National Healthcare and the Church-State Relationship in Romiosini

"Dr. Miller is a learned and enterprising historian with a fascinating theme. He shows beyond a doubt that the Western hospital tradition goes back to the early Byzantine Empire in the fourth century." -- Medical History

Fr. Romanides writes about the relationship between Church and State in the Roman Empire following the conversion to Christianity of Emperor Constantine the Great saying:

"The great struggle between paganism and Christianity in the time of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) is reflected in the difference between Roman Greeks (meaning Pagans) and Roman Christians. All Pagan Romans were defending their aristocratic ancient Hellenic identity and traditions which was being torn apart by the aristocratic identity of the cure of glorification which was open to all Romans, both gentis and non-gentis, and to all non-Romans."

And elsewhere:

"Biblical Faith is one's cooperation/operation with the Holy Spirit who initiates the cure of the sickness of possessive love caused by the short-circuit in the heart and transforms it into love which does not seek its own. This cure is consummated in glorification (theosis) and constitutes the heart of the Orthodox Catholic Church which replaced paganism as the core of the Hellenic Civilization of the Roman Empire."

And he concludes:

"We are obliged to have a clear picture of the context within which the Church and the State viewed the contribution of the glorified to the cure of the sickness of religion which warps the human personality by means of its search for happiness both in this life and after the death of the body. It is within this context that the Roman Empire legally incorporated the Orthodox Church into its administrative structure. Neither the State nor the Church saw the mission of the Church as the simple forgiveness of sins of the faithful for their entrance into heaven in the next life. This would be equivalent to a doctor's forgiveness of his patients for being sick for their cure in the next life. Both the Church and the State knew well that the forgiveness of sins was only the beginning of the cure of the happiness seeking sickness of humanity. This cure begins by the purification of the heart, it arrives at the restoration of the heart to its natural state of illumination and the whole person begins to be perfected beyond one's natural capacities by the glorification of body and soul by God's uncreated glory (shekina). The result of this cure and perfection was not only the proper preparation for life after the death of one's body, but also the transformation of society here and now from a collection of selfish and self-centered individuals to a society of persons with selfless love 'which does not seek its own.'"

This organic relationship of Church and State in the Roman Empire created an environment of philanthropy that included both spiritual and physical healing, in imitation of Christ and the Apostles who did not seek their own but showed selflessness in their love for humanity. Since the Church is a spiritual hospital, and Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, it also acquired similar traits for physical ailmants through its vast resources to build entire institutions dedicated to both spiritual (monastery/parish) and physical (hospital) healing.

In this highly recommended book titled The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire published by Johns Hopkins University and written by Timothy S. Miller, this medical historian argues that the sophisticated medical facilities of the Byzantine Empire are the true ancestors of modern hospitals and our philanthropic systems. This is further elaborated upon in his book The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire.

Christianity always played a key role in the building and maintaining of Hospitals, as it did with most other areas of the Roman Empire. Many Hospitals were built and maintained by Bishops in their respective prefectures, among the first being St. Basil the Great. Hospitals were often, but not always, built near or around churches and great importance was laid on the idea of healing through salvation. When medicine failed doctors would always ask their patients to pray. After the Iconoclastic problems had been resolved, this usually involved relics and icons of Saints such as Saints Cosmas and Damien the Unmercenaries, who were killed by Diocletian in 303, and were the patron Saints of medicine and doctors.

Christianity also played a key role in propagating the idea of charity - medicine was made accessible to all, both rich and poor. This idea, combined with the vast resources Roman (Byzantine) physicians had at their disposal was ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES IN HISTORY THAT A STATE HAS ACTIVELY SOUGHT TO EXPEND RESOURCES ON A PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

What is the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit According to the Church Fathers?

By John Sanidopoulos

Three of the four Gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three passages read as follows.

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:31-32).

"Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (Mark 3:28-30).

"And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven" (Luke 12:10).

According to St John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the reason blasphemy against the Son of Man is forgiven while that of the Holy Spirit is not is because the Jews knew nothing of the Son of Man, who He might be, but they had ample experience of the Holy Spirit through the words and signs of the Prophets and all in the Old Testament had a high notion of Him. If one is thus at first offended that God has taken on human flesh, then this is pardonable. But throughout the Scriptures the Holy Spirit was amply revealed, and since the Jews of Jesus' time could not discern the same Holy Spirit that the Prophets revealed in the words of Jesus who is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, then they will not be forgiven. On top of that Jesus was casting out devils and working cures among the people in the power of the Holy Spirit and even raising the dead like the Prophets before Him, and they still could not discern that it was the same Holy Spirit doing these things that did them through the Prophets before Him. Instead in their depravity they called the works of the Holy Spirit a product of Satan. This cannot be forgiven. As St. Athanasius the Great says: "The Savior while before He rebuked them for many sins exhorted them to repent; yet when they said, 'He casts out devils by Beelzebub,' He speaks of this no longer as a sin, but as blasphemy so great, that on those who dared this, punishment must come, without escape or pardon." Furthermore, St. Basil the Great explains that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to attribute His operations to the opposite spirit. He says that this is done by attributing any gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the Saints as being from the devil. And the condemnation of the Jews is worsened over the fact that the Gentiles were able to discern the Holy Spirit through the teaching and miracles of the Apostles while these teachers of the Law could not discern Him.

This also applies today when someone accepts the Old Testament but does not receive the New. It also applies to those who accept both the Old and New Testament but do not accept the Saints or the Holy Mysteries. Thus all heresy is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. St. Symeon the New Theologian explains this in his sermon titled Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. He further declares that this condemnation comes upon all those who deny that the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue always within the Church. Yet St. Symeon goes to great lengths, as do all the Fathers, to explain that it is always possible to draw near to God through repentance. For such, no sin is unforgivable nor eternal. Stubbornness in one's heresy is unforgivable.

St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke further says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the entire Holy Trinity. If one does not acknowledge the entire Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - then he also blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms this also in his treatise Against the Macedonians: "Perhaps this is the blasphemy against our Law Giver for which the judgment without remission has been decreed; since in Him the entire Being, blessed and divine, is insulted also. As the devout worshipper of the Spirit sees in Him the glory of the Only-begotten, and in that sight beholds the image of the Infinite God, and by means of that image makes an outline, upon his own cognition, of the Original, so most plainly does this condemner (of the Spirit), whenever he advances any of his bold statements against the glory of the Spirit, extend, by virtue of the same reasoning, his profanity to the Son, and beyond Him to the Father."

St. Barsanuphius of Optina told a disciple that when an Orthodox person falls away from the Orthodox Faith, that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

When the blessed Elder Paisios of Mount Athos was asked about what the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, he responded by saying: "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in general disregard for holy and sacred things, provided of course, the person is sane...it is impossible for blasphemy to exist in a devout person." He further says that those impudent people who justify their fall into sin in turn justify the devil, thus committing a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and opening themselves up to demonic attacks. Such a person never enters into God's peace and rest. Thus he says: "Impudent people are at the first level of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Those who despise and scorn the sacred and holy things are at the second level, and at the third level is the devil himself."

In diagnosing blasphemy, St. John of the Ladder simply writes: "Unspeakable blasphemy is the child of dreadful pride."

St. Kosmas Aitolos warned in a sermon: "And how is it that you dare, O foolish and evil man, to blaspheme and take God's name in vain? The same with that of the Saints? Aren't you afraid, you most wretched one, that the earth might open up and swallow you? The devil doesn't dare to curse the name of God because he is afraid that lightning might fall and burn him, and you, insignificant man, open your damned mouth and take God's name in vain? Woe to those who curse the name of God, because a river of flaming fire will burn them forever."

With the same love and concern the blessed Elder Philotheos Zervakos counsels one of his spiritual children when he writes: "For you to say that you will not give up blasphemy is to say that you will not obey God, but rather that you wish to obey the devil who rejoices when you blaspheme against God. You will be condemned with the devil to the eternal fire that is prepared for him and his angels and all those who follow him and repeat his blasphemies. Therefore I entreat you, act like a reasonable person and repent. Sing hymns and spiritual songs to the Lord, not blasphemies, before death comes, for in Hades and after death there is no repentance... Do not put it off, for death comes unexpectedly."

From what we read in the Holy Fathers, therefore, blasphemy against God is every bit as grievous as our Lord Jesus makes it out to be.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Papoulakis: Saint Joachim of Vatopaidi (2)

...continued from Part 1

Patriarchal and Synodal Act of Canonization For St. Joachim of Vatopaidi

To the Very Reverend Abbot Archimandrite Εphraim and the other venerable Fathers of the Holy, Royal, Patriarchal and Stavropegic Monastery of Vatopaidi on the Holy Mountain, children in the Lord beloved of our humble self. Grace be to you, venerable fathers, and peace from God.

Based on the material submitted by you, beloved and venerable fathers, and on the relative report from our Canonical Commission, which were reviewed in the council of our Holy and Sacred Synod, the Monk Joachim Papoulakis of Vatopaidi from Ithaki – whose blessed life and conduct were distinguished by a genuine Orthodox way of thinking and by a great contribution to the Church – is hereby numbered among the Blessed Ones and Saints of the Church. His commemoration is appointed for the 2nd of March each year, whereas that of the translation of his relics for the 23rd of May.

As we happily make this known to your Reverences through this Patriarchal Letter of Greeting, we heartily rejoice together with you upon the ecclesiastical recognition of the holiness and blessedness of the Saint.

We are also sending you, enclosed herein, an exact fascimile, drawn up and signed, of the XXX Codex of our Holy and Great Church of Christ containing our relevant Patriarchal and Synod Act directed to the Church, according to proper order, to be read at your Holy Monastery and placed in its Archives. Conferring upon you our heartfelt paternal and Patriarchal blessing, we call down upon you the Grace and infinite mercy of God.

Protocol Number 323

Act regarding the enrolment of the Vatopaidi monk Joachim from Ithaki, also called “Papoulakis” (1786-1868), into the Calendar of Saints of the Church.

It is proper and of great benefit for the whole Church that they who excelled in virtues while in the flesh, and are now departed this life, should be venerated, honored, and glorified yearly in services and in hymns of praise, since, according to Saint Gregory the Theologian, the praise given to those who lived virtuously is directed to God Himself, the author of every human virtue. This is because the exaltation of good deeds moves the indolent and idle to desire and acquire virtue, whereas it inspires those who are industrious in virtue to be more so.

The Monk Joachim of Vatopaidi, later known as Papoulakis, from Ithaki, initially lived an ascetic life for twenty years in the Holy, Royal, Patriarchal and Stavropegic Monastery of Vatopaidi on the Holy Mountain, in which he received the sacred schema, and which later sent him forth on a mission to bolster the afflicted flock of the Greek mainland, and then for forty years developed a special work on his home island of Ithaki. He lived a blessed and holy life, being a model of citizenship in Christ and a living image of virtue, and showed himself to be an instructor and protector of the harried Christian congregation.

For these reasons, we humbly, together with our most holy and honorable Metropolitans, our behoved brothers and concelebrants in the Holy Spirit, having examined his God-pleasing way of life, his works, and his achievements, and being mindful of the common good of the people, and bearing in mind all that has been presented to the Church regarding these things – submitted, on the one hand, by the Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi on the Holy Mountain, and, on the other, by the Most Reverend Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Seraphim, petitioning that the anniversary of his death be sanctioned as in honor of a Saint – we do decree, in accord with the customary practice of the Church and of our fathers before us, to bestow upon him the honor due to holy men.

Wherefore, as a synod, we decree and ordain, and direct in the Holy Spirit, that from this day hence and forevermore Joachim of Vatopaidi, Papoulakis, be reckoned among the Blessed Ones and Saints of the Church and be honored and glorified yearly in services and in hymns of praise on the second of March, the day on which he departed in blessedness unto the Lord, as well as on the tenth/twenty-third of May, the day of the translation of his holy relics.

In witness thereto, and confirmation, this our present Patriarchal and Synodal Act is made, drawn up and signed in the Sacred Codex of our Holy and Great Church of Christ, and transmitted without change or alteration to the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Seraphim, and to the Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi on the Holy Mountain, to be placed in their Archives.

In the year of salvation, 1998, in the month of March (19th).

To be continued…Part 3

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Salvation According to Saint Paul

To paraphrase St Athanasius from the fourth century: "If one is to vigorously and consistently maintain that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior who has brought salvation to a world in need of salvation, one obviously must know what is the nature of the need which provoked this salvation." The failure to understand the exact nature of the human situation described by the Old and New Testaments implies a perverted understanding of what it is that Christ did and continues to do for us, and what our subsequent relation is to Christ and neighbor within the realm of salvation.

A basic presupposition of St. Paul's thought is that although the world was created by God and as such is good, yet now there rules in it the power of Satan. The devil, however, is by no means absolute, since God has never abandoned His creation (I Tim. 4:4; I Cor. 15:26, II Cor. 4:3; Rom. 1:20). Thus evil exists, at least temporarily, as a parasitic element alongside and inside of that which God created originally good. A good example of this is one who would do the good according to the "inner man," but finds it impossible because of the indwelling power of sin in the flesh (Rom. 7:15-25). For this reason all men have become sinners (Rom. 3:9-12; 5:19). Satan is no respecter of reasonable rules of good conduct ( II Cor. 4:3; 11:14; Eph. 6:11-17; II Thes. 2:8) and has under his influence all men born under the power of death and corruption (Rom. 8:21).

In regard to the power of Satan to introduce sin into the life of every man, Augustine in combating Pelagianism obviously misread St. Paul by relegating the power of Satan, death, and corruption to the background and pushing to the foreground of controversy the problem of personal guilt in the transmission of Original Sin. Augustine introduced a false moralistic philosophical approach which is foreign to the thinking of St. Paul (Col. 2:8) and which was not accepted by the patristic tradition of the East.

For St. Paul, Satan is active in a dynamic manner, ( Eph. 6:11-17; I Cor. 7:5; II Cor. 2:11; 11:3; Eph. 4:27; I Thes. 3:5; I Tim. 3:6; 3:7; 4:1; 5:14; II Cor. 11:14; 4:3; Eph 2:2; 6:11-17; I Thes. 2:18; 3:5; II Thes. 2:9; I Tim. 2:14; 3:7; II Tim. 2:25-26) fighting for the destruction of creation and not simply waiting passively in a restricted corner to accept those who happen to rationally decide not to follow God and the moral laws inherent in a natural universe. Satan is even capable of transforming himself into an angel of light ( II Cor. 11:15). He has at his disposal miraculous powers of perversion (II Thes. 2:9) and has as co-workers whole armies of invisible powers ( Eph 6:12; Col. 2:15). He is the "god of this age" (II Cor. 4:4), the one who deceived the first woman (II Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:14). It is he who led man and all of creation into the path of death and corruption (Rom. 8:19-22). For St. Paul, the destruction of death is parallel to the destruction of the devil and his forces. Salvation from the one is salvation from the other (Col. 2:13-15; I Cor. 15:24-27; 15:54-57).

It becomes obvious from St. Paul's expressions concerning fallen creation, Satan, and death, that there is no room in his thinking for any type of metaphysical dualism, of departmentalization which would make of this world an intermediary domain which for man is merely a stepping stone leading either into the presence of God or into the kingdom of Satan. The idea of a three story universe, whereby God and His company of saints and angels occupy the top floor, the devil the basement, and man in the flesh the middle, has no room in Pauline theology. For Paul, all three orders of existence interpenetrate. In reality, we choose either the kingdom of God or the kingdom of death and destruction in our daily lives. For this reason, the only true victory possible over the devil is the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:1). There is no escape from the battlefield. The only choice possible for every man is either to fight the devil by actively sharing in the victory of Christ, or to accept the deceptions of the devil by wanting to believe that all goes well and everything is normal (Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 2:12; 11:32; II Cor. 4:3; Col. 2:20; II Thess. 2:9; II Tim. 4:10; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 5:10).

Only God can bestow life and this He does freely, according to his own will (Rom. 9:16), in His own way, and at the time of His own choosing (Rom. 3:26; Eph. 2:4-6; I Tim. 6:15). On the other hand, it is a grave mistake to make the justice of God responsible for death and corruption. Nowhere does Paul attribute the beginnings of death and corruption to God. On the contrary, nature was subjected to vanity and corruption by the devil ( II Cor. 11:13; I Tim 2:14), who through the sin and death of the first man managed to lodge himself parasitically within creation, of which he was already a part but at first not yet its tyrant. For Paul, the transgression of the first man opened the way for the entrance of death into the world (Rom. 5:12), but this enemy (I Cor. 15:26) is certainly not the finished product of God. Neither can the death of Adam, or even of each man, be considered the outcome of any decision of God to punish. St. Paul never suggests such an idea.

To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin with the understanding that all share in the guilt of Adam, is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny and real power to the devil. St. Paul's version of the devil is certainly not that of one who is simply obeying general rules of nature and carrying out the will of God by punishing souls in hell. Quite on the contrary, he is fighting God dynamically by means of all possible deception, trying by all his cunning and power to destroy the works of God (Rom. 8:20; I Cor. 10:10; II Cor. 2:11; 4:3; 11:3; 11:14; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:11-17; I Thes. 2:18; 3:5; II Thes. 2:9; I Tim. 2:14; 5:14; II Tim. 2:26). Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power (Col. 2:15; I Cor. 15:24-26; 15:53-57; Rom. 8:21).

Thus, according to St. Paul, it is God Himself Who has destroyed "principalities and powers" by nailing the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, to the cross of Christ (Col. 2:14-15). "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their offences" ( II Cor. 5:19). Although we were in sin, God did not hold this against us, but has declared His own justice to those who believe in Christ (Rom. 3:20-27). The justice of God is not according to that of men, which operates by the law of works (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:8). For St. Paul, the justice of God and the love of God are not to be separated for the sake of any juridical doctrine of atonement. The justice of God and the love of God as revealed in Christ are the same thing. In Romans 3:21-26, for example, the expression, "love of God," could very easily be substituted for the "justice of God."

It is interesting to note that every time St. Paul speaks about the wrath of God it is always that which is revealed to those who have become hopelessly enslaved, by their own choosing, to the flesh and the devil (Rom. 1:18). Although creation is held captive in corruption, those without the law are without excuse in worshipping and living falsely, because "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. 1:20). "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the desires of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves..." (Rom. 1:24) and again, "God gave them over to reprobate mind" ( Rom. 1:28). This does not mean that God caused them to become what they are, but rather that He gave them up as being completely lost to corruption and the power of the devil. One must also interpret other similar passages in like manner (e.g., Rom. 9:14-18; 11:8).

At the last judgment, all men, whether under the law or not, whether hearers of Christ or not, shall be judged by Christ according to the Gospel as preached by Paul (Rom. 2:16) and not according to any system of natural laws. Even though the invisible things of God "from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," there is still no such thing as moral law inherent in the universe. The gentiles who "have not the law" but who "do by nature the things contained in the law" are not abiding by any natural system of moral laws in the universe. They rather "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Here, again, one sees Paul's conception of personal relationships between God and man. "God hath showed it unto them (Rom. 1:19), and it is God Who is still speaking to fallen man outside of the law, through the conscience and in the heart, which for Paul is the center of man's thoughts (Rom. 1:21; I Cor. 4:5; 14-25; Eph. 1:17), and for members of the body of Christ the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 1:22; Gal. 4:6) and Christ (Eph. 3;17).

It would be nonsense to try to read into Paul's theology a conception of human destiny which accepts the aspirations and desires of what one would call "natural man" as normal. It is normal for natural man to seek security and happiness in the acquisition and possession of objective goods. The scholastic theologians of the West have often used these aspirations of natural man as proof that he is instinctively seeking after the Absolute, the possession of which is the only possible state of complete happiness, that is, a state wherein it is impossible to desire anything more because nothing better exists. This hedonistic type of approach to human destiny is, of course, possible only for those who accept death and corruption either as normal or, at most, as the outcome of a decision of God to punish. If those who accept God as the ultimate source of death were to really attribute sin to the powers of corruption, they would in effect be making God Himself the source of sin and evil.

For St. Paul, Christians are called to die to this world and the body of sin (Rom. 8:10; 8:13; II Cor. 4:10-11; 6:4-10; Col. 2:11-12; 2:20; 3:3; II Thess. 1:4-5), and even to suffer in the Gospel, according to the power of God (II Tim. 1:8; 2:3-6; 4:5). Paul claims that "all who want to live godly lives in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted" ( II Tim. 3:12). This is hardly the language of one who is seeking security and happiness (I Tim 6:7-9).

St. Paul claims that "we are co-workers of God" (I Cor. 3:9). Our relationship of love with God is such that in Christ there is now no longer need for law. "If ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law" ( Gal. 5:18). The members of the Body of Christ are not called on to live on the level of impersonal ordinances, but are now expected to live according to the love of God as revealed in Christ, which needs no laws because it seeks not its own (I Cor. 13:4), but strives to empty itself for others in the image of the love of Christ (Phil. 2:5-8).

The love and justice of God have been revealed once and for all in Christ (Rom. 3:21-28) by the destruction of the devil (Col. 2:15) and the deliverance of man from the body of death and sin (Rom. 8:24; 66), so that man may actually become an imitator of God Himself (Eph. 5:1), who has predestined His elect to become "conformed to the image of His Son"(Rom. 8:29), who did nothing to please Himself but suffered for others (Rom. 15:1-3). Christ died so that the living should no longer live unto themselves (II Cor. 5:15), but should become perfect men, even "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13). Christians are no longer to live according to the rudiments of this world, as though living in this world (Col. 2:20), but are to have the same mind as Christ (I Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5-8), so that in Christ they may become perfect (Col. 1:28). Men are no longer to love their wives according to the world, but must love their wives exactly "as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). The destiny of man is not happiness and self-satisfaction (Phil. 2:20), but rather perfection in Christ. Man must become perfect, as God (Eph. 5:1) and Christ are perfect (Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 10:33; 15:49; II Cor. 3:13; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 4:13; 5:25; Phil. 2:5-8; Col. 1:28; 3:10; 4:12; I Thes. 1:6). Such perfection can come only through the personalistic power of divine and selfless love (I Cor. 13:2-3) "which is the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14). This love is not to be confused with the love of fallen man who seeks his own (Phil. 2:20). Love in Christ does not seek its own, but that of the other (Rom. 14:7; 15:1-3; I Cor. 10:24; 10:29-11:1; 12:25-26; 13:1 ff; II Cor. 5:14-15; Gal. 5:13; 6:1 Eph. 4:2; Phil. 2:4; I Thes. 5:11).

"The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace" (Rom. 8:6). Those who live according to the flesh shall die. Those who mortify the deeds of the flesh (through asceticism) by the spirit shall live (Rom. 8:13). The spirit of man, however, deprived of union with the vivifying Spirit of God, is hopelessly weak against the flesh dominated by death and corruption (Rom. 8:9) -"Who shall deliver me from the body of this death" (Rom. 7:24). And, "the law of the pneumatos tes zoes (Spirit of Life) in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). Only those whose spirit has been renewed (Rom. 7:6) by union with the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9) can fight the desires of the flesh. Only those who are given the Spirit of God and hear His voice in the life of the Body of Christ are able to fight against sin (through asceticism). "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16).

The union of man's spirit with the Spirit of God in baptism (Jn. 3) is no magical guarantee against the possibility of their separation. To become again enslaved to the works of the flesh may very well lead to exclusion from the Body of Christ (Rom. 11:21; I Cor. 5:1-13; II Thes. 3:6; 3:14; II Tim. 3:5). The Spirit of God is given to man that Christ may dwell in the heart (II Cor. 1:22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:16-17). "Now if any have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His" ( Rom. 8:9). To have the Spirit of God dwelling in the body is to be, also, a member of the body of Christ. To be deprived of the one is to be cut off from the other.

It is clear that, for St. Paul, the union of man's spirit with the Spirit of God in the life of love within the Body of Christ is life and salvation. On the other hand, to live according tot he desires of the flesh, dominated by the powers of death and corruption, means death whether one has verbally accepted Christ or not -- "For the mind of the flesh is death" (Rom. 8:6). St. Paul is dealing throughout his epistles with the categories of life and death. God is life. The devil holds the reins of death and corruption. Unity with God in the Spirit, through the Body of Christ in the life of love, is life and brings salvation and perfection. Separation of man's spirit from the divine life in the Body of Christ is slavery to the powers of death and corruption used by the devil to destroy the works of God. The life of the spirit is unity and love. The life according to the flesh is disunity and dissolution in death and corruption.

The importance that St. Paul attributes to dying to the rudiments of this world in order to live according to the "spirit of life" cannot be exaggerated. To try to pass off his insistence on complete self-denial for salvation as a product of eschatological enthusiasts is to miss completely the very basis of the New Testament message. If the destruction of the devil, death and corruption is salvation and the only condition for life according to man's original destiny, then the means of passing from the realm of death and its consequences to the realm of life, in the victory of Christ over death, must be taken very seriously. For Paul, the way from death to life is communion with the death and life of Christ in baptism and a continuous life of love within the body of Christ. This new life of love within the body of Christ, however, must be accompanied by a continuous death to the ways of this world, which is dominated by the law of death and corruption in the hands of the devil. Participation in the victory over death does not come simply by having a magical faith and a general sentiment of vague love for humanity (Luther). Full membership in the Body of Christ can come only by dying in the waters of baptism with Christ, and living according to the law of the "spirit of life." Catechumens and penitents certainly had faith, but they either had not yet passed through death, in baptism, to the new life, or else, once having died to the flesh in baptism, they failed to remain steadfast and allowed the power of death and corruption to regain its dominance over the "spirit of life."

St. Paul does not say anywhere that the whole human race has been accounted guilty of the sin of Adam and is therefore punished by God with death. Death is an evil force which made its way into the world through sin, lodged itself in the world, and, in the person of Satan, is reigning both in man and creation. For this reason, although man can know the good through the law written in his heart and may wish to do what is good, he cannot because of the sin which is dwelling in his flesh. Therefore, it is not he who does the evil, but sin that dwelleth in him. Because of this sin, he cannot find the means to do good. He must be saved from "the body of this death" ( Rom. 7:13-25). Only then can he do good. What can Paul mean by such statements? A proper answer is to be found only when St. Paul's doctrine of human destiny is taken into account.

If man was created for a life of complete selfless love, whereby his actions would always be directed outward, toward God and neighbor, and never toward himself -- whereby he would be the perfect image and likeness of God -- then it is obvious that the power of death and corruption has now made it impossible to live such a life of perfection. The power of death in the universe has brought with it the will for self-preservation, fear, and anxiety (Heb. 2:14-15), which in turn are the root causes of self-assertion, egoism, hatred, envy and the like. Because man is afraid of becoming meaningless, he is constantly endeavoring to prove, to himself and others, that he is worth something. He thirsts after compliments and is afraid of insults. He seeks his own and is jealous of the successes of others. He likes those who like him, and hates those who hate him. He either seeks security and happiness in wealth, glory and bodily pleasures, or imagines that this destiny is to be happy in the possession of the presence of God by an introverted and individualistic sense and inclined to mistake his desires for self-satisfaction and happiness for his normal destiny. On the other hand, he can become zealous over vague ideological principles of love for humanity and yet hate or turn away from his closest neighbors. These are the works of the flesh of which St. Paul speaks (Gal. 5:19-21). Underlying every movement of what the world has come to regard as normal man, is the quest for security and happiness. But such desires are not normal. They are the consequences of perversion by death and corruption, through which the devil pervades all of creation, dividing and destroying. This power is so great that even if man wishes to live according to his original destiny it is impossible because of the sin which is dwelling in the flesh (Rom. 7) --"Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24).

To share in the love of God, without any concern for one's self, is also to share in the life and truth of God. Love, life and truth in God are one and can be found only in God. The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself (St. Athanasius). Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." (Rom. 5:12). Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil (Rom. 8:20-22). Because man is inseparably a part of, and in constant communion with, creation and is linked through procreation to the whole historical process of humanity, the fall of creation through one man automatically involves the fall and corruption of all men. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam (St. John Chrysostom). He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences (St. Cyril of Alexandria).

St. Paul clearly says that "the sting of death is sin" (I Cor. 15:56), that "sin reigned in death" (Rom. 5:21), and that death is "the last enemy that shall be destroyed" (I Cor. 15:26). In his epistles, he is especially inspired when he is speaking about the victory of Christ over death and corruption. It would be highly illogical to try to interpret Pauline thought with the presuppositions (1) that death is normal or (2) that at most, it is the outcome of a juridical decision of God to punish the whole human race for one sin, (3) that happiness is the ultimate destiny of man, and (4) that the soul is immaterial, naturally immortal and directly created by God at conception and is therefore normal and pure of defects (Papal scholasticism). The Pauline doctrine of man's inability to do the good which he is capable of acknowledging according to the "inner man" can be understood only if one takes seriously the power of death and corruption in the flesh, which makes it impossible for man to live according to his original destiny.

The moralistic problem raised by Augustine concerning the transmission of death to the descendants of Adam as punishment for the one original transgression is foreign to Paul's thoughts. The death of each man cannot be considered the outcome of personal guilt. St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior (moralism), which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that the serpent "deceived Eve" (II Cor. 11:3) and that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2:14). Man was not punished by God, but taken captive by the devil.

This interpretation is further made clear by the fact that Paul is insisting that "until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Rom. 5:13-14). It is clear that Paul here is denying anything like a general personal guilt for the sin of Adam. Sin was, however, in the world, since death reigned even over them who had not sinned as Adam sinned. Sin here is obviously the person of Satan, who ruled the world through death even before the coming of the law. This is the only possible interpretation of this statement, because it is clearly supported elsewhere by Paul's teachings concerning the extraordinary powers of the devil, especially in Romans 8:19-21. St. Paul's statements should be taken very literally when he says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death ( I Cor. 15:26) and that "the sting of death is sin" (I Cor. 15:56).

None of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam. The theory of the transmission of original sin and guilt is certainly not found in St. Paul, who can be interpreted neither in terms of juridicism nor in terms of any dualism which distinguishes between the material and the allegedly pure, spiritual, and intellectual parts of man. It is no wonder that some Biblical scholars are at a loss when they cannot find in the Old Testament any clear-cut support for what they take to be the Pauline doctrine of original sin in terms of moral guilt and punishment (Col. 3:3).

It is only when one understands the meaning of death and its consequences that one can understand the life of the ancient Church, and especially its attitude toward martyrdom. Being already dead to the world in baptism, and having their life hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3), Christians could not falter in the face of death. They were already dead, and yet living in Christ. To be afraid of death was to be still under the power of the devil--II Timothy 1:7: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sound mind." In trying to convince the Roman Christians not to hinder his martyrdom, St. Ignatius wrote: "The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition toward God. Let none of you therefore, who are in Rome, help him." It is in this spirit as well that monasticism began.

The greatest power of the devil is death, which is destroyed only within the body of Christ, where the faithful are continuously engaged in the struggle against Satan by striving for selfless love (through asceticism and good works). This combat against the devil and striving for selfless love is centered in the corporate Eucharistic life of the local community -- "For when you assemble frequently epi to auto (in the same place) the powers of Satan are destroyed and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith" (St. Ignatius). Anyone, therefore, who does not hear the Spirit within him calling him to the Eucharistic assembly for the corporate life of selfless love is obviously under the sway of the devil. "He, therefore, who does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride and condemned himself..." (St. Ignatius). The world outside of the corporate life of love, in the Sacraments, is still under the power of the consequences of death and therefore a slave to the devil. The devil is already defeated only because his power has been destroyed by the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ; and this defeat is perpetuated only in the remnant of those saved before Christ and after Christ. Both those saved before Christ and after Him are saved by His death and resurrection, and make up the New Jerusalem. Against this Church the devil cannot prevail, and by this fact he is already defeated. But his power outside of those who are saved remains the same (Eph. 2:12; 6:11-12; II Thes. 2:8-12). Satan is still "the god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), and it is for this reason that Christians must live as if not living in this world (Col. 2:20-23).

It is clear that for St. Paul the bodily resurrection of Christ is the destruction of the devil, death, and corruption. Christ is the first fruits from the dead ( I Cor. 15:23). If there is no resurrection there can be no salvation (I Cor. 15:12-19). Since death is a consequence of the discontinuation of communion with the life and love of God, and thereby a captivity of man and creation by the devil, then only a real resurrection can destroy the power of the devil. Christ died so that he could defeat death and be the first fruits of the resurrection whereby he raises others to newness of life both in the present spiritually and in the future physically. This understanding is diametrically opposed to the understanding of the West where Christ died to satisfy God's justice against sin which was the inherited guilt of Adam upon all of humanity.

Salvation is only the union of man with the life of God in the body of Christ, where the devil is being ontologically and really destroyed in the life of love. Outside of the life of unity with each other and Christ in the Sacramental life of corporate love there is no salvation, because the devil is still ruling the world through the consequences of death and corruption. The enemy of life and love can be destroyed only when Christians can confidently say, "we are not ignorant of his thoughts" (II Cor. 2:11). Any theology which cannot define with exactitude the methods and deceptions of the devil is clearly heretical, because such a theology is already deceived by the devil. It is for this reason that the Fathers could assert that heresy is the work of the devil.

[Extracted from Original Sin According to St. Paul by John S. Romanides found here.]

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Despite Europe's Request, Ankara Continues to Waver on Religious Freedom

07/23/2009
Asia News
by NAT da Polis
Istanbul, Turkey

The head of EU enlargement has said that the accession process of Turkey also depends on the Halki school, an institution for the formation of the clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, closed since 1971. The government remains silent, while the debate grows in the media. The real issue is the recognition of the status of the Patriarchate.

Rumours abound in Turkish press over the imminent reopening of the Halki Theological School (see photo), for the formation of theologians and the clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, closed suddenly in 1971, after more than 100 years of activity. The issue is being widely discussed in the media, with the mixture of opinions for and against the reopening.

It all began when Oli Rehn, head of EU enlargement, and thus also of Turkey's accession to the EU, in a meeting with journalists in Brussels, June 10 last, said that this process also takes into consideration the reopening of Halki. He also made known to press, concerns expressed to him by the Holy See regarding the level of religious freedom in Turkey. Influential journalists, writers and professors, like Baskin Oran, Murat Belge, Ali Birant, Kanlı and Orhan Kemal Cengiz, have come out in favour of the reopening. The latter, in an article in Today's Zaman entitled "Is the Ecumenical Patriarchate waiting for Godot?” describes, as never before, the shameful and persistent behaviour of the Turkish authorities, bent on the complete extinction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, through methods of persecution including insidious legislation, even arriving at accusing the Patriarchate because, in his opinion, it left its appeal to the court in Strasbourg too late and is guilty of trusting too much to the periodic promises made by the Turkish authorities.

Voices against the reopening of Halki have been raised, however, by the Istanbul Lawyers Association, a very important institution, during a conference organized after (a coincidence?) Rehn's statement. Arguments against the reopening and against the Patriarchate far from polite. The legal status of the Patriarchate was challenged, and consequently it’s right to have a school of theology. The chairman of the association, Muammer Aydin, accused the Phanar of despising Turkey and of aiming to establish itself as the Vatican of the East, while a professor at the University of Marmara, Ozel Sibel, having listed a series of norms which, she claims, prohibit the recognition of the Patriarchate and the reopening of Halki - justifiably closed in her opinion - concluded that "no one can impose the reopening of Halki”. The Turkish government, for its part, has spoken for the first time through Erdogan, who, on the sidelines of the recent expanded G8 summit, responding to questions from journalists on the Halki question, said that he had not received any request on the issue by the parties directly concerned, i.e. the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

But in order to understand the true intentions of Turkish authorities, regardless of the kind of government in power, the statements of the Minister Egemen Bagis, head of Turkey-EU relations are important. Bagis remarked the other day: "The reopening of Halki is a domestic issue for Turkey", that is an internal issue for its citizens. One solution, according Bagis, lies in the context of reciprocity with the rights of Muslims (approximately 140,000) who live in the northeast of Greece, because, although Greek citizens, according to Ankara they are all ethnic Turks.

“In short it’s the same old story," says a senior lecturer in history, a Greek from Istanbul, Dimitri G., one of the last remaining members of the almost non existent Orthodox community in the city. “Every time the issue of Halki arises, particularly during the visits of Heads of State to Ankara, not least the recent visit of Obama, Ankara, caught unprepared by its interlocutors, raises the question of reciprocity with the Muslim community in Greece, and so it avoids dealing with the issue”. "But what kind of reciprocity are they speaking about?" continues Dimitri G. "In Greece there is a community of Greek citizens of Muslim religion about 140 thousand people of different ethnic origins: Turkish, Pomak (Slavs converted to Islam) and gypsies, who are flourishing, with clergy and mosques, Islamic schools and cultural activities, according to the dictates of religious freedom. All this funded by the Greek State and also by the EU, because they are nationals of an EU Member State. And rightly so. In Turkey, on the contrary, following the systematic purging of the past years, from 100 thousand souls that existed in 1923 - which according to the Treaty of Lausanne were to be treated as the Muslim minority in Greek Thrace, for the principle of numerical reciprocity, wanted and ordered by Turkish authorities themselves - we have been reduced to barely a 3 thousand. The historic status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never recognized and it must raise funds by its own means. The Mufti in Greece are public employees. And, again, is right. Therefore, any invocation of reciprocity from the Turkish side is unacceptable, because it is they who have deliberately and systematically violated it”.

Father Distheos, head of external relations for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a German citizen, but a Greek of Constantinople, very esteemed in the international arena for his perspicacity, said in this regard to Asia News: "With all this fuss that has been created in the media regarding the possible reopening of Halki - magisterially orchestrated as is usual with the media in Turkey - there is the risk of obscuring the essence of the fundamental question, which is much more important. Namely that of the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Regarding Halki, the solution is simple: return to the status prior to 1971. It is up to the authorities to restore it." As to the statements of Prime Minister Erdogan that they had not received any request from those directly involved Father Dositheos reports that Patriarch Bartholomew on the occasion of courtesy visits made in 2007 both to President Gul and other Turkish authorities, he certainly raised all issues of concern, including that of Halki, and they "simply replied that they would take them into consideration..”.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Papoulakis: Saint Joachim of Vatopaidi (1)

[I will be presenting a series that is found at http://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/ concerning one of the great Saints of our modern times, Saint Joachim of Vatopaidi who more popularly is known by the name "Papoulakis". This booklet was written by Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi of blessed memory who recently passed away and helped revive the awareness of this important modern ecclesiastical figure. It is my hope that this awareness of one of our great modern Fathers will extend throughout the West as well. - J.S.]

Papoulakis: Saint Joachim of Vatopaidi

by Elder Joseph οf Vatopaidi

HOLY GREAT MONASTERY OF VATOPAIDI MOUNT ATHOS 2005

Translated from the second Greek edition of the Holy Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, Mount Athos in 1998

PROLOGUE

While exploring the inexhaustible library of our Monastery, a book printed in 1902 fell quite unexpectedly into our hands. It bore the title The Life and Acts of our Blessed Father Joachim of Ithaki and was written by a physician from Ithaki named Panos D. Raftopoulos.

Looking over this book, we realized that it was about the life of a contemporary holy man - one unknown to us - who had reposed in 1868. But what is significant and deserving of our attention is that blessed Joachim was a brother of our Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi. The discovery of this spiritual treasure was a source of great joy and of spiritual exaltation for our entire brotherhood. Precisely during that period we had begun to examine in detail the Monastery’s archives in an attempt to discover all of the Vatopaidi saints and to publish, with God’s help, the Vatopaidi Meadow, presenting the spiritual blossoms of the Monastery. Thus far blessed Joachim is the forty-third Vatopaidi saint.

The inspiring life of Saint Joachim, “Papoulakis” — “Little Grandfather,” as he was called by the Ithacans — is a clear proof that, even in these difficult days of ours, holy Athos continues to give the world the “good witness of Jesus Christ” (see Rev. 20:4).

The Vatopaidi monk Joachim lived at the Monastery for about twenty years. Seeing the spiritual need of the Greek nation, and being convinced of Joachim’s holiness, the Monastery sent him out for the solidarity of the people of God, who were wearied and wounded by the Turkish domination. Blessed Joachim forsook his beloved monastery in an act of obedience and traveled about cities and villages as a true missionary — like a second Cosmas Aitolos — teaching and instructing the people.

From his biography, it appears that Saint Joachim was filled with grace while still in his mother’s womb. In this, and in all his life, one sees “wonders and signs” (Acts 2:43), just as we also encounter in all those who have been “pleasing to God throughout the ages” (from the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).

Not wanting the “lamp” to remain “under the bushel basket” (Mk. 4:21), we immediately met with the Very Reverend Metropolitan of Levkas and Ithaki, Bishop Nikiphoros, to discuss the subject. His Grace received us with genuine fatherly love and likewise showed a fitting interest in blessed Joachim, who had remained hidden until now.

Together with His Grace, we went over to Ithaki to draw near to and venerate the Saint’s tomb, which was located in the community of Stavros in Ithaki, behind the holy sanctuary of the church of Saint Barbara, which the Saint himself had built.

What was moving for us as we wandered about the island was to see that large photographic copies of the Saint’s image were found on almost all of the icon screens of the churches, as well as in many homes of the Ithacans, and that he was being honored as a saint. As we spoke with many Ithacans, we saw that even today blessed Joachim attends to and works with the yearnings of the faithful, interceding for all as a fit guardian angel, granting illumination, and speaking to simple hearts. Devout believers have testified that they feel his presence among them.

By all accounts it seems that blessed Joachim was a great hesychast, because, whenever he found the opportunity, he would withdraw “into the wilderness” (Lk. 5:16), where he would pray “without ceasing” (1 Thes. 5:17). The Saint, as a laborer who readily embraced hardship, “kept the difficult ways” (Ps. 16:4 LXX) as a means of ascetic struggle, walking in the “narrow and difficult way” (see Matt. 7:14). Many Ithacans saw him treat his body with severity and, many times, without apparent reason, load himself up with rocks, the sole purpose being to undergo hardship and asceticism. In this way, in conjunction with grace, he acquired the divine charismata [i.e., gifts] of wonderworking and of victory over the evil one. As we shall see, the Saint was especially blessed with the gifts of clairvoyance and prophecy. The pious Ithacans related innumerable accounts to us that clearly reveal these spiritual gifts of the Saint.

Our Holy Monastery considers it a special blessing that our venerable Elder, the monk Joseph, took on the writing of this book, because we know that a Saint’s grace-filled inner world, filled with the riches of the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, can only be understood by someone who has a “comparable life” and common life experiences. For exactly this reason, our venerable Elder, aware of the prerequisites for a person to undertake the writing of such a book, states in his epilogue that he “fears that perhaps what he has written has slighted such a hero of God’s love.”

In addition, the reader of this book should bear in mind that our Elder had never received even a rudimentary education. He attended only the first years of primary school. Consequently, this book has not been written according to literary rules of composition. In spite of these things, we are convinced that with his more than fifty years of monastic experience on the Holy Mountain, and especially with his many years as a disciple at the feet of his elder, Joseph the Hesychast, he has written about and commented on the amazing life of blessed Joachim of Vatopaidi, from Ithaki, in a completely patristic manner.

With all these things in mind, we feel the pressing need, as we proceed with this second edition, to make this Vatopaidi Saint all the more known as a contemporary manifestation of the Holy Spirit in today’s materialistically minded world, especially following his official enrollment by the Mother Church into the catalog of saints of the Orthodox Church. Thus, once again, we have clear proof that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Very Reverend Metropolitan of Levkas and Ithaki, Bishop Nikiphoros, who demonstrated his concern for the Saint by making it possible for his relics to be exhumed in 1992. Consequently, our Church has been enriched by the presence of his divinely blessed relics.

We also owe thanks to all those who assisted in the gathering of material about the life and the miracles of the Saint, as well as to those who helped with the unearthing of his grace-flowing relics, especially to the reverend Father Theodosios Dendrinos and to the pious teacher, Mr. Konstantinos Kanellos.

The recent official enrollment of Saint Joachim into the Calendar of Saints of the Orthodox Church by the august Ecumenical Patriarchate — which we filially thank for its part in bringing us this great joy — has also contributed to the furthering of the awareness of his supernatural struggles.

We humbly pray that this second edition of Saint Joachim’s life will contribute to the rekindling of the devout readers’ yearning for God.

The Abbot of the Holy Great
Monastery of Vatopaidi

Arcimandrite Ephraim

To be continued…Part 2

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine" Discussion - Part 3

Below is Part 3 divided in 3 sections of a video series being done by Greek Orthodox TV in which they discuss the illuminating book by Fr. John Romanides titled Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine. I highly recommend everyone to have a listen, as it serves as a pretty good introduction to the subject. If you have not listened to Part 1 yet, you should listen to that first here. Part 2 is here.

Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3A


Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3B


Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - PART 3C

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodox Christian Churches in Cyprus in 'Great Peril'

St. Mamas Church in Morphou, Cyprus. It is the only active (semi-active) church in northern Cyprus.

[Since its 1974 invasion, Turkey has controlled northern Cyprus, which it calls the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” No international nation has ever recognized this entity except for Turkey. The United States has only recognized the Republic of Cyprus.

In the span of three decades under Turkish control, more than 530 churches and monasteries have been pillaged, vandalized, or destroyed in the northern area of Cyprus, according to The Republic of Cyprus. As for who exactly is responsible for this destruction, the facts are unknown.

Starting in 2003, Greek-Cypriots again were allowed to cross the border between the Republic of Cyprus and the area under Turkish control. It was around this time that scholars and photographers were able to visit northern Cyprus to document the destruction of historic churches and artifacts.

St. Mamas Church in the northwest town of Morphou is the only notable church that is known to be semi-active in Turkey-controlled Cyprus, according to the New York-based Hellenic Times and the Embassy of The Republic of Cyprus in the United States. Turkish officials who rule the area reportedly give permission twice a year for remaining residents – who were there before Turkish occupation – to worship in the church.

Other churches were not so fortunate.

About 133 churches, chapels and monasteries have been converted to military storage facilities, stables and night-clubs. Seventy-eight churches have been converted to mosques, and dozens more are used as military facilities, medical storage facilities, or stockyards or hay barns, according to statistics from The Republic of Cyprus.

Agia Anastasia Church in Lapithos was converted into a hotel and casino, while the Sourp Magar Armenian monastery – founded in the medieval period – was converted into a cafeteria.

A Neolithic settlement at the Cape of Apostolos Andreas-Kastros in the occupied area of Rizokapraso – a site declared an ancient monument by the Republic of Cyprus – was bulldozed by the Turkish Army in order to plant two of its flagpoles on top of the historic hill.

Furthermore, over 15,000 portable religious icons were stolen and auctioned off around the world.

Relics – which include fine icons, mosaics and frescoes from ancient Byzantine era – have turned up at auction houses around the world, including at the prestigious Sotheby’s in New York.

In January 2007, six icons were returned to the Church of Cyprus after being smuggled out of the country. They were to be put up for auction at Sotheby’s.

Also, back in 1988, four pieces of an invaluable work of art dating between 525 and 530 A.D. were recovered when a Turkish art dealer offered to sell it to an American antique dealer for $1 million. The American dealer contacted the Paul Getty Museum in Malibu to resell the mosaics for $20 million. The museum then informed the Cypriot Church about the art work.

In the end, U.S. courts ruled that the Cypriot Church was the legitimate owner of the pieces, and they are now shown in the Byzantine Museum of Nicosia.

It is estimated that more than 60,000 ancient artifacts have been illegally transferred to other countries, according to the Republic of Cyprus. Sadly, most of these artifacts were not recovered.

Cyprus has some of the finest collections of Byzantine art in the world, offering scholars and others the priceless study on the development of Byzantine wall-painting art from the 8th-9th century until the 18th century A.D.

The United States has recognized Cyprus’ endangered cultural heritage, and in 1999 and 2003 the U.S. Treasury Department issued emergency import restrictions on Byzantine Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials from Cyprus.

Then, in 2002, the United States and Cyprus signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning the import restrictions on pre-classical and classical archeological objects from Cyprus. The MOU was amended and renewed in 2006 and 2007 to include additional artifacts.

Kakouris says that the Cyprus issue has been ignored for decades by the international community.

There were 20,000 Greek Cypriots in the Turkish-controlled area after 1974, but today there are about 450 Greek Cypriots remaining. Over 80 percent of the Republic of Cyprus population is Christian.

While the island population is only 800,000, it is a major tourist attraction, drawing over 2 million tourists each year.

Below is an article that appeared in The Washington Times a few days ago revealing some of the results of a 50-page document by the Helsinki Commission titled "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law." These results were presented in Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

To read the entire report of the Helsinki Commission, go here. - J.S.]

His Beatitude Chrysostomos I, center, Minister of Education Hadjinicolaou, and Michel and Frederique van Rijn view newly returned frescoes and mosaics (which were looted and put up for sale) at the Archiespiscopal Palace in Cyprus in December 1997.

Religious Artifacts in Cyprus in 'Great Peril'

The Washington Times
July 21, 2009
Julia Duin

Religious artifacts on the divided island of Cyprus are in "great peril," according to a U.S. Helsinki Commission document to be released Tuesday afternoon.

Thousands of Orthodox icons, manuscripts, frescoes and mosaics have been looted from churches, chapels and monasteries in northern Cyprus, ending up on international auction blocks, says the document, the result of a lengthy investigation by the Helsinki Commission and titled "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law."

A copy of the 50-page document was provided to The Washington Times in advance of a Tuesday press briefing and panel discussion on Capitol Hill.

The panelists will include Charalampos Chotzakoglou, professor of Byzantine art and archaeology at Hellenic Open University in Patras, Greece; German art historian Klaus Gallas, who is a specialist on the international smuggling of art artifacts; and Michael Jansen, author of "War and Cultural Heritage: Cyprus after the 1974 Turkish Invasion."

Most of the ruined property belongs to the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, one of the world's oldest national Orthodox churches, with the rest belonging to Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Maronite and Jewish groups.

Thirty-five years of occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkish forces have ruined "a plethora of archeological and religious sites," says the report, which adds that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been documenting the destruction since 1984.

According to the report:

• 500 Orthodox churches or chapels have been pillaged, demolished or vandalized.

• 133 churches, chapels and monasteries have been desecrated.

• 15,000 paintings have disappeared.

• 77 churches have been turned into mosques, 28 are being used by the Turkish military as hospitals or camps, and 13 have been turned into barns.

A staff member for the Helsinki Commission said a copy of the report had been sent to the Turkish Embassy in Washington, but an embassy spokesman said it had not been received.

"It sounds like a one-sided presentation," said the embassy spokesman, who asked to remain unidentified because he was not authorized to comment on the record.

"There's no input from the Turkish side. There is no coincidence the report is coming out this week because it's the 35th anniversary of the intervention by Turkey. Turkey respects all cultural heritages," the spokesman said.

The Turkish Embassy spokesman pointed out a Nov. 28, 2001, letter from Tahsin Ertugruloglu, foreign affairs minister for the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, that said Greek Cypriots destroyed Muslim shrines and mosques in 103villages between 1963 and 1974.

The report by the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which monitors compliance with agreements among members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, included this claim by Turkey. But the report also added that Cyprus, which exercises effective control over the southern two-thirds of the island, has spent about $600,000 since 2000 to renovate 17 historic mosques.

According to the report, the 77 churches converted into mosques have texts from the Koran inscribed where icons and paintings used to be; the St. Anastasia monastery is now a hotel with a swimming pool and casino; and the Byzantine-era monastery of Antiphonetes has had its icons and murals removed and sold to art dealers.

Jerome Bowers, a Northern Illinois University associate history professor who recently returned from studying in Cyprus, said in an e-mail that while Greek Orthodox artifacts in Northern Cyprus have been damaged, the stolen goods have been smuggled out of Cyprus mostly through the southern part of the island.

"There can be no denying the fact that the destruction of religious cultural artifacts in the south has also taken place," he wrote. "In Paphos, for example, the Camii Cedit was not only destroyed but replaced with a parking lot, and the square surrounding the location is now called March 9th Square, named for the date of the mosque's destruction."

The Christian church has ancient roots in Cyprus. Visited in A.D. 45 by the apostle Paul along with his co-workers Barnabas and Mark (as recorded in Acts 13:4-12), it was ruled by Byzantine emperors for hundreds of years. It was during this time that the vast majority of churches were built in the region and decorated with brightly colored frescoes and tiled mosaics.

In 1571, the island fell under the control of the Ottoman Turks, and in 1878, the British took over. The native Cypriots are divided into two camps: 80 percent Greek speakers and 18 percent ethnic Turks, with the remaining 2 percent divided among Armenians, Maronites and Latin-rite Catholics.

According to the report, the Greek government, with the help of Cypriot armed forces, forced out Archbishop Makarios, the first democratically elected president of the island, on July 15, 1974.

Turkey invaded five days later, taking over the northern 37 percent of Cyprus, ostensibly to protect Turkish-speaking inhabitants. Several years later, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was established, though no country in the world besides Turkey recognizes it. The Greek Cypriot-led Republic of Cyprus claims to be the sole legitimate government of the whole island, a claim every country in the world except Turkey accepts.

The report says there are 660,000 Greek Cypriots living on the island's southern part, 89,000 Turkish speakers in the north and 43,000 Turkish soldiers serving as an occupying force.

Hilmi Akil, the Washington representative for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, dismissed the Helsinki Commission report as "a propaganda exercise," adding that Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leaders recently agreed to set up a joint committee on cultural heritage matters.

"The theft of cultural artifacts takes place everywhere, including South Cyprus," he said. "What we're objecting to is destruction, which has happened on both sides of the island, is being portrayed as something that only Turkish Cypriots have done."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Bradley Monton: Atheist Argues That Intelligent Design is a Serious Scientific Theory

Apparently, atheist Bradley Monton has just published a book with Broadview Press:

The doctrine of intelligent design is often the subject of acrimonious debate. Seeking God in Science cuts through the rhetoric that distorts the debates between religious and secular camps. Bradley Monton, a philosopher of science and an atheist, carefully considers the arguments for intelligent design and argues that intelligent design deserves serious consideration as a scientific theory.

Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students’ science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.

I sure hope Monton has tenure. Otherwise, he could end up driving truck for a living. Though he does note on his blog that many atheists are giving his book a positive review and are more and more convinced that ID should in fact be taken seriously as a scientific theory.

Bradley Monton is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Metropolitan Laurus and the Bells of San Francisco

Joy Of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San Francisco, CA

Since today we celebrate the feast of the icon of the Mother of God "Joy of All Who Sorrow", I thought I would remind people of a miracle that occurred at the Holy Virgin Cathedral “Joy of all Who Sorrow” in San Francisco, CA on March 15, 2008. Below is the account of what happened on the day Metropolitan Laurus passed away.

It appears that two people contributed to the original post: David and his unnamed roommate. David, who was reading a book in the kitchen, wrote the first 5 paragraphs and his roommate, who was reading pre-communion canons in his bedroom, wrote the 6th paragraph. The first did not hear the bells while the latter did.

The following account, written by Mr David Jepson, Dean of the High School at St John's Orthodox Academy in San Francisco, was forwarded to me by email:

Metropolitan Laurus

On Saturday night (March 15, 2008) I got home from choir practice rather late, and stayed up much later than normal as I had a very late dinner. I had finished eating and was reading a book at about 11:30 p.m. when my roommate came in and asked if I knew why the Cathedral bells were ringing. He had been in his bedroom, which like mine faces the street and has a view of the Cathedral a block away. In the kitchen, a couple of rooms away, I couldn't hear the bells, but I agreed that it seemed strange for them to be ringing at that time of night. I went to bed about a half hour later and thought nothing more about it. At church on Sunday, we were all shocked to hear that Metropolitan Laurus, the leader of the Russian Church Outside Russia, had reposed. Our priest got a telephone call from a former parishioner just before the service started at 9.00 a.m.

We heard about the chronology of events later on Sunday from the matushka of one of the Cathedral priests, whose son is at the Seminary in NY. Sometime on Sunday morning, when Metropolitan Laurus was noticed to be absent, someone went to his house and discovered that he had reposed in his sleep. The police were called etc., and people there began notifying the rest of the world. No one here in SF knew about it until 8.00 or so on Sunday morning (11.00 a.m. New York time). As the day went on, word about his death continued to spread. People here were discussing going to the funeral in NY on Friday.

As we talked about these events, the issue of the bells came up. Others living near the Cathedral had heard the bells ringing late on Saturday night. When they came to the early service at the Cathedral (it starts at 7.30 a.m.), they found the bells tied up in the normal way, which seemed puzzling. Someone had to have gotten into the locked place where the bells are and untied them, rung them (very beautifully, my roommate said), and tied them back up, all in the darkness of near midnight. No one in the group I was talking to, which included the wives of both Cathedral priests, knew who could have done it. But then as we were talking, we also learned that the NY police estimated that Metropolitan Laurus had died between 2.00 and 3.00 a.m. That's between 11.00 p.m. and 12.00 midnight here. And then everything seemed obvious.

"I attest that I had just begun reading the pre-communion canons when I heard bells....Orthodox Bells...ringing with the melodies familiar to us at the Cathedral. I first thought it was my CD player...when I checked, I found that it was off. David was reading in the kitchen and I went and asked him if he was playing music. We weren't. Others in the vicinity heard the bells at the same time, roughly the time when Vladyka Metropolitan passed away."

(Note the bells are behind two locked security gates and everyone who has access and who knows how to properly ring the bells have all sworn that they did not ring them).

His Eminence Archbishop Kyrill told us that the bells had been rung by the angels.

Eternal Memory!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Icons of the Mother of God "Joy of All Who Sorrow"

Readings from the Synaxarion:

The Icon of the Mother of God of Pochaev -

Metropolitan Neophytus, a bishop belonging to the see of Constantinople, was traveling through Volhynia in Ukraine where he was given hospitality by a pious woman, Anna Goyskaya. The bishop gave this woman an icon of the holy Theotokos, which began to work miracles, including the healing of her blind brother. In 1597 the icon was given to the monks residing in Pochaev near the border of Galicia, where the Mother of God had appeared in 1340, leaving an imprint of her footprint in the rock, from which a stream gushed forth. In 1675 when the Lavra of Pochaev was besieged by the Moslem Turks, it was saved by the miraculous intervention of the Mother of God through her wonderworking icon. Even though the Lavra of Pochaev came into Uniate hands for over a century, miracles continued to be worked through the holy icon. Since its return to the Orthodox Catholic Church in 1831, the icon has been a grace-bestowing support for Orthodox Christians, especially those in western Ukraine and the Carpathian region.

As with so many other icons of the Theotokos, wonderworking copies of this icon have been found throughout Orthodox Russia, each with its own history and moving collection of miracles. In this icon, the most holy Mother of God is depicted standing full stature sometimes with, sometimes without the Divine Child in her arms; she is surrounded by all manner of the sick and the suffering, to whom Angels of the Lord bear gifts of mercy, consolation, and suitable aid from the most holy Theotokos. The icon "Joy of All That Sorrow" was inspired by the hymn of the same name; see page 222 in Great Compline. Through one copy of this icon, the sister of Patriarch Joachim was healed at the end of the seventeenth century in Moscow, from which time the feast was established. Another copy of the icon was found in Saint Petersburg; on July 23, 1888, during the severe thunderstorm, lightning struck a chapel at a glass factory, burning the interior walls of the church, but leaving the icon unsinged. From the violent disturbance of the air, the icon was knocked to the floor, the poor-box broke open, and twelve copper coins adhered to the icon in various places; afterwards many miracles were worked by the grace of the holy icon.


Apolytikion in the Plagal of the First Tone
They that pray before thy holy icon, O sovereign Lady, are made worthy of healing, receive the gift of understanding of the true Faith, and repel the attacks of the Hagarenes; likewise for us who fall down before thee, do thou ask for forgiveness of our sins. Enlighten our hearts with devout purpose and raise thy prayer to thy Son for the salvation of our souls.

Kontakion in the First Tone
Thine icon of Pochaev, O Theotokos, hath been shown to be a source of healing and a confirmation of the Orthodox Faith. Therefore deliver us who flee to it from danger and temptation; preserve thy Lavra unharmed; strengthen Orthodoxy in the neighbouring lands; and loose thy suppliants from sins; for thou canst do whatsoever thou dost will.

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
To God's Birthgiver let us run now most earnestly, we sinners all and wretched ones, and fall prostrate in repentance, calling from the depths of our souls: Lady, come unto our aid, have compassion upon us; hasten thou, for we are lost in a throng of transgressions; turn not thy servants away with empty hands, for thee alone do we have as our only hope.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Second Tone
We have no other help, we have no other hope, but thee, O sovereign Lady; do thou help us. In thee do we hope, and of thee do we boast, for we are thy servants. Let us not be put to shame.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Ginsburg admits Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist and Racist

Margaret Sanger

Ginsburg's Remark Stirs an Old Debate: Abortion, Eugenics and the Meaning of Margaret Sanger

June 22, 2009
FROM: Politics Daily
BY: Carl M. Cannon, Senior Washington Correspondent

There is a disquieting reason Ruth Bader Ginsburg's defenders have been denying, however implausibly, the clear meaning of the Supreme Court justice's recent remarks about the history of abortion law, and that reason is this: Historically, eugenics has always been a significant component of the intellectual underpinnings – and political impetus – of the movement to legalize abortion.

This legacy is glossed over by the rhetoric of today's "pro-choice" tacticians, who couch their arguments almost exclusively as a question of a woman's inalienable right to control her body and to make her own reproductive decisions. This reasoning carried the day, at least with the U.S. Supreme Court, which rendered it a constitutional right. But, from the early days of the national discourse on this topic, the idea of feminist empowerment was coupled with the less noble rationale of eugenics, that disturbing dogma that seeks to improve the human race through selective mating – and by controlling who has the opportunity to be born.

Ginsburg rekindled this ancient memory, and not inadvertently, in an interview with journalist and lawyer Emily Bazelon that was published in The New York Times Sunday magazine on July 7. Bazelon's colleague, Hanna Rosin, touted the interview the day before, writing on her blog, "Our own Emily has a fantastic and revealing Q & A with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg." That word "revealing" proved to be quite an understatement.

In case you missed it, the relevant quote came while the two women were discussing the history of jurisprudence that came after Roe v. Wade. Despite some concern that poor women would be pressured into having abortions, the case law worked out the other way. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that states were under no obligation to fund abortions, and in a 5-4 1980 decision, Harris v. McRae, the high court upheld a congressional ban against using Medicaid funds for abortion.

"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me," Ginsburg told Bazelon. "Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Melinda Henneberger, my Politics Daily colleague, wrote about this interview on Friday, skeptically relaying Bazelon's claim that Justice Ginsburg didn't really mean the words "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- or, rather, that the pronoun "we" meant other people, not Ginsburg herself. As you can see from her post, Bazelon's explanation struck Melinda as willfully obtuse. But this is hardly the first time prominent pro-choicers have had to engage in semantic gymnastics to obscure a longtime underlying rationale for their position that is neither politically nor morally correct.

In the early part of the 20th century, pioneers in the birth control movement routinely cited poverty, disease, physical disability, mental acuity, and even racial heritage as reasons to support their cause. In her 1922 book, "The Pivot of Civilization," Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League, an organization that would become Planned Parenthood, opens Chapter 4 with this salvo: "There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants."

Chapter 4 of that manifesto is actually titled "The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded," and in it, Sanger goes on with some passion about the cascading societal problems caused by those with "feeble" minds, by which she seems to mean those with lower-than-average IQs, persons otherwise identified as "morons" "imbeciles" and "mental defectives."

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." - Margaret Sanger

It appears on close reading that she isn't necessarily talking only about those with mental disabilities, but also about uneducated members of what sociologists today call the underclass. And who will identify such persons, and coerce them, presumably, to submit to forced sterilization? Well, Sanger quotes approvingly from a doctor of that era named Walter E. Fernald, who wrote:

"We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community."

Race is inevitably entwined in such remarks, for Sanger goes on to regale her readers about a case study of a "feeble-minded girl, twenty years of age" who was the product of a teen mother and who lived in a "thickly populated Negro district" before being apprehended for solicitation of prostitution. The author dismisses as naïve "some of our doctors" who believe that "there is a place for the good feeble-minded," by which she seems to be saying those who are merely a little below average in intelligence – the kind of person whom she fears "may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates and gives the prevailing 'color' – culturally speaking – to an entire community."

Now, Sanger herself was certainly not racist in her personal dealings with African-Americans, and she didn't countenance those who were. She counted as allies in her cause of making contraception available to Southern blacks many of the leading black intellectuals of her time. Yet many of the white elites who funded her cause were indeed racist, as well as proponents of a harsh version of eugenics when it came to the disabled, and she deftly played on these sentiments while building support for her cause.

In 1939, Sanger collaborated with two other women on a report called "Birth Control and the Negro," which asserted that "negroes present the great problem of the South." The paper sketched out the broad details of a birth control program aimed at a mostly illiterate population that "still breed carelessly and disastrously." To this day, Planned Parenthood officials will point out that this line was borrowed from a 1932 Birth Control Review article by black radical W.E.B. DuBois. But Sanger's apologists are harder-pressed to justify the wording of a letter she wrote in December of that year to Proctor & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble, proposing that money be allocated to train "an up and doing modern minister, colored, and an up and doing modern colored medical man" to tour the South preaching the need for birth control. "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

This passage is a favorite of modern Christian conservatives seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, but in a previous time, it was employed to great effect by black activists. Radical professor Angela Davis quoted the provocative wording in her 1983 book, saying the Negro Project "confirmed the ideological victory of the racism associated with eugenic ideas." A decade earlier, a certain "up and doing" black preacher drew on the same material in rejecting legalized abortion as little more than "black genocide." His name was Jesse Louis Jackson.

Jackson's mother was undoubtedly the kind of woman Margaret Sanger had in mind when she proposed raising the quality of life for Southern blacks by aggressively pushing birth control in that part of the country. Sanger was hardly alone. In the 1970s, Jackson would often refer to the circumstances of his own birth: "I was born out of wedlock," he once wrote, "and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor, and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me."

In 1977, Jackson penned an essay for the National Right to Life News in which he called abortion The Question – the italics were his – of the 20th century. He meant ending abortion. "Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really a gift from God," Jackson wrote. "Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give."

In those days, Jackson sent an "Open Letter to Congress" in which he asserted flatly "as a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants." He was a featured speaker at the 1977 March for Life, where he posed this searing question: "What happens . . . to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"

It's a question those in the right-to-life movement are still asking, even if Jesse Jackson is not, as the exigencies of political ambition robbed the right-to-lifers of one of their most passionate and inspiring voices. By the mid-1980s, when Jackson was indulging himself with visions of a black politician from Chicago entering the White House – himself, not Barack Obama – he switched sides in this great debate. He said all the right things, this newly indoctrinated national Democrat, but it didn't sound quite as persuasive.

The new Jesse Jackson said that abortion is acceptable because "it is not right to impose private, religious and moral positions on public policy." The old Jesse Jackson maintained: "If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private."

This intellectual migration is apparently one that Democrats with dreams of national office must make. It's a journey taken by Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton as well. Occasionally, it happens the other way, too. George H.W. Bush was for abortion rights before he was against them. He seems to have changed position in a matter of hours, when Ronald Reagan offered him the vice presidency. (Previously, Bush and his wife had been contributors to Planned Parenthood; his father had served on its board.)

If politicians feel constrained from talking about this issue honestly, federal judges with their lifetime appointments need not. Thus, Ruth Ginsburg let her guard down apparently, resulting in her "Michael Kinsley moment" – committing a gaffe by speaking the truth. If her defenders want to brush away that truth, well, that's part of the famous Kinsley formulation, too. Yet, the underlying themes Ginsburg invoked are still present, and one doesn't have to go back to Margaret Sanger or 1939 to find them:

In 1991, the state of Maryland passed an abortion law billed as a safety net in case the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Seven months after President George H.W. Bush signed the American With Disabilities Act, this Maryland statute prohibited the state from interfering -- at any stage -- with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy if "the fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality." This is a pretty good working definition of eugenics. So, too, was the ugly talk directed in the last presidential campaign against the mother of a baby boy with Down syndrome, as are the statistics showing that blacks have hugely disproportionate numbers of abortions in this country year after year.

In other words, Ruth Ginsburg's fears that poor people cannot avail themselves of the rights conveyed by Roe appear to be unfounded. Could it be that Margaret Sanger's vision – the part we don't really want to think about – has come to pass?


For further reading:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2007/09/if-margaret-sanger-and-adolph-hitler.html

Tweet

Share on Tumblr