St. Maximos' Hut

Good stuff here (banner adds that support Denmark).





Tom Palmer has an excellent short post that explains the concept, with some interesting comments.

William Saletan and Katha Pollit, both pro-choice, debate the issue at Slate.

Saletan:

I think it's bad because the fetus is of us and is becoming us. It's not a person, but it's on the way to becoming a person, and the longer it develops, the more I recoil at the idea of killing it. Most people, according to polls, think the same way.

Pollit:

You ask what my own view of abortion is. I think the meaning of abortion is what the woman says it is: For a woman who wants a child but can't have this one it can be sad; for a woman who doesn't want a baby, it can feel like a huge relief, like having your whole life given back to you. Negative feelings—the sense of the road not taken, that maybe you would have wanted to take had life been different, the feeling that you chose yourself instead of the baby-to-be and maybe that means you are not a good woman, the feeling that you messed up somehow—are often confused with morality, but they are not the same. Morality has to do with rights and duties and obligations between people. So, no: I do not think terminating a pregnancy is wrong. A potential person is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. I don't think women should have to give birth just because a sperm met an egg. I think women have the right to consult their own wishes, needs, and capacities and produce only loved, wanted children they can care for—or even no children at all. I think we would all be better off as a society if we respected women's ability to make these decisions for themselves and concentrated on caring well for the born. There is certainly enough work there to keep us all very busy.

I think the word count says it all here. Saletan makes a coherent argument and isn't afraid of the moral consequences of his position. Pollit can't quite accept the reality of her position and has to throw up a cloud of smoke to obscure the answer. I think they're both wrong on lots of points, but Saletan seems to win this argument hands down.

Winston Churchill features briefly in Daniel Yergin's book The Prize, which chronicles the oil industry's history. Shortly after FDR met with King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, Churchill also met the king. Ibn Saud did not allow smoking or drinking in his presence, and so FDR had been reduced to stopping the elevator between the meeting room and lunch room on the presidential ship where the two men met so that he might have time to smoke.

When Churchill was told that he could not smoke or drink in front of the king because of the king's religious sensibilities, he responded that

"I was the host and I said if it was his religion that made him say such things, my religion prescribed as an absolute sacred rite smoking cigars and drinking alcohol before, after, and if need be during, all meals and the intervals between them."

The story is told on page 405 of the paperback edition of The Prize. Perhaps we all need to learn more about the Church of England, whose stuffy reputation in some quarters may be undeserved..... Fr. C, care to comment?

Some pastors at "mainstream" Ohio churches are annoyed at the support for Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell among "conservative" churches' members, and are complaining to the IRS about 2 "megachurches" alleged violations of IRS rules in supporting Blackwell.

I don't know enough about the rules or the alleged conduct to have a firm opinion on the merits, but I spotted this quote in Opinion Journal's Political Diary that I liked:

"I don't check my citizenship at the door of my church, nor do I check my Christianity at the door of the statehouse."

Rev. Rod Parsley.

Perhaps we can get some discussion going on the appropriate role of religion in politics.

They can't be burned at the stake - it releases too much CO2.

I've just finished rereading O.E. Rolvaag's Giants in the Earth, a marvelous and sad novel of Norwegian immigrants on the Great Plains in the nineteenth century for an upcoming conference on the frontier. There's some great moments, wonderful asides (the "klokker," a combination cantor and sexton, is described thus: "During the seventeenth and eigthteenth centuries a candidatus theologix, when deemed too great a blockhead to receive ordination to the holy ministry, was often appointed klokker.")

In a key scene, a Norwegian minister comes to the settlement, several years after their arrival, and holds services. In his first sermon he describes first the history of the people of Israel and then the future that awaits them as follows (the ellipses are in the original - Rolvaag used them extensively):

In what manner had they thought to make use of the unbounded liberty which the Lord in His mercy had granted them? Here they were about to build a new kingdom--themselves to lay the foundations, themselves to raise the whole structure from the ground up. Had they begun to realize the greatness of that glorious responsibility which He had placed on their shoulders, and did they have sense enough in their heads to thank Him for it on bended knee? . . . He had spread before them here an opportunity the equal of which was unknown in human history; and here it would be tested out whether they could measure up to it--whether they were sprung from good stock or not--whether they were children of free men or slaves . . . . Were they not glad of the chance? . . . Oh, they ought to sing like the birds of the plain in the morning sunrise--and then thank God, thank Him in all humility! In truth, they had not come here out of captivity and bondage--that, too, they should bear in mind in giving thanks. But they had found here the fairest promise that the Lord God had ever given to any people . . . .

This seems like a fair question today as well.

(the quote is from pp. 426-427 of the University of Nebraska Press paperback.)

Jennifer Roback Morse has written an interesting short piece at TownHall.com concerning her appearance at an Acton-sponsored gathering entitled "The Family and the New Economy. Among several interesting observations, the following:

The total fertility rate for the European Union is a mere 1.47 babies per woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1 babies per woman. For some countries, such as Spain and Italy, the total fertility rate is a desperate 1.2. At this rate, the population of these countries will decline by half every generation.

I attributed the fertility decline to the cradle-to-grave European welfare state. The lethargic culture of public assistance drains the enthusiasm of the young for beginning families. And state financial support displaces the economic function of marriage, for women and men alike.

The principle speaker was Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the President of the Pontifical Council on the Family. The Cardinal apparently came to the defense of Prof. Morse when some, who were "involved in politics in their respective countries", claimed that the analysis she had presented had "nothing to do with their countries", that "the demographic situation wasn’t nearly so dire, and, even if there were some issues, everything would be resolved by state intervention to provide family support.

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo wasn’t buying, and assured the audience that the Pontifical Council on the Family had gathered world-wide demographic data over a long period and that Prof. Morse's description was spot on. He apparently also observed that "Differences in state support for families made some difference, but not a significant difference in fertility rates."

The article is well-worth a read, and, should Acton or the church release them, I think that the proceedings of this gathering will prove most interesting.

Someone on the Free Market Environmentalism listserv circulated this link - if you scroll about 2/3rds the way down, you come to a nice graph that shows the welfare losses imposed by agricultural price supports. (The site is devoted to an intriguing computer game on global economics. I haven't tried it out or thoroughly reviewed the economic analysis, but the idea seems pretty neat.)

This seems like a clear demonstration of the immorality of the agricultural price support policies of the U.S. and E.U. The EU is proving far more recalcitrant about changing its policies, largely because of France, although the U.S. has plenty to answer for on this count as well. We ought to see more moral criticism from religious leaders of these policies, which impoverish millions.

This weekend we commemorated the martyrs of the Bolshevik yoke and I thought I'd post a few of the troparia for the martyrs included in Saturday's Vespers. It's worth remembering, as Americans often fail to do, how devastating communism was for so many millions. We need to remember, so we can keep up the moral critique of policies that lead to such barbarism.

Here's some of the troparia:

The Sacred and great Council of all Russia
Heard of the dreadful report
Of the persecutions raised against the Church of God;
And all its members joined in one conciliar thought:
Appointing prayers for the persecuted and slain Confessors and Martyrs
On the day of the suffering and death
Of the Holy Metropolitan Vladimir.
He that today reasons with the Church knows
The days of the repose
Of those who have departed to God amidst suffering
Are called the days of their birth.
Wherefore let us celebrate this Feast
As the nativity of the new Passion-bearers of Russia!
With fervent supplication, O Brethren,
Let us now begin to chant hymns to the new favorites of God;
For, cleansed through fearsome torments,
They are revealed as true Branches of the true Vine of Christ,
Abundantly watered with the sweetness of Grace.
Set forth before us in the fragrance of their Holiness
And edified by their struggle
With compuction let us also offer to God the fruit of repentance!
O mountains of Kiev,
Which were blest by the cross of the Apostle Andrew,
Praise now the beginning of the dread baptism
Wherewith the land of Russia has been baptized anew;
For where grace shone forth upon the Russian people
Through water and the Spirit
Unto the opening of the Kingdom of God,
There it was fitting for this renewal to begin,
Through the blood of the first-slain among the Russian Hierarchs,
The namesake of the Enlightener of the Russian land;
For this new Vladimir, led forth from his vineyard,
Through the gates of the great Lavra of the Caves,
Was granted the crown of Stephen,
Forgiving and blessing them that slew him
As meek, yet a powerful intercessor for our souls!
Lamentation and mournful songs of woe:
Lo! The scroll of Ezekiel which filled your soul to overflowing,
O Tikhon our Patriarch!
May your voice be heard even now, saying:
O Brethren, Archpastors and Pastors,
Summon your children to the defense of the Orthodox Church!
May they that destroy the churches of God hearken to your fiery discourse:
If you call yourselves Christians
We anathematize you by the authority given us by God!
O dread and everlasting excommunication!
Behold an anathema lifted by no one
Behold the boldness of the Patriarch!
O wondrous army of the new athletes of Russia!
Who is able to glorify you worthily?
Truly blest is the land which has been watered by your blood;
And its cities and villages are mystically hallowed,
Having received your precious relics
Often without hymnody of the Church or honorable burial.
Yet pray, O you Saints, for the land of Russia
And for all who honor you!

There's a brief account of St. Tikhon here. He has special meaning for me, since he was Archbishop in America before returning to Russia in 1917. (He even consecrated at least one church in Ohio.) We've got a very nice icon of St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess and New Martyr (about whom you can read here) at St. Innocent and I find her an especially comforting saint.