secularism

We should all be extremely cautious about the recent comments about a Catholic-Orthodox union (Fr. Peter-Michael Preble has already raised important questions about these reports). Outside of the obvious and thorny theological questions – on both sides – that would arise, is there any way such a union could take place without first convening an all-Orthodox Council? And if such a council would move in that direction, would the whole Church accept that council as Orthodox?

In “Needed: Both Lungs,” the editors of the National Catholic Register quote Archbishop Paolo Pezzi of Moscow who told an Italian newspaper that unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could be accomplished in the very near future. In fact, the paper reported, the archbishop predicted that it could be a reality “within a few months.”

At the same time, we read that “Moscow Patriarchate believes Uniate expansion in Ukraine the most complicated problem in relations with Vatican,” according to an Interfax interview with Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk.

Archbishop Hilarion expressed hope that when carrying out its mission in the mentioned countries, Vatican would conduct regular consultations with the Moscow Patriarchate local structures. The hierarch also offered to follow the existing model of the Russian Church behavior in traditionally Catholic countries as it keeps friendly and productive contacts with local Catholic dioceses.

What is encouraging, I think, is the real possibility that both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches can work more cooperatively on important social questions. As the NCR editors say:

There’s another factor that bodes well for future developments, as well: Orthodox and Catholics are finding that they share common concerns, particularly the increasing secularization of Western society. Patriarch Kirill said recently that “Catholics understand that Orthodox are their allies. And Orthodox are more and more coming to understand that Catholics are their allies in the face of hostile and nonreligious secularism.”

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow, has expressed his hope for a “united Catholic-Orthodox response to the challenges of secularism, liberalism and relativism.”

This takes us back to what Archbishop Pezzi said recently. “On issues of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox Christians feel the same way,” he said. “Nothing separates us on bioethics, the family and the protection of life.”

Greek Orthodox Archbishop Demetrios announced yesterday that Bishop Savas of Troas, most recently the chancellor of the archdiocese, has been named director of the Office of Church and Society. The bishop will be charged with developing “programs and ministries that promote a creative Orthodox Christian engagement with contemporary societal and cultural realities.”

Readers of this blog will recall the effusive praise with which Bishop Savas greeted the election of Barack Obama, rejoicing that “this is the day that the Lord has made!” Yesterday, the Obama administration moved to rescind a Bush administration regulation, put in place in December, that cuts off federal funding for medical facilities that would force doctors, nurses and other health care workers to participate in practices, such as abortion, that “they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.” The move to lift the so-called “conscience rule,” which is subject to a 30 day public comment period, was applauded by pro-abortion activists and condemned by religious conservatives.

Perhaps the bishop, in his first official act, could issue a sharply worded statement and go on radio and TV to criticize the Obama administration for its attempt to overturn the health care “conscience rule” and pointing out how removing legal protections for religious belief in the workplace advances the culture of death. There’s a “contemporary societal and cultural” reality for you. Continue reading →

The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening legal action against the U.S. Naval Academy unless it discontinues a tradition — believed to date back to the college’s founding in 1845 — of mealtime prayer, the Baltimore Sun reports.

“The government should not be in the business of compelling religious observance, particularly in military academies, where students can feel coerced by senior students and officials and risk the loss of leadership opportunities for following their conscience,” Deborah A. Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland, wrote in a letter to the academy.

Over at the Scriptorium, John Mark Reynolds notes in “Let the Navy Pray” that everything that does not fit the ACLU’s “Utopian ideology” is viewed as something that must be swept aside:

Like all ideologues history does not matter, tradition does not matter, and there is no sense of proportion. Every public act must fit their cherished scheme. They are theocrats in reverse and just like the theocrats the pursuit of their ideas of perfection threatens to unravel the careful compromises that make our culture work.

The ACLU would apply to a service academy the same rules it applies to an elementary school. The military, an institution that deals with immanent peril and death daily, is not just like any other institution in our society.

Our Armed Forces have chaplains, because fighters from a very religious nation like America need and want them. The Armed Forces have always prayed, because we are a praying nation and men who fight are uniquely interested in speaking to the Deity. Secularists don’t agree that this matters, but then there are not enough secularists in this nation to defend it.

Jonathan David Price, editor of “The Clarion Review” (published by AOI) wrote the essay “On the Advantages of Dying Young “, that was recently published in First Principles (“the home of American intellectual conservatism”).

Price writes: There is so much talk about the advantages of long life nowadays that when confronted with “tragic” young deaths our only response is pity. Obsession with longevity is no longer merely an existential anxiety; lifespan has even become a key measure of the health of nations. We are concerned with it collectively. And since quantity of life is what we value, death is the enemy. There is no such thing as a good death at any age, much less in youth. . . .

Read the essay in the First Principles Journal.

This essay was also blogged by Benjamin MacConchie: http://benjaminmacconchie.wordpress.com/.