Friday, November 11, A.D. 2011

Russian Phoenix

I wish everyone a thoughtful Armistice Day. Civilizational decline is a long process, but the First World War seems a particularly noticeable symbol of the West’s suicidal tendencies.

However, rebirth is a central idea in Christendom. The Christians adopted the pagan phoenix, the bird reborn from its holocaust, as a symbol of Christ. There is always hope for redemption and renewal for us. As such, I wish to offer a fitting video for the day. At the time of the Great War, Satanic wickedness ascended to power in Russia, and the Communists declared war on God’s people. The video below begins with early footage of this demonic behavior. However, no matter how carefully the Old Guard treats the corpse, Lenin slowly rots in his pagan tomb while the Church has blossomed forth again in Russia. Glory be to God!

My only complaint about the video is its outrageous soundtrack. At first, the background music is some bizarre mixture of liturgical singing with New Age Enya-esque synthesizing. Then, the music morphs into a 1980’s style heavy metal guitar screed that supposedly represents the climactic triumph of the Cross, which is wildly inappropriate. It is a reminder how fidelity to tradition keeps us from traveling down the same path as the Latins, with their Simon and Garfunkel “Sound of Silence” hymns, “corn god” crucifixes, and icons of Gandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. If you let anything go, poor taste and confusing liturgical corruptions would infect the Church. I imagine that the video maker, or at least the person who did the sound, could not have been older than twenty-five years and was probably a new convert from a secular family. The Lord gladly accepts the widow’s mite; so, perhaps I should not be so critical. Anyway, aside from Axl Rose’s interpretation of the One Hundred and Forty-Fifth Psalm (146 for the Wessies), the clip is worth seeing.

Хвали, душе моя, Господа. Восхвалю Господа в животе моем, пою Богу моему, дондеже есмь. Не надейтеся на князи, на сыны человеческия, в них же несть спасения. Изыдет дух его, и возвратится в землю свою: в той день погибнут вся помышления его. Блажен, ему же Бог Иаковль помощник его, упование его на Господа Бога своего. Сотворшаго небо и землю, море и вся, яже в них. Хранящаго истину в век, творящаго суд обидимым, дающаго пищу алчущим. Господь решит окованныя, Господь умудряет слепцы. Господь возводит низверженныя, Господь любит праведники. Господь хранит пришельцы, сира и вдову приимет, и путь грешных погубит. Воцарится Господь во век, Бог твой, Сионе, в род и род.

Posted by Joseph on Friday, November 11, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Atheism and its allies • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, November 4, A.D. 2011

The Vain Queen Consort

In my post on “Anti-Christian Bigotry,” I criticize David Turner’s and William Nicholls’ psychological evaluation of Christians. I thought of an image earlier in the week that plays the same game in reverse, though it is a far more reflective of reality.

Imagine a vain queen consort. This woman has many lovely qualities, and she could offer her inestimable talents to her king and to her kingdom in countless ways. However, her chief role as queen consort is to give birth to an heir. As a woman in the most important womanly task, she has an opportunity to manifest the special splendor of her sex—that of the deflection of importance from herself to her child. It is the mysterious glory and beauty of woman. Needless to say, many daughters of Eve fall short of this excellence, including our hypothetical queen consort.

Instead of finding honor in her role to give birth to someone that she loves more than herself—to someone that means more to the kingdom than herself—our queen thinks such painful and repugnant. She dwells on her many superior qualities and curses the fate that her special duty is that of a breeder. She will not rule in her own name. Knees will not bow and tongues will not confess because of her. She is but a handmaiden—a royal and treasured handmaiden—but a handmaiden, nonetheless, in that she must serve another. Instead of finding fulfillment in nursing, she begrudges her babe his destiny. She will fade in the tower while the infant whom she suckles grows up to reign. Even though she could continue to assist her family and her people in a multitude of ways, her most important act has been accomplished, and she dreads a life of waning importance. She is a miserable and spiteful queen.

In many ways, I think that Jews—as an ethne—are a consort queen. The Jewish ethne, being biological children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has the most important role in the history of nations. For the Hebrews were to give birth to the Messiah, and it is from the Jewish ethne that the Church would arise. The New Israel grew from the seedbed of the original Israel. There is no greater honor for a people as a people.

However, most of the Hebrews rejected God’s plan. I do not think that most did so in the manner of the vain queen. Rather, it is likely that most rejected—and still reject—the gospel for religious reasons. Jesus defies the expectations of most Jews, and the newness and strangeness of his message must strike most of them as heretical and blasphemous. If he is not indeed the Son of God, then he was a terrible heresiarch—indeed, the panheresiarch—the greatest wolf in world history, who has stolen so many sheep. If he is the Messiah, however, then God’s plans did not accord with the hopes and desires of most of his ancient followers. That sounds perennially familiar. Yet, I believe that rabbinical Judaism developed separately from Christianity mostly for theological reasons.

Nonetheless, I suspect that the ethnic vanity of Jews has provided a continual stumbling block for them that impedes their acceptance of the gospel. When I talk to rabbinical Jews or read their frank “ecumenical” words, I sense the spite and resentment of the vain queen. Some of the Hebrews were not content to acknowledge their ethnic role in God’s history as a historical step toward a God’s universal adoption of mankind. What do the chosen people have to do with the filthy nations? One can see the same attitude over and over again. It is a pity. The vain queen has much to give, and she would be praised and valued for such contributions.

Posted by Joseph on Friday, November 4, Anno Domini 2011
Rabbinical Judaism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, October 14, A.D. 2011

Advice for a New Bishop

Philip Lawler has published some great advice for a new bishop on Catholic Culture. Lawler and his friends compiled the list after the recent scandals that have plagued the Latins. Though based on the particular situation of the Roman Church in America, I think that many of Lawler’s recommendations would be useful for Orthodox hierarchs. I laughed heartily as I read some of his points, which are humorous in a rather dark way. Among his suggestions, we read:

Upon arrival, get rid of all paper shredders at the chancery and insist that no work be taken home in briefcases. Make friends with the maintenance man and the wash lady.

Immediately obtain a backup copy of the computer network and secure it for any future audit. Change the locks. Secure the bank accounts. Check stock.

There are probably a large number of people you really have to dismiss quickly: rebellious pastors, effeminate chancery officials, etc. (The less urgent cases can wait; you can use the budget crisis to justify the blow.) Fire them all at once. Plan it carefully to minimize the uproar. Make the announcements late on a Friday afternoon. On Saturday, release that rip-snorting pastoral letter on family life, which you have been drafting since your appointment was announced. Schedule some event Sunday with a big, loyal Catholic group. Tell reporters you’ll answer questions there.

Put the religious orders on notice. Maybe throw out one of the smaller ones just as a warning shot.

Talk to the pro-lifers, identify the level-headed ones, and get their read on your own clergy: who’s solid, who’s good but weak, who belongs to the opposition. Ditto for the lay bureaucrats and hospital admin types.

Having found a few priests you can trust absolutely, spend some long late evenings going over personnel files with them.

Plan for a massive scale-down: school and parish closings, clergy put on waivers, chancery pink slips. You’ll probably have a 6-to 12-month grace period in which you can justify almost any cost-cutting by saying, “Sorry. We have to pay the sodomy bill.” Use it to get rid of the worst personnel and the schools that are beyond hope.

To the extent possible, fly in support to your home-schoolers. Inter alia, almost all the vocations you get (and want to keep) will come from them.

You will find that you have two or three prosperous parishes that are traditional centers of opposition, led by dissident priests. If you had all your priests read that fire-breather pastoral on protecting family life, you’ll probably have enough general lay support—even given the hostility of the media—to face down the bad pastors after they refuse to play ball. Replace them with Nigerians to mute the screams from liberals and to force the worst parishioners to go to the Episcopalians or the Paulists.

Get to know some state troopers. Buy them a round of beer. Tell them that you want to hear about trouble from them, not from the press. Tell them it is a moral obligation to arrest wrong-doers. Ask them to pass the word.

Hire your own director of religious education, and tell him to select new texts throughout. Institute standardized testing to make sure something is happening in CCD classes. Tell parents (and pastors) that kids can’t be confirmed if they do not pass the test. Spot-check when you do confirmations.

Spend a lot of time at the seminary. Arrive unannounced frequently.

When you visit parishes, skip the phony paperwork. Speak to the priests, personnel, and parish council: one-on-one, if possible. Ask them what’s the biggest problem facing the parish. Look for trends in the sacramental index. Check the liquor cabinet in the rectory. Check the grocery bill.

Make a habit of calling priests at random, at odd times. Ask them what they’re doing.

Identify Orthodox Jews, who are big on family values, and make it clear you’re well disposed to them. Not only is it a huge help politically to have an Orthodox rabbi standing next to you when you hold a press conference deploring some abortion-law outrage, but if you can get on the right side of the rift in the Jewish community you can spare yourself aggravation from the liberal Jews who anoint themselves public spokesmen.

Having informed him of your wishes on the matter, dock the diocesan paper editor a day’s pay every time your photo appears. The diocese is not about YOU.

Publish every semester a roster of the theologians and philosophers teaching in your diocese along with their mandatum status. Give a brief but candid explanation for any case in which the mandatum has been denied, e.g., “defects regarding Catholic doctrine on contraception.”

If a complaint comes in on liturgical abuse, phone the pastor and get his side of the story. Make it a policy to write him a letter summarizing the conversation (including his assurances of conformity) and if that complaint was warranted, insist that he post your letter in the vestibule of the church for a month. If the complainant reports no change, send someone to check it out on site.

Find out when Eucharistic adoration is being held at schools and colleges and make it a point of sliding in unexpectedly and joining the students in adoration—not taking center stage, perhaps not even saying a word, but just being shoulder to shoulder at prayer with them.

Find an opportunity to visit all three military service academies once a year and give the cadets the most ferocious rip-roaring homily you can muster (as a clandestine vocation appeal). You’ll bag 6 to 10 a year—not all scholars, but good men from good families. There’s a huge pool of idealism there that’s coming to grips with the disillusionment toward military life. They love folks who promise to make it hard on them.

Kudos to Lawler for the battle plan!

Posted by Joseph on Friday, October 14, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Roman Catholicism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Monday, October 10, A.D. 2011

Another Example of How the West Is West

Recently, there was an interesting comment thread about infant communion on Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s post, “US Catholic gets nutty about Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix and Communion under both kinds.” Occasionally, WDTPRS readers indulge in Latin triumphalism when differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches arise in discussions. More frequently, though, Fr. Z.‘s many righteous Extraordinary Form peeps simply exhibit a Western mindset that I find alien and troubling. This mindset predates contemporary ecumenical gatherings; it lies close to the Western religious soul. Accordingly, a commentator on the thread quoted the Council of Trent, and the selection exhibits nicely a point that I wish to make:

Chapter IV.

That Little Children Are Not Bound to Sacramental Communion.

Finally, this same Holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the Sacramental Communion of the Eucharist: forasmuch as, having been regenerated by the laver of Baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most Holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation.

On Communion under Both Species, and on the Communion of Infants.

Canon I. If anyone saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the Most Holy Sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

Canon II. If anyone saith, that the Holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.

Canon III. If anyone denieth, that Christ whole and entire – the Fountain and Author of all graces – is received under the one species of bread; because that – as some falsely assert – He is not received, according to the institution of Christ Himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

Canon IV. If anyone saith, that the Communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema. As regards, however, those two articles, proposed on another occasion, but which have not as yet been discussed; to wit, whether the reasons by which the Holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread only, laymen, and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to anyone soever; and, whether, in case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions; and what are those conditions: this same Holy Synod reserves the same to another time, – for the earliest opportunity that shall present itself, – to be examined and defined.

The chapter concerns infant communion and the manner of partaking the Eucharist, which was the topic of the WDTPRS thread. The chapter notes that infants communed in antiquity—as they still do in the Orthodox Church—but it states that this is not necessary for them because they have not attained the age of reason and cannot bring sin upon themselves, their original sin having been cleaned through baptism. The implication is that Christians participate in the Eucharist as a means to acquire salvific grace that one only needs in response to one’s sins and shortcomings. I find such perverse. The Eucharist is the central act of the Christian life—why should children of the Church not participate? The decision basically states that we only commune because we sin.

We smell here that focus on atonement that pervades Western spirituality. According to this tendency, God does not really adopt us to share in his life; he simply throws us a life raft and rescues us from our own ill doing. Certainly, we are saved, and we know from what we are saved, but for what are we saved? The Roman Church has maintained the apostolic message, but large swaths of Western piety and theology appear remarkably unconcerned about the ultimate goal of man’s salvation.

Moreover, there is a common and disquieting tendency in papism to treat the Christian life as necessary chores. One sees this with episcopal dispenations. Bishops excuse their flocks from aspects of Christian devotion or practices as if they were not intrisically valuable but only externally required as acts of obedience. Of course, some dispensations make sense because they allow for one good to trump another good, and pastorally minded shepherds look after the good of their rational sheep. Yet, most dispensations of Latin bishops seem to suggest that the liturgy, confession, and traditional piety are necessary unpleasantries that Christians must tolerate, as a patient must tolerate injections or nasty tasting medicine. We hear the same attitude when the Latins boast of thirty minute masses in the same way that a man might express relief that he only had to wait a short time at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Worshiping the King of all holds a similar place in one’s life as the burden of getting new license tags? Likewise, why should infants commune if they need not do so to avoid hell? We would not want them to experience any extra grace or closeness with the Lord that is not absolutely needful.

Western minimalism does not only spring from Luther and his rebels.

Posted by Joseph on Monday, October 10, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Ecumenism • Roman Catholicism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, September 30, A.D. 2011

The Moscow Patriarchate: Twenty Years in Freedom

Ria Novosti has an interesting article by Russia Profile on the Russian Orthodox Church and how it has weathered the two decades since the Soviet collapse: “Through Thick and Thin.” I found its section on enculturation fascinating:

Today observers usually describe what is happening with the church by using the term “revival,” meaning a return to what was lost or destroyed after the 1917 revolution. Some people think that the last 20 years saw natural and steady growth of the church’s influence on society and the state. Others believe that this was a time of mistakes and lost opportunities for full-scale revival. However, a close look at the events taking place in church life shows that they least of all resemble a recovery of what was lost.

In reality, every single sphere of religious life demonstrates new phenomena that did not exist in the early 20th century. Take new religious schools, such as academies, seminaries and other theological institutions—before the revolution, they primarily educated the offspring of the clerical order that no longer exists today. Religious schools are actively developing and avidly absorbing the achievements of European theology. They are even getting ahead of Russia’s secular schools in the Bologna Process—a gradual unification of academic standards for European bachelors’ and masters’ degrees.

A similar situation exists in icon painting. In the early 20th century, Viktor Vasnetsov’s mystical and romantic modernism was seen as the inaccessible acme of religious painting. Even well-educated contemporaries did not know or understand East Christian icons with their deeply-ingrained symbolism. What is happening now is not a revival of the Vasnetsov School, but a return to icon painting per se—in all of its different periods and styles. Church architecture has also been reborn in the past 20 years using new technology and catering to new tastes.

These are just the most striking examples of the trends seen everywhere in church life, showing that what is happening is not the mechanical recovery of something lost, but a process of enculturation—the creative entry of the church into the modern and post-modern culture of Russia and other CIS countries.

There are many good signs. It will take much time and much prayer to restore Christendom in Russia. Moreover, Holy Russia has always been an ideal rather than a historical reality. It is a model of Zion incarnate—the communal equivalent to the Theotokos’ exclamation, ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου γένοιτο μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα σου / ecce ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum—an icon of an obedient and faithful people that pious Russians try to emulate.

Posted by Joseph on Friday, September 30, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • (0) Comments • Permalink

Wednesday, September 14, A.D. 2011

Orthodox Schools

As a reprieve from the week’s dour take on education, please allow me to wish those on the old calendar a joyous liturgical new year! To celebrate the day and to keep with the academic theme of the week, I would like to present the Orthodox Christian School Association. Its directory of schools is the most comprehensive one that I have seen, though I do not know if all the linked school have affiliated with the organization.

As one would expect, there are fewer Orthodox institutions of higher education. To my knowledge, there are only two colleges—Hellenic College in Brookline, Massachusetts and the newly formed Saint Katherine College in Encinitas, California. Rose Hill College existed in Aiken, South Carolina for a few years. Its dean, James Cutsinger, offers an account of the college’s short life: “The Once and Future College: Rose Hill in Theory and Practice.” I also had friends who were involved in organizing an Orthodox great books college in northern Virginia, though, like Rose Hill, a shortage of funds led to the project’s demise.

I wonder why there are so few Orthodox schools in the country. Were Orthodox immigrants content to send their children to the already established Roman Catholic schools? Were they too poor in the beginning to create an Orthodox school system? Of course, the masses of Roman Catholic immigrants did not have riches, either, but they did have legions of consecrated religious men and women who were willing to work as voluntary slaves in the Roman institutions of the country. The Orthodox Church does not have religious orders, and the lack of Orthodox charities not connected with a parish is the result. Only since the cultural revolution of the 1960’s have Orthodox Christians decided to build their own schools. I expect that this process will continue, though the small, dispersed population of Orthodox Christians in America presents obvious obstacles to school formation. May their efforts be strengthened!

Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, September 14, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Roman Catholicism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, August 26, A.D. 2011

Believe

“And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

This past spring, I had a conversation with a fellow on the train as the Cardinal Line coursed through the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. He was a lapsed Episcopalian, which I considered rather redundant. We had a pleasant talk about religion wherein he mentioned doctrines that troubled him and I defended them in ways that made them less objectionable to him. I then wanted to share something about the Christian religion that I found problematic, but as I began to speak, I discovered an appropriate rejoinder. It was an odd experience. Am I an apologist in spite of myself?

I had wanted to complain about the repeated injunctions in the scriptures to believe. My skeptical side has always disliked these passages, finding them inexplicable and even embarrassing. I do not want to believe; I want to understand. Moreover, I want solid reasons to accompany that understanding. Exhortations to belief struck me as a fraud’s gimmick to sucker in folks. I never judged the evangelists as snake oil peddlers, but certain passages in the bible made me uncomfortable. Paul and Silas preach, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” John writes, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Mark writes, “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” There are scores upon scores of such examples, and they are targets for skeptics who care not for blind belief. I am sympathetic to them.

As I was relaying these objections to my fellow Amtrak passenger, a simple explanation came. My interlocutor never knew that my objections were not rhetorical. This unforeseen answer reminded me an earlier objection that I had about the anthropomorphism in the scriptures’ depiction of a wrathful, vindictive God. When that thought bothered me, I happened to come across some patristic texts that addressed the problem, though I do not remember which. The basic idea was that the scriptures are written for men—for their edification and for their salvation. Hence, the inspired texts speak to men at their level. Portrayals of a wrathful, jealous God do not depict God as he is but rather address us pastorally. Most of us have had loving fathers who corrected us. Fathers employ anger, disappointment, approval, sadness, and joy in pedagogy, and we grow up with an intimate recognition of these emotional tools. Holy writ taps into our human psychology to instruct us in the ways of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but it is not the end of it.

Similarly, it occurred to me that the recurring invitations in the bible to believe may also be pastoral. Rather than seedy priestcraft, the call to believe is like a physician’s request that a patient trust him. Unless the patient believes that the physician is able to help him, he will not likely follow the doctor’s advice. Trust necessarily precedes the assistance that the physician may offer. Likewise, Christ the Healer offers us medicine, but we must first accept that it is medicine rather than poison. We must have faith in the physician. This is so obvious to me now, and it is likely a commonplace thought among Christians, but I never realized it before. One must believe before one knows in almost any discipline, since one must trust his teacher before he attains knowledge. How much more necessary is trust when we are dealing not with mere knowledge but with salvation?

Posted by Joseph on Friday, August 26, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Scripture • Non-Chalcedonianism • Protestantism • Rabbinical Judaism • Roman Catholicism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Tuesday, August 23, A.D. 2011

Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science

Hillel Ofek published an interesting article in The New Atlantis, “Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science.” The article is informative, though not without fault. For instance, it contains a ridiculous quotation by an Islamic Studies plant, Jamil Ragep: “Nothing in Europe could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Even if we grant the Dar al Islam Averroes and Maimonides, since they inhabited that civilization, we should not underestimate the splendor of Western intellectual achievement in the scholastic age and afterward. Albert, Thomas, John Duns Scotus, Dante Alighieri, William of Ockham, Desiderius Erasmus, and Niccolò Machiavelli are just some of the illustrious minds in the West before A.D. 1600, and who were their Arabic counterparts to whom they could not hold a candle? Moreover, the article betrays the typical Western ignorance of intellectual activities in the Eastern Roman Empire. Nonetheless, the essay poses an interesting question—one that Averroes answered nine centuries before when he warned about the corrupting influences of Mohammedan theologians.

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, August 23, Anno Domini 2011
Muhammadanism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, August 19, A.D. 2011

Mount Tabor

I wish those on the old calendar a blessed feast of the Transfiguration, as well as a happy birthday to my sister.

The gospels do not specify upon which mountain the Transfiguration occurred, though Christian tradition holds that it was Mount Tabor. Christians have made pilgrimages to the mount since antiquity, though the Mohammedans demolished all Christian edifices in the thirteenth century. Centuries later, the Ottomans allowed first the Franciscans and then the Orthodox to rebuild monasteries and temples on Mount Tabor. The site BibleWalks has pictures and information, and there is another page for the Orthodox Monastery of Saint Elijah.

Interestingly and coincidentally, my sister’s namesake has a historical connection to Mount Tabor, as recounted in the fourth chapter of the Book of Judges.

Posted by Joseph on Friday, August 19, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • Patristics • Saints • Scripture • Muhammadanism • Rabbinical Judaism • Roman Catholicism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Tuesday, August 16, A.D. 2011

O.C.A. Left

Last month, I gently criticized the Orthodox Church in America in “An Illness in Orthodox America.” I fear that the problems might be more grave. Take, for instance, the issue of Wonder dedicated to the relationship between Christianity and secular politics. Wonder is a publication of the O.C.A. Department of Youth, not merely someone’s private blog. Even a bishop has an article in the publication, and it betrays, under the banner of tolerance, the pusillanimous stance of a retreating Christianity unwilling to uphold the moral tradition of the Church and of the civilized West. One’s responsibility for his own spiritual state does not negate his social responsibilities. One’s lack of ultimate spiritual perfection must not paralyze him from tending to more worldly duties.That some Christians seem unable to grasp this reveals a rot in Christendom. Nietzsche saw it, and he condemned the entire religion. The other articles echo the convoluted excuses of prolife Democrats who vote for abortion rights politicians, as if there were an equivalency between tax policy and legalized abortion. The Christian tradition has no set political philosophy regarding socialism, whereas Christian civilization is unanimous in its condemnation of child murder. Christians of good will may disagree about energy policy and the welfare state, but Christians cannot in good conscience support attacks on the fundamental natural laws of the human community. Only one party has declared war against divine law and human nature. Yet, some on the “religious Left” want to carry water for the theomachists.

Perhaps even more troubling are signs that some folks in the O.C.A. are in open rebellion against the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, including priests and possibly bishops. Read “Same-Sex Marriage and the Revolt Against Metropolitan Jonah” and “A Pastoral Counselor’s take on Leonova’s FB Group.” In addition to other unpleasantries that have surfaced in the last year, many O.C.A. members are concerned about a Facebook group in the Diocese of Boston that appears to seek the normalization of homosexuality in pastoral practice. That would not be disturbing if the members of the group did not include the bishop and several priests. I have been skeptical over insinuations of the “Lavender Mafia” in response to the political crisis in which Metropolitan Jonah finds himself. Perhaps, I have been naive about the extent of a Protestant style revolt.

What ever happend to Christian sinners’ acceptance of their shortcomings and the high probability of their damnation? Is it a sign of our age’s intolerable narcissism that everyone wishes to rewrite the law, history, and even holy writ to justify his own personal foibles. It is so petty and pedestrian, I find it difficult to believe that homosexuals have sunk to such a level of bourgeois self adulation. Can you imagine Wilde or Proust being so dishonest with themselves?

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, August 16, Anno Domini 2011
Orthodoxy • (0) Comments • Permalink