User talk:Truthwitness

Archbishop Gabriel's letter is wonderful and takes a very pastoral line on the whole issue. It is Christian. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a pastoral epistle to a flock, and so the information contained in it should be factually based, not either an attack nor an attempt to change the facts for the sake of pastoral considerations.

Defrocking is the standard English term for someone being removed from their clerical ranks, whether or not it is punitive. In this case, even when the defrocking comes at the specific request of the cleric, the defrocking is punitive in that the canons of the Orthodox Church do not allow for a neutral laying aside of clerical or monastic rank, but treat that as a sin, subject to canonical penalties for the sake of the person's soul.

As such, not only is the term "defrocking" appropriate, but also the questions included by one author as to Dr. Osborne's current status in the Orthodox Church, per the canons. Those are issues that have not been clarified.

Since this is an encyclopedia article, both things should be included.

That having been said, I'm very glad to see Archbishop Gabriel's pastoral spirit. I, myself, have admiration for Dr. Osborne. He was very kind and charitable to me many years ago and I still have deep respect for him and think that we should not judge, but pray for him, since this is obviously a difficult time for him.

The problem is that there is no reference to "defrocking" in Archbishop Gabriel's letter and the word carries the inevitable implication of a punitive measure. It is like the difference between a lawyer being "struck off" or "retired". Unless the actual decree of laicisation from Constantinople is ever published, then we must confine ourselves to the language of the Archbishop's letter and leave matters there.Truthwitness (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)