It’s Called “Autophagy”

They say the Greeks have a word for it. In this case, the word is autophagy, which comes from two Greek words: auto (self) + phagy (eating).

We’re seeing quite a bit of it lately. Basically, it’s what leftist revolutionaries do when they attain power. They devour each other. The image most often associated with it is the Greek god Chronos eating his own children. The reason he felt so compelled is because he castrated his father, Uranus, and he didn’t want to take a chance on one of his sons doing the same.

To be sure, they usually come after us first. Steven Crowder is merely the latest casualty.  Alex Jones got the Tolerance Treatment back in August of last year and since then there have been other victims of Thoughtcrime: Candace Owens, Kanye West, Diamond and Silk, and so on. Sometimes death-threats are hurled. Mostly it’s social ostracism. Either way, the Crybullies are nothing if not effective.

Unfortunately, because they are inspired by a demonic rage (there, I’ve said it!), they can’t help themselves. So now they are going after each other. A reliable liberal like Joe Crowley was defeated by their Warrior-queen Alexandria Occasional-Cortex. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand threw Bill Clinton under the bus because of #metoo. And now American Jews, one of the most devoted voting blocs of the Democrat Party, have been underbussed by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, two of the other avenging angels of the Democrat Party.

Infanticide is now dogma within that Party. I imagine that soon, we’ll be building large statues of Moloch in the town squares of Blue states where real-live infants can be thrown into if Ralph Northam gets his way. That this will deplete their ranks in the long-term is beyond their ken. The demons they worship have excessive demands which must be met at all times, no questions asked.

There are many examples of this, indeed we suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The most recent one involves Ronald S Sullivan, Jr, who until very recently was the Dean of Harvard Law School. (Note the word “was“.) Sullivan was recently thrown out of his esteemed (and one would assume tenured) position at the most prestigious law school on the planet because he committed Wrongthink. You see, he thought that since he was a lawyer he could abide by his profession’s canon of ethics. Things like serving on the defense team of an accused criminal. Unfortunately for Sullivan, there are criminals and then there are “criminals”.

Sullivan was asked to serve as legal counsel for a certain Harvey Weinstein. You see, Weinstein, though a man of the left had become a “criminal”.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Harvey Weinstein is a miscreant and reprobate of the first water. There is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of sexual assault and harassment. It’s long been an open secret that he was the preeminent practitioner of the proverbial Hollywood casting couch. And when he couldn’t get his way with pretty young things, he had no hesitation about ejaculating into nearby potted plants.

Regardless, he deserves the presumption of innocence and due process. Period. All accused people deserve this, at least in an ideal world. We gave it to Charles Manson, to Leopold and Loeb, and to Carroll Chessman. Surely Lady Justice will not have her luxurious toga sullied by a defendant as notorious and non-lethal as Weinstein.

Due process, on the other hand, wasn’t given to the Kovington Katholic Kids who were smeared by liberals and cuckservatives alike. It was damn near taken away from Brett Kavanaugh –and would have been if the Senate Democrats had gotten their way. You see, we conservatives have been used to getting borked going all the way back to, well, Robert Bork. Some, like Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, were able to sneak out of the carefully-laid traps set by the enemies of liberty. But not most of us. The vast majority of working stiffs who are to the right of Cesar Chavez on most issues have long known to keep their mouths shut in the workplace. Some, perhaps many, have lost their livelihoods because they took on the shibboleths of the Ruling Class.

I’m sorry folks, but anyway you cut this, this ain’t liberty. Remember that the next time you turn on the news and you hear some anchorette say that “the president of the United States is the leader of the Free World”. Maybe in the platonic ideal but not on the street. Truth be told, perhaps we as a species aren’t meant to enjoy a life of freedom. Perhaps the “American experiment” is just that: an experiment. One which is doomed to fail.

As Christians, we shouldn’t be surprised since we believe that the world in which we live is a fallen one. And we should always keep that in mind. Andrew Jackson’s believed that our Union was “for once and eternal”; the Israelis assert that Jerusalem is likewise their’s for eternity. Both propositions are wrongheaded, to say the least. Not merely misguided but close to blasphemous as well.

Nothing is eternal, save God alone. Thus a little humility is in order.

As for our present circumstances, the issue of Sullivan’s defenestration goes beyond economically inconveniencing a wealthy lawyer and academic. It portends worse things on the horizon and that still should concern us, even those of us who are Christians and who are cognizant of our fallen nature. What we are witnessing today is basically mob rule. At the very least, I’d say we’re just two clicks away from full-on actual anarchy or at least a Brazilification of our society. The irony, of course, is that Ronald Sullivan is no doubt a political liberal, as is Harvey Weinstein, one of the biggest donors to Democrats. Chronos, meet your kids.

I am rather curious as to what causes so much rage among the hard left. We first saw it during the French Revolution which quickly devolved into a Reign of Terror. Likewise during the Paris Commune (which thankfully ruled for only two weeks in 1871) and of course the Bolshevik Revolution, which unleashed a bloodletting that spread to Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere. As these unfortunate regimes no longer exist, there seems to be a limiting factor to such evil. Evil, after all, is a parasite and thus it has no ontological existence of its own and therefore can only live off of good (which is its host). Once the good is destroyed, then so is evil.

This gives me some hope that eventually it may exhaust itself sooner rather than later here in America and that it may never rise to such internecine levels of violence.

Then again, I could be wrong.


  1. Bashful82 says

    Not sure where to post this but Metropolitan Nikitas of the Dardanelles has been chosen to succeed Archbishop Gregorious in Great Britain.  Can anyone shed anylight on our new archpastor?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      With respect to the complaint against Dokos (I believe it was dropped to a misdemeanor) that says Dokos spent more than $110,000 writing checks outside the terms of a trust, there is THIS:  “The Chicago Tribune has also reported obtaining documents showing that about $10,000 of the trust funds were given to high-ranking church leaders in the Chicago archdiocese (which includes Milwaukee): Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos and Metropolitan Nikitas Lulias.”  Don’t know if the expenditures were legitimate or not.

      • Gail are you not openly shocked and disgusted by what yr  info u posted, says?. As I read about money, large amounts,  extravagant life style and rest, I felt an increasing sickness and revulsion to them all. Utter distaste. 
        Do they not know what they do?. 
        Gail DO YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS BLOG ACTUALLY BELIEVE THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD?, except in the way the priest and deacon in Tolstoy’s Novel, ‘Reserrection ‘ did, as a good livlihood. I PUT IT TO YOU ALL. 

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Nikos, even demons believe in God. I have no idea what these people believe.

          If you are asking my position on gay pride, I can tell you I have come out strongly against it. Please look at my most recent 3 remarks below. How anyone could construe that I support it is a mystery. That being said, I see same-sex attraction as a form of brokenness. We are ALL broken in different ways to varying degrees. I see acting on same-sex attraction as a sin. We are all sinners. When people act on their brokenness by holding hands in public, it makes me uncomfortable. When people hang off floats, cavorting down the street in scantily clad sexually explicit costumes and solicit the participation of children as drag queens, I am incensed.

          My comments just in the past week. . .

          1. When gay pride parades was compared to St. Patrick’s Day. . .: “I have had lots of experience with St. Paddy’s day, Marti Gras and spring breaks. Probably more than you have. What distinguishes these activities from gay pride parades are that its participants are not getting in anyone’s face. Gay pride is all about getting attention and when you do, you seem surprised that we don’t care. We don’t care because we know that this kind of obnoxious behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with being gay. There is a cost to being so outrageous: it’s being ignored.”

          2. When George was criticized for saying something about same-sex couples holding hands, I said: “I think George’s point was that gay people holding hands is nothing in comparison to EVERYTHING ELSE. The “holding hands” thing will need to be explained to a child when s/he reaches an age where they can understand the behavior in its broader context. One would hope we would also teach them that not one of us is without sin and in terms of brokenness, we are no less guilty than the people who “hold hands.” We wouldn’t want our kids thinking their own sin is somehow less odious to God.”

          But the “EVERYTHING ELSE” is different. It’s an affront to our senses and these people do it on purpose. They WANT us to turn away in disgust so they can accuse us of being indifferent to their “special” needs. – I’m sorry. I don’t want to see kids performing as drag queens. I don’t want to see genitalia in the street or the obscene gyrations of people celebrating debauchery. That’s not something that can be explained to a child, . . . ever.

          3. I’m not even sure what I was commenting about here: “Some pushback?! Are you kidding me? It’s in our face 24/7 and I’m not talking about gay couples holding hands. It’s become an unrelenting circus. You’re making children into drag queens and telling us that we’re at fault. This isn’t about hand-holding. It’s an onslaught to the senses and to try to package it any other way makes you disingenuous when it comes to any meaningful dialog.

          • Gail sorry  point of my comment was slightly missed I think, as refering to yr gay stuff which not meant.   What happens with english as contextual and not case sensitive language. 
            My comments were relating to the bishops. And yes perhaps even Stalin, near death,  did fear God.  
            But re gay pride etc.  I agree with you.  I also think it’s counter productive in wider community acceptance as well. And yes the boy drag queen?  If he was found in monastery being monk, there would be world wide outcry!!  
            Gail I always find yr mails informed and thoughtful.  Keep them coming. 

            • Gail Sheppard says

              You don’t need to apologize, Nikos! Thank you, always, for your kind words.

              • Thanks.   I just find it so so sad that where ever we look in the Church we see corrupt Men and love of money. The love of money I put above the Sex actually, but how can we offer the Church to the young when they see this.  And obvious hypocrisy in love of position,  the best places at the Banquet etc?   

          • Gail Sheppard says

            Pride parades.

          • saunca: “Here’s the thing about being gay…. no matter how many times that person confesses that they are gay, there is no “opposite” thing to practice at or shoot for. ”
            As far as I know there is no such thing as confessing “being gay”. I do feel sorry for people who have problems of such magnitude, not because I am Christian, but because I have a soft heart. What I learned from Christian teaching was something else, that it is not a good idea to judge others.
            We need to remember that promoting Christian principles, or rather the Old Testament code as a universal rule for the whole society was a side effect of the Constantine revolution. Before that, the “gay” and transgender emperors and fellow citizens, were getting  recognition from the Christians who were sinful themselves.
            Every or almost individual has problems, Christ gave us the ability to deal with them, but they do not go away easily.
            We (me and my wife) had a close and good friend who was a devout Catholic and who struggled with homosexual urges, he was able to resist temptations for a few month and then was falling down (usually by going to the “gay bar” and indulging in you know what). In the end he died because of acquired disease, at relatively young age.
            I do not know what to say to you. Possibly a good spiritual father might help, if such can be found?

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Being gay is not a sin. The sin is having sex outside of marriage. This goes for everyone; not just gay people so I don’t think it’s reasonable to ostracize or make gay people out to be any more sinful in this regard than any other group of people who struggle with the same thing. What’s concerning is to normalize it. It would be cringe-worthy if we were to promote having extramarital affairs by having parades with floats!

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Saunca, having sex outside of marriage has become part of our culture. Sex is expected during the dating process and when you’re in a relationship, it is a given. Economics push our kids into moving in together before marriage. The poor, seeing no legitimate way out of their dilemma, are motivated to push out babies, without the benefit of marriage, to go on welfare which is why we have so many “baby mommas” and “baby daddies.” Even older people are choosing not to get married because they will be forced to live on less. So it’s not just gays having a hard time with the “bar being set so high” in the Church. People of all ages have to confront it for a variety of reasons. However, it is not incumbent upon the Church to change, nor is it even possible: it is incumbent up the individual to conform to the Church and accept sex outside of marriage is a sin.

              One can pray for many things, but to be heard, one must pray for God’s will, understanding it is not God’s will for a person to live a broken life. One can, however, pray that God, in His mercy, will help the individual in their struggles to conform to the Church. I believe God would honor that kind of prayer.

              I have seen no evidence that conversion therapy works outside of a handful of antidotal stories so that’s probably not the answer. One can pray, but once entrenched, it becomes pretty hard to change one’s sexual preferences so that’s probably not the answer. One can marry a member of the opposite sex but it would be pretty disingenuous to enter into a marital relationship if you can’t meet the sexual needs of your spouse so that’s probably not the answer. LEAVING THE CHURCH is definitely not the answer.

              When people become sexual they have to make choices, Saunca. Even at 14. They have to choose the Church, as is, because the Church won’t change and that includes no sex outside marriage. It’s not a death sentence and heterosexual people face the same dilemma. For example, I’m divorced and there is no guarantee that I can ever remarry in the Church. I am not overstating this, either. The Church is now frowning on second marriages. Even if I were allowed to remarry, I wouldn’t get the crown ceremony so that’s out. But because I choose to live within the Church’s boundaries, I must accept this. Even if I were allowed to remarry, there would always be those within my family who would not accept my new spouse and people within his family that would not accept me, because it represents a change to what they know. In other words, heterosexuals face rejection, too. So no matter how you identify, gay or straight, the road is hard. The grace comes with the struggle. The solution is to learn how to live a meaningful life without sex outside of marriage.

              Oftentimes it is the families of those who are gay who have the most angst. They don’t want to see their kid suffer. I get that. But kids DO suffer. My son suffered and then he died. Trust me. This is NOT how I wanted this to end. I would have given my life to save him.

              We want our kids to grow up and have the nice things that we associate with a happy life: health, marriage, a family, a home, sufficient income, etc. The truth is that not everyone is able to achieve these things. You probably know people who never married, people unable to have children, people who are sick, people who have been in accidents, people who have lost their jobs, people who are mentally impaired . . . people with all kinds of problems that preclude them from living every aspect of the happy dream we want for our children. That does not mean their lives are not worth living.

              The Church does not “have something in place for a gay child” so s/he can have sex outside of marriage. If a parent REALLY wants to help their child, they will help the child understand: (1) that being attracted to the wrong sex does not mean they have to leave the Church, (2) the child will be expected to struggle against acting on it, (3) if they fail, they will have to go to confession, and (4) one does not have to have sex to have a satisfying, meaningful life.

              Your Teta is right. Being gay is nothing “new” and it is traditionally addressed between the person and the priest. As a parent, we have to trust the process and encourage our child to stay in the Church.

              With regard to gay pride parades, I would strongly discourage my child from participating in them because people judge you by the company you keep. Being associated with that lunacy could affect their livelihood.

            • Constantinos says

              No, Saunca, your points are not well taken at all. Why not just come out and say you want the church to bless same sex marriage?  The very idea is odious and repugnant. There is nothing gay about the gay death style. There is nothing wrong with celibacy. If a person is gay, they are called to a celibate life style. Your post just goes to show how self obsessed people are in this day and age. Let me be perfectly blunt: I do not want to share the cup of our Lord with a man or woman who has had a penis in their mouth.
              How many times do I have to say this? The rectal sewer of the body was not meant for sex.

            • Martin a thoughtful imput.  I wish more on this topic were so. 

          • Great valid and kind points, Cheryl! Thank you and most needed, especially at this time in our society.

            • Saunca I’m nikos in Bulgaria.  I read yr posts and replies with attention. And feeling.   My career was in mental health and psychology.  I have worked with many gay people of whom some are friends and managed them as staff.   I made no distiction, why would i?   
              All of what u say is true.  Where the conversation goes wrong in the Church is for me founded on  two errors. 
              1/  While there will always be individual cases,  it is not possible for people to change GENUINELY SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  I quite openly say any claim to opposite is false.  It is possible to deny, to compensate but I cannot see how a life time of denying what one ontologically is, can do any good. The answer is it does not. There is no choice.  I did not have a choice in being heterosexual as far as I am aware. How God made me!! 
              2/    The Church fails in not making a distiction between what we are, gay or Straight , AND HOW WE LIVE IT.   U would not make the case for being  heterosexual from the really pornographic way heterosexual life is flogged today, would you!?  Same sadly with homosexual life style;  they have gone down the same sad road, with same rising mental health costs. 
              GENDER IS NOT fluid. It’s fixed at Birth.  We may express being that gender in different ways, depending on Culture and role and  genes,  and family, but we will be either male or female.   Now there are some individuals who are caught in the middle as it were,  and they need support and help and maybe in end for a few surgery, to resolve it. 
              Same as orientation, pretty much fixed. Professionally I have had patients who knew at age 6 that they were gay as it were.  There is no trauma involved. It is just how it is for them. 
              For a gay person it is perfectly normal.  HOW GOD MADE THEM.  I would say to those who do not like it, fine.  but reality is reality.  You need to separate the individual from any potential life style.  When i see Men paying for young girls in Thailand,  etc. I feel ASHAMED as a heterosexual male. But it’s the life style.  
              You have said it all so i have no need to go on  .  Ido not have an answer that would not put me  outside the Church as it seems to be going.?  
              I wonder if we have forgotten Christ for whom there were not, gays or adulterers in front of Him. But the individual failing PERSON, who we all ARE,  who He addressed.  We have forgotten Christ and become part of rhe evangelical protestant Culture wars with it’s rigid lines and clossed minds to love. This is part of the problem. Too often the Church sounds and looks hypocritical.  
              Thank you for yr posting and you have my support. 

              • Nikos: “My career was in mental health and psychology. I have worked with many gay people … it is not possible for people to change GENUINELY SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I quite openly say any claim to opposite is false. ”
                I do not agree with you. I reject the recent notion in medical community that the change IS NOT possible.
                My position is more subtle, I do not claim that it IS possible. I am convinced that this issue is not resolved and remains open. Unfortunately in such controversial questions scientists submit to the political pressures. As a result an honest research is next to impossible these days – it might be severely penalized.
                Maybe in the future or in another culture.

                • Martin, I know 2 people who have changed, one a man and the other a women. One is married with a family and the other is not. Their changes occured several years ago. 

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Much of what passes for the psychological sciences is open for debate. As is all scientific endeavors for that matter. Science is never “settled”.

                • Look every case as every illness is individual.  There are people who have other issues around Sex etc that with help resolve so i do not doubt yr stories of these people and they  can make a heterosexual life. But there are people who cannot do that.There is much research in this and I know many clinical cases. And there are bisexuals of course, although every bisexual has a prefered Sex. 
                  And of course cultural male sexual relationships in arab,  persian and Turkish society as well as in Japan traditionally.  And Sparta and classical Greece and Rome. where to be the active male was fine!! ? .   There is much research long before this became fashionable etc. And i agree. Today people, especially with gender, afraid to speak out.
                  The current LBG etc etc lobby claim gender is fluid. It is not. Nor is sexuality,  it’s expression yes of course varrying with Culture,  age and fashion, but gender per se not, apart from certain individuals who need help and support. 
                  You will end up like these people, when you saying orientation is flexable. Well that is their arguement with gender!!  Welcome to the club. 
                  As to science,  well research as u should know is never done to prove anything, but on a ‘ null’ hypothosis each time.   All we can claim , as with the  earth going round the sun,  is that it did yesterday and did today but until it does we can ONLY ASSUME IT WILL TOMORROW.  

              • Monk James Silver says

                Here are a few thoughts on the subject of sex and gender which I’ve developed through my study of languages.

                Only recently has ‘gender’ come to replace or be considered an equivalent of ‘sex’, even in clinical vocabulary, and strictly for politically driven reasons.

                This inaccuracy has now lent itself to the absurd assertion that there are more than three dozen ‘genders’, mostly defined as the various ways in which people express their sexuality. But this is a serious error in taxonomy and unhelpful in relating to people whose temptations lead them outside the patterns of male-female married life, as traditionally understood.

                To clear up this misuse of language, it would be good for us to return to the simplest definition of terms and stabilize our vocabulary, so that we can all communicate better. In this light, then, we observe that there are only two sexes, male and female.

                (Although there are a few species of fish and amphibians which occasionally switch sexual functions, but that seems to be the result of inherent characteristics brought forward in conditioned circumstances, and not at all the same thing as a ‘sex change’.)

                But. considering only human beings, and leaving aside the rarely encountered phenomenon sometimes called ‘intersexuality’ in which someone is born with ‘ambiguous genitalia’ or external characteristics of both sexes, we must acknowledge that there are only two sexes, male and female. This is a fact of biology despite those rare genetic irregularities.

                On the other hand, there are four genders. Not thirty-eight, only four genders: masculine, feminine, neither, both. This is a grammatical concept, not a biological one, and it refers (at least in English)primarily to natural gender. A rooster, then, is male, and so is described as ‘he’. A hen is female, and is called ‘she’; her chicks are not generally known (except by experts as either male or female, so are ‘both’. An egg (except to experts) is not thought of as being of any sex, and so is ‘neither’ (neuter).

                In languages more highly inflected than English now is, the gender of nouns is more extensively reflected not only in pronouns, but in adjectives and sometimes even verbs. In Russian, for example, past-tense verbs, expressed as they are with a participial forms, require gender just like an adjective.

                As it is, though, some of the ‘genders’ we’re no being asked to acknowledge are mere excuses for outrageous behavior, and this is starting to look like the inmates are running the asylum.

                Rather than concede this important point, it would be better for the larger culture to kindly disagree with the proponents of such aberrations, and lovingly bring them back in toward the center of real life.

                But — no matter how great our disagreement with such people — we must not hurt them, not physically. not psychologically, and certainly not spiritually, but rather give them the opportunity to be gently healed and improve their lives.

                This effort requires us to refrain from knee-jerk reactions, reserve judgement, and share the faith and love of God which sustains us all in our own weakness.

              • sauca thank you.  Like you I see there being   two nightmares, on the one hand the current sick and angry LBG etc etc zeitgeist that rules the roast promoting all the worst aspects of commercial heterosexual sexuality,  Gay pride etc etc and  like mirroring extreme femininity that thinks being like a man is being equal. A bit like a black person using whitening cream. Sad!!  On the other the rejection of people for WHO THEY ARE. That is what gets me. NOT FOR WHAT THEY DO, BUT FOR AS BORN. And treating them as pariahs.  As for telling them to be celibate all their life. I won’t even go there. Would I, could i have been celibate as a heterosexual all my life if i had not married? For me No.  YES some people can, many can’t. But it is not Sex per se but emmotional involvement we all crave and need. As the certainly next British PM , Mr Johnson will tell you!!!  ( and his two abortions forced on partners) 
                As i mentioned earlier my own godparent’s  son  is a priest,  in Greece now, who was in Uk and then ‘ sent’ to Sweden,  who is gay. 
                How did I learn? When he turned up to be treated at a sexual health central London clinic where i was then placed as part of my study. Was quite funny really. He had given a false name and occupation as teacher.As happens he was a good dedicated  priest but it is these self same ‘ hiding behind the robes’ frauds who then denounce and preach. 
                I do not have a clear answer.  Except to separate the current cultural wars of raving bigoted fearful attitudes on one side, and the superficial current gay zeitgeist that uses wish and sociologically as scientific fact. 
                I know several basic facts. I had no control over my sexuality and most homosexuals over theirs.  
                Men in various cultures have had Sex with Men and do now, and often in Cultures with the most taboos as Iranian etc,  or prison or military,  while being basically heterosexual,  but this a separate issue.  Most studies have the homosexual element in population across the globe at about 4%.  This is fact. All through history 
                What is new of course is the denial of the heterosexual basis of society and the concept of male and female for political and sociologically driven reasons. 
                We should just keep Christ in mind and that he only saw, THE PERSON, in front of Him. Not an entity, but the person.. We should do the same. 
                Take care. 

          • Cheryl, thanks. Gail, you don’t have to look.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Oh, I disagree. The whole intent is for me to look. I look. Our children look. The whole world looks. They’ve made a parody out of their lifestyle, all the while failing to realize that they are turning off the very people who might have otherwise been sympathetic.

              The LAST thing I would tell my gay child is, “Go out and make an ass of yourself so you can win friends and influence people.”

              Being gay is becoming (but shouldn’t be) synonymous with being ridiculous. No one takes a scantily dressed person gyrating around, seriously. I don’t think these people even want to be taken seriously. Too much responsibility. They want the rest of us to accept their version of outrageous as “normal.” Instead, it has a perverse effect. People look at them the same way they crane their necks to see a traffic accident: as something horrific you hope never happens to you.

              The spectacle has backfired on the gay community. The cause is all but lost in the lunacy of the display. Can you honestly look at one of these parades and say, “Oh, THESE people should be given more respect. We shouldn’t ostracise them or make jokes. They’re just like us.” No.

              • I guess Saunca did respond to you, Gail, when she wrote, “The Orthodox Church is failing these people so badly that I don’t know as we currently have a right to judge what any gay person is currently doing at a pride event.”  

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Having been denied marriage in the Church myself I can say three things with authority: 1. what has failed is our culture that atomizes community and corrupts everything holy or tries to and glorifies death while maximizing opportunities for pain and angst.   2. Obedience to God out of love does more than any amount trying to fix the Church; 3 Trying to “fix” the Church is just so She will respond the way each if us wants to is more of the same acid that the culture produces to destroy.
                  Most of all obedience is not always easy or nice or pleasant, in fact it usually involves pain but it is the way of life.  The temptation to see death as the surcease of sorrow is a lie from the pits of hell and an expression if utter selfishness. I say that too as one who was deeply tempted to that path when I was young. 
                  I work in an area that has a lot of homeless people (for my town) Some of them are suffering deeply but the ones I have had the humility to interact with have a gratitude for life that keeps them going. The professional beggars are another story.
                  I am much more like the professional beggars, the Pharisee in the Temple and the Rich Young man than I usually care to admit.  

                  • Michael in the Constantinople churches ANYBODY who marries second and third time gets the full works. I have attended second Marriage in Uk with full wedding service. 

              • But we **are** just like them, aren’t we? All in the same condition? Does it help “them” to rail on about “them” here, or does it help you more? I’m sure I am about to find out.

                • It should be noted that what some here are railing against is not homosexuality as such, but LEWDNESS, of which there is far too much tolerance regardless of the particular perversion involved.

                  “…in lewdness is decay and great want: for lewdness is the mother of famine.” 

                  • But what good does it do? Does it help anybody?

                  • Brain exactly and this lewedness runs across all society. 
                    Singers today, especially female as Taylor Swift etc have turned their performances into soft porn presentations.  It’s not erotic. We live in the most unerotic age going. It has reduced Sex to a background noise that sells everything. And its money that rules. 

              • I just remembered the times I was with Youth With a Mission during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. We were out on the crazy streets talking to the people (“them”) late into the nights and called it friendship evangelism. It’s a great way to love people. 

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Yes, Beryl, and I’ve had people like this living in my home: clean beds & 3 meals a day

                  Craig: 15-year-old whose parents didn’t want him – 2 years
                  Felix: 18-year-old who had been in a school for troubled kids since he was 12 – 2 years
                  Cindy: mother of 5 whose husband divorced her – 6 months
                  Rosalinda & 2 children – going through a divorce – a few weeks
                  Amy: borderline personality disorder – 2 years
                  Taylor: Amy’s 4-year-old son, 2 years
                  Raylyn: pathological liar among other things, 9 months
                  Melissa: gay – 2 years
                  Jason: parents didn’t want him (became a cage fighter, from what I understand) – 6 months

                  There may be others I’m momentarily forgetting but the point is it is foolish to presume you know me. You don’t. I am far from hard hearted and I have made it clear that it is not the sin that makes me sick (we are all sinners); it’s celebrating a lascivious lifestyle I detest.

                  Who the heck let a youth group mission go to a Marti Gras? That’s ill-advised, don’t you think?

                  • Okay, I “presumed” to know you, which makes me a fool, which I are, and makes me do something I am not doing.  I don’t presume to know you, not one bit. And now YWAM is “ill-advised,” which it isn’t. The numbers reached by YWAM are countless and worldwide. Loving works on everybody. Railing against their lifestyles doesn’t.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      If you feel the need to instruct someone on what something is or isn’t, you are being presumptuous. BTW, I have never “railed” against anyone about their lifestyle. You’re being presumptuous about that, as well.

                      I suspect YWAM doesn’t send “youth” (under 18) to Marti Gras but I will check and see what they say.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      I heard back from the YWAM regarding whether or not they sponsor a youth outreach for Marti Gras.

                      From: Help Desk
                      Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:57 PM
                      To: Gail Sheppard
                      Subject: Re: Question


                      The requirement for our entry level school is that the student must be a high school graduate and at least 18. We do offer short term outreach for those under 18 but they are in teams led by YWAM staff. Also, everyone under 18 must have parental written permission especially if the trip requires flying.

                      YWAM is a de-centralized organization. YWAM does not have one main/central office that covers the over 1,800 YWAM locations in over 180 countries. Each YWAM location is unique and separate from each other. My best suggestion is ask which YWAM location is to have done this and contact the leadership of that YWAM location to get the facts.


             Help Desk
                      I’m a YWAMer, part of the global Help Desk Team.
                      I’m located at YWAM Orlando ( or 407-273-1667)

                  • To “rail” is to “complain or protest strongly and persistently about.” But if you have never railed against anyone (your words), then replace “rail” with “criticize.” Loving works better, is all I was saying.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      And I share the same understanding. But what was I “railing” against? Was I railing against human beings who are LGBT!@# or was I railing against the behavior we see at gay pride parades?

                  • Gail, were you foster parents?

                  • Well, yes, I was in YWAM from 1983-1987, in Texas, Guatemala, Mexico, Namibia, and South Africa, and traveled in the U.S. quite a lot. I’m not sure what your point is about whether YWAM sponsors youth or not, but there you go. I’m glad you heard from them!
                    At the Mardi Gras outreaches there were so many people who were outwardly “flamboyant” and “lascivious” and not dressed entirely, but inwardly they were sad, and that’s where I was going with this conversation. We reached out to them in a friendly way, offered them what we could in the way of food or guidance in terms of steering them in directions they could accept, and accepting them for who they were at that point in their lives. Inwardly sad people will do many things to try to belong, to get people to see them, and to find a way through the mire that is life. It just seems unnecessary to criticize their outward behavior when it is their insides that count.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Well, it’s good that you took the time to get to know them as individuals.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I get uncomfortable seeing women breastfeed in public but that doesn’t mean I’m judging them or that I haven’t done it myself! We’re talking about the lascivious behavior associated with gay pride parades.

            We’re also not talking about the Church. The concern in the Church is having sex outside of marriage. 45.2 percent of all U.S. residents age 18 and older are unmarried. Only 4.5% identify as LGBTQ$%. So “gays” are not disproportionately suffering in the Church in this regard.

            Are some people in the Church prejudice against gays. Sure. But we’re talking about people in the Church; not the Church, itself.

            Is every heterosexual able to marry in the Church? No, for a myriad of reasons.

            Living a sacramental life in the Church is not easy for anybody, Saunca. If the bar weren’t so high, what would we have to reach for?

            • Gail Sheppard: “I get uncomfortable seeing a woman breastfeed but that doesn’t mean …”

              It is a little off the topic, but I have to make a point. Breastfeeding is normal and noble and was for countless thousands of years with us (shall I say millions?) . Only recent artificial “culture” with artificial milk formulas and corporate commercials and over-sexualisation of breasts made it disturbing and weird.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                The point is one can be uncomfortable with seeing a variety of things for a variety of reasons. I am aware that breastfeeding is normal and noble. I did it when my kids were young. But it still made me uncomfortable because in this country you don’t see it a lot. I mentioned it to make a point.

            • M. Stankovich says

              “Are some people in the Church prejudice against gays. Sure. But we’re talking about people in the Church; not the Church, itself.”

              As I recall the childhood “truism” taught to me by my Russian grandmother (a side note to the argument, “Do laypeople have a blessing to give?” some of my most blessed & reassuring moments as a child was occasionally awakening to see the silhouette of my grandmother saying here evening prayers as she walked through the house, checking the doors, concluding with her coming into the shared room of myself & my brother, where she made the Sign of the Cross over us before she went to sleep): as you interlace your fingers inward you say, “Here is the church”: extending your two index fingers upward in an inverted “V” you say, “Here is the steeple”; and you conclude by opening your hands to show all your interlaced fingers as you say, “Open the door, and here’s all the people.” A lesson ( even a child can grasp. Only by the grandest of rationalizations can you separate the “church” from “some people.” It reminds me of the observation of the Metropolitan (name escapes me) who was the Dean of the Moscow Theological Academy immediately prior to the revolution, “Evil is in the very walls of this institution, and so pervasive is this reality, that the only solution is to raze it to the ground and start over.” As Vladyka Tikhon said here so many times, “What an idea!” To say, “some people in the Church [are] prejudice against gays” is like saying Russia’s history (rampant to this day) was only slightly permeated by anti-semitism.

              Recall the situation when the Lord entered the coasts of Tyre & Sidon, only to be met by a woman who “cried after him,” to heal her daughter. His disciples were so outraged that they cried to Jesus, “Send her away. She cries out after us.” The Lord responded in a dramatic way: “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24) This would further explain how his disciples, panicked that they could not find him, discovered him seating among the sick, the poor, the rejected, and the most despised people living. In effect, everyone around Him was unclean, and whose simple presence disgusted the members of the Temple. “And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said to his disciples, How is it that he eats and drinks with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he said to them, ‘They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.'” (Mk. 2:16-17)

              I spent too much of my professional career surrounded by murderers, serial child sexual predators, those who tortured other human beings simply for amusement & pleasure. They literally provoked visceral responses from me, and on a day I knew I would be assessing, say, child sexual predators, I was literally nauseous. Finally, Fr. John Meyendorff had heard enough of me and gently rebuked me: “You are looking at them with your eyes, not the eyes of your heart. While they may have obliterated the likeness of God in themselves, nothing can obliterate the image of God in them.” Frankly, I was embarrassed, because long before that I had committed myself, as a clinician, to the principle “instill hope,” and I had fallen so far short of this principle, but far worse, the Gospel itself. I had to change, even in an environment where the truth had no value, and criminals were guided by the principle that I was presumed a sucker until proven otherwise; and I had to prove “otherwise” every day.

              My point here is that it is easy to become like the Pharisee and “defend” against admitting a common humanity with anyone I judge loathsome and despicable. Personally, I found it excruciating to manage the interfering feelings of compassion and empathy, when sitting with a sexual predator who told me his first act upon parole was to buy a pair of handcuffs. I believe I literally held my breath until he explained the cuffs were for him to attach himself to an immovable object should he be tempted to harm a child. All I could think of for days was how it could be possible to live with such uncontrolled passions. I certainly did not “justify” his actions – could he live long enough to fully repent of the harm he had done to children? – but I did not despise him. 

              Finally, I ask anyone to emphathize with an individual who is same-sex attracted, who has dedicated themselves to a life of repentance, self-control & purity (σωφροσύνη), and struggle to follow the narrow path of our salvation, to imagine coming to a site such as this – with the banner above adorned with the image of Life-Giving Cross of our Savior, and read yourself derided to as a “homo,” a “fag” or a “tranny” and read just how despicable “these people” really are to the people who post here. In effect, everything you are, and everything that makes you human & unique, has suddenly been stripped away and you are nothing more than an “aberrant” behaviour, disdained in the house of the Physician. Then tell them, “We’re talking about people in the Church; not the Church, itself.” I will suggest that you are only fooling yourself.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                RE: “. . . the grandest of rationalizations can you separate the “church” from “some people.”

                What I said was there are people IN the Church and there is the Church. The distinction is important because people IN the Church have free will and do all manner of things that are inconsistent with what the Church teaches. If you can’t see the Church beyond what people do, then you’ll lose sight of it and find yourself saying, “So and so did this so I don’t want to be in the Church.” It’s a mistake to confuse the two.

                No one is “defend[ing]” against admitting a common humanity with anyone” and I have never judged anyone as “loathsome and despicable.” In fact, I have gone out of my way to say that, LIKE ME, practicing homosexuals are just broken and their particular brokenness is not more or less significant than mine. The funny thing is, I REALLY believe this. At least give me this, Micahel: Look back over what I said.

                While I have compassion for people, I do judge their behavior, especially if it flies in the face of what they’re trying to do. Just ask my daughter and the many kids I helped through their various transitions in life and they’ll tell you I was very much a “mom” in this regard. I loved them and I wanted them to succeed. One of them, however, didn’t make it farther than Season 8 (I believe, could be wrong about the season but it was the premiere), Episode 1 of Dog the Bounty Hunter. Can you imagine what a shock it was to turn on the TV for some background noise and see a kid who lived with me on a bounty hunter show?! As an aside, even Dog liked this kid and kept in touch with him. I emailed the show and they assure me that Craig was a good kid, just lazy. The cumulative effect of not showing up in court was his downfall. I believe they helped him get all that straightened out. Last time we talked, he was the desk manager at a hotel.

                Speaking of behaviors, you admitted that some of the things the people you work with have done provoked a visceral response in you to the point where you wanted to throw up on occasion. I get it. I really do. Are we really so unlike in this regard, Michael?

                And, again, speaking in terms of behavior, if you were to tell the promoters of these parades that I find dressing up a child in drag with people gyrating around in costumes on floats, lascivious and over the top behavior, they would think, “Great, we did our job.” I think it hurts the gay community, though. That’s just an opinion.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  While I initially quoted you to make a point, my comments were not addressed to you in specific, nor were they a “critique” of what you did or did not say. To clarify, I find myself, again, in a position where I purposely engage in a paranoiac process of carefully selecting my words…

                  I began posting my responses to comments regarding homosexuality on this site in 2011 that reflected my complete disinterest in politics & conspiracies, and they were nearly exclusively limited to the specific area of emergent research findings related to the relationship between genetics/epigenetics and human behaviour. I specifically & emphatically stated that it was not my intention to “normalize” this behaviour – or any human sexual behaviour, for that matter – that was outside the context of the sanctity of Christian Marriage between one man & one woman, and that nothing I presented was contrary to the Holy Scripture, writings of the Patristic Fathers, writings of the Fathers of the Councils and the Canons, the Liturgical Canon, or our Holy Tradition. If anything, I indicated that my intention was to reduce the stigma & shame in anyone struggling with this podvig, that might prevent them from seeking – as Fr. Georges Florovsky described it – the “House of the Father” and our Lord, the only true Physician. Despite my sincere effort to solicit correction if I was in error, no one has ever corrected me as to the substance of my argument.

                  Instead, the response I received is documented in the archives of this site (predictably questioning my sexual orientation, and so on), but suffice it to say that it was epitomized in a series of emails I received (anonymously) through the UCSD School of Medicine, vigorously accusing me of being a “child molester and a pervert.” When that was done, I began receiving anonymous ”background checks” of some individuals who posted on this site: every phone number & email account associated with the poster, driver’s license reports, license plate numbers, arrests & court proceedings, financial data, school records, etc. And worse, similar records for any of their children identified in the initial report. Wow. This was the icing on the cake of accusations of being a “shill” for Gay, Inc., a “narcotizing deceiver,” & a member of a “cabal” intent upon undermining the very foundation of the Church. Wow. I point this out only because the relentless Musak song playing in the Monomakhos elevator was titled, “Love the sinner, hate the behaviour,” and the chorus begins, “I have a dear/close friend who is gay…” Such are the grandest rationalizations of them all. From this, I began to understand Kierkegaard’s definition of ennui: “Any immediate moment of life may be fundamentally tedious.” Wow.

                  Now, I’m not the smartest man around, but I find it fundamentally tedious to even suggest a comparison of my revulsion sitting with serial child sexual predators (who frequently made it a practice to attempt to “express their remorse” by offering the most minute details of their crimes, when what they were actually doing was “bragging” and becoming aroused); or, for example, a man who drunkenly emptied a .45 caliber pistol into the head of his closet friend whom he had kneeling before him “repenting” having molested his daughter, and then “mercifully” dispatching him to Heaven (and who became enraged at me for not supporting murder as a justifiable form of “parenting”), against observing two homosexuals holding hands in public. This is ludacris (as in “Better call the homies, it’s about to go down,” Ludacris) at face. Regardless, let’s roll with it. On a visceral level I knew my fundamental lack of empathy & charity was wrong, but I was doing what everyone who cannot tolerate seeing these individuals as “myself”: vulnerable to the frailty of this fallen humanity, frightened by what I could not comprehend, and mortal. The expression, “”Love the sinner, hate the behaviour,” has become a meme for stripping an individual of every characteristic of their humanity, and seeing them, in toto, as a behaviour. And if anyone would even vaguely suggest that I am tolerant of, or provide excuses for the despicable behaviour I have described – perhaps in a veil of “mental illness” or social or familial “misfortune,” you would be wrong.

                  Anyone who has been at this site for any length of time knows there is absolutely no solution to this conflict. About 2 times a year or so, a new group comes to this site, deposits their “outrage” at the homosexuals, the homosexuals among the clergy, and how it is that no one is doing anything about it. Everyone sells the same tired, over-utilized verbiage, and in 3-weeks or so, the thread dies and we all go about our business as it it never happened. Saunca/Cheryl has repeated my complaint – which I now posit without even looking up from the NY Times, so fundamentally tedious it has become – such that we have no ministry to address this matter, and we somehow imagine the church has addressed it sufficiently by stating the obvious.

                  The Lord answered a “certain lawyer” who questioned Him, “Who is my neighbor?” with the parable of the Good Samaritan (and I am dumbfounded to this day by the comment of a critic of my former website, indicating that the icon I had on the site was “gay” – for the record, it was in the Coptic style of iconography – Madonna Mia!). In fact, His answer was another question, “Of the three [the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan], whom do you think was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?” (Lk. 10:30ff) If you can answer correctly, “Πορεύου, καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως.”

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    So what point were you making by quoting me, Michael? I obviously missed it.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    I can give you a very concrete example.
                    A group of gay community activists in the Castro District of San Francisco (referred to as the “gayest” community in the US) contacted me after reading my comments on Fr. Han’s AOI site. They were very concerned about the news reports of violence upon homosexuals in Moscow (and a rumor that the Russian Orthodox Church was complicit). They knew absolutely nothing about the Russian Orthodox Church. They had phoned, emailed, and hard-copy written to the clergy of St. Nicholas Cathedral (ROC) – established in the heart of the Castro in 1934 – asking to speak to a member of the clergy about the Orthodox teachings regarding homosexuality. No one ever responded to them.
                    I had a Facetime discussion with a small group and emphasized that the “lack of hospitality” of which they spoke was undoubtedly related to Russian culture, blah, blah, blah, basically everything you said in your post about individuals as opposed to the church. They were polite and thanked me for speaking with them. Later they notified me that they intended to go to the cathedral, arriving after the liturgy had ended, stand outside, off to the side, and hand out “fact sheets” about the violence against homosexuals in Moscow, and hope someone would speak with them. Having seen them on Facetime, it was my impression that this group of leaders was all 50+ years old, somewhat “frumpy”… In other words, we’re not talking about Berkley ANTIFA.
                    Good to their word, 24 individuals arrived at the Cathedral of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church that Sunday morning, and no one was there but the cops; as they told me, they were outnumbered by more than 3-to-1 by cops (“They were in cars, riding on bikes, & standing in groups.”); the scene I saw from the SF media filmed a group of SF cops actually say to the group, “This is it? This is all of you?” They had been led to believe that they should expect a large, probably hostile “crowd.” They also found out that the clergy and parishioners of the cathedral had, as a group, packed up and gone to the ROCOR Theotokos, Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral on Geary Blvd. (where the uncorrupted body of St. John Maximovich reposes) to celebrate the liturgy with. Abp. Kiril who, according to the website of the ROC Dept. of External Affairs, had celebrated a Moleben of Thanksgiving for the Deliverance from One’s Enemies. The website pointedly stated that “no one was injured and no property damage occurred at the St. Nicholas Cathedral.” From the video they showed me, when the group of gay community leaders realized the cathedral was empty and the entire parish had fled, as one fellow described it to me, “We shrugged our shoulders, sang “Over the Rainbow” (by the video, some cops and members of the media joined in) and we went to brunch.”
                    Whatever you might think of this series of events, I was embarrassed and angry. Why? Because of the words found in the First Epistle of St. Peter:
                    “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they [may] speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” (1Peter 3:15-16)
                    For the life of me, I cannot comprehend the level of irrational fear that overcame a group of Orthodox Christians that they would first ignore polite inquiries, and then flee their own house as a group. And thinking over the entire situation, how can it be that a parish in existence in a community since 1934 is unknown to the very community in which they are present? How is it possible that an entire parish could feel supportive of the fundamental disregard for charity and hospitality that St. Paul instructs: “Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” (Heb. 13:2) Easily, because they acted as I have previously described: they literally stripped these individuals of every aspect of their humanity, and saw them only as homosexuals, which apparently allowed them to justify ignoring the instructions of the Scripture itself.
                    We can make this into a safe intellectual discussion about the distinction between in and of the church, but I ask you how it served the church? It seems to me that the message transmitted to even the community beyond the Castro is that the Orthodox Church is unwelcoming and afraid of  “those people,” no other questions to ask. 
                    My final thought is no different from original thought about this “crisis” in the church (cf. Ecc. 1:9, “The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”). Frankly, I am constitutionally incapable of appreciating how anyone can be more offended and disgusted by two homosexuals holding hands in public – and fear their children will be harmed by witnessing this behaviour – yet not flinch at Orthodox Christians who lack charity, empathy, and are Pharisaical in their judgement of “sin.” And let me say unequivocally, neither hospitality nor charity are enabling sinners, but are the mandate of the Scriptures themselves.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Why am I the lucky one to have a starring role in your Chainsaw Massacre movie of the week where the truth winds up on your editing floor? I’ve heard of taking poetic license but to completely malign someone for something they didn’t say and more importantly, didn’t mean, concluding they “lack charity, empathy and are Pharisaical in their judgment of sin” is a stretch even for you.

                      I said seeing men hold hands in public makes me uncomfortable in the same way that seeing a woman breastfeed in public makes me uncomfortable, recognizing there is nothing wrong with the later. I said that when children are in a position to understand the behavior in the context of homosexuality we must be careful not to make homosexuality out to be the be-all, end-all of sin. We must tell our kids it is a form of brokenness and to make sure they understand we are all broken in different ways, to varying degrees so they don’t grow up thinking they’re better than anyone else. I said nothing about being “offended or disgusted”. I said nothing to suggest we should vilify anyone. Quite the opposite. More importantly, what I said lines up with the teachings of the Church.

                  • M. Stankovich: “They had been led to believe that they should expect a large, probably hostile “crowd.” They also found out that the clergy and parishioners of the cathedral had, as a group, packed up and gone ”
                    I would do the same. Why to get involved in a debate with activists (of any orientation) who want to test you? Whatever you say “can and will be used against you”, and one goes to the church to pray, perhaps to deal with one’s own sin and find some peace, not to argue.
                    If these activists came to debate patients at walk in clinic, the clinic would be deserted.
                    If in a Muslim or Catholic country 100 years ago, a group of well meaning activists came to check whether parishioners have incorrect beliefs or attitudes, the people would abscond. And so would you.
                    Perhaps some people have too much time on their hands?

                • Michelle says

                  Here we go judging those who judge; unironic autophages ourselves. 
                  Gail, I stand by every word you said.  I find your approach toward homosexuality to be the most truthful and loving for both the children harmed by the community and for the misguided adults who comprise it.  
                  Did Christ enable sinners?  Or did Christ exorcise real demons and charge his converts to sin no more?

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Dr S, if I may address one of your points, re Orthodox believers fleeing the church when confronted by homosexuals:  let’s be honest, the straight (albeit sinful) majority has had up to HERE with all things homosexual.  We are tired of being their props in their public psychodramas.  The only prudent thing to do is what all businessmen do whenever Al Sharpton shows up with a megaphone.  And that is flee.

                    Do we not remember what ACT-UP did several years ago when they marched into St Patrick’s cathedral in NYC and desecrated the Host?

                    As for GaiI, you totally mischaracterized her words.  She said nothing about not showing charity to any group of people and the strong emotions you ascribe to her are your words not here.

                  • Bill Lamikos says

                    I can embrace homosexuals as siblings before the Lord who are sick both spiritually and psychologically. But I cannot tolerate their promoting their lifestyle as if it is good or even better than ours. That the lesbian wif eof the mayor of new York became straight only confirms Socarides’ long standing arguments. I know several gays who have gone straight and in the end they admit they went gay because of problems with their parents, that they were seeking to replace an (not necessarily sexually) evil parent.

                  • “let’s be honest, the straight (albeit sinful) majority has had up to HERE with all things homosexual.”
                    Is one of the strangest things I have ever read.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Beryl, what would you say to a working man who was written up or lost his job because he looked nonplussed at a woman who said “I’m here to pick up something for my wife?”

                      Or those poor worshippers at St Pat’s who saw their services disrupted? Or the mother who has to explain to her 8 yr old why the local public library has grown men dressed as women?

                  • Antiochene Son says

                    In response to the classic and very Christian trope, “love the sinner and hate the sin,” I recently heard an Orthodox podcaster say “we must love the sinner and love the sinner.”
                    Sorry. That was a fine meme for the days when homosexuals just wanted to be left alone, into the 90s and early Aughts. But then they wanted marriage. Now they are openly abusing psychologically and recruiting children.
                    We must publicly decry public sin! This kind of mealy mouthed Boomer response is why the world is going to hell so rapidly. 
                    If a homosexual wishes to repent, he or she should be treated pastorally with all gentleness. But in private. The Church in public must stand firm and strong, like they are doing today in Georgia. 

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    Mr. Michalopulos,
                    Two points to make to you.
                    You speak as if I support or encourage inappropriate behaviour, and you are absolutely incorrect. I agree with everyone who has suggested that what goes on during Pride Parades, or the expressions of “affection” intended to shock, and so on. On the other hand, I feel no threat to my masculinity or my sexual orientation, nor have I ever been intimidated by “affrontive” posturing. I have said here a number of times that I was released from my job in a county-funded clinic 2-years ago because I refused to comply with the directive to address transgender patients according their stated gender, rather than their birth gender; write my case notes describing them in their stated gender; or participating in such lunacy as respecting a patient’s wish to not be referred to as him or her, but rather it. Combining this with my work with countless numbers of CA “gangstas” in state prisons, I would suggest to you that I do not need a lesson in what is and what is not  appropriate behaviour.
                    I object to your citing the single case of ACT-UP in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, which occurred in 1989, and which resulted in such outrage in NYC at the time that such demonstrations were not repeated. But much more importantly, you cite this “outrageous” act without the context in which it occurred. I was a resident at St. Vincent’s Hospital Downtown in lower Manhattan at the peak of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. St. Vincent’s was a fairly traditional Roman Catholic hospital – nuns, crosses on the wall in every room, priest circulating very early every morning to offer communion to the sick – but at the time, it also sponsored the largest AIDS treatment unit in the world. Nevertheless, it was a complete misnomer in that there was no treatment to offer. Patients were simply treated for the manifestations of an increasingly failing immune system. At the time, if it was necessary to actually hospitalize a patient with an opportunistic illness, more often than not they left the hospital through the morgue. If I appear to have strong feelings in regard to empathy for homosexuals, it is because they literally were the lepers of our day. Many nurses and allied healthcare professionals refused to participate in their care, and many times that left the responsibility of lifting human beings, who were little more than skeletons, out of the bed soiled with their own excrement, put them on a bed pan, and cleaning them and the bed. And lest anyone forget Ryan White, recall that in the mix were also haemophiliacs and drug users.
                    Rumors would circulate about a new medication in clinical trials that seemed promising, but none made it past the trials stage. I was shocked, however, to be casually told by a researcher of medication trials at the Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx that if I had any money available (what resident does?), I should buy stock in Burroughs Wellcome Pharmaceuticals because they were shortly to announce FDA approval for a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor – an anti-viral – AZT  (azidothymidine) which was a breakthrough. Pursuant to the market demand Burroughs Wellcome made an astonishing amount of money with AZT, which they initially set at a price beyond the reach of the vast majority, until ACT-UP and others discovered that AZT had originally been discovered in 1964 by Jerome Horwitz, MD, chemistry director at the Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University, in Detroit. Research & development costs had been covered by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (i.e. by public tax dollars). AZT proved ineffective in treating leukemia and was “shelved” by Karmanos for more than 20-years. Now, Burroughs Wellcome had priced it out of the reach of the desperate. Add to this an announcement by the NYS Dept. of Substance Abuse Services that they expected 24,000 IV drug users in NYC to die from AIDS. Add to this similar predictions of catastrophe in the homosexual community by Ronald Regan’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, former PA governor Richard S. Schweiker. Add to this the fact that all programs that served these patients had reached the limits of their funding, while the number of individuals in need of treatment increased. From my perspective – seeing, for example, junkies sharing needles in Stuyvesant Square Park, beneath the statue of Peter Stuyvesant, and in view of Beth Israel Medical Center and its canopied entrance to the new IVF clinic (for which they provided “town car” transportation for their cash-paying customers), with their arms tied off with condoms distributed by well-meaning community programs so they could find an operating vein for injection. While I certainly could not condone what ACT-UP did at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 5th Avenue, I certainly could understand why they did it. This was the full context in which this event occurred.
                    Finally, I will tell you of the day a few of us stood in the back of the auditorium while the AIDS unit director – probably one of the most compassionate men & physician I have ever met – gave a talk to professionals about the epidemic. At one point, in discussing the dangers, he said, “I lost one of my most competent, experienced, and compassionate members of my team – a nurse who was assisting in our response to a patient who had coded and was in cardiac arrest. In the chaos, someone had dropped a contaminated needle among the bed sheets, and when leaned over to help us turn the patient, the contaminated needle pushed into her stomach. She didn’t say anything until we stopped the code as futile, but there was nothing to do for her. An asset to my team, a mother & and an exemplary nurse, died as the result of attempting to resuscitate a scum-bag junkie.” He silently stood at the podium, and when he finally looked up, in tears he said, “I can’t believe I actually referred to my patient as a scum-bag junkie,” and he walked out. I mention this to simply illustrate the intensity of emotions caregivers had during this period. Regardless of their “sins,” which were undoubtedly numerous, these young people weren’t supposed to die so young and in such a gruesome manner. We were helpless to aid them in this fallen world, and my heart aches to this day. That was the context of the protest at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in December of 1989, and it is unfair of you to refer to this even without appreciating the circumstances of living in the eye of the storm.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Dr S, if I mischaracterized my critique of your words, then I ask for forgiveness. The point is larger and more personal and that is that we now live in a chaotic culture in which there is a Gaystapo which is ever on the lookout for any offense, no matter how trifling. I see that you have been a victim of said Gaystapo; so have I (although to a lesser extent: been “written up” because I didn’t know how to react to a young girl who brought in an Rx to be filled for “her wife”.) Then there’s the lawsuits in which teenage girls are thrown off of sports teams or had their medals stripped from them because biological males demand to not only compete with them but shower with them as well.

                      As for what ACT-UP did at St Pat’s I offer no apology. These Brownshirts are truly despicable human beings.

                      These stories are legion.

                  • Thanks, Dr. Stankovich. My cousin Harley was a nurse and died of AIDS for the same reason. He was accidentally stuck with a needle. Nevertheless, the suffering is far greater than we realize, and you’ve brought it home. Being “fed up” because we are “bothered” doesn’t cut it in my book.

                  • Beryl: “Being “fed up” because we are “bothered” doesn’t cut it in my book.”
                    OK, what about “being tired”? You must have a lot of energy to hassle other people according to “your book”. Hong Weibing rings a bell? 😉

              • Dr Stankovitch,  THANK YOU for yr sincere and clear and Christian imput.  THANK GOD FOR YOU.
                I once in Uk had to work with psychiatrist who was up for paedophile changes related to northern ireland orphanages.  
                The Bishop u refere to I think, was Vladimir Vladkovsky, the Metropolitan of Moscow who Rasputin had removed  I think. 
                There is a marvelous little book called Light in the Darkness by Sergei Fudel., ( ST VLADIMIR PRESS, 1989) a kayman who suffered much in Gulag in USSR, He wrote much about the dark side of the Church. Yr imput helps me stay within the Church. As this book. 

                • Constantinos says

                  Dr. Stankovich,
                  First of all, it really is good to see you back on this forum. You have many valuable insights that only you can share based on your real world experience.
                  Now, may I tell you about my real world experience? My mother is very prejudiced against black people. My sister’s son is gay and his fiancée is a black man. Naturally, that doesn’t sit well with my mother.
                  Now, when my nephew comes home for a visit with his fiancée, I make it a point to go over my sister’s house, and warmly hug my nephew, and hug his fiancée, then we shoot the breeze for a little while. I don’t judge my nephew about his life choices; it’s his life, but I genuinely like his fiancée, and we always hug each other upon greeting and leaving. To me, it just feels like the right thing to do. We have to show everyone unconditional love and support, and stop judging. Period!

                  • Costa. God bless you. And Dr Stankovitch.  There are two separate issues that get clouded.  
                    One is as George so well described, the more and more fascist demands of the ‘lobby’ and the other is the life experience of  ordinary people, such as yr relatives, who are as they are,  trying to get on with their lives.  Judgement?   That is for God and with their condessor if they believers. 
                    We need to keep this distiction in mind.  I recall the late princess Diane ( DEFFINITELY killed by uk secret service) would visit aids patients and with her sons and sit and hug them.
                    I worked in the mid 1990s with colleagues with Aids  I am still here!!!  ? 
                    What would Christ have done?  You know, it’s in the Gospels and its neither the liberal oprah goo or the pharisaical  crap either. 

                  • Veras Coltroupis says

                    Here is why I think the studies claiming folks are born gay are wrong: They are based on animal studies. Animals have instinct because their brains are fully formed at birth. Human brains fully form at age five in order to be more adaptable. So instead of instinct they have personality. And homosexuality is a form of histrionic personality. Sluts are abused by opposite sex, gays by same. Both are seeking to replace the bad parent.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    I say show me a legitimate, mainstream scientist who is “claiming folks are born gay.” I have worked in the fields of psychiatry, human genetics, psychology, and social work for 30-years and I am unable to do so. It is nonsense. I have written many times on this site regarding what appears to be the case that some homosexuals have significant genetic factors that, in combination with other factors, such as epigenetic, meaning e.g. environmental and similar factors that act upon human genes but do not change the underlying genome (one author used the example of how starvation imposed upon Scandinavia by the Nazi’s are affecting fat storage, weight retention, and health disorders associated with obesity in later descendants of those who actually suffered the period of starvation in only a single generation). Does this, then, mean that some individuals are “born” homosexual? Absolutely not. As I tell patients with substance use disorders, which can have a known inherited genetic “loading” (and in my estimation is the single most significant factor for substance use disorders) while their genetic loading may have placed them in the “car,” so to speak, they turned the key. I believe a similar dynamic is true with homosexuality.
                    The remainder of your “thoughts” are absolutely unfounded in clinical research, and I have also demonstrated on this site and many others that there is absolutely no legitimate research suggesting a correlation between homosexuality and any “personality” type; any form of childhood abuse and/or trauma; or a good, bad, or indifferent parent. And this also includes an “absent” or emotionally “distant” father who did not provide adequate male “role-modeling”; an emotionally invasive mother, whose boundaries are described as “fluid”; or siblings who are “gender non-conforming” and/or homosexual themselves. The fact of the matter is that if homosexuality is “caused” by bad parenting, personality type, or sexual/emotional/physical abuse or trauma, we would be inundated – in fact “overrun” – by homosexuals. Instead, the prevalence of homosexuality seems to remain consistent over protracted time. Anyone who says they know the cause of homosexuality is lying. Your observation regarding similar abuse among sluts and homosexuals is as offensive as it is ridiculous. 

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Which, in fairness, would be all of us who object to the behaviors we see in gay pride celebrations because it reflects so poorly on those whom it seeks to represent.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  What is a gay person? It used to mean a person full of joy. Now, what? Struggle with intractable passions?

                • Antiochene Son says

                  There is no difference. Both are an abomination before God. 

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    We are all “as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” To omit this when talking about abominations before God would be a mistake.

                • Antiochene Son says

                  Sure, but some sins cry out to heaven for vengeance in a unique way.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  It seems to me that the general tone here suggests that homosexuality is somehow uniquely abominable to our God, and is somehow special in the ranks of sinfulness. I would point out that such an idea does not comport with the Holy Scripture nor the view of the Fathers. 
                  First, Blessed John Climacus indicates:

                  “I find that Manasseh sinned as no other man has sinned by defiling the temple of God with idols and contaminating all the divine worship. If the whole world had undertaken a fast for him it could have made no reparation for this. But humility had power to remedy even what was incurable in him. “If You had desired sacrifice, I would have given it,” says David to God; but You wilt not be pleased with holocausts, that is, with bodies consumed by fasting. “The sacrifice acceptable to God” —and everyone knows what follows.” [i.e. “is a broken spirit; a broken and repentant heart, O God, You will not despise.” Ps. 50:17)] Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 25, 60, On the destroyer of the passions, most sublime humility, which is rooted in spiritual feeling.

                  Secondly, considering the matter, “some sins cry out to heaven for vengeance in a unique way,” I would note that the source of this notion is very specific as well, having nothing to do with sexual activity of any sort, nor was it related to Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, while Moses, in conveying the message of the Lord to the Jews, and indicating, “Their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah,” (Deut. 32:32) he specifically describes the fact that the reference is to, “the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance,” (v.9) who “provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.” (v. 16-17) And thus, “They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,” (v. 21) and “To me belongs vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come on them make haste. For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.” (v. 35-36) Then, St. Paul twice makes reference to this phrase:

                  “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord.'” Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:19)

                  “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that has said, ‘Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord.’ And again, ‘The Lord shall judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:30)

                  And finally, this obviously speak to the familiarity of Blessed John Climacus in his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.

                  I am by no means suggesting that sexual sins – and notably homosexuality – are not “abominations” in respect to the nature of our humanity “as it was in the beginning.” But is it possible to quantify, and thereby suggest, that the words ot the Lord, “But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea,” (Matt. 18:6) is less an abomination in His eyes? Nevertheless, all sin has “cosmic” consequences, affecting every aspect of the creation.

                • Constantinos says

                  Very reasonable, excellent post by Dr. Stankovich. It makes total sense to me. Thank you Dr. Stankovich.

    • He won’t go down well with the greek cypriots of uk who did not like kokinakis from USA(1963-79) but loved Grigorios, one of their own. 

      • Some one needs to ask the new Metropolitan of Great Britain why he left the Metropolis of Hong King so quickly. Very quickly !

        • Gail Sheppard says

          He was appointed Metropolitan of Hong Kong in 1996, right? Has something happened more recently?

        • Constantinos says

          Dr. Stankovich,
          You were right about this guy Duncan Hunter; he’s no good, and should immediately resign his seat in Congress.

  2. Those internecine levels of violence occur soon after the general population has been disarmed. 

  3. Michael Bauman says

    George, the violence is central to the ideology. It is both a deep repugnance with anyone else but oneself but also necessary to achieve the total rule of one’s will. It is pure nihilism as articulated by Friedrich Nietzsche. The will of the ubermenschen is carried out by destroying all those who get in their way, just like Screwtape and his friends. It is wholly demonic.

    Coupled with that is the doctrine of the transvaluation of all values which used to be more hidden but is now front and center with Gillibrand’s declaration that a pro-life stance is immoral and such immorality automatically disqualifies anyone from public office of any kind.

    Lord come quickly!

    • George Michalopulos says

      I agree with you but I’d like to take it a step further and posit that the intrinsic desire to destroy exists in all men I believe but for some reason it is front-and-center in these people (for whatever reason).  Perhaps it’s a willingness to allow negative spiritual energies to overtake oneself?

      I recently saw a lecture about Karl Marx.  Although he started out as an Evangelical Christian, he soon took to giving into his darker impulses and celebrated Satan in several recently discovered poems.  It’s possible that he never became an atheist but was instead a devout Satanist.

      • Marxist js a form of ‘ atheist’ religious belief really.  HATRED OF GOD, rather than denial was it’s leitmotiv. 

        • George Michalopulos says

          True. What we are seeing is not pure materialism but theomachy.

          • George,  the bolsheviks hatred of God has travelled west now.  Same old stuff.
            Interesting in the Ekaterinburg article about the Church being built on space for a park ( but how cloth eared the Church?)   the author showed himself to be a classic western liberal equating virtual  reality and vegetarianism and #Me too  ‘ as a substitute for these Stone buildings in which they have no interest’!!! . I don’t doubt what he says is not true but it shows itself as the most superficial medacious waffle.  But all the same,if  all the Church can fill them full off,  is YESTERDAY,  whst to expect?!

      • Michael Bauman says

        George, as a recovering angerholic myself, the desire to destroy is not “intrinsic” although it is part of our fallen will/body it is not a component of our nature. When one’s will is thwarted, even by the slightest thing, rage often follows. I believe some of the Father’s called it “the foams”. It just arises like foam without warning. The more important my will is to me and the less practice I have in disciplining it, the more rage. Fasting combined with repentance is a really good remedy. Also the discipline of thanksgiving, i.e. always giving thanks to God. Rage is the opposite of humility.

        Nihilism is attractive though precisely because it taps and encourages the desire to exercise our will over all others, even God. The transformation of Galadriel in Lord of the Rings, when Frodo offers her the Ring is an example. The Hobbits survive the ring, barely, because of two things: their innate humility and their simple joy in life.

        I think this is a cautionary tale for us as well as we get involved in the macro-politics of the Church wanting to fix things. It always takes power to “fix things” does it not?

        As hard as it is and as intangible as it seems the best way is often simple. Stand where you are giving glory to God for all things and loving those nearest you who are tangible. Log in my own eye and all of that. The plains tribes here in the US had a way of going into battle: They carried a rope attached to two stakes. When they arrived at the place of battle, they drove the stakes into the ground and tied themselves to the stakes so they would not retreat when the battle came to them.

        “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will … But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

        • Wonderful Michael!
          BTW, the Lord’s name in Hebrew is also “Joshua”!!!!
          Thus, the Hebrew Fathers in the (Orthodox) Septuagint O.T. translated the first Joshua (and his book)  as
          “Jesus, (son) of Nun”!

        • nihilism underlying much of modern Culture and politics.  As did in 1900-1914. 

  4. “I am rather curious as to what causes so much rage among the hard left”
    This is how it seems to me: Where a Christian’s freedom is to be free of sin and all its manifestations, the hard left’s freedom is ultimately to do everything and anything it wants, especially as it relates to the sin in a person. The start of this comes with a relaxation in the area of sin, whereby society won’t yet allow its externalisation, but the individual feels no shame or guilt for thinking it, and perhaps even sharing those thoughts with a few who are close. Once this reaches epic enough proportions in both individuals and communities, externalisations gradually become more common and intense, and yet always face some resistance from the conscience. Thus the leftist individual/groups experience both a growing sense of self-satisfaction and entitlement coupled with definite frustration, which as I said, stems from the conscience, which is both individual and collective, and which is obviously associated with Christianity. This is where the rage towards Christianity enters.
    In its relative infancy, it shows up in, say, a young guy who listens to Metallica, smokes weed, curses all authority, including or especially the Church, and is always on the look out to get laid. As it matures however it finds itself in someone like Hitler or Stalin, where the sense of self-satisfaction or entitlement, regardless of what demons lurked in their hearts, was so strong, and their consciences so weak, that they were able to do practically anything they liked, including the slaughter of hundreds of millions. And yet (and yet!) this still wasn’t enough, for if things could have been otherwise with them, they’d have still been looking for ways to do more, owing to whatever frustration/resistance they experienced on the way to doing everything and anything they wanted.
    Perhaps then this gives us a window into hell, filled with people who – to one degree or another – wanted total freedom to do everything and anything they wanted, without regard for the quality of the thing, and without sabotage from the conscience, and yet in the end wound up being faced with God’s love anyway, because His love, His will and the conscience, ultimately, will not be thwarted.
    I imagine this would give rise to a lot of rage

    • it really is spoilt brat syndrome, isn’t it?
      “I want this; I want to do that”
      kick, scream, cry, shout, punch, kill etc.

  5. Fr. George Washburn says

    Hello friends!  
    George writes with such lugubrious certainty about the self (and opponent) devouring tendencies of the Enlightened Left … as if the very right Right were not every bit as skilled or inclined as the very right Left to trash those perceived as un-True Believers on their end of the spectrum.  Huh? 
    One of my friends here in CA, formerly holder of a very responsible position in the Republican Party, dared to cross the line of Right-think regarding a particular, rehabilitated convict; the speed and viciousness with which she or he was despatched from the Ranks of the Pure, despite years of the most dedicated party service, was most cannibalistic!   
    As Saint Paul wrote to the arguing Galatians ‘if you bite and devour one another, watch out lest you gobble one another up!’  Both sides of the Judaizing conflict were so, so sure!
    Does Monomakhos ever  function as Automakhos?   The common denominator I sometimes think I see in Incendiary Internet Infighting is the certainty that one’s opponents are so obviously wrong that “we,” whoever that might on any given day, must be immune to their follies ‘cause we’re so, er, right.   Or Right, not just Left.
    Fr. George

    • Gail Sheppard says

      “Automakhos,” Father? Not even close. George has over 40,000 unique visitors per month. One could say he is “eating your (speaking generally) lunch,” but that’s about it.

      What you call “Incendiary Internet Infighting,” many call having a dialog and it has been going on since Socrates. I’ll bet the archons (elders of Athens) were “so, so sure” they, too, were doing the right thing when they put Socrates to death. If you actually visited the site more frequently, you would see there is far more concurrence than disagreement. Few believe as you do, i.e. that George has nothing of value to say EVER. I don’t recall a single example of where you have come on this blog and not been critical. I understand you work for the Party and have to toe the party line but once and while, why not try to throw George a bone, even if it’s just to thank him for allowing you to visit his site so you can point out his shortcomings.

      • Gail re George so true.   I may not agree, with all he says nor he with me,  but I respect what he says and read and gain. No where do I see him just coming out with slogans ( ‘out means out,’ a la Brexit for all u uk watchers, etc)  .  He always gives a reasoned account of why he saying what he says. 80% I agree, 20%  I do not but that is irrelevant.  We not, I think, in agreement over trump, but I am sure George is no blind trump lover and will judge him on his actions.  As with Iran now. 

      • Fr. George Washburn says

        Dear Gail:
        My exact question was “Does Monomakhos ever function as Automakhos.” Not always.  Not usually.  Just “ever?”  
        The reply “not even close” coupled with the observation that my posts are always critical (true far more often than not when I refer to George’s work) suggests that there is less “dialog” (an exchange of contrasting views) going on than you’d like to think, and more defense than you are ready to admit.  Can’t your answer to my question “Ever?” be fairly read to mean “Never!?”  You didn’t exactly say that, I realize, but wasn’t that what you really meant?  
        I visit Mono often enough (check your metrics and I think you will see that over a 12 mo. period I stop by 2x/wk. or more) to heartily agree with you there is way more concurrence than disagreement here.  
        That is my whole point in being the occasional gadfly.  Few would want to put up with the mischaracterization and putting of words in their mouths that the simple observation that George’s one-sided, but clearly correct critique (there, I said it!) of leftist secular political infighting is equally applicable to the dagger-wielders of the right. 
        Your comment “few believe as you do, i.e. that George has nothing of value to say EVER” puts words in my mouth that have never been thought, said, or implied by me here, or anywhere, about him.  Stop!   It debases dialog.
        As I survey the script being played out here it seems that you and others (sometimes even George) have completely filled all the self-approver roles, and the part of occasional critic (neither time nor energy left for the constant critic role I played once upon a time with Mark on is underplayed. 
        I work for the Party?  Hardly!  Never joined or worked for a political one.  And if you are referring to a religious one, I can assure you I have never been blessed or assigned by any religious authority to post anything online here or anywhere.  I can see you genuinely believe I do, but it isn’t so.  
        The secular political mortar-fire that takes up so much of the available airtime in our media-addicted world is a schizo mix of people who cannot make up their minds if they are dealing with “the Enemy” or their brethren when “dialog” is attempted.  Realism about their susceptibility to the very same faults they criticize in others seems to be the farthest thing from their minds, tongues, pens and devices in the heat of battle.   
        I see Mono, for worse, not better, as tending to exhibit the same sort of blindness and bias about the foibles of its chosen buddies, the political right, as the secular practitioners show on camera, and sometimes less of the Spirit of Christ and St. Paul (if you bite and devour one another….) than is good for us in the Body of Christ.  
        Fr. George

        • Father George Washburn, you know what? I just wanted to thank you for post here, and say that I know what you mean, sincerely. 

    • Michael Bauman says

      Father George, as I am sure you know that cannibalism is the product of any ideology because no matter how correct an ideology is, it is never the truth. Unfortunately, the political classes in the world are all ruled to one degree or another by a sad and disgusting mix of Machiavelli and Nietzsche. That is exactly why Solzhenitsyn warned us all to avoid ideology. I think it applies especially to religious ideology.

      Above all else ideology, as you point out, allows us to feel “right” about almost anything which blunts the movement toward repentance. Unfortunately, anyone who acts on actual principle in the political realm is almost certain to be attacked, as your friend, which makes it impossible for anyone who wants to keep getting elected or hold power to act on actual principle–thus the cycle of corruption is continuously enabled and propagated.

      The more centralized and distant the “government” is from the governed, the less accountability there tends to be. Government of any kind only does one thing well (if not efficiently): apply force. Whether the force is used to tax, to incarcerate, to wage war, love is never present only the self-interest of those who hold the power. The same holds true in the Church. It is an inescapable attribute of our falleness. Ideally, the law provides some protection against the worst abuses, but it, too can be easily corrupted.

    • Fr. George Washburn:

      – St.Paul also said:”Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father; [and] the younger men as brethren;The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” (1 Timothy, 5:1-2)
      Thus if you think that nobody here is older than you then you should call them brothers and sisters.If you are younger, (say younger than 50?) then the chances are that some of us here are substantially older than you and you should address those as “fathers and mothers”.

      You write about George,”George writes with such lugubrious certainty…”
      Now, the word “lugubrious” is an unfortunate one.It has many good OR BAD synonyms and connotations like:”mournful, gloomy, sad, unhappy, doleful, Eeyorish, glum, melancholy, melancholic, woeful, miserable, woebegone, forlorn, despondent, dejected, depressed, long-faced, sombre, solemn, serious, sorrowful, morose, dour, mirthless, cheerless, joyless, wretched, dismal, grim, saturnine, pessimistic; funereal, sepulchral, dirge-like, elegiac; blue; dolorous”

  6. GL Farmer says

    Autophagy can be quite healthy. Sufficient fasting triggers the body to devour unhealthy bits and renew itself. This country needs a prolonged fast.

  7. Michael Bauman says

    The same people have been having essentially the same conversation for years about homosexuality saying the same things. Why?

    • M. Stankovich says

      Frankly, in my case, Michael Bauman – whom I sincerely consider my friend and whom I respect, it is because you referred to me as a heretic – outside the walls of the salvation of the Church – and that I constituted an imminent danger to the sanctity of the Church because I placed more faith in science – “worshiping at the altar of science,” you said.

      I contend to this day that the mission of my very small attempt to reduce the stigma – to impress upon the “lost children of the House of Israel” that they were welcome among us, and that the rigorous narrow path of salvation was one to which we are all equally called, without exception, and that the instruction of St. Paul far outweighed my personal interests:

      “If a man be overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” (Gal. 6:1-3)

      • Michael Bauman says

        Michael S. as I consider you my friend as well, I want to remind you that the remarks of mine to which you refer I have since repented of.  They were I’ll advised, over wrought and wrong. 
        But it is a case in point on how wrong we can go looking at a microscopic sample size in a medium which is often reductionist and falsely dichotomous. 
        Two ideas that keep reccuring that I have difficulty with: God made them that way and homosexual temptation and life is so unique that there is no analog possible from non-homosexual life. 

        • M. Stankovich says

          Michael Bauman,

          My intention was not to cast a spotlight on you as a “bad guy.” I was simply attempting to describe our “journey” together, here and on the AOI site. For me, this was a journey that made me think, day after day, about 1) my knowledge and motivation, and 2) how I was perceived. You are calm, reflective, obedient, insightful, kind, and – for a man who describes himself as a recovering rageaholic – characteristically mild and supportive. What can I say, capable of those things with which I continuously struggle. For your example, I am grateful more than you can imagine.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Michael S. I never thought that you were describing me as a bad guy.  I have gained a lot from our various encounters as well for which I am grateful. 

  8. George says, “have I (although to a lesser extent: been “written up” because I didn’t know how to react to a young girl who brought in an Rx to be filled for “her wife”.)”
    What else could she have done, George?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Seriously, Beryl?

      I mean, I was born into a world whose history dates back over 5,000 years. Just like you and the other 7 billion people who happen to be trodding the earth as we speak. Our common history transcends boundaries, continents, religions and time itself. Never once in any one of these societies has there every been such a thing as “gay marriage” or men having “husbands” and women having “wives”. Yet on a nonce, on a mere whim, all of American culture is turned upside down just because “muh civil rights”. And without any recourse to what the second and third-order ramifications are. All of this only because somebody’s feelings are hurt.

      And now, we get to the reduction ad absurdam in which males are allowed to go into the Octagon and beat women within an inch of their lives. Or go into a woman’s shower at the local gym. And God spare you if you dare utter a peep.

      True story: back in 1974 I think it was, my family went on a vacation to San Francisco. This was pre-Bubonic Plague. Lovely time. We were at Fisherman’s Wharf when a saffron-robed lady from the local chapter of Hare Krishna got ahold of my dad and told him to “just say the words Hare Krishna”. First she only confronted him then she grabbed him by the lapels. She wouldn’t stop. We were all in shock. When he tried to turn away from her she wouldn’t let go. Seriously. This incredible scene lasted 5 minutes (seemed like an eternity). Here was this working-class family from Oklahoma and my dad, a Greek immigrant was being accosted and because we provincials couldn’t comprehend such insanity, we were frozen in our tracks. There was nobody to go to for help. (What should we have done, beat up a woman?) Somehow my mom and us three kids grabbed my dad and pushed him away. And we ran away without looking back, probably because we feared she was part of a larger gang that was going to do Lord knows what.

      This is where we are as a society. Things we couldn’t possibly imagine, mainly because they have no bearing in reality, are now thrust upon us and we who are dumbstruck are forced to pretend that things are as they have always been. “Pay no attention to those two men fellating themselves in public on a float, it’s all good” we are to say to our children during the annual Gay Pride parade.

      I’m sorry, but can you not see the insanity that has been unleashed?

      • George u  put it so well..  And the biggest victims are the ordinary gay people trying to get on with their lives who will be the ones to suffer in a negative anti gay reaction.. 
        But as with all activists,  the individual is just a useful weapon. This is the big difference with Christ. 

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Exactly, Nikos.  I remember when I broke my ankle someone posted on my FB page not to worry about missing the feminist march because they would be marching for me, too!  I was mortified.  Like I want women in stupid pink hats representing me!  That parade was an embarrassment to women everywhere, as far as I’m concerned.  But if you ask them, they’ll tell you they represent all woman.  They don’t.  These gay pride parades don’t represent all gays or probably even most but if a gay person were to say this, they’d turn on him or her in a heartbeat.    

      • But George, you didn’t answer my question. I was a “Jesus Freak” in Berkeley back in 1974 (CWLF, Jack Sparks, Gillquist, et al), and I remember those nutty Hari Krishna people very well. Again, we talked to them even though they did not believe us, and when it comes to folks like that, loves beats outrage every time.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      What else could she have done, Beryl?  Well, she might have said, “I’m here to pick up the prescription for Mary Smith.”  But she didn’t say that.  She didn’t say that because she wanted to get a rise out of George, a pharmacist with a few grey hairs, and when she got the rise out of him she was looking for, she went to straight to his supervisor to report it.  What a lovely woman. (Snark)

      I don’t know how you were raised, but I was raised that it is bad manners to unnecessarily make people uncomfortable.  That woman went out of her way to create an incident so she could feel morally superior. I’ve got to tell you, a lot of us are tired of that crap.  We are constantly being set up by people like this.  If it takes us a moment to process that some woman is picking up something for her wife, it does not mean anyone is slighting anyone.  They know this but they don’t care because the end game is not about the truth.  The end game is to shame people and in George’s case, to get a kindly pharmacist who has to take a second to process this new set of “rules” in trouble.  It’s mean-spirited.           

      • Gail I’m no trump lover as u know from my postings but neither do i have any time for the nauseating sanctimonious bilge coming from the ‘ resistance ‘ They lost, as for popular vote, the USA system does not work that way and if Hillary had got Trump’s figures. U would not have heard a bleat about electoral colleague etc.
        As for white prievelege, don’t make me puke. Same with the involvement of the west coast African Chiefs in Gold Coast etc, with slave trade. No, does nor absolve european involvement but sets the scene.

      • Gail.exactly it’s like the cake phenomema. Got nothing to do with people and their lives but hate AND INDULGENCE . Many gay people in other societies have got more to worry about than a bloody cake… Like staying alive. The self indulging of these darlings.

      • Constantinos says

        Excellent post, Gail. You hit the nail right on the head. I agree with every word you have written.

  9. George Michalopulos says

    Beryl, I knew Jesus Freaks. We had them in Tulsa even way back when. They were the soul of discretion and sanity compared to this Hare Krishna babe.

    The point however is that never in the history of mankind has there ever been a society in which men have “husbands” or women have “wives”. Sorry, not gonna fly. To expect a plain-vanilla quasi-redneck who’s pushing 60 to all of a sudden get with an insane program is –well, insane.

    • George, what should the young woman have done?

      • George Michalopulos says

        How about leave my dad alone? How about not being a whack-job in the first place?

        • What do you expect from a woman who thinks Kondratick is innocent?

          • I know he is innocent because I know Bishop Tikhon and Monk James Silver are not lying. There are more reasons, but the fact remains that those two men are not lying. “The allegations are false.”

            • Gail Sheppard says

              I guess he shouldn’t have pled guilty, then.

              Just because there were people who believed in him doesn’t make them liars, Beryl. It makes them good friends.

              • Gail. A man who knew him better than just about anyone stated, ” The allegations are false” and has never wavered from that. I am not such a fool that I can’t read, think and reason. 

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  OK, Beryl. You win. He pled guilty to allegations that were untrue. I hope this will keep you from dredging all this up again because it will only embarrass some good people. As for me, I don’t want any part of it.

                  • Constantinos says

                    Hi Gail,’
                    I think you are absolutely right. It’s only common sense. The man was guilty. I think people who think this man was not guilty also believe that O. J. Simpson was the victim of a police frame up.
                    Bottom line: If a man pleads guilty, he’s guilty, regardless of whether the butcher, baker, or the candlestick maker say otherwise.

                    • In other words, you (plural) have decided that Bishop Tikhon and Monk James Silver, who know far more than you or I, are lying, and I’m an idiot. I’m not going to sit here and lay out the reasoning yet again, but if you are going to think you know the facts when you don’t, you (plural) had better come to terms with the elephant in the room, which is that these two good men are not mistaken, but lying. 

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      You need to quit speaking for people who are more than able to speak for themselves. No one is calling anyone a liar, Beryl. You’re baiting people. – Hey George, don’t you think it’s time to pull the plug on this discussion?

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I think you’re right, we’re gonna pull the plug on this discussion for now.

                    • Constantinos: “I think you are absolutely right. It’s only common sense. … Bottom line: If a man pleads guilty, he’s guilty”
                      It is a barbaric superstition. In a just system and civilized system,  the guilt requires proofs.
                      Many innocent people plead guilty, either because they are weak or confused, or the most common case in the USA because of the nasty plea bargaining system. If you are poor ie you cannot afford a good lawyer, and you are given choice between pleading guilty to get two years or insist on your innocence to get twenty years, you chose the first.

                  • I replied to an insulting post. Insults are popular around here.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      You misinterpreted what George was saying because that’s where your mind went. In other words, George must have gotten in trouble for not filling that woman’s prescription because George is a bigoted SOB and it makes his day to go around not filling the prescriptions of these poor, “sad” (I believe that’s the word you used to describe the sexually ambiguous) people, right?! That “poor, sad” woman set him up, Beryl, and she didn’t care one iota that she could be jeopardizing his employment. This is the kind of crap I’m talking about. You insult George and the poor guy even apologized to you for mistakingly thinking you were talking about the Krishna woman who accosted his father! But that’s George: the one who goes out of his way not to offend. And that’s you: the morally superior one who thinks she’s got a clue but got it wrong. . . again

                      A man wouldn’t be able to talk to you the way I can which is why you get away with it. Men punch each other out and then go out for a beer but they can’t do that with women. Especially women who are always crying foul.

                      There is nothing loving about assuming the worst about other people. They should have taught you that in “Jesus freak” school. It is George who is owed an apology. He didn’t insult you. You insulted him.

                    • Gail, WHAT???!!! I did none of those things. I just asked a question, and he answered. Boy oh boy, lady, relax!

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      You said to George: “She wanted a prescription filled, it is your job to fill it,” as if he didn’t and that was what caused the problem. Then you said you were responding to an insult and suggested insults were a common occurrence here. The only question you asked had to do with how else this woman could have asked for the prescription. I answered your question. The rest you provided. – I’m tired of the BS, Beryl. You need someone to hold you accountable for your words because as you’ve just demonstrated, you tend to forget them the second they fly out of your mouth.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Gail, thank you for coming to my defense. If I may add a word or two about my professional practices?

                      Beryl, I for one have never refused to fill (or refill) a prescription for anybody because of whatever even though as a pharmacist I am under no legal obligation to fill any prescription to do so. I have refused to fill fraudulent Rxs however, or those that I had good reason to feel were fraudulent, that’s another story however.)

                      All I was talking about here was the momentary shock that I experienced the first time a young woman talked about her “wife”. It’s the same momentary pause I feel when I see a woman breast-feeding her child and nothing more than that. (BTW, I think all mothers should breastfeed their babies.) Since that first experience, I have been subjected to three other “in-your-face” types of “my wife” and one “my husband” scenarios. It’s this chip-on-my-shoulder type of activism that puts a simple working stiff like myself on edge. This explains a lot of the paralysis that men in the workplace feel.

                    • Again, hoping this gets through lest I be misunderstood. George, I never intended for you or anyone to think that I thought you refused to fill the prescription! I don’t think of you except in fond terms, even though we do disagree at times. I know you do a great job, and have for many years! I got the answer to my question about the pharmacy lady as soon as you answered. It sounds like she (the lady at the pharmacy) was being a real pill! I’m not for gay marriages at all! I don’t like the flamboyant gay parades, either. It’s just that it’s what society has to offer right now, and love is stronger than outrage. Gosh, I never intended to offend you. Sorry about that. 🙁

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Beryl, all reasoning, even good reasoning is based on assumptions.  My only argument with you, and I suspect Gail’s, is about the assumptions with which you approach things.  You are obviously an intelligent, good hearted woman.  I just find it difficult to agree with you. .

                  • Michael, I have been banned, apparently, but if this gets past the censors, I thank you for saying such a nice thing. It is not the assumption, but the facts I was trying to get across, and it is still important. I wish you all the best. 

          • Gail Sheppard says

            This is not just about Kondradick. Beryl wants to talk about two of the people who supported him and some mystery individual who somehow knows. Knows what, I don’t know or care. She brought this up months (if not years) ago. The blog quickly spiraled into a war between two camps: those who supported him and those who didn’t. There are several layers to this story and Beryl likes to side with his past supporters, who may or may not see things differently in hindsight. If they were interested in having a discussion about it, they could bring it up themselves but they haven’t and I think we need to respect that. I object to anybody being dragged into a discussion by a third party. – Besides, it’s old news. It’s like debating whether or not there was a one-armed bandit. There was a resolution to this particular story. Although it may not have been the resolution everyone wanted, a resolution is still a resolution and I, for one, have no interest in finding out who Beryl’s mystery person is or how s/he can possibly knows anything about what happened. I probably wouldn’t believe it anyway. But that’s me. If George allows it other people can talk about it.

            • Gail has written some things to me that I think should be addressed. I read back through my posts here and found nothing to warrant her responses. There are several things you said to me, Gail, that are simply not true.

              ME: “I just remembered the times I was with Youth With a Mission during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. We were out on the crazy streets talking to the people (“them”) late into the nights and called it friendship evangelism. It’s a great way to love people.”

              Your response: “…the point is it is foolish to presume you know me. You don’t…Who the heck let a youth group mission go to a Marti Gras? That’s ill-advised, don’t you think?”

              Here, you say that I presume to know you, and that makes me a fool. I find that insulting and it is untrue.

              ME:”Okay, I “presumed” to know you, which makes me a fool, which I are, and makes me do something I am not doing. I don’t presume to know you, not one bit. And now YWAM is “ill-advised,” which it isn’t. The numbers reached by YWAM are countless and worldwide. Loving works on everybody. Railing against their lifestyles doesn’t.”

              In response to an anonymous poster who insulted me for whatever I was saying, by replying, “What do you expect from a woman who believes Kondratick is innocent?” Gail, you continued to speak out against me. I can’t understand why.

              ME (regarding Father Kondratick): “Gail. A man who knew him better than just about anyone stated, ” The allegations are false” and has never wavered from that. I am not such a fool that I can’t read, think and reason. ”
              Your response:
              “OK, Beryl. You win. He pled guilty to allegations that were untrue. I hope this will keep you from dredging all this up again because it will only embarrass some good people. As for me, I don’t want any part of it.”
              And again, your response:
              “You need to quit speaking for people who are more than able to speak for themselves. No one is calling anyone a liar, Beryl. You’re baiting people. – Hey George, don’t you think it’s time to pull the plug on this discussion?”

              At which point the discussion was shut down. i NEVER “baited” anybody.

              I wrote a couple of apologies and replies to George in which I said how much I like and respect George, which were censored.

              ME: “I replied to an insulting post. Insults are popular around here.”

              Your response: “You misinterpreted what George was saying because that’s where your mind went. In other words, George must have gotten in trouble for not filling that woman’s prescription because George is a bigoted SOB and it makes his day to go around not filling the prescriptions of these poor, “sad” (I believe that’s the word you used to describe the sexually ambiguous) people, right?! That “poor, sad” woman set him up, Beryl, and she didn’t care one iota that she could be jeopardizing his employment. This is the kind of crap I’m talking about. You insult George and the poor guy even apologized to you for mistakingly thinking you were talking about the Krishna woman who accosted his father! But that’s George: the one who goes out of his way not to offend. And that’s you: the morally superior one who thinks she’s got a clue but got it wrong. . . again

              A man wouldn’t be able to talk to you the way I can which is why you get away with it. Men punch each other out and then go out for a beer but they can’t do that with women. Especially women who are always crying foul.

              There is nothing loving about assuming the worst about other people. They should have taught you that in “Jesus freak” school. It is George who is owed an apology. He didn’t insult you. You insulted him.”

              Again, the statements above are false. I did not insult George, and never once thought he refused to give the woman her medication.

              And you wrote to me: “I’m tired of the BS, Beryl. You need someone to hold you accountable for your words because as you’ve just demonstrated, you tend to forget them the second they fly out of your mouth.”

              Again, not true. I said nothing at all that should get a response like this from you.

              I did apologize to both George and MIchael Bauman, and got no response at all. I wrote this to George:
              “Again, hoping this gets through lest I be misunderstood. George, I never intended for you or anyone to think that I thought you refused to fill the prescription! I don’t think of you except in fond terms, even though we do disagree at times. I know you do a great job, and have for many years! I got the answer to my question about the pharmacy lady as soon as you answered. It sounds like she (the lady at the pharmacy) was being a real pill! I’m not for gay marriages at all! I don’t like the flamboyant gay parades, either. It’s just that it’s what society has to offer right now, and love is stronger than outrage. Gosh, I never intended to offend you. Sorry about that. ?”

              Finally, Gail, you wrote this: “This is not just about Kondradick. Beryl wants to talk about two of the people who supported him and some mystery individual who somehow knows. Knows what, I don’t know or care. She brought this up months (if not years) ago. The blog quickly spiraled into a war between two camps: those who supported him and those who didn’t. There are several layers to this story and Beryl likes to side with his past supporters, who may or may not see things differently in hindsight. If they were interested in having a discussion about it, they could bring it up themselves but they haven’t and I think we need to respect that. I object to anybody being dragged into a discussion by a third party. – Besides, it’s old news. It’s like debating whether or not there was a one-armed bandit. There was a resolution to this particular story. Although it may not have been the resolution everyone wanted, a resolution is still a resolution and I, for one, have no interest in finding out who Beryl’s mystery person is or how s/he can possibly knows anything about what happened. I probably wouldn’t believe it anyway. But that’s me. If George allows it other people can talk about it.”

              This is absolutely not true. There is no “mystery individual” and I never implied there was. I brought up two men, well-respected, who can reply or not, and that’s it. Now you are blaming me for the long discussions involving many, many people, priests and bishops (or at least one bishop, whom you say you respect), that lasted for many, many months. The discussions were NOT a “downward spiral” nor were they “two camps.”

              That’s it for now. – Beryl

              • I should add that the “Jesus Freak School” Gail mentions was Christian World Liberation Front. I was recruited by Jack Sparks and several others, who visited my college (Bethel College in Saint Paul, Minnesota), approached me, and asked me to join them in Berkeley. I spent several months in Berkeley with CWLF in 1974. This connection with Father Jack Sparks worked out great, because many years later, I was asked by him to work on helping to edit and proofread the Orthodox Study Bible notes.

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  I don’t recall saying anything about a “Jesus Freak School.” Must have been someone else.

                  • You wrote: “They should have taught you that in “Jesus freak” school.”
                    How can you not remember? 

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Oh, for heaven’s sake, Beryl. I wasn’t talking about a school! I was talking about a school of thought, as you described yourself as a “Jesus freak.”

              • Gail Sheppard says

                Beryl, the beauty of a blog is that if people want to go back and read our comments, word for word, they can. Having a record of conversation prevents people from rewriting history by mischaracterizing something in the exchange, as I believe you may have done here, although perhaps not intentionally, I don’t know.

                I won’t comment on whether or not you presumed to know me or didn’t, as it’s inconsequential. I will say, however, that I believe you insulted George and I’m not the only one who called you on it. I also think you were trying to bait Monk James and Bishop Tikhon into a discussion they have shown no interest in pursuing. Because they’re not present, it isn’t fair to them to allow you to talk about how they feel and what they think and say the rest of us are calling them liars if we don’t believe them! No one has called anyone a liar here. With regard to the “mystery man,” you said, “A man who knew him [Kondratick] better than just about anyone stated, ‘The allegations are false’ and has never wavered from that.” Because you failed to identify this last person, his identity remains a “mystery.”

                Let’s let all this pass, shall we? I apologize if I responded to you in a way that put you on the defensive. But you push people’s buttons. The “Mary, Mary quite contrary” routine gets old.

                • I did NOT insult George. I ought to know if that was my intent, and it was not. Gail, Bishop Tikhon himself said, The allegations are false,” many times, and he knew Father Kondratick very well. I did NOT “bait” anyone. If that were my intent, I would know it.

                • Gail, I’m the guilty one for posting what I did. I apologize to both you and Beryl for causing an unnecessary quarrel between the two of you.

                • What has not yet been posted, but should be posted, is that Gail’s mysterious “third man” is Bishop Tikhon, who stated many times, “The allegations are false.” You can censor the truth, and you can criticize me up one side and down the other, but you cannot make the truth not be true. The allegations are false.

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    He’s not my “mysterious” man.  I didn’t bring him up.  You did.

                    No one has censored the truth.  No one has made the truth untrue, were that even possible.

                    If we’re talking about Florida, the allegations (charges) against Kondratick became true when he pleaded guilty to them. 

                    Can we please be done with this now? 

                    • The allegations are false. Martin has stated a reason for a person to plead guilty. The bishop states that Father Kondratick  is innocent. You can be done with it, but the injustices against Father Kondratick and Bishop Nikolai Soraich still stand to this day.

                    • Solitary Priest says

                      I thought George said we WERE done with this. The opinion of a bishop about a situation does not make it true automatically. If someone has evidence to prove a person not guilty, that person should be in a position to bring forward such evidence.
                           If someone is falsely accused, they are in good company. Our Saviour was falsely accused. We are just discussing St. Nectarios. He was falsely accused, yet we venerate him as a Saint today.

    • Too true.  In native american society, plain tribes, a boy who did not want to become a warrior would don female dress and work with the females. Often a  young warrior would add them to his group of wives, even down to Sex,  or they would become  a shaman.  BUT MAIN FACT WAS IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS HOW SOCIETY SHOULD GO OR BE, BUT AN ABERATION THEY FITTED INTO OVER ALL PICTURE.  Finding a use for each person. 

      • Michael Bauman says

        Nikos, the modern problem arises because of the reductionist anthropology we have. Everything is reduced to sex and sex is reduced to genital stimulation and manipulation. Thus the proliferation of “genders”. 
        As Macolm Muggeridge observed, sex is the sacrament of the secularist. Thus human beings are exclusively sexual beings.  Since secularism also preaches radical egalitarianism everybody must have sex as they like it when they like it.  Any societal restriction on sexual activity is an affront to the very nature of what it means to be human as far as they are concerned.
        Unfortunately sections of modern psychology have fostered and fed this lie under the guise of so-called “science”. 
        I think there is a real place for so-called homosexuals in society that can be significant and important but it has nothing to do with sex.  The Biblical command is against homoerotic behavior especially as equivalent to marriage.  Indeed as Gail reiterates, all extra marital sex is condemned in the strongest terms.  Only Christ’s mercy lifts the death penalty for such activity but the call to repentance from such things is only strengthened by His mercy.  We are to sin no more. 
        God allows divergence. It is part of our estrangement from Him.  I think it is quite likely there is both a genetic and epigenetic component to such divergence as well as environmental.  That does not mean that God made them for homoerotic activity.  There is a way to live within God’s order, in repentance, realizing the gifts inherent in the divergence without degenerating into a life of sin and laciviousness.  
        It is beyond shameful for the Church not to help people find those ways.   Such rejection is a rejection of Christ’s call to the mained, the halt and the lame to come to Him and celebrate His feast.   Still, the wedding garment is required. 
        We must not endorse sin for the sake of expediency or personal pain at the struggle faced by those we love.  There is a way of  grace through that struggle that does not involve capitulation to unholy desire, no matter how existentially powerful and intractable such desire appears.  
        Each of us faces a similar struggle with one or more besetting sins that come to us from a similar source- genetic, epigenetic and environmental as well as our own unique passions.  
        The Sacramental life of the Church with Her disciplines of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, repentance/forgiveness and worship/communion are the keys for all of us to heal.   
        Those who are same sex attracted and have fallen into homoerotic behavior are not unique or special in this.   
        Unfortunately, bad, ill prepared and venal clergy are part of the struggle too.  None of us must weary in our quest for union with our Lord.  That is the real marriage and conjugal union.  Earthly marriage and indeed all human relationships are but an icon of our union with Christ, if they reach that level. 
        We must avoid making our darkened, sinful and distorted vision of things the norm.   

  10. I’m talking about the young woman who wanted the prescription, not the nutty Hari Krishna father attacker. What should the woman who needed the prescription have done?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Beryl, my bad. I misunderstood your question and mixed up the narratives. 

      As for the young girl in question, I dunno, but that’s kinda the point. Never in the history of mankind has anybody been confronted with this conundrum.

      I mean, it’s still silly and nonsensical.  Do you remember what Abe Lincoln said about such sophistry?

      • She wanted a prescription filled, it is your job to fill it. This is the society in which we live. Crazy, yes. But people have always been crazy and homosexuality has been around a long time. 

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Do you actually think he didn’t??? His crime was that it took a second to process what she was saying. A second too long, it seems. – You know you’re right. Crazy has been around for a very long time. What’s new today is stupidity. There is a staggering amount of stupidity today and it’s everywhere you look.

  11. Michael Bauman says

    “It’s your job to fill it”. Wow what condescencing ignorance.  Every person an automaton.  Everybody must submit.  Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. 
    Sometimes Beryl, you Borg me to death.

    • Michael, how did we jump from a simple statement I made about George’s job to “condescending ignorance”? Where did you get the idea that I think everybody is an automaton?

  12. Michael Bauman says

    Just the way it came across to me Beryl.  Don’t think, don’t feel, just say yessir boss and fill the prescription.   
    The job of the pharmacist is so much more. A robot can just fill the prescription.  
    You seem to be ignorant of the job and dismissive of the human qualities and intelligence necessary to do the job well.  Thus condescending ignorance.  
    BTW, being ignorant is not bad. Each of us is ignorant of many things.  

  13. Not true at all. Respect for George and everybody who works hard and does their best. I have been around enough years (65) to know what a pharmacist does, so to end on this note, you completely misunderstood me, and that’s okay. If it’s my fault, I apologize.

  14. Michael Bauman says

    Michael S says above: “Nevertheless, all sin has “cosmic” consequences, affecting every aspect of the creation.” That is absolutely the case. It is true not only of all sexual sins, but of all others as well. However, God’s incarnation and sacrifice began the necessary re-ordering of His Creation which groans and travails in pain. (Rom 8:22-23)

    The object of the Orthodox Christian life is to enter into the proper order and celebrate the feast with our Lord. Mostly I think we tend to be like the dwarfs in the Last Battle. We are in the kingdom but instead of going higher up and further in, we prefer sitting in the dark and stinky stables.

    In any case God’s mercy is above all, in all and through all. Glory be to God.

  15. Solitary Priest says

    I thought George said we WERE done with this. The opinion of a bishop about a situation does not make it true automatically. If someone has evidence to prove a person not guilty, that person should be in a position to bring forward such evidence.
         If someone is falsely accused, they are in good company. Our Saviour was falsely accused. We are just discussing St. Nectarios. He was falsely accused, yet we venerate him as a Saint today.

    • If the bishop in good standing states it is the truth, then it is not an opinion. All the reasons for their innocence were discussed on Momomakhos and years ago. You can Google the Monomakhos archives and find lots of information. 

  16. Solitary Priest: “The opinion of a bishop about a situation does not make it true automatically.”

    Only RC have infallible bishop, and only one at a time. (sorry Bendie) 🙂

    Solitary Priest: “If someone has evidence to prove a person not guilty”

    Definitely, this is an established understanding and consensus on what justice means – no suspect is free until proven innocent beyond any doubt. Guilty ! 😉

    • Solitary Priest and Martin declare him “guilty!” and are not banned, but I am. George posts on censorship and censors my posts. Solitary Priest says Bishop Tikhon has an “opinion” and Martin says he is “not infallible” and has not presented evidence. He HAS presented evidence, and he is not a liar.  You can find plenty of evidence on and on this very blog if you google Fitzgerald + Monomakhos  + Kondratick or Nikolai. Monk James states that he is not a liar, and he is not, as far as I can surmise from reading his posts for 13 years. Metropolitan Jonah is discussed, but we cannot for some reason discuss two good men whose lives were devastated, and who lost their livelihoods because of the kangaroo courts and doings of those who wanted them out.

      • Beryl: Solitary Priest and Martin declare him “guilty!” 
        You do not detect sarcasm, do you?
        “Definitely, this is an established understanding and consensus on what justice means – no suspect is free until proven innocent beyond any doubt. Guilty !”

        • Martin, thank you!! I am so used to the standard, “he’s guilty!” and the usual “you are wrong!” that I did not detect the sarcasm. All right!

          • Anonymous says

            oh good heavens Beryl

            the entire affair has been proven by expensive forensic audits

            then the same thing happened at the next location

            the allegations are false is absolute bullshit to cover malfeasance or no different than an ostrich sticking its head in the sand

            I didn’t see it so it must not be true is a child’s game.

            • Monk James Silver says

              Nonsense, as usual, from ‘Anonymous’.

              In the first instance, the Superior Court of the State of New York found that the OCA had no case, and all charges were dismissed.

              The second instance, the case was not adjudicated, but ‘pleaded out’ for everyone’s convenience.

              • George Michalopulos says

                And so, Fr James, Beryl, Anon, et al, let this be the absolutely last word on the l’affair Kondratick.

                He and his family have suffered enough. Nothing more needs to be said. Hence everybody is forewarned that I will delete any posts concerning his case.

                Thank you,


              • anonymous says

                Monk James Silver

                You said:
                Nonsense, as usual, from ‘Anonymous’.

                Point of clarification 

                You may be expressing your dislike of anonymous postings, posting as ‘anonymous’ (in the general sense) – yadda yadda
                But just in case you think this is the same anonymous who debated you about the pentagram, or Michael Stankovich concerning Cappadocia – it is not

                I’m not following this article and/or thread

                Whoever I am, I’m certainly not Stevie Wonder

                That is clearly a pentagram

                • Monk James Silver says

                  More nonsense, it seems.

                  It’s generally agreed that anything authored anonymously is not to be taken seriously, and hence it’s all nonsense.

                  • anonymous says

                    Monk James Silver
                    It’s okay you feel that way

                    After all, I am full of nonsense
                    Would it help if I walked around the woods while begging for salt?

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      I have no idea what that means – “Would it help if I walked around the woods while begging for salt?” – but I’ve been laughing so much my face hurts. +1 Best Lines Spoken Following the Vernal Equinox

                      Oh and what does “last word” mean?

                  • Monk James Silver: 

                    “It’s generally agreed that anything authored anonymously is not to be taken seriously, and hence it’s all nonsense.”
                    (1) Nowadays everything  can “generally be agreed” and does not need a proof…
                    (2) Presumably, if one is anonymous there can be no certainty how wise or how stupid or illiterate he may be.

                    However ,

                    St.J.Chrysostom’s Homily 18 on the 2nd Epistle to Corinthians says:

                    “Let us then not overlook those who give us behoveful counsel, even though they be of the meaner sort, nor insist that those counsels prevail which we have ourselves introduced; but whatever shall appear to be best, let that be approved by all. For many of duller sight have perceived things sooner than those of acute vision, by means of diligence and attention.
                    Let us not, then, act in this manner; but having freed our souls from all arrogancy and pride, let us consider, not how our counsels only may stand, but how that opinion which is best may prevail, even though it may not have been brought forward by us. For no light gain will be ours, even though we should not have discovered what behoveth, if ourselves accepted what has been pointed out by others; 

                  • Nonesuchnonsenskenpoop says

                    It is widely understood that ‘monks’ who spend their days fiddling on the internet are the epitome of nonsense, whether anonymous or identified. Congratulations Silver Monk, you are the recipient of the nonsense award!
                    Speech. Speech. Speech.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Yikes, don’t the monks on Mount Athos you think that! They all have Internet addresses, as do the monks at the half dozen monasteries I’ve visited. You may need to get out more.

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Nonesuchnonsenskenpoop (July 4, 2019 at 11:28 am) says:

                      It is widely understood that ‘monks’ who spend their days fiddling on the internet are the epitome of nonsense, SNIP
                      Our anonymous correspondent seems not to know much about monks in general, and less about me personally. I forgive him his insults and I ask his prayers.

                      Like most monks, much of my day is spent in prayer, even for all of you here. I take a few minutes here and there to go on line — hardly most of my day.

                      I regret having offended someone who is unwilling to identify himself, but I suggest that he look in the mirror and have a sincere conversation/confession with his spiritual father.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I for one am grateful for your prayers.

                    • anonymous says

                      Monk James Silver
                      “I regret having offended someone who is unwilling to identify himself, but I suggest that he look in the mirror and have a sincere conversation/confession with his spiritual father.”

                      And I would suggest that maybe you are negatively judging individuals who post anonymously – perhaps falsely assuming the motives for why they do so
                      Maybe a subject to bring up with your spiritual father?

                      Or perhaps you could tear out the Book of Hebrews from your New Testament
                      After all, unlike all the other epistles, the author of that work did not properly identify himself –  
                      Therefore, it must be just a bunch of nonsense, right?

                      -If we are just going by that rule and not by the content