Active monasticism

[Ephrem Gall]

At a banquet on the Antiochian House of Studies' 25th anniversary in 2005, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip spoke on monasticism at Antiochian Village. He wanted it- but he spoke of an "active monasticism," giving the hypothetical example of the monastics traveling to the Gulf Coast to help with people coping with the devastation of Katrina. (And now Ike presents a similar situation)

Now St. Basil set up a monastic city for the needy, in which both prayer and service would be intentionally practiced.

It seems to me that this model of St. Basil's is not at all predominant in Orthodox monastic practice; you will find it more among the Roman Catholics.

But the precedent of St. Basil's "city" - St. Basil the Great being one of the Three Holy Hierarchs- as far as I- who admittedly is merely a simple reader in the Church- can see, prevents us from dismissing "active monasticism" as Western and Roman Catholic.

And in point of fact there are two monasteries in Cleveland, Ohio, St. Herman for men and St. Mary of Egypt for women, Ukrainian and Greek Orthodox respectively, which do follow this model.

And the listing for Sts. Paisius and Isaiah on July 18th in the Prologue of Ohrid also presents this issue: http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?day=18&month=July

Obviously, though, the Orthodox Tradition has other views on this matter, since our monasteries, for the most part, do not follow this monastic model of St. Basil. And so I begin this discussion to get that fuller picture.

[Father David Moser]

At a banquet on the Antiochian House of Studies' 25th anniversary in 2005, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip spoke on monasticism at Antiochian Village. He wanted it- but he spoke of an "active monasticism,"
...
Obviously, though, the Orthodox Tradition has other views on this matter, since our monasteries, for the most part, do not follow this monastic model of St. Basil. And so I begin this discussion to get that fuller picture.

This model of "active monasticism" is not at all unknown in Orthodoxy. St Granduchess Elizabeth of Russia founded a women's monastic house which was dedicated to the "social services" - care for the poor, feeding the hungry, nursing the sick and so on. It was, obviously cut short by the revolution and the active antipathy of the atheistic Soviet government towards any religious expression, especially those things which would minister to the needs of the people.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the convent of Martha and Mary has been reopened in Moscow to continue their interrupted work on behalf of the poor and needy.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is certainly Mercy House (http://omna.malf.net/mercy.htm) in New York City which has an active street ministry and halfway house. There are several monasteries that have active ministries of counseling or therapy in the US. While there are no formal "orders" in Orthodoxy, there are still very different modes of Orthodox monasticism. Just as long as we all recognize that no specific practice is any more or less valid than any other.

We can see this as well in Russian history, in the ancient "controversy" between the Possessors and Non-possessors (Sts. Nilus and Joseph). They all have their place.

Herman

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

If I may be forgiven for throwing in my two kopecks, it seems that Orthodox history, quite rightly, has numerous examples of monastics doing charitable, missionary and other "active" ministries. All these things are good, and are not out of the bounds of Orthodox monasticism.

But, for what it's worth, I'd like to postulate that Orthodox monasticism is not FOUNDED with these principles in mind. Both historically, and personally. If you want to be a nurse, or a schoolteacher - you should go to school to be a nurse or a schoolteacher. If you want to become a monk or a nun, then you should go to a convent or monastery. Occasionally, and depending on talents and needs, monks might become schoolteachers, or nuns become nurses, but it is not their primary function. They are stills monks or nuns first, with their other ministries second.

That is what I see as the essential difference between an Orthodox concept of monasticism, and western "active" orders. In the west, it seems that the individual monk (or friar, or whatever term is used) is dedicated to their active ministry as their primary means of fulfilling their calling. Orthodoxy sees the contemplative life as the primary calling of all monks and nuns, and any other circumstances that befall them as necessary, but of course, but ultimately secondary.

For example: St Herman of Alaska. He was a deeply contemplative monk from Valaam and because of that, he was also an effective missionary. If he didn't have the spiritual depth that he learned at Valaam, I doubt he would have been as powerful of an historic figure as he was. Contrast that with what I've seen of many contemporary Franciscans; (sorry, nothing personal against anyone out there, and there's no offence intended! but,) it seems like they focus on various ministries, and their spiritual life of corporate prayer is just a historic "hold-over" from previous centuries. For that matter, roughly the same could be said for many contemporary Jesuits (not all!) who refuse to wear clerical clothing, consider the discipline of daily mass as a superstition, and who are agitating for any number of radical political agendas.

It seems that Orthodox monasticism keeps the concept that the spiritual life is the primary function of a monk (or nun), and anything else is secondary. The west's "active" monasticism's seem to forget that at times.

There's nothing wrong with doing a Martha type job, but, as our Lord said, Mary has chosen "the better".

But, that's just my personal opinion. Feel free to ignore it.