Comments by Commentator

Comments Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse

Displaying 1 To 30 Of 778 Comments

All the News that’s Fit to Curate/Kevin Spacey Plays the Gay Card

Michael Stankovich, your condemnation of NARTH is spoken with such certitude that a reader might think the case is irretrievably shut. Moreover, the reasoning of your apologetic (reducing homosexual attraction to biological materiality — colon cancer and such) in no way differs from what I hear from Gay INC propaganda (God made me that way!). I’m not saying you are shilling for the gay lobby. I am saying that the certainty you display is not warranted given the changes and the politicization of the counseling establishment we’ve seen year after year.

Remember John Hopkins pioneering sex-change operations? If someone wanted a sex change, they trotted off to John Hopkins and after a battery of tests and assessments, the counselors dutifully decided that if a patient’s dysphoria was severe enough then “gender reassignment surgery” should take place. A few years ago John Hopkins stopped the practice completely now views gender dysphoria as a kind of mental illness. Now it is reevaluating again.

SURGICAL SEX: WHY WE STOPPED DOING SEX CHANGE OPERATION

Johns Hopkins psychiatrist sees hospital come full circle on transgender issues

The truth is that much of the the counseling establishment is a politicized as the rest of the culture (especially the APA) regarding homosexuality, and what is fashion now can easily fall out of favor tomorrow.

Meanwhile, men who worked through the therapies you decry as promulgated by “charlatans and liars” report success with overcoming same-sex attraction. Your certainty ought to be provisional given the changes and politicization we’ve seen in the professional counseling establishment and certainly within the earshot of men who testify change is indeed possible.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On November 8, 2017 @ 5:16 am

Maybe Monastics Should Stay Off of Social Media?

Saunca wrote:

I also do not consider anyone who disagrees with me “ignorant,” just lacking in the compassion it truly takes to walk with someone on the path of SSA

Yes, you did. You wrote:

It took nearly 14 centuries for The Church (the churches, by that time fractured by splits) to finally accept that our solar system is indeed heliocentric. No matter what early academics, astronomers, even scientist/theologians said, published or proved, The Church would not believe it. It simply defied scripture, they said. Those who propagated a non-geocentric view were called
“Very dangerous” by Church Cardinals
“foolish and absurd, heretical” by Inquisitors
“teachers of false doctrine altogether contrary to the Holy Spirit.” by a Pope
Those who “would pervert the order of nature.” By Calvin

And yet, by the 18th century, even The Church had to accept that they had indeed been wrong. Science had finally proven that the Earth did, factually and without doubt, orbit the Sun.

This is the issue I have with entire Christian denominations, Popes, Metropolitans, Priests, Deacons and Orthodox Laiety claiming to know, without a doubt, that homosexual desire is not innate or inborn. We know that – factually, and without a doubt – there are infants born intersex. At the very least, what are we to say about that? If a child is born intersex, did God not make him/her that way as He is the Creator of all? What is this child to do regarding biology vs. organs possessed vs. who they are attracted to…

The problem with your example of course is that your historical facts were all wrong and you were corrected quickly.

Telling though is that your examples were lifted almost verbatim from Gay INC propaganda. This calls into question how you define “compassion” since you juxtaposed the incorrect “facts” against “compassion” and you justify it in the same way in your most recent response above.

You defended Sister Vassa’s reasoning without offering any criticism of it whatsoever. Her little essay is just a shade short of appalling for several reasons, and the chief one is that it is the worst possible advice for the boy she presumes to help. It’s a smothering, inexperienced, ill-informed maternalism that offers no help to boy, and compounds the error by telling the mother “sexual orientation” is fixed by two or three years old!

Perhaps you need to define what think compassion is and how it works in this example of the fourteen year old boy. Hopefully it is not the kind of compassion Sister Vassa offered.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 14, 2017 @ 9:32 pm

Saunca is not a homosexual ideologue, but she casts those with whom she disagrees as ignorant. That’s why she compared their ideas with Galileo, a geocentric universe, and other historical misconceptions she held. They were clarified in short order and appropriately so.

The gay teen suicide myth is the latest misconception. Note that this doesn’t challenge the increase in teen suicides, only the appropriation of the crisis by Gay INC to further the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Saunca, much like Sister Vassa, displays an overbearing and smothering maternalism to the question of same-sex attraction in young boys. This approach doesn’t address how to deal with the young boy, it only seeks to protect him from what they perceive is advice that is harmful or hurtful through shaming those who offer the advice. Sister Vassa’s ludicrous comment that sexual orientation is fixed by two or three years old is the clearest example of how enabling the advice is to the homosexual agenda (and most likely shaped by it). Both of them don’t understand boys, they just feel sorry for them. That is *not* the kind of help young boys need.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 13, 2017 @ 6:41 pm

In my experience Tim R. Mortiss is correct with one proviso: a non-married person who can offer advice on child rearing is *very* rare. Sts. Paul and Chrysostom are exceptions as are some elders but they are very far and few between. In fact I would include childless couples in this grouping too.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 12, 2017 @ 7:51 pm

Saunca, you keep reaching for debunked urban myths to justify homosexuality (Galieo, flat earth, etc., etc.). Your arguments are almost exclusively emotional.

Homosexuality & Teen Suicide

The problem is that this statistic [gay teen suicide] has no basis in fact. It is based on a 1989 study done by a San Francisco gay activist, Paul Gibson, who had it attached to a report by a federal task force on suicide for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In fact, the HHS Secretary at the time, Dr. Louis Sullivan, stated that the conclusions of the study did not in any way express his views or the views of the department.

In 1994 representatives of the Centers for Disease Control, the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Suicidology, and gay and lesbian advocacy groups met to study the issue. They concluded that “There is no population-based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner” (quoted from a Seattle Times article of May 22, 1997).

Paul Gibson admits that he had done no original research, but that his statistics were based on other studies including one that reported there were 3,000 gay teen suicides a year—a figure that in fact exceeded the total number of all teen suicides in one year. Further, he extrapolated using the totally discredited Kinsey position that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. Gibson’s study is virtually worthless—except to be used to promote a political agenda.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 12, 2017 @ 7:44 pm

The Amsterdam Symposium: An Abuse of Authority?

I have the confidence the scotus will realize someday marriage does not deserve special treatment.

The opposite has happened. SCOTUS declared that homosexual couplings are indeed worthy of very special treatment, so much so that they declared a “right” where none ever existed at any time in history or across most cultures.

You don’t seem to mind this vast overreach by the State. I do. I don’t like the expansion of State power. You don’t seem to care, despite calling yourself a libertarian.

Here we see the Achilles heel of libertarianism, BTW. Libertarians have no real sense of history and tradition, so they end up jumping into bed with the progressives. They just enter the bedroom through a different door.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 6, 2017 @ 6:30 am

You will have to explain what “reject liberty” means because I don’t follow you at all. As for marriage being a “protected privilege” (although I am not really sure what you mean by this term either), marriage doesn’t originate with the state. Marriage is grounded in the order of creation. State codification of marriage is merely the recognition of that which already exists in nature. Stable civilizations require stable families, and stable families require stable marriages. It is thus in the interests of a society not to undermine natural marriage. This used to be common sense.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On July 1, 2017 @ 8:12 pm

Anon writes:

Marriage in the eyes of the government should be nothing less than contractual and offer no discriminatory rights like spousal healthcare coverage. Then if gays want to marry; they can, but we don’t have to celebrate it, sanction it, or treat it as a protected right and throw state sanctioned Holy Water on it.

Jacobse, of course, rejects liberty fully. But in so doing, he also rejects the concept that progressives can be tyrants and not liberals.

This is confused but for the record:

I reject gay “marriage” because I reject that marriage is a creation of the State (in this case by judicial fiat). And no, I don’t reject the concept that “progressives can be tyrants.”

See the essay I wrote before Obergefell: Homosexual Marriage at the Dusk of Liberty

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On June 30, 2017 @ 10:34 am

Orthodox Pastors, Theologians Gather In Amsterdam To Discuss Their Views On Issues Of Sexuality

Christopher wrote:

He [Fr. Robert Arida] writes a this essay saying that the Holy Revelation that the Church holds to is “politics”, and that those who uphold this Tradition actually commit “violence” by verbally and physically “assaulting” those whom they only “perceive” (as if their perception is in error) to be rejecting the church’s teaching.

Fr. Arida reasons using identity politics. Because some homosexuals have suffered the reasoning goes, anyone who criticizes homosexual behavior is morally culpable for the suffering. This is how he justifies using vituperative language (“violence” and “assaulting,” etc.) against his critics. It also attempts to cut off discussion before it begins by declaring that those who raise objections to his ideas have no moral standing to make them.

This is how liberal Episcopalians reason about homosexuality which is why I suggested he would feel more at home in the Episcopal Church.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On June 24, 2017 @ 1:58 pm

Bully Pulpit (and Pen)

What I don’t understand is why the Pulpit and Pen crew even cares. If God chooses who is saved and who is damned apart from any freedom of the person (Calvin’s double predestination), why even fight against the godless Orthodox?

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 25, 2017 @ 12:55 pm

Three Trojan Horses: Insider Attempts to Disorient the Orthodox

Joseph,

“Heterosexuality” (meaning male female conjugal union) is according to nature and God’s design. It can be distorted but even in its distortion it still retains a dimension of naturality to it.

“Homosexuality” in all its variant behaviors is not according to nature or God’s design, No homosexual behavior is ever natural.

You tend to use the terms as if they describe distinct anthropological categories. They don’t.

What about the person with a “homosexual orientation” you might ask? Every passion, if indulged, affects an orientation, not just the sexual passions.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On May 3, 2017 @ 1:42 pm

Gorsuch: An Unalloyed Victory

“Preistitutes” actually works. Once a church becomes feminized, all sorts of sexual confusion results. In the Episcopal Church it took only one decade before the congregants were expected to extol their first lesbian bishop, and another decade when a gay primate was elected who promised a new age of structured licentiousness that was the wave of their oh-so-enlightened future. It didn’t work out. He divorced his male partner and throughout this entire forlorn episode the Episcopal Church collapsed.

A female priesthood fosters deeply symbolic confusion where the creative power of God is conflated into the creative power of the female body. The Uncreated gets subsumed by the created. It’s neo-pagan, a return to the fertility cults. It works in the post-Christian West because feminism has largely succeeded in destroying the feminine.

Abortion on the ideological level is the means by which the feminine is destroyed on the march to destroy the masculine in service to the ultimate goal of destroying any cultural memory of the God of Abraham. If God is not Father, well, then God is Father or Mother. And if God is Mother, then the creation is birthed into existence. The awareness of creatio-ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) dies and all things created become part of the stuff and substance of God/gods, or more precisely, the stuff and substance of the primal energies.

The Evil One knows he is defeated, but many people don’t. The Evil One works this ignorance to his advantage until the Final Judgment. If you can’t defeat God you can still enslave souls by removing any cultural references to Him. Want to know why teen-age suicides are sky high? There’s your answer.

So priestitutes works, the offensiveness of the term notwithstanding. In fact the offensiveness is what shakes many (including some Orthodox) out of their complacency.

Oh, BTW, when the proponents of Orthodox Deaconesses assure us a that female diaconate is not a stepping stone to Orthodox priestitutes, don’t believe them.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 18, 2017 @ 10:56 am

Lord Have Mercy

About a decade or so back I was in Manhattan for some reason or another and I came across a public demonstration by Jews for Jesus (I think, it may have been some other national group). Then, by serendipity or by the hand of God (I think it was the latter), I ended up in a face to face conversation with their national leader. It all happened very quickly, less than five minutes. I told him to understand the full measure of what the prophets wrote and how Jesus fulfilled it, he needed to become an Orthodox Christian.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 10, 2017 @ 11:25 am

Pat Buchanan gets it. I hope he is right about Pres. Trump not escalating.

Monday on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan discussed the possibility of the United States escalating its involvement in the Syrian civil war days after President Donald Trump launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in responding to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Buchanan noted the biggest cheerleaders of Trump’s action were Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), which he deemed to be “the war party.” However, argued that they would not “get the war they want” from Trump.

“It’s McCain and Graham and Marco Rubio — the war party,” Buchanan said. “But let me say this, Laura — my view is they’re not going to get the war they want. If Donald Trump the president takes us into Syria’s civil war and he’s already made the first strike — it will consume his presidency. And the sense I get this morning and listening to some of these folks on yesterday’s show is that, ‘Don’t worry, this is just a one-off. We’re not going into Syria. The enemy is still ISIS, as indeed it is if you take a look at what happened in Egypt yesterday, 47 dead and 100 injured.”

“So I think the war party is going to be frustrated because I cannot believe that Donald Trump on second thought is going to plunge us into Syria, which he told us again and again and again would be an act of folly — that our enemy is ISIS and our enemy is al-Qaeda and that we should finish them off,” he added. “Then we’re necessarily going to have to work with the folks who did most of the heavy lifting in finishing them off.”

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 10, 2017 @ 11:13 am

There was no investigation before launching the missiles. Frankly, after the misinformation about Serbia, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Arab Spring debacle and other examples, the bombing struck me as another quick to pull the trigger reaction similar to the prog/libs and neocons.

I voted for Trump because of the war lust of the Democrats and Republican neo-cons. They are responsible for a lot of suffering in the world. I can’t join the chorus of praise I hear sounding from different quarters. And, no, I am not persuaded in the least that Assad is responsible. No one really knows if he is or not. This is Serbia, Iraq, Arab Spring, the Obama takedown of Libya, all over again to my ears — at least in terms of the war cries. If they start talking about regime change, we’ll know where this is headed.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 8, 2017 @ 10:54 pm

Fixing the Seminary: Holy Cross Students Go Public With Complaints

Sean, the point is that American culture is not intrinsically Orthodox, which is to say the Christian elements that remain (the true things within American culture) must be baptized into Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faith was introduced by Orthodox people, and the means by which that faith was transmitted to the next generation — and then to a larger American population, was by those same people (or their children) and the culture they preserved.

The closest culture to Orthodox culture the Americans ever experienced was old style Catholicism (think of the baptism scene in the Godfather which offered a glimpse of the holiness that was preserved within Catholicism before Vatican pedestrianized Roman worship and even despite Rome’s theological errors). The Anglican Church also preserved some intrinsic holiness but gave it up when they sanctioned licentiousness as the Christian path. Apart from that Orthodoxy was inaccessible simply because there were very few Orthodox in this land.

Now if the question is one only of language, then yes, worship should be in the language of the people. But this too took time but when it came (and its here) the process was organic.

You say you are not comfortable with a “middle-eastern style of music” but the fact is there is no Orthodox musical tradition in English, not yet anyway. And when one emerges (and it is emerging), it will use either the Russian or Byzantine as its base. The reason for this is simple: it’s all we have got. Again, the ‘western’ style was Gregorian chant (Byzantine chant set to Latin) but the Catholics gave that up after their “reforms” following Vatican II.

The cradle vs. convert dichotomy is not a helpful one I have concluded. We are Orthodox. Put another way, sociology is not the proper ground upon which to decide the question of how Orthodoxy should find its proper expression in a non-Russian or non-Byzantine cultural context. To say it another way: the notion that the countries from which Orthodoxy was brought to America are the “old countries” is fundamentally a false construct. The faith in those countries is alive and well. They are not “old countries” at all.

One final thing. The estrangement people are feeling from Christ in our day is due more to lukewarm faith than it is to the difficulties of adapting to a culture with non-American elements. I see your point and it is a valid one but if somehow all the different jurisdictions got together or if all music would conform to American styles for example, it would not change the loss of people. The reasons lie deeper.

If people moved into a deeper communion with Christ, our churches would be overflowing. The harvest is ripe, the laborers are few.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 9, 2017 @ 2:09 pm

Here’s the problem Sean. “Foreign styles” are often the way the Orthodox faith has been preserved and transmitted. Culture is the expression of faith — it is how the faith is lived — and so they have to be understood in order to understand the faith. Once they are properly perceived, that is, as an expression of faith then natural and organic change will occur as well.

We converts are often to quick to criticize anything not familiar to Americans as “ethnic” when they are in fact they are the means by which faith is appropriated and applied. They are not merely cultural “forms.” They are in fact expressions of an intact culture.

The objection to my stand is that it idolizes ethnic forms (or something along those lines) but this is in fact a short-sighted critique. We Americans are very good at reading and talking about Orthodoxy but not so good about more everyday expressions of the faith (we have no agreed upon means of expression, ie: culture). The convert parishes that apply their own ideas sometimes tend to be a hodge-podge from one parish to the next.

Again, the critique will be that I am defending a static idea of a dynamic Orthodoxy. But the critique is misplaced. I am arguing that although the frustration might be real, simply viewing culture are arbitrary forms that we can alter at will is a particularly American trait.

The Catholics bought into this in Vatican II. They anticipated a renewal in Catholicism but all they got was confusion.

Put another way, if culture is perceived in the form vs. substance construct (we Americans do that), then we don’t really understand what culture is. Culture is completely unselfconcious. It just what you do unreflectively for the most part. (I don’t believe the form vs. substance construct exists in real life, BTW. It’s just a logical construct with no real reference to reality.)

An example is your comment that priests should be able to serve two liturgies. You mention it completely on your own authority. I’m not scolding you here but only pointing how how easily we Americans shift things around without any consideration of why the practice exists or what the ramifications might be if we change it. This approach is part of American culture. We do it without any self-consciousness or self-reflection.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 8, 2017 @ 10:38 pm

John, yes and no. I see no problem with a cradle born and convert mix, in fact I welcome it. It doesn’t make for an exclusively ‘American’ church in the context of the present discussions of Orthodoxy and culture we hear all over the place, but often those discussions are bound to particularly American notions of culture — hence the going round and round and round and never ending anywhere.

Ethnicity is just identification with a particular culture so Americans are just as ethnic as any other culture. The only difference is one of perspective, ie: what country you happen to be standing in. I remember the stories from Russia about when the American Evangelicals flooded Russia to save the godless hordes, the Russians branded Evangelicalism as the “American religion.” They were right.

Rather, the emergence of an American Orthodoxy has to be an organic process and make take a generation or two. The source cultures are the ‘Old World’ cultures just as early Christianity grew out of the cultural soil of Israel. Remember too that it took 300 years to ready Roman culture for the coming of Constantine.

I’m applying this my mission parish. It has grown to about 80 or more worshippers every Sunday and we minister to probably 120 or so, maybe a little more. Many cultures are represented and you can hear various languages in the social hall afterwards. I don’t call it an American church as such, but an international church. Yet isn’t the international character typical of American culture (before multiculturalism anyway which seeks push everyone into a bland conformity of behavior and oppressive uniformity of thought)?

I have no bone to pick with anything you wrote. I just think the discussion we are having in American Orthodoxy never gets to heart of things. Put another way, I don’t think we really understand what culture actually is.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 7, 2017 @ 9:55 am

This is an important and critical distinction. There can be no religion without culture. Religion is the ground of culture. Fr. Pavel Florensky wrote that culture is the means through which Christ lives in the world of man (still working on trying to define this more).

The Hellenism/Orthodox construct out of Constantinople is actually false. It posits two historical streams that, if traced backwards, end at Mt. Olympus and Jerusalem. It leapfrogs the Cappadocian Synthesis altogether. In actual fact, Greek culture was baptized into the Orthodox faith (the Cappadocian Synthesis). If the Hellenism/Orthodox construct prevails, the GOA will find itself defenseless against the secular juggernaut and will probably find itself in the position that the Roman Catholic Church is today, ie: a replacement for collapsed mainstream Protestantism.

Religion is the ground of culture. Faith expressed, lived out, creates the culture. Culture reflects the fundamental beliefs of a people unselfconciously lived out. It is also the way that how one lives the Christian faith is passed to the next generation.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 6, 2017 @ 2:22 pm

Now I See Why They Got Rid of Benedict

The last line was perfect:

But it would behoove the current occupants of both of these apostolic sees to remember that the “shoes of the fisherman”—to use the felicitous phrase of Morris West’s prescient 1959 novel by the same title—fit more than one pair of apostolic feet.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On February 23, 2017 @ 7:39 pm

Obama’s Real Legacy

Anonymous, you write:

A prepubescent child has no sexual orientation; gay marriage offers them utter confusion. Fact. Liberal thought would suggest otherwise. It would suggest it opens the door for their freedom, but it does not. It offers total confusion.

This is true and a good insight. Now ask yourself why that is? I submit that it is because of natural law, where we define natural law as comprehension of the divine order of things in nature, they way nature is constructed so to speak and the logic it displays. This is comprehensible even to a child since the structure of the soul and even the mind has an ordering congruent with the ordering of nature. It is comprehended first in the soul, on a level even deeper than intuition, and only later crystallizes into a concept.

Thus when you ask:

Are they then not a victim of Jacobse’s weak argument, focus on excretia, the SCOTUS misapplied the 14th, but much more importantly a victim of the institution of gay marriage?

…the answer is because regarding sexuality natural law also applies to the function of the body. Upstream I offered the examples only parenthetically but they still hold true: waste organs are not designed as sexual organs. This offends you apparently, but it should offend all of us because offenses against nature are naturally offensive. The only time the offenses ceases offending is when the behavior is discontinued or when the sin is habituated to the point where thinking changes. This is clear in St. Paul’s outline in Romans 1 where he describes homosexual sexual activity as a violation of the natural order and describes the long term effects of the inculcation of this sin within the person.

We can argue against the rulings that sanction gay couplings as legal marriage by citing the 14th amendment if we want, but an indisputable fact is that ‘gay marriage’ would never have gotten to SCOTUS unless there was a cultural shift first. The law was passed not based on legal reasoning alone. Rather, legal reasoning followed sentiment; the predisposition to view gay couplings as a civil right preceded the final ruling, as well as the assumption that denying these rights would be victimizing gay couples. That’s what I mean that the social programs of the left all rest in the common cradle of victimization.

To my last point you wrote:

The conservative dislike and crediting of the victim mentality for gay marriage will create more victims because they are fighting gay marriage without thinking about the most important members of society who will become victims of gay marriage.

This is unclear. Who do you mean by “…the most important members of society?” Do you mean children? If so, how will being clear about how nature really works victimize them?

Priests deal with people struggling with the passion of same-sex attraction. One of the first things that has to be untangled is the belief that same-sex attraction is a constituent of personal identity. This is a cultural norm that has been internalized that can be quite debilitating for a person seeking deeper communion with Christ who is dealing with this passion. It’s based on a false anthropology that, in the context of the Church and Orthodox Christian life, functions as a heresy (in pastoral terms). A good way to penetrate this fog is to assure the person that he is seen by both God and the priest as “(Baptismal name) son of the living God.” God (and hopefully the priest) see the man in the light of who he is by virtue of his adoption as God’s son (which his name signifies) and not in terms of the passions he feels and is struggling with.

I mention this only to explain that it is important to draw distinctions between the misconceptions in popular culture and and true (Orthodox) anthropology on forums such as this that are populated by Orthodox readers, especially in this era where some Orthodox priests (such as Fr. Robert Arida) seek to subvert the moral tradition.

So it’s not really legality we are arguing about or even the ideas of GAY Inc. we seek to reverse in the popular culture, not immediately anyway. It’s about the tradition we have received spoken in ways where those distinctions are made clear in ways they can be understood despite the cost of clarifying them.

When I spoke in Washington, DC a few years ago a few weeks before the Obergefell ruling came down I was under no illusion that that the Court was listening but it didn’t matter, not enough to prevent me from speaking anyway. Somebody had to say what the Orthodox tradition taught so I did.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 24, 2017 @ 1:03 pm

Thank you Philippa.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 21, 2017 @ 9:20 am

Actually the dissents in Obergefell are strong and well reasoned. Here’s a good summary: Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell.

Obergefell is bound to identity politics of the left. The ideas of the left are nestled in a cradle of victimization as most of the culture destroying ideas of the left usually are, at least in Western Europe and America. Identity politics erodes the moral ties that binds people together in ways that foster stability and progress by destroying the the moral restraints that channel male sexual energy into creative pursuits. You will notice that in leftist popular thought the victims of highest standing are often the sexual libertines and increasingly people with mental disorders (transgenderism) . The cult of victimization in other words often serves those who would prefer to dissipate their sexual energy into pleasures that do not foster life.

Tell me, how would you reason against this: Virtuous Pedophiles? This site is run by the man who Salon Magazine profiled a while back (article since taken down) in their effort to normalize pedophilia and invokes the same reasoning employed by those who defend Obergefell especially the appeal to victimization.

The cult of victimization has deeper precepts of course, the chief one being a cultural shift in anthropological reasoning, ie: feelings (passions in Orthodox terminology) are the ground of self-identity. You are what you feel. The passions become essentialized; what ever sexual passion you might feel determines who you are. Drop this belief (heresy really) into that cradle of victimization and emotional responses and moral confusion are the inevitable results (who dares argue against a victim?).

Thirty states had same-sex marriage bans in place by 2012 as the issue heated up nationally from the late 1990s forward and the number was growing. Many of the states saw the bans struck down by local federal courts which drove the issue into SCOTUS. Obergefell is a clumsy, heavy handed ruling as the dissents make clear. The 5-4 split decision mirrors the split in the country. It was and remains a highly divisive ruling.

With the repudiation of the Progressive/Liberal agenda in the national election not to mention the devastating Democratic losses on the state level all through Obama’s tenure, I think you will start seeing more state resistance to the encroachments of the Federal courts. This is not as settled as you think.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 21, 2017 @ 9:05 am

Mark, a couple of clarifications.

There is no such thing as “traditional marriage.” There is only marriage. “Non-traditional marriage” ie: homosexual couplings are not a marriage at all as attested by both natural law and the moral tradition. (Same-sex couplings are naturally sterile; sodomy cannot be equated with heterosexual intercourse since the anal canal is designed for excretion, not penetration, etc. etc.)

Calling the homosexual coupling a marriage does violence to language just as sodomy does violence to the soul of the actors and also to nature. Sodomy is a repudiation of nature and thus God, and the effects of the sin have ramifications far beyond the actors themselves.

In philosophical terms sodomy displays an inversion; the creative prowess of man — a prowess that replicates in a natural way the very character of God, ie: the creation of new life — is turned in on itself. When a man deposits his creative seed in the waste canal of another man (or woman) he exalts death over life. It is a nihilistic act just behind suicide. That’s why it does such violence to the soul.

Societies that elevate sodomy (and abortion; the two are related) as a social good have lost faith in their future. They are in the throes of decay and death.

+ + + + +

Anonymous, you need to read more. Start with my essay on Progressive/Liberalism and “homosexual marriage.” You’ll see that although there are many who are confused (and some deluded) about homosexual couplings, the reasons for advancing the gay agenda reach far beyond notions of fairness or to put in in your words: “There is no way we can say homosexual marriages are not good.” Actually the reverse is true.

Homosexual Marriage at the Dusk of Liberty

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 20, 2017 @ 9:23 am

Christians Who Pray to ‘St. Marx’ are Building the Next Gulag

Here’s a question Monk James…

Yes, the term “Father” functions as a metaphor, but how can we say the metaphor is authoritative beyond the scope of the sentence in which it is used? In other words, is its function anything more than descriptive? Is the metaphor indicative of a reality beyond the meaning contained in the sentence? It’s a good question I think and one that “feminist theology” uses to discredit any application of the term beyond the sentence itself. This is also where the default to psychology takes place and usurps authority over the application of the term (ie: some people have abusive fathers, etc.).

I think I have an answer to this but would be very interested in hearing what you say about it first.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 11, 2017 @ 8:08 am

I found Bulgakov’s book Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household a great help in understanding economics (oikos-nomos — house management in Greek), not as a reduction to mathematics and sociology (the way we mostly perceive it) but as a treatise of man’s relationship to nature. The thesis is that eating is the foundation of economics and nature provides the food (Bulgakov continues the theme began in Genesis that continues within the fallen world). Economics then is grounded in both the nature of man, the nature of the created world, and a proper application of stewardship toward nature, a triad that, when realized in the context of divine design and intention, works toward the freedom of man.

Man, Bulgakov wrote, finds himself in communion with the Logos. Nature finds itself in communion man. Stewardship then, implies also the correct (according to divine design) relationship of man to nature which is the foundation and real purpose of economics. If we can extract anything from this then (it seems to me anyway) that we build/support the structures that allow human flourishing; that are in accord, albeit imperfectly given that the world if fallen, with the proper order of things.

Things are never perfect which is why I don’t think we should dismiss the imperfect. The old saying that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good makes a lot of sense in my view.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 11, 2017 @ 7:31 am

Michael, free markets do indeed exist and often foster human flourishing, even in a fallen world. In the last 20 years over a billion people have been lifted from poverty largely due to the creation of market economies. See: Towards the End of Poverty.

Yes, capitalism can be messy but human affairs generally are. Greed afflicts the socialist too, often more so, and envy is a scourge of the poor as well. There is a reason why Jesus told the soldiers to “be content with your wages.”

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Create a market where the man can sell his surplus fish and he can build a home and send his kids to school.

Poverty Cure below explains it (albeit against the false promises of socialist largess and misplaced sentiments of the wealthy):

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 7:14 pm

Carl, free markets allow for human flourishing. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Create a market where a man can sell his surplus fish and he can build a home and send his kids to school.

Bulgakov said that about the only substantial contribution Marx made to the study of economics is that he clarified the place of labor in economic thinking. Bulgakov writes about this in his book Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household (an outstanding book BTW).

Marx’s idea about the perfectibility of man on the other hand is just an outgrowth of his materialism. It was not a new idea. Rousseau is generally credited with putting it into circulation when he rewrote the Genesis narrative and displaced the locus of sin from Adam to society (socialization). Rousseau, Solzhenitsyn wrote, is the father of modern totalitarianism.

Further, the reason that perfectibility has no “scientific backing” is that these dimensions of human experience lie outside the purview of science. There is no way to measure such things. Literature is the means by which these things are comprehended and explained, and even predicted on occasion.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 6:55 pm

The pronoun “He” preserves the ontological distinction between Creator and creation. If the pronoun “she” is used, then it is implied that the manner of God’s creation models in some way a human birth: the stuff and substance of the creation comes out of the stuff and substance of the god/s (ancient pagan thinking).

This is also a reason why we don’t have women priests. All men (collective noun) come a from a mother. Man is born of a woman. The woman’s creative prowess in other words is displayed bodily — only women give birth. Your body, your blood, comes from your mother. Men don’t have this capacity. (Even the one sperm cell that penetrates the egg dies after the genetic code has been delivered.)

For the Christian, the new birth is baptism, the sustenance of that new life is the Body and Blood of Christ — the Holy Eucharist. When a women holds up the chalice however discord results on symbolic levels (in the Greek meaning of the term). Two manners of creation and sustenance are represented — the female’s and Christ’s — and they get confused. If anyone thinks this doesn’t have consequences ask yourself why the Episcopal church went full blown homosexual only a decade after ordaining women priests.*

A male priesthood preserves the ontological distinction between Creator and creation. There is no confusion that the body and blood in the chalice has anything to do with the creative prowess of the male because males cannot create life from their bodies.**

*I’ve argued for years that once a church gets feminized it gets homosexualized.

**Some say that a male priesthood is barrier against a slide back into paganism. While that may be true in the early centuries of Christianity, today a slide into neo-paganism is a conceptual impossibility given that monotheism is ubiquitous in Western culture. Even the atheist/secularist assumes the God he claims is not there is monotheistic; so shaped by and dependent is he on the tradition that he decries. As a result the only path left is nihilism.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 4:55 pm

God Bless America!!!

Misha, all true but I love the Statue of Liberty. I talked about Lady Liberty years ago in the first essay I ever wrote for publication. It explains why I am a patriot, a critical one sometimes but a patriot nonetheless, and why I love my country.

The essay: Liberty

BTW, I am glad the purpose for the Statue of Liberty got recontextualized in a more enduring and hopeful narrative.

» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 28, 2017 @ 7:05 pm

«« Back To Stats Page