Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I

Patriarch Bartholomew Coddles Environmental Extremists

21 Comments

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

– Taking care of the environment involves more than clean air, clean water, recycling and the other factors that we usually associate with responsible stewardship. It also involves ideas about the economy, human relationships, structuring communities, the meaning and value of work, the value of the unborn and aged and so forth. Every environmental program incorporates ideas about these factors even if they are not explicitly stated.

In order to think clearly about environmental care, we have to look past the surface and examine the ideas that make up any environmental program. We have to ask ourselves do the programs promote human flourishing or impede it? Are trees and animals valued at the expense of the human person? Is man a blight on the earth who should be restricted from meaningful work and prosperity, or is his role as steward of creation a blessing to it?

Below is an essay written for AOI by an anonymous author (I agreed to withhold the author’s name) that describes the ideas of presenters at Patriarch Bartholomew’s recent two-day Halki summit. I find the choice of speakers troubling. You may too. The speakers proceed from premises inimical to our Orthodox moral tradition — especially the precepts that protect human flourishing and freedom.

As always, comments are welcome.

By Anonymous

Sometimes Orthodox Christians develop a sense of inferiority when they compare themselves to the Roman Catholic Church. When we contrast the actions of the Holy See to those of the Ecumenical Patriarch before this week’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development it is easy to see why. The Papal delegation issued a statement putting the human race at the center of creation. The Patriarch of Constantinople however, hosted a conference praising environmentalist extremists and population control advocates.

Before Rio+20, the Vatican’s permanent observer mission to the UN issued a position paper reminding the global negotiators that, “Human beings, in fact, come first.” The papal delegation charged the world’s leaders to adopt “a way of life which respects the dignity of each human being” and promote “technologies which can help to improve its quality.” Mankind represents the crown of creation they argued, and the world’s leading economies should assure that technological progress continues to serve mankind’s well-being.

The Phanar took a different approach. It hosted a two-day conference on the island of Heybeliada, co-sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. Its PR material referred to the “Halki Summit” as “a distinguished group of activists, scientists, journalists, business leaders, theologians, and academics” committed to inducing “healing environmental action” through “a fundamental change in values as manifested in ethics and spirituality.”

In his keynote address, His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I said, while he had “witnessed the positive changes over the last decade,” he remained “deeply frustrated with the stubborn resistance and reluctant advancement of earth-friendly policies and practices.”

The Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, Archdeacon John Chryssavgis, and other clergy alternately spoke with and heard from a panel of environmentalist polemicists such as Bill McKibben, James Hansen, and Jane Goodall.

Bill McKibben author of the book, Maybe One, encouraged his readers to have, at most, one child In his book, McKibben implied our likeness to God is most reflected by our use of contraception. He wrote that mankind’s “ability to limit ourselves…makes us unique among the animals.” He went on to belittle the traditional concept of the Deity and man’s place in the created order:

And though it galls the apostles of technology, this idea of restraint comes in large measure from our religious heritage. Not the religious heritage of literalism and fundamentalism and pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die. The scientists may have drowned the miracle-working sky gods with their five-century flood of data. Copernicus and Darwin did deprive us of our exalted place in the universe…

According to McKibben, “this older, deeper, more integral religious idea” – which he traces, appropriately, to Yama, the Hindu god of death – survived:

In this long tradition, meaning counts, more than ability or achievement or accumulation. Indeed, meaning counts more than life. From this perspective, Christ’s resurrection is almost unnecessary: it is his willingness to die, to impose the deepest limit on himself for the sake of others, that matters (emphases added).

It is telling that McKibben received one of two prizes from The Nation Institute, the institutional arm of Nation magazine, in 2010. The other went to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. Why was he elevated by the Phanar?

McKibben suffers for his beliefs – as misguided as they are. He spent days in jail for leading the demonstrations that single-handedly killed the Keystone XL Pipeline – which would have created between 20,000 and 250,000 jobs in the midst of a flatlining economy – a move the Halki Summit described as a “courageous act of ‘civil disobedience.’”

The activist discussed his courage with Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA scientist turned Chicken Little who once said global warming skeptics of “are guilty of crimes against humanity.” He suggested President Obama tax the price of gasoline to “$4/5 gallons again.”

Hansen exposed his view of mankind when he endorsed Time’s Up, by Keith Farnish, a blurb Farnish has written he never solicited. The book set a modest goal: “Getting rid of civilization.” “Industrial Civilization may have produced new and innovative ways of human disease,” Farnish wrote, “but at the expense of tens of millions of other animals each year.”

He suggested that to facilitate the creation of a world with “no cities, no paved roads, no pylons, no offices or factories” that “[n]ot having children could be a very useful strategy.”

Other speakers also shared the priorities of the Green Left.

Jane Goodall, the famed primatologist, called the Catholic Church “quite a major problem” in her quest to impose population control.

The clergy also heard from Pratrap Chatterjee, a political and economic radical who heads an organization known as “CorpWatch,” which describes itself as a project of the George Soros funded Tides Center.

Other distinguished experts included a public radio host and the former CEO of a yogurt company.

Why is the Ecumenical Patriarch shrouding an ideology that demeans the dignity of mankind? Why is he using his moral authority as chief shepherd of the New Rome to sanctify anti-life ideas?

One day we might see the Pope and the Patriarch meeting at a UN Climate Conference on opposing sides, one standing with Al Gore and Paul Ehrlich, the other waging a lonely campaign to uphold the value of human life.

Then, faithful Orthodox Christians will find themselves united with the See of Rome, if only until the close of the summit.

The False Promise of Green Energy [VIDEO]

27 Comments

Economist Andrew Morris on Patriarch Bartholomew’s ideas on sustainable energy: “[H]e’s asking the wrong questions.”

Source: Acton Institute Power Blog | HT: Koinonia

For PowerBlog readers, we’re posting the video from Andrew Morriss’ April 26 Acton Lecture Series talk in Grand Rapids, Mich., on “The False Promise of Green Energy.” Here’s the lecture description: “Green energy advocates claim that transforming America to an economy based on wind, solar, and biofuels will produce jobs for Americans, benefits for the environment, and restore American industry. Prof. Andrew Morriss, co-author of The False Promise of Green Energy (Cato, 2011), shows that these claims are based on unrealistic assumptions, poorly thought out models, and bad data. Rather than leading us to an eco-utopia, he argues that current green energy programs are crony capitalism that impoverishes American consumers and destroys American jobs.”

Morriss, an Orthodox Christian, begins with a quote from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the Istanbul, Turkey-based hierarch. Bartholomew said this in response to the March 2011 tsunami in Japan and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that followed:

Our Creators granted us the gifts of the sun, wind, water and ocean, all of which may safely and sufficiently provide energy. Ecologically-friendly science and technology has discovered ways and means of producing sustainable forms of energy for our ecosystem. Therefore, we ask: Why do we persist in adopting such dangerous sources of energy?

“The Ecumenical Patriarch and I don’t see eye to eye on this,” Morriss said. “I think he’s asking the wrong questions.”

Also see the PowerBlog post “Green Patriarch: No Nukes.”

In his book, Morriss and his co-authors warn that “the concrete results of following [green energy] policies will be a decline in living standards around the globe, including for the world’s poorest; changes in lifestyle that Americans do not want; and a weakening of the technological progress that market forces have delivered, preventing us from finding real solutions to the real problems we face.” Many of those lifestyle changes will come from suddenly spending far more on energy than we’d like. Green technologies mean diverting production from cheap sources, such as coal and oil, to more expensive, highly subsidized ones, like wind and solar. These price spikes won’t be limited to our electricity bills either, the authors argue. “Anything that increases the price of energy will also increase the price of goods that use energy indirectly.”

The better solution to improving America’s energy economy, the book shows, is to let the market work by putting power in the hands of consumers. But “many environmental pressure groups don’t want to leave conservation to individuals, preferring government mandates to change energy use.” In other words, green-job proponents know they’re pushing a bad product. Rather than allow the market to expose the bad economics of green energy, they’d use the power of government to force expensive and unnecessary transformation.

Morriss is also an editor of the forthcoming Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson (Cato, September 2012) with Roger Meiners and Pierre Desroches. The blurb for the Carson book notes that she got a lot wrong:

Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement when published 50 years ago, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had a profound impact on our society. As an iconic work, the book has often been shielded from critical inquiry, but this landmark anniversary provides an excellent opportunity to reassess its legacy and influence. In Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson a team of national experts explores the book’s historical context, the science it was built on, and the policy consequences of its core ideas. The conclusion makes it abundantly clear that the legacy of Silent Spring is highly problematic. While the book provided some clear benefits, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance. Despite her reputation as a careful writer widely praised for building her arguments on science and facts, Carson’s best-seller contained significant errors and sins of omission. Much of what was presented as certainty then was slanted, and today we know much of it is simply wrong.

Morriss is the D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene Angelich Jones Chairholder of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. He is the author or coauthor of more than 60 book chapters, scholarly articles, and books. He is affiliated with a number of think tanks doing public policy work, including the Property & Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In addition, he is a Research Fellow at the New York University Center for Labor and Employment Law. He is chair of the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. His scholarship focuses on regulatory issues involving environmental, energy, and offshore financial centers. Over the past ten years he has regularly taught and lectured in China, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, and Nepal.

Morriss earned an A.B. from Princeton University and a J.D., as well as an M.A. in Public Affairs, from the University of Texas at Austin. He received a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After law school, Morriss clerked for U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders in the Northern District of Texas and worked for two years at Texas Rural Legal Aid in Hereford and Plainview, Texas.

He was formerly the H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law & Professor of Business at the University of Illinois College of Law and the Galen J. Roush Profesor of Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

La Stampa: Divisions in Orthodox Church Hinder Pope’s Meeting with Patriarch of Moscow

2 Comments

We are getting more news from the Catholic/Italian press than we are from Orthodox sources. This report appears reliable; the author has a good grasp of the ecclessiological disagreements between Constantinople and Moscow, particularly the conflict about what constitutes primacy in Orthodoxy. This question must be settled before a Pan-Orthodox Council can take place and before dialogue with Rome can proceed with any seriousness.

Both Constantinople and Moscow have different interests at stake. Moscow sees a working alliance with Rome (not unity) as a practical necessity to re-Christianize Europe in order to roll back the hedonism, moral relativism, lowered value of human life and other afflictions associated with secularism. Constantinople has expressed little interest in Moscow’s (and Rome’s) agenda and prefers instead to focus on global warming and other boutique issues.

Highlights from the article:

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

Full article follows.

Source: La Stampa (Vatican Insider) | October 3, 2011

The Orthodox Church has become convinced that together with the primacy, synodality buttresses the government and the Church’s organisation

Giacomo Galeazzi, vatican city

After metropolitan Hilarion’s visit to Castel Gandolfo had brought the meeting between Benedict XVI and Moscow’s Patriarch, Kyril, closer, the primacy dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Churches, has re-emerged as an obstacle. Internal divisions between Orthodoxy seem capable of slowing the Pope’s path towards his historic face to face meeting with the Russian Patriarch, which would probably take place on “neutral ground”, Bari for example.

One of the main sore points, are the principles for the declaration of the Orthodox Churches’ autonomy (an autocephalous proclamation). This has caused the most friction between the, especially between the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. The latter holds the majority in Orthodoxy, as it has been autocephalous since 1488. Still, now, more than ever, significant steps are being taken towards advancing dialogue between the Holy See and the Orthodox faith, on the relationship between primacy and synodality in the Church and on the importance of spiritual ecumenism, in view of a complete and clear unity between all Christians. Even Vatican Radio wrote that Hilarion’s arrival in Castel Gandolfo opened the way for new hope.

Between Rome and Moscow, the situation already seems clear, particularly the question of the “prótos-kephalé” ministry – the “supreme head” of the Church – on a local level (the Bishop), on a regional level (the Patriarch) and on a universal level (the Bishop of Rome), applying Canon 34 of the Apostles (a fundamental text for Eastern ecclesiology) to all three levels, in a similar way. In this sense, under Benedict XVI’s pontificate, a fundamental agreement was reached between Catholics and the Orthodox Church made on a common theological, ecclesiological platform, on which the two denominations based the discussion regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox Church reached the conclusion that, just like primacy, synodality constitutes the government and the Church organisation’s supporting framework. An encouraging move towards mutual understanding and the identification of common elements between them. The only problems that remain are essentially related to hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of the word of God, as it is testified in the Holy Scriptures and in the living tradition of the Church. There are also urgent questions related to anthropology and ecclesiology.

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow acknowledged Benedict XVI in light of the new situation between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow: “We have overcome all the tensions that have existed over the years and our relations are now normal, peaceful and even positive and constructive.” Hilarion expressed the high esteem he felt towards Benedict XVI, who is thought very highly of within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Archbishop reflected on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church’s communion during the first millennium, when the Great Schism of 1054 had not yet taken place.

The focus is on how the content of the primacy of St. Peter’s successor, evolved during the second millennium, after the split between the two confessions, particularly after the First and Second Vatican Council. The subject had already been discussed in depth on occasion of the tenth Plenary Assembly of the mixed Commission which met in the Italian city of Ravenna, between 8 and 14 October 2007. Thirty Catholic delegates and 30 Orthodox representatives gathered to reflect on the topic: “The ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature the Church: ecclesiastic communion, conciliarity and authority in the Church.”

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” [Like Estonia?] In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

At the end of August, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I and metropolitan Hilarion, met on the Turkish Island of Imbros (not in Fanar, the Headquarters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The visit was interpreted as a sign of détente between them. The Patriarchate of Moscow pointed out that the meeting lasted two days, 21 and 22 August. This Sunday, Patriarch Bartholomew who is originally from Imbros, wanted to show metropolitan Hilarion the places where he grew up.

After reciting the vespers together, in the Church of the Dormition of the St. Theodores, the Patriarch publicly addressed the metropolitan, thanking him for the work his Department did for relations between the two Patriarchates. “Naturally, this does not mean that no clouds will ever form over their relationship, that no problems will ever arise, but we are trying to overcome them and resolve them together, in order to carry on our harmonious collaboration,” he concluded. Thus, divisions over authority between Orthodox churches are slowing the Benedict XVI and Kyril’s reciprocal efforts to bring the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closer together.

‘Erdoğan saved future of Greek Orthodox Patriarchate

26 Comments

Diostheos Anağnostopulos

Source: Today’s Zaman

The spokesperson of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Father Dositheos Anağnostopulos, has said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan saved the future of the patriarchate by offering Turkish citizenship to a number of archbishops in 2009.

In an interview with the Star daily, Anağnos-topulos said there were 12 archbishops on the patriarchate’s Spiritual Board at the time. “Most of [those archbishops] are very old. In order to become a member of this board, one has to be a Turkish citizen. If the patriarch dies one day, it seemed unlikely that a new patriarch would be elected from the board [due to the members’ age]. This danger has now passed. The prime minister attended a luncheon on Büyükada in August 2009 … and said the problem with the Spiritual Board will be overcome if archbishops applied to become Turkish citizens. He assured us that applicants would be granted citizenship,” the spokesperson stated.

Anağnostopulos defined the prime minister’s remarks as the “most positive moment in his lifetime.” “After the prime minister’s call, 27 of 35 archbishops abroad submitted applications to become Turkish citizens. Thirteen of them have already been granted citizenship,” he added. In 2010, CNN International ran a story on the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in which it suggested that Patriarch Bartholomew could ultimately be the last patriarch if Turkish laws, demographics and attitudes do not change. According to Anağnostopulos, however, this is no longer the case, thanks to Erdoğan.

The spokesperson also said Erdoğan and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç were the first state authorities to express their wish to re-open a closed Greek Orthodox seminary on Heybeliada, off the coast of İstanbul. The Halki Seminary was closed in 1971 in accordance with a law that put religious and military training under state control.

In addition, Anağnostopulos said the Halki Seminary is of high importance for the Greek Orthodox population as it was once a base where clerics were trained for the religious community.

“An argument has been put forward by some people in Turkey. They say the Greek Orthodox population comprises only 2,500 people, and we needn’t train clerics for so few people. They say we may ‘import’ clerics from abroad. However, they should know that the Greek Orthodox patriarch is the most senior among Orthodox churches in the world. This is why he was granted the ecumenical title. We also have followers outside of İstanbul, including in North and South America and some parts of Europe, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand. Their priests and archbishops are appointed by our patriarch. And for their appointment, it is a must for candidates to have graduated from a seminary,” he stated.

Anağnostopulos also said the re-opening of the Halki Seminary would not run contrary to the Treaty of Lausanne. He also ruled out fears that the “Byzantine spirit” would be revived if the seminary is re-opened.

“Some fear that it will go against the principles of the Republic of Turkey if the patriarchate is a very strong institution. This is wrong. The Republic of Turkey has a secular character. Every religious group has the right to continue its activities provided they are not engaged in politics. It is now a fact that the closing down of the Halki Seminary was not legal. I personally believe that the seminary was used as a trump card in the Cyprus issue and was eventually shut down,” he noted.

The Left’s sloppy thinking concerning the defense of human life

20 Comments

Source: Wintery Knight

Secular leftists (as well as many religious leftists) hold the views they do not because the views are internally coherent, but because they they fear being ostracized by their peers for holding conservative opinions. Moral posturing — holding politically correct viewpoints — is more important than clear thinking in the secularist canon. This explains why the moral and cultural conservative is so often greeted with pejoratives rather than any reasoned rebuttal of his opinions. It is also why the defender of abortion loathes direct questioning. He knows his views are weak (applause is more important than any search for truth), and an informed moral and cultural conservative can dispense with them without too much effort.

In the video below Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform debates Dr. Mark Mercer, head of the Philosophy Department of Saint Mary’s University held at Dalhousie University on March 8, 2011. Gray knows her stuff. Mercer knows very little although he thinks he knows a lot. What Mercers holds as self-evidently true is not so self-evident when faced with an interlocutor better educated and more independent minded than he is.

Unfortunately, Mercer’s ignorance is reflected in Orthodox Church life as well despite the clear teachings of the Orthodox moral tradition which line up squarely with Gray’s defense of the intrinsic value of human life. In fact, these teachings are the foundation of Gray’s apologetic. It is important too that the Orthodox Christians who understand that a clear defense of human life in the public square is needed today more than ever also recognize where these weaknesses lie. We have to be clear, coherent, and brave in our defense of human life. If we fail, a tide of dehumanization will be unleashed that will leave us weeping like the Israelites by the waters of Babylon over what was lost.

One area of weakness I have in mind lies here: A patriarch who ‘generally speaking, respects human life’. Such muddled thinking in the upper reaches of Orthodox leadership is disconcerting to say the least, but it must be revealed and challenged if we hope to avoid a deeper confusion down the road over the questions that inevitably flow from the primary ones addressed in the debate. Secondly, the Patriarch’s statement does not conform to the teachings of the Fathers on abortion. This too must be clarified.

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