The bottom line in the current debate

There was a recent exchange on a Pro-Homosexual Facebook group that I think highlights where the rubber meets the road on the debate about homosexuality that is going on in the OCA.

A discussion was prompted by the posting of an editorial by an Antiochian priest that was attempting to be irenic on the subject, but at the same time affirmed the moral stance of the Church. Many of the people in that group found it encouraging. However, Inga Leonova, one of the founders of the group made this statement:


"I think the point of the article is crystal clear even though the author is very careful in actually NOT spelling it out. He addresses the perception that gay people are "persecuted" by the Church in being required to live celibate lives by saying that everyone is called to transform their lives by the ascetic ordeal of Christian life. This is yet again a very clever way of dismissing the question of gay companionship."

One contributor to the group then asked this question:

"?"gay companionship"? What is that, may I humbly ask? Like David and Jonathan? Not sexual? Why call it "gay"? I get so confused on what people are saying in these groups. Forgive me."

Inga has thus far ignored the question. The reason for this is simple. To come right out and say that she meant homosexuals should be allowed to have active sexual relationships with people of the same gender is clearly contrary to the moral Tradition of the Orthodox Church. If the people who hold such views would state them clearly, they would necessarily provoke their bishops to respond firmly in opposition to them. So their strategy is to hint, suggest, and question, at this point. Get the camel's nose into the tent, and allow time and cultural decay to do the rest. They know that they will not have openly homosexual clergy or the blessing of gay marriage today, but they want to start the snowball rolling. However if one needs to use deception to promote a view in the Church, that should tell you that what you are promoting is contrary to the Truth... or dishonesty would not be necessary to promote it.

I have had some experience in dealing with people who struggle with homosexuality, and I know the struggle is very real and difficult for them. I can also understand the temptation to rationalize a justification for a sin that you don't want to give up. Most of us have done it ourselves at one time or another, and just about everyone has had the temptation if they didn't succumb to it. However, while rationalizing away the clear teachings of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church may successfully fool some people, and may even allow you to fool yourself -- God is not fooled. Indeed "God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). And St. Paul warns that we should "not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life (Galatians 6:7-8).

If you really believe in God, and if you really believe that the Orthodox Church is what it claims to be, than you have to be willing to submit to the teachings of the Church, even when they are hard to submit to. And all of us have some area that is hard for us, and presents us with a struggle. If we submit to the teachings of the Church and struggle, even feebly, God will honor that, and we will find grace and mercy. If we thumb our nose at the Church, and refuse correction, we have already separated ourselves spiritually from the Church.

Let us "no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Ephesians 4:14); but rather "seek God, and your soul shall live" (Psalm 68/69:32).

As for the legitimate desire for companionship, I think that a group of Orthodox Jews are on to something. There have have some pious Jewish men who are struggling with homosexuality, and they have some pious Jewish women who are struggling as well. They are matching them up, and encouraging them to marry each other. Each party goes into the marriage aware of the other person's struggles. Both of them obviously have the ability to be supportive and sympathetic, because they have similar struggles. And it seems to be working out pretty well so far. See: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/14/a-different-kind-of-gay-marriage/

No one is saying that they have to live alone. No one is saying that they have to live as celibates for the rest of their lives. They can get married, just like anyone else... to someone of the opposite sex, and hopefully someone who is understanding and supportive. But they cannot engage in sex with people of the same sex, which is inherently in contradiction to the teachings of the Church, and expect the Church to say it is "OK".

A Response to an Open Letter on Homosexuality

In response to the debate about homosexuality that is currently going on in the OCA, there is now an "Open letter to OCA Holy Synod from college students and young adults" that has been sent to the bishops of the OCA, and is making the rounds on the internet.

This letter is a classic example of the use of politically correct arguments to shut down those whom liberals disagree with, rather then deal with the actual substance of the question. This tactic is not by accident. When you can't deal with the substance of an issue, complaining about the tone of those you can't answer will do, in a pinch.

In short, the letter complains about the tone of those who say homosexuality is a sin, without unequivocally stating what the correct teaching of the Church actually is on the subject. There is no acknowledgment that statements that are morally ambiguous might be of any legitimate concern, only condemnation of those who seek to make clear what the teaching of the Church is.

The Open Letter states that "On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen -- including OCA priests -- repeat disgusting and discredited theories about the etiology of same-sex attraction; liken gay people to “old perverted men who love little boys”; tell Orthodox Christians that homosexuality “should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit”; call for “spiritual warfare” against those in the Church who advocate a more restrained pastoral approach; and accuse those who speak up for gay people of being “homosexual activists,” publicly expressing hope that they will leave the Orthodox faith."

Of course, the "more pastoral approach" is from those who openly question the historic position of the Church on the subject. The mean people are the ones that stand for the Tradition of the Church. But if you actually examine the "unpastoral" words that they have in mind, and then compare them to the 4th Homily of St. John Chrysostom on the book of Romans, you will see that St. John Chrysostom was apparently not very pastoral either.

The last line here seems to be in reference to my own words. It is hyperlinked in the original version to an article about Bishop Matthias's letter, and the first comment is my own:

"Everyone should ask their bishops to issue a similar statement… with one additional point that needs to be made very clear: clergy or laity who publicly teach contrary to the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church — on this or any other issue — should understand that there are canonical disciplinary consequences that will be enforced for the protection of the flock. The job of a shepherd is not just to feed the sheep, but also to chase away the wolves."

Now, this is hardly an expression of hope that people who struggle with homosexuality will leave the Church. This is a very Biblical reference to the Bishop's role as a shepherd of his flock (John 10:1-16; Acts 20:28), and those who would lead the flock astray are often spoken of as "wolves" (Acts 20:29), even "wolves in sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15). The Fathers of the Church likewise use such imagery. St. Gregory Nazianzus wrote:

"..the good shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep has not even now left us; but is present, and tends and guides, and knows his own, and is known of his own, and, though bodily invisible, is spiritually recognized, and defends his flock against the wolves, and allows no one to climb over into the fold as a robber and traitor; to pervert and steal away, by the voice of strangers, souls under the fair guidance of the truth." "Oration XVIII: On the Death of his Father."NFPF2, vol. 7, p. 255f.

St. Didymus the Blind, commenting on Acts 20:28, wrote: "...it not only says that bishops must pay heed to themselves but also to the flock that the Savior acquired by his blood. And just as he will not fall if he is attentive to himself by taking care for both the requisite virtues and his faith... so also he must take care for the flock by turning away from it the wolves who are falsely called apostles and who, being ravenous, live on the ruin of the flock.... Now he turns away these wolves, if he, established by the Holy Spirit to oversee the church, is a good shepherd" (Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 20:28, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. 5, p. 254f).

Of course any verbal image can be pressed too far. Obviously, though we speak of those who would lead the flock astray as wolves, unlike actual wolves, such people can repent, and rejoin the flock as real spiritual sheep. No one wants to see anyone leave the Church, but when a heretic refuses the correction of the Church, he is ultimately caste out of the Church for the sake of the flock, as anyone who has ever listened to the services which commemorate the Holy Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils would know.

The open letter continues: "Words like this can inflict grave spiritual harm, as some of us know from personal experience. Fortunately, many Orthodox Christians who struggle to acknowledge, understand, and deal with homosexual feelings are blessed to encounter wise priests and laypeople who do not resort to abstract moral formulas but counsel them as individual persons."

Apparently saying unequivocally that homosexual sex is a sin is an "abstract moral formula". We have a number of abstract moral formulas in the moral tradition of the Church, for example: "Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Should we toss these out? Of course anytime we deal with a murderer, a thief, or an adulterer, we deal with them as individuals too, but we have to deal with them as individuals based on the "abstract moral formulas" of the Scriptures and the Traditions of the Church.

Open Letter: "Such an approach was endorsed, we believe, by the Holy Synod’s 1992 affirmations."

This letter begins with a quotation from this 1992 "affirmation":

“Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.”

Based on this one quote from that document, you might come away with the impression that what was affirmed by the OCA Synod in 1992 was homosexuality, but this quote is taken out of context entirely.

Let's consider the whole approach of the 1992 OCA Synod's statement on Homosexuality:

Created to know God’s divinity and power through creation, human beings have refused to acknowledge God, to honor and thank Him, and to obey his divine teachings. Through their rebellion "they became futile in their thinking and their senseless hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:21). Therefore, as the apostle Paul continues to teach, "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27).

Homosexual acts, like adulterous and incestuous behavior, are condemned in the law of Moses. Those who do these things, both men and women, are, according to God’s law of the old covenant, to be put to death (Leviticus 18:6-23;20:10-21).

According to the apostle Paul, those engaging in homosexual acts, with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Christians come from all these categories of evil doers who have, voluntarily and involuntarily, been caught up in the sin of the world. They are those who through their personal repentance and faith in Christ, their baptism and chrismation, and their participation in Holy Communion, have been "washed… sanctified… and made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Orthodox Baptism and Chrismation Service).

Jesus teaches mercy and forgiveness for all sinners, but the Lord does not justify sin. When the Son of God pronounces divine pardon to those caught in evil he always charges the forgiven sinner to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

Convinced of these God-revealed truths, we offer the following affirmations and admonitions for the guidance of the faithful:

Homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God, and so against its own nature and well-being. It is not to be taken as a way of living and acting for men and women made in God’s image and likeness.

Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.

People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.

Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.

Assistance is to be given to those who deal with persons of homosexual orientation in order to help them with their thoughts, feelings and actions in regard to homosexuality. Such assistance is especially necessary for parents, relatives and friends of persons with homosexual tendencies and feelings. It is certainly necessary for pastors and church workers.

So let's see here... "Homosexual acts, like adulterous and incestuous behavior, are condemned in the law of Moses. Those who do these things, both men and women, are, according to God’s law of the old covenant, to be put to death (Leviticus 18:6-23;20:10-21)." This is the more pastoral approach that these young adults wish us to adhere to? And saying that "those engaging in homosexual acts, with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven" is not affirming an "abstract moral formula"?

It seems the authors of this open letter only wish to focus on the one statement that "Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings", which I would of course also agree with, but wish to ignore the rest of the statement, including the admonition that "Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them."

Open Letter: "This is why we find the recent adoption by some in the Orthodox Church of overheated and destructive language from the current secular “culture wars” to be a dangerous departure from Orthodox pastoral tradition."

Me: What is more overheated about the recent statements that is not also found in the 1992 statement which they claim to endorse? The 1992 statement talks about unrepentant homosexuals being put to death in the Old Testament, and not inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven in the age to come. That's putting it pretty bluntly by just about any standard.

Open letter: "It is certainly not our purpose to advocate for “homosexual rights” (none of us has a “right” to salvation), to question Orthodox doctrine, or to justify sinful behavior. Nevertheless, we cannot accept that the only alternative is purging the Church of gay people who, like the rest of us, are endeavoring to live the most godly life they are able to under the guidance of a spiritual advisor. Many for whom these issues are a daily reality are also integral members of our parishes, and their absence would do injury to the Body of Christ."

Of course no one is advocating purging the Church of gay people who are striving to live a godly life. Christ said to the woman caught in adultery "Go, and sin no more" -- not "Go ahead, it is a sin no more." If they want to live a godly life, that of necessity means turning from their sin; and having people who are either mealy-mouthed about whether or not it is a sin, or who outright deny that it is a sin, does not encourage them on that path.

No one is advocating being unsympathetic or unsupportive of those who are actually struggling against homosexuality and are repentant. What is being debated here is whether or not they need to struggle or repent, or whether we just need to be more open minded and understanding, and accept them as they are, with no questions asked... and perhaps the formal blessing of the Church at some more enlightened date in the future.

And if it is not the purpose of the signers of this letter to question Orthodox doctrine, then why do they later talk about a need for a dialogue in search of the truth of the matter?

Our faith compels us to undertake an earnest search for what is true and right, under the guidance of our hierarchs, theologians, and pastors. We implore you to help nurture a spirit of respectful, loving discourse about this issue on the Internet and in our dioceses.

Do we need to undertake an earnest search for what is true and right on the question of pedophilia, spousal abuse, or drunkenness? Should our theologians, hierarchs, and pastors have a respectful dialogue to find what the Church's position is on these issues? No. We might need to talk about how to combat those sins, but there is no discussion necessary about whether or not they are sins in the first place. The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and when it comes to questions of sin, and what we need to do about it, the Church does not need to seek a truth it does not yet know -- we need to humbly submit to the Truth that the Church has always taught, and ever will teach.

I have a few questions for the signers of this open letter:

1. Do you believe that St. Paul was "unpastoral" when he instructed the Church in Corinth to excommunicate a man who was living in sexual immorality, and that they not associate with him until he repented (1 Corinthians 5)?

2. Do you agree with the teachings of St. Paul that those who are practicing homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)?

3. If you agree that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, why would you think being unclear about that is a more loving approach to those who struggle with that sin?

A parent sometimes has to say and do things to their children that may hurt their feelings in the short term, but are for their ultimate good. It is not loving to avoid correcting a child. In fact, the Scriptures say that that such a parent hates their children (Proverbs 13:24). They may not feel hate for their children, but the effect is just the same as if they hated their children like their worst enemy and sought to destroy them. True love always "rejoices in the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6), even when the truth hurts a bit on the front end.

Sanctity of Marriage Sunday

The OCA Cathedral of Washington, D.C. has posted a resolution that they will put forth at the OCA's All-American Council this fall:




Sanctity of Marriage Sunday


WHEREAS the Orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, 2000 years of Church tradition, and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of one man and one woman, and that authentic marriage is blessed by God as a sacrament of the Church; and Whereas neither Scripture nor Holy Tradition blesses or sanctions adultery, fornication, or a union between persons of the same sex;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Sixteenth All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America strongly commends the efforts of Orthodox bishops, clergy, and laity to bear witness to the sanctity of marriage in the public arena; commits the Orthodox Church in America to continued witness and defense of the authentic marriage of one man and one woman; strongly reaffirms the Orthodox Church’s opposition to same sex marriage, and that it does so on theological and moral grounds; and stresses God’s will that marriage be a lifelong commitment, monogamous, and heterosexual;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sunday in September falling on or after the Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist will be called Sanctity of Marriage Sunday and on this Sunday: an annual letter from our Metropolitan will be read in all OCA Parishes during the Divine Liturgy affirming the Orthodox understanding of marriage; and each parish priest will declare his availability to counsel individuals or couples desiring to be married or already married; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orthodox Church stresses that all persons tempted to act contrary to the Orthodox Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality, and all those who succumb to such temptations, are to be offered pastoral guidance and cared for with the same mercy and love that is bestowed by our Lord Jesus Christ upon all of humanity and that all persons are called by God to grow spiritually and morally toward holiness.



Why do we need this resolution?

— Our culture’s view of marriage over the last few decades has departed from a traditional Christian understanding (Scripture and teachings below), and has especially accelerated in the last two years with the advance of same-sex marriage laws. The District of Columbia and six states–Iowa, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts–have already passed same sex marriage laws. Maryland is planning on voting on it in January, 2012. Do we go and preach the Gospel to all nations or isolate ourselves?

— Some clergy and laity appear to not understand, are not familiar with, or wish to ignore the Church’s clear teaching regarding marriage, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and same sex unions. They may also ask for dialogue. Thankfully, dialogue has already been provided to us over the past 2000 years as can be clearly seen in the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

For more, click here.

The Bible the Church and Homosexuality: Obscurantegesis vs the Truth

When it comes to the interpretation of the Scriptures we speak of "exegesis" (which refers to bringing the correct meaning of the text out through proper interpretation) and "eisegesis" (which is reading an incorrect meaning into the text of Scripture that is not in fact there), but in the case of the recent article "Orthodox Pastoral Response in the Past to Same-Sex Behavior", written by an anonymous author we have to coin a new term to describe its peculiar approach to Scripture: "obscurantegesis" (which is the intentional obscuring of the meaning of a text or texts of Scripture). It is clear that the anonymous author is not interested in what the Church has actually taught or what the Scriptures have to say about homosexuality. The author is only interested in dismissing and obscuring them both.

The basic argument against Tradition that is put forth is that there are canons of the Church that have taught things that we no longer adhere to, and so therefore, anything goes:

Many times the Church has clearly proclaimed a standard for behavior or belief but then developed a pastoral response to accommodate changing social realities. One example of this involves the charging, or payment, of interest on loans.

Here is the argument: Sure, the Church says that this or that is inherently wrong, but that does not mean that what was inherently wrong yesterday is inherently wrong today. Everything is up for review. Anything can change.

It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like Gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest, and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.

The same thing is true of the argument regarding Christians holding secular office. There are no canons which forbid this. There are no teachings in Scripture which present universal prohibitions against it. Only some quotes from early Christian writers which stated that in the context of a pagan Roman state which was persecuting the Church, and in which pagan worship was part of the package deal with being an official, Christians should not accept such offices. In Scripture we find many officials who were believers and commendable. And when you had Christian kingdoms there was no reason to believe that the Christians would need to employ pagans to rule over them to avoid violating some fundamental principle of the Christian Faith. Again, what we have is the willful obscuring of the truth, rather than a sincere attempt to seek it out or explain it.

The anonymous author then turns to the question of divorce, and remarriage. Rather than allowing the red herrings to further divert us from the real purpose of this article, suffice it to say that the Church's principles on those issues have not changed. Those who divorce and remarry are still penanced. Divorce is still discouraged. But as with all the canons in general that prescribe penances, the Church does not normally impose the same degree of strictness that it did in during the earliest centuries of the Church. It is also no doubt true that too many in the Church have a lax view of the seriousness of divorce, and one could question the level of economia that is given in many cases. But pastoral application of penances is one question -- principles are another. Remarriage is not inherently sinful, though it is inherently less than the ideal... which is why it is still the case that clergy may not be ordained if they have been married more than once, and clergy who are widowers are not allowed to remarry and remain clergymen.

"In terms of “gay sexuality,” the historical practice of the Church is far from what many modern people might expect it to have been. Even the Bible is not always as clear as we would like it to be. Although the epistle to the Romans clearly condemns those men who have sex with other men, in the pastoral epistles (I Timothy 1) the condemnation is of malakoi (the “soft” or “effeminate,” those who resemble insipid, weak-willed, easily beguiled women rather than those who are sexually penetrated) and not “homosexuals” as some modern English translations of the Bible read."

The anonymous author apparently did not bother to look up the Greek text of 1 Timothy 1:10. The word in that passage is not "malakoi" (effeminate) but "arsenokoitais", which is a word without a non-Jewish or non-Christian prehistory in Greek. It is a word that is derived from Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." The word in the Septuagint text here for "man" is "arsenos" and the word for "lie" is "koiten" and so the term rather directly refers to a man lying with another man for the purpose of having sex, and the Scriptures clearly and unambiguously state that this is inherently evil. There is nothing about two men having sex today that has fundamentally changed between today and the time that the Scriptures were being written. To suggest that there is anything ambiguous or unclear here is simply a disingenuous attempt to obscure the truth.

Now the author attempts to muddy the waters further:

"The pastoral application of these biblical injunctions has varied considerably over time. Although many canons condemn various sexual acts it is important to see how those canons also condemn other behavior in order to see which sins are considered more serious than others."

What the anonymous author means when he speaks of pastoral application here is unclear, and that is not by accident. The principle in Scripture and Tradition is that that homosexual sex is inherently sinful. How one pastorally deals with a homosexual who acknowledges his sin, and wishes to repent of it is an entirely different question. Whether the priest will tell him that he needs to repent, or tell him that homosexuality is natural and that he can go on engaging in homosexual sex is a question of the basic moral principles of the Christian Faith. Any priest who suggests that homosexual sex is not inherently sinful, and must be repented of is in fact a heretic... a man who slams the doors of repentance in the face of sinners, and seeks the damnation of those who wishes to persuade.

The anonymous author asserts:

Meanwhile St. John the Faster suggests a penance of only 80 days for the sin of male-male sex “between the thighs,” i.e. face-to-face which he certainly considers less serious than heterosexual fornication (two years penance) or adultery (three years penance).

Here is the actual text of the 9th canon of St. John the Faster:

"As for sexual intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty days."

This canon references the preceding canon, which states:

"Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanias (prostrations) every day."

It should be noted that the canon for double masturbation is precisely twice the penance prescribed for solo masturbation because, as St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain notes: "each of these offenders is not only hurting himself, but is also hurting his brother, and this makes the sin a double sin" (The Rudder, p. 938).

Canon 18 of St. John the Faster states:

"It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy, and doing two hundred metanias. But as for one who prefers to take it easy, let him fulfill the fifteen years."

So where is the ambiguity here? There is none.

The anonymous author attempts to score some points for sodomy with this argument:

"Furthermore, even though a second-third marriage came to be permitted to heterosexual couples, such marriages still had a penance attached, which indicates that such marriages were more problematic for the Church than even arsenokoetia."

This is complete nonsense. As St. John indicates, the full penance for homosexual sex was 15 years... three years of weeping and fasting and 200 prostrations a day was pastoral leniency. The full penance for a second marriage is 1 or 2 years. The full penance for a third marriage is 2 or 3, but there is no mention of doing daily prostrations or strict fasting or exclusion from standing with the faithful. Thus to argue that the canons treat homosexual sex as less serious than a second or third marriage is simply based on either an astonishing degree of ignorance, or more likely, a willful desire to obscure the Truth of the matter.

The reference to the rite of Brotherhood shows the agenda of the anonymous author. He alludes to the argument of the homosexual scholar John Boswell, who sought to argue that this was some sort of same sex marriage rite, which was based on nothing other than his own imagination and specualtion. The fact that a later Patriarch found that men who had gone through this rite had in some cases used it as a cloak for their sin is hardly evidence that the Church intended to facilitate such aims... and the fact that the Church discarded this rite because of such abuses is proof positive of just the opposite.

Grasping even more desperately for straws, the anonymous author states:

Although the canonical literature is the normative source for what behavior is “allowed” or “punished,” sermons are often sources to be considered as well. It is interesting to note that virtually none of the Fathers preach on same-sex behavior, even when commenting on biblical texts that mention it.

If the anonymous author had any actual sense of what it means to be pastoral he would not find it odd at all that the saints of the Church where hesitant to discuss sodomy in their sermons. One can find even fewer references to incest and bestiality in sermons, but that does not mean that this is because the Church has an ambiguous stand on those questions -- rather it means that in a congregation mixed with men, women, and children, one has to be careful about what it said in a sermon.

The anonymous author then seeks to dismiss St. John Chrysostom with specious arguments about the ban on Jewish physicians. In the ancient world, there was no such thing as secular medicine as we know it today. Non-Christian Jewish doctors mixed their beliefs with their practice of medicine and so it was a religious issue for a Christian to go to such a doctor... but the anonymous author no doubt knows that, he simply finds it a convenient smoke screen for the moment.

St. John Chrysostom is the exegete of exegetes in the Orthodox Church, and so his homilies on Romans 1 are very significant, and no one who had ever had an Orthodox thought in their life would seriously believe that St. John's interpretation was some aberrational take on the question of homosexuality. But any doubt on the position of the Church on this question is removed when one looks at the canons embraced by the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. St. Basil's canons were affirmed specifically at the 4th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils, and his 7th canon states:

"Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and idolaters deserve the same condemnation, so that whatever rule you have as regarding the others observe it also in regard to these persons. But as for those who have been for thirty years penitent for an act of impurity which they committed unwittingly, there is no ground for our doubting that we ought to admit them. Both the fact of their ignorance renders them worthy of pardon, and so do also the voluntary character of their confession, and the fact that they have been exhibiting good intentions for such a long time; for they have surrendered themselves to Satan for nearly a whole human generation, in order to be educated not to indulge in shameful acts. So bid them to be admitted without fail, especially if they have shed tears that move you to compassion, and are exhibiting a life that deserves sympathy."

His 57th Canon states:

"As for any man who uncovers his nakedness in the midst of males, he shall be allotted the time fixed for those transgressing in the act of adultery."

The canons are clear, as are the Scriptures:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi), nor sodomites (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:26-27).

But there are none so blind as those who will not see. The teachings of the Scriptures and of the Church are abundantly clear. Only those who choose to deny history can argue otherwise. Now if you wish to say that you simply reject the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church, at least you are being honest with yourself, but please don't patronize us by pretending these teachings are not clear.

What is also clear is that we have a small group of modernists who for whatever sentimental reasons like to dress up in Orthodox vestments, and sing some of the hymns of the Church, but who love neither truth, the Church, nor its Tradition. Our bishops need to speak up, and need to speak up clearly to rebuke such people. Today it is a small but nevertheless serious problem. Eventually, this problem will lead to division and confusion and a grand scale, if we simply hope that the problem will go away without confronting it head on. And the fact that the person promoting this nonsense, Mark Stokoe, is a member of the Metropolitan Council of the OCA, and that he has several OCA priests advancing the same homosexual agenda is something that should concern all Orthodox Christians, but especially the bishops of the OCA.

For more on the meaning of the Biblical texts related to homosexuality, see:

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 1)

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 2)

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 3)

A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality, by Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner

Homily for Holy Thursday, by St. John Chrysostom

Compared with some of the great spiritual "luminaries" of our own time, this may seem a bit unpastoral, but nevertheless, just as St. John has a homily for Pascha, he has a homily for Holy Thursday. Unfortunately, this homily is not heard by nearly so many people, because this service is not nearly so well attended, and it is often not read even for those who do attend... though it should be.


Homily of our Father Among the Saint, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, for Holy Thursday


O my beloved and greatly-desired brethren who have gathered in the Holy Church of God, in order to serve the Living God in holiness and righteousness, and, with fear, to partake of the holy, most-pure, and immortal, awesome Mysteries of Christ: Hearken unto me who am lowly and unworthy. For it is not I who am speaking to you and instructing you; rather the grace of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit; for I speak not from myself, but as I have been instructed by the divine canons, and the God-bearing Fathers, as the Church received instruction from the divine Apostles who received their wisdom from God, so do I myself speak, who am lowly and least of all. I know not your works; I consider not that which you have begun; and so, as one who fears God, I give counsel to everyone among you, whether man or woman, whether great or small, to anyone of you that may be guilty of sin, convicted by your own counsels, that first you must repent and confess your sins, that you may dare, considering yourself unworthy, to approach and touch the Divine Fire Itself. For our God is a consuming Fire, and they, therefore, who with faith and fear draw near to the God and King and Judge of us all, shall burn and scorch their sins; and It shall enlighten and sanctify their souls. But It shall burn and scorch with shame, the souls and bodies of them that draw near with unbelief. Therefore, many among you are ill and sleep in sickness, that is, many are dying unconfessed and unrepentant. And furthermore, my brethren, I beseech you, and I say: no one that swears oaths, nor a perjurer, nor a liar, nor one that finds fault with others, nor a fornicator, nor an adulterer, nor a homosexual, nor a thief, nor a drunkard, nor a blasphemer, nor one that envies his brother, nor a murderer, nor a sorcerer, nor a magician, nor a charmer, nor an enchanter, nor a robber, nor a Manichean, shall, unconfessed and unprepared, approach, touch, or draw near the dread Mysteries of Christ, for it is terrible to fall into the hands of the Living God. For the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the joints and marrow and bones, and thoughts and hearts. See, therefore, my brethren, that no one approach, unrepentant or unprepared or unworthily, to partake of His dread and most-pure Mysteries. For He Himself saith: I am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill, and I make alive; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand; for I, Myself, am King forever: to Whom is due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen.


See "˜The Great Book of Needs," Volume II, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998, pp. 332-333

The Orthodox Church on Homosexuality and Gay "Marriage"

Not surprisingly, a certain transsexual blogger who styles himself both a woman and Orthodox is unhappy with comments I have made about homosexuality. He asserts: that my position on this issue is "that not only are homosexuals sinners, they’re pariahs." This is of course completely untrue, but anyone familiar with the the hateful nonsense that is posted on his blog would know that distorting the facts and falsely accusing people are no novelty for him.

Homosexuality is a sin, but like any sin, it can be repented of. St. Paul said:


"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

That is the position of the Church on the matter. But St. Paul goes on to say:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).

So contrary to those who today claim that homosexuality is some intrinsic characteristic that defines a person, it is not. It is a sin. A person who struggles with such a sin, but does not yield to it is not a homosexual... at least not in the way the Church understands the term.

The Russian Orthodox Church has an official statement on the matter that is part of the Social Concept Document approved in the 2000 All Russian Sobor, and it states:

XII. 9. Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Church unequivocally deplore homosexual relations, seeing in them a vicious distortion of the God-created human nature.

«If a man lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination» (Lev. 20:13). The Bibles relates a story about a heavy punishment to which God subjected the people of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-19) precisely for the sin of sodomy. St. Paul, describing the moral condition of the Gentiles, names homosexual relations among the most «vile affections» and «fornications» defiling the human body: «Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise the men, leaving the natural use of women, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet» (Rom. 1:26-27). «Be not deceived: neither effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind… shall inherit the kingdom of God», wrote the apostle to the people of corrupted Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The patristic tradition equally clearly and definitely denounces any manifestation of homosexuality. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the works of Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa and Blessed Augustine and the canon of St. John the Faster — all express the unchangeable teaching of the Church that homosexual relations are sinful and should be condemned. People involved in them have not right to be members of the clergy (Gregory the Great, Canon 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 4; John the Faster, Canon 30). Addressing those who stained themselves with the sin of sodomy, the St. Maxim the Greek made this appeal: «See at yourselves, damned ones, what a foul pleasure you indulge in! Try to give up as soon as possible this most nasty and stinking pleasure of yours, to hate it and to fulminate eternally those who argue that it is innocent as enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and corrupters of His teaching. Cleanse yourselves of this blight by repentance, ardent tears, alms-giving as much as you can and pure prayer… Hate this unrighteousness with all your heart, so that you may not be sons of damnation and eternal death».

The debate on the status of the so-called sexual minorities in contemporary society tends to recognise homosexuality not as a sexual perversion but only one of the «sexual orientations» which have the equal right to public manifestation and respect. It is also argued that the homosexual drive is caused by the individual inborn predisposition. The Orthodox Church proceeds from the invariable conviction that the divinely established marital union of man and woman cannot be compared to the perverted manifestations of sexuality. She believes homosexuality to be a sinful distortion of human nature, which is overcome by spiritual effort leading to the healing and personal growth of the individual. Homosexual desires, just as other passions torturing fallen man, are healed by the Sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance, reading of Holy Scriptures and patristic writings, as well as Christian fellowship with believers who are ready to give spiritual support.

While treating people with homosexual inclinations with pastoral responsibility, the Church is resolutely against the attempts to present this sinful tendency as a «norm» and even something to be proud of and emulate. This is why the Church denounces any propaganda of homosexuality. Without denying anybody the fundamental rights to life, respect for personal dignity and participation in public affairs, the Church, however, believes that those who propagate the homosexual way of life should not be admitted to educational and other work with children and youth, nor to occupy superior posts in the army and reformatories.

Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one’s belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one’s sex (transsexuality). One’s desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one’s further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

Transsexuality should be distinguished from the wrong identification of the sex in one’s infancy as a result of doctors’ mistake caused by a pathological development of sexual characteristics. The surgical correction in this case is not a change of sex.

I agree with this position entirely. I have the greatest sympathy for people who struggle with a passion of this nature, but who recognize it to be a sin, and are striving to live the Christian life. But to tell someone that a sin is not a sin, and they have nothing to worry about when the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church says otherwise is not only unloving and unpastoral, it is heretical and a sin against the unity of the Church and the souls of those deceived by such nonsense.

The Rapture

There was a movie that was done in the 1970's that gives the typical Evangelical Protestant conception of the Rapture:


For those wondering what the Orthodox view of the Rapture is, I would recommend this two part article by Sister Anastasia (now Mother Agapia) (Stephanopoulos) on the subject:

Will you meet the Lord in the "Rapture", Part I

Will you meet the Lord in the "Rapture", Part II

Many Protestants take this doctrine as a given, and are unaware that prior to the 1850's, no one had ever conceived of such a thing.

They should have listened.

The Presbyterian Church USA (the largest, but also most liberal branch of the Presbyterians in this country) ratified a change that had been proposed at their general assembly in 2010 to approve the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The change had been passed by previous general assemblies, but failed to gain the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries around the country (which are roughly equivalent to a diocese). This time, a majority has approved the change.

This is just the latest example of the ongoing slide of Protestantism as a whole towards theological and moral liberalism. It is sad to watch, because these denominations, while obviously heterodox, nevertheless did stand for basic morality, and as such had some positive influence on the culture. On the other hand, this slide has the effect of forcing those who are sincere in those denominations to reassess their theology, and in many cases it has led them into the Orthodox Church... as it did in my case.

At the general assembly last year, there was an "ecumenical" representative of the Byelorussian Orthodox Church. In this case, it was an admirable example of how we should "dialogue" with the heterodox. He thanks them for the charitable help they have provided to Byelorussia, and comes across in a kind and loving way, but nevertheless schools them on the nature of Christian morality, and why their discussion about changing their moral standards brings them further away from authentic Christianity:



This clip from the opening ceremony of their general assembly shows that they are well on the path to a paganized and truly lame version of Christianity that has lost almost all contact with real Christianity:

Paschal Services at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow

Mt. Athos on 60 Minutes

This was an especially well done piece:

Part 1:



Part 2:



Behind the Scenes:

Planned Parenthood Exposed... again

The von Whiteford Family Singers: Let my prayer arise

A new generation discovers Youtube.

This was recorded after last Friday's presanctified. Another version was done at the service. They like this version best.

MSNBC Anchor takes Evangelical Pastor to task for watering down truth

When a secular journalist comes across as someone who takes truth more seriously than an Evangelical Pastor, you know that the great Evangelical Disaster has reached the meltdown stage:



Update: Here is an even more insightful interview Martin Bashir did with a Christian Radio Host about the interview above.

"I'm a scorpion. It's my nature"

"I'm a scorpion. It's my nature"


Many have called attention to the irony that a Kosovo Muslim would attack and kill US troops when it was the US military that came to their aid against the Serbs. Strangely enough, while Hollywood fiction is replete with Serbian terrorists, the Serbs that Clinton bombed without mercy or justification have never committed a terrorist act against the United States, but the Muslims of Kosovo have tried to do it before, and this time they were successful.



Click here for the report from the Daily Mail.


Click here for the report from BBC.


Click here for the report from Aesop.

Patristic quotes on refraining from judgment

We must speak the truth about what sin is, but when it comes to judging the state of another person's soul, that is something about which the Fathers have a lot to say:

(Except when otherwise noted, all these quotes come from the Evergetinos, Book III, Hypothesis II, pp. 9-32.:

“…it sometimes happens that we know about the sin of one who has committed fornication or fallen into some other transgression, since it was done openly, but are unaware of the repentance which he has performed in secret, such that he whom we condemn as a fornicator has been purified by God and is now living prudently.” –St. John the Merciful

“Many people who sin frequently in the sight of others, and then confess in secret to God, have been forgiven by him and, being well-pleasing to Him, have received the Holy Spirit. Those whom we reckon to be sinners (of whose repentance we are unaware) are justified in the sight of God. This is because we see the sins which they have committed, yet we know nothing of the good deed which thy have performed in secret. Hence, we should not condemn anyone, even if we perceive him sinning with our very eyes. For as soon as the sinner has taken ten steps away from us, we are not in a position to know what he has done in secret or what God has done for him. Toward the evening of Great Thursday, Judas the betrayer was with Christ and the Disciples, whereas the thief was in the company of malefactors and murderers. But when Friday came, Judas departed for the outer darkness, because he had betrayed the Lord, whereas the thief, because he repented on the Cross, went to dwell in Paradise with Christ. In view of such sudden changes, it is good not to judge a man until Christ comes, for He knows the mind of men and reveals the secrets of our hearts.” –St. Anastasius the Sinaite.

“We and our brothers are dual images: whenever a man is attentive to himself and reproaches himself he finds his brother to be virtuous; but when he thinks that he himself is good, he finds his brother to be evil in his sight.” –St. Poimen

“On seeing someone sinning, a holy man wept bitterly and said: “He has fallen today, and I will surely fall tomorrow; he will surely repent, but as for myself, I am not so sure.”

“Busy yourself with your own faults, and not with other people’s and the workshop of your mind will not be despoiled.” – St. Mark the Ascetic.

St. Anastasius of Sinai recounts:

“A certain monk wasted his whole life in heedlessness and idleness. Then he fell gravely ill and his end drew near, but he showed no fear of death. Instead, he was merry, and prepared for his departure from the body joyfully praising and thanking God. Gathering at his bedside, the abbot and the other monks said to him, “Brother, we are witness to your inattentive life. How is it that you are so calm and happy now, when the dread hour is at hand? May our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you, so that you can rise and explain this mystery, and we may glorify God’s greatness.” “Lifting himself up a little, the monk replied, “Reverend fathers, what you say is true. I have thoughtlessly squandered the days of my life, and a moment ago God’s angels appeared to me and read a list of all my evil deeds. “Do you admit to this?” they asked. “Everything is true,” I conceded, “but you must take into account that since I renounced the world and was tonsured, I have judged no one and held no grudges. Christ said, Judge not, that ye be not judged, and If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. I pray that these passages be applied in my case.” No sooner had I spoken these words than the angels tore to pieces the scroll on which my transgressions were recorded. Now you know why I am please be leaving this temporal realm.” With this, the brother peacefully surrendered his soul into the Lord’s hands” (The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, by St. Dimitri of Rostov, March, P. 435f).

Hammer and Sickle -- Death and Hunger

Серп и молот, смерть и голод


My wife's Godmother, who lived through the worst of the Soviet period told me about this bitter play on the phrase "hammer and sickle" in Russian, which came out of the soviet famines of the 20's and 30's. It sums up well the pretense and the reality of socialism. "Serp i molot" (sickle and hammer) "Smert i golod" (death and hunger).

Planned Parenthood Staff exposed

An open response to a troubled blogger

There is a blogger whose blog styles itself Orthodox, but which is full of the most venomous rants you will find anywhere, complete with hierarchs being called names and ridiculed because of their weight. A few months ago, this blogger began alluding to things on my blog in a negative way. Since this blogger had previously identified me on several occasions as one of the few converts to Orthodoxy that met with his approval, I e-mailed him privately to explain the issue, thinking I might get somewhere based on those earlier opinions. At first we had a relatively pleasant exchange in which I was assured that I would never be criticized by name, because he knew it was hard enough on clergy and their families. However, when I explained my position on welfare, I discovered that I had stepped on a personal landmine for this person, and received a very angry letter in which it was asserted that my view was not Christian. I have certainly commented on political issues and expressed my opinion, but I have never suggested that if you disagree with my politics, you are not a Christian. However, in this persons view, if you disagree with him, you disagree with all that is holy and good in the world. When I responded back with specific facts that showed that this person had their facts wrong (because I worked with welfare programs for 13 years, and thus have some familiarity with the actual laws and programs involved), I did not get any further private replies. However, this blogger became obsessed with my blog, and began a steady stream of attacks on me personally, for such crimes as my not thinking that Sarah Palin was an evil person, and not agreeing that communism is really not all that bad, or that a good Christian must needs be a socialist. I think I sent probably two more e-messages privately to him, in response to things he was saying publicly about me. At a certain point, I decided to google his name... at least the name he uses on his blog, because I wanted to talk with his priest about it (which is what the Gospels say is to be done in such cases). The name the blogger uses is actually a woman's name, and he identifies himself as a woman. I discovered that this blogger that I had assumed was a "she" had been born a "he". I e-mailed this person one more time, referring to him by his given name, and asked him what parish he belonged to. I received no reply. I tend to doubt that he actually does belong to a parish at present, but if someone who is familiar with this happens to know otherwise, please let me know... because I would still like to speak to his priest, if he indeed has one.

Most recently, he has posted something on his blog that suggests that I have been harassing him with private e-mail. This is not true, and he knows that it is not true. I give him my permission to post every e-mail I have sent him, so long as they are posted in full, and without editing. His latest post says he just wants to be left alone. I have no objection to obliging him. I would just ask for the same courtesy. A good start for him would be to stop attacking me in about every third post on his blog. If you know who I am talking about, and search this blog for his names (either of them), you will not find them.

I did discuss this blogger by name on a forum in which someone else brought up his name, along with mine, and wondered why it was that I had once been one of the few good converts to Orthodoxy, and was now public enemy number 1. And I simply referred to him by his given name, using masculine pronouns (because I do not believe it is possible to change your sex, no matter how much surgery you have or how much estrogen you may take), and said that I did not think any Orthodox Christian should be promoting his blog for the aforementioned reasons. His blog may be entertaining, but it is entertaining for reasons that do not promote the salvation of anyone. I have never met this person, I wish him well. I don't know the whole story behind his changing his sexual identity, beyond what he previously posted about it on the web. But if he has not already been reconciled to the Church, there is no one alive who is beyond the possibility of such, and I hope he seeks it. If he has been reconciled to the Church formally, I would encourage him to read the Scriptures and the desert fathers, focus on his own salvation, stop viciously attacking bishops... or anyone else for that matter, and focus on those things that lift up his readers rather than only serve as a source of temptation.

Media Malpractice at March for Life

h/t Get Religion:

What influenced the Arizona Shooter?

Let's think about this a few minutes here...

Sarah Palin is to blame, even though the shooter became fixated on Gabby Giffords before Sarah Palin became a national figure. But she used a bulls-eye on her website, and this "obviously" pushed this guy over the edge... even though there is no evidence that this is the case.

Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are to blame -- just because they're mean old conservatives -- despite the fact that the shooter's best friend says he never listened to talk radio, paid attention to the news, and voting records show he was registered as an independent and did not bother to vote in the last major election.

But the shoot'em up movies, video games, and death metal music (which surprisingly focuses on death and killing) that he entertained himself with all the time... could that have been a factor?

Here are the words to the song that was playing on his favorite Youtube video, in which someone (perhaps him) burns an American flag:


Let the Bodies hit the floor:

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Beaten, why for (why for)
Can't take much more
Here we go here we go here we go, now

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Now!

Push me again (again)
This is the end
Here we go here we go here we go, now

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Skin to skin, blood and bone
You're all by yourself but you're not alone
You wanted in and now you're here
Driven by hate, consumed by fear

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!

Naa... to suggest that this sort of thing might have influenced him is just crazy talk! But a bulls-eye on a website, let's pass a law against that. Let's bring back the fairness doctrine to shut up conservatives... but ban death metal music, or video games where you blow people away for fun all day... you would have to be a kook to suggest such a thing.

The Climate of Hate on the Left

Michelle Malkin gives a summary of the hateful and violent rhetoric of the left in the past 10 years: The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.

She also points out all the evidence that the shooter in Arizona was a leftist wacko, rather than any kind of right wing extremist: Truther. Pothead. Creep. Nihilist. Psycho.

Another Chapter in the Bloody History of Communism: Mao's Great Leap to Famine

Mao's Great Leap to Famine
By FRANK DIKÖTTER
Published: December 15, 2010

HONG KONG — The worst catastrophe in China’s history, and one of the worst anywhere, was the Great Famine of 1958 to 1962, and to this day the ruling Communist Party has not fully acknowledged the degree to which it was a direct result of the forcible herding of villagers into communes under the “Great Leap Forward” that Mao Zedong launched in 1958.

To this day, the party attempts to cover up the disaster, usually by blaming the weather. Yet detailed records of the horror exist in the party’s own national and local archives.

Access to these files would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago, but a quiet revolution has been taking place over the past few years as vast troves of documents have gradually been declassified. While the most sensitive information still remains locked up, researchers are being allowed for the first time to rummage through the dark night of the Maoist era.

From 2005 to 2009, I examined hundreds of documents all over China, traveling from subtropical Guangdong to arid Gansu Province near the deserts of Inner Mongolia.

The party records were usually housed on the local party committee premises, closely guarded by soldiers. Inside were acres of dusty, yellowing paper held together in folders that could contain anything from a single scrap of paper scribbled by a party secretary decades ago to neatly typewritten minutes of secret leadership meetings.

Historians have known for some time that the Great Leap Forward resulted in one of the world’s worst famines. Demographers have used official census figures to estimate that some 20 to 30 million people died.

But inside the archives is an abundance of evidence, from the minutes of emergency committees to secret police reports and public security investigations, that show these estimates to be woefully inadequate.

In the summer of 1962, for instance, the head of the Public Security Bureau in Sichuan sent a long handwritten list of casualties to the local boss, Li Jingquan, informing him that 10.6 million people had died in his province from 1958 to 1961. In many other cases, local party committees investigated the scale of death in the immediate aftermath of the famine, leaving detailed computations of the scale of the horror.

In all, the records I studied suggest that the Great Leap Forward was responsible for at least 45 million deaths.

Between 2 and 3 million of these victims were tortured to death or summarily executed, often for the slightest infraction. People accused of not working hard enough were hung and beaten; sometimes they were bound and thrown into ponds. Punishments for the least violations included mutilation and forcing people to eat excrement.

One report dated Nov. 30, 1960, and circulated to the top leadership — most likely including Mao — tells how a man named Wang Ziyou had one of his ears chopped off, his legs tied up with iron wire and a 10-kilo stone dropped on his back before he was branded with a sizzling tool. His crime: digging up a potato.

When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, the local boss, Xiong Dechang, forced his father to bury his son alive on the spot. The report of the investigative team sent by the provincial leadership in 1969 to interview survivors of the famine records that the man died of grief three weeks later.

Starvation was the punishment of first resort. As report after report shows, food was distributed by the spoonful according to merit and used to force people to obey the party. One inspector in Sichuan wrote that “commune members too sick to work are deprived of food. It hastens their death.”

As the catastrophe unfolded, people were forced to resort to previously unthinkable acts to survive. As the moral fabric of society unraveled, they abused one another, stole from one another and poisoned one another. Sometimes they resorted to cannibalism.

One police investigation from Feb. 25, 1960, details some 50 cases in Yaohejia village in Gansu: “Name of culprit: Yang Zhongsheng. Name of victim: Yang Ecshun. Relationship with Culprit: Younger Brother. Manner of Crime: Killed and Eaten. Reason: Livelihood Issues.”

The term “famine” tends to support the widespread view that the deaths were largely the result of half-baked and poorly executed economic programs. But the archives show that coercion, terror and violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward.

Mao was sent many reports about what was happening in the countryside, some of them scribbled in longhand. He knew about the horror, but pushed for even greater extractions of food.

At a secret meeting in Shanghai on March 25, 1959, he ordered the party to procure up to one-third of all the available grain — much more than ever before. The minutes of the meeting reveal a chairman insensitive to human loss: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”

Mao’s Great Famine was not merely an isolated episode in the making of modern China. It was its turning point. The subsequent Cultural Revolution was the leader’s attempt to take revenge on the colleagues who had dared to oppose him during the Great Leap Forward.

To this day, there is little public information inside China about this dark past. Historians who are allowed to work in the party archives tend to publish their findings across the border in Hong Kong.

There is no museum, no monument, no remembrance day to honor the tens of millions of victims. Survivors, most of them in the countryside, are rarely given a voice, all too often taking their memories with them to their graves.

Frank Dikötter is a professor at the University of Hong Kong, on leave from the University of London. His books include “Mao’s Great Famine.”

Reductio Ad Nativitatum

The Ghost of Christmas Past

In recent years I have been struck by the fact that types of music and great musicians who were once huge eventually fade away to the point that you never hear them on the radio or in other public forums, except at Christmas. It is now almost the only time you will hear traditional Protestant hymns -- even in many Protestant Churches. You even hear old Latin hymns, like "O Come, O Come Emmanuel."

Pop musicians fare no better. Perry Como, for example, is almost never heard anymore, except at Christmas time. As time goes on, more musicians join the legions of the ghosts of Christmas past. The Beach Boys will soon only be remembered for their "Little Saint Nick"... which is certainly not the best song they ever produced. John Lennon, who once said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ, will ironically only be remembered for his song "And so this is Christmas" ... also, not the best song he ever sang. The day will no doubt come when the only Beyonce songs you will hear will be from her Christmas albums.

Believe it or not, Burl Ives really did sing something other than "Holly Jolly Christmas":


It's nice to hear these old and otherwise forgotten sounds from the past at least once a year, but it is a shame that all else is eventually forgotten.

The Bloody History of Communism

In Dostoyevsky's prophetic book "The Possessed" he vividly unmasked the evil face of socialism. Among other things, one of the characters advocated the "hundred million heads theory", which was that to make real progress in the establishment of a socialist utopia, 100 million heads would have to roll. At the time, I am sure many criticized Dostoyevsky for being over the top. As it turned out, he underestimated how bloody they would actually be.

Every time socialist utopians have attempted to establish their utopias they have in fact established hells on earth. The Communists killed about 100 million people in China alone, and it has only ceased to be less of a hell hold to the extent it has departed from Communism.



To watch the additional parts, double click on the video to go to youtube.

The video is done by a Muslim Group, and so ignore the occasional insertion of their beliefs, but the footage tells the story.

See also these videos of the desecration and destruction of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow:





One of thousands of Church so desecrated and destroyed.

Peter Hitchens on Anti-Christian Intolerance in Britain

How liberal do-gooders criminalize the poor

Here is an old forum post of mine that was written in 1995, in response to someone who asserted: "The GOP is criminalizing all poor while helping BIG BUSINESS get richer." At the time, I was working in the Food Stamp, Medicaid, and TANF (then AFDC) programs, and HUD subsidies were less than they are now.

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

Let me tell you how Liberal regulators are "criminalizing" the poor. First off HUD housing subsidies for welfare recipients raise the rent on the honest working poor. In Houston, HUD pays $500 a month to subsidize a two bedroom Apartment -- usually for a dump that most people wouldn't live in if they were paid $500 dollars a month to do so. Now if you are an Apartment owner, and the Government offers you $500 dollars a month Guaranteed -- would you rent the same apartment to a poor working
man who could only afford $350 dollars a month?

Secondly, even in Houston, the public transportation system is not good enough for someone to depend on it to get to and from work, unless they are willing to spend several hours a day doing so. As a result people generally must depend on their own transportation -- and in rural areas, there is no choice but to do so. Liberal regulators have made owning a car and running it legally prohibitively expensive for
many borderline working poor. For one thing, they must have insurance, they must have a current inspection sticker, and they must have a current vehicle registration. And had the Democrats won the Governor's race last year, the cost of an inspection in Houston would have climbed from about 15 dollars to possibly $400 dollars. Most working poor folks, with families to take care of, cannot afford all this. As a consequence they simply drive uninsured vehicles.

In Texas, you can just count on getting a traffic ticket every so often. But if you don't have insurance, or an inspection sticker, or a valid registration sticker -- you get a ticket for each. Now this poor stiff has several hundred dollars in fines to pay, but if he could have paid the fines, he could have paid the insurance and all that other stuff. So consequently he doesn't pay the fine. Next time he gets stopped he has warrants out for his arrest -- of course he could pay the bail, but
if he could have paid the bail, he could have paid the tickets. Instead, he sits in jail for a couple of weeks. But now he is unemployed, because he missed two weeks worth of work without a good excuse.

You know where this guy goes from here? He comes to my office to apply for food stamps, Medicaid, and AFDC (if he can get it). I've seen this happen to a number of honest hard working citizens that found themselves in my office for the very reasons outlined.

Furthermore, government regulations also cost Jobs. Whereas once upon a time, poor people could start there own businesses and make their own jobs -- now due to all the red tape, this is impossible. The only free-enterprise available for poor people, is illegal.

That's how Liberal's criminalize the poor. They have made it extremely difficult to be poor and honest in this country. Your parents and mine may have been poor, but they were at least allowed to be honest and make a living.

The German Mind and Biblical Scholarship

I ran across a very interesting section of "War and Peace" last year when I finally picked the book back after my first attempt 20 years previous, and there was a very insightful comment about the national character of Germans that is relevant when you ponder much of the German Scholarship on the Bible. In this section, Tolstoy is talking about a German strategist (Karl Ludwig von Pfuel) who was serving in the Russian Army:

"Pfuel was one of those hopelessly and immutably self-confident men, self-confident to the point of martyrdom as only Germans are, because only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion— science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing, and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth— science— which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth."

I discussed this with a parishioner who is German, and he agreed that it was an insightful observation. Of course, as with any generalization, it is only generally true, and not always true in any given case. Nevertheless, keep this in mind as you read about such scholars as Bultmann, Wellhausen, and Schweitzer. There is a sense you get from these scholars that the mysteries hidden from the ages were waiting for Drs. Rudolph Bultmann, Julius Wellhausen, and Albert Schweitzer to come along and unveil them. All previous generations had been fooled, but not these clever fellows.

This arrogant rationalism is to be found to one extent or another in most Western European and American thinking since the so-called "Enlightenment".

I should note I am not sure whether I am more German or more English genetically, but it would be a close call... so no slam on Germans intended.

And by the way, if you have picked up the book War and Peace, only to put it back down after losing track of who is who, I would encourage you to get the Soviet era multi-part movie (Russian title "Voina i Mir") by director Sergei Bondarchuk.

It is one of the best movies ever made, and is surprisingly respectful of the book, and of Orthodoxy -- though Orthodoxy is somewhat downplayed compared with the book. Watch the movie, and then read the book.

The movie is available with English subtitles.

Here is a clip of excerpts from the movie, to give you a taste of it:

2011 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar

If you've wondered why I have not posted much lately, it is because I have been finishing up work on the 2011 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar. This calendar is based on the Jordanville Calendar, though it will of course be in English.

Now that I'm done, I can relax for a week or so before starting on the 2012 calendar.

The facts about the Koran

Answering the Skeptics

The White Horse Inn is a Protestant radio show that often says many things that I would take issue with, but they recently have done a series of shows in which they have Christian scholars answering the skeptics, and these discussions will be very helpful. In our time we have many people who attack the Christian Faith on the basis of historical nonsense that get's passed off as fact. These discussions lay out the facts, and are well worth a listen (click on the links):

Jesus and Modern Scholarship: a discussion on the historical Jesus with New Testament scholar Craig A. Evans, author of Reinventing Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, and the Holman QuickSource Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Corroborating Evidence: A discussion about extra-biblical, 1st century evidence for Jesus Christ, with Paul L. Maier, author of In The Fullness of Time, and editor of Josephus: The Essential Works.

Religion on Trial: a discussion on Christian Apologetics with Craig Parton author of Religion on Trial and The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer's Quest for the Gospel.

Christianity -- A Faith Founded on Facts: a discussion with Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, author numerous books including History & Christianity, and Faith Founded on Fact.