tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post1093355423265089711..comments2024-03-22T11:37:52.668-05:00Comments on Byzantine, Texas: GOA dissolves all religious exemptions for vaccinationByzantine, TXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17845681957622343484noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-32452358478357165952021-09-30T09:45:21.622-05:002021-09-30T09:45:21.622-05:00Andrew Gould,
Imagine a scenario where an archite...Andrew Gould,<br /><br />Imagine a scenario where an architect is hired to design a project, and has a choice of materials to use, even being in control of the companies he works with to acquire said materials. <br /><br />It comes to the attention of the architect that some of these materials he had selected to use come from a company who sources said things directly from slave labor of children. <br /><br />Now, in the country the children live in, the slave labor is a “necessary part” of their economy. Since everyone is ok with it, no change is likely. After all, they rely on this slave labor. However, the conditions are simply brutal. Yet, it is what it is. They country is poor.<br /><br />Now, this architect has an alternative option to spend a little more money and go with companies that source materials ethically, meaning the workers are not exploited in any way. In fact, those companies contract with suppliers in countries that recognize the dignity of the worker and have specifically created a system to highlight that value.<br /><br />The architect is faced with an ethical choice at this point. <br /><br />When an Orthodox Christian looks at vaccines and medicines developed using fetal tissue or cell line , it’s a similar (although different situation) choice. <br /><br />At least, this is fundamentally how many who are against utilizing them see these medicines.<br /><br />I’m terms of what an individual person or cleric can go, they can confirm this ethical consideration as being with in the bounds of the Orthodox Christians spiritual life. His Eminence erred by “rescinding” that, something which he actually doesn’t have the authority to do. <br /><br />On the other hand, it’s truly the “federally mandatory” nature of the Covid vaccine that has caused the en passé. <br /><br />Forcing someone who is against taking a vaccine developed with fetal tissue is a violation of faith. But, for His Eminence to then throw his clergy and people under the bus rather than support them is a special kind of terrible. Lord have mercy!Fr. Alexis Baldwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15453923952666184098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-23182687018561340092021-09-19T07:12:41.153-05:002021-09-19T07:12:41.153-05:00St. Paul discovered in his travels that the inhabi...St. Paul discovered in his travels that the inhabitants of the Greek Isles were ill suited to receive the Christian teachings because their roots were overly idolatrous and materialistic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13902918267551624319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-294702087498435112021-09-18T22:08:14.929-05:002021-09-18T22:08:14.929-05:00Your whole argument rests on the unproven premise ...Your whole argument rests on the unproven premise that the vaccines are actually effective and safe. And that "the professionals are an unwavering source of dependable information." Both of these are highly debatable and to ignore this and assert that not getting vaccinated is morally wrong is just being simplistic about the scientific data that is out there. Also, if God is not just "out there" but present in and interpenetrating every bit of matter and energy in our universe, and if therefore life and death, sickness and health are a matter of His providence not merely impersonal godless physical laws, then we are morally accountable to the church community if we start commending ourselves and each other and all our lives unto a vaccine instead of ultimately unto God. People are morally accountable to the community for debasing and deriding those who believe differently than they do about which experts and which medicines to trust. They are morally accountable to the community for pushing people to sin against their conscience as if their own conscience and knowledge is perfect and others is wrong. Where is the humility and where is the love in this? Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-4539486940007519662021-09-18T14:29:53.647-05:002021-09-18T14:29:53.647-05:00Anna, read St. Basil's Q55 again, he certainly...Anna, read St. Basil's Q55 again, he certainly speaks to the diverse moral aspects of disease and medicine. If I were to bring a firearm to Holy Liturgy, and that firearm accidentally discharged harming another person, or just rightly causing "fear" in them, I would be morally responsible. If I drive on the left, proceed on a red light, or drink and drive, I am morally responsible. It does not matter if pagan, atheists, or satanists invented firearms or the rules the road, I am morally responsible in a Christian way. <br /><br />If I knowingly choose to not be vaccinated from a deadly pandemic, and at the same time I assert my "right" to worship in community, or even go to school/work/grocery store thereby exposing (which in fact leads to the death and/or harm) to others, I am morally responsible. <br /><br />Orthodoxy is not Protestantism Anna. We don't come together in community in such a way that we are still radical individuals, standing alone with our God and our own sins, sort of huddled together so that may selfishly benefit from each others presence in some personal piestic way - such an act can only occur when the person and cosmos has been de-sanctified into what Fr. Stephen Freeman calls a "Two Story Universe" and metaphysical split between matter and spirit is the de facto mode of the believers piety. The tragic fact is this is *exactly* the case for so many who worship and commune at Orthodox church's in the west... Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-12628010752249207122021-09-18T13:06:10.941-05:002021-09-18T13:06:10.941-05:00Making this issue of vaccination into some kind of...Making this issue of vaccination into some kind of moral action of love or hate is not Orthodox at all. Vaccination is not a moral, but a medical issue. Love is first of all love of God and certainly what is driving the vaccination campaign is not love, but a false idea of love based in an atheistic mindset. As a community we are called to bear one another's burdens - which means that those who fear the disease and those who fear experimental vaccines are to learn to live together in peace and Christian faith. We are called to look at our own sins, and not get involved in blaming or pressuring others to conform to our idea of what is good for everyone, especially when it is based on so little knowledge. We are called to be humble and not think that we know what in reality is still uncertain. The largest sin in this whole mess is pride of mind. Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-41096099064053863262021-09-18T11:24:51.192-05:002021-09-18T11:24:51.192-05:00Good morning Leo,
I could not open that link, pos...Good morning Leo,<br /><br />I could not open that link, possibly because I run a quite restrictive edge security device that helps me keep unsafe and inappropriate web content out of my home. Regardless I agree with you that it is very difficult to even make a determination as to what is what in modern medicine from an (Orthodox) ethical judgement. Modern medicine is so technical, and so complex, that even physicians and others trained in it only have a small picture and understanding of anyone aspect of it. <br /><br />This is not to say that we should not try. I am very sympathetic to a "Bendict Option" approach, but we have to understand the complexity of the issues involved (e.g. with vaccines, that they are not a "private" choice only - they are in truth a "public" choice for the community around you) and not be tempted by simplistic approaches (i.e. a simplistic "slippery slope" ethic, or a demand for public health authorities to be strictly consistent and be black and white - any complexity being a sure sign of bad faith on their part) that miss the mark. Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-4363372202124442792021-09-18T10:59:37.169-05:002021-09-18T10:59:37.169-05:00I read St. Basil's rule 55, and it is so typic...I read St. Basil's rule 55, and it is so typical of the Greek/Christian synthesis of the Fathers, the "middle way" that was such a part of their culture, time and place. It recommends that we "keep our eye on the ball", the *telos* of our being, and moderate use all things only if they are useful in for the end of our being. <br /><br />A distinction however needs to be made with vaccines. They are not merely "private" health, they are inherently "public" health. There is no private, individualistic choice here in that the choice a person makes is for themselves AND the community - the communities - they are a part of. The choice to get or not get a vaccine is a choice for the whole body (i.e. the persons household, work and school, local community, even national and international humanity itself). This is just all part of the nature of viruses, vectors, and vaccines, and it is where an indivdualistic Classically Liberal "my body, my freedom, my religous interpretation, my choice" thinking utterly fails to account for the *reality* of the choice.<br /><br />Thankfully, our hiearchs of every jurisdiction largely see this truth and are starting to clarify not only the relationship of Orthodox theology and praxis to the Classically Liberal concept of "religious exemption", but of our relationship to vaccines as a *community*, as a Body who are responsible to one another in love.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-1516156440309382742021-09-18T10:44:54.315-05:002021-09-18T10:44:54.315-05:00Good morning Anna. Your right of course that &quo...Good morning Anna. Your right of course that "freedom" is not exclusively the purview of the Classically Liberal. However in my opinion it is very (very very) difficult for us (i.e. those of us who are Orthodox and trying not to "be" Classically Liberal moderns) to separate it from its ontological context of our culture, time and place. Sometimes words become so pregnant with connotations and meanings that are unhelpful and it's best to put them aside. <br /><br />For example instead of "priestly freedom" I would suggest "priestly duty", or perhaps "priestly economy/management". I am not a priest but I have two daughters, and yest I have the "freedom" to form and guide their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual life, but the word really does not capture much of this. Really I have the "duty", before God. I have the "obligation", and not just any obligation, the obligation of love itself. Since the only real "freedom" and choice in this life is to follow the commandments of Christ or not (i.e. it's either Christ or sin), I am bound - bound by the literal chains of the Logos Himself - to do my upmost to "manage" my children and household in the direction of God and love. <br /><br />Of course Scripture and Tradition uses just these sorts of words (icons) to signify us the structure of the God (the Father, the Son, etc.) the "economy" of salvation, and the ecclesiology of the Church. Words such as freedom, individuality, choice and the like are just not used very much and in truth are not that helpful. Such words are the currency of modernity and everything it does. We Orthodox should notice that, and start to draw the connection between such words and the ungodliness of our society/culture, and the ungodliness of ourselves as we too are creatures of this culture.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-34517582219691827982021-09-18T09:52:51.057-05:002021-09-18T09:52:51.057-05:00" To place the hope of one’s health in the ha..." To place the hope of one’s health in the hands of the doctor is the act of an irrational animal. This, nevertheless, is what we observe in the case of certain unhappy persons who do not hesitate to call their doctors their saviors. Yet, to reject entirely the benefits to be derived from this art is the sign of a pettish nature" St BasilAnnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-80788823692205055322021-09-18T09:47:28.147-05:002021-09-18T09:47:28.147-05:00In other words to sum up, 98% of this discussion i...In other words to sum up, 98% of this discussion is really socio/political in nature, and is not really focused on the question of what is needed for the healing of the mind and heart lost in sin. Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-13541956290617500732021-09-18T09:43:01.723-05:002021-09-18T09:43:01.723-05:00@ Jake One thing to consider though is that while...@ Jake One thing to consider though is that while Roman law was not based on anything Jewish or Christian, nevertheless St Paul used the rights that went along with his Roman citizenship in ways that supported and were consistent with his own calling and ministry. Priestly freedom, the freedom of the spriitual father in directing the individual struggle of the spiritual child is not based in freedom of conscience, but nevertheless it is not non-existent. For instance- the synod of bishops puts forward a general rule of fasting for their jurisdiction - but the priest does not ask the bishop every time he sets a discipline that is either more lenient or more strict than this rule. There really is an area of freedom here. See for instance canon 102 of the Council of Trullo. This pastoral applications of the medicines for healing sin is something very different than freedom of conscience. " For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination." Sure the synod of bishops have some responsibility to try to restrain superstition running rampant in the church, but it is not true that medicine is between the doctor and the patient alone. I would highly, highly recommend reading St Basil's rule 55 https://sites.google.com/site/stbasilasceticalworks/the-long-rules-1 (all the way at the bottom of the page)Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-70708415618070108832021-09-18T09:23:00.388-05:002021-09-18T09:23:00.388-05:00@ Jake No I am not a paraglegal, Ijust found that ...@ Jake No I am not a paraglegal, Ijust found that on google trying to answer the question of whether the religious exemption is tied to the official beliefs of the religion one is tied to. I agree with you and found it fascinating how this law is directly related to Protestant ecclesiology. it is not something I had ever checked into before. Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-55852963587322078042021-09-18T08:13:05.358-05:002021-09-18T08:13:05.358-05:00"My tenative thought here is that the GOA syn..."My tenative thought here is that the GOA synod has overstepped its bounds in taking away this area of priestly freedom. It is another example of the EP bishops wrongly intruding into local areas of authority and violating the basic principle of reciprocity and unity upon which Apostolic canon 34 was written."<br /><br />The rights of priests are not under consideration in this canon as it strictly relates to the role and responsibility of bishops. <br /><br />Let's clarify something; the communication that you are critiquing was published in order to address matters that affect the Greek Archdiocese of America. Not only is the critique violating the authority of the this synod of bishops to instruct its flock but it also violates the 64th Canon of the The Quinisext Council, which orders that "It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has made different members, according to the word of the Apostle..."Marcelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14574713901122768231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-90302177058958613732021-09-18T07:20:19.649-05:002021-09-18T07:20:19.649-05:00Our bishops consider this to be a medical issue so...Our bishops consider this to be a medical issue so why would there be a religious exemption? <br /><br />For instance, Bishop Luke of Syracuse and Abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY stated that: "The new COVID-19 vaccines...bear no greater spiritual significance than other personal medical decisions...". This is published right on the website of the Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR.<br /><br />How could a priest under obedience to his bishop possibly sign off on religious exemptions after reading that?Marcelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14574713901122768231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-6274558570285960862021-09-17T23:48:13.590-05:002021-09-17T23:48:13.590-05:00Hi Jake,
I’ve seen you reference the need for con...Hi Jake,<br /><br />I’ve seen you reference the need for consistency in those who are averse to vaccines developed with aborted fetal cells when it also comes to use (or aversion) of various medicines, cosmetics, food additives etc. developed with/tested on using aborted fetal tissue.<br /><br />I agree with this. I claim ignorance for past use of such items (thank God He forgives for sins of knowledge and ignorance!), but now that I know what I know, I want to be a consistent Christian. I think rather than writing it off as impossible, however, perhaps we can begin to try to attain to that. Just like with other aspects of the purity of our soul, we make progress over time, but also try to do so with haste! Perhaps that is the route our Lord desires us to take. <br /><br />Artificial flavors can’t be very healthy for us anyways, right? And fortunately, when it comes to non-covid related standard vaccines, most appear to have ethical alternatives. Also, It appears that not all modern medications that are currently being claimed to have been tainted by aborted fetal tissue may actually be tainted. See this article if interested.<br /><br />https://cogforlife.org/2021/05/12/lets-get-a-few-things-cleared-up-testing-cell-lines-and-fetal-tissue/<br /><br />With love,<br />LeoLeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13064751662348912176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-90103821809949166792021-09-17T21:34:03.843-05:002021-09-17T21:34:03.843-05:00@Anna,
Are you a lawyer or paralegal? The languag...@Anna,<br /><br />Are you a lawyer or paralegal? The language of these cases (which I assume are the language of the decisions themselves) ensconed a Protestant ecclisology into the very law itself. So much for Classical Liberalism self assertion of the "separation" of the sacred from the secular, the Church from the state. Of course, if you take the time to understand Classical Liberalism you see its debt to the Protestant revolution - it's a development *within* Protestant philosophy, inside baseball if you will.<br /><br />You seem to assert that this Protestant theology should be the basis of Orthodox ecclesiology, "priestly freedom", and the like. It may be the law, and I am unfamiliar enough with St. Basil's specific assertions in St. Basil's rule, but I doubt that his understanding of "freedom" and the case law you cite (and the Protestant philosophy behind it) are commensurable, that St. Basil is some kind of proto Classical Liberal...at best they might be weakly correlated in a specific detail here or there...but nothing on which any Orthodox hierarch should be basing his reasoning on.<br /><br />All this points to just how Classically Liberal Orthodox persons in western civ. tend to be, no matter whether they see themselves in the Progressive or Traditionalist camps...Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-3902015482263999212021-09-17T21:30:57.987-05:002021-09-17T21:30:57.987-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-83357775136865392872021-09-17T19:33:55.365-05:002021-09-17T19:33:55.365-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-63948815412284963742021-09-17T19:22:32.130-05:002021-09-17T19:22:32.130-05:00Wow Palomnik & Anna, grist for the mill!
@Pal...Wow Palomnik & Anna, grist for the mill!<br /><br />@Palomik, <br /><br />"...I'd also hope that individual, sincere, conscience-based objections would be honored in the church..."<br /><br />Why would Orthodoxy (ground as she is in ortho-doxia - right truth/praise) "honor" that which *is not true*? Behind your example(s), as you explicitly admit, is not only Protestant ecclesiology (i.e. solo sola scriptura, no church or *communion* between the individual and God), but Protestant conceptions of freedom and reason (both theoretical and practical). Can you cite any authoritative Orthodox source (i.e. Scripture, consensus patrum, etc.) that Orthodoxy anthropological theology is in any way correlated, let alone substantially agrees with, Protestant theological anthropology? To put it another way and more specifically, can you cite an Orthodox source that would agree that "individual sincerity" (even if you mean something other than a Cartesian epistemology, a dubious proposition within a Protestant framework) is a basis for an Orthodox theoretical/practical evaluation and assertion of the truth?<br /><br />To answer the question, I don't believe you can. The sources of Orthodox theology are from an entirely different history, tradition, and anthropology than Protestant ones. For example when the Fathers (e.g. St. John Chrystom, St. Maximus, etc.) defied the heresy of their age, the did not do so *individually* as we understand it in today's culture, nor in their "freedom of conscious" between them and God. On the contrary they did so as St. Paul puts it "slaves to Christ", *communally* with the Logos Himself and His literal (not *merely allegorical) Body, the Church. These two conceptions of freedom, reason, and truth are simply not commensurable.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-27029200830239286262021-09-17T18:17:26.885-05:002021-09-17T18:17:26.885-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-34021463966752618952021-09-17T18:13:38.480-05:002021-09-17T18:13:38.480-05:00Pay special attention to the last one.
Limits on...Pay special attention to the last one. <br /><br />Limits on Scope and Application of Religious Exemptions:<br /><br />Most courts ruled: you cannot limit the exemption to organized religion. Dalli v. Bd. of Educ., 267 N.E.2d 219, 222–23 (Mass. 1971); Brown, 378 So. 2d at 223, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 887 (1980). One exception – Kentucky – overturned later by legislature.<br />If the legislature did not require a show of sincerity for a religious exemption, several courts ruled that officials cannot demand a show of sincerity. In re LePage, 18 P.3d 1177, 1180 (Wyo. 2001); Dep’t of Health v. Curry, 722 So. 2d 874, 878–79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).<br />Belonging to a religion that supports vaccines does not mean someone can be denied an exemption: focus on personal belief, not orthodoxy. Berg v. Glen Cove City Sch. Dist., 853 F. Supp. 651 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Matter of Shmuel G. v. Rivka G., 800 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2005).<br />Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-9044790103422751562021-09-17T18:02:40.711-05:002021-09-17T18:02:40.711-05:00Yes, I think that Palomnik has touched on the real...Yes, I think that Palomnik has touched on the real issue. While there is a history of canonical penalties for things like murder, adultery, etc. still there is much area of personal freedom of conscience. The use of medicine has traditionally been in this area of individual struggle, not in the area of what is forbidden or encouraged on a universal basis. (see St Basil the Long Rules, rule 55) There is a long tradition of Priests/spiritual fathers having the authority to work out with their spiritual children the level of involvement and a rule according to their personal spiritual struggle in these areas. This includes individual issues of faith like how to use medicine. In the monastic orders the spiritual father/child relationship definately includes this area. As religion, on a universal level, we neither forbid the use of medicine, nor do we put our whole trust in it. My tenative thought here is that the GOA synod has overstepped its bounds in taking away this area of priestly freedom. It is another example of the EP bishops wrongly intruding into local areas of authority and violating the basic principle of reciprocity and unity upon which Apostolic canon 34 was written. Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14293576233006638303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-60213330808171509592021-09-17T17:50:14.571-05:002021-09-17T17:50:14.571-05:00Interesting point. But to be a "conscientious...Interesting point. But to be a "conscientious objector", did you have to get a letter from a clergyman? Did it have to be tied to religion to meet the government's standard, the way the Covid religious exemption does? <br /><br />I suppose one could say that the priest's letter is not meant to be a statement of the religion's official belief, but is rather an affirmation of a personal moral belief. Something like "As so-and-so's pastor, I affirm that he has a genuine moral concern with the vaccine." In this case the pastor would be supporting his parishioner without asserting a belief of the Church. But I don't know if such a letter meets the government's standard for a religious exemption. Anyone know?Andrew Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09237116717370542536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-86951265158254329362021-09-17T17:11:57.605-05:002021-09-17T17:11:57.605-05:00"but isn't a statement of religious exemp..."but isn't a statement of religious exemption from a priest an official statement about the beliefs of the religion - not a statement about the individuals personal beliefs?"<br />I don't think so. Take conscientious objection to military service. Some groups like Friends and Mennonites hold official pacifist positions. But *many* individuals have obtained CO status on the basis of their personal Christian beliefs. Often, they were supported in this by their religious groups, even if the group as a whole wasn't pacifist. Example: in WW2, there were more Methodist than Quaker conscientious objectors.<br />I think it's true that in the case of COVID vaccination, a lot of people are trying to dress up a political stance as a religious objection. But I'd also hope that individual, sincere, conscience-based objections would be honored in the church. The GOA statement seems to close off this possibility.Palomnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543658872512777512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-28778421111647818312021-09-17T16:46:05.886-05:002021-09-17T16:46:05.886-05:00I am honestly puzzled by this outrage. I'm all...I am honestly puzzled by this outrage. I'm all for freedom of personal choice when it comes to the vaccine, but isn't a statement of religious exemption from a priest an official statement about the beliefs of the religion - not a statement about the individuals personal beliefs? And isn't it within the purview of the bishops to clarify the beliefs of the Church if they should be in dispute? Isn't that specifically their job? <br /><br />It seems to me that the Archbishop is simply doing his actual job here. There is dispute within his flock as to whether the Church holds a religious belief against the vaccine. He is clarifying that it does not. And quite correctly. Bishops of every Orthodox jurisdiction have stated that getting the vaccine is permissible for their members. So how could anyone argue that our religion demands an exemption? <br /><br />Our bishops thankfully have upheld our freedom of choice to refuse the vaccine for whatever grounds. But we ought to be honest that such grounds are simply our own opinions and not a part of the Orthodox religion.<br /><br />I am willing to be corrected if my thinking is over-simplified. Can anyone offer a persuasive argument, based on cannons or longstanding historical practice, that Orthodoxy eschews medicines, or that priests have authority to unilaterally issue statements of Orthodox belief regardless of the stance of their bishop?Andrew Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09237116717370542536noreply@blogger.com