Oh, wait a second. If "strategic alliances" means pro-life work, religion in public square, or other reasonable political goals, of course they should be pursued. They should be pursued with the Muslim, who are staunchly pro-life. What I think is premature is any ecumenical work toward intercommunion, etc., given the liberal disposition of the significant segment of the Catholic laity.
I also think that theological dialog between the Orthodox and the Catholics is a good thing inasmuch as it exposes (few) disagreements but also discovers commonality. We need to understand each other's theological language better.
From the article: "We do not need union with the Catholics, we do not need "intercommunion," we do not need compromise for a doubtful "rapprochement." ".
In my original post, I agreed that such practical strategic alliances were a good thing. I of course believe that any talk of intercommunion is extremely premature.
My real point was that Metr. Hilarion shouldn't overestimate the level of practical support such ideas would get within a largely liberal Catholic laity and clergy, at least in America.
And of course, as has been pointed out, we Orthodox are not without our problem children ourselves (Dukakis, etc...), although I think that our laity and clergy as a whole in America are far more traditional than are the Catholic laity and clergy.