When Health and Human Services (HHS) imposed their mandate that Christian institutions subsidize contraception and abortifacent drugs, the Catholic Church responded forcefully. The Orthodox Church supports our Catholic brothers even though we were late to step to the plate. At least we are in the game.
Many however (myself included) indicated that what drove the Assembly to action was the criticism of John Couretas, Fr. Peter Preble and others. Both wrote blistering critiques of Assembly inaction and apparent apathy. Embarrassment may have driven them to action. Despite this, the Assembly still did the right thing, and the right thing always counts (read the statement).
But where is the follow-up?
Some people say there will be no follow-up, that the original statement is all that we can reasonably expect. They say that the GOA — the largest of the Orthodox jurisdictions — has no stomach for this fight and will gag any Orthodox voice that wants to speak out. It goes back to their confusion between the gospel and culture.
As I noted in an earlier post, the GOA is vested in a group of wealthy laymen who are more interested in Byzantine nostalgia than serious engagement with America (you know, the country in which we actually live). Even when they deal with the Greece collapse the response is predictable. Send more money. It’s a half-hearted, truncated effort all too characteristic of the post-Iakovian Church.
Others point a finger to the Committee for Church and Society of the Orthodox Assembly of Bishops chaired by His Eminence Metropolitan Savvas Zembillas of Pittsburgh. There’s some substance to this charge as well.
Previously, Monomakhos took His Eminence to task for ridiculing Christian conservatives on his Facebook page (see: Tea Party Jesus: Sermon on the Mall that he posted). He took it down almost immediately. Whether he came to his senses or was embarrassed by the opprobrium that was heaped on him is anyone’s guess. Either way, he has moved on. Now he’s undermining the Catholic critique of Obamacare.
His Eminence can be slippery. He avoids direct comment on issues but all his postings are decidedly left-leaning, most often Progressive. His most recent argument is that since most Catholics don’t follow their Church’s teach on contraception, we don’t have to take the repudiation of the HHS mandates by the Catholic hierarchy all that seriously.
Zembillas doesn’t say what he hopes to accomplish by posting these critiques, but it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out. When you affirm the critiques, you also affirm the reasoning and the purpose for which they were written. Zembillas says, in so many non-words, that the people who criticize the Catholic Bishops are the ones we should listen to.
It’s no secret that Zembillas is an Obama devotee (actually, uncritical apologist is closer to the truth). No problem there as long as Zembillas doesn’t confuse his liberal ideology with the Gospel mandates. But the constant bashing of all things non-Progressive gets tiresome, even offensive.
Should a sitting Bishop use leftist cliches to suborn the traditionalist Christian moral teaching? And why is he doing it? Is he afraid to take the stand the moral tradition requires? How would you explain his reflexive liberalism otherwise?
Most important, do the other Bishops in the Assembly know he is undermining their public statement?
Here is a recent critical posting on his Facebook page: Analysis: Bishops’ contraception objections fail their church’s own moral reasoning. Overall it’s an informative article but the title tells you what side they’re on. How come almost all of Zembillas’ postings fall on that side?
I realize that nobody in the Church is perfect, but imperfection cannot be used as a cudgel against those who dare to speak truth to power. So not all Catholics obey the teachings? Really? What about the Orthodox? Look at the preening of some some our bishops and priests or the thuggish and brutish behavior of some laity towards them. Look at our endless fundraisers and all the other loopy things we Orthodox do. Look at our paltry (but improving) social witness. If Zembillas requires absolute fidelity to the tradition by Catholic laity before their Bishops can speak, then we should never hear a peep out of any of ours.
A failure in one area cannot be used as as inducement to not do anything at all. In like manner, neither can we Orthodox use our customary quietude and reluctance to judge others as an excuse for not wanting to enter the fray and get our hands dirty when others need us.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Bp Demetrios Kantzavellos of Chicago has shown that it is possible to engage the culture and still run an active diocese — that we Orthodox can walk and chew gum at the same time. He has joined with Bp Matthias Moriak of Chicago to help OCLife open an Orthodox home for unwed mothers (as noted in another post). It’s the right thing to do and it will redound to the benefit of all Orthodox Christians in Chicago of every jurisdiction. We don’t see any cheap sermonizing there, no preaching of moral equivalency to excuse us from doing nothing.
The default position of liberals everywhere is to complain about suffering but not do anything about it. Instead, a liberal forces others to dip into their pockets so that he can spend the money himself. The Metropolitan of Pittsburgh is no different. One of his first acts as hierarch was to order all churches in his diocese to increase their assessments by 10 percent (yes, 10% in this time of economic privation). It would be easier to swallow if, say, His Eminence took a 10% pay cut or maybe funded a new charity or two in his diocese (a soup kitchen? a free-clinic?) but no go. Instead, give more money, but for what?
The Orthodox presence in America is paltry and our resources are meager, but does that mean that we should not do the right thing? Of course we should. Sure, Orthodox hospitals won’t be built overnight. Nevertheless, the Gospel demands that we join others who are stepping up to the plate. Besides, we have something no other Christian confession has: the full weight of Patristic thought which enables us to make the right arguments and address moral problems with coherence and clarity.
Remember this: the HHS mandates are no less egregious in our day than Julian the Apostate’s diktat that Christians have to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
No, the Catholics aren’t perfect, nobody is. But the HHS mandates cannot be allowed to stand and Met. Savas Zembillas should stop undermining Orthodox resolve and our public witness against our Catholic brothers.
Will Met. Savas get the message? Is it too much to ask the other Orthodox bishops for a follow-up? We could start by looking at the health plan that we offer our priests.
Well said George, I think you have all the bases covered on this one.
Very good insights George! Meanwhile 100% of Catholic Bishops (181 of them) have now issued official statements and spoken out against the tyrannical Obama/HHS Mandate.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591
Many of these Catholic bishops read their statements at diocesan Masses or included them in all parish bulletins on Sunday.
Three (3) small paragraphs posted on a website vs. 181 Full Official Statements publicly released and read to the faithful. What a glaring difference!
Thank you Mononakhos.
Yes, It’s true, not all Catholics follow Christ with courage and faith,but that doesn’t mean we should all roll over and excuse ourselves from what we know must be done.. The Apostles had a hard time with that and they were with Jesus. Not until the Fire of the Holy Spirit came down on them did they have the courage to truly follow Jesus. We too must pray for that Fire to come alive in us, casting out fear and apathy. I am inspired to see our Catholic Bishops on Fire, with faith, courage and conviction. We continue to pray for them and ourselves in this battle.
Interestingly enough, Metropolitan Savas’ favorite President, Mr Obama, is wants to triple the taxes on corporate dividends. I imagine the good Metropolitan is rather like Nero playing his fiddle while this country is transformed into Greece 2012 or banana republics or failed African nation. From today’s WSJ Online, read and weep:
“President Obama’s 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.
Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today’s 15% rate.
Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
Carl, when all is said and done, the American future will make Greece’s look like a walk in the park. Any violence in Greece will be mitigated somewhat because of its greater homogeneity. Our cities will resemble Baghdad during the heyday of the insurgency.
It is useful to remember Solzhenitsyn’s observations in his prophetic Harvard address, “A World Split Apart”:
Our society’s only cohesion has become greed for comfort and convenience. We are the Last Man, and we deserve to perish.
Joseph, I’ll never forget the first time I heard Solzhenitsyn’s address. Even though I was a young man and still full of optimism how unsettled I was to hear it. I still thought the Liberal (in the classical, Jeffersonian sense) still had reserves that could cause us to undo the ravages of the Great Society, Carter, Vietnam, etc. We did for a while, under Reagan. But he saw how were losing our soul to secularism. It’s only gotten worse since then.
As it happens, I was among the graduating Divinity School students in Harvard Yard in June 1978, when Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn presented his Commencement Address, later published under the title, “A World Split Apart.” My special guest was Father (and Bishop-Elect) Maximos Aghiourgoussis, my professor of theology via cross-registration at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. We (and my wife, too), indeed, witnessed two worlds that day: the world of traditional political and religious virtues such as integrity, fidelity to truth, courage, and genuine freedom–epitomized by the Russian prophet himself–and the world of weak, insipid, secular individualism embodied by many of my outraged fellow Harvard students and alumni who stood on chairs and booed and hissed when Solzhenitsyn criticized the benighted U.S. venture in Vietnam not as a case of unjust imperialism, but rather as a failure of resolve and a will to prevail over Communist tyranny. For his bold exercise in speaking truth to power on that memorable occasion, Solzhenitsyn was villified and soon dismissed as a nineteenth century reactionary by most of the American intelligentsia. His perception of the endangered American “soul” a generation ago was prescient back in 1978. But, as you suggest, George, even he hardly could have foreseen the precipitous decline in personal, communal, and national morality that we have had to endure, the interludes of Ronald Reagan and the immediate post-9/11 response notwithstanding.
I see, Father Webster. Reading just a bit between your lines, would you contend then that it would have been “stronger” of us, less insipid and less “secular”, if, in addition to the nearly 60,000 Americans and 2 million Indochinese who were killed throughout the region as it was (not even counting the victims of Khmer Rouge massacres*) — and God only knows how many more who were maimed, burned and psychically/spiritually poisoned for life — we’d have killed or catalyzed the killing of even more people for Jesus (?) and godly “capitalism” — whatever it took, to “win”? Perhaps you’re one of those who’d have counseled the use of tactical nukes there, too. Is that so, by any chance?
Am I correct to assume that you’d also be OK with all the other inescapable consequences of your cheerleading, such as the return to America of even more grievously wounded psyches, haunted for life by what they did there, and what they witnessed? Given your evident zeal for this cause, I’m wondering why you didn’t fight in Viet Nam yourself. You were obviously of age to have done so. But I guess, like Cheney, you had better things to do.
Reagan’s your idea of a morally exemplary political leader and man of God, is he, padre?
*In the view of many historians, an outcome inconceivable absent Nixon’s illegal and unconstitutional carpet bombing and mass napalming of that country and its people, with the maddening social consequences.
Look at the difference, today, between South Vietnam and South Korea.
Mike, if our adventure in Vietnam was so benighted, then why did Vietnam engage in joint naval maneuvers with the US Navy two years ago?
But enough of the fact that Vietnam is now a quasi-ally with the US (fancy that), your enire diatribe is based on several logical fallacies of a reductionist nature. Using your logic the Allies lost WWII because half of Europe was turned over to Stalin.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here: like most “Progressives” you likely have nary a word to say about the one million percent worse atrocities perpetrated by the likes of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. When all is said and done, where did the Vietnamese Boat People migrate to –Cuba or the US? In life, the proof is always in the pudding.
First of all, bravo to Mike Myers for pointing out the sordid reality of Vietnam. No kudos for you George. First, an ad hominem attack on Mike Myers’ comment that we should disregard what he says because he is most likely a “Progressive,” which we already know means a minion of Satan. An then a Tu Quoque argument that our atrocities wasn’t as bad as their atrocities–my conscience feels better already.
Or, you could read Dr Mark Moyar’s book “Triumph Averted,” which is based on first-hand accounts of the Vietnam War.
But, I’ll go ahead and play your game. Since our atrocities during Vietnam offend you so much, I expect you to join those of us who condemn General Wm Tecumseh Sherman who performed even greater atrocities against the South during the War Between the States.
George, I think you mean Triumph Forsaken. If so, you then should read Triumph Revisited: Historians Battle For The Vietnam War which shows where Moyar’s revisionist views are lacking.
And please, don’t drag the War Between the States into this. Your use of that term reflects a viewpoint that certainly could use some revisionist tinkering. 🙂
You’re right about the title. My mistake. But aren’t atrocities atrocities? Or are some more equal than others?
Against my better judgment, I shall call your bluff, George. Please indicate with appropriate specificity just how my “…enire diatribe is based on several logical fallacies of a reductionist nature.” You’re too funny.
I’m all ears.
Mr. Myers, you might consider reading any of my three books on war and peace in the Orthodox moral tradition (and perhaps a few of my numerous essays and articles), and then rephrase your questions with more history under your belt and less histrionics. I might then consider responding.
More history under my belt, Father? What exactly is that supposed to mean? I know a thing or two about history.
The world is already chock full of books and essays and articles, and God only knows how many trees have been martyred as the media for yet more verbose bullshit from whitewashed sepulchres, defending the indefensible while hiding behind a collar and a syllabus. I’ll pass on reading any more of that.
You, however, might consider reading these three sentences, which one presumes are at the root of the “Orthodox moral tradition” you histrionically invoke:
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not covet.
You might consider teaching them, too, teacher.
It’s actually: “You shall do no murder” in the original Hebrew. As for stealing, what is the difference between that and confiscatory taxation? And surely you can’t be serious about not coveting. Where would the Democrat Party and the entire socialist enterprist be without covetousness? That’s their stock in trade.
Right, thanks for the erudite correction, George. So, mass killing’s perfectly OK with the Lawgiver, just as long as it isn’t “murder?” Is that correct? The other two cracks are mostly just more of the typically tendentious and myopic drivel we have come to expect from you.
Mr Myers–Would you please indulge me, a Vietnam veteran, and tell us if your analysis stems from pacifist convictions?
Carl, thanks for serving our country.
Yes, thanks to all veterans who serve our country, but we as citizens have a responsibility to insure what they are asked to do in our names is necessary, and no other recourse is possible except the taking of human life (innocent or not).
Vietnam was not necessary. It was immoral and certainly did not meet the criteria of a so-called “just war.” And yes, my views are tainted by friends and classmates lost in that tragedy.
More pacifist tendencies than settled intellectual convictions as such. Profoundly suspicious of human violence in all its forms, which I’ve noticed is quite badly targeted as a rule, directed mainly at proxies and scapegoats and relatively petty miscreants and vastly overused. Modern mass violence in all its forms entails too much collateral damage to be defensible by rational human beings.
Disciplined, semi-principled violence or the threat of disciplined violence do appear useful in theory, and rarely even in practice, to restrain blatant lawlessness. But I think mercy and charity work far better, generally speaking, to preempt or at least delay it.
I do not agree with your conclusions but I do respect pacifists. Thank you for your considered response.
What conclusions?
I do not agree with “Disciplined, semi-principled violence or the threat of disciplined violence do appear useful in theory, and rarely even in practice, to restrain blatant lawlessness. But I think mercy and charity work far better, generally speaking, to preempt or at least delay it.”
However, I found myself starting to lose interest in argumentation. I rush to assure you that it has nothing to do with you. It is just that I am ramping up to the start of Great Lent, so perhaps we can postpone this discussion until after Bright Week.
Following this logic to its ultimate conclusion would mean the world would be speaking mostly German and Russian at this point and Chinese in the future…
Archpriest Webster wrote:
Tyranny comes in many flavors, Father. Some, like the very nasty outcome of the civil war in Russia, are relatively sudden precipitates of predisposing political tendencies. Centuries of caesaropapism in Russia laid the groundwork for the atheistical Communist tyranny in the Soviet Union, one consequence of a certain mindless overveneration of crude czars as God’s annointed, here an inheritance of the “second Rome.” A most questionable tradition, that one. Especially given the track record of emperors on Earth. No excuse whatsoever for any ignorance about that, for a Christian professing to teach.
Other flavors of tyranny are more gradual in development, and arguably even more ambitious. Globalist neoliberalism, for example.
Mike Myers wrote: “Centuries of caesaropapism in Russia laid the groundwork for the atheistical Communist tyranny in the Soviet Union, one consequence of a certain mindless overveneration of crude czars as God’s annointed, here an inheritance of the “second Rome.”
I have two questions:
1. What were the other consequences of over-veneration of Czars (crude or sophisticated)?
2. Is caesaropapism the only cause of the of the civil war in Russia and the “nasty outcome”?
1. Underveneration of God. Enabling the usurpation by fallible sinners of the prerogatives and power and glory proper to God. Occultation of that power and glory of God. A growing tendency to conflate the kingdoms of this world and its priorities with the Reign of God, to the point that you end up with abominations like Ivan and Peter. And Stalin. To name just a few.
2. Didn’t say it was the cause of the civil war, although I’m sure this political mindset and its social consequences were major factors forming the matrix out of which it came. I said it had laid the sociopolitical groundwork for the “Communist tyranny,” as Fr. Webster phrased it, of Stalin’s rule. My point was that Russia had been an autocracy more or less from its start in the Christianized Kievan Rus on, through the following millenium. This is the overwhelming political fact about the deep structure of this empire in all its permutations, compared to which “communism” or state capitalism or whatever label you care to slap onto 20th century economic and political arrangements, as such, was a relatively superficial, temporal contingency. Stalin was one in a long line of autocrats in a genealogy dating back to Imperial Rome. Autocracy has been utterly discredited historically. One would think, anyway. But some personality types just cannot do without a big bad daddy, apparently. Seems to remind them of someone. This is a serious problem.
This thesis posits what we could call the Zbigniew Brzezinski school of foreign policy that sees the rise of Stalin as inevitable given the Russian character. It divided European Christendom in the Catholic West and Orthodox East and implicitly argued that Orthodoxy itself created the soil in which the Czarism that lead to Stalin as a kind of secular Czar was nourished and flourished.
The problem is that we a very clear window into the culture and time of Russian turmoil through the writings of Doestoevski who described a reality far different than what the thesis declared history to be. We also have Solzhenitsyn who describes the peasants as always resistant to the Soviet takeover even to the point of death. The Orthodox faith, he argued, was preserved in their hearts and mind despite the despotism of Stalin — another point in clear contradiction to the thesis.
Mike, I don’t know if you are aware of this but you are arguing a line of thought that has been largely discredited.
Lots of more or less “secular” czars, Father. Stalin was just their culmination, an incarnate reductio ad absurdum (?) of the caesaropapist tendencies inherent in the very nature of this polity rooted in Byzantium, and behind that in ancient Rome. When things have gotten so far out of hand, of course you get resistance to a tyranny as egregious as Stalin’s. Gulags, mass murders of religious and political opponents and programmatic, genocidal famines tend to make people quite cranky. (And yet there are millions in Georgia and Russia who still revere him, according to modern polls! And the man died in his bed! Amazingly! Very telling, that little fact.)
“It” means what, exactly? The “Brzezinski school of foreign policy,” did that dividing,did it? Surely you jest, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Never said or even implied that Stalin was “inevitable.” I do think that the arguably human tradition of Russian caesaropapism made him possible. It was a necessary but insufficient condition.
The seeds of the weed that he was were always there, sown by Constantine. IMHO. Something was seriously off and from the start. This is obvious to many of us, if not to y’all.
Dostoevsky is hardly the the only window we have into the turmoil that led to the Russian civil war and revolution. And I’m not sure what you’re even claiming by bringing a novelist into this. He had plenty of his own issues, great as he was. What exactly is your point? Flesh it out if you can.
“The peasants” is a gross generalization on your part. “Always resistant,” were they? That is flatly false. Maybe quite a lot truer in the Ukraine, but no wonder.
You sound more than a bit like a reactionary apologist for autocracy, as long as its tenant takes pains to go through all the holy motions. Something of a Putin fan, by any chance? Better than Stalin, I’d grant you that. Or more a western, Altar and Throne nostalgic, maybe, or possibly something hybrid?
Flesh it out? Societies that have become secularized are subject to the same Marxist delusion. It’s a function of the deep structure of their culture. Marxism and its variants draw from Christian teleology and temporalize it.
Dostoevsky saw that. He also saw where it was headed. (So did his atheist counterpart Nietzsche in the West.)
Read my article: Orthodox Leadership in a Brave New World
Russia is coming out of it. America and Western Europe are in danger of succumbing to it.
Fr. Hans Jacobse says:
February 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm
‘This thesis posits what we could call the Zbigniew Brzezinski school of foreign policy that sees the rise of Stalin as inevitable given the Russian character. It divided European Christendom in the Catholic West and Orthodox East and implicitly argued that Orthodoxy itself created the soil in which the Czarism that lead to Stalin as a kind of secular Czar was nourished and flourished.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My thanks to Fr Hans for reminding me of something I heard Brzezinski say in a TV interview about 20 years ago, something like ‘the last enemy we have in Russia is the Orthodox Church’.
For years I’ve tried — unsuccessfully — to track down that quote so I can cite it accurately.
Help! Anybody?
Monk James, the search engine came up with this quote:
“Since the destruction of communism, the Russian Orthodox religion has become America’s greatest enemy.”
— Zbigniew Brzezinski
Jane Rachel says:
February 26, 2012 at 7:35 am
‘Monk James, the search engine came up with this quote:
“Since the destruction of communism, the Russian Orthodox religion has become America’s greatest enemy.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski’
My thanks to ‘Jane Rachel’ for tracking down the correct words, which I’ve since found in several places on the ‘net — each and all of them without attribution.
I myself saw and heard the man’s TV image say these shocking words, so I know it’s really ZB’s own voice and fully in character with his antirussian sentiments.
Yet no one quotes him with a citable location.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but….
Monk James, you can truthfully call me “Jane” without using quotes. It’s part of my name, yes ’tis. Or, I suppose you could write, “Jane ‘Rachel'”… Jane ‘Rachel.” Or, if Rachel were my patron saint, you could use her name after “Jane” without using quotes. Hmm….
Your first point has been a problem in all societies and religions. I suppose the best thing that we can do is to be on guard for undue emphasis put on externals and persons.
Regarding your second point, I believe the same root cause plagued Russia and China alike–both were societies that had not entered the industrial age to an appreciable degree and in each case, a determined, disciplined and aggressive group was able to succeed in overthrowing the existing order. I think that there is something to the theory that Holy Rus was a hallow edifice, especially in the urban areas, as indicated by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfayev) essay, Atheism And Orthodoxy in Modern Russia at http://hilarion.ru/en/2010/02/25/1076. I do not think however that this justifies a wholesale indictment of the Russian Orthodox Church.
I’m not framing a wholesale indictment of anything, much less the ROC. I’m just fed up with priestly apologias and evident nostalgia for modern mass warfare, especially when clothed in soaring words of empty rhetoric. It’s nauseating. Especially to those of us who remember the Finland station. Word to the wise.
Carl, I agree with you that elements in both Russia and China perceived great danger in their industrial backwardness relative to the West and felt an urgency to act aggressively to reverse it — although at the expense of the things most needful in our human life.
I read Metropolitan Hilarion’s fascinating talk that you cited, months ago. I recommend it highly, too. Fr. Jacobse might want to read it, if he hasn’t already. Someone who knows contemporary Russia far better than he is not nearly so sanguine that
What preceded the Destruction is the question that most interests me. All that’s best on paper in Holy Orthodoxy seems like a wonderful vision of a new life in Christ, but to me it’s more a beautiful dream than anything historical and concrete. Has this holy infant ever been allowed to grow? I’m growing skeptical. One thing I’m almost sure of is this: caesaropapism, phyletism, anti-semitism and superstition are snakes in her cradle. Get rid of them, and you might have something. Your problem is that to too many Orthodox, the bath water is confused for the baby.
All blessings to you and yours during Great Lent, Carl.
Mike, don’t you see the contradiction in citing a Russian Orthodox official? Secondly, there is nothing in Met. Hilarion’s talk that affirms the Brzezinski thesis you support, not even a hint of it.
Follow Met. Hilarion’s reasoning, particularly the relationship between atheism and Marxism/Communism. That way you can understand why tyranny not only arose in Russia, but in Uganda, Cuba, China, N. Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia and all other places that believed in the “New Man.” It has nothing to do with national character.
Mike said “…elements in both Russia and China perceived great danger in their industrial backwardness relative to the West and felt an urgency to act aggressively to reverse it — although at the expense of the things most needful in our human life.”
Although this is true, I had meant something else: It was the disparity between town and country that was a major factor. The urban areas had faster lines of communication and greater industrialization, while the other was still very much agrarian and had low to lines. The faithful was in greater proportions in the countryside, but could not communicate with each other, get organized and respond to the revolutionaries. Church members in the towns, going all the way up to the top, had been westernized and had acquired foreign (mainly French) mannerisms and thinking. The high Church was also affected by Roman Catholic theology, and there was a general acceptance of nominal Christianity, akin to what we have in West today. I would say that the church-state entanglement had very little to do with the inability of the Church to cope with industrialization and westernization–lets say with modernity. I think that the Church was simply caught in a stasis and when She tried to do something about it, it was too late. This is where your thesis of forced socialization/industrialization comes in. This deviation from Marxist doctrine was the willful decision by that small number of revolutionaries to exploit the situation and to stop non-revolutionary reforms that may have taken society and Church forward.
I also wish you and all others on Monomakhos a joyous fast. Also, since tomorrow is Forgiveness Sunday, I ask for forgiveness and, as God forgives, so do I.
No, I don’t. A rather bizarre comment.
Why shouldn’t I cite an honest and intelligent churchman who’s actually lived his whole life there and is far likelier to know what he’s talking about than you?
And … another one.
Where to begin. . . Try to stick to a thread if you can. Not citing him to affirm your red herring, the “B. thesis.”
You wrote:
Now, although I can’t be sure precisely what the antecedent of “it” was supposed to be, I assume it was “secularization.” If so, Met. Hilarion doesn’t seem to share your view that Russia is “coming out of it”:
(all emphasis mine)
Tyranny arose in Russia with Ivan IV, Peter I, and Nicholas I, to name only a few of the most egregious cases. Never mind all the model tyrants of the Eastern Empire. Not one of them can be blamed on belief in the “New Man.”
Carl, Prince Noumanoff’s article defines caesaropapism and lays out the case against it and its consequences far better than I could do. I recommend it very highly. It might catalyze a highly meaningful discussion, even here.
A good day to beg forgiveness for giving caesars* what belongs to God.
*et hoc genus omne
Mike, I read the article and about a third of the way through it I came to the conclusion that it is shaped largely by pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic apologetics. It’s an apologia for the supremacy of Rome to counter an emerging Moscow. When was it written, do you know? My guess is that it is at least several decades old. (The article was written by a Russian Orthodox convert to Catholicism.)
The tip-off was lining up Sts. Basil, Athanasius, and other Byzantine luminaries alongside Rome. Another was the assertion that papal supremacy and infallibility was established by the fifth century (the doctrine of papal infallibility was a actually a reaction to the liberalizing and eventual secularization of Western Europe in the latter half of the nineteenth century; papal supremacy in its present form did not start emerging until the mid-medieval period). Finally, there was no mention of Roman struggles of aligning too closely with the state (the Borgias, Avignon, etc.).
Rome, thankfully, has largely moved past such wooden polemics. Read what Pope Benedict had to say back in 2006 to see what I mean:
Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections (The Regensburg Address)
BTW, I agree with the author’s critique that at times the Church was too close to the state, in effect sanctifying politics. But this is a constant danger (Rome, Calvin’s Geneva, Cromwell’s England, and so forth) and not only limited to Byzantium
Cyril Toumanoff. “Caesaropapism in Byzantium and Russia.” Theological Studies, VII, 2, 1946, pp. 213-243.
I’m pleased you were able to get through it (all?). I think it’s quite an important article. I couldn’t help noticing, however, that you’ve contrived to studiously avoid acknowledging its ferociously argued for and thoroughly proven central conclusion, the main point of the essay, which also happens to be the same thing I’ve tried to point out. In my humble little way. In spite of all your (& George’s) characteristic misstatements, willful misreadings, red herrings and other fallacies and none too artful misdirections. It’s very, very hard to avoid the suspicion that this is due to something beyond mere ignorance and incompetence. Nevertheless, I’ll continue to exert myself to hope that’s not true.
You wrote:
!!!
“At times”? Prince Toumanoff demonstrated that
Posted the above too soon, by mistake. Hadn’t got to my point yet, but you can’t delete posts anymore. (Glad the ‘Read all comments by’ thing is back.) I’ll finish the reprimand later.
Mike Myers says:
February 26, 2012 at 9:03 pm
“In my humble little way.”
That’s a joke, right?
“It’s an apologia for the supremacy of Rome to counter an emerging Moscow.”
An emerging Moscow? Isn’t that a very seriously misleading way to put it? The MP was founded in 1689, only to be completely abolished (!) by Peter I in 1725. From the reinstitution of this Patriarchate in1917 until Saint Tikhon reposed in 1925 there lapsed a grand total of eight years or so. For the next two decades it was utterly under the dominion of the Soviet security apparatchiks, which takes us to the time the essay was written. For the next few decades after that, it was a wholly owned subsidiary of the KGB.
Can you explain to me how exactly this Patriarchate, with its short, truncated and profoundly compromised history, was comparable, in any meaningful sense, to the ancient See of Rome? “Emerging Moscow”?
I agree with you that it’s unfortunate Prince Toumanoff chose to pepper his essay with fraught buzzwords such as papal infallibility and papal supremacy. More on that, but it’s late now.
Mike, first it was Byzantium, then all Russia, now the Church under the Soviets. I gave you the Pope Benedict article to show you your history on Byzantium is ill-formed (Benedict is not an anti-Hellenist), and pointed out the Tourmanoff analysis is trapped in the concepts of pre-Vatican II Roman apologetics (you call them “buzzwords”, I call them crippling). Now you set you sights on the Russian Church under Communism.
I told you I agree that whenever the Church sides with state trouble starts. But this is true of Rome and Protestantism as well. You won’t get any argument from me on this point except your insistence that the entire history of Orthodoxy must be viewed through this prism alone. It’s a peculiar view but not uncommon (I call it the Zbigniew Brzezinski school), although the thesis got it start with Adolph Harnack, the German historian of dogma.
You are all over the map Mike, and the only thing that holds this broad historical sweep together is a generalized disdain for all things Orthodox. It’s hard to know what you think exactly. You borrow old arguments and ideas mostly from Roman polemicists, but you don’t offer a constructive thesis of your own.
Mike, your apologia for Soviet tyranny is more absurd than anyghing I have come across in a long time. Like the sociologists who blame the mothers of criminals because they forced their children to eat their vegetables, you are completely oblivious to the monstrous atheism that enabled the Gulag.
First of all, the czars were never as bad as the Bolshevists. Under the Romanovs, there was no death penalty in Russia and it was only instituted after the 1860s when terrorism got way out of hand. In fact, hangmen had to be imported from Sweden (!) to execute terrorists, such as Aleksandr Ulyanov (Lenin’s older brother).
But, let us leave that aside. I suppose you would blame the Orthodox Church/caesaro-papism for the even more monstrous tyranny of Mao?
I’m also going to call you account for using profanity in an earlier post regarding the academic achievements and writings of Fr Alexander Webster. Even if the Orthodox Church had a surplus of renowned PhDs (which it doesn’t), Fr Alexander would stand out as both a scholar and gentleman of the first water. His long years of service in the Armed Forces of this country as well as experience in combat obligate us to restrain our tongues in his presence (as well as Bp Tikhon’s). Both men are veterans but more importantly, it is in the hands of these men and through their prayers that the bread and wine become very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior. That they choose to engage us in repartee and debate is a bonus of this site. I therefore ask all correspondents to treat them (and other clerics, deacons, or hierarchs who participate in this blog) with the respect that their station demands.
This is not censorship but an earnest plea to all reading this that we can at least try to keep a civil tongue. At the very least, I ask that no profanity be used. There’s no need for it.
Even though things get hot and heavy at times, and I for one really love a freewheeling debate, I will thus go back into your earlier post and censor the offending terminology with an [expletive deleted].
Otherwise, all points will be entertained and all arguments will be tolerated. Let me restate this for all: except for profanity, this is and always will be a censorship-free zone.
This is not a reply to George, but this thread about war has become so complex, I will place my comment here.
War is a microcosm of this present world. It is the ultimate manifestation of the battle in which those of this world are always engaged, albeit stripped of the façade of civility that is commonly referred to as peace. For war is the logical extension of the hatred which results from the struggle over wealth, power, and pride – and their reduction to the essential violence thereof.
Those who rightly decry the evil of war need look no further for its cause than the hatred, the selfishness, the lust for power and possessions present in each of our everyday lives. For war, like death and the struggle for economic survival, is the inescapable consequence of our common fall into sin. It cannot be avoided whether we are combatants or civilians. Nor can it be considered “just” from our human point of view, for how is it just that the evil actions or even the apparently justifiable reactions to evil of a few are able to cause the suffering of so many?
The essential violence of this present world made manifest in war can only serve to reveal what is in the hearts of men altogether aside from political motives for armed conflict. War reveals hate and love, selfishness and sacrifice, cowardice and courage, greed and generosity, pride and humility… All the vices and virtues present in our hearts are brought into sharp relief by the immediacy of the danger of death – to ourselves, our loved ones, our countrymen, our security, our way of life.
No amount of rationalization can change the fact that all war is evil. But the evil of war is not external to us personally, something at which we can wave our fingers in condemnation. It is the shared lot of humanity. And like all the evils which the providence of God allows us to suffer in common, it can be used for our redemption or our destruction. It all depends on how we respond to Him in the midst of it. War can never be said to be just, but it can be transformed into a means of redemption through the deeds of just men caught up in its torrents.
I think MM, like AN, is making the mistake of putting all his faith in his own personal opinions and feelings. It’s much, much more complicated for one fallen human being to have it all figured out. Only XC can judge with absolute justice and righteousness and will do so when that great and terrible time finally arrives.
George, I’m sure remedial reading comprehension adult-ed can be found even in Oklahoma. Check it out.
George, I almost hesitate to fracture your touching innocence, but with respect to the historical antecedents of the gulag, you may want to look into some of the hobbies of the very first Russian czar, Ivan (whose wife was a Romanov, incidentally).
He was very, very pious (no monstrous atheist, he!), at least as some of y’all might conceive of piety, and yet he constructed torture chambers in the basements of monasteries, staffed by monks, with the goal of reproducing hell (as he understood it). He used them, too. Stalin’s gulags were ice cream socials in comparison — if on a much larger scale, admittedly, population-wise. You really need to get a clue. Your nearly global igorance is pathetic enough, but to parade it so publically and obsessively . . . this is just clinical. I speak as a friend. You’re embarassing yourself. Work on this.
Incidentally, bozo, I loathe Stalin and all his works. Nothing remotely resembling any apologia for Soviet tyranny from me. Work on being less of a lying hack, too. OK?
Thank you for imputing innocence to me. I’ll try to keep that in mind as we enter the Great Fast. Ivan, for the historical record, was insane because of syphillis and the treatment for it. (They used mercury compounds to treat it. The side-effects were worse than the disease.) His piety wasneither nor there.
Incidentally, the Orthodox Church condemned him because of his multiple marriages and debauched lifestyle.
As far as my being a “hack”, why not try to not kill the messenger? I see that you completely elided my point about Mao who was not an Orthodox Christian. But wait, maybe the emperors who came before him were Christians? Yeah, that’s the ticket, all the Ming, Han, Qing, etc., dynasties of China were Christian and/or completly in thrall to the concept of Caesaro-Papism. That’s where good ole’ Mao got his ideas from. Just like Stalin. Not.
As for adult remediation, I’d like to know from where you acquired your facile, leftist knowledge of history. Aptheker? Zinn? I F Stone? Ever heard of Runcimann, Obolensky? Norwich?
Debauched lifestyle? You surprise me here with a certain flair for the subtle understatement, George. A bit out of character. If I took your word for a thing, which I do not, I might be offended to learn that of all Ivan’s monstrous crimes (and the life of this first czar, the George Washington of Imperial Russia, was a truly stupefying spectacle), the Orthodox Church condemns only his remarriages and fornications. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. (I wish someone in Orthodoxy would hold you to account for this ludicrous assertion. Unless it’s true, that is . . . )
From Ivan IV to the caricature of the monastic mountebank in the disastrous Rasputin, and then “onward” to Joseph Stalin, I’m afraid there’s something very, very rotten here, and to the core, probably. Just what that might be is no doubt complex and up for rational, informed debate, but my point was that “orthodoxy,” autocracy and nationalism is a witches’ brew. I cannot believe my ears when Fr. Jacobse appears to hold this or something like it up as some sort of antidote to the spiritual disease of “secularization.” Dr. J’s therapeutics reminds me of the mercury treatment for syphilis to which you alluded.
This cannot be what Christ intended for His Church and His body. Y’all appear to want to import some modification of it into our seriously ailing constitutional republic. You cannot be serious.
Can you?
You’d be the “messenger” of what? Know-nothingism redivivus?
Your “point about Mao” I ignored as a ludicrous non sequitur, beneath comment like most of your shameless bloviations.
Mike Myers says:
February 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Your “point about Mao” I ignored as a ludicrous non sequitur, beneath comment like most of your shameless bloviations.”
That tells me that MM can’t answer George’s “point about Mao” which happens to be indisputable historical fact.
I see you’ve just removed the capability your readers used to have to read contributors’ previous posts. An interesting development. Does someone smell danger? How astute.
You claim that you don’t censor here, but I can recall a few cases. One post that got tossed post-haste to the floor was a particularly good send-up I wrote of Ann Coulter, after you quoted her risibly incompetent partisan “analysis” of divorce statistics (which I hadn’t even exposed, charitably). That was none too subtle of you, George. It amused me at the time how sly you no doubt thought you were about having discreetly tossed your invisiblity cloak about it. Most gallant of you. I grant it was a bit ad hominem in spots . . .
Looks like intensified prayers are in order for the United States, as well as Greece and all of Europe (Spain, Portugal and Italy are not that far behind Greece) and the entire world. Europe in deep trouble will affect every country around the globe. The rich will get poorer, the poor–destitute, and the destitute–extinct. Lord have mercy!
A swing and a miss…
Greece’s problems are not just from overspending. Sorry friends, but governments require money to operate. Let’s just say customs, for example. None of you find it the least bit interesting that shipping income isn’t taxed in Greece? And you are complaining about Obama wanting to mirror Reagan’s positions on dividend taxation? Well, in light of not taxing dividends in Greece, let’s follow that plan – seems to be working well for them.. ? Or, how about any Athens stock trades not getting a tax treatment?
It appears to me you missed the proverbial 1500 ton vessel.
As for the original topic about contraception. I don’t agree the Orthodox Church has any role in deciding whether contraception should be paid for by a religious institution. The churches cannot impose religious doctrine on non-practising employees. If the church wants to not offer a health care plan, but instead offer the cash, can’t the employee make the right decision. One thing I never understand about the right is the inconsistency of the freedom arguments. I was freely not allowed to get free birth control pills until Obama made it available?
They don’t have to offer health care folks. If they want a religiously indoctrinated health insurance plan for their employees; it ain’t freedom and it sure as hell isn’t religious freedom. The churches really made an argument here where one wasn’t and in so doing, create more reasons for lapses.
“I was freely not allowed to get free birth control pills until Obama made it available?”
Indeed you were. and I was never required by law to purchase it for you. Freedom of choice includes the responsibility to pay for whatever choices are made. If you choose to drink, smoke, operate a motor vehicle, read the material of your choosing, use the internet…whatever, you may; but you may not require others to finance your choices. The financing of choice has never been – nor can it ever be if we are to remain a free country – considered an inalienable right.
If artificial contraception is an inalienable right given to us by God it is one with which He has manifestly failed to endow the human race until the later half of the previous century.
Perhaps He has changed with the times.
This argument is bizarre. I suppose you would agree then the government ought not exist at all. If I don’t believe roads ought to exist, then my taxes there ought not go. If I am against murder as all Christian’s ought, then my taxes ought not finance cruise missiles to attack Cmdr. Ghadafi? Your argument is inconsisten because it is impossible in the presence of government (and sorry, but government is necessary).
In your hasty reference to God Brian; you forgot about his imposition of free will on man and that the free will of man changea the world; sometimes for the better.
But for a moment to suggest its worse with birth control; let’s go with a non-birth control America. Imagine all the children and imagine the tax rates then. If what people are saying is truth, then more abortions than 40 million happened in America because the notion is that anything that stops pregnancy is abortion. So, you are calling my wife a murderer for using an IUD before an after her third child was born? I think I”ll let God make that call because we don’t see a 10 year lapse and another child as that at all. I find the arguments by the right on this subject simply sad.
How about 40 year old plus women? Lots of bad things happen when older women get pregnant. I suppose you would suggest the Byzantine method of birth ctontrol, but the 10 commandments didn’t mesh well with that either.
Oooookay, Daniel. Thank you for your comment. There is not enough time left in my life to refute the grossly utilitarian concepts of ‘truth’ you are expressing here. Hope it all “works” for you.
Let’s see if I understand this. The Church teaches abortion is wrong. The HHS decides abortion is morally acceptable. The HHS decrees the Church has to pay for abortifacent drugs in the insurance policies it provides it’s employees. The Church says no because it violates their moral teachings.
Now why do you say the Church should submit to the rule of the State?
Fr. Hans, is there a distinction between abortion and contraception? I also wanted to ask Brian is there a distinction between artificial and natural (?) contraception?
Yes, but I left that off to make the point clearer. In both cases however, the point I am making that the state has no inherent right to compel a Church to violate its teachings would hold true.
Why you are wrong – respectfully.
If the Churches teachings are bizarre or irrational; the state has no choice but to govern.
If the church decides to pay in chickens, the state says no; you must pay cash. Ain’t true today, but this argument isn’t far fetched really.
If the church decides polygamy is okay, the state says no; you must have one.
If the church decides statutory rape is okay, the state says no; you must abide by age rules.
This has never been about religious freedom. It got twisted out of shape along the way and morphed into a nightmare for the right because the right is splintered and not cohesive today.
Religious freedom in this country has always been freedom from requiring practicising a SPECIFIC state ordained religion. It has never been about religions getting to do whatever the hell they deem appropriate. Everytime any wacky religion tries any wacky stuff, the state must step in.
Only when the state steps in and the wacky stuff isn’t wacky will the religion have legal standing. And on this subject; they won’t.
The deepest sadness is that all our bishops don’t understand this about America.
Mr Fall, the Church being the Bride of Christ cannot teach the heresies you describe in your parade of horribles. That men and women within the Church have taught unfortunate things in the past (monothelitism, iconoclasm, etc.) doesn’t mean that the Church sanctions such. In fact, they are invariably thrown out. It may be only after much tumult, violence, and heartache, but they are invariably thrown out regardless.
It is inevitable, otherwise Jesus would be a false prophet and the Holy Spirit would not be guiding the Church.
Ah, George, there you are. Thanks for the forum; I enjoy posting from time to time, and be glad or it would only be echos. Thanks for a refreshing response; I needed it.
The standing cone of bishops could have done better on this subject methinks.
Natural contraception: Abstain from intercourse during fertile days or abstain from intercourse altogether.
Artificial contraception: Any drug or device that prohibits or inhibits fertilization. These include the pill, the patch, IUD, condom, diaphragm, etc.
Abortifacients: Drugs or devices that can – or are specifically designed to – prevent a fertilized egg (zygote, HUMAN PERSON) from attaching to the uterine wall. These include the pill, the patch, IUD, and RU-486.
That most of the most commonly used artificial contraceptives can also be abortifacient is an inconvenient truth that many Christians, including Orthodox pastors, are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I suggest a Google search of “abortifacient birth control” for numerous sources of documentation.
Brian says:
February 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm
‘Natural contraception: Abstain from intercourse during fertile days or abstain from intercourse altogether.’
This is natural contrafertilization.
‘Artificial contraception: Any drug or device that prohibits or inhibits fertilization. These include the pill, the patch, IUD, condom, diaphragm, etc.’
This is mechanical or pharmaceutical contrafertilization. Ideally, such drugs would prevent ovulation, not fertilization. Either way, although such methods are clearly not abortive, they have side effects which can be harmful to a woman’s health.
‘Abortifacients: Drugs or devices that can – or are specifically designed to – prevent a fertilized egg (zygote, HUMAN PERSON) from attaching to the uterine wall. These include the pill, the patch, IUD, and RU-486.’
These drugs and devices are contraceptive if they prevent implantation of the zygote in the womb, and abortifacient as well, especially if they cause an already conceived (another word for implanted) zygote (embryo) to be dislodged and expelled.
‘That most of the most commonly used artificial contraceptives can also be abortifacient is an inconvenient truth that many Christians, including Orthodox pastors, are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I suggest a Google search of “abortifacient birth control” for numerous sources of documentation.’
We have to be more precise in our terminology. Since conception = implantation, saying that ‘life begins at conception’ allows the proabortion people way much more wiggle-room than the actual biological facts permit. Contraception is a form of aborition, since the truth is that human life begins at fertilization.
Any method which prevents fertilization is not a form of abortion. Oddly, RC moral theory says that only natural contrafertilization is allowed while artificial contrafertilization is sinful.
This is a logically flawed and theologically invalid position: If contrafertilization is intrinsically and objectively sinful, then no method can make it not sinful. On the other hand, if contrafertilization does no harm to mother or child, then it’s morally neutral and a choice which could be morally made by a husband and wife with appropriate medical and spiritual advice.
The current legal wrangling between HHS and the american RC bishops (and their supporters) who oppose the federal mandate to provide insurance for contraception and abortion is laudable but short-sighted. Even churches and church-affiliated institutions ought to provide coverage for therapeutic abortions when medically necessary, as we’ve already noted in the case of high-risk pregnancies complicated by eclampsia and ectopia. Or would the RC bishops just let those women die or impoverish themselves and their families?
“This is a logically flawed and theologically invalid position: If contrafertilization is intrinsically and objectively sinful, then no method can make it not sinful.”
Father, I am not Roman Catholic, but I am fully aware of their teaching, and I think it is fair to say that your are misrepresenting it. Their teaching is that the sexual union of husband and wife is a gift of self, and as such it must be open to the possibility of participation in the procreation of life, that the self-giving of marriage and the openness to the conception of children (with all the sacrifice of self and therefore participation in salvation that this implies) are inseparable. But because sexual union can be set aside for periods of time (as the Apostle writes) by mutual consent and this can only be accomplished through the exercise of the virtue of self-control, abstaining from intercourse is for them the only acceptable means of what you call contrafertilization. This may not be the whole truth of marriage, but it can hardly be said to theologically flawed or completely invalid.
That the possibility-of/openness-to/desire-for the conception of children as the natural state of matrimony has become almost a foreign idea is a very recent human cultural phenomenon, as witnessed by the very words of the Orthodox liturgy of the Mystery of Matrimony.
Rome has gotten many things wrong, and they may well have ‘over-defined’ (for lack of a better word) this one as they are wont to do; but I sometimes wonder if the essence of their teaching on this subject isn’t more orthodox than our own, for there is no question that we Orthodox have succumbed to many modern ideas, often creating our own supposedly ‘theological’ arguments to justify ourselves
(That should be worth a few thousand words from Mr. Nevins. Sorry about that.).
Brian says:
March 1, 2012 at 10:10 pm
QUOTING ME: “This is a logically flawed and theologically invalid position: If contrafertilization is intrinsically and objectively sinful, then no method can make it not sinful.”
‘Father, I am not Roman Catholic, but I am fully aware of their teaching, and I think it is fair to say that your are misrepresenting it. Their teaching is that the sexual union of husband and wife is a gift of self, and as such it must be open to the possibility of participation in the procreation of life, that the self-giving of marriage and the openness to the conception of children.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The classic RC position is (a bit simplistically, I admit) reducible to the notion that, in marriage, sex without love is sinful, and so is love without sex. So, couples may not use in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination to generate children, nor may they be intimate with the intention of avoiding pregnancy. Sexual intercourse is the only moral way to introduce sperm and egg to each other, and anything which frustrates that is immoral. That’s how I, myself, understand the RC position.
By emphasizing ‘must’ in Brian’s statement, it’s my intention to point out that neither the RCC nor we Orthodox forbid the marriage of people who are unable to generate children, whether by reason of age or physical condition.
Yet it’s clear that people in such circumstances, as open as they’d like to be to the possibility of parenthood, are incapable of it. Allowing them to marry seems at least counterintuitive to if not altogether forbidden by the standards which Brian cites here as normative for the RCC. It might even be a sort of blasphemy by those standards.
Therefore, either the RCC’s position is logically flawed and theologically invalid, or Brian doesn’t understand it as well as he thinks he does, for which I don’t blame him. It’s thoroughly incoherent.
Father, you state Rome’s teaching so well, but for some reason you proceed to draw conclusions that are in no way reflective of it. With respect, your conclusions cannot be drawn even from your own well-stated understanding of their teaching.
There is no requirement to procreate as a condition of marriage in the Roman Church (as you stated). There is only the requirement that intercourse be a gift of self, that it not be reduced merely to selfish pleasure (while in no way forbidding pleasure) and be open to the procreation of life should God so deign (the acceptance of parental responsibility also being a gift of self), while accepting that life as the gift of God.
Their teaching neither reduces sexual union to the utilitarian purpose of procreation, nor does it artificially separate it from procreation – as is the case when artificial contraception (or if you prefer ‘artificial contrafertilization’) is used to prevent conception or when in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination is used to create life by artificial means. It leaves issues of the procreation of human life in God’s hands where they belong while refusing to reduce human life to anything other than communion in the love of God Himself. This is why I said that I think we Orthodox can learn from them. Rome doesn’t get everything wrong.
Your conclusion that this is “logically flawed, theologically invalid and thoroughly incoherent” is based upon a caricature of their teaching, not the teaching itself nor my interpretation of it. Even Rome distinguishes between contraception and abortion; they just believe that both are contrary to the will of God and the true nature of man.
For the record, I am not a convert from Rome. I have no ax to grind. But I do believe it is unfair to argue against a position without first understanding it. I quote here from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter – appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.
“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory. Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.
“Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.”
By the way, your “wiggle room” point is a good one, but I think you must have meant it the other way around. Otherwise, your point that life begins at fertilization (or conception – the words are synonyms) and that the prevention of implantation is abortion would make no sense. As you stated, “We have to be more precise in our terminology.”
conception n:
a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
fertilization n:
A process in sexual reproduction that involves the union of male (sperm) and female (ovum) gametes (each with a single, haploid set of chromosomes) to produce a diploid zygote.
implatation n:
The process by which a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining.
Christ is risen! Truly risen!
Dear Friends —
This is going to be — must be — rather long. Please forgive me for that, and give it as much serious attention as you can. It’s important.
And I’m quoting orthodox authorities at the end, with no prejudice toward what RC authorities say, at least when they’re right.
Brian says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm
(cutting to the chase)
‘By the way, your “wiggle room” point is a good one, but I think you must have meant it the other way around. Otherwise, your point that life begins at fertilization (or conception – the words are synonyms) and that the prevention of implantation is abortion would make no sense. As you stated, “We have to be more precise in our terminology.”
conception n:
a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
fertilization n:
A process in sexual reproduction that involves the union of male (sperm) and female (ovum) gametes (each with a single, haploid set of chromosomes) to produce a diploid zygote.
implatation n:
The process by which a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As used to be said before any sort of debate: ‘Gentlemen! Let us define our terms!’
Indeed.
These definitions are wrong, as is some of their grammar. Brian’s assertion that
‘fertilization (or conception – the words are synonyms)’ is biologically wrong and morally perilous. These false definitions depend on some very old and (now proved to be) mistaken notions about human generation.
Long ago (in Europe, at least) it was thought that fathers implanted an infinitesimally tiny but complete human being in the wombs of mothers when they discharged their sperm into their wives’ bodies. From that point on, the mother was considered responsible for the healthy gestation and delivery of that microscopically small human being, called an anthrOpidion in Greek and an homunculus in Latin.
And mothers were shamed and punished if they suffered a miscarriage (‘spontaneous abortion’), as if they alone were at fault. Some of our prayers still reflect this, and they need to be corrected.
These primitive ideas were dislodged only within the last two centuries, as more accurate biological aspects of human generation became known. Modern embryology being what it is, there are many more ways for us to describe the process than the definitions which Brian provides here can accommodate. His definitions are not only out of date WRT our contemporary scientific knowledge, but are morally dangerous because they muddy the waters of christian consciences.
Here are some definitions of what’s biologically right and true:
Fertilization = inception, or the beginning of human life at the earliest moment of a human egg’s and a human sperm’s zygosis, or joining in the unique genetic complement of an incipient human being.
Conception ≠ ‘formation of a
viablezygote’.Conception = implantation, the womb’s acceptance of a zygote.
Fertilization (inception) = ‘formation of a
viablezygote’.Conception ≠ ‘the entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum.’
Fertilization (inception) = ‘the entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum.’
Of all the definitions which Brian provides here, only ‘fertilization’ and ‘implantation’ are correct.
I insist on my original point: The RCC’s teaching that ‘artificial’ family planning is sinful while ‘natural’ family planning is moral is incoherent, since family planning is either sinful or it is not, and no method can change that objective fact.
We orthodox don’t take the position that family planning is immoral, only that it’s less than ideal although it may be a practical necessity in some circumstances, and should be undertaken only with the best available medical and spiritual advice.
Just below, I’m including a bit of correspondence from another orthodox internet group. You’ll see there that I adduce the very real situation of a young married couple.
It was not very difficult for us Orthodox to deal with this, but RC teaching would have to resort to the aristotelian/thomistic ‘principle of double effect’ in order to allow these good people to have a normal sex life.
We don’t bother with that ‘double effect’ business, at least not directly. We deal with the reality as it’s presented, and make difficult choices, relying on God’s mercy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Friends —
At the end of this note, I’m including excerpts from a couple of authoritative
orthodox statements regarding family planning.
In a nutshell, the authentically orthodox catholic christian Tradition
discourages birth control while at the same time making room for the needs of
real people in real marriages. ALSO: Whatever is said here about ‘birth
control’ also applies to a strictly medically defined therapeutic abortion, and
not to abortions performed for selfish and shallow reasons. ( Please digest this
and understand it, and don’t go around saying that James approves of abortion!)
As an example, I’m aware of a young couple who already have one child. His
mother was diagnosed with a disease whose inevitable progression is making it
impossible for her to become pregnant again without putting her very life in
danger. She has to be there for her child and her husband, so her early death
(which would also kill the child she was carrying) is just not an option. This
couple were advised to always use simultaneously at least two methods to prevent
pregnancy. They consulted the best medical and spiritual advice available to
them, and they are humbly living their married life in God’s grace.
So, when circumstances overtake us and we cannot be ideal examples of the
Tradition, we try our best to live with the accommodations we must necessarily
make. But this question of birth control is a serious moral minefield, not to
be negotiated without help from all human and divine resources. These
prayerful, penitential, painful considerations can’t be invoked for casual
reasons such as (usually) finances, physical appearance, job performance, and
other even more shallow excuses. This is not to say that only medical reasons
may be adduced for limiting the number of children in any given family, but that
any other reasons should be just as serious and, we hope, temporary.
BTW: I’d like to urge a little change in the language surrounding family
planning. Human life begins at fertilization, not at conception, which is when
the fertilized human egg (now called a zygote) is accepted by/implanted in the
womb. Several drugs are effectively abortifacients, since they make it
chemically impossible for the zygote to be accepted (conceived) by the womb.
So, from this bit of biology, we can see that contraception (strictly defined)
is actually an abortion. Granted, the event occurs at the earliest stage of
human life, but it’s still an abortion. On the other hand, and mechanical or
chemical process which prevents fertilization, while morally and perhaps even
physically less than desirable, at least isn’t murder.
And, yes, please consult your parish priest.
I hope that this material is of at least a little help to you and to our
anonymous correspondent.
Peace and blessings of the Lord’s resurrection to all.
Monk James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SECTION 1: Undated encyclical letter of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the
Orthodox Church in America (issued around 1970, given the names of the bishops)
http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
H. Birth Control
1. The greatest miracle and blessing of the divinely sanctified love of marriage
is the procreation of children, and to avoid this by the practice of birth
control (or, more accurately, the prevention of conception) is against God’s
will for marriage.
The love of God has been manifested in His loving creation of the world, and the
divinely sanctified love of marriage -a love filled with the life-creating
Spirit-brings forth the fruit of children, to be cared for by parents as the
greatest of God’s gifts – the gift of life.
The Marriage Service establishes an inseparable link between marriage and the
begetting of children. In the litanies, petitions asking for the procreation of
fair children immediately follow those invoking a blessing upon the couple being
joined in the community of marriage. The same relationship is expressed in all
three of the great prayers of the Service. Thus we pray: Give them offspring in
number like unto full ears of grain, so that having enough of all things, they
may abound in every work that is good and acceptable unto Thee. Let them see
their children’s children, like olive shoots around their table, so that finding
favor in Thy sight, they may shine like stars of heaven, in Thee our God.
Orthodox Christians must not allow themselves to be manipulated by the abstract
calculations of statisticians regarding such matters as the population explosion
and the need for birth control and family planning. The Church is aware of the
complexities which can arise in life due to social, medical and economic
problems, but she still affirms that statistics do not reflect God’s loving and
providential care and inconceivable manner of bringing about the salvation of
the world. Preoccupation with statistics can depersonalize us and our
co-creativity with God in the begetting of children. The goal of the Christian
life is the accomplishment of God’s will, which may involve the begetting of
children.
2. In all the difficult decisions involving the practice of birth control,
Orthodox families must live under the guidance of the pastors of the Church and
ask daily for the mercy and forgiveness of God.
Orthodox husbands and wives must discuss the prevention of conception in the
light of the circumstances of their own personal lives, having in mind always
the normal relationship between the divinely sanctified love of marriage and the
begetting of children. Conception control of any sort motivated by selfishness
or lack of trust in God’s providential care certainly cannot be condoned.
(go here for the entire document)
http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SECTION 2: Excerpted from ‘Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox
Church’. Undated here, but issued within the last very few years.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
XII. Problems of bioethics
XII. 1. The rapid development of biomedical technologies, which have invaded the
life of modern man from birth to death, and the impossibility of responding to
the ensuing ethical challenges within the traditional medical ethics have caused
serious concern in society. The attempts of human beings to put themselves in
the place of God by changing and «improving» His creation at their will may
bring to humanity new burdens and suffering. The development of biomedical
technologies has outstripped by far the awareness of possible spiritual-moral
and social consequences of their uncontrolled application. This cannot but cause
a profound pastoral concern in the Church. In formulating her attitude to the
problems of bioethics so widely debated in the world today, especially those
involved in the direct impact on the human being, the Church proceeds from the
ideas of life based on the Divine Revelation. It asserts life as a precious gift
of God. It also asserts the inalienable freedom and God-like dignity of man
called to be «the prize of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ» (Phil.
3:14), to be as perfect as the Heavenly Father (Mt. 5:48) and to be deified,
that is, to become partaker in the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).
XII. 2. Since the ancient time the Church has viewed deliberate abortion as a
grave sin. The canons equate abortion with murder. This assessment is based on
the conviction that the conception of a human being is a gift of God. Therefore,
from the moment of conception any encroachment on the life of a future human
being is criminal.
The Psalmist describes the development of the foetus in a mother’s womb as God’s
creative action: «thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my
mother’s womb… My substance was not hid from thee, them I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest part of the earth. Thine eyes did see my
substance» (Ps. 139:13, 15-16). Job testifies to the same in the words
addressed to God: «thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round
about… Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou
hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews.
Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved by
spirit… Thou brought me forth out of the womb» (Job 10:8-12, 18). «I formed
thee in the belly… and before thou comest out of the womb I sanctified thee»,
says the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah. «Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor
commit infanticide» — this order is placed among the most important
commandments of God in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, one of the oldest
Christian manuscripts. «A woman who brought on abortion is a murderer and will
give an account to God», wrote Athenagoras, an apologist of the 2nd century.
«One who will be man is already man», argued Tertullian at the turn of the 3d
century. «She who purposely destroys the foetus, shall suffer the punishment of
murder… Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive
poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the same penalty as murder», read
the 2nd and 8th rules of St. Basil the Great, included in the Book of Statutes
of the Orthodox Church and confirmed by Canon 91 of the Sixth Ecumenical
Council. At the same time, St. Basil clarifies: «And we pay no attention to the
subtle distinction as to whether the foetus was formed or unformed». St. John
Chrysostom described those who perform abortion as «being worse than
murderers».
The Church sees the widely spread and justified abortion in contemporary society
as a threat to the future of humanity and a clear sign of its moral degradation.
It is incompatible to be faithful to the biblical and patristic teaching that
human life is sacred and precious from its origin and to recognise woman’s
«free choice» in disposing of the fate of the foetus. In addition, abortion
present a serious threat to the physical and spiritual health of a mother. The
Church has always considered it her duty to protect the most vulnerable and
dependent human beings, namely, unborn children. Under no circumstances the
Orthodox Church can bless abortion. Without rejecting the women who had an
abortion, the Church calls upon them to repent and to overcome the destructive
consequences of the sin through prayer and penance followed by participation in
the salvific Sacraments. In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if
her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended
to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in
this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the
Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the
priest who takes her confession. The struggle with abortion, to which women
sometimes have to resort because of abject poverty and helplessness, demands
that the Church and society work out effective measures to protect motherhood
and to create conditions for the adoption of the children whose mothers cannot
raise them on their own for some reason.
Responsibility for the sin of the murder of the unborn child should be borne,
along with the mother, by the father if he gave his consent to the abortion. If
a wife had an abortion without the consent of her husband, it may be grounds for
divorce (see X. 3). Sin also lies with the doctor who performed the abortion.
The Church calls upon the state to recognise the right of medics to refuse to
procure abortion for the reasons of conscience. The situation cannot be
considered normal where the legal responsibility of a doctor for the death of a
mother is made incomparably higher than the responsibility for the destruction
of the foetus — the situation that provokes medics and through them patients,
too, to do abortions. The doctor should be utterly responsible in establishing a
diagnosis that can prompt a woman to interrupt her pregnancy. In doing so, a
believing medic should carefully correlate the clinic indications with the
dictates of his Christian conscience.
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that
of >>>>contraception<<<<. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect,
interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his
life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to
abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already
conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their
attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember
that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely
established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on
egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive
upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth
is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian
spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye
not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give
yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you
not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such
decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should
take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the
couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other
circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high
demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking
care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.
(go here for the entire document)
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
May 24, 2011 08:57:09 AM, orthodox-convert@yahoogroups.com wrote:
I know that this is a very loaded subject, but I was wondering if there are any
written guidelines for Orthodox on birth control besides "Go ask your priest"?
For Monk James: If I got this right, you said conception occurs when a zygote (the result of fertilization), successfully implants itself in the womb’s lining? Is this the point when life begins? If “the pill” prevents ovulation, the producing of an egg, or even in rare cases as some claim, the implantation of a zygote, then why would some say this is form of abortion?
I have difficulty understanding why a married couple’s expression of love for each other through sexual intimacy must be associated with the possibility of procreation. I thought you were pointing out that was problematical for RCC teaching, but then the orthodox material you referenced seemed to infer that as well?
Monk James,
It seems clear to me that you and I are on the same page with regard to the Orthodox Christian teaching, the only difference being your insistence on definitions that are neither current in the English language nor utilized by the Orthodox sources you sited. (This language issue is your personal opinion, and I have no quibble with it. The formal definitions I cited in the most recent post were taken directly from biological dictionaries).
With regard to the prayers of the Church for a woman who miscarries, it should be noted that my daughter-in-law once miscarried. Having a keen sense of the gravity and pain of the loss of a human life that directly involved her own body, she found these prayers to have the kind of profound healing effect that can come only by a thorough acknowledgement of truth. While it is true that those ignorant of the fullness of Orthodox Christianity and the Church’s understanding of sin (which does not always equate directly with personal guilt) might find these prayers hard to swallow, this hardly seems reason to change them. The same is true of virtually all our prayers, most notably the “of whom I am first” that we pray every Divine Liturgy. As one intimately acquainted with the healing that it brings, it is her view that it is better to enlarge our understanding of (and participation in) the Tradition and conform ourselves to it than to change it. I would agree, for our Fathers were much wiser through the Grace of the Holy Spirit than we are today. The problem is not that they were wrong in their understanding of biology; the problem is that we misunderstand their words because we view them through a distorted lens.
I very much appreciated your post and would encourage every Orthodox Christian to take the time to read it all the way through with a view toward repentance (always a positive rather than a negative thing) and the fullness of conjugal married life rather than judgment on the teaching of the Church or anger at her for pointing us to the fullness of truth – and therefore life.
OK, so let’s suggest you are right. Here is some hypothetical fun for you.
Suppose the Crackerjack Company has a policy against paying healthcare for women giving birth. Is that okay, too? It could easily happen. Might be hard to get women to work there, but some would because it was all they could find and they would just plan on not getting pregnant while working there; which wouldn’t be a problem because they did pay for birth control. A time for government again…
The problem with government is that it is needed at all; but it is, and still some don’t understand why.
Let’s see. How about a bunch of celebate men make decisions about what is right for sexually active heterosexual females?
Our religious belief is to pay in chickens, so we can?
Might be time for government.
Really sad.
All the definition stuff later in this thread continuation is dribble because celebate bishops are clearly unable to make sound decisions for women of child bearing age. The context of the entire matter got changed into abortion; not prevention of unwanted children.
If anyone is upset about anything it ought to be all of us for the lack of wisdom shown by the church(es).
It isn’t the secular world deciding what’s right. It is the secular world deciding the only reasonable course.
I find it utterly sad the church couldn’t condemn abortion while agreeing with birth control; apparently they can’t see a difference.
I’m betting the guy we choose to deify would.
Hey George! Did you see the Assembly of Bishops issued a “year in review” press release. It begins with the following quote:
Sounds like somebody does not appreciate having scruntiny brought to bear on the EA. All I can say is congratulations again to all those who have contributed to holding the EA accountable. Its working more than you think. Lets keep the pressure on.
I hope there can be a rapport established between the EA and the rest of the Church in America. I don’t want there to be an adversarial relationship if it can be avoided. It appears they noticed and appreciated the positive reaction to their statement on the mandate, but you can bet there will be others who will try to squelch this kind of witness in the future. Let’s try to encourage the bishops as our leaders and fathers, and not appear to be constantly critical and unsatisfied with the Assembly’s work.
Helga, your critique is on the spot. We should (me especially) try to encourage them as our “leaders and fathers.” Lord knows, I think we all started out that way but maybe a little prodding and then –and yes, honest criticism when they deserve–may be the trick. Time will tell.
The report is here:
http://assemblyofbishops.org/news/releases/feb2012yearinreview
I note that it’s official name is now Assembly of Conical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America (ACOB).
Conical bishops? Is that so they won’t lick their stitches?
Oops!
Helga says:
February 23, 2012 at 6:55 pm
“Conical bishops?”
Oops!
Haha. Sorry, it just brought to mind my neighbor’s dog with one of those cones around his neck.
Odd . . . I was thinking of those folks from Saturday Night Live (from the days when the show was still good) . . .
(Me too but didn’t want to say it.)
Our parental units in Christ… our archpastoral units.
Ah yes, Metropolitan Savas. If you’re looking for direction regarding the interface of our culture and our faith in these turbulent times, you can do no better than visit “Living in the Logosphere” (dot com), the official blog of the Office of Church and Society, whose editor is none other than the Director of said Office, the good Metropolitan.
Luckily, His Eminence is a social media genius. Unfortunately, most of his media geniusing appears to be directed to his Facebook page, since this blog has not been updated since July of 2010. Still, the postings are revealing. I list them all, with my own quick, dirty and unfair synopses. You should read for yourselves what the bishop wants us Orthodox faithful (and curious seekers) to ponder to help guide us through the Church/society minefield.
“Science and Democracy: Dumbing Ourselves to Death”: Too bad Mr. Obama has to try to explain complex issues at a 7th-grade level, due to lack of ability of most Americans to comprehend at a higher level. (Posted by Met. Savas)
“The Merchant of Venice”: Anti-Semitic or About Anti-Semitism?”: Review of theater production in NYC. Not anti-Semitic, just anti-capitalist. (Posted by Met. Savas)
“Obama tells Britain no hard feelings over oil spill”: BP needs to fix the problem, but warm constructive Obama doesn’t blame the UK itself, since BP is a global corporation.
“EP Bartholomew Visits Russian Church”: Russian political leadership likes the Russian Orthodox Church again. Dialog is a good.
“EP Bartholomew’s Message for World Environment Day”: Greedy developed nations are wrecking it for everybody
“Abp Demetrios convenes first Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs in North and Central America”: Links to text of speech and photos.
“Abp Demetrios Receives an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Notre Dame”: He does indeed, just one year after Obama did!
The short video “That is Greece!”: Boats, sea, birds, babes (both marble and genuine), temples, churches, bouzouki, boy scouts, booze, olives, mountains. Lots of blue.
Martin, apropos of your comment about science (Savvas’ actually), the Obama administration is perhaps the most unscientific and ahistorical one ever.
This in no way is to be construed as a political endorsement. That is not the point being made. In last night’s Republican debate you heard one of the contenders speak of transforming the government model by re-thinking it from the bottom up.
Obviously our current government model is broken and does not work. It needs to be transformed (reformed) or replaced with what will work. It only makes sense that when something important no longer works that you change it so that it does work. Is what I am saying comprehensible? Is there any Orthodox confusion in what I just stated?
The political contender in last night’s debate said the following, ‘…if we are prepared to repeal the 130 year old civil service laws, go to a modern management system….”
I find it interesting that most Orthodox reading this would agree that our government model is not working and that it needs to be changed to what works more efficiently and effectively. If such changes do not take place we all know that America’s future is in serious jeopardy. These Orthodox also agree that America is designed to work from the bottom up, as an open system and with limited government size and power and control. They know that America works by not being a church/state system of top down power and control and that we threw that system off for good reasons.
We repealed King George and brought about change that worked better than his system did. When America did that we paradigm shifted the world and just like the Jesus of change paradigm shifted the world.
Both changes were positive for the better of us all, right?
Both changes made rational sense considering what they were advocating needed CHANGE, right?
Both of those needed changes required the RISK of SACRIFICE to make the change, right?
Both were revolutions to change that cost life, right?
Both of those changes required vision and innovation to make the change, right?
Both of those revolutions to change by innovation led to greater RELEVANCY, right?
I also find it very interesting how many EO who support this party know that this party is all about less top down centralized government power and control. They would agree that larger and more centralized government power and control is not helping us move forward. If find it fascinating that the EO can connect those government model change dots, but they cannot connect similar dots about changing the model of their church that no longer works. If they don’t change their system their outcome is as obvious as is America’s if it does not change its system.
The politician in last nights debate who advocated government model change also spoke directly to what top down and centralized power and control leads to over time, did he not? He said it eventually and over time leads to TYRANNY. Did any of you who support this party disagree with what he stated in these regards???
Orthodox, do you know what socialism and church/state have in common? They are both state systems that OWN YOU and therefore PROMISE to take care of you. (Is this what happened to EO Greece?)
What do the EO have to REPEAL to move forward with relevancy and effectiveness in modernity?
When the Orthodox with open transparency can come to see their church model failure in the real world of modernity maybe then they will stop the denial of their church model failure and change that model to relevancy in the generation it is found in. Maybe after they figure out the serious consequences of loosing youth and not attracting youth by irrelevancy they will consider changing their failed model more than proved not to work. Maybe when they come to the conclusion that unity around and based in hierarchy corruption is false unity and pure failure they will demand change to what works as the true unity of God. This is so uninformed, out of context and incomprehensible I doubt if most of you will not understand it, right?
Anyone with eyes can see that American government needs to change. Without the ability to change we will run ourselves right into ground. With the ability to change we have both the opportunity and the positive mind set that we can change to the better and away from what no longer works. The ability to change is hope. The inability to change is hopelessness. Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a church system of hope and a church system of hopelessness by their outcomes in the real world of modernity PRESENT. If you live in the past you will not recognize the present reality. I promise and all of my promises to the Orthodox come true. All of them.
If we did not have the ability to change as a country would that encourage us or discourage us?
If we believed we were Gods only alone right and one true nation state based in a church/state theology would we really ever change? (Ex: ROC circa 1917 stopped working) If a church was based upon that same theology would it ever really change away from that to modernity relevancy with a modern model of church that actually works? (Ex: EOC America circa 2012 stopped working).
I see right through the Orthodox corrupt church failure that is top down and centralized power and control church/state theological TYRANNY not held transparent and accountable by the powerless Orthodox. Yes, I fully understand your delusions about yourselves as you are found in this state. You all actually believe this tyranny is Gods only alone right and one true church. Tyranny of this kind is nothing less than mind control by that tyranny and that keeps that tyranny in power and control.
Do you know how America stopped the tyranny of top down church/state power and control? We threw them out by revolution and went opposite by becoming bottom up. You see Christ doing the same thing with the Sanhedrin in the Gospels. Christ came to replace them and in effect He came to throw them out by revolution. He did not replace them with the same kind of leaders or with the same SYSTEM. He knew that would be circular without solution and only lead to nothing being relevancy changed by it all going back to the same by no real change of system. He came as opposite to what He replaced to draw the stark comparison, replace what no longer worked and to warn all us to not turn ourselves into what He replaced.
All of you also believe this tyranny is the role model and example of Gods only true church standard that measures the spiritual correctness of other churches to your church to determine the level of their correctness before your church and God. That is delusional to think that and to make that comparison when you are tyranny as God and salvation.
Tyranny church = A corrupt, failed, irrelevant and demising state of church that spiritually abuses and spiritually abandons itself to death from centralized top down power and control. That is a Sanhedrin like church.
Relevant church = A holy, successful, relevant and growing state of church that spiritually raises you up by decentralized humility and service from the bottom up. That is a Christ like church.
Yes, I know nothing I have said here is comprehensible and it makes no sense. What is open system and bottom up is not understood by what is top down and closed system. You see the same inability to comprehend in those Christ confronted.
Christ came to us as least expected. He was expected to come as the centralized top down power and control God king ruler to set the Jews free from Roman top down state dictatorship tyranny. He came to us bottom up and open system humility and service and so He was not recognized by many as the Christ who revolutionizes and transforms by paradigm shift to relevancy from the open system bottom up.
Its really simple Orthodox. An open system that is bottom up is inclusive. A closed system that is top down is exclusive. Which one did Christ come to us as by comparison to the Sanhedrin in the Gospels??? Which model of system works by humility and service and which one was found in corrupt failure without solution by power and control?
He did not come to implement a top down centralized power and control church/state system. To believe that He did is delusional by His not coming to us as that or by His not advocating for that in the Gospels. God in Christ repealed the top down and centralized power and control religious system by how He came to us. The more a church system operates the opposite to how Christ came to us the more tyrannical it becomes over time. The more tyrannical it becomes the more irrelevant and dying it becomes. The more tyrannical it becomes the more Sanhedrin like it becomes.
There is simply no way a corrupt church is not a tyrannical church and there is no way that the more tyrannical it becomes the more it kills itself by that tyranny.
Ashley Nevins
Ashley, Christianity is not a ‘bottom-up’ faith. He came down from heaven and all good things come down from heaven. He took on our nature and raised it up so that we might be able to follow Him. In any organization there has to be a point of focus and a few decision makers. No organization, secular or religious works. Hierarchy is a fact of life built into the very warp and woof of creation.
Now there is no question that our hierarchs need to be more like Jesus ministering to their flocks and rightly dividing the word of truth. We actually have bishops like that. They are wonderful to be around.
Without hierarchy in the Church, anarachy insues — one of the reasons that the relevant Protestants have, what 39,000 different denominations. Ultimately in that world comes down to: “It’s you and me and Jesus and I’m not so sure about you” eccelsial mentality. That is not Chrisitianity, that is nihlism.
The Church has never been relevant, it has always been prophetic challenging the status quo and offering something different. We still do that although with a far too muted voice.
In any organization there has to be a point of focus and a few decision makers. No organization, secular or religious works. Hierarchy is a fact of life built into the very warp and woof of creation.
Yes, I suppose you are right. Christ came to us as top down, centralized power and control, closed system and as the Roman state dictatorship merged with Christ as one. He came to us a corrupt and tyrannical totalism church/state dictatorship power and control to replace the Sanhedrin that was none of those things. He was also circular without solution to His corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying state that He called church unity. That’s exactly what the Gospels tell us. How could I have missed that?
Yes, I see that nihlism annihilating the relevancy of the church that is not Gods only alone right and one true church. It is nothing more than mission and evangelism failure here and in the new mission and evangelism field of China. I do not claim this church perfect. I just claim it relevancy in comparison to your failure by irrelevancy. The perfect church is Gods only alone right and one true church that by its perfection determines how imperfect other churches are in comparison to it.
Anyone with eyes can see that the EOC is God sent to us to reveal to us by comparison to it how wrong all of us not of this church are in comparison to how right it is. We all know God uses corrupt failure to lead us into relevancy success. I know this must be true by the EO acting this out as their church. Yet, I have not seen the relevancy success their model claims to be. Will that be coming here sometime in the next 200 years? Just wondering.
Thank you, for your Gods only alone right and one true standard of comparison that determines them failed in comparison to the state of your church. If it was not for the Orthodox comparison I might find myself involved in a corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying church going no where in this modernity generation.
Failing forward to success is not the same as failing backwards into irrelevancy. Failing forward to success is the risk involved in change that leads to relevancy. No risk of failure and you will certainly fail. No risk taken and no return on that risk taken. The zero risk church looks all shinny and pretty for it not making mistakes or experiencing failures by the risk taken. However, if you look below its shinny and pretty surface it has a zero return by its growth. It believes its relevancy is not to take risk that could make it look bad if the risk taken does not work out. It believes unity by corruption is better than dividing over that corruption. So, instead of divide and live in new holy unity it remains the corrupt same and dies by unity by corruption.
What, you don’t believe, for instance, that the GOA hierarchy is not unity by corruption? You can’t see the corrupt laity unifying itself with the corrupt hierarchy thus turning the entire church into a corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying church? You can’t see the system of corruption that is its unity by corruption? Corruption as unity in the world works. It is called organized crime. It is a highly closed and top down system of corruption ruled over by power and control. When that same type of corruption is found in the church it is unity by corrupt tyranny over all. It holds you together just like worldly organized crime is held together by corruption. Yes, I know, I don’t mince words. That is a sick church dying.
You completely miss the point. The hierarchy is built upon power and control by top down closed system. Christ came to us built upon bottom up open system of humility and service. Yes, I know you see it differently. Gods physical location in heaven to you means He came to us as top down power and control. However, I see it differently by how He came to us physically in the Gospels.
He did not come for the Sanhedrin hierarchy by priority. He came for the regular people at their top down power and control rule abused and rule abandoned bottom. He met them at the bottom by priority. He did not meet them at the Sanhedrin orthodox top. He met them at the humility and service bottom to raise them up from the bottom up and away from what was power and control rule pressing them down.
Read Philippians chapter 2 and then turn that into Roman church/state dictatorship to prove that is how God rules in heaven and then how He came to us from the top down to turn Christ into that Roman church/state dictatorship. Christ rules by spiritual holy Lordship in heaven and that is not carnal man Roman church/state dictatorship rule. One form of rule is based upon humility and service and the other one is based upon power and control. You can claim to be Gods correct church authority on planet earth, but if you operate by corruption and do not stop the corruption I know exactly who is the real power behind that authority. No, it is not God in rule. It is His opposite in rule.
Ahhh, relevancy is what confronts and challenges the status quo and that is exactly why the EOC is found in a corrupt state of irrelevancy failure status quo. There is no real relevancy that leads to change confronting it from within it. The top down power and control authority has stolen the bottom up humility and service authority and you go corrupt to your core as a church for it.
You can point out those problems, faults and failures of other churches, but that is not going to reverse the failure of your church. You can make this about us vs them. But, I see it as us vs. us. In other words, I see it as, Orthodox vs. Orthodox. No one but the Orthodox are the cause of the Orthodox failure. Those Protestant church failures you point out have led to thousands in church attendance in my city. There are about a 100 who show up to the Orthodox parish and it has been in my city for 55 years. In reality, that is all I had to post back to you to make the point.
Now do the Orthodox typical and deny the facts, proofs and evidences brought to you by talking about those other churches and don’t talk solution to your corrupt church failure. That is the BEST you got for solution and it is no solution. The best solution you have is no solution, and that is the state of your church. Keep talking to make my point. That point is simple. Either you change or you die. Dying in this context is dying in a survival existence state of irrelevancy. You can all believe you are relevant to yourselves and like that matters in the larger picture of your finding relevancy outside of yourselves. Yes, I know how you think. If it is relevancy to you then that means it will be relevancy to those outside of your church. How is that thinking working out?
Oh, but, you say the church has never been relevant, but instead it is prophetic and challenging the status quo. If you do not believe the church has never been relevant then it never will be relevant and that will be your outcome as a church. It’s this simple: How your church thinks determines its outcome (Its in the NT). Was that a prophetic statement? Did it challenge how you think?
Call your church muted and not dead. If it is just muted that means it still has life and it just needs to start speaking out more to correct that problem. There is no complete systemic failure taking place in Orthodoxy. No, no, no, it is only a problem of being muted. However, the obvious outcome of this church is not muted. It is screaming corruption to its core.
All you have to do is look up the word ‘relevancy’ in the dictionary to see its meaning and how that meaning can be used. Paradigm shifts to positive change are always based upon relevancy replacing irrelevancy.
Yes, keep thinking like you do about relevancy and see how relevant your church is in just one more generation here. Give it another 20 years or so.
You can disagree and remain with the same failed model that leads all of you by its tyranny over you all. That is your mind controlled by tyranny choice. Anyone who can think freedom in Christ for himself knows the difference between God as humility and service as church rule in comparison to God as power and control as church rule. Freedom in Christ is freedom from the tyranny of power and control mind control to know the difference and avoid what is not of freedom in Christ.
Ashley Nevins
White man speaks with forked tounge
Just so I (at least) can understand just what’s at issue here with all this ‘relevance’ stuff, I’d be very grateful to Ashley Nevins if he’d BRIEFLY bullet-point list the characteristics of a ‘relevant’ religion and maybe name a few churches which meet those criteria.
He won’t even if he could.
I expect better of him, as should we all.
The ball is in his court.
Ashley, this fit you to a “T”:
BUSYBODY BIBLE STUDY
Did you know that if you’re a busybody, you’re against Jesus?
So it’s a good idea to find out what a busybody is and avoid being one.
What is a busybody?
Let us seek the answer within the Bible …
BUSYBODY BIBLE WARNING
BUSYBODY BIBLE STUDY ON BUSYBODY BIBLE DANGERS WITH BUSYBODY BIBLE MESSAGE
Anyone who volunteers their services (usually opinions) where they are neither asked nor needed … They are meddlesome, intrusive, obtrusive, tactless, prying, annoying, exceeding the bounds of propriety in showing interest or curiosity or in offering advice, offering unwelcome attention, they are offensive, interfering, and/or inappropriately inquisitive.
PS: Source: http://www.christianityoasis.com
I printed out Ashley’s latest secretion and tacked it to a cork bulletin board and threw a dart at it. Thank goodness it hit a short sentence! Here it is;
“What do the EO have to REPEAL to move forward with relevancy and effectiveness in modernity?”
Does anyone want to move forward with relevancy (SIC) and effectiveness in modernity?
Moving forward in modernity….
Has the secreter never, perhaps, heard of post-modernity? Isn’t “modernity” irrelevant and non-effective “an sich?”
This is as rich as declaring Friedrich Nietzsche to be the opposite number “in the WEST” (!!!!) of Fyodor Dostoevsky.. I personally always found Nietzsche to be more Oriental than Dostoevsky…One was a novelist and the other was a philosopher with little if any interest in fiction or tale-telling.
Ashley Nevins sets as a goal “to move forward with relevance and effectiveness in modernity.”
Does anyone know if one can still get Sal Hepatica or Carter’s Little Liver Pills?
This Nevins gives me the absolute Pip!
If you are tired of Metropolitan Savas’ subtle facebook games and his subtle swipes at Catholic Hierarchs. If you need some refreshment, Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh hits a grand slam with this article and offers a clear contrast to Metropolitan Savas.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12050/1210918-109.stm
Its not how many facebook friends you have but how you lead……..
Well, the Roman Empire did have poor rulers. But unlike Communism, Roman Culture was conservative, changes in Roman government took decades sometimes. Also, Roman culture preferred the wealthy classes to the poor ones. Most of the reforms in Rome that favored the poorer classes in terms of debt and government represention took placed in the Republic period. The free and reduce bread was only available in the larger cities of the empire to prevent food riots since the Roman economy had an underemployment problem. Roman politicians never supported getting rid of private property or adovcating the working poor to overthrow their betters.
In our times anyone can be an expert, a theologian a hierarch What we need to do though is to sit at the feet of Christ rather than blubber our mouths without any evidence. Especially with hierachy that we just do not know…. It is wise this lent to do more prayer and less blogging….
George–I heard today that the latest HHS rules, this time regarding the federally established insurance exchanges, requires $1 of premiums to be set aside for abortions.
The cost of the greatest legislative boondoggle in American History is already projected to be at least twice the original projections which were all smoke and mirrors as any thinking person would have realized. The extension of federal power into every corner of our lives is also unprecedented.
Reality: When the privacy law HIPPA was passed massive documentation was required that was supposed to be up and functioning within 18 months of the law going into effect (2004). Well, guess what? Most providers are only now getting to the point of actual compliance. The cost of the compliance is a significant factor in the rising cost of health care.
The even more massive exchanges that Obama is love with will be a joke, are a joke just another utopian pipe dream that will drive the costs up even further and more rapidly and that’s if they even remotely work. They are supposed to be integrated with the IRS who will administer the fines and subsidies that are an integral part of these exchanges. We exchange all of our personal information to the government for what? Bad, costly coverage as well as obesience to the all mighty state. The “progressive” agenda will be fueled in all its un-Godliness. Abortion, sex change operations, sterilization, and euthanasia (first passive by restricting care of the elderly–eventually active). The cost of treating Alzheimers is high, and having such non-productive people around restricts the rights of others. The cost of treating cancer is high (Medicare already does not pay for many of the most successful protocols). The list goes on.
We need unmercinary healers now more than ever.
Now there’s a really good bargin!
ObamaCare:
The efficiency of the Postal Service.
The sustainability of Social Security.
And all the compassion of the IRS!
This “free” healthcare nightmare is currently estimated to cost taxpayers $1.76 TRILLION, twice was originally claimed. Of course, in another few years expect that to double yet again.
Actually Chris you are being too kind.
It will be drastically less efficient than the U.S. Postal Service, far less sustainable than Social Security, and sooner or later a Kervorkian clone will be running it with no recourse. At least with the IRS there is recourse to the courts.
It is neither free (in any sense of the word) nor does it have anything to do with legitmate health care.
But, hey, no matter how bad it gets it will be either the insurance companies fault or the Republicans.
Can anybody say “death panels”?
One dollar. No big deal.
What does this have to do with us? it’s only those crazy Catholics and rabid right-wing fanatics who insist on objecting to this so-very-reasonable, insignificant demand. The government isn’t promoting abortion only contraception, don’t you know. We can go along our merry way without any worries. They can’t change our Faith. They can’t force us to have abortions.
After all, it’s just a pinch of incense. Why not make a minor sacrifice to the state and to Molech (that wretched demon of old whose worshipers are determined to make him the God of the state)?
With such conviction they have no need to change our “faith.” Only when we are weeping in shame by the waters of Babylon decrying the fate we have brought upon ourselves will we finally repent of our damnable indifference.