PHOTOS IN THIS POST: The future of our churches according to Elpidoktonos and the “Holy” Hierarchs… Welcome to the new “Orthodox Protestantism”...
Federal law does not obligate churches to admit service animals—GOARCH chose this path on its own.
By Helleniscope’s Editorial Team
Archbishop Elpidophoros has shown us a clear pattern. Step by step, he strips away the sanctity of the Church, dressing every move in the language of “modernization” and “compassion.” But beneath the surface, the result is always the same: the slow dismantling of Orthodox identity in America. Here is what exactly is stated in the decision by GOARCH’s Eparchial Synod: “Adopted a policy regarding service animals in our churches as a first step to ensuring that all parishes are accessible to those suffering from physical disabilities” (link here). In Canada in 1999, the state had intervened to enforce the acceptance of dogs in Church. This is not the case in America (link here).
The ominous signs emerged when Elpidophoros, after introducing multiple spoons, forcefully pushed priests to shave their beards and abandon their traditional robes. This was not an innocent adjustment to “American life”—it was a deliberate attempt to erase the visible marks of holiness. The sight of a cassock and beard has always testified to a priest’s separation from the world, his belonging to Christ alone. History shows us that outside powers understood this. The Turks in Istanbul forbade priests from walking openly in their robes. Communist regimes mocked and persecuted clergy for their appearance. Westernizers and secular elites have long sought to “normalize” Orthodox priests into looking like generic Protestant ministers. Every conqueror, every enemy of the Church, knew where to begin: remove the cassock, shave the beard, and the next compromises would follow more easily.
Elpidophoros, tragically, has taken up this same mission from within. By eroding the outward signs of sanctity, he prepares the ground for deeper acts of desecration. And now, he has made his next move. This week, GOARCH proudly announced that it has “adopted a policy regarding service animals in our churches as a first step to ensuring that all parishes are accessible to those suffering from physical disabilities.”
On the surface, who could object? Compassion for the suffering is at the very heart of Orthodoxy. But here is the deception: federal law does not require this policy. The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly exempts religious institutions. GOARCH was under no legal obligation to act. Yet Elpidophoros chose to do so anyway, hiding behind the language of “accessibility” while in fact voluntarily surrendering the sacred order of the temple to the demands of secular ideology.
For two millennia, the Orthodox Church has preserved a clear boundary between the holy and the profane. The temple is consecrated ground, an icon of heaven on earth. Animals, however beloved or useful, have always remained outside. The Fathers did not set this rule out of cruelty, but out of reverence. Saint John Chrysostom declared, “This is the house of healing, not a place of disorder; the Church is heaven on earth.” Saint Basil the Great warned that God’s house must be guarded jealously, lest holy things be treated as ordinary. The canons and the tradition speak with one voice: the temple is not a place for animals.
The faithful have always supported those in need—not by desecrating the holy space, but through personal assistance, diakonia, and the love of brothers and sisters in Christ. A parish could have mobilized ushers, trained volunteers, or organized practical support for disabled parishioners. Instead, Elpidophoros chose the easy way: copy the corporate world’s language of “accessibility” and bend the Church’s practice to match it.
We are told this is just “a first step.” And indeed, that is what makes this announcement most alarming. If this is step one, what is step two? Icons “updated” for inclusivity? Hymns rewritten to suit the sensitivities of the moment? Every act of secularization is introduced as a small adjustment, a pastoral gesture. But taken together, they form a march toward desanctification.
Elpidophoros is not leading the faithful toward Christ. He is reshaping the Church into an NGO with vestments, a franchise of political correctness dressed up in liturgical robes. The question is no longer whether he is doing this deliberately. The question is how long the faithful will tolerate it.
The time has come for parish councils, clergy, and laity alike to resist. We must guard our temples from every intrusion that strips them of their sanctity. We must speak out, remind our communities of the canons, and refuse to accept decisions that turn the House of God into a stage for political fashion. Suppose Elpidophoros insists on dragging GOARCH down the road of secularization. In that case, it is the responsibility of the faithful to stand firm, to preserve what has been handed down to us, and to defend the holiness of our Church.
September 15, 2025, n.stamatakis@aol.com www.helleniscope.com
DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.
We actually had a priest, at one point, who permitted service dogs in the church. The person with the dog was not Orthodox, and most of the parish had no problem with it, though several did. That said, your point about the crumbs from antidoron is a good one. Bad enough we have to risk walking on them.
“There will come a day when the clergy will become the worst and most irreverent of all…” – St. Kosmas Aitolos
The idea that clergy “always”wore cassocks is not true. There is no mention of the apostles or the ante Nicean clergy wearing cassocks. Our Lord Himself wore no distinctive garment. He dressed like everyone else. Basil the great states that a monk should only wear white yet monastics today wear black. Cassocks and long beards don’t make a clergyman.
This is true – that’s why we should reconsider having married hierarchs – instead of celibate… Sone of us forget that Saint Nicholas was married and had children…
Most bishops were married in the early church. Read the qualifications for being a bishop in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus, “the husband of one wife”.
It would be wonderful to have married Hierarchs —
look what we have now?
Too many homosexuals as Hierarchs.
That’s anathema!
Agreed, they certainly don’t make a clergyman, and a thief in cassocks always remains a thief…we see plenty of those cases in the news these days, too…however, later Tradition also proved that the presence of a cassock also helps restrain impious actions and rhetoric. When a priest shows up in a marketplace in Greece, for example, people who may be arguing & cursing at each other might stop for a couple minutes, the old guys gambling in the “kafeneio” might put down the cards for a bit, and the teenager that is smoking behind a kiosk may quickly extinguish the evidence, especially in a smaller town or village…
We can’t dismiss that effect either, and that’s what Helleniscope is referring to in this article…there is no reason for a bishop to force a priest that honors the cassock and the beard to remove them…
With all due respect, I think your concerns and criicism of allowing service animals in the church misses the mark. I think of all the innocent animals saved on the arc with Noah. God proclaimed thier innocence when humanity failed. I think of the Holy Theotokos with child on the donkey being led by Joseph. Of our Lord’s holy birth. Surrounded by the creatures in the manger or cave. Warmed by thier breath and body heat. Witness to the miracle of God and our salvation.. I think of our Lord entering Jeruselum on a donkey who bears the cross on thier backs. I think of the dove signifying the Holy Spirit coming down at the baptism of our Lord. Of the shepherd guiding his sheep. Of our Lord calling His sheep to follow Him. From the Old Testament to the Book of Revelation, God’s creatures are intricately woven into the story of humanity in ways profound and healing.
Those with disabilities are sorely underserved in our parishes. On many levels. From having access to entry because they cannot open the doors to our halls is just one example. Service animals lead the blind. They are not “pets” per say. They have function and duty. This is not a desecration but a beautiful example of how God’s creation serves God’s children. This is not valuing our dog over Christ. That is an unfair statement and comparison. The disabled are stigmatized. Judged. And excluded. Every day is a battlefield. The one place where they should not be ostracized is God’s house. No church is going to designate a guide for the blind. They have a guide. Thier service animal.
I do not see this as a step in devaluing or desanctifying our churches. I see this as a step towards asserting the inherent dignity and value of every human being. If we want to know how we should treat the suffering we only need to read Matthew 25:35. Would we turn away the homeless and hungry because they are unclean and unfit to worship? Do they dessecrate our church?
This is not turning God’s house into a barn. This is showing God’s mercy to His children who suffer and bear a cross that able bodied people may never fully understand. God have mercy. Our Lord was first and foremost the healer of the blind, the lame, the suffering. As Orthodox we are called to be merciful and follow His example.
My dog of 16 years would give her life for me. She would sacrifice her life to save me. I cannot count on one hand how many humans would do the same. Every day animals prove to us sacrifice and devotion.
Markos responded:
Jackie,
Scripture shows us that the “short man” climbed a Sycamore tree to “see Christ”, and people carried the Paralytic and literally made a hole in the roof to lower him. And the blind man who went to the pool of Siloam did not need a dog to take him there, for some reason. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is absolutely no way reason to alter 2000 years of Tradition on this matter. Noah’s ark was a necessity, and even there the “human quarters” were actually separate from the animal quarters, if you look at the details closely…Christ’s Nativity in the cave was both an act of humility, but also according to our Patristic interpretations a necessity, to sanctify the grounds of the earth…the troparion says it clearly …”και η γη το σπηλαιον”…(the Earth offered up the cave)…we shouldn’t slip into traps of “neo-theology” that deviates from our Patristic teachings…we can’t make statements that dismiss 2000 years of Tradition and infer it as being “wrong”…that’s a dangerous “path of thinking” to take.
While it is clear you and many others love pets, modern-day “love of animals” has introduced excesses that have approached and in many cases even crossed the line into ancient Egyptian idolatry.
Do you remember the cartoon “Tom & Jerry”? The cat was indoors, but the dog was always outside, in the yard, in the dog house. LIkewise with “Snoopy” of “Peanuts”. How is it that just 2 generations ago American society maintained that tradition of separating “dogs” from “humans”, but now all of a sudden society decided to “evolve” into elevating animals to at least “equal status” if not “above equal status” with humans…we won’t even get into the excesses we see today, where thousands of dollars are spent on animal surgeries, but we walk our dogs right past humans on the street who also need medical attention and can’t get it…doesn’t anyone remember anymore the story of Lazarus and the Rich man, where the dog was licking the homeless Lazarus’ wounds?
Orthodox Christians should study Tradition, and the Church Fathers who also loved and spoke to animals. St. Paisios spoke to all sorts of wildlife, and even cared for snakes(which is a big deal in Greek culture)…but he never let them into the Church to attend services. Several blind people visited St. Paisios, too, and one of them was highlighted in the recent series on Greek TV. He didn’t bring a dog with him, and somehow walked on Mt. Athos. I personally met Fr. Isidoros at Philotheou monastery, who was totally blind, and using sharp knives to slice and dice onions at 4 a.m., and also take walks on the uneaven, rock laden paths of Mt. Athos, with just his walking stick…he never needed a dog to take him to Church either….was fr. Isidoros some kind of anomaly, or perhaps a role model?
There is absolutely no need for what just transpired.
My love and care for the animals by no means nor in any respect borders on idolatry nor does that of anyone I know. This is not about an over excessive preoccupation nor love for the creatures over man nor a disrespect of our church. This is about giving access to those with disability so that they can have full access to attending service and worship in community.
Because someone used a walking stick when they were blind and did not have a seeing eye dog, does not mean that we should not accept the advances of medicine nor care nor support. Should we not have prosthetics? False teeth? Cataract surgery? How about Motorized wheelchairs? If the monastics do not use them?
This is also not about keeping a dog in the “dog house”. Nor is this a discussion about monies spent on animal care. I do not walk by the homeless. I stop. I have taken them INTO OUR CHURCH for service when the Bishop was visiting from Atlanta. With their bodies and clothes dirty and layered in the hot weather. Christ in our midst!!!
The sermon that day from the Bishop? We must be Christian outside the doors of our church. Had someone come in with a seeing eye dog – would the Bishop have said – “Please leave you are desanctifying the church”. I sincerely doubt it.
I feel that you are muddying the waters. This is again, about serving the needs of the disabled. In the year 2025, I would hope that that would be a priority for the faithful who exemplify as I previously stated, God’s mercy and compassion. If our LORD was in on this conversation (He is with us) – would He say to exclude anyone from entering God’s House if they were in need and required a seeing eye dog to navigate life? If so, we are in danger of becoming the Laodicean Church.
There is respect and there is disrespect. You are concerned over someone in need – yet we have parishioners communing the sacraments who live lives blatantly outside the commandments of God. Cohabitating without marriage for one. “Judge not unrighteously but judge with righteous judgement.”
I take very seriously the needs of the disabled and the suffering. Suffice it to say, so Did and Does our Lord and Savior. We must not allow religiosity to overtake spiritual needs.
“Where there is a will there is a way”. Have you ever experienced a disability? Have you ever not been able to open a door to enter a building? I cannot walk two steps in the dark without losing my way. That is a heartless thing to say. We do not need to make comparisons nor shame anyone. I am an advocate for the disability community. If we could walk in their shoes for one hour, we would understand more fully what it means to not only be human but to be Orthodox Christian.
For the record – I have had long term stays at Orthodox monasteries – one where they have built one of the most beautiful chapels I have ever seen. The monastery dog would follow the monastics everywhere offering protection in the woods where the monastery was located. And yes, the dog would calmly and quietly lay on the floor inside the church during service. No one protested. “Even the dogs are given crumbs from the Master’s table.” Scripture tells us to be good stewards of the creatures. It does not diminish our love for man. Nor God. Nor our Church.
And I can easily show you a hundred other Orthodox monasteries around the world where they ALWAYS keep the dog outside of the Church…are you suggesting that the singular instance you happened to observe somewhere is the norm, or are you trying to convince is this is our Tradition? I understand you have a deep love for your dog, but if we are going to have a serious discussion, then we should focus this discussion on what the actual Tradition has been for centuries and whether or not this “innovation” constitutes a violation of that Tradition… unfortunately, it appears you are openly advocating and cheering for a change in our Liturgical Tradition, and that is extremely disturbing.
Jackie, you make some good points, especially about dogs and cats in monasteries. However, those animals, while they are allowed on the compound, they are NOT allowed inside a church or chapel of a monastery. Plus, they are sufficiently trained to catch mice or to protect the monastics walking in the dark. In this article, we are talking about a service or support animal entering a church. A certified service animal is professionally trained and sits quietly beside the owner and does not move, even if a stranger pets it which they’re not supposed to do. A support animal does not require any training. Are you seriously advocating for untrained support animals to enter a church? If a mentally ill person felt calmer if their squawking parakeet or snake was on their shoulder, would you be OK with that? You can’t just blanketly “allow” service or support animals into a church! Which, by the way is NOT a public free-for-all space. In my view, it is a private club. If you are a catechumen, there is a part in the liturgy where you have to leave. Holy Communion is also NOT public. It is private, only for baptized Orthodox Christians, who have properly prepared to receive it. As a private club, all the members have equal rights, those with a disability and those without, in deciding who and what gets to enter. There at least has to be a well thought out policy in place AND an application made by the individual, indicating the necessity of the animal, not just Elpi’s arbitrary decision, because ALL the congregants are affected, especially people like me, who are terrified of sniffing and jumping dogs, snakes and lizards and who knows what else is going to be considered a service or support animal. An animal may be essential when you’re walking down a city street with thugs, but that is NOT the same type of need as when you are sitting in church, surrounded by loving and caring people who will help you. Please use your God-given reason rather than your sentimental emotion. Also, please stay on topic. Being a good steward of a creature has nothing to do with allowing them to enter a church. And prosthetics, false teeth, canes, electric wheelchairs, are NOT the same as a barking, pooing or peeing animal. You cannot compare the one with the other. Contrary to your point, precisely because we DO have modern medicine and prosthetics etc., we don’t need animals in a church. We got along great without them before, so now that we DO have additional medical equipment, why do we need them now?
Irene, please use YOUR God given reason and stay on topic.
It does not appear that your read or clearly comprehended my comment – I am specifically referring to SERVICE animals. Yes, they do require training. Very specific training and certification.
You’re off the topic meanderings about squawking parrots, snakes, and lizards. etc. do not belong in this conversation. Also, the CHURCH is NOT a Private Club. The church is the Body of Believers. It is not a country club for the wealthy or privileged but a hospital for the SICK. Read that again. SICK. Broken and that includes the suffering, those living in chronic pain and the disabled. Please read that again. God have mercy.
Are you a Laodicean lukewarm Christian? They Church is for all to enter to draw near to God. And before you misread or misconstrue again, I am not saying everyone should have permission for the sacraments. However, non-Orthodox ARE permitted to approach at communion and receive a blessing and receive the andithiro. This is even announced by our clergy.
It is NOT what YOU need, Irene. You are not disabled. It is what our brother and sister need to be fully welcome, integrated, and supported to attend service. Do not misread “supported” to misconstrue here. I suggest your reread if you have not the gospels. “Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy.”
I’m sorry if I made you angry, Jackie, or offended you. You should keep reading through these comments though, because The very last comment that appears under my name is actually the first one I wrote.
I want people to understand that blanket permission to allow service animals (and to your point about the blind, you cannot permit only seeing eye dogs without also including service animals for other disabilities) is a slippery slope. Why? Because many more people have untrained support animals (not trained service animals) who they consider to be service animals. These people think that a note from a health care provider is the same as a service animal certification. Try turning one of these entitled people away from the doors of a church, whose animal can be any kind of animal. That parakeets and other support animals have been permitted on cabin compartments of planes is not something I made up. It is often permitted because the air line does not want to entertain a lawsuit or human rights complaint.
It’s great that you love animals and the disabled and your heart goes out to both, but this issue needs to be very carefully studied and weighed out before it’s implemented so that clear policies are put in place AND enforced. It has to be reasoned out and it has to be for the benefit of tne disabled person (not the animal) if and only if there is no alternative accommodation where a church is concerned.
That was my point. Please forgive me if it sounded different
When I read your initial comment you did not specify only seeing eye dogs, (you were very general) and you were supportive of the animals and their disabled owners without giving thought to others who could have invisible disabilities where animals are concerned. I’m sorry you feel offended as it was not my intention.
Irene & Jackie,
The exhibition of greater anger (a.k.a. “gnashing of teeth”) about “dog comments” than about the imminent desecration of our Churches, as well as the provocation of the faithful and violation of our Traditions by “secularized”, impious and irreverent hierarchs is an unfortunate and private spiritual maturity problem that cannot be resolved in a public forum, nor does it require public apologies from anyone that invokes such “anger” by merely defending 2 millennia of Orthodox Tradition on this matter. This “animals in church during worship” topic may have hit a nerve with a lot of people, but so be it…it’s a line that if the hierarchs insist on crossing, will undoubtedly result in additional Schism/heresy, and perhaps irreversible at that. Is that what people really want? To divide the body of Christ and Unite with the “greater population of dogs/animals” during Divine worship?
If you feel this way, then start a volunteer group at your church to pick up the disabled and bring them to church. I am a big dog lover. I have rescued countless dogs and paid for their medical care. I volunteered in an animal shelter 30 hours a week for two years. My last rescue had a severe seizure two days after I got him from a shelter. He was used in lab experiments.
What if a dog had a massive seizure in church during the liturgy? What if the dogs start barking? Dogs bark. What about people who do not like dogs? What about people who are allergic to dog hair? What an about a dog sitting next to parents with a newborn? What about an old person tripping over a dog? The little rescue dog I have right now goes for lessons at Petsmart. How many people train their dogs properly? Very few. Are you assured, that if someone brings a Great Pyrenees to church, that dog will not bite another dog?
Spend your money on saving lots of dogs, volunteer in a high kill animal shelter for a couple of years, and you will gain a wealth of knowledge about dogs.
I love my dogs. I would never think of bringing to church. Never.
The GOA has gone to the dogs anyway, so this doesn’t surprise me—at all!
Jackie, you make incredibly insightful and meaningful statements. I agree with you. I don’t think service animals existed in the past. There are no patristic statements about service animals. Furthermore, I think it will be an exception for one to actually be escorted to church but a service dog. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.
JK – when the time comes when a dog interferes with delivering Holy Communion by the priest (I can imagine a million possible interruptions but I do not want to be more graphic) what would you say? When the animals obey to their animal instincts in Church would you still consider this appropriate? Animals CANNOT control their instincts. Please face this eternal truth before you discuss “patristic” or other approaches to the issue.
My beagle dog had 20 seizures over 14 months. His final seizure was in front of people at the vet. People were horrified.
How about a pit bull, a Rottweiler, or a German shepherd sitting next to a person afraid of big dogs? I could write for days on this topic. It’s selfish to not consider those around you.
JK,
It’s necessary to rephrase your devious and misguided statement into the raw truth…”there are no patristic EXCEPTIONS to allowing service dogs in church”. The Church Fathers make a clear distinction between the terms Λογικα Οντα (logical beings) / Αλογα Ζωα (illogical animals/beings) / Λογικη Λατρεια (Logical Worship). In this context, it quickly becomes very clear why a Place of Worship (Λστρεια) is only reserved for human (logical being) participation. If you prefer to worship in a zoo, feel free to join the Protestant denominations that have heretically “elevated” animals to the same status as humans in their services, but advocating to change Orthodox Tradition is plain wrong…
If you think the word “zoo” is an exaggeration, take a look at what is being classified as a “service animal” these days:
Dogs
Mice
Hedgehogs
Ferrets
Parrots
Monkeys
Hampsters
Rats
Fish
Lizards
Snakes
Other types of birds
Chickens
Pigs (if you have the space)
Miniature horses
Horses
Goats
See https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/types-of-emotional-support-animals/
Did the Hierarchs bother to realize what they are about to permit?
And if you think the observation that people are “elevating” the status of animals is an exaggeration, unfortunately “the inmates are already beginning to take over the asylum”…look at the phraseology on this website, that is deceitfully mislabled as “Orthodox”:
“….. the repression of grief was worst among those who identified as Christians. This repression arose soon after individuals expressed their grief, only to be dismissed with comments such as ‘it’s just a dog’ or cat, which was viewed as a belittling of the individual and a dismissal of their animal’s life as insignificant and irrelevant. For some, the grief is internalised and gives rise to depression. …”
Source: https://panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org/uncategorized/the-death-of-a-companion-animal/
What is the patristic teaching about who has a soul and who doesn’t? Are we just going to sit back and let the Church be run over by people labeling themselves externally as Orthodox but who are allowing misguided “emotion” to advocate deviation from Patristic Tradition, while the “logic” that was supposed to be associated with the “logical beings” that God has created is thrown out the window by our own Hierarchs, who should be teaching the people to have the “correct mindset” about the boundaries between humans and animals? Enough is enough! Distorting out faith and tradition is not allowed.
What is the next irreverent abomination that we will see? Are we going to expect a normalization of the abomination that occurred in a Greek Orthodox Church a few years ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpkaFrzK7Ac
What happened in Detroit is a clear example of idolatry, and while we are all sympathetic to those who suffer ailments, including those who benefit from service animals, the fact remains that the House of Logical Worship has always been reserved as a place of worship for Logical Beings alone. Any efforts to change this Tradition and “elevate” the status of animals such that they attend Church services is heretical, period. The bishops should reconsider before formalizing anything.
Of course service animals existed in the past. They herded sheep, they gave rides to people on their backs, they pulled plows, they protected property, they caught mice and so on… But nobody in the past ever brought them to Church. Right?
How many $if’s have you owned?
God bless you for having the heart of Christ. God bless you. I just submitted a comment “Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy.”
I meant to post my comment: “God bless you” and that I just posted “Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy” to you.
I’ve been to tons of Russian parishes and others (including) that allow cats to walk all throughout the church, even during liturgy
But if they misbehave, they’re thrown out! And not all parishes do this because not all parishes are mice infested.
Where does this animal policy in churches leave someone like me? I have PTSD from dogs. I can’t imagine myself sitting next to a dog in church! How can I pray in a state of fear and panic? I certainly wouldn’t appreciate a dog sniffing me or jumping on me in church when I’m trying to pray. It’s hard enough to stay focused on prayer without adding animals to the mix.
One Sunday, the lady in the pew in front of me had stepped on some dog poo without realizing it. Every time I knelt in prayer I could smell it. It was so unbearable I had to move, and my whole family with me to the opposite side of the church.
You have to be so careful with support animals these days. In Canada, a service animal used to mean an animal that had been highly trained to support the specific disability of its owner. To be permitted in public places, the animal had to be certified and wearing a special harness or vest, and the owner had to be able to produce the animal’s certificate.
Now, it’s become a free for all. Legally, a distinction is no longer made between a service animal and a support animal. A support animal is a creature that provides emotional comfort to the owner who suffers from a mental health condition. The creature can be any type of animal, and even airlines are obliged to allow these animals, which in Canada have included parakeets, lizards and so on, in the passenger compartment of the plane! All that is required of the owner is to be able to produce a letter from any type of health care professional which states that the individual has a health condition which is benefited by the presence of the animal. If the owner says they can’t go anywhere without their animal, and you force them to part with it even for a little bit, you’re facing a potential law suit or human rights complaint.
Service and support Animals are not permitted in Canada in certain areas of hospitals such as intensive care, dialysis, and areas of isolation. In other parts of the hospital the animal can be allowed if it belongs to the patient as a support animal, if it is accompanied by someone else, and if the animal does not sit on the patient bed. It has to sit or lie on a pad on the floor in case there is soiling. If it’s oils the person who bought it has to clean it up, and the time of the visit is limited.
Once you open the door to service animals in a church, you’re just a small step away from letting in any type of creature that is considered by its owner to be a “support” animal, which can quickly turn any building into a zoo.
As much as I sympathize with people who have physical and emotional disabilities, I strongly feel that this is an unwise and unwarranted move on the part of a thoughtless Archbishop. Had there been a complaint regarding accessibility in any church, that could have been dealt with on an individual basis, by the provision of ramps, elevators, or a member of the church council assisting a blind person to a pew or to tne Hy Chalice. Even if the latter was not available, you’re going to church, for Pete’s sake. Can you not count on Christian charity? A dozen people would offer assistance to a blind man in a Church!
Besides, by law, dont you just have to ensure that your building and the services it provides are accessible? If they are accessible without the presence of an animal, then animals are moot.
I respect your view. I have had many many dogs. I would never bring any of them into a church. People need to start disability education groups at church. Learn about a disability that someone has. Pick them up and bring them to church.
You are missing the point Jane. We are talking about the BLIND who NEED a service dog to walk and navigate life.
Jackie,
Did you read my earlier comment about Fr. Isidoros the blind monk in Mt. Athos? How did he attend services every day, and receive Holy Communion at least 3 times a week? That’s the tradition, right there, my friend…no need to advocate for innovations, especially radical ones like this.
Start a volunteer group to pick up the blind and other disabled people. Not all blind folks use a service animal. I know. I was blind on and off in my life due to a serious eye disease which I battle constantly.
Jackie, et al: these are all insightful remarks, spoken in good faith. I myself am a devoted animal lover (dogs especially).
However, I think that there is no use for “service animals” in our churches. Coming from Elpidophoros, it strikes too much of “chasing the things of this world.”
I will say this though: Will Rogers, Oklahoma’s Favorite Son said “When I die, I want to go to wherever dogs are.”
We don’t want to imitate the ‘Has Been’ Episcopalian church that so many fleed !
I have a service dog and would not bring her inside the church. The only reason Elpidophoros is doing this is to make the Church look fuller on Sundays! Because of him and karloutsos, they have more people on the altar than in the pews, and soon more dogs.
I have a headache
It’s absolutely ridiculous to have dogs in churches. They will create a distraction and let’s be serious, sooner or later, other people will want their animals in churches. Cats and who knows what else, as cats can also be sometimes considered service animals. How long before a dog or a cat will have an accident in the church? Should we stop Liturgy and attend the cleanups? Come on!
Agree. What if’s people want to bring their parrot or lizard to church? Stupidity reigns.
We are NOT talking about parrots and lizards. But SERVICE DOGS. Stay on topic.
I am on topic. Give people and inch nowadays and they want a full yard. We live in the time of my rights verses your rights.
Start a volunteer group or join one that helps disabled people get to church.
There is a difference between a service dog and an emotional support animal. We are talking about service dogs. They are well trained and would not create problems.
Both types wear those vests that are labeled “service animal”. We see that clearly at airports. Are you willing to stand in the narthex and have a loud argument with every individual who brings their “emotional support” animal wearing that vest labeled “service animal”? Your position is totally nonsensical.
we are talking about service dogs for the blind. God have mercy.
Fr. Isidoros on Mt. Athos didn’t require a dog, and he was very much against any innovations in the Church…go ask anyone who knew him…my bet is that he would vehemently disagree with you…same with the late Fr. Stephanos on Mt. Penteli in Athens…totally blind as well…never needed a dog. But there’s another blind monk I know who I will ask at first opportunity what he thinks about this…he doesn’t use a dog either…I’ll relay his response…and I bet I know what it will be… :)
You are advocating for a slippery slope that leads to unacceptable changes to Tradition…as they say in the Greek village…”you have seen the cheese, but you don’t see the trap”….maybe one day you’ll realize that and change your position.
Markos, you continue to suggest that the church hasn’t and shouldn’t change. This is a very narrow and fossilized view of the church. There is great variety in church tradition both currently and historically. Liturgical practices change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, creeds have changed, liturgy has changed, fathers of the church interpret scripture in different ways. As I mentioned in a previous post, St Basil the great stated that a monk should never wear any color but white. The church is not a monolith. There is great variety. Issues like service dogs were never discussed and must be addressed in the wisdom, love and mercy which guides the church.
MARKOS REPLIED:
There is “change with cause”, and “change without cause”.
There is also the word “Tradition” or “παραδοση” and “παρακαταθηκη” in Greek. Once again, JK, you stumble on your (ironically) “blind” reliance upon English and lack of understanding of what those words mean. There is no point in repeating what has already been said to you in the past. When you learn Greek, then let’s have a conversation about what those words REALLY mean. You are talking about introducing animals into the mix at a service of worship…this is not about the color of garments, or locally observed Liturgical omissions or corruptions (you call them “changes in liturgical practice”) …to trivialize this insane decision to introduce animals is preposterous. To refer to someone who resists the slippery slope of heresy and idolatry {via the “elevation of status of animals” in the practice of Orthodox worship} as possessing a “narrow and fossilized view”, only demonstrates your own level of apostasy from the faith and Traditions we have received from our Church Fathers. You are both a shameful disgrace and an anathema with this type of mindset. But this shouldn’t be a surprise…we can add it to the large pile of Protestant rhetoric you have supported in this forum multiple times in the past. Bottom line here: the Orthodox Church has never had animals attend a Church service. Nor should it begin now. Period.
You stated service dogs would not create a proble. That is your view, not a fact.
Canon 88 from the Quinisext Council, 692 AD:
“No one may drive any beast into a church except perchance a traveller, urged thereto by the greatest necessity, in default of a shed or resting-place, may have turned aside into said church. For unless the beast had been taken inside, it would have perished, and he, by the loss of his beast of burden, and thus without means of continuing his journey, would be in peril of death. And we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man: wherefore also the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed first. But should anyone be detected without any necessity such as we have just mentioned, leading his beast into a church, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, and if a layman let him be cut off.”
This is the canon that forbids animals from entering a church. Note that an exception is made for a dire circumstance. The canon also points out from the Gospel that the Sabbath was created for man (not the other way around). So it seems that this canon is now being interpreted to allow for service animals as also being considered a dire circumstance.
Canon 88 is crystal clear: animals are not to be brought into the holy space of the Church. The only exception it allows is one of life-or-death necessity for the traveller—nothing more. To stretch this narrow concession into a general policy for “service animals” is to twist the canon beyond recognition.
The canon does not establish a principle of “any human need justifies animals in church”—it establishes a principle of strict prohibition, with a single exception rooted in survival. The appeal to the Lord’s words about the Sabbath is likewise not meant as an open license, but as a justification for saving the life of a traveller in extremis.
Today, however, the GOARCH decision attempts to reinterpret this canon and all Orthodox tradition, as if the Fathers foresaw and permitted dogs in the Liturgy under normal circumstances. That is not faithful reading; it is modern accommodation dressed up as compassion. True compassion would provide pastoral solutions outside the nave, without eroding the sanctity of the temple.
The canon itself prescribes punishment for clerics and laymen who bring in animals without necessity. We should tremble at this clear language instead of bending it.
Joseph,
This is a well-known Canon, however the introduction of the term “dire circumstance” is a real “slick” attempt at broadening the actual words “peril of death”. Nice try, but nobody is buying it.
Nobody is in “peril of death” here, and if you are insinuating that the hierarchs may be trying to use the term “dire circumstance” while simultaneously referencing a Canon that actually says “peril of death”, then the the message back to any such hypothetical hierarch is “stop insulting our intelligence” or “consider going back to school if you are having such trouble reading and comprehending such simple details”… (but we surely don’t believe that they don’t know what they are reading…this is totally intentional, and it is far more likely for any bishop to be ignoring the details of Canon 88, just like many other Canons multiple bishops have been ignoring in the “modern era”…)
And speaking of the “meaning of words”… even “dire circumstance” as a term does not imply a “repeatable” or “perpetual event” (with no end in sight)…. the dogs would keep showing up, Liturgy after Liturgy if this nonsene is allowed to proceed…that is very clear. Therefore, this is actually an attempt to achieve a “de facto normalization” of animals being present in Churches and Orthodox services, and we can’t be fooled by anyone presenting anything to the contrary in this case…it has nothing to do with “circumstance” or “peril of death”…
There is zero justification for such a decision to intervene in this manner and create a “new Tradition”…zero!
Markos, a blind man may risk the peril of death without his service dog. Likewise, if he leaves his dog outside the church, it’s possible the dog’s own safety would be at risk, thus also imperiling the safety of the blind man.
The Church Fathers explicitly compare the prohibition against animals in church to the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. As with the Sabbath, the prohibition is not the end itself. The prohibition doesn’t exist for God’s sake either, but rather it exists for man’s sake.
Yet in making an exception to the prohibition against animals in church, this Ecumenical Council makes a very clear and balanced spiritual point, saying that “the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed first.” Of course nobody wants their churches to be dog kennels or livestock barns, and again that is for “the safety and comfort of man”. Yet based on this very point, an exception for service animals could certainly be made.
MARKOS REPLIED:
Congratulations on another weak argument.
How many blind people since the establishment of the Orthodox Church have successfully been escorted by humans to Church (leaving their dogs at home), without “peril of death”? Was Christ concerned about the safety of the blind man who he instructed to “Go to the pool of Siloam”, obviously without a “modern-day” service dog?
Try taking another good nap perhaps, and keep dreaming of a more convincing scenario for your next try…this one doesn’t even stand the test of Basic Logic. :)
I would bring an animal to church but with the clergy and hierarchy the way they are, it’s clear they have enough maimoudes.
Those pictures make abundantly clear where this clergy is leading our churches. They will be no different than any other place: a gas station, a public park, a hardware store, a bordello …
God indeed gave them Free Will, but methinks He could have a problem with their HYPOCRISY in claiming that they are Orthodox.
“Modernizing” = Improvising. And they are not worthy to assume such privilege; they are the “D students”.
NO SERVICE animal is going to sit on the pew. They are trained to sit on the ground near their handler. The pictures are not an accurate depiction of what occurs. It is probably AI.
In America, we Orthodox have the unresolved problem of overlapping jurisdictions. It’s against the canons to have more than one bishop ruling in a city. Not a good situation.
But there is a bright side to this situation. We the laity become empowered. We can go church shopping. If my church becomes too animal friendly, I can look around for a parish whose priority is getting me to heaven. Or if my priest gets his kicks from concelebrating with other religions, I can find a priest that’s big on the teaching of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Voting with our feet and our wallets are powerful antidotes against the innovators.
Mass exodus…yes. Heresy and Schism is upon us. Ironically, I was never expecting to see a “union with animals” manifesting prior to a full “union with Rome”. This was a very unexpected “hierarchical surprise”…
Now we know why GOARCH practice has for many years now systematically and intentionally omitted the prayers of the Catechumens (in between the Gospel reading and the Cherubic Hymn)…
It would have been a problem to say “let the Catechumens depart…Let no Catechumen remain…(but all animals are welcome to remain in the holiest part of Divine Liturgy!!!)…” Idolatry! Elevation of animals above humans (above the rank of the Catechumens)!
Keep the buildings and the animals…ask the dogs to sign the donation check…while you are censing them with the censer…and while you are at it, why don’t you also go cense the other animals in the zoo, too…
Service Animals are not pets. They are dogs specifically trained, licensed, and perform a defined medical or safety function for the handler. This could be blindness, hearing impairment, epilepsy, situational awareness, or another medical issue. Service animals have a legal definition under the ADA and the Synodal release uses the proper term.
These service animals do not jump, act rambunctiously, or defacate uncontrollably as these ignorant remarks make. They are harnassed and licensed and act with the utmost respect for their handler and those around them.
Emotional support animals are not service animals and it’s irresponsible to correlate the two as they do not fall under the definition of service animals. I’ve read lots of ignorant statements here: Pets, emotional support, pit bulls, etc.
Service Animals perform a defined medical function and allow the medically disabled handler to be a full sacramental member of the faith. What these comments demonstrate is that the Greek Synod acted responsibly: They are applying uniformity in the face of continued ignorance and prejudice against physically and intellectually disabled individuals. Let’s also be clear this isn’t a new policy or precedent. Service animals have been allowed in Orthodox Churches for years! To make this as though it’s something new is just irresponsible.
I think what really should be said is that the Holy Eparchial Synod Hierarchs should be applauded for their vote to create a uniform policy so that all churches follow the same pastoral standard towards individuals with disabilities to allow them to be full sacramental members of the Church. The Light of Christ dispels darkness and ignorance. The fact that it passed means it was neither a surprise nor controversy.
MARKOS REPLIED
Gregory,
There is no applause to be made, and there is no semblance of “responsible action” here, unless a person is chronically delusional and he spent his days in history class sleeping in the back of the classroom. For two millennia blind Orthodox Christians, as well as others who have special needs have been escorted by other humans to Church Services, as well as escorted and held in order to receive Holy Communion. That process works today, has always worked in the past, and will continue to work into the ages of ages.. Thus, there is no emergency, no urgent problem to solve, and absolutely no “exclusion” here…that’s a a lame excuse, and in reality it’s even a shameful violation of one of the Ten Commandments (a blatant Lie). Your propaganda focusing on trying to convince us of the “professionalism” of these “service animals” is not working. Especially when we all see at airports accompaning their regular pet or “emotional support pet” with a vest that is labeled “service animal” even though everyone knows it is not a “service animal”. Are you going to be leading the “doggy police” in the Narthex, examining and arguing what is and what isn’t a “service animal”, when the flood of dog owners shows up and loud arguments break out when some dogs are disputed and ultimately disrupt the services? You are totally out of touch with reality. Are you also personally going to separate dogs that start barking at each other? Are you perhaps going to be responsible for the blind guy who goes one way, the confused dog that goes the other way, and they side-swipe the priest who is tripped over and falls down with the entire chalice? I once had to literally save a blind guy and a guy on a wheelchair many years ago, (who got tangled with each other as one tried to exit and the other enter at the same time), as the metro doors closed on them and trapped both of them…I forced the doors open and sadly got yelled at by the useless metro “rent-a-cop” on the platform, who passively stood by and only cared that I was delaying the train…Needless to say, in that instance, the “highly trained” dog couldn’t do a thing to “save its master” from real danger or to avoid the accident…So please stop with your useless philosophical rhetoric and wake up to reality, buddy…an animal is an animal…you can never fully control it or train it. We already said that the Church fathers differentiated between “λογικος ανθρωπος” and “αλογα ζωα” for a very good reason. The metro incident I just described proves it.
This is a travesty for all the reasons that have been aforementioned in this thread. Inclusion of animals in a sanctified house of worship, during prayer is an “elevation of the status of animals” outside of the Traditional Orthodox understanding and belief system. To put it plainly, that is crossing into the realm of idolatry. There are boundaries that can’t be crossed. Period. If the members Synod can’t understand that, then they are free to resign, and go down the street and join the Episcopalians and other denominations who have turned their places of worship into literal “stables”. If animals start appearing in GOARCH Church services, there will be an UNPRECEDENTED mass exodus of humans (and the hierarch’s favorite – “MONEY”) to other jurisdictions that don’t spit upon tradition like this. There may even be a severing of Communion by other Orthodox jurisdictions over this recent decree, too…that’s how serious this is. This will end up being the “applause” you are referring to…
Simply another distraction. This is a slippery slope! Maybe Elpidoforos will next want to permit fuzzies and cat litter boxes for those whose pronouns annd identify with cat and dog.
Wait for it …
it’s fascinating to see factual information turned to illogical falsehood. Fact: service animals are licensed, trained, and play a medical and safety role and don’t do any of the false, fanciful items claimed. Fact: Emotional support animals are not classified and cannot be classified and cannot be licensed as service animals. Fact: a parish council member or clergyman has the right to ask to see a service animal’s license, and ask what medical task the animal has been trained to perform. Fact: Service animals are not pets and pets cannot be classified as service animals. Fact: we have now lived for decades with ADA policies in public spaces, work spaces, etc. and none of the fear mongering has taken place. Moreover, these anecdotal stories are of pets not of service animals. Fact: The canons are called “The Rudder” in those who quote the cannons without the proper ecclesiastical training and phenomena are condemned. Recall the canons also state that those who do not attend Church for three consecutive Sundays shall be excommunicated. Fact: there is nothing new in this decision to suddenly allow service animals. What is clear is that this creates a uniform pastoral response. Fact: Either all or the overwhelming majority of the Synod voted in favor. Fact: many false and clearly ignorant statements have been made by several posters. Factual information and the light of Christ casts out fear and ignorance. Fact: The Gospel and Christ’s example are clear. Applying a uniform approach to minister to those with disabilities is fully in alignment and fulfills Christ’s command. Fact: if we as Orthodox Christians, we’re doing such a spectacular job of ministering to the disabled community, then where are they in our parishes? The reality is the disabled community has faced, bigotry, and prejudice Contrary to Christ’s command. FACT: I very much appreciate the compliment of using logic and rhetoric. That’s completely in line with my Hellenic-Orthodox Heritage. This whole controversy you’re trying to spur is a non issue. It’s nothing to do with service animals and everything to do with ministry to the disabled community. May God bless this decision and provide grace and understanding to the ignorant.
MARKOS REPLIED
Gregoris,
Ok…let’s “play” if you really want to “play”.
Let’s examine your so-called “facts” a little closer against actual FACTS:
Fact: You aren’t reading this article carefully, because in the first sentences, Helleniscope already mentioned that Federal Law (ADA) does not apply upon Religious institutions, especially in matters like these that would violate the 1st amendment. So why are you mentioning ADA when it is irrelevant?
Fact: Pursuant to the above, we have already written that for 2000 years, “ministry to the disabled” has never been a problem in the Orthodox Church. The blind were always walked / led by humans into the Church, and not dogs. As a result, the Church was ALWAYS accessible, from the beginning of time. It is a blatant LIE to suggest otherwise. Therefore, there is absolutely NO REASON to innovate here, because there is no barrier, and no problem to solve. Why did you tacitly ignore those statements when you composed your response? I guess you didn’t like them, did you?
Fact: What is happening at airports is NOT anecdotal. Unless you have been living in a cave for the past 20 years, or never been on an airplane, it is perfectly clear that “emotional support animals” are wearing “Service Dog” vests and boarding planes. In June, I personally witnessed an incident where the police were called to escort a man who was trying to get his pet on the plane without even the “Service dog” vest…is that anecdotal, sir? I am declaring that I witnessed this just this past June at an airport. Are you going to be the “doggie police” in the Narthex when this happens as a result of the stupid decision that these hierarchs are ironically “unleashing” upon the parishes?
Fact: The entire Orthodox Church and our Church Fathers CANNOT implicitly or explicitly be accused of being “wrong” for 2000 years in NOT allowing animals in the building during services (by you or anyone in the Eparchial Synod). This constitutes an “innovation”, and heretical hubris by bishops that think they are smarter and holier than the Church Fathers that wrote down the words of Canon 88.
Fact: Canon 88 is explicit, and is a decision of an Ecumenical Synod. It is ILLEGAL for a “local Synod” to make decisions that contradict decisions of ANY Ecumenical Synod. ONLY another Ecumenical Synod can do this. This is the core “illogical falsehood” that you are trying to legitimize…that somehow the Eparchial Synod can violate the explicit wording of Canon 88. Are you trying to legitimize the incremental “override” of Ecumenical Synod decisions by “local Synods”? A.k.a. advocating to make “oikonomia the norm”, and making “tradition the exception”, so that Orthodox Tradition ends up “disappearing” over time, and the treasonous goals of “Unia” become easier?
Fact: In accordance with the previous fact, when a “local Synod” makes such decisions, this constitutes Ecclesiastical Schism. All the “facts” that you are presenting below are 100% dependent upon this “Local decision” that is in direct contrast with Canon 88 somehow being “legitimate”…even a child can deduce this…as a result, that constitutes them as “non-facts” because by default, a “Local decision” cannot contradict “Ecumenical Synod Decisions” without creating a Schism.
Fact: One can argue all day about who is “trained” or “untrained” in the ability to understand Canons, but when those who are “supposedly trained” are the perpetrators of violations (aka the hierarchs themselves), heresy is just around the corner. That’s what Church History teaches us.
Fact: For many decades in recent history, especially in the diaspora, Ecclesiastical hierarchy has capitalized on the pious innocence of the faithful, and created an elitist culture of “pseudo-theologians” which considered themselves spiritually superior to the “ignorant masses”, oftentimes lying to them while they themselves erode and ignore Holy Tradition. You like to toss that word around – “ignorant”- don’t you? You easily default to calling lay-people “ignorant”, but in a hypocritical way you are also defending the innovations and incremental erosion and violation of Tradition. Is this perhaps why St. Kosmas the Aitolian said “evil will come from the ‘Educated Ones'”? Unfortunately for the academic anti-Traditional “elite”, the “ignorant” are waking up, buddy, and they are starting to read the same books these academics are reading…get used to it.
Fact: The Canons also clearly condemn clergy who violate them IN A MUCH STRICTER MANNER than they do the “ignorant laity”…should the laity get angered to the level where they start pointing out the reasons why some of the hierarchs who voted for this resolution happen to be “ANAXIOI” and unqualified, and perhaps should be deposed, ALWAYS according to the Canons? Does the Synod really want to go down that road of delegitimization, together with its history of decisions, and render any decision they make void? From what we hear on the “parish streets”, it actually won’t be too difficult…there is plenty of incriminating material already in the public forum, sir, as well as in private hands that people are finding increasingly difficult to restrain themselves from revealing in the public forum…j
Fact: As of today, we still don’t know exactly “who” voted for or against this “animal resolution”. If there are bishops who actually voted against, we would like to know who they are. If we have at least 3 bishops who voted AGAINST, truly following the words “ορθοτομουντα τον Λογον της Σης Αληθειας” then again according to the Canons, the Church can survive this schism with only those 3, and the rest can go off into their “treasonous & heretical sunset”…show us the names, please.
Fact: The attention these comments are getting clearly show that this is a BIG issue, and not a “non-issue” as you are flippantly suggesting. Otherwise multiple people wouldn’t have wasted their valuable time to come into this forum (some under a fake account) to defend the hierarchs and their TREASONOUS decision. This obvious fact makes it clear that “Someone” behind the scenes is really being bothered by this public outcry and reaction, and they are coming “out of the woodwork” to throw in their treasonous “pieces of silver” (a.k.a. two cents) in a vain effort to diffuse the situation.
Final Fact: Admitting that you make a mistake is honorable, and a very Christian thing to do. That honor applies to bishops as well. They can admit they made a mistake, and rescind this provocative innovation. Patriarch Bartholomew just two day ago – at the end of his press “speech” – admitted that – unlike the Pope – he is fallible…
At some point we can’t keep going around in circles. You and the hierarchs that you are supporting (who voted for this travesty) have been unequivocally exposed with solid FACTS as supporting an anti-Traditional innovation for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.
Not quite yet Niko, here are two more facts:
1. To permit any service animal in a church is to make the statement that the body of Christ is so deficient in love and humility, that it lacks the humanity to instinctively help anyone who has a disability and needs a nonhuman being to make up for it.
2. When responding to Jackie earlier, I compared the church to a private club because many years ago, one of our priests was taken to court by a blind, heterodox wedding guest, who came in with a seeing eye dog. He politely asked her to sit with the dog in the narthex or come in without it. She refused. The Bishop did not assist him at all. He went to court by himself, with no legal representation and no support from anyone and he lost because the court defined tne church building as a “public place”. If it had legally been defined as a “private space” aka a club of members, the priest would have won. Secular semantics. Try explaining to a judge, the “Body of Christ”. Tne more secular ways you adopt inside a church, the more exposed you become to secular judgement.
3. People get very defensive and emotional about their pets but especially their untrained support animals. Earlier this year, I accepted a “service ” dog into my place of business, when talking to a potential new client over the phone. I was expecting a well behaved dog wearing a vest that would quietly sit tne whole time tne client was in my office. I got a barking, jumping, sniffing restless animal and when I confronted the person that this was not a service animal but an untrained support animal, the person produced a letter from their therapist, having interpreted “would benefit from having a service animal” as proof that their animal was a service animal. As I have PTSD from my past experiences with dogs, I had to ask her to leave and never come back AND I then needed to seek legal advice and support because said person threatened to report me to my Registrar. My lawyer agreed she did not have a real service animal, and the policy of my building also does not accept non-service animals, but I learned that the LAW and the human rights code does NOT distinguish. If the animal owner FEELS they cannot go anywhere without their animal, their rights trump your rights unless you can prove that your distress around the animal is equal to or greater than their distress without it.
Moral of the story: if anyone gives you a heads up that they are bringing a service animal, do not take their word for it. Insist on a picture of the animal AND a copy of the certificate BFORE you meet them or better yet, offer to make alternative accommodations in advance if you can. So far, to my knowledge, accessibility laws are for physical disabilities. Once you get enmeshed with emotional problems you will have a much harder time disentangling yourself.