Fr. Hans Jacobse: When God Speaks and We Obey, Good Things Happen

5 Comments

Yesterday (Saturday) was a good day. I got a call late Friday evening that one of my parishioners was in the hospital. I decided to visit him Saturday morning and after arriving at the hospital discovered his surgery was moved up and I missed him. I left him a note and decide to visit him later.

Later that day the Lord spoke. “Go back to the hospital.” There’s always a little give and take when that happens (I had things planned) but the Lord said again, “Go back to the hospital.” I drove to the next exit, turned around, and headed back.

You never really know the reason for the command until you start doing what the Lord tells you to do. After obeying a few times however, you are confident enough to know that it is indeed God directing you and that something critical needs to be done. I got to the hospital, and just outside the door I saw Linda.

I didn’t know her name then but she was sobbing. I looked at her and said, “Tell me what’s wrong.”

“It’s my son,” she said.

“How sick is he?” I asked.

“He had an overdose. He is only nineteen. I am so worried.”

She gave me the details and I asked her, “Do you want me to go up his room and pray for him?”

“Would you?” she asked.

“Yes, of course. But I want you to come with me,” I responded.

We went to the room and Scott was sitting up in bed. He was uncomfortable at first when an Orthodox priest walked into his room, but in due course he began to relax. We started to talk. We talked a long time, over an hour I think. At the end I asked him if he wanted me to pray for him and he said yes.

Something good had been accomplished although I am not always certain what it is. God knows though.

After that visit I went to see how my parishioner was doing. The surgery went very well and the prognosis for recovery excellent.

Saturday’s experience shows how directly the Lord can lead us. And his clear directives are not only reserved for priests. Do you have the sense you should call or visit a friend? Do it. Every see someone and have the sense you should talk to him? Do it. Does someone you know need support or encouragement? Do it.

There are people in this world who need the help that only you can give.

Bp. Nicholas DiMarzio: Catholic Church Must Influence Marriage Debate

4 Comments

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

So far the only Orthodox bishops offering more than pro-forma defenses of the moral tradition are Met. Job and Bp. Michael of the OCA. Below is an example of how moral authority is rightly exercised. Roman Catholic Bp. Nicholas DiMarzio offers a very reasoned and accessible analysis and defense of the major points in the same-sex marriage debate. Some highlights:

We who oppose same-sex marriage are not callous to the very real longings for friendship, affection and belonging that proponents of this legislation espouse. We have, in part, failed as the proponents of the historical understanding of marriage as that between a man and a woman precisely because we have sought to be sensitive to those who have same-sex attractions. Perhaps we must now speak more forcefully and clearly.

I believe the passage of same-sex marriage is another “nail in the coffin” of marriage. It is destructive because it shows a failure to view marriage in the context of a vocation: a calling to participate in the great enterprise of forming the next generation.

Source: Washington Post

When Jesus was confronted with the legal question whether “as Jews, could they pay taxes to the Roman conquerors,” He asked for a coin and said: “Whose image is here?” Then He said: “Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mk. 12:17) This enigmatic saying perhaps needs some explanation. It is the basis of this saying of Jesus that I can address issues of the relationship between church and state, issues between morality and law, between individual conscience and politics.

If we were to simply interpret Jesus’ saying, one may say that since Caesar’s image is on the coin, it belongs to him and there is no more need to discuss the question; however, a deeper understanding of the Jewish reluctance to pay tribute is that they were not supposed to carry or look at coins with images of any kind. More importantly, however, is Jesus’ emphasis that the things of God must be given to God, as He emphasizes in His proclamation about the Kingdom; it is the Kingdom of God that we must seek. The Kingdom of God is not the kingdoms of this earth or the dominion of earthly powers. Rather, our emphasis in the long run must be on establishing the kingdom that has no earthly form, but rather one that recognizes God as the almighty and all powerful.

In various places in Scripture, St. Paul insists on the divine origins of civil authority. This, however, applies only to legitimate civil authorities, not one that is despotic or does not support the human dignity of every individual. Justice for individuals and society is not so difficult to define. It comes from the point of view that we see justice when each person in society is given his due and his rights are not violated. Justice is, however, more difficult to see in our society when the relationship between individual and society are on a collision course. Where can justice be found?

In the Catholic tradition, the human dignity of the individual is the starting point of all moral and ethical reasoning. At the same time, however, an individual’s rights, which stem from his personal dignity, cannot be asserted above the common good of the society in which we live. Our citizenship is a matter of shared relationship and responsibilities of persons working for the common good. Individuality cannot exist outside of the person and prior to our social relationships with one another. It is a delicate balancing act that we must perform in order to find justice for individuals, but also for our society and for the effects of one man’s rights on the rights of another. You have dedicated your life to this principle of justice.

The law, however, is the servant of justice in our land and laws are not always made with the intention of carrying out justice, but rather influenced by all sorts of extraneous influences. That our democracy has survived for over 200 years may be due to the fact that we are able to change our laws. The democratic process produces them but the democratic process also changes our laws. Of course, we base ourselves on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, all of which in their essence derive their understanding from the common good. To quote the Declaration of Independence, “each man is endowed with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights of man are “self-evident” because they can be discerned through the natural law by all men of good will. Natural law is that law which exists in the hearts of men, which allows them to be in relationship with others in an equitable way.

We who oppose same-sex marriage are not callous to the very real longings for friendship, affection and belonging that proponents of this legislation espouse. We have, in part, failed as the proponents of the historical understanding of marriage as that between a man and a woman precisely because we have sought to be sensitive to those who have same-sex attractions. Perhaps we must now speak more forcefully and clearly.

[pullquote]How true it is that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of our democracy and that no religion should be established by the state. The “invisible wall” that Thomas Jefferson espoused was intended to protect the believer and the unbeliever from the tyranny of the state, so that all churches, all religions and our democracy could have an equal opportunity to seek justice in the greater entity, which is society itself.[/pullquote]

I believe the passage of same-sex marriage is another “nail in the coffin” of marriage. It is destructive because it shows a failure to view marriage in the context of a vocation: a calling to participate in the great enterprise of forming the next generation.

Sociologists and psychologists agree that stable families where a mother and father live together in a loving union are a key predicator of a child’s future health, well being and success. In other words, these are the best or ideal circumstances for our children. We should strive to foster this type of family structure.

Tragically, we no longer understand the primary purpose of marriage as the institution by which a man and woman bring new life into the world and teach the child to become a productive citizen.

Hopefully, our society can continue to recognize that the common good is what we pursue when seeking justice. This means never violating the rights of the individual, while at the same time never forcing society to abandon its responsibilities to its members because of the desire of an individual.

There are many dichotomies that appear when we look more closely at the pursuit of justice, especially when we seek to inject the issue of religion. From the time we are young, our parents admonish us not to speak about politics or religion in polite company. That fact is that politics and religion are the life blood of society. Both of these entities deal with our relationship with one another; politics and religion are intertwined. Relationship is key to understanding our pursuit of justice.

How true it is that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of our democracy and that no religion should be established by the state. The “invisible wall” that Thomas Jefferson espoused was intended to protect the believer and the unbeliever from the tyranny of the state, so that all churches, all religions and our democracy could have an equal opportunity to seek justice in the greater entity, which is society itself.

[pullquote]So churches have every right to be involved in the political process, but operate under regulatory as opposed to constitutional constraints. We choose not to be involved in the election and defeat of candidates for public office, but that does not mean that we cede our “rights” to be involved in public discourse of policy matters important to Catholics and people of faith. Indeed, it is impossible that religion and politics not interface with one another.[/pullquote]

The government is merely the operational modality of the state that serves a greater society. So, we must assent that religion has a place in society, for religion and society truly are inseparable.

It is not the “Establishment Clause” that impedes the church’s ability to influence the political process but rather Internal Revenue Service regulations that threaten our “tax exempt” status.

So churches have every right to be involved in the political process, but operate under regulatory as opposed to constitutional constraints. We choose not to be involved in the election and defeat of candidates for public office, but that does not mean that we cede our “rights” to be involved in public discourse of policy matters important to Catholics and people of faith. Indeed, it is impossible that religion and politics not interface with one another.

Perhaps the best example of how they do interface is the example of how laws are made. There are those who assert that religion and morality are inseparable and therefore without religion there can be no set laws, which can regulate interaction with another. It is the natural law and not religion that is the fundamental building block of morality. It is the conscience of man, which always seeks the good, although many times not achieving it.

The late Doctor Martin Luther King reminded us of the primacy of conscience when he said on April 16, 1963 in a Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I agree with St. Augustine ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”

Had people of faith, like King, not lead and collectively opposed unjust laws neither the Abolitionist Movement of the 19th Century nor the Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century would have been successful.

Another difficulty we face is the correct place of religious professionals in politics. The principle of the separation of church and state does not preclude a religious leader from seeking to influence political decisions. In recent years, there is an unfortunate distinction between private or personal morality and public morality. Moreover, the popular culture makes sacrosanct the claim of individual freedom.

We ought to ask ourselves, is it possible to divorce an individual’s private moral convictions from his decisions about public policy? Does the same also hold true for persons with non-religious values? Is one value more important than another? Are religious values of less importance than the value of personal freedom? These are the questions that confront us today. How can we find a way to enunciate moral principles in our society today?

Political and legal strategies to codify moral principles or value principles are the work of not only legislators, but also of those who they represent. So, we return to where we began. How can we pay “Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”? Certainly, it is by engaging ourselves in the things that belong to Caesar, society and law, so that truly we can render to God the things that belong to God.

Nicholas Dimarzio is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. In protest of New York state’s recent legislative measure endorsing same-sex marriage, the bishop has asked his diocese to“not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected officials, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future.” Read On Faith’s debate of this church and state battle here.

George Weigel. No Homophobia: A Reminder About the Totalitarian Temptation

11 Comments

Highlight:

“Americans will say, “It can’t happen here.” But it can, and it may. Before the ink was dry on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature on New York’s new marriage law, the New York Times published an editorial decrying the “religious exemptions” that had been written into the marriage law at the last moment. Those exemptions do, in fact, undercut the logic of the entire redefinition of marriage in the New York law—can you imagine any other “exemption for bigotry” being granted, in any other case of what the law declares to be a fundamental right?”

Source: Ethics and Public Policy Center

National Review Online

The Washington Post‘s culture critic, Philip Kennicott, recently took to the pages of his paper to note the “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in American culture, on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other.

As an example of those who resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, Kennicott cited Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who had remarked on the similarities between the Empire State’s recent re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states; NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and I came into Mr. Kennicott’s line of fire for displaying similarly “virulent homophobic rhetoric” in articles defending Archbishop Dolan’s suggestion that, in the marriage debate, the totalitarian temptation was very much in play.

Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s famous observation that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to yield to it. For crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person.

But for charity’s sake, let’s assume here that Mr. Kennicott simply had a bad day and might actually be interested in the arguments of those he and others have dismissed as bigots. Perhaps I can illustrate the point Kennicott’s targets were making by reminding all parties to this dispute of what marriage under totalitarianism was like—a subject I happened to be discussing with a Polish couple who were preparing to mark their 47th wedding anniversary when the Kennicott article appeared.

Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples—which is to say, just about everyone—got “married” twice. Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state, believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in a dingy bureaucratic office with a state (i.e., Communist-party) apparatchik presiding. The friends with whom I was discussing this inanity are, today, distinguished academics, a physicist and a musicologist. They remembered with some glee that, a half century before, they had treated the state “wedding” with such unrestrained if blithe contempt that the presiding apparatchik had had to admonish them to take the business at hand seriously—a warning from the über-nanny-state my friends declined to, well, take seriously.

The entire business was a farce, regarded as such by virtually all concerned. Some time later, my friends were married, in every meaningful sense of that term, in Wawel Cathedral by a Polish priest whom the world would later know as Pope John Paul II.

Americans will say, “It can’t happen here.” But it can, and it may. Before the ink was dry on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature on New York’s new marriage law, the New York Times published an editorial decrying the “religious exemptions” that had been written into the marriage law at the last moment. Those exemptions do, in fact, undercut the logic of the entire redefinition of marriage in the New York law—can you imagine any other “exemption for bigotry” being granted, in any other case of what the law declares to be a fundamental right?

Either the recently enacted New York marriage law is nonsense, or its religious opponents are bigots whose prejudices should not be given the protection of law. To use Mr. Kennicott’s sociological term of art, it’s a matter of cognitive dissonance to try to have it both ways. In any event, pressures like that of the Times and its activist allies will continue, for the logic of their position requires them to try and strip away religious and other exemptions from recognizing “gay marriage.”

Should those pressures succeed, the Catholic Church will be forced to get out of the civil marriage business—as it has been forced in some states to stop providing foster care for children and young people, thanks to the pressures of the really phobic parties in these affairs: the Christophobes. Priests will no longer function as officials of the state when witnessing marriages.

So what will Catholics and other adherents of biblical morality do (for evangelical pastors are just as much at risk from the Christophobes as Catholic priests)? They’ll have a civil “wedding” that will be a farce, just like that endured by my Polish friends in 1964. And then they’ll really get married in church.

Thus the net effect of the pressures now being mounted by the Times and others—a redefinition of “marriage” that puts Christian communities and their pastors outside the boundaries of the law for purposes of marriage—will be to reduce state-recognized “marriage” to a sad joke. One can even imagine a whole new genre of dark humor, of the sort represented by “Radio Yerevan” and other brilliant exemplars of anti-Communist raillery, emerging. That might be fun, but it’s a sad price to pay for this state attempt to redefine reality.

And that brings us to the totalitarian temptation. As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice—justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion—was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order—a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality—in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce.

That’s what those whom Mr. Kennicott deplores as virulent bigots were trying to point out.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

Sergey Khudiev: Let Your Yea Be Yea and Your Nay Be Nay

5 Comments

Sergey Khudiev

Source: Pavmir

Translated from Russian by Fr. Andrew Phillips.

The article by Archpriest Robert Arida ‘Response To Myself is of interest, but not so much because it shows a certain approach, which is above all characteristic of contemporary liberal Protestantism. Convinced atheists, Muslims and Christians of various confessions have something in common – they all try to set out their views clearly and without ambiguity, so that any reader can clearly grasp what the writer believes and does not believe, what you agree with him about and what you do not agree with him about and what the arguments he puts forward are.

Liberal theologians are not like this. They have a particularity which entails a tendency to explain themselves with rhetorical questions, vague allusions and highly mysterious phrases from which you can with more or less justification guess at their positions, but are unable to explain clearly. This is very noticeable among liberal Protestants, very rare among Catholics and, until recently, simply did not exist among Orthodox. However, Orthodox do not live in a separate world and a certain influence of liberal Protestantism can creep into the Church.

We will not analyse the whole article, but let us concentrate instead on its concluding moment:

How is the Church going to minister to those same sex couples who being legally married come with their children and knock on the doors of our parishes seeking Christ. Do we ignore them? Do we, prima facie, turn them away? Do we, under the rubric of repentance, encourage them to divorce and dismantle their family? Or, do we offer them, as we offer anyone desiring Christ, pastoral care, love and a spiritual home?

Although the style, as mentioned, is characterized by rhetorical questions and leaves the position of the author unclear, he opposes the demand for ‘divorce and dismantlement of their family’ to ‘pastoral care, love and a spiritual home’.

So what? A situation where what is completely acceptable to secular society, but is seen by the Church as a sin is not unusual. An abortionist may be a respectable citizen, working in a perfectly legal occupation, paying his taxes on time, giving money to charity, a courteous and charming man. But how do we deal with the abortionist who comes and knocks on the parish door, seeking Christ? According to the rules of repentance, do we exhort him to abandon his previous occupation? Of course, we do! Pastoral care does not at all consist of testifying to the world that his actions are good.

How do we deal with someone who is involved in an unnatural cohabitation? Do we exhort him to abandon such a lifestyle? Since Apostolic times the Church has done exactly this:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (I Cor. 6: 9-11).

‘Pastoral care’ is different from a session of psychotherapy or a friendly pat on the shoulder, in that a priest acts in the name of the Church of Christ, announcing Her Truth and forgiving sins by the power given him by Christ in the Church. Someone who openly breaks with Church Tradition in this matter can be anyone you want – a friend, a psychotherapist, a coach, but never a pastor.

It is exactly the same as a doctor who, not wishing to upset his alcoholic patients, reassures them ‘with love’ that they can accept his treatment and continue to drink. In fact, he cannot give them any real help and deserves to be called a quack, not a doctor.

There are questions which we cannot avoid and from which we cannot hide in a fog of rhetorical questions and vague allusions. Basically, there is the question of whether single-sex cohabitation is a sin which separates people from the Church, or not.

If we answer this question with a yes, as the Church has always answered it, then we must not hide this from those on the outside. We must witness to this with tact and love, but we should leave nothing unclear or ambiguous. If this is not a sin, then let us acknowledge the inescapable conclusion – that the Orthodox Church has been deluding people on a question which is vital for their salvation.

Still worse, to say that this is a sin before God (if God did actually have nothing against it) means that the Church has all this time been lying about God. Let us be consistent in our beliefs; if our demand for repentance and an end to cohabitation of a single-sex couple is wrong, then the Church – the Apostles, the Fathers, the Councils, anyone who has ever as much broached the subject – has been teaching an untruth. Such a viewpoint is possible and I think that any sincerely erring person would accept this.

But if he is sincere, then he will not start claiming ‘pastoral care’ from the Church. How can a community, which all this time has been teaching an untruth about God, be a source of spiritual guidance? The acknowledgement that in fact all this time we have been lying about God, that we have been deceiving you as regards what is indispensable for salvation, all this time we have been preaching such a monstrous injustice, refusing to recognize single-sex cohabitation as legitimate marriage, makes any claim to spiritual guidance sound completely ridiculous. If you have been lying for two long millennia and were going on to continue lying, if purely external pressure had not forced you to go away – then what spiritual guidance can we seek from you now? It is no coincidence that modernist communities are losing parishioners at breakneck speed, they have deprived themselves of any possible claim to be teaching the truth.

However, if the Church was right in everything all this time, and this is a matter on which all Christians, despite all their internal disagreements, have always agreed on, then we should not be afraid to tell the truth with love.

Nevertheless, we should address ourselves to one objection which is often encountered. This is that a homosexual ‘orientation’ is genetically determined and, as it would seem, this has been established by contemporary science, which Christians in earlier ages did not know about. Therefore, we must review our concepts according to new discoveries about the world and human nature.

There are three problems with this argument. First of all, if it were true and science could determine that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, then this would not simply require an adjustment to the Church’s teaching, but the recognition that our faith in the Church in general is illogical. In such a case, for two thousand years, let us remember, the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, as it is affirmed, has unanimously, and in councils, been teaching an untruth. If that is so, then it would be more honest to consign the Church to a museum than to adjust Her. Such things cannot be repaired.

However, and we note this as the second problem, this argument comes from a sort of substitution. The point is that just because certain behavior is, supposedly, genetically determined, that does not make it morally acceptable.

For example, imagine that a whole series of researchers suggests that a so-called anti-social personal disorder, in which someone demonstrates a stubborn inability to respect moral and legal social standards, is of a genetic nature. Does this mean that such behavior in people who suffer from this disorder is morally acceptable? No, even the hardiest supporters of ‘the genetic theory’ do not believe this. Even in the eighteenth century David Hume pointed out the insuperable difference between ‘being’ and ‘having to’. Science can establish certain facts about the world, but this does not, and in principle cannot, affect our values.

If science, for instance, establishes that ‘men are inclined to polygamy’, this does not mean that ‘being a polygamist is morally acceptable’. We determine the moral acceptability (or moral unacceptability) of polygamy on the basis of our values, which in any case are to be found at a completely different level from scientific facts.

And finally – and perhaps we should have started by this – science has not established anything like the genetic determinism of homosexuality. This may sound unexpected; the thesis that homosexuality is genetically determined ‘has been established by science’ is proclaimed with such certainty, such pressure, such contempt towards all those who doubt it, as if they were retarded, stupid and ignorant, that only very rarely do people ask for proof of it.

However, we do have data, acquired for instance from research on identical twins, which shows that people with an identical genetic make-up can have a completely different ‘sexual orientation’. Even such a pro-homosexual group as the American Psychological Association (APA) refrains from asserting ‘the biological determinism’ of homosexuality, acknowledging that ‘there is no consensus among scholars regarding the reasons which lead to the development of one or another orientation’.

When you are told that homosexuals ‘were born like that’, you are dealing with an ideological myth, not with a scientifically established truth. This myth looks even more vulnerable in the light of the plain fact that there are a huge numbers of examples where people have changed their sexual preferences one way or the other.

Therefore, let us turn to the definition of marriage which the Lord gave us: ‘But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh’ (?k.10: 6-8).

Yes, we will have serious disagreements with the world, but there always have been and always will be. Yes, the liberal press will revile us and slander us in all sorts of ways – so what, we shall survive. But be honest – if the bimillennial teaching of the Church is false, then reject it at once. But if it is true, then confess it openly.

Solzhenitsyn: Men Have Forgotten God

2 Comments

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Over at Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Chris Banescu reminds us not to forget Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s penetrating analysis into the decline of Western Culture. Solzhenitsyn’s conscience was forged in the crucible of suffering under the Soviet Communists. It was in the Gulag’s where he received the critical insight that the line between good and evil rests in the heart of every man. Sanctification, or holiness to use the translated Greek, begins within. Healing of culture first begins with interior repentance — the changing of the mind, the clearing of conscience, the putting off of sin — and from there the healing salve of the love of God begins to enter the darkened world anew.

Solzhenitsyn was one of the last century’s great moralists, and we need real moralists more today than ever. He showed us that true morality, that locus or touchstone between man and God exacts a cost, just as Christ said it would. His examination of the murderous mechanisms of Communism, particularly how the ideology could capture the mind and murder the soul, would never have reached the West without heroic courage on his part. As it happened, once his words reached the West, the Marxist establishment of Western Europe fell in short order.

The lesson? Real moral leadership comes only from those who have paid a price for it. The world is full of interlopers, those who traffic in wisdom but not the kind that comes from the anguish of soul, where one has no recourse but to cry to God for help because there is no one else who can offer it. This kind of character is forged only in great hardship, and only wisdom born from those places is worth embracing.

The essay begins below. You can read the full essay on Voice Crying in the Wilderness.

Men Have Forgotten God

By Alexander Solzhenitsyn

More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. The first of these was World War I, and much of our present predicament can be traced back to it. It was a war (the memory of which seems to be fading) when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever. The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.

[…]

Read the entire article on the Voice Crying in the Wilderness website.


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/index.php:21 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/index.php on line 21