Eastern Catholics ask synod for respect, recognition

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The vast majority of Catholics in the Middle East belong to Eastern Catholic churches, and their bishops spoke loudly at the Vatican, asking for greater respect and a higher profile for Eastern Catholics.

Reflecting the Catholic population of the region, 140 of the 185 voting members of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East come from the Eastern Catholic churches, and several of them addressed the synod Oct. 12.

Not only did they ask for recognition of their rights, they also emphasized the work they need to do to strengthen the Christian identity of their faithful, preserve their heritage and end a sense of rivalry that can exist among Catholics of different rites.

Bishop Vartan Waldir Boghossian, the Argentina-based bishop for Armenian Catholics in Latin America, used rather strong language to get across points made by other Eastern Catholic bishops, particularly regarding limits placed on Catholic patriarchs when providing for their faithful who have emigrated from their traditional homelands.

The Eastern Catholic churches, while in full communion with the pope, have their own canon law and disciplines, their own liturgies, spiritualities, histories and heritage. While they tend to be identified with one country or geographical region, many of them now find that the majority of their faithful live abroad, Bishop Boghossian said.

And, he said, "of the 23 churches in their own right that make up the Catholic Church, only one -- the Latin church -- is not subject to this limitation" of the authority and power of the patriarch and synod being confined to the churches' ancient geographical borders.

For example, while the bishops of the Armenian Catholic Church elect bishops for dioceses in Armenia, it is the pope who selects Armenian bishops for dioceses in the United States or Australia.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches described the patriarchs as "fathers and leaders of their churches," Bishop Boghossian said. "This paternity and jurisdiction must not be limited to a territory," especially when the majority of the church's members live outside that territory.

In addition, he said, the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches, "because of their identity as fathers and leaders of the 'sui iuris' (self-governing) churches that make up the catholicism of the Catholic Church, ipso facto should be members of the college that elects the pontiff without the need for the Latin title of cardinal. For the same reason, they should also take precedence over them," he said.

Currently, three of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs are cardinals; in the Vatican's list of precedence, they come after the handful of cardinal-bishops and before the cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons.

Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt, said that especially when there are more faithful of an Eastern church living outside than inside the church's territory, "it is not entirely logical that some faithful who belong to a 'sui iuris' church have no relationship with the church they belong to, other than liturgically."

"My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be," he said.

The Coptic bishop also asked Pope Benedict XVI to revoke a decision made in the 1930s that Eastern churches can ordain married men only in their traditional homelands.

Msgr. Robert L. Stern, general secretary of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, told the synod that by emphasizing the geographical limitation of an Eastern Catholic patriarch's authority, the church was, in effect, working counter to a vision of the church as a network where unity does not mean uniformity and where communion grows through communication and sharing.

"In the model of network, many churches in the same territory is normal, and rivalries and attempts to proselytize or dominate are inappropriate," he said.

Latin-rite Archbishop Jean Sleiman of Baghdad, Iraq, told the synod that for the survival of the Catholic Church in the Middle East, "a rigid or exaggerated" emphasis on belonging to one ritual church family must give way to cooperation and coordination of pastoral activities.

"Communion is especially contradicted by confessionalism. Rites are transformed into confessions," he said.

It seems degrading to me to disallow churches from caring for their flocks beyond ritual matters.

I agree. Hopefully this injustice will be rectified.

John L. Allen Jr. also reports on the latest from the Synod: Protests against 'Roman imperialism' at Middle East synod

The Synod for the Middle East is important because it is perhaps the first Synod where the Synod Fathers are mainly Eastern Catholic. So, it is not just a Synod for the Middle East, but also in a sense a Synod for the Eastern Catholic Churches. As such, it is a great opportunity to raise questions that are of concern to the Eastern Catholic Churches all over the world.

I see the election of the bishop of Rome as in internal matter of the Roman Church; and so, I would prefer that the Eastern Patriarchs not be involved in papal elections. Now as far as Patriarchs having precedence over cardinals, I agree that that should be the case, because the Patriarchs are the heads of self-governing Churches, while the honorific title of "cardinal" does not have the same governing authority. Finally, I would add that I do not think it is appropriate for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be subject - in any sense - to the dicasteries of the Roman Curia.

I agree that there are problems with the way the Eastern Catholic Churches today are governed.

However, I have to disagree with some of the comments made here. I don't think that the answer is to make each Eastern Catholic Patriarch and Synod into a kind of mini-Pope and mini-Vatican, with claims to universal jurisdiction.

This would simply be to copy the current uncanonical situation in Orthodoxy, a situation which the Orthodox themselves see as inadequate, and which they are working hard to overcome through the establishment of Episcopal Assemblies and, ultimately, autonomous or even autocephalous Churches in the so-called diaspora. That, I think, is the way forward also for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The diaspora communities of the Eastern Catholic Churches should be governed by their own patriarchs and synods, and not by the pope and the roman curia. In other words, the pope should not be appointing Melkite Catholic bishops in the United States, in Canada, or anywhere else.

I agree that the Pope should not be appointing Melkite Catholic bishops in the United States, in Canada, or anywhere else.

But have you read my post and understood my argument? I do not agree that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod should have universal jurisdiction. Greek Catholic Bishops in North America should be appointed by their own North American Patriarch and Synod of Bishops, not by Damascus. After all, Antioch has no more business appointing bishops in North America than Rome does.

For that matter, the Pope should not, strictly speaking, be appointing Latin bishops in North America either. They should be elected locally and then confirmed by the Pope. I am not saying that this would guarantee better bishops (in some cases it would probably produce worse bishops), but it would be much better ecclesiologically.

I do not believe that any bishop has "universal jurisdiction," and that is not what the Melkite Patriarch and the other Eastern bishops at the Middle East synod are talking about. The Melkite Patriarch would have authority over the diaspora communities of the Melkite Church wherever they may be, but he would have no authority over the Latin Churches in the United States or anywhere else. His jurisdictional authority would not be "universal," but would be restricted to Churches of the Melkite tradition wherever they may be located in the world. Why are the Melkites restricted to a certain geographical territory but Rome is not? Perhaps the pope's authority should be restricted to Italy.

I think I understand what you are saying. You want freedom for the Melkite Church to govern itself. Correct? This is well and good. But why should Greek Catholics (including Melkites) in North America have to choose between being governed by Rome or Antioch? Can they not govern themselves like a real local Church?

When Rome finally gives up its claims to universal jurisdiction, then perhaps real unity can be forged with the Eastern Orthodox. The recent document issued by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation was a joy to read, because if it were to be used as the basis for moving forward towards the restoration of communion with the Orthodox it would finally rein Rome in, and reinsert the bishop of Rome into the universal episcopate instead of placing him over the other bishops as some sort of supreme pontiff.

There are about 20,000 Melkites in the United States, which means that we really are just a mission Church. That said, I wholeheartedly support the creation of a self-governing Melkite Church in the United States when our numbers are great enough to support such a thing.

The "uncanonical" situation is not bishops overseeing missionary churches or dioceses outside their own territory, but the presence of multiple bishops in one geographical area with overlapping diocese. The Catholic Church is just as "uncanonical" by this same standard. It's just an effect of a demographic situation the church has faced in the industrialized world with mass immigration, etc.

Also, universal jurisdiction is not about geography. It's about one bishop being able to exercise authority in another particular church or over another bishop. Orthodox ecclesiology does not allow for this.

Also, in my opinion, Orthodoxy in North America is a mission church.

LC,

How many North American Patriarchs would you have? 1 for the Latins, 1 for the Byzantines/Greeks (or 2 - 1 for those of the Slav Tradition and 1 for those of the Greek Tradition), 1 for the Alexandrians, 1 for the Armenians, 1 for the West Syriacs, 1 for the East Syriacs, and 1 for the Assyro-Chaldeans? I don't see that as workable.

Think of the disparities:

The Alexandrians have 5 formal parishes (3 Copt, 2 Ethiopian/Eritrean - those numbers include both the US and Canada) and a couple dozen E/E missions - the vast majority of which are unserved or significantly underserved. The E/E need an eparch, yes; a patriarch, no. The Copts need another parish, which might then justify an exarch - they have no need of a patriarch on the ground.

The Armenians have 7 US and 2 Canadian parishes. They have an eparch - it's what they need.

The Syriacs - who knows what they have; with all due respect, they need serious organizational skills applied to their eparchy.

As to the other non-Byzantines, their present organizational status is adequate, but they need the immediacy of support from their primatial hierarchs and synodal brethren - without the intervention of the Colonial Office.

As much as I believe the wisdom of the words written almost 4 decades ago by Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory - which serve as my signature - the appointment of a Byzantine patriarch - Slav and/or Greek - to superintend the 4 Byzantine Churches which presently have hierarchy in the US or Canada or the 2 which do not, is unworkable w/o seriously diluting some of unique liturgical or cultural praxis that marks each. (We've already observed the disappearance in the US of the Bielorussian GC and in Canada of the Russian GC, as well as the essential loss - as discernable separate worshipping entities of the Slovak GC - outside Canada - and the Hungarians and Croats - in the US).

And, NA aside, what of Oceania, South America, and Western Europe? The same issue exists for each of them, albeit on a smaller scale.

Rule from afar is not ideal, but - believe it or not - the average Melkite Catholic in the US believes and trusts in the ability of his Church's Patriarch and its Synod to effectively lead the Church, witness the refrain commonly heard - 'the head of our Church is HB Patriarch Gregory'. It's what they believe. We are not anywhere as big as the Latins - while an argument can be readily made that the Latin bureaucracy is overextended in trying to pick effective hierarchy for its myriad canonical jurisdictions spread across the world, such is not our issue. Ours is, at present, sufficiently small to allow its oversight to be effectively done from Antioch - would that we were so big that such were not true - we should only be so lucky (not because we want to be shed of Antioch, but because we'd love to have such numbers)!

Many years,

Neil