Via Dr William Tighe and John (of Ad Orientem), an essay by Raymond A. Bucko SJ of Creighton University, on St Peter the Aleut – a saint canonized by the OCA in 1980, who (along with Father Alexis Toth, canonized also by the OCA in 1994) for many American Orthodox, has become a sort of “icon” of anti-Catholic sentiment. A summary of Peter’s vita and his hymnography may be found here.
Father Bucko’s conclusion:
The icons of Peter the Aleut both reveal and conceal a series of often violent interrelationships generated on the colonial frontiers of Russia’s eastern colonial expansion. Ironically, the focus of the Icon, Peter himself, is the least credible instance of violence in the amazing nexus of relations, often violent, generated by the encounters among European and Native groups. This story of violence creates its own terror – that the account of even a single act of violence has the potential to epitomize, solidify, and perpetuate complex divisions and oppositions. Violence and terror – or rumors thereof – transform social realities. The question, a topic for another paper, is whether icons of violence can also heal, reconcile, and unite those wounded and separated.
Eirenikon 
…and the Icons of Christ or St. Stephen or St. James are also icons of this time anti-Semitic hatred…
On a more earthy level, the existence of Orthodox Saints who considered the minute diferences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism important enough to give their very lives for them does not help, obviously, the sort of ecumenistic reunion some are hoping for.
Lucian,
Did you read the article?
It’s really quite important to read the article before making such a statement as you have done.
Interesting. I never noted the parallels of colonialism between the Spanish and the Russians. Of course this story plays out in their own political situations (Russians vs Spanish in the new world) but I never thought about the way that story – devoid of its original context starts to play out in our own day.
What starts out as a political crisis woven in religious iconography (far too common in both the East and the West). Removed from Russian/Spanish it becomes an Orthodox/Catholic story in our own, modern understanding. A further example of how reading our own own idealised “always perfect and wholly awesome” church thing backwards into the past messes us up.
It seems to me that this links quite well with the upcoming Orthodox Construction of the West seminar.
I’ve always wondered how and why Peter the Aleut was canonized by the OCA. As the article points out, there really isn’t much historical evidence outside of one story, ( repeated in three versions). This isn’t enough evidence for the story to be historically verifiable, ( especially when the errors, Jesuits in California in 1815, locations of missions etc; are not really corrected).
Perhaps the OCA accepted the construction, as it were, Spanish colonial Catholicism in California being horribly tyrannical. There certainly is enough evidence that the Franciscan missions were not kind to the native population but that is no excuse for, in a sense, mythologizing the notion that the Spanish were evil and the Russians good.
On the other hand, the story of Katheri Tekakwitha, the “Mohawk Saint” has been fully verified. There are multiple sources and her body has been enshrined in a crypt for centuries.
Interesting to note is that she was beatified on
June 22, 1980.
Peter was declared an Orthodox saint by the OCA on September 24, 1980.
I prefer to think of the two as illustrating the ambigious role that Christianity has had in the history of aboriginal peoples in North America.
You may well be on to something there, viz the dates. The OCA, in her drive to establish herself as “The” Orthodox church in North America, has been glomming on to bits and pieces of other peoples’ stories, grafting them to herself in order to justify herself and her version of history.
The Romans had an “indian saint” so the OCA needs one too – without concern for the story, or the antecedents.
I’m not sure it’s our place to question motives of the OCA synod. Generally speaking, Catholics have been more generous than Orthodox about saints that reflect the divide between the Churches. I know several Byzantine Catholics who refer to Alexis Toth as St. Alexis Toth (and some even have his icon among others in their icon corners). Orthodox need to learn to accept St. Josaphat Kuncevyc who was murdered by “schismatics” (as the old Catholic Encyclopedia states).
Aren’t there those who question historicity of some details of accepted Catholic saints? St. Juan Diego comes to mind as a recent example that some have criticized.
I think what’s essential that even if the saints our Churches venerate may have been martyred by the other, we need to move beyond those days and seek forgiveness and reconciliation from the other.
This points to the reason why Rome took the process of canonization out of local hands and formalized it according to more rigorous and consistent criteria.
orthocath — there is extremely good extant evidence (virtually contemporary with the events) for the story of Saint Juan Diego. He would not have been canonized otherwise. As you no doubt know, his canonization occurred quite recently, within the past few years, IOW during our age of healthy skepticism and rigorous scientific / historical research.
But your point applies to other Catholic saints, e.g., Philomena. It’s usually the very early saints whose lives have become heavily embroidered with legend. For saints within the past 500 years (including Juan Diego), the Church does a pretty good job of separating verifiable historical facts from legend.
Diane,
My point wasn’t to criticize the canonization of St. Juan Diego. But, there are those who criticize the historicity (not that I do). I was just trying to think of a more recent example, but St. Philomena will do.
I don’t think this is a new phenomenon. Read about the lives of St. Josaphat of Polotsk and St. Athanasius of Brest. There are things that have undoubtedly happened that both sides must seek forgiveness for.
I have grave doubts about the historicity of the account of Peter the Aleut. Certainly again that would not be the first time details have been stretched to the breaking point for various reasons. Look at the lives, or perhaps the later accounts of the lives, of Gavriil Belostoksky or Jan Nepomuk.
Good points. I think, instead of focusing on historical problems, we should focus on forgiveness and healing.
There is an icon to that effect.
http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/i_unity.html
AMM,
It is a beautiful icon! Thanks for sharing this with us!
AMM, what a beautiful icon!! Thank you!!
orthocath, I just want to say that I really appreciate your irenicism. :)
[…] as well. There is also an old post and discussion of the topic on the anonymous Eirenikon blog (“On Peter the Aleut”; which provides a helpful link to Raymond A. Bucko, SJ, “St Peter the Aleut: Sacred Icon and […]