Orthodox Church

Deconstructing the ‘Internal Contradiction’ in the GOA


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Andrew Estocin asks:

Father JJ, how do you see this internal contradiction playing out with regards to the riots and unrest in Greece? The GOA has never addressed the moral and social underpinnings of these problems. Is the GOA so captive to the fantasy narrative of the Greek Community in America that it is unable to engage on these issues? Athens burns but the party at the Ritz Carlton in Florida goes on. How do you celebrate Greek Independence day at the White House when your homeland is in the midst of a social and economic collapse? If 79th Street does not pay more attention it find that people will turn on the GOA leadership very quickly as being overpaid and out of touch while common people suffer. Honestly, though I wonder what the real reason is for the GOA not even acknowledging Greece’s problems. Its amazing the disconnect between the idea of being “Greek in America” vs. being “Greek in Greece”

Fr. Hans Jacobse responds:

Andrew, there is truth to the assertion that culture preserves faith, and it also true that the Hellenic ideals helped create the bedrock of Western Civilization. These facts are undeniable. Moreover, Hellenism, properly understood, does indeed foster a deep appreciation for the Greek contribution to Western culture.

What’s missing today in almost every engagement with real issues and problems however, is the Gospel — the “disconnect” as you put it. The Gospel is what shaped Greek culture, but it must also vivify every generation so that the culture can remain Christian. If the Gospel is not preached, the deep insights and knowledge conferred through the culture from one generation to the next gets reduced to folklore. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” becomes the definitive statement of what once was a very vibrant Christian civilization.

All peoples and institutions can operate on historical memory for only so long. The Communist assault on the Russian Orthodox Church showed us that it takes only one generation to cripple the Christian cultural legacy almost to the point of death. If the debilitation is the result of a slow drift as it is in Western Christendom, then it may take a generation or two longer but not much more. Look at England’s slide into moral and civic confusion since WWII. For that matter, look at our own.

The way out of our cultural morass and the path to ecclesiological clarity (and thus courage), is through a recovery of the Gospel. That recovery however, never happens outside of an immediate cultural context. In our case the defense of human life is that context since the question of the inherent value of life is at the heart of all our problems (Fr. Mark Hodges stated it beautifully). Put in theological terms it means that we have to reach deep into our tradition and bring forward the anthropological constructs into the modern cultural context (and the Orthodox have the most developed anthropology of any Christian communion). All the big cultural questions: sanctity of life, homosexuality, marriage, divorce, contraception, even economics deal with what it means to be a human being.

When Archbishop Iakovos went into retirement, something changed. Constantinople became the center of governance and the mission of the GOA was redefined. Apb. Iakovos had his flaws (gifted leaders often have deep deficits) but his focus was always America, as he showed when he joined Martin Luther King in Selma, Alabama. He was the first major Christian leader to endorse King, and because of him others followed suit. The King family is still grateful to the Greek Orthodox for it.

Now however, the GOA exists to defend the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and because Constantinople is weak and under siege, it must also satisfy those on whom Constantinople is dependent such as the Greek government. This fosters an excessive dependence on Greek Orthodox politicians at home who exercise influence on the State Department and other organs of American government, enough so that the violations of the moral tradition in their civic life is never mentioned. This has the effect of bolstering the secular forces that seek to undermine Christian institutions on the outside, but it also fosters a timidity, or worse, compels intimidation toward anyone who dares challenge those forces, on the inside.

That’s also why you see support of such things as global warming or other secular apocalyptic movements. Support of global warming was an attempt to counter the criticism that the social critique of Greek Orthodox Christianity was lacking. Anyone who understands how secular apocalypticism works in the larger culture however, already knew that the global warming scenario was manufactured. Secular apocalypticism always is. Its purpose is to create urgency for policies that will prevent the predicated collapse. It was just a matter of time before it was exposed as a fraud just as the Paul Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and Rachel Carlson’s “Silent Spring” were in past decades.

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” followed in that same secular tradition. The fact that the GOA did not see that supporting Gore would come back to bite them (we warned them it would), is the inevitable result of not engaging the culture on the terms the moral tradition requires.

Improper application of the moral tradition is still a problem. In most (not all) cases when GOA leadership engages the culture, the Constantinopolitan mandate compels them to conflate Progressive ideals with the Gospel because the ideals don’t raise the ire of the politicians who need to be cultivated. This approach needs to be challenged because it provides cover for Progressive ideology that holds the values of the Christian faith in contempt and will turn on the Christian Church when it is able. The conflation will become more evident to the Greek Orthodox (and other Orthodox Christians) as the crisis between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration draws the distinctions between the secular ideals and Christian moral values more clearly.

The GOA has some very good priests who, as much as they are able (which means escaping the notice of Bishops who enforce the mandate that Constantinople remains front and center), work hard to bring Christ to their people. They suffer though because when the conflicts come (and they do), they get no support. Some are even punished.

So to answer your question, it is very difficult to speak with moral clarity in one area without exposing moral equivocation in another. That’s the contradiction. And that contradiction exists because the mission of the GOA is muddled. When appeals to history don’t include the Gospel that vivified it (it can’t because it would offend politicians and officials whose favor the GOA needs), then the best you can hope for is folklore instead of the tradition and silence when the words of truth need to be spoken. So don’t expect to hear much substance about the riots in Greece. You will, however, see a lot of pictures of the recent conference in Florida in the next Orthodox Observer.

I want to see a strong and vibrant GOA and I want Constantinople protected. That can only occur however, if Constantinople comes under the protection of a unified American Church, and not if the American Church is subsumed into Constantinople’s defensive strategies.

Where is it headed? There are only two possibilities. Either the GOA recovers its mandate to evangelize America (Abp. Iakovos understood this, hence Ligonier), or it accedes to Constantinople. If the former happens, the GOA can grow strong and lead many to salvation. If the latter happens, then you will see deeper internal fracturing, more priests will suffer breakdowns, and more young people will leave.

Catholic Politicians Who Attack Church Should Remember God’s Judgment


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

With stern words Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois warned Catholic politcians last Friday that any collaboration with “assaults against the faith” would one day face the judgment of God. Orthodox bishops should take notice.

The report states:

When asked specifically about recent actions of Democratic Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius Kathleen Sebelius and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Bishop Jenky replied “I am utterly scandalized.”

“The Lord once said ‘if you deny me at the end, I will deny you,’ this from our most merciful, good Savior. And so if it is a choice between Jesus Christ and political power or getting favorable editorials in leftist papers, well, that’s simply not a choice.”

Some leaders in the Catholic Church compromised with secular politicians for many decades, just as Orthodox leaders have done. The difference is that the Catholic Church remained clear about the moral precepts protecting innocent life while in some (fortunately rare) cases Orthodox leadership muddied the tradition to curry favor with the politicians. The cost has been incalculable. Today resistance is the only option says Bp. Jenky:

Determined secularists see the Catholic Church as the largest institutional block to a completely secularized society and not for the first, and probably not for the last time, we’re under assault,” he said drawing parallels with the anti-Catholic “Kulturkampf” in late 19th century Germany or the anti-clerical laws in France in the early 20th century.

He’s right. If the Catholic Church can be silenced, then the largest impediment to the secular advance is removed. Christians of other communions will also be silenced under the rubric of tolerance, open-mindedness, and more recently public health (Obamacare). When the voice is silenced, then the precepts the Christian moral tradition can be erased from the historical memory. Western Christendom will slip into unimaginable darkness, worse than the catastrophe from which East Christendom is emerging.

The Manhattan Declaration anticipated conflicts of the type we see today between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church. It warned all Christians that a time was coming when the denial of God at the heart of secular ideologies would force the Christian into a choice: either abandon the Christian faith or resist the ideology.

That time has come. All Christians who know that Christ has indeed risen from the dead and that death has been overthrown, become brothers against the ideas that exalt death as a tool of social progress. The Catholic is my brother, as is the Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Methodist, Jew, and anyone else who chooses life over barbarism.

Note too that some Orthodox bishops signed the Manhattan Declaration. They understand what the Christian religion gives the culture, and what a culture without Christianity would be like.

God bless and protect the Catholic Church. God bless and protect us.

Related articles:
Senators Sarbanes and Snowe Betray the Moral Heritage of the Orthodox Christian Faith
A patriarch who ‘generally speaking, respects human life’

Source CNA/EWTN News

Politicians who consider themselves Catholic but collaborate in “the assault against their faith” should remember they will one day have to give account for their acts before God, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois said Feb 10.

“There is a last judgment. There is a particular judgment. May they change their minds and may God have mercy on them,” he told CNA during his visit to Rome.

When asked specifically about recent actions of Democratic Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius Kathleen Sebelius and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Bishop Jenky replied “I am utterly scandalized.”

“The Lord once said ‘if you deny me at the end, I will deny you,’ this from our most merciful, good Savior. And so if it is a choice between Jesus Christ and political power or getting favorable editorials in leftist papers, well, that’s simply not a choice.”

Both Sebelius and Rep. Pelosi have been at the forefront of attempts to force Catholic institutions to cover contraception, sterilizations and abortifacients as part of their staff’s health insurance plans.

Bishop Jenky said there are too many Catholic politicians in the U.S. who “like to wear green sweaters on St. Patrick’s Day and march” or “have their pictures taken with the hierarchy” or “have conspicuous crosses on their forehead with ashes” but who then “not only do not live their faith they collaborate in the assault against their faith.”

The 64-year-old Chicago native is currently making his “ad limina” visit to Rome to discuss the state of his diocese with the Pope and the Vatican. He is part of a larger episcopal delegation from the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Bishop Jenky said the issue of religious freedom in the United States has featured in all their meetings so far, including their audience with Pope Benedict XVI Feb. 9.

 “Determined secularists see the Catholic Church as the largest institutional block to a completely secularized society and not for the first, and probably not for the last time, we’re under assault,” he said drawing parallels with the anti-Catholic “Kulturkampf” in late 19th century Germany or the anti-clerical laws in France in the early 20th century.

“I am a Holy Cross religious and my own community had six colleges in France and they turned our mother house chapel into a stable,” he said. As for the United States in 2012, “it is always difficult to predict the future but the intensity of hatred against Catholic Christianity in elements of our culture is just astounding.”
 
He believes the present White House administration is also motivated by a “determined secularism,” while Communist dictator Joseph Stalin would “admire the uniformity of the American press, with some exceptions.”

In 2010 the Illinois legislature voted to legalize same-sex civil unions, a move which led to the closure of Catholic foster care services. This, said the bishop, took the Church “entirely out of the work that we started when the State of Illinois could not have cared less about beggar kids running up and down the streets.”

Bishop Jenky is very conscious of this patrimony of Catholic schools, hospitals and other social services “built by the sacrifice of Catholic believers” in previous generations of Illinois Catholics. “There weren’t a lot of multi-millionaires who built the churches, opened those orphanages or built those schools,” he said. 

The bishop fears that socially liberal elites ultimately want to secularize such institutions by stealth. “I assume that is the underlying goal,” he suggested, “so that is robbing Christ but it is also robbing the heritage of generations of believers. So we would try to resist this in every way possible. It would be an incredible injustice.”

In conversation, he quoted the stark 2010 prediction of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, “I will die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.” So is Bishop Jenky prepared for prison or worse?

“I hope I would always prefer Christ to anything so, if it came to it, yes but I would be one of the trembling martyrs.”

He recalled how in ancient Rome some Christians would run towards their martyrdom. He, on the other hand, would “probably be walking down the Forum with eyes downcast a little.”

“I think most of the bishops of our Church, though, would be faithful to Christ above anything, including our own personal freedom.”

Russian Orthodox Church Canonizes New Martyr Who Died at the Hands of the Nazis


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

– Source: Orthodox Cognate

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has canonized Russian national Alexander Schmorell, a native of Orenburg, who was executed by the Nazi regime in 1943 for organizing an anti-fascist student group called the White Rose, the Church Bulletin publication reported.

The ceremony to glorify St. Alexander of Munich, who was 25 yeas old when he died, ended in Germany this past weekend. He became the first new martyr glorified after canonical communion between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) was restored in 2007 following 80 years of separation.

[…]

Schmorell, born in 1917, was the son of a German who moved to Russia in the 19th century. His mother was the daughter of an Orthodox Christian priest. In 1921 the family decided to return to Germany and moved to Munich, where Schmorell became a parishioner of a Russian Orthodox church.

After returning from the front in 1942 following years of service in the German army as a military doctor, Schmorell organized, together with his colleagues Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christophe Probst, the White Rose movement and started distributing anti-Hitler leaflets. They were guillotined the following year.

The White Rose Movement: Conscience in Silent Nazi Germany

Source: Student Pulse | September 09, 2010 | By Ryan A Piccirillo

The morality of every person dictates the innate wrongness of genocide, and yet the world stood by as the Nazis sent millions to the gas chambers during the Holocaust. Historians and social scientists often attribute this moral failure to the blissfully feigned ignorance of the German people, enveloped in a blanket of fear propagated by the Nazi regime, and the indifference and prejudice of other nations. Total inaction was a remarkable failure of the human conscience, but a few brave college students in Munich proved to the world that conscientiousness still existed in the Fatherland. It is for their willingness to die to end the silence that The White Rose has become legendary.

Hans and Sophie Scholl were as typical teenagers during the period of the Third Reich: they enlisted in the Hitler youth organization and put their trust in the man behind its name who vowed to help the “fatherland to achieve greatness, fortune, and prosperity” (Scholl 6). Their sister Inge Scholl recalls that she and her siblings “entered into it with body and soul,” consumed wholly by the “mysterious power which swept [them] along” (Scholl 6). However, Hans quickly realized why his father disapproved of their involvement; he began to feel the stifling effects of fascism and was horrified by the heinous murders he witnessed. His readings of philosophical and theological texts augmented his disdain for the Nazi party. He allied with fellow University of Munich students of similar dispositions and began The White Rose movement to end the Nazi regime. His sister Sophie and Professor Kurt Huber, a philosophy professor at the University, would later join the cause. Dissent was not what made this group extraordinary; thousands of Germans, crippled with fear by Nazi propaganda, felt just as they did. What set the members of The White Rose apart was their unwillingness to remain silent and their selfless decision to act on their intuitions.

The White Rose’s publication and distribution of six leaflets calling for passive resistance against Hitler’s regime would eventually lead to the arrest and execution of its six core members. Although their deaths were followed by a deafening silence from the German people and the revolution they called for would never take place, it cannot be said that they gave their lives in vain; the courage of their actions would echo through history as evidence of conscience within silent Nazi Germany.

Leaflets of The White Rose

The first of the six leaflets produced by The White Rose movement opens, “Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be ‘governed’ by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct” (Scholl 73). The content of the six short pamphlets abounds with this message, appealing to German citizens’ intellect, intuition, and sense of shame. The message of the six leaflets evokes realizations about the evils of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, the moral failure of German indifference and inaction, and calls for an intellectual uprising against the Nazi party. The authors rely heavily on the wisdom of great philosophers and thinkers to validate and reinforce their claims.

Fascism is a form of government which stifles personal expression, oppresses the weak and the different, and indoctrinates its citizens with a dangerous jingoistic spirit of service for the state. The argument against Third-Reich fascism in the first leaflet is supplemented by a passage from German poet and philosopher Freidrich Schiller’s “The Lawgiving of Lycurgus and Solon” which declares:

The state is never an end in itself; it is important only as a condition under which the purpose of mankind can be attained, and this purpose is none other than the development of all man’s powers, his progress and improvement. If a state prevents the development of the capacities which reside in man, then it is reprehensible and injurious, no matter how excellently devised, how perfect in its own way. (Scholl 75)

The authors of the leaflet use this passage to express the maxim that government is meant to serve the people, not the converse. In the third leaflet, the authors state that “according to God’s will, man is intended to pursue his natural goal, his earthly happiness, in self-reliance and self-chosen activity, freely and independently within the community of life and work of the nation” (Scholl 81). Fascism stifles personal growth and expression and stipulates that all members of the state should live solely to serve that state; the Nazi government under Hitler, operating in this fashion, has broken its contract with the people and violated the maxims defined by Schiller and God. Therefore the authors demand that the German people, “must work against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system of totalitarianism” (Scholl 74).

The leaflets offer a stern indictment of the German people’s indifference to the atrocities and oppressions of the National Socialist Party, calling on them to face their fears and stand up against the government or be remembered as cowards throughout history. The second leaflet asks, “Why do the German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes […] so unworthy of the human race?” (Scholl 78). In that same leaflet, the authors harshly criticize the German people for standing by and even encouraging their fascist leaders to murder thousands. The leaflet argues that any German who stands by silently as atrocities are committed, “is to blame for the fact that [they] came about at all” (Scholl 79). The authors appeal to the guilt felt by every German, despite their attitudes towards the Jewish race, for allowing so many to be senselessly murdered and for allowing their country to be overtaken by fascism through fear. These harsh assertions are not meant to alienate the readers but rather to convince them of the moral necessity for action.

The primary objective of The White Rose movement was to incite fervor for action in the hearts and minds of the German people. The third leaflet boldly welcomes all to the movement, declaring that “everyone is in a position to contribute to the overthrow of this system” (Scholl 82). However, the authors did not focus on the ability of every German to act, but rather on the necessity that every German act. The authors understood that to eradicate National Socialism from Germany required “the cooperation of many convinced, energetic people – people who are agreed to the means they must use to attain their goal.” Without enough people behind the movement, the goal would never be realized. The White Rose did not call for a murderous rebellion but rather for passive resistance, a peaceful sabotage of the Nazi machine – sabotage of publications, armories, and all institutions “in pay of the ‘government’ and that defend its ideology and aid in disseminating the brown lie” (Scholl 83). The White Rose understood that it did not have the weapons or military tact for a violent overthrow. Such an attempt would have resulted in the immediate defeat of the movement.

The fourth leaflet appeals to the religious instincts of the German people with a defiant call to action: “I ask you as a Christian […] Has God not given you the strength, the will to fight? We must attack evil where it is strongest, and it is strongest in the power of Hitler” (Scholl 86). The White Rose did not exist simply to educate the people of Germany about the philosophical and moral transgressions of its government; it existed to incite them to act out against that government so that the country could be saved from a legacy of disgrace.

Justice

Robert Scholl’s final words to his condemned son Hans were, “You will go down in history – there is such a thing as justice in spite of all of this” (Scholl 61). Despite the conclusion of the People’s Court of Germany, Robert’s assertion accurately captures the sentiment of the greatest thinkers on justice.

The charges levied against the members of The White Rose movement by the People’s Court of Germany for which they were convicted and executed included the following: “attempted high treason, namely by force to change the constitution of the Reich […], injuring the war potential of the Reich, and […] having attempted to cripple and weaken the will of the German people to take measures toward their defense and self-determination” (Scholl 105-106). The irony of the third of those charges demonstrates so vividly the warped interpretation of justice held by the People’s Court of Germany. However, the other two charges are accurate; indeed The White Rose was a treasonous group but one must understand that treason against a government which commits treason against humanity is noble. The People’s Court of Germany was the legislative branch of a government whose very foundation was at odds with moral justice; their ruling and sentencing of the members of The White Rose cannot be considered legitimate interpretations of justice. The propagation of truth is never, according to moral law, a punishable offense.

In his work Two Treatises of Government, philosopher John Locke argues “the end of government is the good of mankind,” and questions “which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation of the properties of their people?” (Locke). Within these words Locke invokes a right of the people to revolt against a government which fails to serve its purpose, namely the preservation of the property of its citizens. The Nazi government betrayed this purpose to the extreme, limiting its citizens’ most sacred property: their lives. Locke would therefore see it as a right of the people of Nazi Germany to resist this government’s rule, for a government which breaks its social contract with its people is illegitimate. This social right proposed by Locke is further evidence that The White Rose movement was fully in accordance with the tenets of justice.

National Socialism under Hitler represented one of the most profound bastardizations of justice throughout history. In a normal society, laws must be followed to maintain order, but Nazi law disregarded the sanctity of human life. Martin Luther King, Jr. offered that “any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King). By this definition, the entire system of fascism is a mockery of justice. King also demanded that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King). His logic leads one to the undeniable conclusion that the members of The White Rose were among a minority who fulfilled their moral obligation to reject and resist Nazi rule.

Evaluation of Success

The members of The White Rose were unwilling to allow Germany’s history to be tarnished by an “irresponsible clique” (Scholl 73). They discovered through their own philosophical enlightenment that it was their moral duty, and the duty of every German, to stand up to the tyrannical government. In their final leaflet, the authors sum up their call to action with the following charge: “fight against the party!” (Scholl 92). Their goal was an all-encompassing intellectual rebellion in which all Germans would dissociate from the party and overthrow it by virtue of strength in numbers. Tragically, the members were executed before this goal could ever be realized. On the day of her execution, Sophie Scholl said of her impending doom, “What does my death matter if through us thousands of people will be stirred to action and awakened?” (Scholl 56). Unfortunately, Sophie’s hope was in vain for the months following her execution (and the executions of her colleagues) were dominated by the same Nazi fear-machine which kept the populace silent for years prior. No posthumous revolution took place. However, one should hesitate to call the movement a failure, for its significance is not diminished by this fact.

The White Rose movement served a secondary purpose – a purpose its members had hoped would be shared by all of Germany; it demonstrated to the world that within the largely silent populace of Nazi Germany there existed those with a conscience. It recognized the guilt felt by every German and the shared responsibility for the atrocities. In her introduction to Inge Scholl’s book on the movement and the war, author Dorothee Sölle reflects that “sometimes [she] felt that it was just for us, the next generation, that [the members of The White Rose] had died. […] I wonder if they died so that we would know there had been at least a few people in Germany, a few students among hundreds of thousands, with a conscience” (Sölle x). In the Leaflet of the Resistance, the authors recognize the potential disgrace of inaction: “Germans! […] Are we to be forever the nation which is hated and rejected by all mankind?” (Scholl 89). Through their actions, the members of The White Rose evidenced that Germany was not a nation of cruel anti-Semites without consideration for the value of human life. However, German guilt and shame are intensified by the fact that so few chose to act. When Dorothee Sölle reflects on the Holocaust, she feels “choked with shame that there were not more ‘white roses’ in the bleakest hour of [her] country’s history” (Sölle xiv). Though it failed to ignite an uprising momentous enough to topple Hitler and the National Socialist Party, The White Rose movement successfully preserved German dignity for future generations by having the courage to act.

The White Rose movement, like the stories of survival born from the Holocaust, demonstrates the capacity for human courage and morality. In the face of such horrific human-led atrocities, The White Rose movement contrasts the bleakest example of the capacity for evil which exists in humanity. Reflecting on the actions of her brother, sister, and their colleagues, Inge Scholl questions, “Were they heroes? They attempted no superhuman task. They stood up for a simple matter, an elementary principle: the right of the individual to choose his manner of life and to live in freedom” (Scholle 4). It is in fact because of this axiom that the members of The White Rose movement are indeed heroes; they overcame fear in a sea of cowardice and sacrificed their lives for the basic principle of freedom and the preservation of human dignity. Their actions epitomize heroism.

References

King, Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” 16 April 1963. Stanford University. 18 October 2009 .

Locke, John. “Two Trestises of Government.” 2003-2009. Lonang Library. 17 October 2009 .

Scholl, Inge. The White Rose. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

Sölle, Dorothee. “Introduction to the Second Edition: The Legacy of The White Rose.” Scholl, Inge. The White Rose. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1983. ix-xiv.

Citation Information

Piccirillo, Ryan A. (2010). The White Rose Movement: Conscience in Silent Nazi Germany. Student Pulse, 2.09. Retrieved from: <http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=282>

Obama and the Dictatorship of Relativism


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

When the Manhattan Declaration first came out, Orthodox signers came under considerable criticism. Too much culture wars was the usual response. I signed the document because I saw that efforts to institutionalize secular liberalism could only succeed if dissenting voices were silenced. The cost of that silence is high and will include the loss of liberty if it succeeds. Secular fundamentalism allows no prisoners.

Below Samuel Gregg examines the historical antecedents of the present conflict and writes, “(T)he Catholic Church’s fight — in fact, the fight of anyone, believer or non-believer, who recognizes secularist fundamentalism as a danger to freedom — against the despotism of “there-is-no-moral-truth…” is only just beginning.” He’s right.

Source: American Spectator | Samuel Gregg

There is no moral truth and Rawls is his prophet.

If there was ever any doubt about one of the Obama Administration’s key philosophical commitments, it was dispelled on Jan. 20 when the Department of Health and Human Services informed the Catholic Church that most of its agencies will be required to provide employees with insurance-coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs: i.e., products, procedures, and chemicals used to facilitate acts which the Church and plenty of others consider intrinsically evil.

Alas, it’s not a question of the administration being tragically “tone deaf,” as one American Jesuit claimed, to specifically Catholic concerns. Nor is the bedrock of President Obama’s position, in the end, a commitment to “women’s health.” Outside the ghoulish world of Planned Parenthood, pregnancy does not qualify as a disease. A fertile womb is no threat to human life.

No, this is all about the absolutization of choice for the sake of choice. It’s also about creating a society in which any discussion of the actual ends we choose is considered unacceptable in public debates about law and morality.

Modern liberalism has a long history of trying to exclude consideration of the proper ends of human action from public discourse in the name of tolerance. But neither liberalism nor secularism are as neutral about such matters as they pretend.

Self-identified modern liberals (and secularists more generally) typically insist that justice and tolerance demand that governments shouldn’t privilege any conception of morality, religious or secular, in framing its laws. Unfortunately for liberals, this position — outlined in excruciating detail by the seer of modern secular liberalism, the late John Rawls — is self-refuting. Why? Because it, ahem, privileges a legal and political commitment to relativity about moral questions. It’s the same absurdity underlying the philosophical skeptic’s claim that there’s no truth — except for the truth that there is no truth.

These little internal inconsistencies, however, don’t stop the use of such conceptions of tolerance and justice as weapons for terminating any contribution to public debate that’s informed by the propositions that moral truth exists, that we can know it through revelation and/or reason, and that it is unjust to cordon off these truths from the public square.

And here we come face-to-face with the essence of what a certain Joseph Ratzinger famously described in an April 2005 homily as “the dictatorship of relativism.” Most people think of tyrannies as involving the imposition of a defined set of ideas upon free citizens. Benedict XVI’s point was that the coercion at the heart of the dictatorship of relativism derives precisely from the fact that it “does not recognize anything as definitive.”

In this world, tolerance no longer creates the safety for us to express our views about the nature of good and evil and its implications for law and public morality. Instead, it serves to banish the truth as the reference point against which all of us must test our ideas and beliefs. The objective is to reduce everyone to modern Pontius Pilates who, whatever their private beliefs, wash their hands in the face of obvious injustices, such as what the Obama administration has just inflicted upon not only Catholics, but anyone whose convictions about the truth requires them to abstain from cooperating in acts they regard as evil per se.

Of course, modern liberals do have their preferred ends, which (despite all their endless chatter about reason) reflect their profoundly cramped vision of man’s intellect. Here they follow the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume. He argued that “reason ought to be the slave of the passions.” Reason’s role, in other words, is not to identify what is rational for people to choose. Instead, reason is reduced to merely devising the means for realizing whatever goals that people, following the profound moral reasoning of a five year-old, “just feel like” choosing.

On this basis, utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham concluded that life was really about nothing more than the experience of sensations. Hence, the goal was to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. But having repeatedly failed to construct a coherent hedonistic calculus of utility (even Rawls concluded it was a doomed endeavor), the “ultimate goal” of modern liberalism and secularism now “consists,” as Benedict noted in 2005, “solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

That in turn reduces life and my choices to ensuring that I am among those who are (1) powerful enough to get to indulge my ego and my desires, (2) sophistical enough to produce rationalizations (otherwise known as consequentialist ethics) for doing so, and (3) strong enough to trample over anyone whose existence or beliefs might limit my ability to do whatever I just happen to “feel like” doing.

Here modern liberalism’s essentially illiberal nature reveals its true face. Because if your theological or philosophical convictions get in the way of your employee’s desire to neuter his spouse at your expense in order to avoid the “disease” of pregnancy, then tough luck. Desire plus autonomy — the calling-cards of secularist fundamentalism — trump all (except, apparently, when it comes to the distribution of wealth, climate change, and smoking).

The Catholic Church — and its teachings about good and evil — goes back 2,000 years. Since that time, it’s weathered the savage persecutions of the Roman Empire, the terrorism of the French Revolution, the systematic harassment of National Socialism, and the all-out assault of Marxism-Leninism. And, perhaps most telling of all, it’s managed to survive the many, often terrible sins and faithlessness of its own members. The Church will be around long after the not-so-New Atheists have gone to their eternal reward.

The Church’s struggle with the dictatorship of relativism may, however, prove one of its most difficult challenges. That’s partly because it’s a subtle form of oppression that trades off words like “choice” that strongly resonate in Western societies — the same societies in which many secularists all-too-quickly equate any religion’s claim to teach the truth with murderers who fly planes into buildings.

In the span of human history, the Obama Administration is just a blip, however much it considers itself, like all progressivists, to be on history’s cutting edge. But be warned: the Catholic Church’s fight — in fact, the fight of anyone, believer or non-believer, who recognizes secularist fundamentalism as a danger to freedom — against the despotism of “there-is-no-moral-truth-and-Rawls-is-his-prophet” is only just beginning.

65 Orthodox Church Bishops Call on Obama to ‘Rescind’ the ‘Unjust’ Contraception Mandate


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: LifeSite News

NEW YORK, NY, February 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The 65 canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church have asked President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to repeal the mandate that religious institutions provide birth control, sterilization, and Plan B abortion drugs in their health care coverage.

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America – which represents 12 Orthodox jurisdictions and three million Orthodox Christians in the United States – issued a press release last Thursday calling the HHS ruling a violation of religious conscience.

“The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion,” the statement says. “This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for ‘contraceptive services’ including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions.”

“Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.”

The bishops urged the faithful to take action. The statement calls upon “all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.”

Influential leaders in the Orthodox Church expressed their appreciation that the bishops had spoken out. “The statement issued by the Orthodox bishops reflects a welcome voice in the public square that has too often been silent due to our unhappy divisions as American Orthodox Christians,” said Fr. Chad Hatfield, the president of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Syosset, New York, in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com.

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble, an Orthodox priest and writer in Massachusetts agreed, “I don’t think we should shy about controversial topics.” Fr. Preble wrote an article in The Huffington Post asking the hierarchy of his church to publicly address the subject. “This seemed to be more of a national issue that the bishops as a whole had to say something about, and they weren’t, and I was afraid we were losing ground,” he told LifeSiteNews.com. “The Roman Catholic bishops were carrying the majority water on this issue and taking the brunt of the heat, and I just thought we had to do something.”

After reading the statement, Fr. Preble said, “I’m very pleased with the fact that [the bishops] did speak out, and I hope that this is the start of other statements that they will make about other issues, as well.”

The nation’s Orthodox Christians join a growing number of non-Catholics who had officially opposed the contraception mandate, which religious institutions will be required to observe by next August. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his daily podcast last Tuesday that any law requiring people of faith to violate their conscience “is not only a Catholic issue…our religious liberty is being similarly subverted and attacked.”

Late last year 60 religious leaders, mostly Protestants as well as two Orthodox Jewish spokesmen, signed a letter to President Obama, stating, “It is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include some that are abortifacients.”

The Orthodox Church is the second largest church in the world. The North American bishops posted their press release last Thursday, the date Orthodox Christians celebrate the presentation of the Christ Child in the Temple.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America was traveling and was not immediately available for comment.

The statement reads in full:

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

Contact Information:
The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 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/archive.php on line 58