Talk:Kallistos Ware/Archive 1

Section on "Women in the Priesthood"
The article currently has the following section:

Metropolitan Kallistos considers the Ordination of Women to the Orthodox Priesthood an “Open Question”

In 1978, Bishop Kallistos, as he then was, wrote an article in Peter Moore (ed.), Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ (SPCK: London, 1978), pp. 68-90. (Reprinted in Women and the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, N.Y.) 1983, pp 9-37)

In a second edition of the same article published in 1999,he wrote :

“Since [1978] my views on the issue have altered. In 1978 I considered the ordination of women priests to be an impossibility. Now I am much more hesitant. I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in favour of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments urged on the other side now appear to me a great deal less conclusive than they did twenty years ago. What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as essentially an open question”.

(Women and the Priesthood, (second edition) ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, N.Y.) 1999, ISBN 0-88141-146-9, p.7)

I think this gives disproportionate emphasis to a single statement by his Grace, especially given that it's merely a statement that he lacks a firm opinion on a particular question (i.e. he isn't saying women can be priests, he isn't saying they can't). I'm removing this section (I'm Bold!), but if people disagree, I could see having a much, much shorter version of this (a sentence, or just a clause) in a broader section about, say, "Bishop Kallistos's opinions on matters of current Orthodox concern" or suchlike. -- Narsil (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user restored the section without explanation. I think I have good grounds for removing the section (among other things, the tone isn't encyclopedic), so I'm deleting the section again--but I'm open to discussion. Anyone want to defend the section as it currently stands (or, better, rewrite it so it's more appropriate for the article)? Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten. In particular, the last statement is not supported by what he says in the interview. He is just reluctant to give immediately definite answers to serious problems. By the way, some kind of ordination of women used to exist in the Orthodox church, the "deaconess" (διακόνισσα), but the last one was ordained by St. Nektarios of Aigina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalataxeilh (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There still is. There has always been in principle the ordination of female deacons. Diakonissa can mean that, as well as the wife of a Greek deacon.http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2005-01-27-women.php Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This reads like a hit piece by his Grace's opponents, not to say enemies. I edited it to back away the article from accusing him of lying, stated in weasel words. this article needs deep cleanup.Cyranorox (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

-- No-one has ever accused Metropolitan Kallistos of lying, but in order to avoid the risk that his studied ambiguities might be taken as representing the faith of the Orthodox, it is better to remove all the references to his writings on women and the priesthood. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.16.20 (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Lambeth conference: BLP issues
The article contains the following section:

Controversy over interview at the Lambeth Conference

In an interview given at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 2008 to the Prayer Book Society, Metropolitan Kallistos referred to the possibility that the decisions of Anglican churches on the ordination of women priests and bishops - and also the blessing of same-sex relationships - might be seen as "prophetic for the rest of Christendom". This has attracted strong criticism from both Orthodox and Anglican sources. Many Orthodox consider these statements as both scandalous and verging on actual heresy..

The first of the citations doesn't work--thus, the paragraph has no source for +Kallistos's actual words (the sentence fragment "prophetic for the rest of Christendom" is lacking any context, and people can't check it). The second source is just a secondary commentary on the matter, and even it doesn't quote the bishop directly--rather, it quotes an anonymous commenter's opinion on the interview.

This strikes me as not rising to the level of sourcing required by WP:BLP, given the very inflammatory nature of the charge--accusing a bishop of being "scandalous" and teaching "heresy" is a very grave matter. I'm removing this section--I don't think it should be restored unless someone can point to the interview online. (Even then, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it should be posted--"someone on the internet criticized a bishop" is not, IMO, noteworthy, certainly not worth this much space in an article about a man whose scholarly and clerical career has spanned decades.) -- Narsil (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section on "ecclesial relations"
There's another problematic section. An anonymous editor added a section on "Ecclesial relations", about +Kallistos's relationship with the Moscow patriarchate's Diocese of Sourozh. The first paragraph has some sources (press releases from that diocese, it looks like--one is in Russian, which I can't read), but it's really pretty mild stuff, just "there was an event and Kallistos was one of many clergy present"--which doesn't seem at all odd, you'd think an Orthodox bishop living at Oxford would attend a lot of Orthodox events in Oxford.

The second paragraph is what ostensibly makes this "noteworthy", but that paragraph has no sources at all:

"Metropolitan Kallistos' support for the present Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh has brought serious tensions between him and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which he owes his canonical obedience."

I think it's pretty serious to charge that a bishop has been disobeying his patriarch. I know nothing about the ecclesial politics involved, but I think it's a violation of WP:BLP to say this kind of thing without any sources. So, I'm yanking it. (I think this same material has been added and removed--not by me!--before.) -- Narsil (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional and academic life: BLP, NOR issues
A paragraph was recently added to the section on "Professional and academic life":

"There is clear evidence that Metroplitan Kallistos has long seen his primary ecclesiastical position as being with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). It is reported that in the 1970s, as a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, he used to serve the liturgy at a ROCOR convent in London but this had to stop after complaints from visiting clergy . In more recent years, his closeness to the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh, while being formally a hierarch of the Ecumenical Throne,  has caused serious tension in Orthodox circles in England."

I feel this has real issues with both WP:BLP and WP:NOR. The first link (ostensibly "clear evidence" that +Kallistos sees his "primary ecclesiastical position" as being with ROCOR) does not say that--rather, it seems to be a conclusion the editor drew from his early connection with ROCOR. The second link is more to the point, but it seems to be drawn from a personal website, and in any event, the bare fact (he used to serve occasionally at a ROCOR convent until his hierarchs instructed him to stop, at which time he did stop) does not support the claim that he sees his primary affiliation as being with ROCOR. And he third claim--about his connection to the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh, and tension it's caused among English Orthodox--has no supporting evidence adduced at all.

I think there's a very real BLP issue with alleging that a bishop is being unfaithful to his canonical superiors, without providing real evidence. Accordingly, I'm removing this paragraph. -- Narsil (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)