Μήνυμα του Αγίου Πατέρα Φραγκίσκου για την Παγκόσμια Ημέρα του μετανάστη και του πρόσφυγa

 

πάρθηκε από την ιστοσελίδα Cen.gr

ΜΗΝΥΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΑΤΕΡΑ ΠΑΠΑ ΦΡΑΓΚΙΣΚΟΥ

ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΗΜΕΡΑ

ΤΟΥ ΜΕΤΑΝΑΣΤΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΑ 2017
[15 Ιανουαρίου 2017]

Παιδιά Μετανάστες, οι Ευάλωτοι και Χωρίς Φωνή

Αγαπητοί Αδελφοί και Αδελφές,

«Όποιος δέχεται ένα παιδί στο όνομά μου, δέχεται εμένα· και όποιος δέχεται εμένα, δεν δέχεται εμένα, αλλά εκείνον που με έστειλε» (Μκ 9:37; βλ. Μτ 18:5; Λκ 9:48;Ιω13:20). Με αυτά τα λόγια, οι Ευαγγελιστές θυμίζουν στη χριστιανική κοινότητα τη διδασκαλία του Χριστού, που εμπνέει και ταυτόχρονα συνιστά πρόκληση. Αυτή η φράση χαράσσει το σίγουρο μονοπάτι προς τον Θεό· ξεκινά από τους μικρότερους και περνά μέσω του Σωτήρα, μέσα στη δυναμική της υποδοχής. Ακριβώς λοιπόν η υποδοχή είναι απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση για να κάνουμε αυτή τη διαδρομή συγκεκριμένη πραγματικότητα: ο Θεός έκανε τον εαυτό του έναν από εμάς. Ο Θεός Ιησούς έγινε παιδί, και η στάση ανοίγματος προς τον Θεό μέσα στην πίστη, που τρέφει την ελπίδα, εκφράζεται με την αγάπη της εγγύτητας με τους μικρούς και τους πιο αδύναμους. Αγάπη, πίστη και ελπίδα είναι όλες ενεργά παρούσες στα πνευματικά και σωματικά έργα ευσπλαχνίας, που ανακαλύψαμε εκ νέου κατά τη διάρκεια του πρόσφατου έκτακτου Ιωβηλαίου.

Αλλά οι Ευαγγελιστές εκφράζουν επίσης την ευθύνη εκείνου που εργάζεται εναντίον της ευσπλαχνίας: «Εκείνος που ωθεί στην αμαρτία κάποιον από εκείνους τους μικρούς που πιστεύουν σε εμένα: είναι καλύτερο γι’ αυτόν να δεθεί μια μυλόπετρα γύρω από τον λαιμό του και να πνιγεί στα βάθη της θάλασσας» (Μτ 18, 6 / Βλ.Μκ 9, 42 /Λκ 17,2). Πώς μπορούμε να αγνοήσουμε αυτή την αυστηρή προειδοποίηση όταν βλέπουμε να υπάρχει εκμετάλλευση από ασυνείδητους ανθρώπους; Αυτή η εκμετάλλευση βλάπτει τα νέα κορίτσια και αγόρια που οδηγούνται στην πορνεία ή στον βούρκο της πορνογραφίας· που υποδουλώνονται ως παιδιά εργάτες ή στρατιώτες· που εγκλωβίζονται στο εμπόριο ναρκωτικών και άλλες μορφές εγκληματικότητας· που πιέζονται να διαφύγουν από σύγκρουση ή διωγμούς, διακινδυνεύοντας την απομόνωση και την εγκατάλειψη.

Για τον λόγο αυτό, με αφορμή την ετήσια Παγκόσμια Ημέρα του Μετανάστη και του Πρόσφυγα, νιώθω υποχρεωμένος να επιστήσω την προσοχή σας στα παιδιά μετανάστες, ειδικά σε εκείνα που είναι μόνα τους. Με αυτό, ζητώ από τον καθένα να φροντίζει τους νέους, που είναι τριπλά απροστάτευτοι: είναι παιδιά, ξένοι και ανυπεράσπιστοι, εξαναγκασμένοι να ζουν μακριά από την πατρίδα τους και μακριά από την αγάπη των οικογενειών τους.

Η μετανάστευση σήμερα είναι ένα φαινόμενο που δεν είναι περιορισμένο σε κάποιες περιοχές του πλανήτη. Επηρεάζει όλες τις ηπείρους και εξελίσσεται σε τραγική κατάσταση διεθνών διαστάσεων. Δεν αφορά μόνο εκείνους που αναζητούν μια αξιοπρεπή εργασία ή καλύτερες συνθήκες ζωής, αλλά επίσης άντρες και γυναίκες, ηλικιωμένους και παιδιά, που αναγκάζονται να εγκαταλείψουν τα σπίτια τους με την ελπίδα να βρουν την ασφάλεια και την ειρήνη. Τα παιδιά είναι τα πρώτα που πληρώνουν βαρύ φόρο για τη μετανάστευση, η οποία σχεδόν πάντα προκαλείται από τη βία, τη φτώχεια, τις περιβαλλοντικές συνθήκες, καθώς και τις αρνητικές συνέπειες της παγκοσμιοποίησης. Ο αχαλίνωτος ανταγωνισμός για γρήγορο και εύκολο κέρδος καλλιεργεί τη διεστραμμένη μάστιγα της εμπορίας παιδιών, της εκμετάλλευσης και της κακοποίησης ανηλίκων και, γενικά, της αποστέρησης δικαιωμάτων που είναι εγγενή στην παιδική ηλικία, σύμφωνα με τη Διεθνή Σύμβαση για τα Δικαιώματα του Παιδιού.

Η παιδική ηλικία, δεδομένης της εύθραυστης φύσης της, έχει ιδιαίτερες και αδιαπραγμάτευτες ανάγκες. Επάνω από οτιδήποτε άλλο, υπάρχει το δικαίωμα σε ένα υγιές και ασφαλές οικογενειακό περιβάλλον, στο οποίο το παιδί μπορεί να μεγαλώσει υπό την καθοδήγηση και το παράδειγμα του πατέρα και της μητέρας. Έπειτα, είναι το δικαίωμα και το καθήκον στην κατάλληλη εκπαίδευση, πρωταρχικά στην οικογένεια και επίσης στο σχολείο, όπου τα παιδιά μπορούν να διαπλάσουν χαρακτήρα και να μεγαλώσουν ως κύριοι της μοίρας τους και της μοίρας των χωρών από τις οποίες προέρχονται. Πράγματι, σε πολλές περιοχές του κόσμου, η ανάγνωση, η γραφή και η βασική αριθμητική αποτελούν ακόμα προνόμιο των λίγων. Επιπλέον, όλα τα παιδιά έχουν δικαίωμα στην ψυχαγωγία· με λίγα λόγια, έχουν το δικαίωμα να είναι παιδιά.

Κι όμως, τα παιδιά είναι η πιο ευάλωτη ομάδα μεταναστών, γιατί, καθώς έχουν τη ζωή μπροστά τους, είναι αόρατα και χωρίς φωνή: η επισφαλής κατάστασή τους τους στερεί έγγραφα τεκμηρίωσης, κρατώντας τα μακριά από τα μάτια του κόσμου· η απουσία ενηλίκων συνοδών εμποδίζει τη φωνή τους να υψωθεί και να ακουστεί. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, τα παιδιά μετανάστες πέφτουν στο χαμηλότερο επίπεδο ανθρώπινης υποβάθμισης, με την παρανομία και τη βία να καταστρέφουν το μέλλον πολλών αθώων, την στιγμή που είναι δύσκολο να σπάσει το δίκτυο παιδικής εκμετάλλευσης.

Πώς πρέπει να παρέμβουμε σε αυτή την πραγματικότητα;

Πρώτα, πρέπει να συνειδητοποιήσουμε ότι το φαινόμενο της μετανάστευσης δεν είναι ασύνδετο με την ιστορία της σωτηρίας, αλλά μάλλον μέρος της ιστορίας. Μία από τις εντολές του Θεού αναφέρεται στο θέμα: «Δεν πρέπει να κάνεις κακό σε ξένο ή να τον καταπιέσεις, γιατί κι εσείς ξένοι ήσασταν στη γη της Αιγύπτου» (Εξ 22,21)· “Γι’ αυτό να αγαπάτε τον ξένο· γιατί κι εσείς ξένοι ήσασταν στη γη της Αιγύπτου» (Δτ10,19). Αυτό το φαινόμενο συνιστά σημείο των καιρών, ένα σημείο που μιλά για το θεόσταλτο έργο του Θεού στην ιστορία και στην ανθρώπινη κοινότητα, με το βλέμμα στην παγκόσμια κοινωνία. Ενώ γνωρίζει τα προβλήματα, και συχνά τον πόνο και την τραγωδία της μετανάστευσης, καθώς και τις δυσκολίες που σχετίζονται με τις δυσκολίες να προσφερθεί μια αξιοπρεπής υποδοχή σε αυτούς τους ανθρώπους, η Εκκλησία παρ’ όλ’ αυτά μας ενθαρρύνει αν αναγνωρίσουμε το σχέδιο του Θεού. Μας προσκαλεί να το κάνουμε αυτό ακριβώς ενώ εκτυλίσσεται αυτό το φαινόμενο, με τη βεβαιότητα ότι κανείς δεν είναι ξένος στη χριστιανική κοινότητα, που αγκαλιάζει «κάθε έθνος, φυλή και γλώσσα» (Απ7, 9). Κάθε άνθρωπος είναι πολύτιμος· οι άνθρωποι είναι πιο σημαντικοί από τα πράγματα, και η αξία ενός θεσμού μετριέται από τον τρόπο που αντιμετωπίζει τη ζωή και την αξιοπρέπεια των ανθρώπων, ειδικά όταν είναι ευάλωτοι, όπως συμβαίνει στην περίπτωση των παιδιών μεταναστών.

Επιπλέον, πρέπει να εργαζόμαστε για την προστασία, την ένταξη και για μακροπρόθεσμες λύσεις.

Μας ενδιαφέρει πρωτίστως να υιοθετήσουμε κάθε πιθανό μέτρο προκειμένου να εγγυηθούμε την προστασία και την ασφάλεια των παιδιών μεταναστών, γιατί «αυτά τα αγόρια και τα κορίτσια συχνά καταλήγουν στον δρόμο, εγκαταλελειμμένα στη μοίρα τους, βορά σε ασυνείδητους εκμεταλλευτές που συχνά τα καθιστούν αντικείμενα φυσικής, ηθικής και σεξουαλικής βίας» (Βενέδικτος XVI, Μήνυμα για την Παγκόσμια Ημέρα του Μετανάστη και του Πρόσφυγα, 2008).

Επιπροσθέτως, η διαχωριστική γραμμή μεταξύ της μετανάστευσης και της εμπορίας ανθρώπων μπορεί μερικές φορές να είναι πολύ λεπτή. Υπάρχουν πολλοί παράγοντες που καθιστούν τους μετανάστες ευάλωτους, ειδικά εάν είναι παιδιά: η φτώχεια και η έλλειψη μέσων για την επιβίωσή τους – στα οποία προστίθενται μη ρεαλιστικές προσδοκίες που καλλιεργούνται από τα μέσα· η ελάχιστη γνώση γραφής· η άγνοια του νόμου, του πολιτισμού και συχνά της γλώσσας των χωρών φιλοξενίας. Όλα αυτά καθιστούν τα παιδιά εξαρτημένα φυσικά και ψυχολογικά. Αλλά η πιο ισχυρή κινητήριος δύναμη για την εκμετάλλευση και την κακοποίηση των παιδιών είναι η ζήτηση. Εάν δεν αναληφθεί πιο αυστηρή και αποτελεσματική δράση εναντίον εκείνων που κερδοσκοπούν από αυτή την κακοποίηση, δεν θα μπορέσουμε να σταματήσουμε τις πολλαπλές μορφές δουλείας που έχουν θύματα τα παιδιά.

Είναι, λοιπόν, αναγκαίο, οι μετανάστες να συνεργάζονται όσο το δυνατόν πιο στενά με τις κοινότητες που τους υποδέχονται, για το καλό των δικών τους παιδιών. Είμαστε βαθύτατα ευγνώμονες στις οργανώσεις και τους φορείς, τόσο τις εκκλησιαστικές, όσο και τις κοσμικές, που αφιερώνουν χρόνο και πόρους για να προστατεύσουν τους ανηλίκους από διάφορες μορφές κακοποίησης. Είναι σημαντικό να υπάρξει η πιο αποτελεσματική και εις βάθος συνεργασία, που να βασίζεται, όχι μόνο στην ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, αλλά και στην ενίσχυση των δικτύων που μπορούν να διασφαλίσουν έγκαιρη και στοχευμένη παρέμβαση· και αυτό, χωρίς να υποτιμάμε τη δύναμη που φανερώνουν οι εκκλησιαστικές κοινότητες, ειδικά όταν είναι ενωμένες σε προσευχή και αδελφική κοινωνία.

Δεύτερον, πρέπει να εργαστούμε για την ένταξη των παιδιών και των νέων, που είναι μετανάστες. Εξαρτώνται εξ ολοκλήρου από την κοινότητα των ενηλίκων. Πολύ συχνά, η έλλειψη οικονομικών πόρων εμποδίζει την υιοθέτηση κατάλληλων πολιτικών που έχουν στόχο την αρωγή και την ένταξη. Ως αποτέλεσμα, αντί να ευνοείται η κοινωνική ένταξη των παιδιών μεταναστών ή τα προγράμματα για ασφαλή και βοηθούμενο επαναπατρισμό, υπάρχει απλώς μια προσπάθεια να χαλιναγωγηθεί η είσοδος των μεταναστών, που έχει ως συνέπεια την ανάπτυξη παράνομων δικτύων· ή, αλλιώς, οι μετανάστες επαναπατρίζονται στη χώρα προέλευσής τους χωρίς καμία πρόνοια για το «καλύτερο συμφέρον» τους.

Η κατάσταση των παιδιών μεταναστών επιδεινώνεται όταν η κατάστασή τους δεν ομαλοποιείται ή όταν στρατολογούνται από εγκληματικές οργανώσεις. Σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις, στέλνονται συνήθως σε κέντρα κράτησης. Δεν είναι ασυνήθιστο να συλλαμβάνονται και, επειδή δεν έχουν χρήματα να πληρώσουν το πρόστιμο ή το ταξίδι επιστροφής τους, μπορεί να φυλακίζονται για μεγάλα χρονικά διαστήματα, εκτεθειμένα σε διάφορες μορφές βίας και κακοποίησης. Σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις, το δικαίωμα των κρατών να ελέγξουν το μεταναστευτικό ρεύμα και να προστατεύσουν το κοινό καλό του έθνους πρέπει να εξεταστεί σε συνδυασμό με το καθήκον να επιλύσουν και να ομαλοποιήσουν την κατάσταση των παιδιών μεταναστών, σεβόμενοι πλήρως την αξιοπρέπειά τους και επιδιώκοντας να καλύψουν τις ανάγκες τους όταν είναι μόνα, καθώς επίσης και τις ανάγκες των γονέων, για το καλό όλης της οικογένειας.

Είναι θεμελιώδους σημασίας η υιοθέτηση κατάλληλων διαδικασιών σε εθνικό επίπεδο και αμοιβαία συμφωνημένων σχεδίων συνεργασίας μεταξύ των χωρών προέλευσης και προορισμού, με την πρόθεση να εξαλειφθούν οι αιτίες της αναγκαστικής μετανάστευσης ανηλίκων.

Τρίτον, απευθύνω σε όλους ειλικρινή έκκληση να αναζητηθούν και να υιοθετηθούν μακροπρόθεσμες λύσεις. Καθώς πρόκειται για σύνθετο φαινόμενο, το ζήτημα των παιδιών μεταναστών πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί στη ρίζα του. Πόλεμοι, παραβιάσεις ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, διαφθορά, φτώχεια, περιβαλλοντική ανισορροπία και καταστροφές, όλες συνιστούν αιτίες αυτού του προβλήματος. Τα παιδιά είναι τα πρώτα που υποφέρουν σε περιόδους βασανιστηρίων και άλλων μορφών φυσικής βίας, εκτός από την ηθική και ψυχολογική επιθετικότητα, που σχεδόν πάντοτε αφήνει ανεξίτηλα τραύματα.

Είναι λοιπόν απολύτως απαραίτητο να αντιμετωπίζουμε τις αιτίες που ωθούν στη μετανάστευση, στις χώρες προέλευσης. Αυτό προϋποθέτει, ως πρώτο βήμα, τη δέσμευση ολόκληρης της διεθνούς κοινότητας για την εξάλειψη των συγκρούσεων και της βίας, που αναγκάζουν τους ανθρώπους να εγκαταλείπουν τον τόπο τους. Επιπλέον, γίνεται έκκληση για προοπτικές οξυδερκείς, που μπορούν να παρέχουν το πλαίσιο για κατάλληλα προγράμματα σε περιοχές που υφίστανται τη χειρότερη αδικία και αστάθεια, ώστε να διασφαλίζεται για όλους η πρόσβαση στην πραγματική ανάπτυξη. Αυτή η ανάπτυξη πρέπει να προωθεί το καλό αγοριών και κοριτσιών, που είναι η ελπίδα της ανθρωπότητας.

Τέλος, μια παραίνεση προς εσάς που βαδίζετε πλάι στα παιδιά μετανάστες και τους νέους στους δρόμους της μετανάστευσης· χρειάζονται την πολύτιμή βοήθειά σας. Και η Εκκλησία σάς χρειάζεται και σας υποστηρίζει στο γενναιόδωρο λειτούργημά σας. Μην εγκαταλείπετε την προσπάθεια να βιώνετε θαρραλέα το Ευαγγέλιο, που σας καλεί να αναγνωρίσετε και να υποδεχθείτε τον Κύριο Ιησού παρόντα στους πιο μικρούς και ευάλωτους.

Εμπιστεύομαι όλα τα παιδιά μετανάστες, τις οικογένειές τους, τις κοινότητές τους, κι εσάς που είστε πλησίον τους, στην προστασία της Αγίας Οικογένειας της Ναζαρέτ, ώστε αυτή να επαγρυπνεί επάνω στον καθένα και να τους συνοδεύει στην πορεία τους. Και μαζί με την προσευχή μου, ενώνω την Αποστολική Ευλογία μου.

Από το Βατικανό, 8 Σεπτεμβρίου 2016, εορτή του Γενεθλίου της Αειπαρθένου Μαρίας.

ΦΡΑΓΚΙΣΚΟΣ

π. Ν. Λουδοβίκος: Ἡ βυζαντινὴ καὶ ἡ εὐρωπαϊκὴ ἔννοια τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ σὲ διάλογο

π. Νικόλαος Λουδοβίκος

 

Ἡ βυζαντινὴ ἰδιοπροσωπία κατὰ τὸν 11ο καὶ 12ο αἰώνα περιλαμβάνει πλῆθος στοιχείων, ριζικὰ ξένων κάποτε ἀπὸ ἀντίστοιχες ἐξελίξεις στὴ Δύση: Ὁ περὶ τὶς ἐπιστῆμες σκεπτικισμός, ἡ ἀνατίμηση τοῦ φυσικοῦ ὄντος καὶ ἡ κατάφαση στὴν συγκεκριμένη ἀνθρώπινη φύση, ἡ (ἀδιανόητη γιὰ τὴ Δύση) ἀστικὴ ἀνάπτυξη χωρὶς τὴν ταυτόχρονη ἀπόρριψη τῆς πολιτικῆς καὶ θρησκευτικῆς ἐξουσίας, ἡ συμμαχία (ἀπροσδόκητη γιὰ τὸν δυτικὸ μελετητή) ἀστῶν καὶ γαιοκτημόνων, ἡ ἔντονη ἐξατομίκευση τῶν κοινωνικῶν διεκδικήσεων μαζὶ μὲ τὴν παράλληλη ἰσχὺ τῆς πυρηνικῆς οἰκογένειας καθὼς καὶ ἡ μεγάλη κοινωνικὴ κινητικότητα μὲ τὴν ταυτόχρονη ἀνυπαρξία συμπαγοῦς κυρίαρχης τάξης, ἀποτελοῦν καίρια χαρακτηριστικά της. Γιὰ ὅσους δέ, θὰ τόνιζαν τὴν παντοδυναμία τοῦ αὐτοκράτορα, ἡ ὁποία πράγματι δὲν ἀμφισβητήθηκε ποτὲ στὴν Ἀνατολὴ ἀπὸ ἀνεξάρτητες ὁμάδες ἢ θεσμούς, ὅπως στὴ Δύση, θ’ ἀρκοῦσε νὰ θυμίζαμε τὴν παρατήρηση τοῦ Ράνσιμαν πὼς ὁ βυζαντινὸς αὐτοκράτορας ἐντούτοις δὲν εἶναι κληρονομικός, ὁ ὁποιοσδήποτε πολίτης μπορεῖ νὰ εἶναι ὁ ἑπόμενος αὐτοκράτορας, ὁ ὁποῖος ἐπιπλέον ἐλέγχεται (ὡς πρόσωπο καὶ ὄχι ὡς θεσμός) ἀπὸ τὸν στρατό, τὸν λαό, τὴ Σύγκλητο καὶ τὴν Ἐκκλησία.

Ὅλα αὐτὰ δὲν σημαίνουν τίποτε ἄλλο παρὰ μόνον πὼς τὸ Βυζάντιο, δύο αἰῶνες ἤδη πρὶν τὴν κατάρρευσή του, εἶχε ὅλες τίς, κατὰ τὴν σύγχρονη νοοτροπία, προϋποθέσεις οὐσιαστικῆς ἱστορικότητας, γεγονὸς ποὺ θὰ ὁλοκληρωθεῖ μὲ τὸν Ἡσυχασμὸ καὶ τὴν ταυτόχρονή του δεύτερη ἀνθρωπιστικὴ ἀναγέννηση τοῦ 14ου αἰώνα. […]

Ἀφήνουμε ὅμως αὐτὴ τὴν ἀνάπτυξη γιὰ νὰ προχωρήσουμε στὴ δι’ ὀλίγων ἐξέταση τοῦ νεώτερου δυτικοῦ ἑαυτοῦ, προκειμένου νὰ καταλάβουμε καλύτερα τὸ β ά θ ο ς  τ ῶ ν  π ρ ο β λ η μ ά τ ω ν  ποὺ δημιουργοῦνται πιὰ σήμερα. Ἡ «ἀπόσπαση», θὰ λέγαμε λοιπόν, ὑπῆρξε τὸ μέλλον τῆς δυτικῆς φιλοσοφίας (θυμηθεῖτε ὅσα εἴπαμε γιὰ τὸν Αὐγουστῖνο: τὸ ἀνθρώπινο ὂν εἶναι ψυχὴ ἢ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὁποῖο γιὰ νὰ εἶναι, ὄντως «ἀποσπᾶται» ἀπὸ τὸ ὑλικοϊστορικὸ στοιχεῖο καὶ δεσπόζει ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ). Ἂν διαβάσετε τὸν Καρτέσιο θὰ δεῖτε πὼς τὸ καρτεσιανὸ ἄτομο εἶναι μιὰ προχωρημένη καὶ ἐκκοσμικευμένη μετεξέλιξη (μὲ διαφορὲς βέβαια) τῆς παραπάνω προοπτικῆς. Ἡ παρεμβολὴ τοῦ Θωμὰ Ἀκινάτη μ’ ὅλο τὸν πεπεισμένο ἀριστοτελισμό της δὲν ὑπῆρξε ἱκανὴ νὰ μεταβάλει οὐσιωδῶς τὴν προοπτική. Βεβαίως γιὰ τὸν Ἀκινατη τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ εἶναι ἀμφότερα στοιχεῖα τῆς μίας ἀνθρώπινης οὐσίας, τὸ σῶμα συνανήκει μετὰ τῆς ψυχῆς στὴ μία ἀνθρώπινη φύση (Sum. Con. Gent. 2, 67), ἡ ὁποία ψυχὴ δὲν προϋπάρχει τοῦ σώματος, παρὰ τὸ ὅτι ἐπιβιώνει μετὰ τὸν θάνατό του. Ἐπιπλέον ἡ ἀνθρώπινη ψυχή, μὴ ἔχοντας τὴ δύναμη καὶ τὴν περιωπὴ τῆς ἔμφυτης γνώσης τῶν ἀγγέλων, δέχεται κατ’ ἀνάγκη ὡς δῶρο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ τὸ γεγονὸς πὼς εἶναι συνδεμένη μ’ ἕνα σῶμα, τὸ ὁποῖο μέσω τῶν αἰσθήσεων τῆς προμηθεύει γνώση (Sum. Theol.Ia 89, Ι). Παρ’ ὅλα αὐτὰ ἡ πνευματικότητα καὶ ἡ φυσικὴ ὑπερβατικότητα τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναι δεδομένη κι ἐδῶ, ἀκριβῶς λόγω τῆς ἀϋλίας της (Sum. Con. Gent.2, 49). Εἶναι ἡ ὑπέρβαση τῆς ὑλικότητας ποὺ ἀποδεικνύει πὼς ἡ ψυχὴ εἶναι ἱκανὴ γιὰ «πνευματικές» δραστηριότητες, καὶ μάλιστα εἶναι ἐντελῶς ἀνεξάρτητη ἀπὸ τὸ σῶμα κατὰ τὴ διάρκεια τῆς ἐξάσκησης τῶν ἀνώτερων ἀπὸ αὐτές· τὸ θέμα ἐδῶ τοῦ «θύραθεν» ἀριστοτελικοῦ «ποιητικοῦ» νοῦ ἐπιστρέφει. Στὸν Καρτέσιο πάντως τὸ ἄτομο κάνει, πλὴν τῆς φυσικῆς ἀνωτερότητας τῆς ψυχῆς του, ἢ μᾶλλον ἐξαιτίας αὐτῆς, ἕνα ἀκόμη βῆμα: δὲν ἀναζητᾶ πλέον τὸ ἔσχατο νόημα ἐκτός του, στὸν Θεό, ὅπως ὁ Αὐγουστῖνος ἢ ὁ Ἀκινάτης, ἀλλὰ ἀποκλειστικὰ καὶ μόνον ἐντός του. Ἡ πασίγνωστη καρτεσιανὴ φράση «Cogito ergo sum» δὲν σημαίνει τίποτε ἄλλο παρὰ τὸ ὅτι ἡ ἀλήθεια δὲν ὑπάρχει – ὅπως στὸν Πλάτωνα ἢ τὸν στωικισμό – ἔξω μου, ἀλλὰ οἰκοδομεῖται ἀπὸ τὴν ἀτομική μου λογικότητα καὶ κρίση. Γιὰ πρώτη φορὰ στὴν ἀνθρώπινη ἱστορία ἡ ἡγεμονία τοῦ λόγου ἀπὸ  ἐ ν α ρ μ ό ν ι σ η  πρὸς τὴν ὀντολογικὴ λογικότητα τοῦ κόσμου γίνεται πλέον ἐσωτερικὸ λογικό μου  δ η μ ι ο ύ ρ γ η μ α, σύμφωνα μὲ κανόνες ποὺ ἐγὼ ὁ ἴδιος μπορῶ νὰ ἐφεύρω καὶ νὰ ἀνακαλύψω. Δὲν ἔχει τόσο κοσμολογικὴ διάσταση ἡ σκέψη μου ὅσο, ἀντίθετα, ὁ κόσμος γίνεται ἀναπαράσταση ἀτομική μου. Συντελεῖται ἔτσι μιὰ «ἐνδοκοσμικὴ ἀπελευθέρωση» τοῦ ἀνθρώπου στὸν Καρτέσιο, ὅπως αὐτὸ ὀνομάστηκε ἀπὸ σύγχρονους μελετητές του. Ὑπ’ αὐτὴ τὴν ἔννοια ἡ ἀλήθεια δὲν ἀναζητεῖται τώρα στὸν Θεὸ ἀλλὰ στὴν αὐτοβεβαίωσή μου ἐν ἀπολύτῳ ἐσωτερικῇ αὐταρκείᾳ, ἐκφραζόμενη στὴν αὐτόνομη λογικὴ καὶ ἀτομική μου αὐτοκυβέρνηση καὶ μόνον: γεννιέται ἔτσι τὸ νεώτερο εὐρωπαϊκὸ ὑποκείμενο, ἕνα ὑποκείμενο ἀπόλυτο, ἄσχετο πρὸς τὸν κόσμο, ὑποκείμενο τοῦ λογικοῦ του ἐλέγχου, ἕνας ἐσωστρεφὴς ἐαυτός, αὐτοδύναμος καὶ ἀποχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τὸν κόσμο. Κάποιοι νεώτεροι ἀγγλοσάξονες ἱστορικοί της φιλοσοφίας ὀνόμασαν αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ detached self, ἀποσυνδεδεμένο καὶ ξεχωρισμένο ἀπ’ ὅλα ἑαυτό. Τὸ «μέσα» καὶ τὸ «ἔξω» τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, γιὰ πρώτη φορά, διαχωρίζεται πλήρως. Ὑποκείμενο εἶναι κυρίως αὐτὸ τὸ «ἔσω», ἐνῷ τὸ «ἔξω» εἶναι Κόσμος, Ἱστορία, Θεὸς κλπ. Πρόκειται γιὰ σοβαρὴ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς πατερικῆς, λόγου χάρη, θεολογίας ἐδῶ, πράγμα γιὰ τὸ ὁποῖο θὰ μιλήσουμε κυρίως στὰ ἑπόμενα κεφάλαια.

Τὸ ἑπόμενο μεγάλο βῆμα εἶναι ὁ Τζὼν Λόκ. Ἔχουμε ἐδῶ τὸν λεγόμενο punctual self, τὸν σημειακὸ ἑαυτό, τὸν ἑαυτὸ μὲ διάσταση σημείου, ποὺ εἶναι, ὡς κορύφωση τοῦ detached self, καθαρὴ συνείδηση, καθαρὸ Ἐγώ, χωρὶς σῶμα, συναισθήματα, παράδοση, ἱστορία – στέκεται ἔξω ἀπ’ ὅλα αὐτὰ καὶ ἀποφασίζει γιὰ ὅλα κατὰ μόνας καὶ ἀνεξάρτητα ἀπὸ ὅλα (τὸ ἴδιο τὸ φροϋδικὸ Ἐγὼ κατάγεται ἀπὸ θέσεις σὰν αὐτές). Καταλαβαίνει κανεὶς εὔκολα τί τεράστιες ἱστορικὲς δυνάμεις ἐλευθερώνει μιὰ τέτοια στάση, καθὼς ἀληθινὸς ἐαυτὸς εἶναι αὐτὸ τὸ Ἐγὼ-σημεῖο, τὸ ὁποῖο εἶναι ὡς ἐκ τῆς φύσεώς του ἀποσυνδεμένο ἀπὸ ὅλα, ἀπὸ τὶς παραδόσεις καὶ τὶς συνήθειες καὶ τὶς συμπεριφορὲς τῆς κοινότητας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σῶμα του τὸ ἴδιο, καὶ τὶς θέτει ὑπὸ τὴν κρίση του μὲ σκοπὸ νὰ τὶς ἐπανερευνήσει καὶ νὰ τὶς τροποποιήσει κατὰ βούληση. Εἶναι μιὰ ἄκρως ἐνθουσιώδης προοπτική· ἂν διαβάσετε τὴ λογοτεχνία τῆς ἐποχῆς, τὸν Malrowe γιὰ παράδειγμα μὲ τοὺς Φάουστ του καὶ τὰ aspiring minds του, θὰ δεῖτε παντοῦ ἕναν προμηθεϊκὸ ἐνθουσιασμὸ γιὰ τὴ δημιουργικὴ ἐλευθερία τοῦ detached self, ὁ ὁποῖος, βαθιὰ παραδοσιακός, ὡστόσο, στὴν καταβολή του (αὐγουστίνειος καὶ ἀκινάτειος), ἐπιζητεῖ νὰ κυριαρχήσει ἐπὶ πάντων, ὄχι νὰ προσλάβει, μὰ κυρίως νὰ ποδηγετήσει, ὄχι νὰ διδαχθεῖ ἀπ’ τὴν παράδοση καὶ τὸν κόσμο, ὅσο νὰ τὰ προσδιορίσει μὲ σκοπὸ νὰ τὰ χρησιμοποιήσει σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν «πνευματική» του βούληση.

Καὶ φυσικὰ κορυφώνεται ἡ «ἀποσύνδεση» αὐτὴ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ μὲ τὸν Κὰντ καὶ τὴν αὐτόνομη ἠθική του: τὸ ὑπερεξηρμένο ἄτομο διαθέτει ἀνεξάρτητη καὶ ὑπέρτατη ἠθικὴ βούληση καί, πέρα ἀπὸ τὴν παράδοση ἢ τὴν κοινότητα, ἀναλαμβάνει ἀτομικὰ τὴν εὐθύνη της, δημιουργώντας αὐτοδύναμους πλήν, ὑποτίθεται, πανανθρώπινους (κατὰ τὴν περίφημη «κατηγορικὴ προσταγή») κώδικες. Ἂς ποῦμε βεβαίως στὸ σημεῖο αὐτὸ πὼς ὅλα αὐτὰ  δ ὲ ν  ἔμειναν χωρὶς  ἀ ν τ ι π ο λ ί τ ε υ σ η. Ὑπῆρξε ὁ expressivismus, ὅπως ὀνομάστηκε ἀπὸ ἱστορικοὺς τῆς φιλοσοφίας πρόσφατα, ἡ κίνηση Sturm und Drag μὲ τὸν Herder καὶ τὴν παρέα του, οἱ ὁποῖοι προσθέτοντας καὶ ρομαντισμὸ καθὼς καὶ ἀρκετὸν αἰσθητισμὸ διαμαρτυρήθηκαν ἐνάντια στὴ μονομέρεια αὐτὴ τοῦ ἀνώτατου καὶ ἀνιστορικοῦ ὑπερεξηρμένου σημειακοῦ Ἐγώ. Αὐτὸ ὁδήγησε φυσιολογικὰ στὴν ἀνάγκη μιᾶς νέας σύνθεσης, πράγμα ποὺ ὑπῆρξε, ὡς γνωστό, τὸ ἔργο τοῦ  Ἕγελου, ὡς προσπάθεια σύναψηςφύσης καὶ πνεύματος, ὅπου ἡ πρώτη ἀποτελεῖ ἀνάπτυγματοῦ δεύτερου, μὲ τελικὴ πραγμάτωση τοῦ πνεύματος ἐνδοϊστορική, ὡς (ὁλοκληρωτικό) Κράτος – ὁ σοβιετικὸς Μαρξισμὸς ἔθαψε στὰ ἐρείπιά του τὴν αἱματηρὴ οὐτοπία...

Ποιά εἶναι ἡ κατάσταση τῶν ἐπιγόνων σήμερα; Στὸν χῶρο τοῦ στοχασμοῦ ταυτόχρονη ὑπῆρξε ἡ ἀνάδυση τῆς ψυχανάλυσης καὶ τῆς φαινομενολογίας. Δὲν ὑπάρχει χρόνος γιὰ μιὰ στοιχειώδη ἔστω ἀνάπτυξη, πλὴν ὅμως ἀκροθιγῶς θὰ λέγαμε πὼς ὑπῆρξε συγκλονιστικὴ ἡ ἀνακάλυψη πὼς τὸ δυτικὸ αὐτόνομο καὶ ἀποσπώμενο, ὑπερεξηρμένο ὑποκείμενο διαθέτει ἀναγκαστικὰ ἐντός του ἕναν τέτοιο χαώδη Καιάδα ἀ-λογίας ὅπως εἶναι τὸ ἀσυνείδητο, ἕναν πυρήνα μὴ-νοήματος ποὺ  π ε ρ ι ο ρ ί ζ ε ι  τὴν ὑπεραισιόδοξη καὶ κυριαρχικὴ λογικότητα ὡς τραγικό της πεπρωμένο. Οὐδέποτε ἡ Δύση θὰ συνέλθει ἀπὸ τὸ τραῦμα ποὺ τῆς προκάλεσε ἡ ψυχανάλυση. Ἀπὸ τὴν ἄλλη, ἡ φαινομενολογία, μὲ τὸν Husserl, ἐνῷ φθάνει τὸ ὑπερεξηρμένο Ἐγὼ στὸν κολοφώνα του, ταυτόχρονα, μὲ τὴν ἔννοια τῆς «ἀναφορικότητας» τῆς συνείδησης πρὸς τὰ πράγματα τοῦ κόσμου ταπεινώνει τὴν ἀπολυτότητά του, ἀνοίγοντας νέους ὁρίζοντες π.χ. στὸν Ὑπαρξισμό, ὅταν ἕνας Σὰρτρ θεωρεῖ πλέον τὸ ἴδιο τὸ σῶμα ὡς θεμελιώδη κατηγορία τῆς συνείδησης, ἢ ὅταν ἕνας Μερλὼ-Ποντὺ μιλᾶ γιὰ τὴν «πρωταρχικὴ ἱστορικότητα» ὡς πλαισίωση ἀπαραίτητη τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπ’ τὴν ὑλικοϊστορικὴ πραγματικότητά του ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀνθρώπινη κοινότητα. Ὁ ὕστερος Βιτγκενστάιν θὰ κορυφώσει ἴσως αὐτὴ τὴν εἰκονοκλαστικὴ ἀναζήτηση τοῦ πλήρους ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας του στὴ Δύση, ταυτόχρονα μὲ σειρὰ ὁλόκληρη καλλιτεχνικῶν ρευμάτων, ὧν πρώτιστο ὁ Σουρρεαλισμός, μέχρι τοὺς μπήτνικς καὶ τὴ ρὸκ σκηνή. Ἐκείνη ποὺ ἄργησε νὰ συνέλθει ὡστόσο περισσότερο εἶναι ἡ δυτικὴ θεολογία. Πράγματι, ὅταν διαβάζει κανεὶς μεγάλους σύγχρονους ρωμαιοκαθολικοὺς θεολόγους ὅπως ὁ Daniélou, ὁ de Lubac, ἢ ἀκόμη καὶ ὁ Rahner, ἔχει τὴν ἐντύπωση πὼς ἀκόμη ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἶναι ἡ ψυχή του ἢ τὸ ὑπερβατικό του Ἐγώ, ἢ ἡ ἀτομικὴ καὶ ἀκοινώνητη ἐσωτερικότητά του. Σ’ ὅλο τὸν δυτικὸ μυστικισμὸ ἄλλωστε καὶ μέχρι τὸν Daniélou, κοινωνία μὲ τὸν Θεὸ σημαίνει συνήθως ἀτομικὴ διανοητικὴ θέαση τῆς ἴδιας τῆς Οὐσίας Του. Ἡ ἀτομικὴ λογικὴ συνείδηση ὑψώνεται ἔτσι ὣς τὴ θέα τῆς ἴδιας τῆς ἄκτιστης οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, κάτι ποὺ γιὰ τὴν βιβλικὴ καθὼς καὶ σύνολη τὴν ἑλληνικὴ πατερικὴ παράδοση ἀοτελεῖ (αἱρετική) ὀντολογικὴ ὑποβάθμιση τοῦ ὑπερβατικοῦ στὰ ὅρια τῆς ἀνθρώπινης διάνοιας, γιὰ νὰ μὴν πῶ τοποθέτηση τῆς ἀνθρώπινης ἐσωτερικότητας στὸν τόπο τοῦ ἀκτίστου: Ὁ Θεὸς πάντως κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνες Πατέρες μετέχεται ψυχοσωματικά – ὄχι ἡ οὐσία Του, ἀλλὰ οἱ ἄκτιστες ἐνέργειές Του – καὶ δὲν «κατανοεῖται» οὔτε κἂν ἐν μέρει. Στὸν Αὐγουστίνο ἀντιθέτως ὁ Θεὸς ὁρᾶται, ἔστω καὶ δύσκολα, ἀπὸ τὴν ἀνθρώπινη διάνοια, κάτι ποὺ ἴσως σημαίνει, ὅπως εἴπαμε, τὴν εἰσαγωγή – καθὼς ἡ διάνοια αὐτὴ εἶναι στὴν οὐσία της βούληση – τοῦ πρώτου σπέρματος τῆς ὀντολογίας τῆς βούλησης γιὰ δύναμη στὴν Δύση. Ἡ ἐνδελεχὴς μελέτη τοῦ δυτικοῦ μυστικισμοῦ δείχνει πώς, πλὴν τοῦ Αὐγουστίνου, μιὰ ὁλόκληρη σειρὰ μυστικῶν ἀκολουθοῦν τὸν ἴδιο δρόμο: ὁ Γρηγόριος ὁ Μέγας, ὁ Μποναβεντούρα, ὁ Τάουλερ, ἡ Τζούλιαν τοῦ Νόργουϊτς, ὁ Μπαῖμε, ὁ Ἄγγελος Σιλέσιος, ἡ μαντὰμ Γκιγιόν, ὁ Ἔκαρτ, ὁ Βερνάρδος τοῦ Κλαιρβώ. Ὁ ἴδιος ὁ Μάιστερ Ἔκαρτ (τὸν ὁποῖο ὁ Στ. Ράμφος μᾶς προτείνει ὡς ὁδηγὸ προκειμένου νὰ βάλουμε στὴν ἄκρη ὅλη τὴν μυστικὴ θεολογία τῶν Ἑλλήνων Πατέρων), εἶναι κατεξοχὴν ἐκεῖνος ὁ δυτικὸς μυστικὸς ὁ ὁποῖος, ὅπως παρατηροῦν κορυφαῖοι μελετητές του (καὶ ἐν προκειμένῳ ὁ Λόσκυ), ἀρνεῖται γιὰ χάρη τῆς «ὑπερφυσικῆς» (στὴν ἴδια τὴν οὐσία της, ὅπως τὴν νομίζει) ἀνθρώπινης διάνοιας, τὴν ψυχοσωματικὴ πληρότητα τοῦ ἀνθρώπινου ὄντος. Γιὰ χάρη τῆς ἐσωστρέφειας λοιπὸν ἡ διάνοια πρέπει ν’ ἀποφεύγει τὶς αἰσθήσεις – ἡ συσχέτιση μαζί τους εἶναι ἀποτέλεσμα τοῦ προπατορικοῦ ἁμαρτήματος, λέγει ὁ Ἔκαρτ, ἐγκαθιδρύοντας μιὰν ἀπόλυτη ἐσωστρέφεια, καταστροφικὴ ὅμως τῆς πληρότητας καὶ τῆς ὁλότητας, τοῦ πραγματικοῦ ψυχοσωματικοῦ ὄντος.

Μόνον πολὺ πρόσφατα, μετὰ τὴν ἀμείλικτη ἀνάδυση σειρᾶς ὁλόκληρης προτεσταντικῶν «θεολογιῶν» ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐπίδραση κάποιων σημαντικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων θεολόγων, παρατηρεῖται πλέον μιὰ ἀργὴ ἀλλὰ ὅλο καὶ πιὸ ἀνήσυχη   π ν ε υ μ α τ ι κ ὴ  μεταστροφὴ πέρα ἀπ’ τὰ αὐγουστίνεια ἢ ἀκινάτεια ἢ ἐν γένει μεσαιωνικὰ ἀριστοτελικὸ-(νεο)πλατωνικὰ πρότυπα (μέσῳ τῆς ἐπανερμηνείας τους), πράγμα ποὺ ἐκτὸς τῶν ἄλλων μᾶς μηνύει πὼς πλησιάζει ἡ ὥρα τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας στὴ Δύση... Ἂν φυσικὰ ὑποτεθεῖ πὼς αὐτὴ ἡ τελευταία ἔκαμε τὴν αὐτοκριτική της καὶ ἀποφάσισε τί ὄντως εἶναι οὐσιῶδες καὶ πολύτιμο ἀπ’ τὴν «παράδοση» καὶ τί ἄχρηστο ἢ καὶ ἐπικίνδυνο σ’ αὐτήν – τί βοήθεια μπορεῖ νὰ προσφέρει σήμερα ὁ (πάντα προβληματικός) ἀρχαῖος (καὶ ὁ νεώτερος) Ὠριγενισμός, λόγου χάρη;

Πρέπει στὸ σημεῖο αὐτὸ νὰ ὁμολογήσουμε πὼς τὸ ἐπίπεδο κριτικῆς πρόσληψης τόσο τῆς δυτικῆς φιλοσοφίας ὅσο καὶ τῆς δυτικῆς θεολογίας στὸν τόπο μας εἶναι ἀκόμη χαμηλό. Παραμένουν ἀκόμη μᾶλλον ἄγνωστες οἱ μεγάλες δυτικὲς θεολογικὸ-φιλοσοφικὲς καμπές, γι’ αὐτὸ καὶ ὁ οὐσιώδης διάλογος καταβυθίζεται εἴτε στὸν ἄκριτο ζηλωτισμὸ καὶ τὴν ἐπακόλουθη αὐτάρκεια, εἴτε στὴ συνθηματολογία. Ἂς ἐπιχειρήσουμε ὡστόσο μιὰ πρώτη σύνοψη κριτικὴ τοῦ θέματός μας, ἐλπίζοντας ὅτι στὸ μέλλον τὰ ἐναύσματα ἀποφασιστικῆς ἐμβάθυνσης καὶ οὐσιαστικῆς ἐπικοινωνίας θὰ πληθύνουν. Αὐτὸ λοιπὸν ποὺ συνοπτικὰ παρατηροῦμε στὴ φιλοσοφικὸ-θεολογικὴ σκηνὴ εἶναι μιὰ πορεία πρὸς ἄρση τῶν μονομερειῶν ποὺ ἡ μεγάλη ἱστορικὴ περιπέτεια τοῦ δυτικοῦ ἀνθρώπου κληροδότησε. Οἱ ἀρχαῖοι  Ἕλληνες φιλόσοφοι ἀποζητοῦν μιὰν αἰώνια πνευματικὴ θεμελίωση τοῦ ὑποκειμένου στὸ Ἕν, θυσιάζοντας ὡστόσο ἀναπόφευκτα αὐτὰ ποὺ θεωροῦν ἀτομικὰ ὑπαρκτικὰ στοιχεῖα του, ὡς φθαρτὰ καὶ ἐπίκηρα. Ἡ δυτικὴ ὀντο-θεολογία, μὲ ἀρχὴ τὸν Αὐγουστίνο, ὑπερεξαίρει ὑπερβουλητικὰ τὴν πνευματικὴ οὐσία τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, ἀποσυνδέοντας τὸ Ἐγὼ βαθμιαῖα ἀπ’ τὸν Κόσμο, τὴν Κοινότητα καὶ τὴν Ἱστορία· στὴν ὑπερβολή της ἡ ἱστορικὴ ὑπερδραστηριοποίηση, ποὺ ἀκολουθεῖ,  τ α π ε ι ν ώ ν ε ι  τὸ δυτικὸ  ὑ π ο κ ε ί μ ε ν ο  καὶ ὁδηγεῖ σήμερα φιλοσόφους καὶ θεολόγους στὴν ἐπανατοποθέτηση τοῦ ἐρωτήματος τῆς πληρότητας τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ, τῆς κοινότητας καὶ τῆς ἁρμονικότερης ἱστορικῆς ἐνεργητικότητας. Ὁ λεγόμενος ἐκσυγχρονισμὸς ἀποτελεῖ τὴν τελευταία ἀφορμὴ γιὰ νὰ κινηθεῖ μιὰ ὁμάδα ξεχωριστῶν δυτικῶν στοχαστῶν ἐνάντια στὶς ἱστορικιστικὲς καὶ ἀτομιστικὲς ὑπερβάσεις (οἱ ὁποῖες εἴτε ἀφανίζουν τὸ ὑποκείμενο, εἴτε τὸ ἀποτρελαίνουν, στὴν ἀναζήτηση τῆς ἰσχύος καὶ στὴν ἀπόλυτη σχεδὸν διάστασή του ἀπὸ ὁποιαδήποτε παραδοσιακὴ-κοινοτικὴ πηγὴ νοήματος). Σύμφωνα μὲ ὅσα εἴπαμε, ἡ Ὀρθόδοξη πατερικὴ παράδοση ἔχει σπουδαῖο λόγο νὰ πεῖ λοιπὸν σήμερα, ὅσο κι ἂν συχνὰ ἀκούγεται τὸ ἀντίθετο. Βεβαίως καὶ κάποιες ἄλλες νεώτερες δυτικὲς θεολογικὲς τάσεις εἶναι ἀξιοπρόσεκτες, στὴν κατεύθυνση αὐτή. Ἐπίσης νὰ μὴν λησμονοῦμε πὼς ἡ «Ὀρθόδοξη παράδοση» κατανοεῖται συχνότατα σήμερα ὡς ὠριγενικὸς ἢ αὐγουστίνειος Νεοπλατωνισμὸς ἢ «Μονοφυσιτισμός». Χρειάζεται πολλὴ θεολογικὴ ἐργασία γιὰ νὰ τὴν δοῦμε στὴν ἀλήθειά της καὶ νὰ καταλάβουμε αἴφνης πὼς ἡ ἐλπίδα τῆς αἰώνιας πληρότητας τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ γεννήθηκε πράγματι κυρίως ἐντός της καθὼς καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ καὶ ἀσκητικὴ ὁδὸς γιὰ τὴ διαφύλαξη καὶ τὴν ὑπαρξιακή του ἀνάπτυξη. Τόσο λοιπὸν ἡ γενικὴ ἰδέα τῆς ἱστορικῆς προόδου καὶ τῆς ἀπόλυτης ἱστορικῆς ἐνεργητικότητας, ὅσο καὶ ἡ ἰδέα τῆς αὐτονόητης ἰσχύος ὀφείλουν, μαζὶ μὲ τὶς γενικὲς ἰδέες ποὺ τὶς συνοδεύουν, νὰ κριθοῦν στὴν κάμινο τῆς εὐχαριστιακῆς κοινότητας, στὴν κάμινο τοῦ σταυρικῶς ἐνεργούμενου Ὁμοούσιου, ποὺ συνθέτει τὴν ἀτομικὴ ψυχοσωματικὴ ὑπόσταση μὲ τὴν κοινωνικότητα, χωρὶς νὰ μᾶς προσδένει στὴν ἀπρόσωπη ὁμάδα οὔτε στὴν ἀβυσσαλέα καὶ ἀνεξέλεγκτη ἐσωτερικότητα – ἀντίθετα, ὅπως θὰ δοῦμε στὰ παρακάτω, τὸ «μέσα» καὶ τὸ «ἔξω» γεφυρώνονται ὁμαλά. Ἐπειδὴ ὁ Ἄλλος, ὅπως γνωρίζει λόγου χάρη ἡ ψυχανάλυση ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ (σαρτρικὸς τουλάχιστον) Ὑπαρξισμός, εἶναι τὸ μέγα ναρκισσικὸ ἀντικείμενο καὶ ταυτόχρονα ὁ μέγας ναρκισσικὸς ἐχθρός, ὁ ἱδρυτὴς καὶ ὁ ἀφανιστὴς τοῦ Ἐγώ μου, καμμιὰ προεπινοημένη ὀντολογία ὑπαρξιακῶν ἢ θεσμικῶν σχέσεων δὲν εἶναι ἐπαρκὴς γιὰ τὴ στανική μας περιχώρηση: ἰδοὺ τὸ μεγάλο πρόβλημα τῆς σημερινῆς διϋποκειμενικότητας. Καμμιὰ ἐπίκληση στὴν πολιτικὴ ἢ τὴ φιλοσοφικὴ ἐπινοητικότητα δὲν ἀρκεῖ πρὸς λύση του.

Ἴσως ὅμως τὸ πραγματικὸ πρόβλημα τοῦ σημερινοῦ ἐκσυγχρονισμοῦ νὰ εἶναι θεολογικό – ἐννοῶ τὸ παλαιὸ ἐκεῖνο θεολογικὸ πρόβλημα τῶν σχέσεων μεταξὺ φύσεως καὶ χάριτος, τὸ ὁποῖο οὐδέποτε ἡ Δύση ἔλυσε πειστικά. Μὲ δεδομένη τὴ διάσταση μεταξὺ τῶν δύο, ἡ ἔλλειψη τῆς δεύτερης ὑποκαθίσταται μὲ τὴν ὑπερβουλητικὴ ἔκσταση τοῦ προσώπου ἀπὸ τὴ φύση του πρὸς κυριαρχία της. Μὲ δεδομένη τὴ βαθειά τους ἐγγύτητα, τὸ Ἐγὼ δρᾶ ἐν Πνεύματι, βῆμα πρὸς βῆμα, χωρὶς νὰ καταστρέφει τίποτα, «μετὰ παντὸς εἴδους κτίσεως». Ἡ φύσις τοῦ κτιστοῦ ἐξ-ίσταται τότε ὁλόκληρη, σωζόμενη ὁμοουσίως, πρὸς τὸν Κτίστη της.

Ἀπὸ τὸ βιβλίο «Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ ἐκσυγχρονισμός», ἐκδ. Ἁρμός, 2006.

Ο ζωγραφικός πίνακας που πλαισιώνει τη σελίδα ("Οι φίλοι", 1991) είναι έργο του Γιώργου Κόρδη.

Πολιτικοί ορισμοί και εξαγόμενα

Σήμερα στην πατρίδα μας επικρατεί ο παραλογισμός και η πολιτική αδιαφάνεια .΄Ομως με την τελευταία κυβέρνηση που θα είναι : πρώτη και τελευταία φορά αριστερά,εισαγάγονται και νέοι ορισμοί ,ήτοι:
1.πολιτική αλητεία
Δηλ.να μην σέβεσαι τον λαό που σε εξέλεγξε
2.πολιτική αγυρτία
δηλ.να παρουσιάζεις ωραία όλα τα ολέθρια που εσύ προκάλλεσες
3.πολιτική αναξιοπιστία
Να είσαι ψεύτης
4.πολιτικός αυνανισμός
να υπερηφανέυεσαι ότι αυτά που καταστρέφουν είναι τα συμφερότερα για τον λαό.
5.πολιτική ανικανότητα
το λέει απλά η λέξη
6.πολιτική προδοσία
Είναι να είσαι π΄χ αριστερόςκαι να φέρεσαι σαν φασίστας
Οι ορισμοί 1-6 συνιστούν τον :πολιτικό σατανισμό σαν έννοιες βάσης.
Να σημειωθεί πέραν των άλλων ο σατανιστής πολιτικός διέπεται από μια λύσσα ενάντια στην Εκκλησία και τους λειτουργούς της ,είναι ένάντια στα ήθη και την επικρατούσα ηθική ,διέπεται από θέσεις διαστροφής και κακίας.
Ατυχώς εντός της Βουλής υπάρχουν αρκετοί όλων των πολιτικών αποχρώσεων που διέπονται από τον πολιτικό σατανισμό.
Αυτούς τους γνωρίζουν όλοι και πρέπει να τους ξαποστείλουμε εκεί που τόσα χρόνια ήταν .Στα απόβαθα της μαύρης ιστορίας τους.

 

ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΣΧΕΤΙΚΩΣ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΘΕΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΕΒΔΟΜΑΔΑ «ΣΩΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΟΤΗΤΑ»

«Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι» (Α΄ Κορινθ. 6:9-10).

Ἡ Ἱερὰ Ἀρχιεπισκοπὴ Ἠπειρωτικῆς Εὐρώπης τῆς Παλαιᾶς Ρωμαιοκαθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας καταγγέλει τὴν κυβερνητικὴ προσπάθεια ἐκμαυλισμοῦ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς νεολαίας ποὺ ἐπιχειρεῖται μέσῳ τῆς θεματικῆς ἑβδομάδος «σῶμα καὶ ταυτότητα» ποὺ ἀνακοίνωσε τὸ ‘Υπουργεῖο Παιδείας ὅτι θὰ πραγματοποιηθεῖ στὰ Γυμνάσια τῆς χώρας ἐντὸς τοῦ «διδακτικοῦ χρόνου τοῦ σχολικοῦ ὡρολογίου προγράμματος», δηλαδὴ μὲ ὑποχρεωτικὴ παρακολούθηση.
Παραμένοντες πιστοὶ στὴν Διδασκαλία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δηλώνουμε τὰ αὐτονόητα:

α) Ὑπάρχουν μόνον δύο φύλα, τὸ ἀρσενικὸ καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸ («Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς», Γέν. 1:27), καὶ τὸ φύλο κάθε ἀνθρώπου καθορίζεται ἀπὸ τὰ χρωματοσώματα τοῦ φύλου (Χ καὶ Υ). Οἱ διαταραχὲς ταυτότητος φύλου στὰ παιδιὰ δὲν σχετίζονται μὲ ὁρμονικοὺς παράγοντες, ἀλλὰ κυρίως στὴν ἐνθάρρυνση συμπεριφορῶν ἀντιθέτου φύλου ἀπὸ τὸ περιβάλλον. Συνεπῶς, ἡ θηλυπρέπεια στὰ ἀγόρια ἢ ἡ ἀνδρικὴ συμπεριφορὰ στὰ κορίτσια (ποὺ ἂν συνεχισθοῦν καὶ στὴν ἐφηβεία ὁδηγοῦν σὲ ὁμοφυλοφιλικὲς συμπεριφορὲς) δὲν εἶναι ἐκ γενετῆς, ἀλλὰ κάτι τὸ ὁποῖο διδάσκεται ἀπὸ τὸ περιβάλλον ποὺ μεγαλώνουν.
β) Οἱ σεξουαλικὲς ἐπαφὲς μεταξὺ ἀτόμων τοῦ ἰδίου φύλου εἶναι βδέλυγμα ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ («Καὶ μετά ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικείαν, βέλυγμα γάρ ἐστι», Λευϊτ. 18:22), εἶναι βεβήλωση τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου σώματος. Γιὰ δὲ τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς εἶναι πορνικὴ βεβήλωση τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος: «Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. Πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου Πνεύματός ἐστιν, οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν;» (Α΄ Κορινθ. 6:18-19).

Καλοῦμε τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς γονεῖς καὶ τὴν ἑλληνικὴ νεολαία νὰ ἀπορρίψουν τὴν προπαγάνδα ποὺ ἐπιχειρεῖται ὑπὲρ τῆς ἰδεολογικοποιήσεως τῶν φύλων καὶ τῆς ὁμοφυλοφιλίας, στὸ πλαίσιο τῆς προσπαθείας τοῦ λεγομένου Πολιτιστικοῦ Μαρξισμοῦ νὰ ἐπαναπροσδιορίσει τὴν οἰκογένεια, τὴν ταυτότητα τῶν φύλων καὶ τὴν ἀνθρώπινη φύση.

Εκ της Αρχιεπισκοπης

Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:15:42 PM

Married Bishops in the Orthodox Church

Married St. Peter the Apostle with his Wife

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE Taught by Apostles - Confirmed in Sacred Scripture "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy)

Married Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa

Icons of St. Peter the first Pope of the Rome ~ and ~ the "Champion of Orthodoxy" St. Gregory Bishop of Nyssa

"...hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught...let him who is without sin, cast the first stone..."

At least a few times each year I receive inquiries regarding married bishops in the Orthodox Christian Church.

Although you may not agree with my reply, let me preface by saying that in our canonical Jurisdiction, being the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, since its Sobor in 1921, has found no "problem" with married priests being consecrated to the Sacred Episcopacy. I have often wondered if those asking the question have the real "problem?"

Would it surprise you to know that I followed the example of my Spiritual Fathers who consecrated me? Although the "facts" are usually not discussed (to protect the wife and family members) all three of my Consecrators were married priests who were consecrated as bishops! All three knew, as St. Paul says, "it is better to marry then to burn."

Yes, Metropolitan +PETER (Zhurawetzky), Metropolitan +NIKOLAUS (Ilnyckyj) and Archbishop +DAVID (Baxter) were all married bishops with wonderful, loving Episcopas who supported them in their ministries. Being married DID NOT prevent them from the great missionary work they did throughout North and South America. Many Hierarchs throughout North America have received their lines of the Valid Apostolic Succession through the "laying-on-of-hands" of these devoted Servants of the Lord! As a married man, I was honoured to be consecrated by these men...to know them... to visit them in their homes...to know their families. I welcome the opportunity to visit with you...to share their sorrows and their joys! If you're a married bishop seeking a Canonical Jurisdiction, where you will be respected and not questioned, to fully serve the Lord, then..."Welcome Home!"

His Eminence, Metropolitan +ALEXIS (Nizza) Bishop +MICHAEL exchanges Blessings with Ecumenical Patriarch +BARTHOLOMEW Consecrators +PETER (Zhurawestzky), +NIKOLAUS (Ilnyckyj), +DAVID (Baxter)

---

No pope, no patriarch, no Ecumenical Council, Canon Law or "Rudder" is above what Christ and The Twelve taught. Yes, the "free election" of clerical celibacy can be a good thing; however, there was never "forced" celibacy in the Early Church of the Apostles...you will NOT find it in Sacred Scripture or in the Didache (Apostolic Teachings from the Council of Jerusalem). Why would anyone put men, who begin well-intentioned ministries to serve the Lord, in a position to fall into sinful acts of cohabitation, homosexuality or worse? I remember the words of the Nuns in grade school...that, "God does not contradict Himself!"

Remember, we are speaking about a discipline within the Church. Marriage has never been an impediment to ordination. Not everyone can live a celibate life. It WAS and MUST BE a "freely elected" option. This WAS and IS the Apostolic Doctrine of the Orthodox Church!

Most recently, His Eminence Metropolitan +PHILIP of the Antiochian Archdiocese publicly stated his support for the return of a married episcopacy. And, a little over 10 years ago, Archbishop +IAKOVOS and the Greek Archdiocese petitioned Constantinople to allow it and even printed in their publications "that 'technically' individual churches have the right to introduce this change of discipline."

---

GREEK ARCHDIOCESE WANTED MARRIED BISHOPS

His Eminence Archbishop +IAKOVOS, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America, had great insights for Orthodoxy in the United States. His efforts included return of the Orthodox discipline for married men being ordained to the Sacred Episcopate.

His Eminence called for the allowance of married Priests to be Consecrated as Bishops. A report was made in the annals of The Greek Orthodox Theological Review.  (READ THE DOCUMENT)
Interestingly enough, when the SEC requested copies of the Resolution from the Clergy-Laity Congress that was proposed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate...it was said to our Moderator, "it never existed!"

More Documentation: (READ "MARRIED CATHOLIC BISHOPS") from a Roman Catholic source.

---

---

Don't be fooled or allow anyone to tell you differently! Holy Matrimony has never been an impediment to Holy Orders! Even today, the Church of Rome accepts the validity of married bishops in the Polish National Catholic Church and in the Old Catholic Churches of Utrecht which have maintained the Valid Apostolic Succession. Does it make sense to condemn a clergyman for having a natural relationship with a woman or fostering children (although being immoral and sinful), yet, quietly overlook priests having "particular" friendships with altar boys or bishops living with their "boy friends" unless it comes out in the news? When does one stop courting the Devil?

Certainly, a lot of so-called "problems" could be avoided if the examples of Sacred Scripture were followed - and - the sound, canonical advice of Orthodox Jurisdictions, such as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, were put back into practice! Our Lord chose married men for The Twelve. Can we do anything less than to follow Him? Allowing married men to be bishops was started by the Lord, Himself. If you want to ridicule or condemn me or our Jurisdiction then you may as well ridicule and condemn Christ!

---

His Eminence Archbishop +IAKOVOS wanted to allow married men to be ordained as Bishops in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese

Explanation in "The New York Times" made it clear that Orthodox Jurisdictions had the canonical right to allow for a married Episcopacy

---

As difficult and "odd" as it may sound, reality must be faced in the world today. I can remember saying to my congregation as a married priest nearly 30 years ago, that at least they knew who was in bed with their priest at night! This is a bitter reality for many to face; however, human nature and human needs do not "halt" simply because of ordination. Why do you think their is "oikonomia" in the Church?

You rightly question me because I openly share our disciplines with the general public; and, if you do not know, then you should know, that this "situation" exists in many canonical Orthodox jurisdictions: married bishops...be it within the Mystery of Marriage or some form of "rationalized" cohabitation or civil marriage. It is time for every jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church to be "transparent" in all things.

Similarly, in particular cases and circumstances, priests ARE permitted to marry after ordination and continue their ministry; furthermore, married priests who loose their wives in death are permitted to remarry within the Church...don't believe otherwise...fact is, you will find this in every Orthodox jurisdiction.

In conclusion, many things are allowed by Almighty God to test our charity, be it denominations, disciplines, etc. Each of us has the opportunity to "judge not" and to be charitable. I ask you, do you accept those opportunities and act correctly upon them?

Finally, regarding married bishops...if you really want to hear about love and compassion in the Church...speak to the wife of a bishop and hear what they have to say about it...how their Faith is tested and how they have to endure! Then, you will truly see how the Gospel is followed or how it continues to be perverted...for, "by their fruits you will know them" and "you will know they are Christians by their love." Nothing more can be said...

+ Michael

Back to the Top

Married Bishops...we're NOT alone!

The Christian communities, living as they did with the memory of the Apostles still fresh in their hearts and minds, whether in the East or in the West, say the elevation of manogamous men to the ranks of the episcopacy as consistent with a proper regard for the dignity of marriage, as well as the Lord's decision to call Simon Peter , and other family men, to follow Him!

Listed below are just a few of the Married Bishops...from declared Saints to Popes and Patriarchs...as confirmed and taken from the ecclesiastical histories, for the Greeks: Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, Soyomenes and Theodore of Cyprus; and, for the Latins: Rufinus of Aquilea, Sulpicius Servus, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville and Bede the Venerable....

THIRD CENTURY MARRIED BISHOPS +CEREMAN, Bishop of Nilopolis; +DEMETRIAN, Bishop of Antioch; +DEMETRIUS, Patriarch of Alexandria; +IRENAEUS, Bishop of Sirmium; +MARTIAL, Bishop of Merida.

FOURTH CENTURY MARRIED BISHOPS +AJAX, Bishop of Botolous, Syria; +ANASTASIUS I, Pope of Rome and Father of Pope Innocent); +ANTONIUS, Bishop of Ephesus; +ANTONIUS, Bishop of suburban diocese of Rome; +ARTEMIUS, Bishop of Auvergne; +ASRUG, Bishop of Pakravant, Armenia; +CARTERIUS, Spanish Bishop; +EULALIUS, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; St. +GREGORY, Bishop of Nyssa; +GREGORY the Elder, Bishop of Nazianzea; +GREGORY the Illuminator, First Armenian Katholikos; +HILARY, Bishop of Poitiers, France; +KHAT, Bishop of Pakravant, Armenia; +LEO, Bishop in Italy; +LEONTIUS, Bishop of Tripoli; +MARCELLUS, Bishop of Apamea, Syria; +MEMORIUS, Bishop of Southern Italy; +NERSES the Great, Armenian Katholikos; +PACIAN, Bishop of Barcelona, Spain; +PELAGIUS, Bishop of Laodicea; +PHAREN, Armenian Patriarch; +PHILIEAS, Bishop of Thmuis, Egypt; +PHILOGONIUS, Bishop of Antioch; +RETICIUS, Bishop of Autun; +SEVERUS, Archbishop of Ravenna; +SPIRIDON, Bishop of Trimithus, Cyprus; +SYMPOSIUS, Bishop of Astorga, Spain; +URBICUS, Bishop of Clermont; +VERTHANES, Armenian Katholikos; +VICTOR, Bishop of Veresium, Nunidia; +YUSIK, Arminian Katholikos.

FIFTH CENTURY MARRIED BISHOPS +AMATOR, Bishop of Auxere; +APOLLINARIS Sidonius, Bishop of Clermont; +AVITIUS, Bishop of Plaisance; +BONOSUS, Bishop of Narbonne; +CELIDONIUS, Bishop of Basancon; +DIOGENES, Bishop of Antioch; +DOMNINUS, Bishop of Caesarea; +EUCHERUS, Bishop of Lyon; +EULOGIUS, Bishop of Bourges; +EUTOPUS, Bishop of Orange; +FELIX III, Pope of Rome; +GERMANUS, Bishop of Auxerre; +GERMANUS, African Bishop; +HESYCHIUS, Bishop of Vienna; +IRENAEUS, Bishop of Tyre; +JULIAN, Bishop of Eclanum; +LUPUS, Bishop of Troyes; +NAMATIUS, Bishop of Auvergne; +PALLADIUS, Bishop of Bourges; +PANCRATIUS, Bishop of Umbria; +PAULINUS, Bishop of Nola; ++PRINCIPE, Bishop of Soissons, +RURICIUS, Bishop of Limoges; +ISAAC the Great, Armenian Katholikos; +SIMPLICIUS, Bishop of Bourges; +SYNESIUS of Cyrene, Bishop of Ptolemais; +VOLUSIAN, Bishop of Tours.

SIXTH CENTURY MARRIED BISHOPS +APOLLINARIS, Bishop of Auvergene; +ARTEMIUS, Bishop of Sens; +ASTIDIUS, Bishop of Limoges; +AUTIUS, Bishop of Vienna; +BADEGISIL, Bishop of Le Mans; +BAUDIN, Bishop of Tours; +BLANDUS, Bishop of Ortona; +CASSIUS, Bishop of Narni, Provinced of Perusia; +DESIDERATUS, Bishop of Verdun; +ENNODIUS, Bishop of Pavic; +EUPHRONIUS, Bishop of Tours; +EUSANIUS, Bishop of Agrigentia, Sicily; +FIRMINUS, Bishop of Vivens; +FRANCILLON, Bishop of Tours; +GALLOMAGUUS, Bishop of Troyes; +GENEBAUD, Bishop of Laon; +GREGORY, Bishop of Langres; +GREGORY, Spanish Bishop; +HORMISDAS, Pope of Rome; +LEONTIUS, Bishop of Bordeaux; +LUCILLUS, Bishop of Malta, Father of Pope Gregory the Great; +MACLOU, Bishop of Vannes; +NAMATIUS, Bishop of Vienna; +NONNICHIUS, Bishop of Nantes; +PANTOGATHE, Bishop of Vienna; +PASSIUUS, Bishop of Fermo; +PAUL, Bishop of Trois Chateaux; +PRISCUS, Bishop of Lyon; +SALVIUS, Bishop of Albi; +VICTOR, Bishop of Rennes.

SEVENTH CENTURY MARRIED BISHOPS +AETHERIUS, Bishop opf Vienna; +AQUILINUS, Bishop of Evreux; +ARNULFUS, Bishop of Metz; +FARON, Bishop of Meaux; +FILIBAUD, Bishop of Aure-sur-l'Adour; +JOHN the Almoner, Patriarch of Alexandria; +LEUDINES, Bishop of Toul; +MAGNUS, Bishop of Avignon; +MEDOALD, Bishop of Trier; +PELLADIUS,Bishop of Eauze; +REOLUS, Bishop of Rheims; +SIGILAICUS, Bishop of Tours; +THEODORE, Bishop in Jerusalem.

Back to the Top

The Married Episcopacy

"If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ...ruling well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." [1 Timothy 3:1-4.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed you; If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly." [Titus 1:5,6]

"Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever." [St. Matthew 8:14]

"But Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever, and they told Him about her at once." [St. Mark 1:30]

"Now He arose from the Synagogue and entered Simon's house. But Simon's wife's mother was sick with a high fever, and they made request of Him concerning her." [St. Luke 4:38]

Introduction: First, we must establish the Biblical and thus traditional position of the Orthodox Church regarding the issue of married clergy. Secondly, we must be against the allegations made by (some) Orthodox that the consecration of married men to the office of bishop is supposedly "uncanonical", somehow "unorthodox", or even worse, "heretical".

St Peter the Apostle: Undoubtedly, St. Peter and virtually all Apostles were married. Their marriage clearly did not nullify being chosen as Apostles by Christ. There is no reference to any children of the marriage, before or after the call as an Apostle. There is a clear Orthodox tradition that St Peter dedicated himself completely (lived celibate from that time on) to Christ from the time of his call. This can be seen in the following words of St Clement of Alexandria: They say,accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, 'Remember the Lord'.

Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, 'That he who marries should be as though he married not', and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol.2]

Evidence of Married Bishops in the early Church: The father of the Cappodacian Saints was a Married Bishop. The elder Gregory was converted by the influence of his wife, Nonna; and soon after his conversion was consecrated to the bishopric of Nazianzus [p.187, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7] (Note: This is Gregory the elder, not his son St Gregory Nazianzus). Note that, There are two lines in his poem of St Gregory Nazienzan on his own life which seem to indicate clearly that his birth took place after his father's elevation to the Episcopate... [p.188, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol 7].

Basil left before him and returned to Cappadocia; and as soon as he could follow he went to Constantinople, where he met his brother, who had just come there to practice and return with his brother to Nazianzus. They found their parents still living and their father occupying the Episcopal Throne. From this time onward Gregory divided his time between his parents and his friend; living partly at Arianzus, and partly with Basil in Pontus, in monastic seclusion. [p.191, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol. 7].

Gregory,...felt very strongly drawn to the monastic life; but as retirement from the world did not seem to him to be his vocation, he resolved to continue to live in the world, and to be a help and support to his now aged parents, and especially to his father in the duties of his Episcopate, but at the same time to live under the strictest ascetic rule. [ibid.] In 374, Gregory the elder died, and his wife also, and thus our saint was set free from the charge of the diocese. [p.195, ibid.]

Early Tradition on the marriage of St Gregory of Nyssa: Here it is usual to place the marriage of Gregory with Theosebeia, said to have been a sister of Gregory Nazianzus. Certainly the tradition of Gregory's (Nyssa) marriage received such credit as to be made in after times a proof of the non-celibacy of the Bishops of his age. [p.3, A Sketch of the Life of St Gregory of Nyssa, Second Series, Vol. 5]

St John Chrysostom on married Hierarchs: 'A Bishop then,' he says, 'must be blameless the husband of one wife.' This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. [p.438, First Series, Vol. 13, St John Chrysostom, Homily X, Homilies on Timothy]

If then 'he who is married cares for the things of the world' (1 Cor. 7:33), and a bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say 'the husband of one wife'? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none (1 Cor. 7:29). For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, to regulate his conduct. [p. 438, ibid.] 'Having his children in subjection with all gravity.' This is necessary, that an example might be exhibited in his own house. [p.439. ibid.]

Verse 6: 'If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.' Why does he bring forward such a one? To stop the mouths of those heretics who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne; and at the same reproving the wanton, and not permitting their admission into this high office who contracted a second marriage. For he who retains no kind regard for her who is departed, how shall he be a goodpresider? [p.524, Works of St John Chrysostomos, Homily on Titus, Homily 2, First Series, Vol. 13].

'Having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.' We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others?... But, if occupied in the pursuit of wealth, he has made his children a secondary concern, and not bestowed much care upon them, even so he is unworthy. For if when nature prompted, he was so void of affection or so senseless, that he thought more of his wealth than of his children, how should he be raised to the episcopal throne, and so great a rule? [pp. 524/5, ibid.]

St Athanasius the Apostolic: But I have also thought it necessary to inform you of the fact, that Bishops have succeeded those who have fallen asleep. In Tanis, in the stead of Elias, is Theodorus. In Arsenoitis, Silvanus instead of Nonnus. In Bucolia is Heraclius. In Tentyra, Andronicus is instead of Saprion, his father. In Thebes, Philon instead of Philon, etc. [pp.538/9, Letter 12, Sect. 2, Letters of St Athanasius, Second Series, Vol. IV, Athanasius]

For we know both bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know bishops that drink no wine, as well as monks who do. We know bishops who work wonders, as well as monks who do not. Many also of the bishops have not even married, while monks have been fathers of children; just as conversely we know bishops who are fathers of children and monks 'of the completest kind'. [p.560, Letter 49, Sect. 9, ibid.]

St Ambrose of Milan: And so the Apostle have given a pattern, saying that a bishop 'must be blameless', and in another place: 'A bishop must be without offence, as a steward of God, not proud, not soon angry, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.' For how can the compassion of a dispenser of alms and the avarice of a covetous man agree together? I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the apostle is the master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept) , but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle's authority to beget children in the priesthood; for he speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again. [p.465, Chapters 61 & 62, Letter 63, St Ambrose, Second Series,Vol. 10]

Origen: The Marriage of Church Dignitaries: But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, 'If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,' etc.; and, in regard to deacons, 'Let the deacons,' he says, 'be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,' etc.

... And, in the Epistle to Titus: 'For this cause,' he says, 'I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe'. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, mighthave lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity.

Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife , and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married. [pp.509/10, Book XIV, Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Vol. X, Ante Nicene Fathers]

Councils of the Church:

Canon V of the Canons of the Twelve Apostles (Apostolic Canons): Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

Canon LI of the Apostolic Canons: If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected , or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman.

In conclusion, the Apostolic Canons represent the very early Canon Law of the Church, that the Canons which make up the collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the collection, as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning it a date not later than the middle of the fourth century.... There can be no question that in the East the Apostolic Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by the HolyApostles. [p. 592, Vol.XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Quinisext Council (Fifth-Sixth) [sometimes called the "Trullon Synod"]

Canon XII: Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach... But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Commentary by Aristenus: The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacons to cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any that shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed. But this canon on the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his wife after his consecration. But by this change no contempt is meant to be poured out upon what had been established by Apostolic authority, but it was made through care for the people's health and for leading on to better things, and for fear that the sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.

Van Espen: In the time of this Canon (of the Apostles) not only presbyters and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom to have their wives; and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the Sixth Council, commonly called in Trullo, bishops were allowed to have their wives.

Canon XLVII: The wife of him who is advanced to hierarchical dignity, shall be seperated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop's provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.

On the Marriage of the Clergy: The doctrine and practice of the ancient Church in the East can be fittingly quoted in the words of the Rev. John Fulton in the introduction to the ThirdEdition of his Index Canonum [p.29, NY, 1892]. He says, Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and bishops, Priests and Deacons, equally with other men, were forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of religion. The case was different when a man was unmarried at the time of his ordination. Then he was held to have given himself wholly to God in the office of the Holy Ministry, and he was forbidden to take back from his offering that measure of his cares and his affections which must necessarily be given to themaintenance and nurture of his family. [p.365, Vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.

St. Demetrius the Vine Dresser (Egyptian Patriarch): The Coptic Orthodox Synaxarian records one of the early Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria as being a married man. The record states he had lived a celibate life since the beginning of marriage and it is not known whether this is a later redaction to cover the obvious conflict that would ensue otherwise. In any case, the fact of his enthronement again confirms that the tradition of the Church at that time did not consider marriage to be a bar to even hold the highest office of the Orthodox Church.

The Byzantine Church: In 1990, an article from The Orthodox Observer, a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America publication, states: At the 1992 meeting of the Clergy-Laity Conference of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (Archbishop +IAKOVOS), held in New Orleans, a formal resolution was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople 'to consider returning to the practice of ordaining married priests as bishops as was done in the early church.' ... Earlier in December 1991, the Greek Archdiocese stated that it was the original practice of the Church for a married Episcopate. Please also note that Archbishop Iakovos promoted the return of married bishops to worldwideOrthodoxy and agreed that individual jurisdictions could retain the Apostolic tradition of the Early Church.

Various Practices Regarding the Episcopacy:

[1] Celibate/Monastics Only: The majority position amongst the Eastern Orthodox which has a large well of monastics to draw from. Also the position amongst the Oriental Orthodox, who, like their Eastern brethren, have a vibrant monastic community. Many of these Churches, having had married bishops in the early Church, did however draw from their monastics for over one thousand years (Armenians seemingly being the exception). However, it is noted that even amongst the Eastern Orthodox it is not unusual to elect a Priest to the Episcopacy whose wife has reposed first. Evidence is overwhelming that in the Orthodox Tradition marriage is not a bar to consecration. Economia and the will of the Orthodox Christians in the traditional homelands do not lend themselves to changing this current practice, which has served theirchurches very well for centuries.

[2] Married but dedicated Celibacy: The traditional position regarding the Apostles (St Peter, for example) and many of the married men that have been elevated in times past (St Demetrius the Vinedresser amongst the Coptic Orthodox, for instance) is supported by the Canonical authority of the Fifth-Sixth Council (Canons 12 and 47-see above). However, if the dedicated celibacy was due to the heretical view that marital relations were not honorable (sinful) then a clear rejection of the fifth and fifty-first canons of the Apostolic Canons would apply placing the rejector under anathema. This is an acceptable position when the Church is in a missionary situation as it was in the days of the Apostles and early centuries (and currently amongst the Western hemispherre), but is not as needed when a large pool of spiritual monastics is granted to the Church by God. The practice is that the married couple livecelibate from the time of dedication or consecration, usually with the wife also entering into monastic lifestyle or a community and frequently being received as a dedicated Deaconness.

[3] Married but not dedicated Celibacy: Perhaps the least controversial position due to the fact that the Bishop has not lived or promised to live a celibate life from consecration. Those who reject this position outright often bring the following verse to bear: "He who is married is concerned for his wife and the affairs of the world", alongside St Paul's words that it is 'better' to remain as he was, i.e. celibate. There are also references (see above) of married bishopes that bore children in lawful Christian marriage after their consecration (although far less frequently and often alongside later attempts by writers to re-write the facts of the matter). The Biblical references relating to the bishop being married and having in submission his children does not imply that the children came after the elevation to the Episcopate. However, the lawful Christian state of marriage itself determines that the married but not celibate Episcopate has not committed any sin that would prevent him from consecration. Of course not all things that are 'lawful are also expedient' and thus, this third position causes much confusion and consternation amongst some Orthodox. The Canons of the Fifth-Sixth Council direct all married bishopes to seperate from their wives and live a dedicated life and these are often quoted by those who deny the correctness of this position. However, the earlier Apostolic Canons direct the exact opposite that one was not allowed to put away ones wife. Obviously this matter falls well within the oiconomia of the bishops in a particular Synod to determine the married epicopate for their jurisdiction.

Various Objections Raised Regarding a Married Episcopacy: The Church decided in later centuries to change to monastic bishops only. At a number of question forums where the laity have a chance to ask various Bishops for their response to why the Church no longer has married Bishops (as Holy Scriptures allow and the Church Fathers attest to) we found that the common answer is often: The whole church decided to change the practice in the third century. The response from the blessed bishops is somewhat ill-informed and assumed to be the case, rather than defacto is the case:

[1] The Universal Church made no such declaration in the 3rd century nor the centuries immediately following that time.

[2] The exact opposite actually occurred. At the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Western (Roman) legates attempted force Canons requiring celibacy of all clergy. These attempted amendments however failed, and a large part of their failure were the words of St Paphnutius of theChurch of Alexandria, a Saint and miracle worker who was famed and respected across the empire, even receiving admiration from the Emperor himself. What made St Paphnutius' words even more immpressive is that he himself had been a celibatemonastic since entering the life as a teenager. Here a strictly ascetic monastic argued against the enforced celibacy of any rank of the Church's offices (cf. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Volume 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils:"Proposed Action on Celibacy"): that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency. In this way (by not prohibiting marital relations) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from the marriage). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives.

This discourse of St. Paphnutius made so much more of an impression, since he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse. St. Paphnutius had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would. We must conclude that a law was proposed at the Council of Nicaea in the same way as the one which had been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, Spain. This coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to St. Paphnutius, and the consequent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect to celibacy. Both, the Greek Church as well as the Latin one accepted this principle, that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons. and even subdeacons, were considered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if they had obtained permission from their bishop to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (Canon 10). We see that the Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but, in reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their ordination. While the Latin Church exacted of those presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not continue to live with their wives (if they were married), the Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests; and the Synod of Gangra (Canon 4) took up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, was not alone among the Greeks opposing the marriage of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin discipline regarding this matter. St. Epiphanius also inclinedtowards this side. The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Apostolic Canons (Canon 5) and of the Constitutions; for in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were married bishops (for instance, Bishop Synesius in the fifth century). But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (Canon 13) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of priests (First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy, Second Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 51/2)

[3] The Church enforced celibate Bishops to stop Nepotism: This explanation perhaps gives us the clearest reason why the Church moved away from married bishops. Nepotism is where the ecclesiastical dignity is passed down from father to son and becomes a sort of family empire, something that the Church can never be. This phenomen can be seen today, for instance in the Billy Graham and Pat Robertson enterprises and other ministries where the sons are effectively taking over as the inheritors to their fathers. While this may not always be a bad thing or necessarily against the will of God, it does lead to the confusion of the laity who would begin to see an element of family empire building in the making. In order to end the passing of ecclesiastical properties as inheritance to sons, the Church began to choose men who were never married, and thus no claims for inheritance could be levelled. This perhaps was valid during the days when the bishops held all property and legal deeds, and incorpartions did not exist. Nowadays, at an age of public disclosure of banking and financial accounts, with lay treasurers and financial committees etc, there is little to no chance of such to occur.

[4] The need of an Ecumenical Council to change back: This is seemingly a valid statement made by those who reject the married Episcopate. They assert that since an Ecumenical council declared the matter closed, then it requires another Ecumenical Council to change that. This argument is flawed in a number of points: First, an ecumenical council did NOT declare the matter closed. On the contrary, The Council of Nicea refused to implement this discipline.

Secondly, the Fifth-sixth Council did NOT ban married bishops, but implemented a set discipline upon them. Thirdly, there has not been an Ecumenical Council since the schism of the Church and there is not likely to be one in any foreseeable future. We no longer have Christian Emperors who can call an Ecumenical Council, let alone the fact that the whole Roman Church would obviously fail to attend any Council called by the East. Amusingly, the answer (of needing another Ecumenical Council to settle the matter) really does not deal with the issue but 'passes the buck' to some indefinite, improbable future event. Such would not be acceptable from a theological or cannonically viewpoint, since oiconomia has always allowed the bishops to determine how to enforce or interpret the Canons in their particular circumstances. Recently allowances in matters of ecclesiastical discipline have been observed in anumber of jurisdictions, including priest's being able to remarry, bishops being transferred to other dioceses, "Coadjutor" type bishops in dioceses that are not under their authority, monks leaving their vows being allowed to marry, more than one bishop in one city, etc. - Yet none of these recent matters were left to a futuristic Ecumenical Council.

Summary: We believe the above information and the facts of history stand for themselves and do not need a defense. It is rather the other side in need of defence, from a Scriptural, Patristic and canonical point of view. Additionally, the western hemisphere is not like the homelands of Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy which had two thousand years of resources to draw from suitable monastics available for consecration. Though the earlier Canons are believed by Orthodox tradition to come directly via Apostolic authority, the later ones by an assumed one-size-fits-all decision by the Fifth-sixth Council. Canonical commentators have not been able to resolve the obvious differences other than simply to note them. Oiconomia is the only way this issue should be resolved in the Orthodox faith, as it always has. For one jurisdiction to use one set of Canons against another jurisdiction's interpretation or oikonomia is neither appropriate nor Orthodox!
By Archpriest James Scully
Patriarchal Adminstrator for Australia and the Phillipines
UOCWW