From the Net

MercatorNet recently had a very interesting piece on the new Hungarian Constitution. It's worth a read.

First Thing on the 9-11 Mosque Controversy

First Thing's On the Square yet again brings its typically incisive analysis to one of the best essays on the controversy surrounding the plans to build an Islamic cultural center in the neighborhood of the 9-11 attack site in New York City.

Two quotes for your consideration:

But America is being told—by the very people who have spent decades promoting the primacy of “feelings,” over thought, and who have declared that “a feeling is neither right or wrong”—to shut up, to not express its feelings, to not even have feelings, because those feelings are bad, stupid ones that are very, very wrong.

They are not afraid of the mosque or its members; they’re afraid of what the mosque will communicate—to the world and to themselves—as it rises so near the sterile ground where once stood two towers. They intuit that such a structure will signal a defeat more thorough than any found on a battlefield because it will suggest a defeat of the will, of priorities, ingenuity, of energy, and most importantly of identity.

Read it Rhetorical Axes and Park51 here.

Test Your Awareness

I just came across this and had to share it. Not only does it get its point across, but that point is applicable to many other situations in life.

I would argue that in this day and age the spiritual, the Grace of God, often falls into this category.

How Logical is Science regarding Atheism?

Report on St Philip's Fast

Hat tip to Josephus Flavius for this article on St Philip's Fast. The original link is here.

I'm only giving a few snippets from Josephus' coverage so you will check out his blog - always a good read. Note his citations of emphasis.

11/18/2008 (The Bulletin) - In a few short days most Americans will be sitting down to a sumptuous dinner. In most cases that includes turkey, dressing, special potatoes, cranberry sauce and so on. However, there is a minority of Orthodox and Greek Catholic Christians whose food these days consists of no meat, no eggs no dairy products. Dining this past Sunday with Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Cyril Bustros at Holy Transfiguration Church in McLean, Va., we enjoyed some salmon on rice with special potatoes, kibbe, with raw fruits and vegetables. On a week day we would only be permitted shellfish.

Why the fast now? Christmas, when God became man, is one of the two most important feasts of the Church. Christmas is the only feast which originated in the West and was adopted in the East. All of the other feasts originated in the East and was adopted by the West.

On the Suffering of Palestinian Christians

From CNSNews.com comes this important report on the suffering of Palestinian Christians. In the US, the word "Palestinian" is often synonymous with "muslim" and, until 9-11, "terrorist". In fact, some Palestinians are Orthodox Christians and Greek Catholic Christians. (Remember Sayidna Elias Zoghby of blessed memory.)

Palestinian Christians Suffering ‘Severe Blows’ From Muslims, Muslim Says
Friday, November 14, 2008
By Julie Stahl


Manger Square in the West Bank City of Bethlehem. (Photo by Julie Stahl/CNSNews.com)
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – Palestinian Christians are suffering “severe blows” at the hands of Muslims, a Palestinian wrote in an exceptionally candid column about the situation of Christians in Arab countries.

“Let us be honest with ourselves and courageously say out loud that Palestinian Christians are taking many severe blows, yet are suffering in silence so as not to attract attention,” wrote Abd Al-Nasser Al-Najjar in the P.A. daily Al-Ayyam. (A translation was provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week.)

Muslims and most Christians in Palestinian areas tell journalists that they are all Palestinians. Publicly, they usually deny that there are any problems or differences between them. They say that they get along fine and the main problem is the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank.

Privately, however, some Christians admit to job losses, land seizures, attacks on churches, intimidation, torture, beatings, kidnappings, forced marriage and sexual harassment of Christian women. Some Christians have been killed.

But examples of inter-religious tension rarely make it into the Palestinian or Arab media.

In his column on October 25, Al-Najjar, who is himself a Muslim and a regular contributor to the official P.A. newspaper, criticized the Muslim persecution of Christians in Arab countries, particularly in Palestinian Authority-administered areas.

Al-Najjar said Christians are suffering, not because of the Israeli “occupation” but because of the confiscation of Christian property, especially in theWest Bank cities of Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Al-Birah.

What makes the situation worse is that those who are plundering the property of Christians are either powerful themselves, or they are backed by powerful people, including “high-ranking military officials or influential members of large clans,” he wrote.

Attempts by political leaders or the judiciary system to rectify the situation have failed, Al-Najjar said.

“Over the past few years, several of my Christian friends have told me of the harm they have suffered, including various threats, even death threats, for trying to gain access to their lands after they were taken over by influential Bethlehem residents.

“Furthermore, there has been an attempt to marginalize Christian culture in Palestine, even though it is rich and deeply rooted [there]. This began with [accusations] of unbelief [against Christians] -- a move that ultimately harmed Palestinian society as a whole,” Al-Najjar wrote.

Despite the injustices against Christians, no one in the government, non-government organizations or political factions has taken constructive action to stop it or to defend the Christians, he said.

Such action should have been forthcoming, “not out of kindness and compassion” but because Palestinian Christians are indigenous to the land and “no different from us, with the same rights and obligations” as Muslims.

“We continue to instill a horrific culture in our children, one that sees Christians as infidels,” Al-Najjar wrote. He called for a “national awakening” to restore the rights of the Christians and preserve the “demographic balance.”

Tens of thousands of Arab Christians have fled the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the years. In Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, the Christian exodus has been most acute. In 1990, 60 percent of the population there was Christian. Today, some estimates say 20 percent or less of the city’s population is Christian. Only 1.5 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is Christian.

“[Let us] remember that the tribes of Arabia were Christian. The best writers and poets were Christian, as were [many] warriors and philosophers... It is they who bore the banner of pan-Arabism. The first Palestinian university was established by Christians.

Al-Najjar called for tyrannical rulers to be presented with “progressive attitudes” and “truth” – “so that clerics and old men will not be the only Christians left in the Holy Land and in the city of [Jesus'] birth.”

Al-Najjar also mentioned recent attacks on Christians in Iraq, many of whom have been forced to flee after a series of killings over the last several months. Hundreds of thousands of Christians are estimated to have fled the country since the U.S.-led military invasion in 2003.

Just this week, two Christian sisters were murdered by gunmen identified as Islamic extremists in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

“Christians are being persecuted not only in Iraq, but in most Arab countries, regardless of their numbers there. They are subjected to every possible kind of discrimination, as well as expulsion,” Al-Najjar wrote.

Not only do Arab officials remain silent but so do Arab intellectuals, elites, non-government organizations and private sector leaders, he wrote. He also mentioned Egypt, Lebanon and Algeria as countries with the same “rampant” anti-Christian problem.

Al-Najjar’s assessment of the situation is backed up by the State Department’s 2008 International Religious Freedom Report.

In Algeria, government respect for religious freedom has declined, the U.S. says. “There were many claims of government restrictions on worship, including the arrest and sentencing of converts to Christianity, ordered closure of churches, the dismissal of a Christian school director for allegedly using a school for evangelizing, and confiscation of Bibles,” the report said.

In Egypt, respect for religious freedom also has declined, amid violent incidents and attacks on Christian institutions, the report said.

In Lebanon, the report noted that over the past 60 years, “there has been a steady decline in the number of Christians as compared to Muslims, mostly due to the emigration of large numbers of Maronite Christians and a higher than average birth rate among the Muslim population.”

Abortion Rights? Personhood Misunderstood

A recent letter to the editor in the local paper presents several interesting arguments on the topic of abortion and politics. What surprises in the letter are both an admission and an assertion that bears need of more scrutiny than the writer would have the reader consider.

First, for a pro-abortion advocate, the writer surprises in his first paragraph by conceding the fact that life begins at conception. Despite the opprobrium of pro-abortion fanatics, the pro-life position is grounded on solid physical science. Far from being a question of imposing “my” personal religious beliefs on anyone, biological science clearly shows that an abortion ends a human life. The writer admits this fact at the outset.

In conceding this point, writer hopes to ground his pro-abortion stance on a more controversial question: “But at what point on that line can we say that we are dealing with a human person?” Surely, the writer must know that the question of what constitutes and defines the limits of “personhood” has vexed philosophers for over two hundred years. To date, most attempts to define personhood so as to include every human while excluding non-human creatures and devices like computers have proven fruitless. But this shift from a scientific and fact related discussion to a philosophical one suits his purpose.

The writer goes on to note several “striking facts” that he believes lend support for his pro-abortion stance. First, he asserts that “nature is an abortionist on a large scale”. In other words, if something occurs in nature, it must be morally acceptable. However, this ‘fact’ fails to distinguish between “miscarriage” and “abortion”. Miscarriages occur in nature, sparked by any number of biological causes: these cannot be seriously considered as relevant to moral decision-making. Only human actions or factors resulting from human interventions can impute a moral dimension to a miscarriage. The argument that nature itself is ‘acting’ murderously and that this should impact the position of pro-life advocates is a straw man and absurd. This argument also involves a fallacious appeal to common practice that would analogously require agreement with killing the sick on the basis that a large percentage of deaths occur due to sickness. Nature is not the guarantor of moral rectitude.

The writer next ‘reveals’ that “every religious faith allows some abortion”, which he seems to equate with a logical imperative to morally approve of all abortions. But this is a genetic fallacy failing to distinguish the relevance of specific, defined circumstances that impact the moral standing of certain particular cases of abortion versus the blanket assertion that all abortions must permitted. The argument is another straw man, cast in all or nothing terms, that presumes the existence of exceptions justifies abandonment of any limitation. It is worth noting that there is a real difference between an ectopic pregnancy that will end in the death of the child and the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated, and the pregnancy resulting from rape, in which an abortion kills a child that would otherwise live. This failure to distinguish the moral impact of specific circumstances would just as easily allow that if I am morally allowed to shoot someone who attempts to kill me, I should be allowed equally to shoot anyone I choose for any reason.

The writer next attempts a logical sleight of hand to confuse the position of the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, matters of belief and morals are held to be infallibly defined and confirmed by the Holy See. Yet the writer asserts, “While the Vatican holds firmly to its position, several Catholic theologians … have argued for setting the marker for personhood later than conception.” This is all well and good, except that these theologians and groups, in opposing the teachings of the Vatican, are opposing the teachings of Catholicism. In short, they simply disagree with Catholic teaching. The fact of their disagreement does not address the issue of the position of the Catholic Church at all.

This brings us to the final paragraph of the letter, which deserves full quotation:

“Finally, we need to see pregnancy as a dual operation, involving an egg and its
host — the woman. Robert Goldstein, a teacher of law at the University of
California at Los Angeles, suggested that we should continually think of the
"dyad" of mother and egg. Her needs and her rights should have weight as much as
those of an embryo. She needs the right to exercise choice.”

The issue of personhood returns with a vengeance: “We need to see pregnancy as a dual operation, involving an egg and its host.” At first blush, this would seem to coincide with the heart of the pro-life position - two beings are involved. But the writer subtly mischaracterizes the issue. Pregnancy involves a fetus and a mother, not an egg and its host. An “egg” by definition is unfertilized and has only the potential for life; a fetus is a living entity. Similarly, a “host” need not be ascribed to have any relationship whatsoever other than proximity to the one for whom it is host. Using this terminology at best obfuscates the issue; and at worst seeks to persuade through assuming the conclusion. This is begging the question.

By using the term “egg” the writer devalues consideration of the fetus's rights and attempts to lend credence to the view that unless the mother is accorded the “right to exercise choice” her needs and rights are being ignored. Only by ignoring or eliminating the rights of the fetus are the rights of the mother ensured. By having equated an embryo with an egg, the writer fosters the notion that the two humans involved (the mother and fetus) are intrinsically unequal. De facto, the writer denies the personhood of the fetus. Thus, the writer's desire to shift the argument to personhood is no more than a slightly more sophisticated denial of fetal rights - the same basic denial that has always been championed by pro-abortion advocates

The writer has, unfortunately, admitted a view of personhood that presents a slippery slope. At what point do we ascribe personhood? He does not directly answer this question, but presumably does not ascribe it to fetuses. However, it is logical to ask: if an otherwise healthy fetus is not ascribed personhood, then are other circumstances also to be equated as invalidating the attribution of personhood? Should Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s, mental illness, or other physical ailments invalidate one’s personhood? By what standards? By whose authority? It is not sufficient to say these are different circumstances; one must show why they are different and why similar considerations could and should not be given to the fetus.

Although pro-abortion supporters seek to prevent this from being considered, abortion’s denial of the personhood of the fetus is logically no different than viewing the fetus as property – the same mindset that allowed for slavery. In the “dyad” noted above, two human beings are claimed to have differing rights; the rights of the fetus are tacitly viewed as deriving from the fiat of the mother. Ultimately, then, the fetus has no rights because these ‘derived’ rights ipso facto deny the fetus's humanity and reduce its status to property (the status of slavery). This is the reality of the blanket claim that one human being’s rights take precedence over those of another. Such inequality stands in total contradiction to primary and historic US political theory (“all are created equal”). It is at the heart of tyranny as witnessed in dozens of regimes throughout history and around the world.

While pro-choice fanatics see opposition to abortion in terms of religious groups ‘imposing’ their beliefs on others; it is incontrovertible that the pro-abortion position is rooted in a denial of the direct evidence of science. Further, the pro-abortion stance rests on political and philosophical premises that are illogical, irrational and built on the tyranny of some over others. These premises arbitrarily limit the attribution of personhood by criteria that, as noted above, open the door to countless other discriminations.

In truth, the only non-ideological criterion to ensure even the question of personhood for all human beings is in returning to the scientific biological fact that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Thus, personhood is attributable to every human being, and all humans possess an equality of rights and dignity. Personhood is revealed to be a characteristic of human beings and not reducible (ultimately) to discriminatory attributes such as mental capacity, intelligence, etc. On this model, the rights of all individual humans are protected. Similarly, such a model solves the problem of non-human entities or computers that to which could be attributed person-like qualities. In these cases, either “personhood” is being ascribed analogously, or else hypostatically of another order of being.

Now you see it...

I read the following article a week or so ago and was 'shocked' to discover that it was removed, "at the author's request", in probable response to pressure from hierarchical superiors. It's a shame; particularly as the points made are just as relevant for Eastern Catholics and any church or communion that drifts into focusing more on ethnic pedigree (or any other pedigree for that matter) than on the Gospel and the salvation of souls.

The Orthodox Church of Tomorrow
By Fr. John A. Peck

There is an interesting phenomenon occurring in Orthodox Christianity in America today, and reflected powerfully in our seminaries. Seminaries are loaded almost exclusively with converts, reverts (cradle Orthodox who left the faith, and were re-converted to it again), and the sons and grandsons of clergy.

I believe we are looking at the future of the American Orthodox Church — today.

The notion that traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups (the group of ‘our people’ we hear so much about from our primates and hierarchs) are going to populate the ranks of the clergy, and therefore, the Church in the future is, frankly, a pipe dream. Orthodoxy, despite the failings of its leadership, has actually lived up to its own press. The truth of the Orthodox faith, as presented on paper, is actually being believed - by those who have no familial or historical connection with the Orthodox. These poor deluded souls (of which I count myself) actually believe what they are reading about the Orthodox faith, and expect the Church to act like, well, the Church. They refuse to accept the Church as a club of any kind, or closed circle kaffeeklatsch. No old world embassies will be tolerated for much longer - they will go the way of the dodo. No one will have to work against them; they will simply die from atrophy and neglect. The passing away of the Orthodox Church as ethnic club is already taking place. It will come to fruition in a short 10 years, 15 years in larger parishes.

This is a well known problem. Statistical studies taken a mere seven years ago predicted that within 10 years the Orthodox Church in the United States would for all practical purposes, no longer be viable. If nothing was done within five years (that’s two years ago) the decline would be irreversible. Demographics determine destiny, as they say. As you may have imagined, not only was “nothing done,” such reports were surreptitiously filed away, while the calls for a solution from clergy and laity alike only increased. Larger jurisdictions will, of course, have a little more time, but not a different result.

What we are looking at, of course, is of the highest concern to the hierarchy. They know, in their heart of hearts, that they cannot reverse this trend. Yet they fight a rearguard action, hoping against hope to forestall the historically inevitable movement toward an American Orthodox Church.

Statistical studies taken a mere seven years ago predicted that within 10 years the Orthodox Church in the United States would for all practical purposes, no longer be viable. The laity has already moved on. Americans, generally, don’t fall for very much strong arm intimidation or brow beating, don’t go for bullying by insecure leaders, and certainly don’t see the value of taking on and promoting someone else’s ethnic culture. They care about the Gospel, and the Gospel does not require Slavonic or Koine Greek, or even English for that matter. The Gospel requires context, which is why it cannot be transmitted in any language unknown to the listener.

When we look at our seminaries, we are looking at the Church of Tomorrow, the Church twenty years from now. Indeed, this is the Church we are building today.

Twenty years from now, I anticipate we will see the following:

Vastly diminished parishes, both in size and number. There will be a few exceptions, (and they will be exceptional!) but for the most part, most current Orthodox parishioners will age and die, and have no one to replace them. Why? Because as they have taught the context of their culture, instead teaching the context of their faith. Some parishes will simply be merged with others. Many will close outright. A few will change how they do ministry, with a new vision of parochial ecclesiology. These newer parishes will be lighthouses of genuine Orthodox piety and experience. Some parishes, I believe, will actually be formed specifically, in the old fashion, by purchasing land, building a chapel or Temple in the midst of it, and parishioners building or buying homes around it. The Church will be the center of their lives, and many will come from far and wide to experience their way of life.

Publicly renowned Orthodox media and apologetic ministries. These ministries are the ones providing a living and powerful apologetic for the Orthodox faith in our culture (that is, our 21st Century life in the United States), and actually providing the Gospel in its proper context - engaged in society and the public arena. These will succeed in visibility and public awareness more than all the speeches before the U.N. and odd newspaper stories about Orthodox Easter or Folk Dance Festivals could ever do. In other words, the Orthodox Christian faith will become that most dangerous of all things - relevant to the lives of Americans, and known to all Americans as a genuinely American Christian entity.

More (and younger) bishops. If our current slate of bishops has been mostly a disappointment, reducing their number will only tighten this closed circle, making the hierarchy less and less accessible, and more and more immune to things like, oh, the needs and concerns of their flock. The process of selection for the episcopacy will contain a far more thorough investigation, and men with active homosexual tendencies, psychological problems, insecurities, or addictions will simply not make the cut. We aren’t far from open persecution of Christians by secularists in this country, and we need bishops who know the score. With better bishops, no one will be able to ‘buy’ a priest out of a parish with a gift of cash. Conversely, parish councils will no longer be able to bully priests into staying out of their affairs, and will be required to get out of the restaurant/festival business and get into the soul saving business.

A very different demographic of clergy. Our priests will be composed of converts, reverts, and the sons and grandsons of venerable, long-suffering clergy. These men all know the score. They won’t tolerate nonsense like homosexual clergy (especially bishops), women’s ordination, or financial corruption. They will not tolerate the Church being regularly and unapologetically dishonored by her own clergy. Twenty years from now, these convert and revert priests will be sending life-long Orthodox men, a new cradle generation, en masse to our seminaries. They will be white, black, Asian, Polynesian, Hispanic, and everything in between. Fewer will be Russian, Greek, or any other traditionally Orthodox background.

Orthodox Biblical Studies. Orthodox Biblical scholarship will flourish, and will actually advance Biblical Studies, rather than tag along for the latest trends, staying a minimum safe distance back in case the latest theory tanks unexpectedly. Septuagint studies are already on the rise and Orthodox scholars will usurp the lead in this arena, establishing a powerful and lasting influence in Biblical Studies for decades to come. Orthodox higher education — specifically in Biblical Studies in the Orthodox tradition — will finally have a place at the doctoral level in the Western hemisphere, and it will become a thriving academic entity. The whole Church will feed on the gleanings of this new scholarship and Scriptural knowledge, preaching, and Biblical morality will invigorate the Church for generations.

A much higher moral standard from all clergy. The next twenty years will see a revival of practical ethics. Instead of trailing military or business ethics, the Church will, once again, require the highest standard of ethical and professional behavior from her clergy — and they will respond! The clergy will not tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing and hold to account those who practice these vices. They will vigorously defend the honor of Christ’s priesthood, and Christ’s Church. I dare say, even the clergy will finally respect their own priesthood.

Vocations will explode. As a result of the elevated ethical standard publicly expected from the clergy, candidates in far greater numbers will flock to the priesthood. There will be very full classes, distance education, self-study and continuing education going on in every location. Education at a basal level will disappear, except in introductory parish classes. Clergy will powerfully articulate Orthodoxy to the faithful and to the culture around them. Personal opinion will no longer be the standard for clergy when articulating Orthodox ethics and morality. Our seminaries must become beacons for this teaching, and give up “training culture” once and for all. We will finally begin to penetrate our society, rather than go along for the ride like a tick on a dog’s back.

Philanthropy will flow like the floodgates of heaven. Finally, the many Orthodox Christian philanthropists who annually give millions of dollars to secular institutions will finally find their own Church completely transparent, completely accountable, and worthy of their faith-building support. Let’s face it, there is more than enough money in Orthodoxy right now to build hospitals, clinics, schools, colleges, universities, and a new Hagia Sophia right here in the United States. The reason this is not being done is because these philanthropists are intelligent men and women who do not trust the hierarchy to do the right thing with their millions. This will change in short order once it is shown that transparency doesn’t destroy the Church, but strengthens it immeasurably. Frankly, I don’t anticipate every jurisdiction to do this in the next twenty years, but those that are practicing transparency will emerge as the leaders in every arena of Church existence.

Hope
This all may seem unlikely today, but it is coming.

How do I know this? For one thing, the last holdouts of corruption, Byzantine intrigue and phyletism (a fancy theological term for ethnic preference) are clinging desperately to a vision of the Church that is, quite frankly, dying fast. Oh, they are doing everything to shore up their power and influence, and busy serving their own needs, but their vision is dying. And where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18).

As frightening and disconcerting as it may seem to our leaders, they will learn that emerging from a cocoon, even a Byzantine cocoon, is not a bad thing. Orthodoxy is about to take flight on new beautiful wings. These are the birth pangs of a new era for Orthodoxy. God is giving us a time of freedom and light.

This new Orthodox Church will have a different face, will be ready for contemporary challenges, and will have begun to penetrate American society at every stage and on every level. This Church is the one that will be ready for the challenges of open persecution, fighting for the soul of every American, regardless of their genetic affiliation. This Church will be the one our grandchildren and great grandchildren will grow up in, looking back on the late 20th-early 21st century as a time of sentimental darkness from which burst forth the light of the Gospel. Let it begin.

Fr. John A. Peck is pastor of Prescott Orthodox Church in Prescott, Ariz.

Neuhaus on the First Amendment

First Things' On the Square has a nice reflection by Fr Neuhaus on religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Pluralism is our continuing condition and our moral imperative until the End Time, when, as Christians believe, our disagreements will be resolved in the coming of the kingdom. The protection against raw majoritarianism depends upon this constitutional order. But this constitutional order depends, in turn, upon the continuing ratification of the majority who are “we the people.” Among the truths these people hold is the truth that it is necessary to protect those who do not hold those truths.

Read it all here.

Michael Novak - the Compassionate Theist

Townhall.com features an article on Michael Novak's new book No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers by Ken Blackwell entitled Novak Makes the Case for God to the Godless. Below are two snippets to whet your whistle:

In the book, Mr. Novak discusses faith and compassionately engages, with great charity and respect, the new atheist movement. This is a movement led by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. From my readings of their work, the answers they give to metaphysical questions are frequently lacking and often consist only of mean-spirited insults hurled at the reportedly 92% of us who believe in God. Mr. Novak, however, sees the positive in the popularity of these anti-religion books, as they challenge believers to question and carefully exam their own faith....

Mr. Novak correctly understands, as did many of America's founders, that it is divine providence from which freedom and civilized society flow. And for any faults one may find with Christian regimes throughout history, they pale in comparison to the abhorrent atrocities of the dogmatically atheists regimes of China and the former Soviet Union. Without the guiding moral compass that faith provides, those regimes slaughtered millions. And modern society, without a Judeo-Christian ethics, would have little reason to oppose, for example, to the despicable eugenics movement as espoused by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Read it all here.

New Natural Law Anthology Reviewed

MercatorNet today features a review of Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law: Natural Law as a Limiting Concept, an anthology edited by Ana Marta Gonzalez. An extended quote from the review follows.

Natural law starts by assuming there is such a thing as human nature. This
insistence on a human nature is a limiting concept. It claims that true freedom
is only to be found in acceptance and respect of this human nature that we have
inherited, not created.

A recent book on the topic of natural law, which is a compilation of
papers from an international conference held in Spain in 2006, makes this point
clear. If you accept natural law, you accept that human nature exists and that
it is the same for all humans. This in turn implies that some actions that human
beings can perform are not good for them. It further implies that freedom is not
the goal of human existence but rather a faculty of choice which allows us to do
good actions and thus to flourish as human beings.

Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law: Natural Law as a Limiting
Concept is a useful addition to contemporary debate, given that, despite its
pariah status in some universities, natural law ethics is still one of the great
traditions of ethical thinking and is given some time in most ethics courses,
even if this amounts to a dismissive nod.

Read the whole review here. Click the title of the book, above, for its listing on Amazon.

From the Church Fathers

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Chapter Two, The Didache (c. 50-120 a.d.)

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."

From a Sermon by St Augustine of Hippo

Two from Touchstone

Touchstone Magazine's blog Mere Comments today presents two posts worth pondering. Now having said that, I anticipate that some of your rambling host's readers may have strong opinions regarding one of them. Nonetheless, the argument is worth examination and meditation. The post in question is entitled Where Whores Wear Hats. The second is A Challenge From the First Century. Both posts present topics that are relevant for Christians today.

A Balanced Analysis of the Russo-Georgian Conflict

MercatorNet has published an essay by George Friedman, chairman and CEO of Stratfor, a publisher of geopolitical intelligence. The essay originally appeared on the Stratfor website.

The essay, The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power, is a clear and logical analysis of the motives and decisions behind the Russian invasion of Georgia and the US and European response options. It is so worthy of your reading it that I'll not quote it. Go, read!

A Requiem for Solzhenitsyn Worthy of Remembrance

Today's First Things On the Square features Robert P. Kraynak reflecting on the legacy of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It accurately notes the ambivalence in the West towards those who critique not only "the other side" but also the West. Solzhenitsyn was truly a conundrum to the West in just that sense. As Mr Kraynak notes:

It is striking to read the many references to the human soul in Solzhenitsyn’s writings. He says, “Beyond upholding rights, mankind must defend its soul, freeing it for reflection and feeling”; and “the greatness of a people is to be sought not in the blare of trumpets . . . but in the level of its inner development, in its breadth of soul . . . in healing its soul.” He also warned modern people that, because of their belief in progress, “we had forgotten the human soul”; and “the destruction of our souls over three-quarters of a century is the most terrifying thing of all.” In a powerful passage, he denounces communist totalitarianism for corrupting the soul: “Our present system is unique because, over and above its physical and economic constraints, it demands total surrender of our souls . . . to the conscious lie. To this putrefaction of the soul, this spiritual enslavement, human beings who wish to be human cannot consent. When Caesar, having exacted what is Caesar’s, demands still more insistently that we render to him what is God’s—that is a sacrifice we dare not make!”

These are words that tend to frighten the West since they point to the essential need to examine the soul, not just political policy.

Read the entire piece here.

Interesting Report on Christians in Lebanon

The unusual blog Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, has a very interesting article on the plight of Christians in Lebanon entitled The Forgotten Christians of Lebanon.

Consider a few excerpts...

I am not suggesting that all Western involvement in the affairs of the Near and Middle East over the centuries has been detrimental to the region's Christians. Far from it. However, the fact remains that the West's interaction with the Middle East was always designed to serve primarily the West's interests. This includes the Protestant missionary activities of the nineteenth century, which, after failing to make noticeable headway among Muslims, turned their energies to converting the local Christians to the creeds of Europe's great Reformers. Resulting tensions and mutual misunderstandings between the native churches and the newly transplanted Protestants linger to the present.

Meanwhile, the reputed tolerance of Islam, particularly for the "People of the Book," as Jews and Christians are designated, created in reality the dhimmi system of second-class servitude, which, under the guise of toleration, was actually a system of subtle repression and dehumanization leading to gradual liquidation.

...

Back in the 1970s and '80s it became disgracefully fashionable in Western policy and media circles to put down the Lebanese Christians, particularly the Maronites. These attacks often bordered on outright racism. Similarly today it has become fashionable to lay all the blame for the Bosnian conflict on the shoulders of the Serbs. If the priorities of certain Western governments and their policy planners (Washington included) have dictated that such one-sided obfuscations serve as the basis for ethically dubious policies, the priorities of self-aware and morally critical Christians in these same Western countries ought to be markedly different.

...

Western apathy. In the hard-nosed world of realpolitik, petroleum-free Lebanon does not amount to much either strategically or economically for a country like the United States. Injecting other human and value-oriented parameters and ingredients into the policy calculus of Washington that would elevate Lebanon on the scale of foreign-policy priorities is in itself an awesome and daunting undertaking requiring prayer and patient hard work.

Read it all here.

Two Stories - Interesting Contrast

I happened upon both of these stories this morning. They provide an interesting contrast in the one's assertion of the persistence of perception versus reality, and the other's observation of a reality that has historically been minimized or forgotten entirely.

Check out So Much for the 'Looted Sites' from the Wall Street Journal and Those Whitewashed Walls from First Things On the Square.

Reflect on both articles and consider the need for greater prayer and fasting in a fallen and corrupt world.

Update on Bishop Nicholae

Catholic News Agency has the update....

Romanian Orthodox synod disciplines bishop for intercommunion with Catholics


Bucharest, Jul 11, 2008 / 06:03 am (CNA).- The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication.

Nicolae Corneanu, the Orthodox Metropolitan Bishop of Banat, had provoked controversy after receiving Holy Communion during a Greek Catholic Mass in Timisoara on May 25. The synod’s forgiveness has reportedly settled the controversy, according to the SIR News Agency.

“The Holy Eucharist is not a means and a stage towards the unity of the Christian Church, but the deepest manifestation of the unity of the Church, its highlight,” stated Patriarch Daniel of the Romanian Orthodox Church in a speech to the synod.

Patriarch Daniel reportedly intended to reassert the fundamental principle of Orthodox ecclesiology and ecumenism. He said that such gestures of “so-called inter-communion” in fact “reduce the dogmatic differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and undermine the unity of faith as the foundation of the reconstruction of the communion between the two Churches.”

The Patriarch reiterated that it is forbidden for Orthodox believers to receive the Eucharist in a different Church.

He also said the decision does not intend to treat other Christians “with arrogance or contempt” or to interrupt theological dialogue.

“Through a sincere, deep theological dialogue, the dogmas that separate the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church can be redefined,” he concluded.

Father Francisc Dobos, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest, responded to the decision, saying in a press release, “We believe it is right for every Church to solve its own problems according to its own principles and regulations. We are convinced that the dialogue between the two Churches will move on, towards a communion from the same chalice.”

The Romanian synod also “forgave” Bishop Sofronie of Oradea, another Orthodox prelate, who had celebrated the blessing of holy water with the Greek Catholic Bishop of Oradea, Virgil Bercea, on “Twelfth Night,” the evening of Epiphany.

“The Holy Synod disapproved of the non-canonical gestures made by the two leaders and accepted their change of mind and repentance as a first sign of their correction,” read a press release from the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate.

And so it goes

Boys? What on Earth is Happening to Them?!

Hat Tip to Touchstone's Mere Comments for reference to Amanda Witt's blog featuring a fake ad to help the overactive boy. The "ad" is from Salvo Magazine. In true web-surfing fashion, I followed a link in one of the Salvo article's comments and checked out Dr Helen Smith's blog; which, in turn, led me to a "Top 10: Worst Male Bashing Ads" list over at Ask Men. {Note: I'm not very familiar with Ask Men, so don't assume I endorse the site. For example, some of the side-bar images are a bit too risque for my tastes. However, the commercials in the top ten list are certainly worth viewing.}

Altogether, these references contribute to a disturbing view of societal pressures to follow the materialistic relativism that tries to "do one better" than nature.

Ya hahram!

Professor Gilbert (and Fr Paul) -- "The Timisoara Incident"

De unione ecclesiarum has become one of my must check sites. Professor Gilbert's study of Ecumenical John Bekkos is both enlightening and thought-provoking from many perspectives. For the Catholic westerner, it succintly raises awareness of the roots of the Schism and the political and theological issues at stake. For the eastern Catholic and the Orthodox, it confronts with the vitality and breadth of Eastern theology and spirituality that belies the Palamite-only interpretation that has been in vogue in the last few centuries.

Now joined by "Fr Paul", the blog promises only to become stronger. A must read, is Fr Paul's assessment of the “Timisoara incident” is well worth reflective reading and prayer.

To wit., Stop everything and go read it now!