Interesting story, the Roman Catholic Church, in relatively recent years. They very much have a social conscience. And it has been this way since at least the late 19th century. In fact, Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) even wrote an encyclical that said the right to form a union was worthy of state protection.
Anyways, I write this, because as you know, the Roman Church isn’t the only Catholic Church. There is also an Eastern (often called ‘Greek’) Catholic Church. And they have a leader too, though I like most of you, have no idea what his name is.
What is the Easter Church’s view on hot political topics? And I might as well ask, what is their view on homosexuality too?
As you know, the RCC is very modern on some issues, at least in comparison to some Christian denominations. They favor union rights (as I just said), democracy, they are against the death penalty, and they have a fairly moderate approach to homosexuality. (I like to think they just actually read the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5-7.)
A lot of famous liberals, or at least Democrats, were Greek Orthodox Catholics. George Stephanopoulos comes to mind immediately. I am sure there are many more.
So what are their official views on these very modern topics?
IANA pope, but it might be a false expectation to say there is a dominant Eastern Catholic Church ‘view’ that is homogenous about social issues. The Roman Catholics now have a progressive (relatively) pope, but official doctrine is still largely that set by his far less hip predecessors, and many of its institutions are run as life-term appointments by a self-selecting bunch of previously-appointed conservatives.
Progressive Eastern Catholics may be much like progressive Roman Catholics, prog Jews and liberal Muslims who identify themselves as cultural RCs, Jews and Muslims, who get the benefit of the cuisine and holidays without being in any position to influence the church or be obliged to reflect whatever church doctrine may be.
That said, the small glimpses of the eastern churches (although not the Greeks) I’ve had suggests they have been generally less interested in embracing social change than in hunkering down into doctrinal conservatism. Maybe that’s because many had a devil’s bargain in coexisting within socialist states, while others played to their key membership, which was a lot older, more rural and generally conservative.
Do you mean the Greek Orthodox (as per the thread title) or the Eastern Catholic churches (as per your OP)?
I know that the former, like the Russian Orthodox, have a national status and tend to the nationalist and socially conservative end of the spectrum, hostile to western social liberalism and secularism.
What little I know of the Eastern Catholic churches suggest that, as minorities in their own countries, and self-governing as churches, they’re more likely to be concerned with preserving their own community traditions, than particularly engaged with the issues of western social liberalism.
Here’s a map with the area where Orthodox Churches can be found:
I can’t comment on all the “hot political topics” (which I try hard to stay away from), but I can tell for sure that the Orthodox Church does not approve of homosexuality at all. They haven’t changed their stance on things for millennia, which is why they call themselves the Right View(Ortho Doxa).
Eastern Orthodox is the second largest denomination of Christians in the world, after Roman Catholics.
They don’t have a central authority. There are several patriarchs with equal authority, so policies can differ, but they all tend to be highly conservative on LGBTQ issues, and they all keep well away from any involvement in social and political issues.
They are far more inward-looking than western churches, and far more concerned with individual spirituality than with society.
What little experience I have with Eastern Orthodox finds this to be an accurate description. The majority of that experience is attending one (1) Greek Orthodox service, along with studying it a bit in a comparative religion class eons ago.
But with that caveat, I’d say ^^ is pretty spot on.
There is a Wikipedia article on the Eastern Catholics (i.e., in communion with Rome, but autonomous) but it focusses on the theological and liturgical issues. Social/moral issues don’t get a look-in.
There are a number of different levels to which different sects can be joined. From the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, not only the Eastern Catholics, but most of the Eastern Orthodox, are considered “in communion with” the Roman Catholics (though the bishops of those Orthodox churches may or may not agree). Basically, that just means that both groups have sufficiently similar views of the nature of the Eucharist that a member of either church may validly and licitly receive it from either. But not all churches which are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church recognize the Pope as their head (though the Orthodox do generally recognize the Pope as a patriarch, and thus legitimate head of his own church).
Another sort of similarity is apostolic succession. That is to say, every priest in the Catholic Church was ordained by a bishop, who was in turn ordained by another bishop, and so on going back ultimately to one of the Apostles. This, the Catholics have in common with even the Anglicans and the Lutherans, and so the Catholic Church recognizes ordinations of Anglicans and Lutherans as valid (as long as the succession doesn’t pass through a female bishop, which the Catholics don’t accept but those other two sects now do). There have been a handful of cases of Anglican or Lutheran priests converting to Catholicism, and they didn’t need to be re-ordained (and in some cases, even ended up as legitimately-recognized married Catholic priests, if they were already married).
What the Orthodox Church seems to hate most about the Catholic Church is the direct or indirect claim that the Pope’s authority should extend over Christian people all over the world. In an interview in 2006, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev points out that the Pope is only the head of his own church and not the head of all Christian people: According to Orthodox teaching, Christ has no “vicar” to govern the universal Church in his name. The title “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter which, when passed on to the Bishop of Rome, secured for him governance over the universal Church. […] The title “Supreme Pontiff” — “Pontifex Maximus” — originally belonged to the pagan emperors of ancient Rome. […] With respect to the Pope of Rome, “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” is a designation that points to the Pope’s universal jurisdiction — a level of authority which is not recognized by the Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for “ecumenical progress” and desire for the amelioration of Catholic-Orthodox relations.
Not exactly; married men can be priests, but priest cannot marry. He must to get married before their ordination; if his wife dies after his ordination he is not allowed to remarry.
I live in Romania, where 98% of the population is Christian, mostly Orthodox. It doesn’t make me an authority in this field, but still. I can affirm that the Orthodox church (not only in my country, but also in the neighboring ones) is highly conservative on a wide range of issues. They definitely support a patriarchal view of society.
I can’t argue since my only knowledge comes from a member of the Greek Catholic church who grew up in Lebanon. She said their priests (but not their bishops) could be married. I don’t recall whether she specifically said that priests could marry, a different question.
Even the Roman church has a few married priests. There are a few married former Anglican priests who were married when they converted and were allowed to remain priests.
