We’re all guilty of this. Myself included. That’s why humility is called for. The issue at hand is blatant and ultimately will fool nobody: in a desparate attempt to elevate the status of his office, the EP is mouthing bromides which nobody really believes (Al Gore has the carbon footprint of Godzilla; there’s a word for that –hypocrisy).

As I’ve said on more than one occasion, for an example of this reductio ad absurdum of this type of thinking, look to the See of Constantinople which chose to play along with the Kemalist secular government or the native Christian populations of the Islamic world which accepted their “tolerated” (dhimmi) status thinking things would get better or at least the immigrants would send a few dollars every and then to keep things going.

What is the answer? I don’t know, I guess martyrdom, something I myself would find hard to scare up the courage to do. But martyrdom is coming. The world hates us because it first hated our Master. Look what they did to Him. Do you think we’re going to fare any better? And then what? What difference does it make if the world’s mean temperature only rises 1 degree Farenheit instead of 2?

What about number 9, what to do with the GulfStream Jet? If you sell it and distribute the money to the poor, someone else will just pollute with it. As Julie says it’s been quite a while since the Old Testament has been written so this injuction of our Lord clearly needs to be updated

Seriously, I think it is hard to overstate the importance of the worldly mindset. Part of this mindset is the unexamined faith in voices of authroity – namely the scientistic class in the universities, government bureaucracies, etc. Anyone (and I mean anyone, including scientists who dare question the current party line) are automatically rejected as unthinking throwbacks and are lumped in with the creationists (who are the Samaritans of our time). Those with the worldly mindset simply don’t have the tools to question critically any aspect of the secular party line – you are asking them to examine a deep aspect of their unexamined faith. The idea that the alarmist position might not be true, or that it might not mean what the scientistic priestly class says it means morally?!?! Who would even propose such a question? Why, a creationist, a persecutor of Galileo, only a FUNDAMENTALIST right wing fanatic would dare utter such a blasphemy.

Fr. John, Julie, Anthony are unfortunately emblematic of this mindset. Thus, only those with deeply possessed by the alleged sins of the religious throwback (capitalism, fundamentalism, etc.) would question the alarmist paradigm – thus the finger wagging on their part.

How do you penetrate this fog? I honestly don’t know. Asking them to live their faith un-hypocritically as you have done here I think only has limited value. Part of their faith is the belief in “society” being the problem (and thus the solution), not themselves (as the EP so eloquently states – society is MORE responsible). So grand societal solutions are the real answer – again just as the EP is showing through his actions and words (uncritical support of Copenhagen for society, GulfStream jet personally). When others and not oneself is the problem then “prophecy” and propaganda and not repentance becomes the order of the day. Personally living out the implecations of the gospel of doom? Not nearly as important as propping up the “great moral leader”.

I support no political party as I have come to the conclusion that they are all corrupt. I try, mostly unsuccessfully, to allow the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments and the Holy Tradition to form me into a genuine human being. Taking the lives of innocent children has no part in a life focused on communion with God.

Abortion is the ultimate expression of a nihlistic denial of God and man created in His image and likeness.

Still, the sincere traditional Christians who vote for the pro-death party are in a contradictory position. I can see how such a person might sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. It is an error, but not one that would rise to the level of keeping one from the Cup IMO.

Those who do this owe it to themselves first of all to work out a reasonable explanation for doing so. Simply throwing out “religious right!” at those who question this obvious contradiction only digs the hole deeper.

sarcasm aside, what is it with Orthodox Christians who wink at the current abortion regime (always, everywhere, and in every instance)? Is it such a trivial thing to you? Do you see why nobody takes hierarchs and clergy seriously? They’re more intent on figuring out which jurisdiction has primacy but castigate those who decry the shedding of innocent blood as being “fundamentalists,” or [gasp] “Republicans.”

If you’ll pardon the aside, this very much comports with something that struck me in my reading today: Luke 8 – specifically the parable of the Seed and the Sower. The one thing that distinguishes the fruitful seed from the other seeds is that the ground was properly receptive. More to the point, the people whom it represents recognize the value of the seed and are willing re-shape their lives around it. They will till the soil of their lives so the ground supports the seed, and pull up every weed as it arises, intent on helping this seed to grow. This seed is given priority and everything is done to cultivate it. They have but one goal: to make this seed grow and become fruitful, even if every other plant around it dies in the process. And, in the end, this is what must happen – for you can not cultivate both the Word of God and your own pursuits and pleasures (Mammon), as the third group found. Yet, since God is the source of everything good, if you do diligently cultivate this seed so that it might become abundantly fruitful, you will have everything else beside.
I think you are very much on to something.

My feeling with viewpoints like these is that the EP, in a desperate bid to be relevant, has hitched his wagon to environmental alarmism and has (as it logically must follow) developed a complex theology to justify this new position. Some of this theology is sound, some is questionable, some…I’d rather not say.

That however is his prerogative as a Christian archpastor and believer. We all have freewill. I can come up with a theology of the state that derides republicanism, democracy, or whatnot. In short, we all have our “ideas” about this, that, or the other. They may be good and sound, but because of our fallen nature, they will necessarily contain negative elements. No government is 100% good, Athens was a slavocracy, Sparta a totalitarian oligarchy, etc.) Usually we keep them to ourselves and/or pray about them. In all instances, we must be humble about our reasoning.

What is troubling however, is that many votaries in the GOA, in order to justify their own secularism, and/or to enhance their own status (which like the EP, they believe to be marginal in the world of Christianity), have hitched their wagon –unthinkingly–to whatever fad comes out of the Phanar.

Nobody who has enthused about the EP’s visit and his writings on the subject of environmentalism has clearly given it much thought. Far from it. What is offered are merely platitudes and bromides, the majority of which are mouthed by the worldly set that make up the Archons and those that have a real say in the functioning of the GOA (most bishops and priests) but not seriously believed.

Don’t believe me? If the EP is serious, he would prescribe the ascetic struggle for mankind –all of mankind. We would/should:

1. eat less meat
2. consume less material resources
3. use as much public transportation as possible
4. stop using hormone replacements
5. engage only in monogamous, heterosexual relations only on those days prescribed by the Church (good, natural birth control without any side effects)
6. accept every “product of conception,” as a creature made in the image of God (what do you think the aborturaries do with the discarded fetuses?)
7. actually TITHE in order to support the Church so that it can more fully engage in its ministries (i.e. help the poor, establish hospitals, etc.)
8. build churches that are enviromentally friendly (no A/C, no electricity, etc.)

Let’s just start with these. By following these, we would actually reduce our carbon footprint considerably.

Any takers? {crickets chirping]

Last time I checked you and I were both embryos at one time……

You don’t need the Church to see that human life begins at conception. You need common sense and a 4th grade lesson in biology. What the Church teaches is available to those who are outside the Church through the light of human reason.

Orthodoxy is not about how we feel its about being right in a loving way.

My prayer for you is that you will come to understand that behind each NO the Church gives us there is a greater and more beautiful YES!

there are many, many people in the world who believe otherwise and can defend their beliefs just as eloquently and soundly as you justify yours.

And Planned Parenthood is at or near the front of the line of those “who believe otherwise.” How do they defend and justify their beliefs? Let’s take a look at the Planned Parenthood web site:

Question: My friend says that life begins when the egg and sperm join together. I say that it begins when a baby takes its first breath. Which of us is right?

Answer: All kinds of people — theologians, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, legislators, and many others — hold very different views about when life begins. In fact, both the egg and the sperm are living things before they meet and join. There’s no real argument there.

What we are all sure about is that a pregnant woman is a person. We know for sure that she has morals, feelings, human needs, and a conscience. Because of this, we know that she is the only one able to make a decision about her pregnancy options. She does it based on her own needs, ethics, and religious belief about when being a person begins. It would be wrong to force her to observe someone else’s religious belief.

******************

“Most medical authorities” agree that “being a person… starts when a baby takes its first breath.” Really? The American Medical Association is the largest organized group of doctors in the U.S. What does the AMA have to say? I found nothing on their web site stating that a person starts at its first breath, but I did find these articles:

+ In this December 1999 article, Embryonic/Pluripotent Stem Cell Research and Funding (Report 15), the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs mentions “the morally controversial issues of whether an embryo deserves the same rights as a person.”

+ In a comment on this Feb 2005 article, Quality of Life and Prenatal Decisions, a doctor states & asks, “Prenatal genetic testing for late onset disorders like Huntington’s disease (HD) is particularly controversial and creates difficult ethical issues… (Is) carrying the HD gene an ethically justified reason for abortion?”

******************

If “most medical authorities” agree with the PP view, then why don’t these AMA doctors simply state that being a person begins when a baby takes its first breath, and be done with it? For them (writing on the official AMA web site) it is “morally controversial” and “creates difficult ethical issues.” Why? Because the position of PP is not what most medical authorities believe.

The PP article then goes on to dismiss further discussion by saying that “religions have changed their views.” Apparently, abortion is not OK because there is a firm basis in philosophy, psychology, or natural law to accept it; abortion is OK because there are “sincere” people on both sides of the issue who disagree.

PP gives an unsubstantiated statement about what medical authorities believe, and then discharges religion in four sentences.

Eloquent? … Sound? … Hardly.