Lucian's Blog

During the last few years, the press and other public institutions have underlined an increased preocupation of the local Christian communities to develop their own terms and regulations in the relation with the ecclesiastic autorities. There are as many as tens of such cases.

One of the most known in the Tanacu case, presented in detail on habitusnetwork.org. This case stunned the public with its cruelty, but it also gave an alarm sign about the authority the bishops and the higher clergy do actually have inside monasteries and parishes. After the Tanacu tragedy, there were a few commissions named by the local bishop, but their members (priests) were rejected and were not allowed to investigate the case. Some of them were seen as the messengers of Satan, who is active inside the diocesan seat.

In many other cases, the local rural communities refused to accept the ruling of the bishop, who decided that the local priests cannot perform services inside the community. The villagers gathered in some cases and rejected the messengers of the bishopric who came to install the new priests. In other cases, a delegation of villagers made the trip to the bishop's see to plea their case. In the most recent case, the bishops themselves made the trip to the turbulent monastery (monastery of Moisei, northern Romania), but didn't calm down the spirits. They tried to change the head of the monastery, but the prior was heavily sustained by his fellow monks and by the faithful.

On one hand, the clergy is detached from the realities existing in their communities. It is not a simple fact that in the two cases involving monasteries mentioned above (Tanacu and Moisei), the local bishops are very old and they lost their grip on what in happening inside their jurisdiction. Their argument is that people should obey the ruling of the bishop, but in here lies a problem. First, we are not twenty years ago, when people were backing up whatever the bishops had in mind. They like to express themselves, they are now used to have their voice heard and understood in the decision-making process, even if it's a matter of faith involved. Second, they see and are informed about the problems and undecent deeds some of the members of the clergy make. For example, in the case of Moisei monastery, the faithful protested because they saw in the replacement of the prior of the monastery a gesture equal to a robbery act, the clergy making their way easier towards the monastery's posessions.

On the other hand, the mob can be easily manipulated by well-trained church-men. If a priests wants to back himself up in order to be protected if caught with something wrong (witchcraft, unusual services etc), he may think the mob is the best way to intimidate the clergy. The line here is very thin and it cannot be walked upon easily.

There is a need for a reinterpretation of the role of the clergy and the role of the lay people inside the local church. Lay people are present in the statute of the Orthodox Church and they should be consulted and heard in the matters of the church. In reality, they have a decorative role, they do not arrive to make their voice heard inside the church and thus, they are left aside in many cases. This makes the clergy a plenipotentiary force in the matters of faith and cannon law. But this is just a step ahead of ecclesial totalitarism.