It is known that last February (from the 16th to the 20th of the
month), the Patriarchal Center of Chambésy met for the second
time (the first meeting was held from September 29th to October
3rd, 2014). The Inter-Orthodox Special Committee, was
established in order to update and correct the Pre-Conciliar
Texts which had been decided on at the Pre-Conciliar Meetings,
mainly during the 2nd one (Chambésy 1982) and the 3rd
one (Chambésy 1986).
After being processed, the texts will be forwarded to the Holy
and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which, according to
the announcement of the Synaxis of the Primates (March 2014),
will convene in Constantinople in 2016.
The object of the Special Committee’s work this time was to
update the text of the 3rd Pre-Conciliar Meeting, entitled: “The
contribution of the Orthodox Church in the prevalence of peace,
justice, freedom, brotherhood and love among peoples and the
elimination of racial and other discrimination.”
This text had been composed in the clime of that period, during which
the Cold War dominated.
Today, however, the facts have changed; new threats have
appeared and other, burning problems have prevailed in their
place. Thus, the Committee was obliged to not offer “new wine in
old wineskins.” The Committee worked with dignity, and primarily
with the deepest sense of respect for the ecclesiastic
tradition and the theological truth as delivered by the Fathers.
Its responsibility was and is much larger, more so because it is
processing Conciliar texts. If we also consider the fact that
Holy and Great Council has been preparing itself for many
decades and that the expectations of the ecclesiastic pleroma
have also increased, this responsibility becomes a God-commanded duty.
The representatives of all the Patriarchates and Autocephalous
Churches worked as a body in developing a creative theological
dialogue, always with the aim of promoting the Church’s
teaching. No-one acted segmentally or individually, or with the
intention of attacking the ecclesiastic unity. Thus the exchange
of positions and proposals helped to improve the texts, as much
as was humanly possible.
This was the spirit and the work of the Committee. Unfortunately,
a few days ago an article appeared on the web, entitled:
“Homosexuality, the bone of contention between the Orthodox
hierarchs in Chambesy Geneva”, which completely distorts
reality.
From that specific site, the same text was also re-circulated by
others, who are accustomed to mutating Orthodoxy’s defending
stance through mudslinging – indicative of their spiritual
poverty.
The misled positions and information of the re-circulated
article are mainly the following:
- that certain hierarchs supported homosexuality, “and
almost became the cause for the chapter of Sodom and Gomorrah to
be deleted from the Bible. The stance and the
attempts of the specific Hierarchs" -according to the
author of that article- "to modify the Bible and the Sacred
Canons and Patristic teaching raises concern within the bosom of
the Church.
- that “the conflicts … which arose, reached a tempestous
level, according to exclusive information. They were in fact so
heated and loud, that, from the closed conference hall, they
reached the ears of both the technical staff of the Orthodox
Center, as well as the students studying orthodox theology
there. ”
- that the amendment, “to the immense sorrow and shame…
received the vote of the Hierarchs of Greek origin” (“Chrysostom
of Messinia, George of Paphou, Aristarchus of Constantini and
Sergius of Good Hope”), including the Metropolitan Ignatius of
Demetrias, and that reversely, the Slav-speaking ones – rejected
the compromise of shame.”
The author of that article maintained that all of them (that is,
the Slav-speaking hierarchs) “did not change their minds,
right to the end. Thanks to them, the treacherous revision of
Orthodox theology was not realized, given that they refused to
incorporate in the text that was drafted for the Holy and Great
Synod the position related to the protection of homosexuals.”
What is the objective of that article?
It aims :
– to portray the Orthodox Church as divided, with the
Greek-speaking Prelates as “betraying” the ecclesiastic
tradition, and the Slavic-speaking ones as its “defenders”;
– to undermine the authority of the Council to the ecclesiastic
pleroma, giving the impression that fermentations of treason are
taking place.
– to eventually call off the convening of the Council.
The intention of the article’s author is made obvious by the
following:
“It would be even better for this Council not to convene at
all, given that some who are going to participate in its
procedures, are ready to revise … the teaching of the Holy
Fathers”. In other words, the author is generating a rickety
argument opposing the convening of the Meeting.
What is the reality?
In the text that was agreed upon and signed by all the
representatives of the Churches, no reference, not even a single
word exists on the subject of homosexuality. Besides, this
subject was not even on the agenda. As such, the agreed upon
text contains no mention nor any support - of
homosexuality.
The specific topic was mentioned entirely by chance during the
discussions, and no Hierarch had advocated in favour of
homosexuality. What
was declared - in fact in a proclamatory manner - was that the
Church does not condemn people – that is, God’s creatures – only
sin.
Characteristic is the position of St. Theodore the Studite, that, during the Second Coming, only evil will be consumed by fire, and not God’s creations - that is, all logical beings and spirits: "That which is of God -that is, our nature- being something made by God, shall not be consumed by that fire. That which is not of God -that is, sin- is something created by the intention of the one committing it; therefore, by not being something of the beings, but rather something that co-exists, it shall be discarded, as something not being relative to beings". (c.f. PG 99, 1501AB)
The dialogue moved within the above framework, aligned with
biblical and patristic theology.
I repeat, that no one maintained something different.
Besides, the
Church’s position is quite clear, that homosexuality is a
passion.
The unsigned article produces misinformation. It is one more
example of bad journalism, which unfortunately has a share of
responsibility for the spiritual decline of our homeland.
Articles such as this increase our concern regarding the future
of the ecclesiastic and the theological word.
It is self-evident, that the choice of disseminating any article
without having judged it renders the printed and electronic
information media a source that scandalizes the ecclesiastic
pleroma.
Inasmuch as the Holy and Great Synod has vision, we should all,
for this reason, be instrumental in its work.
Theodore Yiangou
Professor and Chairman of the Department of
Pastoral and Social Theology
.