Tag: Christianity

There is a charming religious custom that is widespread among Catholic Hispanics but is making its way into the English-speaking world at a fast pace. 

It’s called a palanca, a word in Spanish that means “lever.” When a family member or friend leaves to make a religious retreat, we write them a short letter of encouragement that is meant to lift them up toward God, like a lever lifts an object. One of the most consoling moments in a retreat is the time set aside for reading these palancas, sometimes a bag full of them. Invariably there are tears, and opened hearts, as God’s grace works through the knots and difficulties that beset every one of us. 

You don’t have to wait for someone you love to make a retreat to write them a palanca. Anyone experiencing a low point in their lives would be moved and lifted by a letter of spiritual accompaniment. If you are wondering what they look like, here is an example — a palanca I recently wrote to my daughter for her senior retreat. We adopted her from China as a toddler.

My Magnificent Girl:

It’s a treat to write you a palanca, because the possibilities are endless. If, in fact, a palanca is a letter of appreciation. It is, in part. 

So here is that part: You are my youngest child and one whose presence in my life is a kind of ever-surprising miracle. You simply shouldn’t be here, making me glad with your presence and your smile. There is no simple path from to here from China, from your beginnings to your present, from your baby loneliness to your family that adores you. Living always, since I met you in that big room full of tumbling babies in Chongqing, in the glow of that miracle, I have never gotten used to it. 

I have told you this before, but the prettiest thing that has ever happened to me is learning to love you. It was, and is, a romance like that of princesses and knights. It was an adventure, a daring leap, God’s challenge met with trepidation, a promise from the other side of experience, where unlikely things become reality. You beckoned from your crib and I came, like an arrow to the target, flying over the top of the world to find you. 

I drove away dragons of doubt and spiders of fear, I fought the hard-hearted ones who told me I was wrong and selfish. I danced away in a dream of you, right into the night sky and landed at your side. I filled my arms with your tender self wrapped in a cheap pink polyester romper. You cried at being touched and kissed, unused to love.

You fulfilled the dreams I didn’t even dare to dream out loud. Your kindness, docility, thoughtfulness, generosity, self-lessness, your calm silences, your expansive moods, your comical streak, your piety and seriousness. All of it charms me and makes me thank God with tears in my eyes. You have been a wild joy, a giver of contentment and a source of gladness. I feast my eyes on you and my heart leaps. 

You are laughing at my silliness now, maybe, as you read. But don’t disbelieve me. One day, God willing, you will love like I do, and you will know that everything I have told you here is true. 

Here is the other part of the palanca:

Don’t go where the world wants to lead you. The God who made you made you for glorious, clean, shining and noble things. He wants you to be that beautiful thing he envisioned when he first thought of you, back in the beginning of time, when there was no time. Let him make you that, be clay in his hands. The world wants you to be a lump of dirt, and then it wants to toss you on a pile of more dirt. 

God is making a gorgeous and stately statue of you, the kind that makes others long to be near you, even just to watch you become. And when he is all done making, and you are all done being made, he will breathe one more drop of Grace on you. And then you will be that Holy Living Saint he intends you to be. This may happen after your death, or before. I don’t know exactly. But I know it will happen, because you will let him. Do let him!

I trust you, and believe in your greatness of spirit. Maybe more than anyone else I know. But I fear for you, because you are young and don’t know how dark the world is, and men’s minds. Keep your innocence and purity, don’t let the dirt of the world touch you, my darling. Don’t let it!

I love you, and pray for you always.

Your mother

Budapest, October 24, 2024

Photo: rapsinews.ru     

His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Budapest welcomes the findings of a new forensic analysis that exposes alleged evidence against him as fabricated, telling RIA-Novosti that these results will be presented to investigators and likely lead to criminal charges of defamation.

Serious accusations leveled against Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest—hierarch says he’s being blackmailedOn July 5, Novaya Gazeta Evropa published a lengthy piece containing a number of serious accusations against His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations and currently the ruling hierarch of the Diocese of Budapest.

“>In July, Met. Hilarion’s former subdeacon and assistant George Suzuki made a series of serious accusations against him, including sexual harassment, publishing what he claimed were secretly recorded video and audio evidence through media outlets. The Metropolitan, who maintains his innocence, emphasized that he is actually the victim in an existing criminal case against Suzuki, not a suspect in any investigation. The former assistant robbed the Metropolitan before leaving Hungary, and once back in Japan, began blackmailing him, Met. Hilarion says.

The Russian Legal Information Agency has released findings from a forensic technical examination of video and audio materials that were used to discredit Met. Hilarion, arguing that they are sophisticated forgeries.

The forensic analysis, conducted by the certified Truth Center for Law and Forensic Expertise, demonstrated that both the video and audio materials had been manipulated. Experts found evidence of multiple technical alterations, including frame manipulation, artificial lighting changes, disproportionate scaling, and deliberate blurring of facial features. The audio recording, purportedly showing the Metropolitan discussing his wine collection, was also shown to contain signs of digital manipulation that made it impossible to authenticate the speaker’s identity.

The case has had serious consequences for Met. Hilarion, who was Synod temporarily suspends Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) while commission investigates accusationsThe Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate resolved yesterday to temporarily suspend His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Budapest while a commission “studies the situation in the Diocese of Budapest and Hungary.”

“>temporarily removed from his positions as Metropolitan of Budapest and Hungary and chairman of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission while a committee investigated the allegations.

Cybersecurity experts interviewed by RAPSI warned that this case highlights the growing threat of sophisticated digital forgeries. “With current technology, it’s possible to create fake audio or video evidence that could implicate anyone in wrongdoing within a couple of hours,” noted one expert from a major Russian IT company.

Legal experts emphasize that in today’s digital age, only analog recordings on physical media can be considered completely reliable evidence.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

Because the Holy Spirit specializes in love and unity, Catholic couples should pray regularly for the Spirit to be present in their marriage, Pope Francis said.

“Where the Holy Spirit enters, the capacity for self-giving is reborn,” the pope said at his weekly general audience Oct. 23, continuing a series of talks about the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church and its members.

While the pope explained the gifts the Holy Spirit gives to a couple through the sacrament of marriage, he repeatedly told visitors and pilgrims that the unity and love of parents are important for children’s growth and happiness.

“How beautiful it is to hear a mother say to her children, ‘Your father and I…,’ as Mary said to Jesus when they found him at the age of 12 in the temple, and to hear a father say, ‘Your mother and I…,’ as if they were one,” Pope Francis said. “How much children need this unity — dad and mom together — this unity of parents, and how much they suffer when it is lacking! How much children suffer when their parents separate.”

But “to correspond to this vocation, marriage needs the support of the one who is the gift, indeed the quintessential giver,” the Holy Spirit, the pope said.

Pope Francis said marriage preparation courses should include “spiritual preparation,” particularly a discussion about the Holy Spirit’s role within the Trinity and how invoking the Spirit’s assistance can help couples.

St. Augustine, starting from “the revelation that ‘God is love,’” taught that that implies there is “one who loves, one who is beloved and love itself that unites them,” the pope said. “The Father is, in the Trinity, he who loves, the source and origin of everything; the Son is he who is beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the love that unites them.”

No one would say that “such unity is an easy task, least of all in today’s world,” the pope said, but it is the plan God has for a husband and wife, so “it is therefore in their nature.”

Asking the thousands of people present in St. Peter’s Square to join him in praying for peace, Pope Francis said that “early this morning, I received the statistics regarding deaths in Ukraine: it is terrible! War does not forgive; war is a defeat from the beginning.”

The Vatican had said Pope Francis met in the morning with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, who had attended the pope’s Mass and canonizations Oct. 20 and then traveled to Ukraine before returning to Rome for his meeting with the pope.

The pope also told the crowd that “the investments that yield the most today are in weapons manufacturing. Profiting from death!”

“Let us pray to the Lord for peace, may he give peace to all, to all of us,” he said. “And let us not forget Myanmar; let us not forget Palestine, which is suffering inhumane attacks; let us not forget Israel and let us not forget all nations at war.”

Slain Father Marcelo Pérez was buried in his birthplace amid indignation and demands for justice.

Father Pérez, an Indigenous Tzotzil priest in the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas, was remembered for protecting the poor and dispossessed, while seeking dialogue where possible and always denouncing injustice in an increasingly violent region.

“Father Marcelo took special care of the poorest, the weakest, the most unprotected, and he protected them from abusive people, from powerful people, from people who feel they own society and the land and who do not mind harming the lives of others to enrich themselves or to acquire greater political power to get everything they want,” retired Bishop José Raúl Vera López of Saltillo said during an emotional open-air Mass attended by hundreds of villagers in San Andrés Larrainzar.

“He was especially concerned about people whose dignity was damaged by unfair treatment from authorities or from abusive people. This, dear sisters and brothers, is what the Lord Jesus Christ tells us today,” said Bishop Vera, who was coadjutor bishop in San Cristóbal de las Casas when Father Pérez entered the minor seminary.

“This is why he died as a prophet with his word, which is the word of God.”

Mourners at his burial shouted, “Viva Padre Marcelo!” and, “Marcelo, friend, the people are with you.”

But the impact of Father Perez’s death hit hard in Chiapas and drew widespread condemnation from Catholics across the country, along with many in Mexican society. Father Pérez had endured threats, and previous assassination attempts for his work mediating disputes, attending to victims of violence and confronting political bosses and criminal groups.

His murder came as the southern state of Chiapas — long rife with poverty, inequality and discrimination against Indigenous groups — convulsed with drug cartels violence, which has emptied villages and sent hundreds fleeing to neighboring Guatemala.

Father Pérez was shot dead after celebrating Mass in San Cristóbal de las Casas on Oct. 20. Security camera footage showed the priest leaving the church, climbing into his car and being shot through the window by an assailant who fled the scene.

Chiapas Gov. Rutilio Escandón announced Oct. 22 that a suspect had been arrested. President Claudia Sheinbaum announced earlier the same day that the federal prosecutor’s office would investigate the crime.

Sheibaum, who took office Oct. 1, used her Oct. 22 morning press conference to highlight the “perception of insecurity” survey from the state statistics institute, INEGI, which she said showed an improved security situation.

“In the country, people feel more secure than in 2018” — when her predecessor and mentor, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador took office — and even more so “than in 2013,” she said.

She said of the situation in Chiapas: “It’s important to work to ensure that a situation like this does not happen again, that there are no displacements and to pacify, and to avoid extortion and crimes that are occurring.”

The president’s reaction reflected a tendency from the ruling Morena party to downplay violence, even as it spread into previously placid parts of the country.

Father Pérez, however, spoke out on violence in Chiapas throughout his priesthood — and especially as violence intensified in Chiapas.

He told reporters covering a march for peace convened Sept. 13 by Chiapas’ three Catholic dioceses, “In many communities and municipalities, violence is really unbearable.”

Father Pérez was born in San Andrés Larrainzar, an Indigenous Tzotzil town known for the San Andrés Accords signed in 1996 by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the Mexican government after an uprising by the Zapatistas for Indigenous rights.

He entered the minor seminary as a teenager and was ordained in 2002. He was a rare Indigenous priest in a diocese with more than 400 married Indigenous deacons, who were ordained by Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia — who promoted an autochthonous church in Chiapas — to better serve remote communities without priests.

Father Pérez served early on in his priesthood in the municipality of Chenalhó, scene of a notorious 1997 Acteal massacre of a pacifist Catholic group known as Las Abejas that claimed 45 lives. But after eight years in the divided community, he achieved community participation “without ideological differences or political positions in liturgical assemblies,” Jesuit Father Pedro Arriaga, told OSV News.

He later worked to find peace during his next assignment in Pantelhó, where an armed group revolted against a local strongman — leading to a warrant being issued for his arrest.

He always strove for peace, but it wasn’t without risks. Would-be assassins rigged his car’s electrical system to explode, but it malfunctioned, according to Father Arriaga. Another time they loosened the wheels. He was urged to leave the diocese, but Father Pérez refused to flee.

“There were constant threats,” said Father Arriaga, a former diocesan spokesman in San Cristóbal de las Casas.

He remembered Father Pérez as “prophetic,” describing him as “always being on the side of the poor, very radical and not afraid to make statements to the press.

“He considered death as a possibility for denouncing this situation.”

Unexpected changes in the federal government’s allocation of EB-4 visas could negatively impact six priests from other countries serving the Diocese of Little Rock.

Two types of visas are available to religious workers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

— The EB-4 (employment-based category 4) visa includes special immigrant religious workers. It allows qualified workers to stay in the U.S. on a permanent basis and potentially become U.S. citizens.

— The R-1 nonimmigrant visa only allows religious workers to stay in the country for up to five years.

Concerns came about following the State Department’s unexpected decision in March 2023 regarding the allocation of EB-4 visas. At that time, the EB-4 visa category, which includes religious workers, was flooded with additional applicants from Central and South American countries, predominantly unaccompanied minors and refugees.

This change lengthened the timeline for qualifying and receiving an EB-4 visa. Religious workers, like international priests, seeking to switch from the temporary R-1 visa to the permanent EB-4 visa will have to leave the United States when their R-1 status expires, before they are eligible to apply for an EB-4 visa.

Deacon Matt Glover, chancellor for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Little Rock, told Arkansas Catholic, the diocesan news outlet, that the immigration slowdown could impact the state.

“All of a sudden, those people also got dumped into this category of EB-4 visas for green cards, which dramatically increased the number of people then automatically who were seeking what was already a limited pool of available green card visas,” Glover said.

“Every year there’s only a certain amount of visas within all of these different categories,” he said. “And so for religious workers, there was already a backlog in processing. And then all of a sudden, kind of arbitrarily, the U.S. State Department decided that this other group had been miscategorized and really needed to be categorized this other way. And that impacted the priority dates that determine when someone is eligible to get their green card.”

The priority date for individuals seeking this type of visa — including priests from international dioceses — became backdated by several years. Once a religious worker’s priority date becomes current, they can file for the second step of the green card process, which is the I-485 and the I-765, which allows for employment authorization while waiting for the green card to be processed.

The Diocese of Little Rock has been dealing with this predicament since 2022 where several priests affected by the visa delays had to leave the country for a year. But the situation has worsened.

Unfortunately, for newer R-1 religious workers, the backlog is so long that they are unlikely to be able to apply for the second step of the green card process within the five-year period. The Diocese of Little Rock isn’t the only diocese that will be affected by the change — nearly 90% of U.S. dioceses rely on international clergy.

In a lawsuit filed Aug. 16 against the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, along with their directors, the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, said the unexpected change could lead to five priests “abandoning their congregations” when the visas expire.

The diocese alleged in the lawsuit that the federal government’s policy change is discriminatory against religious employers and favors nonreligious ones.

“The Patterson lawsuit, which I’ve reviewed, is a creative and interesting effort at trying to force some change. … It’s anybody’s guess as to whether it’ll be successful,” Glover said. “I hate to speculate on the likelihood of it succeeding, but I’m hopeful that it will succeed.”

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, Glover said that in order to fix this issue in time, it would fall to internal administrative changes at the USCIS or Congress to increase the number of visas available within this category.

Glover said the shortage of priests resulting from immigration issues will put a strain on many parishes.

“And the problem then becomes — especially for guys that are pastors at the time that that five years hits — because then that throws the administration of that parish into turmoil,” he said.

“We have to find a different pastor or at least find a temporary pastor … but it’s still really problematic, because a parish has gotten used to that particular priest,” he continued. “It takes a while, especially for guys that have never been to the United States before, for them to get acclimated and used to things and for the parishes to get used to them. And so by the time they get the ground underneath their feet, all of a sudden they’re having to leave after just five years.

“It’ll be constant turnover in certain parishes, and we already have enough constant turnover just because of low vocations.”

Several priests in the diocese will be affected if the lawsuit is not successful, if the USCIS does not make internal changes or if Congress does not pass legislation.

Father Joel Ibebuike, a priest from the Diocese of Orlu in Nigeria and associate pastor at St. Peter the Fisherman in Mountain Home, began serving in Arkansas this year. His R-1 visa will run out in 2029, at which point he will have to leave the U.S. for one year before returning here on a new R-1.

He told Arkansas Catholic in an email that it should be easier for foreign citizens to immigrate to the United States, a process that he has seen become increasingly more challenging in recent years.

“Foreign citizens ought to be welcome in any country when there is a need for their presence to enhance the lives of the citizens of the host country,” he wrote. “The coming of such foreign citizens ought to be legal and seamless. An immigrant who comes to another country ought to be welcome and allowed to stay. The person ought to be allowed to render his or her services so long as the citizens need the services.”

“There is a genuine need for my services because of the insufficient number of priests ministering to the people of God in the Diocese of Little Rock,” he added. “More so, the people of God have expressly shown that the diversity I bring to the table positively impacts their faith and broadens their understanding of the universality of the Catholic Church. The immigration concern puts a lot of pressure on me in terms of having long-term planning. It affects my mental health.”

Father Raj Nalazala, administrator of St. Norbert Church in Marked Tree and associate pastor of Blessed Sacrament Church in Jonesboro, came in 2023, so his five-year R-1 period will run out sometime in 2028..

“It makes me sad,” Father Nalazala said. “I have to leave in 2028. … That is my year of returning back to India, staying in India for one year, getting a new visa and coming back. I’m not at all happy regarding that situation.”

In February 2014, a scene unfolded in Rome that struck many observers as akin to the end of history. A conservative German prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sat on a Vatican stage, sporting a Peruvian poncho and showering praise upon the father of liberation theology in Latin America — a man who, once upon a time, was virtually the Vatican’s Public Enemy Number One.

That Roman night, which united Cardinal Gerhard Müller with his longtime friend Father Gustavo Gutiérrez, marked an official rehabilitation of sorts for Gutiérrez. The outcome later was given an exclamation point when Pope Francis sent the aging Dominican a note praising his “theological service” on the occasion of his 90^th birthday in June 2018.

Gutiérrez, who died Oct. 22 at the age of 96, was an icon of 20^th century Latin American Catholicism, and for decades, reactions for or against Gutiérrez’s pioneering theology marked the primary fault lines in the church on the continent.

We got a reminder of the point just three days before Gutiérrez’s death, when Cardinal-elect Carlos Gustavo Castillo Mattasoglio of Lima, Peru, published a newspaper piece highly critical of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, a lay group in Peru, among other things blaming the group and its founder for what Castillo called an “unjust persecution” and “insane response” to Gutiérrez.

“They considered him a leftist,” Castillo wrote. “Instead, he was just a man open to the Gospel and the signs of the times, who updated the faith for our poor and deeply religious continent.”

It all began in 1968, when a 40-year-old Gutiérrez acted as an advisor to an assembly of the Latin American bishops in Medellín. Afterwards he wrote a book born in part of that experience, which was originally slated to be called “Towards a Theology of Development” but eventually became “Toward a Theology of Liberation.”

The book was published in 1971, and thereby gave a name to what would become the defining post-Vatican II impulse in the Latin American church.

As controversies over liberation theology built in the 1980s, it was inevitable that Gutiérrez would become a target. In 1983, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, wrote to the Peruvian bishops asking them to investigate Gutiérrez. Ratzinger cited several alleged problems in Gutiérrez’s work, including an allegedly Marxist view of history, a selective reading of the Bible to focus on material redemption, and a class-driven concept of theology.

The bishops were divided, but seemed prepared to issue some sort of negative verdict until a last-minute intervention came from the legendary German Jesuit theologian Father Karl Rahner, just two weeks before his death at the age of 80.

“I am convinced of the orthodoxy of the theological work of Gustavo Gutiérrez,” Rahner wrote. “The theology of liberation that he represents is entirely orthodox. A condemnation of Gustavo Gutiérrez would have, it is my full conviction, very negative consequences … Today there are diverse schools and it has always been thus … It would be deplorable if this legitimate pluralism were to be restricted by administrative means.”

Eventually all the Peruvian bishops were summoned to Rome, then went back home and fashioned a sort of compromise conclusion that raised some critical concerns, but never accused Gutiérrez of error and did not impose any sanction.

Despite the result, Gutiérrez still faced strong backlash from conservative elements of the Peruvian church, including the Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne of Lima.

“They created a system of pastoral work that is now inside of the church, and not only in Peru,” Cipariani said of the theological current launched by Gutiérrez, in a 2004 interview with me.

“Desacralization, making social work the first thing to do, criticizing the magisterium, involving priests in politics … It’s a whole system, a parallel magisterium to the real magisterium. … This way of doing the church, the pastoral work, is still going on and is quite difficult to change,” Cipriani said.

Such pressure is one of the reasons that led Gutiérrez to leave the Lima archdiocese and join the Dominican order in 1999. (Ironically, the master of the Dominicans who welcomed Gutiérrez into the order was Father Timothy Radcliffe, who will be made a cardinal by Pope Francis on Dec. 7.)

Gutiérrez was the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. He was previously a professor at the Pontifical University of Peru, and has served as a visiting professor at many universities in North America and Europe. Gutiérrez held nearly 20 honorary degrees and founded the Bartolomé de Las Casas Institute in Lima, Peru. He was made a member the French Legion of Honor in 1993 for his work for human dignity in Latin America.

For people who met Gutiérrez over the years, usually the first thing that made an impression was his remarkably short stature – which, combined with his wizened face and penchant (in English, anyway) for issuing bits of wisdom in slightly non-syntactical fashion, led more than one wag to compare Gutiérrez to the character Yoda from “Star Wars.”

Yet his diminutive size always stood in contrast to his larger-than-life intellectual statue, as one of just a handful of Catholic theologians in the 20^th century who truly left a permanent mark on the church.

Agree with his theology or not, there’s no disputing the point that Gustavo Gutiérrez mattered. Catholic conversation will be poorer for his absence – and, given his lifelong passion for the poor, perhaps that’s the most poetically apt tribute possible.

Belgrade, October 23, 2024

Photo: spc.rs The Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church issued a statement yesterday affirming the Church’s general support for organ donation and transplantation.

The statement comes in response to media allegations about the Serbian Church’s supposed reluctance to support organ donation programs. The Church notes that His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije himself is a regular blood donor, and many Church leaders have pledged their organs.

The Church established its position on organ transplantation in 2004, supporting it under specific conditions:

While maintaining this supportive stance, the Church emphasizes that such procedures must be handled by morally upright medical professionals, particularly given historical concerns about organ trafficking. The Church stresses that no official negotiations with state authorities were needed, as its position has long been clear and positive, making recent media criticism baseless.

The Church’s statement reads:

Statement on Organ Transplantation and Certain Insinuations

… The latest poisonous spin, sown literally across all major media, relates to the Church’s alleged unwillingness to support the Ministry of Health’s Extend Life campaign, or that they are “waiting” for the Church’s position on organ donation and transplantation programs. Meanwhile, no one points out the blatant example set publicly and before cameras by His Holiness the Serbian Patriarch Porfirije himself. He is, in fact, a voluntary blood donor at least twice a year, and at his initiative, all parish homes in Belgrade are available to the Institute for Blood Transfusion whenever needed, about which the Church regularly informs both the faithful and others. It is a known fact that some Serbian hierarchs have pledged their organs and have not hidden this from the public. Naturally, many priests have done the same without speaking about it publicly. Finally, no competent state authority has officially requested a formal position from the Church, let alone engaged in “difficult negotiations,” as some write. As with many important life issues that have been presented to the believing people (read: the Church) during recent decades, the Church, specifically its Holy Assembly of Bishops, adopted a position back in 2004, based on Christ’s teaching and, consequently, on Holy Scripture and two millennia of experience (Holy Tradition), agreeing to organ transplantation provided the following conditions are met:

All this applies provided that the donor’s death has been determined by a professional medical commission in accordance with medical ethics. The Holy Assembly of Bishops also affirms organ transplantation from living persons provided that the donor’s life is not endangered.

In an era of growing social disparities, and bearing in mind the horrifying experiences of past wars, including one of the most terrible examples – the so-called Yellow House in neighboring Albania, our Church will always and unconditionally emphasize that the decision on organ transplantation, regardless of whether the donor is dead or alive, is a matter that can only be handled by impeccably moral medical personnel, not those who are morally indifferent or, worse, corrupted.

Our Church, in this regard, has always had, currently has, and will continue to have an open and extremely well-intentioned position on organ transplantation, so no one should get the impression that it “should” or “must” align either with or against the positions of current political structures. It has had its position, not from yesterday, but for two thousand years now. The insinuation that “negotiations” with the Church are “difficult” and have barely begun is completely baseless. Its only result is that well-known media outlets, otherwise always hostile towards the Church and Serbian identity, have risen to its defense and referenced its existing positions and relevant texts, some of which we are republishing alongside this commentary for reminder.

The open doors of goodwill, understanding, and love, along with loyalty to the timeless principles and standards of Orthodoxy, whether they appeal or not to current holders of social responsibility and state-political authority, should not be broken down with a tank but simply walked through.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

The following is a report presented at the conference, “The Influence of the Constantinople Patriarchate on the Fate of Orthodoxy in Ukraine,” organized by the Center for Russian Studies at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade.

Metropolitan Luke (Kovalenko) of Zaporozhie and Melitopol. Photo: logoslovo.ru     

The events related to the non-canonical interference of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and his Synod in the Ukrainian church crisis and the creation of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) are rightfully regarded by many Orthodox hierarchs and analysts as part of a larger project aimed at unifying the Christian world under the Vatican’s aegis with the participation of the Phanar. The efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to promote the idea of “first without equals,” as well as the active ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, have led to significant changes in global Orthodoxy. In this context, the OCU project serves as a testing ground for refining methods and practices that disrupt the established order in relations between Local Orthodox Churches and skew the ecumenical dialogue. This report is dedicated to analyzing these processes, assessing their consequences, and exploring ways to protect the canonical order in the modern church situation.

In recent years, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has actively promoted the concept of “first without equals,” which has raised many questions and concerns among other Local Orthodox Churches.

This concept grants the Patriarch of Constantinople a special status in the Orthodox world, implying not only primacy of honor but also primacy of authority. As a result of this positioning, Patriarch Bartholomew assumes powers not provided for by the canons or historical practice of Orthodoxy.

Promoting the Idea of His Primacy in the Orthodox East, the Phanar Seeks Closer Ties with the Vatican. Joint services and prayers between representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church have become commonplace. Notably, Patriarch Bartholomew himself has expressed a desire for unity with Catholics. For example, in 2021, during the feast of St. Andrew the First-Called in Istanbul, a Vatican delegation led by Cardinal Kurt Koch was present. In his sermon, Patriarch Bartholomew emphasized that his meetings with Pope Francis strengthen the desire for a “common Eucharistic chalice.” This indicates active attempts at rapprochement between the Phanar and the Roman Catholic Church. Similar statements have been reiterated, especially in anticipation of the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in 2025.

In this context, it is important to emphasize that the Unia (unification under Rome) has been repeatedly condemned by the Orthodox Church. As early as 2003, the global Orthodox Church, through the voices of the Primates of all Local Orthodox Churches, expressed a unified position regarding the Unia and the attempts to establish a Uniate Patriarchate in Ukraine. This response was given in a memorandum by Cardinal Walter Kasper, who, on behalf of the Apostolic See, addressed His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow and All Russia. After Patriarch Alexiy distributed the memorandum, the heads of the Local Churches sent their replies, including Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who sent a special message to the Pope. In these messages, the Unia was called an ecclesiological heresy, with no right to exist in Christianity, and the creation of a Ukrainian Uniate Patriarchate was labeled a hostile and unfriendly step toward Orthodoxy. Furthermore, in the Joint Declaration signed by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope Francis during their Havana meeting in 2016, the methods of Uniatism and proselytism were deemed unacceptable.

Nevertheless, despite this united protest, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew continues to promote his ecclesiological concept of being “first without equals” and is laying the groundwork for a global union. It is already evident that this drive for unity will inevitably lead to profound changes in all aspects of Orthodox life, including the foundations of doctrine, liturgical practice, and canonical order. This is particularly significant in light of Pope Francis’s recent words on September 13, 2024, in Singapore, during a meeting with youth, which included representatives of five different religions. At this meeting, he stated that “all religions are a path to God.”

Using Ukraine as an example, the Phanar is implementing a strategy of union that may later be applied on a broader level. Its initial goal is to form a new union based on the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). If this goal is achieved, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Vatican will use the “Ukrainian precedent” as proof that the reunification of Orthodox and Catholics without changing their doctrinal teachings is both achievable and realistic.

The creation of the OCU in 2018 and the granting of the Tomos of autocephaly marked the starting point for launching this corresponding experiment. This is evidenced by subsequent events in Ukraine that followed this destructive step by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

One of the key elements of this project has been the cooperation between the OCU and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC).

Since the “Euromaidan” and the events of 2014, joint prayers and actions between Dumenko’s structure (OCU) and the Uniates have become a regular occurrence in Ukraine. These joint actions are meant to show mass support and demonstrate the potential unification of the two confessions. However, it is clear that such initiatives are driven not by spiritual necessity but by political expediency and the desire to create an appearance of unity.

The head of the OCU, Epiphanius Dumenko, has repeatedly stated his desire to deepen relations with the UGCC, emphasizing that potential unification will depend on the global Orthodox-Catholic dialogue:

“This key (the key to uniting the two Ukrainian religious organizations—Metropolitan Luka) does not lie in Ukraine but in Rome and Constantinople, as it is there that ecumenical dialogues are taking place. In the future, our relations here in Ukraine will depend on this. But these relations are good, and I believe they will only improve in the future,” said the head of the OCU on September 12, 2019, during a meeting at the National University “Lviv Polytechnic.”

The presence of Catholics at the services of the “hierarchs” and “clergy” of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) directly illustrates the continued movement towards a union.

Another significant direction in expanding the “Overton window” in favor of Uniate interests has been the practical operation aimed at absorbing and “digesting” the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) into one of the parts that split from the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church”—the “UAOC (o)” (formerly the Kharkov-Poltava diocese of the “UAOC”). This process was sanctioned and approved by the Vatican, which de facto created the first precedent in modern Ukrainian history for the transition of a religious structure, which had positioned itself as Orthodox, into a union with the Catholic Church. According to experts, this initiative should be viewed as a final trial run of technologies for integrating Ukrainian Orthodoxy into Catholic structures. It is also worth noting that the process of merging the “UAOC (o)” with the UGCC did not stop even after the creation of the OCU as a collection point for various organizations that had schismed from Orthodoxy. This once again highlights that the Uniates do not perceive the structure formed by the Phanar as a long-term, independent, or equal player in Ukraine’s religious landscape. Moreover, they are preparing another, significantly less meaningful, more thankless role for the OCU.

The characteristics and contours of this role can be judged from an interview given by the head of the UGCC, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, to the publication Obozrevatel, dated March 18, 2019.

First, the head of the Ukrainian Uniates noted that he received consent from the head of the OCU, Dumenko, to hold regular meetings where the prospects and parameters of rapprochement between the two structures would be discussed. Second, this process will take place within the framework of a roadmap agreed upon by both parties (with Shevchuk emphasizing that the UGCC already has such a roadmap, which could be modified according to the OCU’s vision; de facto, this means that the Uniates will make their own concept the basis for the corresponding union). Third, it becomes clear from Shevchuk’s interview that the UGCC intends to focus on a soft and gradual absorption of the OCU. In this regard, they plan to refrain from forming a joint structure for now and will instead emphasize restoring “Eucharistic communion” with the organization headed by Epiphany, enabling them to “celebrate the Divine Liturgy at the same altar.” Fourth, Shevchuk clearly indicated who he sees as the senior and who as the junior partner in the future tandem. He stated that, unlike the OCU, the UGCC is not a “local church” with parishes only in Ukraine. This, he argued, gives the Uniates the right not only to seek patriarchal status but also, as a “global church with de facto established structures of patriarchal governance,” to take on the spiritual care of the entire Ukrainian diaspora. Fifth, Shevchuk conspicuously avoided answering whether a potential union between the UGCC and the OCU would be a union of equals.

What is basically a swallowing up of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) by the Uniate Church will take place in a very delicate and almost invisible manner for the general public. As Shevchuk mentioned, the Uniates do not aim to create any joint megastructures with the OCU at the initial stage.

They are talking about the establishment of “Eucharistic communion and joint liturgical services,” which is the desired outcome for the Catholics. If the Uniates manage to convince the representatives of the OCU to serve together and, so to speak, “partake of the same chalice,” this would signify an acknowledgment of the spiritual authority of the Pope over Dumenko’s structure. After such an event, the schismatics will be only a small step away from fully entering the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC).

At a practical level, one of the most important mechanisms for advancing this process will be the ideological indoctrination of the “clergy” of the OCU, as well as the formation of a common “theological” foundation that justifies the new union. Supporting this conclusion are the words of Dumenko, which he uttered during a broadcast on the ICTV channel shortly after his election as the head of the new religious structure.

“We have outlined a certain path for our future cooperation (with the UGCC), and in the future, we will look for those points of contact that will unite us. This includes the area of spiritual education and other aspects of our existence,” the head of the OCU said at the time.

Attention should also be drawn to the recently announced decision for a joint celebration of Pascha in 2025, which was voiced at the Synaxis of hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne. According to Romfea, in May 2025, an official celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council will be held in Nicaea (Bithynia) with the participation of Pope Francis. The press service of the Ecumenical Patriarchate stated that during the Synaxis, a desire was expressed for Eastern and Western Christianity to celebrate Pascha together. This is intended to be the beginning of establishing a common date for its celebration each year. Such a step underscores the Phanar’s intention to move toward union with Rome.

In this context, it is important to understand the interest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in establishing unity with Rome.

As noted by Kyriakos Kyriakopoulos, a professor of ecclesiastical law at the Faculty of Law of Aristotle University in Thessaloniki, the Vatican’s goal in the ecumenical dialogue with the Phanar is to transform the Autocephalous Local Orthodox Churches into Uniate ones. The Papal See aims for the “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches,” issued in 1990 by Pope John Paul II, to be applied to all Orthodox Churches. This document contains dogmatic rules that impose the pontiff as the leader with primacy of authority.

The implementation of such a plan is only possible if Patriarch Bartholomew becomes, in effect, an “Eastern Pope,” capable of single-handedly managing the entire Orthodox world and imposing decisions favorable to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). It is precisely this immense power, recognized by the Vatican, that the head of the Phanar seeks, destroying Church conciliarity on his path to it, legalizing schismatic structures, and weakening those Orthodox Churches that stand against the widespread transformation of Orthodoxy into Uniatism.

The processes initiated by Patriarch Bartholomew have already led to the destruction of pan-Orthodox unity and deep divisions within the Orthodox world. Today, we are witnessing the formation of a new model of global Orthodoxy, where the Ecumenical Patriarch occupies a central position with unprecedented powers and privileges. This changes the very nature of the Orthodox Church’s structure and contradicts the conciliar principle that lies at the heart of the Orthodox Church.

The main target is the Russian Church and the Churches of the Balkan region, which are the strongest opponents of uniatism and the power ambitions of the Phanar. These ambitions introduce [into the Orthodox world] “the smoky arrogance of this world,” as the Fathers of Carthage once wrote to Pope Celestine. The goal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to weaken these Churches by fragmenting and isolating them on the international level (this process can already be observed in the Baltic region).

Ukraine serves as the primary pilot project in this strategy. The next targets may include Moldova, Belarus, and the canonical territory of the Serbian Church, where plans are being made to create separate “churches” modeled after the OCU (a “parade of autocephalies”).

In this context, I would like to draw special attention to the support that the UGCC and the Phanar provide to the head of the Montenegrin schismatic structure, Boris Bojović.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) facilitated his legalization by inviting the leader of the “CPC” to the conference, “Together Through Hard Times of War: The Experience of Post-Yugoslav Countries and Ukraine” (Lvov, April 17–18, 2024).

Later, the Uniates gave Bojović a platform through their news portal, RISU. In an interview with this outlet, the Montenegrin “hierarch” stated that his structure hopes to receive a Tomos of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He also noted that his organization maintains close contact with the Phanar, which, according to him, sent observers “to study the internal organization” of the so-called Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

The problem is that in 2019, in an interview with the Serbian publication Kurir, the head of the Phanar assured that he would never grant autocephaly to the “false” so-called Montenegrin Orthodox Church. When asked directly whether autocephaly might be possible if someone other than Mihailo Dedeić headed the “CPC,” he categorically replied: “No, no, and no! The Church in Montenegro is the Serbian Orthodox Church, and no changes will ever occur there.”

Yet, after a few years, certain “contacts” with Montenegrin schismatics have emerged. Once again, the Phanar has demonstrated that its words and statements cannot be trusted.

This is similar to the case with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), where Patriarch Bartholomew repeatedly asserted that he recognized Metropolitan Onufriy as the only canonical head of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, only to later invade foreign canonical territory [Ukraine] and grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian schismatics.

Who can guarantee that he will not do the same later with the Serbian Orthodox Church? In the Ukrainian scenario, representatives of the “UOC-KP” also maintained informal contacts with the Phanar for many years and eventually achieved their goal when the political climate changed. The contradiction between Bartholomew’s public statements and his actions was obscured by a stream of cunning, deceitful arguments.

Given this, the readiness of the Local Churches to defend the purity of the faith and the canonical order becomes of paramount importance. The conciliar wisdom of the Universal Church must evaluate the actions of the Phanar with regards to the promotion of the “first without equals” concept and the movement toward union with the Vatican. These actions go beyond jurisdictional disputes, and require deep reflection and discussion at the pan-Orthodox level.

Considering the current situation, I propose several pan-Orthodox measures for discussion to protect the unity, canonical order, and doctrinal purity of Orthodoxy:

1. Strengthening the “Amman Format”: The Amman meeting, initiated by the Jerusalem Patriarchate, was one of the first steps towards addressing the ongoing crisis in the Orthodox Church. This format could be developed as a permanent platform for dialogue and exchange of opinions between the Local Churches. Regular meetings within this framework would help to develop a common vision and mechanisms to protect the canonical order, as well as prevent future schisms.

If it is challenging at this stage to ensure direct communication between the Primates of the Local Churches, it may be worthwhile to consider other options for establishing and maintaining consistent communication. For example, a format could be explored of systematic meetings between trusted representatives of the Church Primates, who would be authorized to speak on their behalf and hold significant powers.

2. Holding theological dialogues and consiliums: Discussing theological issues related to canons, ecclesiology, primacy, and conciliarity plays an important role in preserving unity. Organizing theological commissions, which would include representatives from different Local Churches (such as those participating in the “Amman Format”) and prepare positions on sensitive issues for meetings of the Church Primates, would allow for deeper exploration of existing problems and the formulation of well-argued responses to theological challenges. One area of such work could be the analysis and pan-Orthodox discussion of the Russian Orthodox Church’s document, “On the Distortion of Orthodox Teaching on the Church in the Actions of the Hierarchy of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Statements of Its Representatives.”

3. Strengthening the role of Local Councils: Local Orthodox Churches can convene their own Councils to develop unified positions on key issues of canonical order and relationships with other Local Churches. The recommendations and decisions of such Councils could then be presented for wider pan-Orthodox discussion.

4. Universal condemnation of schismatic actions: Local Churches must unite in a collective stand against canonical violations and schismatic actions, publicly condemning them. This will help prevent the spread of false teachings and maintain church order.

5. Cooperation between laity and clergy: We need to strengthen connections within the Church, involving both clergy and laity in discussions of complex issues. An intra-church dialogue can help develop a unified stance on issues of our times, and reinforce internal unity. In this context, church preaching, education, and clarification of key issues related to canonical order and ecclesiology to the faithful play a vital role.

6. Resistance to external pressure: Local Churches must unite to protect themselves from external interference, whether it comes in the form of political pressure, actions by radical groups, or ecumenical initiatives that undermine doctrinal foundations and violate canonical order. Church diplomacy on the international level should also be strengthened to safeguard the Church’s interests and traditions

7. A unified information space: The creation of a unified, pan-Orthodox information space, which communicates and explains the positions of the Local Churches on contentious issues, is an important tool for countering disinformation and manipulation. Official church media and online platforms can help inform the faithful about the Church’s positions, strengthening its authority. Moreover, the creation of a common informational resource could be considered, presenting the positions of Local Churches on significant pan-Orthodox issues, highlighting key events in the life of the Churches, and facilitating direct dialogue between theological and expert circles of the Local Churches on topics of mutual interest (in the format of an “Amman expert forum”).

Developing these pathways and adhering to them, I believe, will allow the Orthodox Church to preserve its unity and identity, while also adequately responding to the challenges of modernity.

Tbilisi, October 23, 2024

Photo: sazu.ge     

The Georgian Orthodox Church’s Public Relations Service has issued a statement addressing the upcoming elections, emphasizing the Church’s unique position as a national unifier while maintaining political neutrality.

Parliamentary elections will be held this Saturday, October 26. The ruling Georgian Dream party has talked about strengthening the constitutional status of the Georgian Orthodox Church, after the Patriarchate rejected the proposal to become the official state Church.

While acknowledging Georgia’s dual challenges of preserving religious-national values and maintaining sovereignty and peace, the Church states it will support choices that promote long-term peace and strengthen Christian and family traditions.

The statement concludes by urging clergy members to be mindful of their special role in maintaining social unity during the emotionally charged election period, calling for prayers for national unity and peace.

The statement reads in full:

Today our country is going through a crucial path. On one hand, protecting national and religious values, and on the other hand, unifying the country, maintaining sovereignty and peace, represents the main goal for both state institutions and society.

We have repeatedly stated that the Georgian Orthodox Church, as the greatest unifier and benefactor of our nation and country, cannot appear as a political side. However, it will unequivocally support such a choice that will bring long-term peace to Georgia and strengthen those values in society that will contribute to the reinforcement of Christian and family traditions.

Accordingly, during the election period, against the background of excessive emotions and tension, we ask the clergy to consider in their statements and appeals that they have a special role in maintaining public unity and tranquility.

Let us pray that the Lord may grant mercy to our nation and, according to the apostle’s word, maintain the unity of spirit in the bond of peace.

The Georgian Patriarchate has Georgian Church condemns political statements from clergy, calls for peace and unityBoth state institutions and society need to be careful and work hard to maintain peace and unity if the country hopes to progress, says the Georgian Orthodox Church in a statement published yesterday against the background of the unrest in Tbilisi.

“>issued similar statements against clergy making political statements in the past.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

As I write, Americans are getting ready for the national elections; early voting has already started in many states.

Again this year, the experts are telling us that this will be another close election, that the country is deeply divided.

From the perspective of our ministries in the Church, we see the divisions. We also see signs that people are confused about how they should live, and about what’s going on in the world around them. Some seem anxious and afraid, some are losing hope for the future.

As our country has grown more secularized, the Church’s pastoral perspective, and Christian viewpoints generally, have become less significant in the national conversation.

But the exclusion of Jesus and the light of his Gospel comes at a high cost.

The national conversation these days seems limited to material questions of money and power and inclusion: who has it and who does not; who is participating in the benefits of society and who is not? We tend now to define problems according to what can be solved by technology, by science, medicine, or government regulations.

From a Catholic perspective, it seems we might be losing the sense of what life is truly for. 

In his recent apostolic visit to Belgium, Pope Francis observed that this experience is found throughout the West.

He quoted the Servant of God Romano Guardini, who said, “The law of our truth states that the human person understands himself only if he begins from above, from beyond himself, from God, for the human person’s very existence comes from him.”

Western civilization and American democracy were founded on the truth that Jesus revealed: that the human person is the image of God, created with dignity and freedom, with the desire for the transcendent and a destiny written by God.

What defines these difficult times, and what lies underneath the divisions and despair we see in our society, is the loss of this truth.

Without God, it’s not possible to know what it means to be human, to know who we are or why we are here, what we should desire or how we should live.

When we lose the sense that we are all created by God, we also lose the sense of our common humanity. That’s one of the reasons for the suspicion and distrust we see in society, the hardening of people’s hearts, their unwillingness to work with people they disagree with.

People ask: What should the Church do now, and what do we need to do now as Catholics?

Pope Francis gave a powerful answer to that question in Belgium.  

“I am here to testify that the Gospel is the life source and the ever fresh force of personal and social renewal,” he said. “It brings about harmony among all nations, among all peoples; harmony, and the ability to experience and suffer together.”

The Holy Father added: “It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone that is capable of profoundly transforming the human soul, making it capable of doing good even in the most difficult situations, of extinguishing hatred and reconciling parties engaged in conflict.”

The challenge for all of us in the Church, in this time and in every time, is to be the people we say we are.

That means waking up and deciding to live the Gospel every day, trying to love and follow Jesus with greater fidelity and purity of heart than the day before.

That means building God’s kingdom and bringing the values of his Gospel into every area of life, serving our brothers and sisters with joy and generosity.

The Gospel remains the only answer to every question. Only in Jesus can men and women find the true purpose of their lives. And only in his Gospel can our society once again discover the true worth and dignity of the human person, and the true foundation for human rights. 

It is our task to bring this good news to our neighbors.

Jesus calls us to proclaim him by our words and by our lives, in season and out of season. No matter who holds political office, no matter what ideas are fashionable at the moment. And no matter what limits might be imposed on the Church and Christian viewpoints.

By our witness, and by the power of the Gospel, we make our own contribution to healing the wounds and divisions in our society. And we can help our leaders to find the courage to do what is right and seek the common good.

Pray for me and I will pray for you.

And let us entrust ourselves to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, patroness of this great country.