statements.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Thanks again Orthonorm!  I think it would be safe to say that there is smoke, if not fire.