Comments Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell
Displaying 151 To 180 Of 424 Comments
I think you’re right, Jane. He doesn’t really want answers. Best to ignore him.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 14, 2011 @ 4:52 pm
Kirill is progressive, speaks foreign languages, worked on the issues of unarming the USSR and the US, and advocated usage of the modern Russian language (instead of old Slavic) during the services.
If he can get Russians to worship in Russian, who cares if he makes millions selling cigarettes!
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 14, 2011 @ 8:18 am
God gives authority and power to whom He will for His own purposes. That’s true of all fathers, kings, presidents, and priests. It doesn’t mean we owe them “unquestioned” or “unquestionable” obedience. It means we owe them such obedience as is consistent with the Faith until God wills that someone else take their place.
God doesn’t always choose the best to be president or the holiest to be priests. Only a child work expect that. There does seem to me something childish in your cynicism. You start with the naive assumption that hierarchs must be holier than thou, and then are bitterly disappointed when it turns out they are not. Sorry, but that’s life in the fallen world. Grow up a little.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 14, 2011 @ 8:13 am
Everywhere you look, it’s nothing but corruption and folly and hypocrisy.
Everywhere you look, you find sinners, but not everything they do is sinful and blameworthy. We are not Donatists. We do not believe that a pastor’s sins deprive him of all grace or “authority.” Neither does the RCC.
Does the Holy Spirit choose sinners to lead Christ’s Church? You bet. Why did the Holy Spirit choose this particular sinner to head the Russian Church? Any number of reasons, most of which we will never know. Is he less of a sinner than you or me? I wouldn’t bet on it, or even dare say.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 13, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
Except that Friedman would not have agreed. He called himself a libertarian, a classical liberal, and a Republican “on grounds of expediency.” He never called himself a conservative, and he didn’t believe in the “permanent things” that were the basis of Russell Kirk’s thinking. Really, folks: Read the book.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 9, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
If we’re talking Byzantine, that would be archeoconservative.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 9, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
The economic thesis won’t work for several reasons:
(1) It was the political left — the “liberals” — who favored free trade and limited government interference in economics in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
(2) Europeans today still use “liberal” or “neoliberal” to mean people who are pro-business and anti-regulation.
(3) Many Americans who call themselves “conservative” and whom most other people call “conservative” are quite comfortable using the force of government for economic purposes, like building infrastructure or subsidizing select industries.
(4) If economic freedom is the basis of conservatism, then libertarians are “conservatives,” yet libertarians have historically refused the conservative label and espoused patently progressive social views.
(5) In the Communist Manifesto, the evil to be destroyed is not economic inequality but social hierarchy, i.e., the domination of some people by other people. The focus on equality is merely a means to the anarchical end of freedom from domination.
(6) Even today most progressives (a better label than liberal) don’t mind inequalities of wealth except inasmuch as they create inequalities of power. That’s how the Michael Moores of the world justify their luxury: They may be wealthy, but their wealth does not make them oppressors because of all they do against oppression.
Read the second link I provided above. It’s by a conservative libertarian, and he buys what I’m saying. Then read the book, where you’ll find more proof.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 6, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
Inasmuch as the terms conservative and liberal are politically useful, they refer to opposite regard for hierarchical societal arrangements. Because the general movement of Western civilization for the past 500 years has been away from all “archy,” a conservative is one still favorably disposed toward archy, whereas a liberal is one who is not. Conservatives include both plutocratic nationalists who favor strong government (neocons) and republican constitutionalists who favor weak government (paleocons); conversely, progressives include both libertarian individualists who are both anarchical and anti-state and democratic progressives who are paradoxically anarchical but pro-state.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 6, 2011 @ 10:09 am
Thank you for the personal background. I am surprised to hear it, in view of your many lengthy posts here and elsewhere directed solely against Russia, which have caused several non-Russian Orthodox I know whose business is foreign policy to wonder where you are coming from and what your interests are.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 8, 2011 @ 9:16 am
Jane Rachel’s comments on Stan’s apparent masculinity reminded me of comedian John Mulaney’s take on drag queens. Enjoy.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 8, 2011 @ 12:27 pm
Monk James, I’ll grant a linguistic reason for adding an “i” to Smyrna (Izmir), Sper (Ispir), and Stamboul (Istanbul). But why add “iz” to Nicaea (Iznik) and Nicomedia (Izmit) but not to Neocaesarea (Niksar)? Something else seems to be at work. Istanbul, Iskenderun, Izmir, Iznik, and Izmit were all major seaports. To get to Nicaea, for example, you went down to the docks and called out in Greek for a boat eis Nikaian. This would also explain why the port of Amisus became Samsun. Hardly any inland towns in Turkey add an “i.” I can only find Ispir and Isparta (Baris).
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 3, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Carl, thou dost protest way, way too much. You have already disowned the patristic principle against women as priests and bishops and declared yourself in favor of women as deacons — not deaconesses, but deacons. Nothing in your philosophy now stands against women as priests and bishops, except an old man’s reluctance to apply his revolutionary principles fully and follow his own arguments to their logical conclusion.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On December 3, 2011 @ 10:22 am
Thank you, Your Grace, for the added perspective. I would guess that such toleration came from viewing SSA kindly as just another podvig, but maybe SVS in its poverty was just desperate for paying pupils.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 30, 2011 @ 3:50 pm
Yes, the Leonovites are alive and well — and now conspiring in secret to undermine the Church’s condemnation of sodomy. At least the Monomakhoi are honest about what they don’t like.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 26, 2011 @ 7:53 am
I’m sure he means “classically liberal” in the conservative James Fitzjames Stephen sense and not in the progressive John Stuart Mill sense, in which case there is tension but not antithesis. [insert shameless plug for latest book here: Eight Ways to Run the Country]
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 24, 2011 @ 6:46 am
Congratulations, George. Many years to Monomakhos.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 23, 2011 @ 8:09 am
The New Deal did not cause the post-WWII boom that raised the middle class and made the U.S. rich; the war did — by destroying every other large industrialized economy, leaving the U.S. with the last economy standing and thereby making it the manufacturer to the world. The GI Bill probably added more to the boom than the New Deal did.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 29, 2011 @ 7:02 pm
Well said, George.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 29, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
George and Logan, you both should read Eight Ways to Run the Country, which should give you a better understanding of each other.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 28, 2011 @ 9:13 pm
We do have reason to fear extreme concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few, especially when the few are out of sympathy with the many morally or culturally. But the republican system of government you are calling “democracy” hasn’t prevented such concentrations, has it? If it had, you wouldn’t be warning about extreme concentrations of wealth. What our republican system has been able to do is peacefully resolve relatively minor conflicts of interests within the dominant group between competing concentrations of wealth. There is good in that, but it doesn’t guarantee a just society or always serve the common good. No mere system can. For just government, we must have just men.
As for equality, the distinction between equal outcomes and equal opportunities, implicit in your preferred meritocracy, is an illusion. We only insist on equal opportunity when we are not happy with existing outcomes, and yet even equal opportunities produce unequal outcomes, which then produce unequal opportunities. That’s the fallen world. There is no escaping it, and only a very tyrannical government would try to escape it by legislating against the advantages of “birth, family background, race, gender, or economic status.”
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 28, 2011 @ 9:08 pm
Logan, some things you say make sense, but this statement of yours reveals the Left’s fundamental confusion:
My view of the role of government is to keep the dominant groups in check, and to provide a level playing field where merit is encouraged and rewarded.
The underlying assumption here is that government exists to prevent dominance and to provide equality. There are two problems with that assumption:
1. Government IS dominance. It exists to dominate. It is itself the dominant group.
2. As soon as merit is rewarded, the playing field is no longer level, because the meritorious then have the advantage of their reward.
So what you want of government is doubly impossible. No government can deliver us from dominance or inequality. Those that have tried the hardest have done a spectacular job of wrecking civilization.
The most that we can hope for from government is a just dominance and a just inequality. Both require an understanding of justice that is essentially moral and that condemns neither dominance nor inequality as inherently immoral and therefore unjust, as the Left is prone to do.
A just government checks the power of the certain groups for very practical reasons. It does not allow people to amass great fortunes through predatory enterprises in gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc. It doesn’t allow this for two reasons, both because such things are inherently evil and injurious to society, and because people who make fortunes injurying others are a threat to just government.
A just government respects the dignity of all persons but also respects their different situations, motivations, and abilities. It does not therefore force people to ignore obvious differences between men and women, confiscate family inheritance to overthrow the upper class, or forcibly redistribute God’s blessings to preferred groups for the sake of equality.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 28, 2011 @ 9:08 am
You are factually wrong in saying that SSA and SSSA are “mutually exclusive,” and still you refuse to admit it.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 15, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
Here’s what he said, with his emphasis:
For our purpose, then, I define homosexuality as same-sex-attraction (SSA). While this will be expanded as we progress, I am emphatic in making an absolute distinction from same-gender sexual activity. They are mutually exclusive, distinct and separate, and I believe it is a grave error to misuse or confuse the terms, or to presume them as “inter-changeable.”
Now, we can all agree that same-sex attraction (SSA) and same-sex sexual activity (SSSA) are conceptually distinct (i.e., not the same thing), but that doesn’t make them “mutually exclusive.” The words “mutually exclusive” mean that they never coincide; you never find the two together because the presence of one excludes the presence of the other. This cannot be said of SSA and SSSA.
Furthermore, while taking pains to distinguish SSA and SSSA and push them as far apart as possible, Stankovich deliberately overlooks the difference between SSA and GID (gender identity disorder) so he can point to prisoners and say, “See: They engage in SSSA but do not experience SSA because they’re not gay.” In fact, prisoners who seek out SSSA do experience SSA, though some do not also suffer from GID, are also sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and prefer sex with the opposite sex when it’s available.
These flaws in Stankovich’s thinking have been pointed out to him, but he still refuses to come clean and admit when he’s been wrong.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 15, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
His resume was available online until very recently. It did not list any doctoral degrees. It did show extensive experience in social work, some of which related to chemical dependency.
Stankovich’s credentials were first questioned on the AOI blog after he disparaged at length the professional opinion of an experienced Orthodox psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Pappas, regarding same-sex attraction. He continues to present himself as an authority on the “science” of many issues, disparaging others for their lack of scientific training. He has also shown himself to be a sly but sometimes carelessly tendentious pontificator. On his website, he has insisted emphatically that same-sex attraction and same-sex sex are “mutually exclusive.” He has never answered for this absurdity.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 15, 2011 @ 8:30 am
The whole thing sounded to me just like the man I know. He is the kind of man who will take too much blame on himself for the sake of peace, sincerely believing that humility and love require it and that others might be moved by the example. He is not above a little pique, as we saw after Santa Fe, but he labors hard to avoid it: “Do not react, do not resent, keep inner stillness.”
They might have told him he had to take responsibility and announce that he would undergo evaluation, but they didn’t write his speech for him.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 18, 2011 @ 8:29 am
Wisdom! Let us attend. Thank you, Ken.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 18, 2011 @ 6:27 am
Round and round and round he goes, and where he stops, nobody knows.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 16, 2011 @ 3:30 pm
It’s not a horse, and it isn’t dead. So let’s keep beating it.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 15, 2011 @ 6:11 pm
For me, it’s for the best. The mission is closer to home, and my wife and daughters were already settled there. I did what I could at St. Nicholas, and when I could do no more, God provided me a very convenient place of refuge. Hallelujah!
I’m sure He won’t abandon the Metropolitan either.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 14, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
Back To Stats Page
Helga, they ran me off. I’m at All Saints of America Mission in Alexandria now.
As for a dean, word is the last one who was interested, is now not, and the pro-gay faction only tightened its grip on the parish council at the annual meeting Sunday. There’s no way they’ll support a dean who’s any good.
» Posted By Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell On November 14, 2011 @ 2:20 pm