Autohagiography 5

Eastern Religions

I was asked to tell a little about my my spiritual pilgrimage and my conversion to Catholicism. In this installment I will discuss very briefly my investigation of Eastern religions. I don't intend to go into them too deeply. Only to discuss the basics and why I found them wanting. In fact I believe a Christian who is grounded in his Christian faith can even benefit from a study of them. As the Magisterium has stated:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." (NOSTRA AETATE, Pope Paul VI, 1965)

  During  my time in the U.S. Navy I really didn't think a whole lot about religion. If anything, as I have said, Harley Davidson motorcycles had become my religion, and riding my devotional. But after I left the military and started attending a community college, for some reason, I became interested in Eastern religions, perhaps inspired by my study of philosophy and world history. 

  I remember distinctly, like it was yesterday, sitting in my car reading The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra.

"The Tao of Physics, Capra's first book, challenges much of conventional wisdom by demonstrating striking parallels between ancient mystical traditions and the discoveries of 20th century physics. Originally published by a small publisher with no budget for promotion, the book became an underground bestseller by word of mouth before it was picked up by a major American publishing house. Since then, The Tao of Physics has been published in 43 editions in 23 languages."
(fritjofcapra.net)

  I'm not sure I really understood what I was reading, but it was fascinating nonetheless. And the pseudo-scientificness (I think I just invented that word) of it made it even more credible. There was certainly the scent of the exotic about the Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism discussed in this and the other books I read on this subject.

  When my ships pulled into Hong Kong or Singapore I might generally be coerced by my shipmates to accompany them the pubs and bars for an evening of alcoholic libations. If, as often happened, we were to get a trifle unruly, there were gigantic men with full beards and turbans who acted as bouncers. On occassion I was persuaded by them to leave these establishments. When I say "gigantic" understand that I am 6 feet and 4 inches tall and these fellows towered over me. These men were Sikhs, members of the religion founded in Northern India by Guru Nanak.

  Most Sikhs would probably be offended if I described their religion as a synthesis of the better parts of Hinduism and Islam, but that is essentially what it consists of. Sikhs believe in one ultimate God or "Guru", while leaving space for the existence of all the lesser deities of the Indian religions.

  The religion started out as rather peaceful, but after constant attacks from Hindus and Muslims, and several martyred gurus, the tenth Guru Gobind Singh decreed that henceforth all Sikh men would take the surname Singh (meaning lion) and stand prepared to fight at all times. The symbols of this readiness are the "Five Ks": Kesh, unshorn hair (they are, like the biblical nazirites, never to cut their hair), hence the turban; Kangha, the comb with which they keep their long hair and beard clean and neat; Kara, an iron or steel bracelet; Kacchha, a pair of short pants to aid movement (worn under outer clothes in practice); and Kirpan, a steel sword (Most Sikhs today wear small replicas in order to keep this precept). From that time also the Sikh Scriptures, or Guru Granth Sahib, were to be the only "Guru".

  Needless to say their martial aspect was attractive (Khan Noonien Singh, played by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek's Space Seed and Wrath of Khan was also a Sikh!). I saw the Sikh religion as a perfect meshing of monotheism and Indian religions. After studying the religion for a time I considered accepting baptism into the religion, and had even gone so far as to locate the local Sikh gurdwara (The Sikh temple or church building). Of course that long hair thing and turban, I thought, might be a bit of a problem!

  And then it struck me (I now believe it was the voice of the Holy Spirit), I had done all this research into Eastern religions and was ready to take the plunge! Hadn't I better investigate the religion of my own culture before I reject it?

  Before I go into my initial investigations of Christianity I should probably summarize why exactly I rejected these Eastern religions. The religions of the East are generally monistic. To quote the dictionary definition:

  "(in metaphysics) any of various theories holding that there is only one basic substance or principle as the ground of reality, or that reality consists of a single element. Compare dualism."

   Basically the understanding is that everything IS God. You, I, that tree over there, everything is God. We simply don't know it. Coming to an experiential knowledge of that fact liberates one from the perpetual cycle of reincarnation and the suffering that accompanies it. Essentially my problem with this paradigm is that it suggests that God Himself is suffering from illusion and therefore imperfect. Why someone would want to worship such a God I could not and still can't fathom.

Autohagiography 4

Autohagiography 4


  I graduated from high school in the midst of a recession. I lived in Akron, Ohio. Goodyear, Firestone and other tire companies had been the staple of the economy for decades, ever since the time of the Eerie Canal. For some reason they had decided to move their plants elsewhere. Some said it was an effort to escape the unions, which were very strong there. My father couldn't afford to send me to college and I hadn't made good enough grades to expect any scholarships.

  For a year I competed with unemployed factory workers for the worst of temporary jobs. My father had worked at Goodyear and I thought his connections could get me in there. He got me an interview. I stood in line with 2,000 guys and when I got to the end I was informed there were only 24 openings. Needless to say I didn't get hired. As a last resort I considered trying to get Welfare as some friends had recommended. They laughed me out of the office. On the way back I passed by the Navy Recruiter's office. On a whim I grabbed some brochures. I found that if I spent as little as two years in the Navy the G.I. Bill would pay for my college. At the same time travel in other countries, especially the Orient and Far East seemed extremely appealing. I enlisted.

  I was sent to boot camp and signalman A School in Orlando, Florida. Most recruits, for reasons I couldn't fathom, had put on their dream sheets that they wanted to stay stateside. I wanted to see the world and have some adventures. I requested duty in the Far East and was assigned to the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Midway.

  While stationed on the Midway in Yokosuka, Japan I met my wife, who is Japanese. My two-year enlistment was nearly up, so I re-upped for another three years to stay in Japan and get married. We were married by the ambassador legally at the U.S. Embassy, then in a ceremony at a Shinto shrine in Kamakura, and had it blessed at a Buddhist temple.

I spent a two years on the frigate U.S.S. Knox and two years shore duty at Subase Bangor in the state of Washington. I might have made the Navy a career, but a particularly annoying chief gave me a hard time about visiting my wife in the hospital after the birth of our first son. He asked me to re-up soon after and I told him where he could stick it.

During my time in the military I really hadn't taken much interest in religion. I still retained an interest in the occult, but not enough to actually practice. Essentially I was an agnostic. Besides, while in Washington I had adopted a new religion: Harley Davidson motorcycles. I started out with a Sportster in Washington and upgraded to a Low Rider when I got back to Ohio. My goal was to attend Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland and then transfer into the Graphic Design program at Kent State. While at C.C.C. I had developed an interest in Eastern Religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. I nearly became a Sikh.

 

Autohagiography 3

  In junior high school I began to develop an interest in the occult. It started with one of those mass market paperbacks with a title like "Black Magic Spells" or something, probably picked up at the local Revco drug store. Of course I would never have dreamed of actually putting a curse on somebody, but it was fascinating anyway. I scoured the local libraries for books on magic and witchcraft. I purchased a copy of Aleister Crowley's "Confessions" and considered myself a follower, though I had little real understanding of what he taught.

  Once a friend and I were taking a walk through an old part of town and we passed by one of those dingy time store front shops. This one was called "The Occult Shop". Virtually everything in the shop was black, including the walls. There were apparently two owners, one named Steven Patrick and the other Patrick Stevens. Or so I was told. They could have been twins, dark-haired and bearded beatnik types. And there on the shelf was Aleister Crowley's "Magick in Theory and Practice". I couldn't afford the book, but struck up a conversation with Pat. He mentioned that he was considering having a mural painted on the wall. I mentioned that I was an artist and he suggested that if I painted him a mural he would pay me off in books. It was a deal! I painted the image of Baphomet from Eliphas Levi's book "Dogma and Rituals of High Magic" on the wall. From the torch on his head I painted stars fanning out up the wall and spreading over the whole ceiling. I was paid with "Magic in Theory and Practice" and a few other books on occult topics.

  From that time I started hanging out with Pat. He lived in an old house in a poor neighborhood that had been taken over by hippies. He actually had a magic circle burned into the floor. Magical implements hung on the walls, such as a large ritual sword. One day we were working at the shop when Pat got a phone call from his wife. She said she thought someone had got into the house. She had heard some noises. He told her to take the sword and look around. Nobody was there and the doors were all locked. "It must just be George", he said.

  Afterward I asked him, "Who's George?" He said George was the ghost who haunted the house. Indeed there we various odd noises and goings on in that house. At the time I thought it was ghosts and elementals. Now I'm pretty sure they were demons. One time I stayed the night and crashed on an old bare mattress in an upstairs room. There was no light in the room so I lay down with the door open. A light bulb burned in the hallway outside the door. Before I could even put my head down there a loud bang emanated from the space right between the mattress and the door and I felt an invisible presence. Having studied the works of Crowley and other ritual magicians I knew it was important to show no fear to demons or other spiritual entities. I sat up and said, "I'm not afraid of you!" The presence was gone and I put my head down to sleep peacefully.

  Through my late teens, my time in the Navy and on into college after, I considered myself a student of the occult. Now I am convinced that the Holy Spirit, infused in my baptism and confirmation, preserved me from the many dangers of flirting with the occult. In my next installment I'll tell about how I progressed from the occult to Eastern religions.

     

The Fathers against Contraception

The Fathers against Contraception

By Ronald M. Criss

Though the plethora of Orthodox churches are by no means united on the issue, an official document of the Russian Orthodox Church states that while abortifacient methods of contraception (i.e., ones that may cause abortion, like most birth-control pills and IUDs) are completely unacceptable, other methods can be used with spiritual counsel, taking into account "the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances".[1]  

According to a document published by the Orthodox Church of America, “Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.”[2]

As most people are well aware, the Catholic Church has always unreservedly condemned all forms of artificial contraception. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

“Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle. . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”[3]

“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”[4]

In a previous article we showed how the Protestant allowance of unlimited divorces and re-marriages and the allowance of up to two “ecclesiastical divorces” and up to three marriages in the Orthodox churches was contrary to Scripture and tradition.  Orthodox apologists like to say that they, and not the Catholic Church, are the true representatives of the Church Fathers, but what do the Church Fathers actually have to say about contraception?

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if anyone, on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]).

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Council of Nicaea I: canon l [A.D. 325]).

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (John Chrysostom , Homilies on Matthew, 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (John Chrysostom, ibid. 62:3).

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well.... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 24 [A.D. 391]).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians, 5:12 [A.D. 395]).

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (John Chrysostom, Sermons,  1:12 [A.D. 522]).

These examples should be enough to illustrate the fact that it is the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox churches or the Protestant sects that in fact most closely represents the received tradition from the Church Fathers, indeed the teaching that even the Orthodox and Protestants both retained until the 20^th Century. Indeed the words of Pope Paul VI have proved to be quite prophetic:

“Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”[5]

---

[1] http://www.mospat.ru/ru/documents/social-concepts/192

[2] http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19

[3] http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

^[4] http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2399.htm

[5] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

The Russian legend of St. Nicholas and St. Cassian

The Russian legend of St. Nicholas and St. Cassian and its application to the two separated Churches.

The following is another striking excerpt from Vladimir Soloviev's Russia and the Universal Church.


POPULAR Russian legend tells how St. Nicolas and St. Cassian were
once sent from Paradise upon a visit to the Earth. On their journey they met a poor peasant who had got his wagon, with a load of hay upon it, stuck deep in the mud and was making fruit1ess efforts to get his horses on.

“Let’s go and give the good fellow a hand,” said St. Nicolas.

“Not I; I’m keeping out of it,” replied St. Cassian, “I don’t want to get my coat dirty.”

“Well, wait for me,” said St. Nicolas, “or go on without me if you like,” and  plunging without hesitation into the mud, he vigorously assisted the peasant in dragging his wagon out of the rut.

When he had finished the job and caught his companion up, he was all covered in filth; his coat was torn and soiled and looked like a beggar’s rags. St. Peter was amazed to see him arrive at the gate of Paradise in this condition.

“I say! Who ever got you into that state?” he asked.

St. Nicolas told his story.

“And what about you?” asked St. Peter, turning to St. Cassian. “Weren’t you with him in this encounter?”

“Yes, but I don’t meddle in things that are no concern of mine, and I was especially anxious not to get my beautiful clean coat dirty.”

“Very well,” said St. Peter, “You, St. Nicolas, because you were not afraid of getting dirty in helping your neighbor out of a difficulty, shall for the future have two feasts a year, and you shall be reckoned the greatest of saints after me by all the peasants of Holy Russia. And you, St. Cassian, must be content with having a nice clean coat; you shall have your feastday in leap-year only, once every four years.”

We may well forgive St. Cassian for his dislike of manual labor and the mud of the highroad. But he would be quite wrong to condemn his companion for having a different idea of the duties of saints towards mankind. We may like St. Cassian’s clean and spotless clothes, but since our wagon is still deep in the mud, St. Nicolas is the one we really need, the stout-hearted saint who is always ready to get to work and help us.

The Western Church, faithful to the apostolic mission, has not been afraid to plunge into the mire of history. After having been for centuries the only element of moral order and intellectual culture among the barbarous peoples of Europe, it undertook the task not only of the spiritual education of these peoples of independent spirit and uncivilized instincts, but also of their material government. In devoting itself to this arduous task, the Papacy, like St. Nicolas in the legend, thought not so much of the cleanliness of its own appearance as of the urgent needs of mankind. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, with its solitary asceticism and its contemplative mysticism, its withdrawal from political life and from all the social problems which concern mankind as a whole, thought chiefly, like St. Cassian, of reaching Paradise without a single stain on its clothing. The Western Church aimed at employing all its powers, divine and human, for the attainment of a universal goal; the Eastern Church was only concerned with the preservation of its purity. There is the chief point of difference and the fundamental cause of the schism between the two Churches.

It is a question of a different ideal of the religious life itself. The religious ideal of the separated Christian East is not false; it is incomplete. In Eastern Christendom for the last thousand years, religion has been identified with personal piety, and prayer has been regarded as the one and only religious activity. The Western Church, without disparaging individual piety as the true germ of all religion, seeks the development of this germ and its blossoming into a social activity organized for the glory of God and the universal good of mankind. The Eastern prays, the Western prays and labors. Which of the two is right?

Jesus Christ founded His visible Church not merely to meditate on Heaven, but also to labor upon Earth and to withstand the gates of Hell. He did not send His apostles into the solitude of the desert, but into the world to conquer it and subject it to the Kingdom which is not of this world, and He enjoined upon them not only the innocence of doves, but also the wisdom of serpents. If it is merely a question of preserving the purity of the Christian soul, what is the purpose of all the Church’s social organization and of all those sovereign and absolute powers with which Christ has armed her in giving her final authority to bind and to loose on Earth as well as in Heaven?

The monks of the holy mountain of Athos, true representatives of the isolated Eastern Church, have for centuries spent all their energies in prayer and the contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor. They are perfectly right; prayer and the contemplation of uncreated things are essential to the Christian life. But can we allow that this occupation of the soul constitutes the whole Christian life? — for that is what we must do if we try to put the Orthodox East, with its peculiar character and special religious tendencies, in the place of the Universal Church. We have in the East a Church at prayer, but where among us is the Church in action, asserting itself as a spiritual force absolutely independent of the powers of this world? Where in the East is the Church of the living God, the Church which in every generation legislates for mankind, which establishes and develops the formulation of eternal truth with which to counteract the continually changing forms of error? Where is the Church which labors to re-mold the whole social life of the nations in accordance with the Christian ideal, and to guide them towards the supreme goal of Creation — free and perfect union with the Creator?

The advocates of an exclusive asceticism should remember that the perfect Man spent only forty days in the wilderness; those who contemplate the light of Tabor should not forget that that light appeared only once in the earthly life of Christ, Who proved by His own example that true prayer and true contemplation are simply a foundation for the life of action. If this great Church, which for centuries has done nothing but pray, has not prayed in vain, she must show herself a living Church, acting, struggling, victorious. But we ourselves must will that it be so. We must, above all, recognize the insufficiency of our traditional religious ideal, and make a sincere attempt to realize a more complete conception of Christianity. There is no need to invent or create anything new for this purpose. We merely have to restore to our religion its Catholic or universal character by recognizing our oneness with the active part of the Christian world, with the West centralized and organized for a universal activity and possessing all that we lack. We are not asked to change our nature as Easterns or to repudiate the specific character of our religious genius. We have only to recognize unreservedly the elementary truth that we of the East are but a part of the Universal Church, a part moreover which has not its center within itself, and that therefore it behooves us to restore the link between our individual forces upon the circumference and the great universal center which Providence has placed in the West. There is no question of suppressing our religious and moral individuality, but rather of crowning it and inspiring it with a universal and progressive life. The whole of our duty to ourselves consists simply in recognizing ourselves for what we are in reality, an organic part of the great body of Christendom, and in affirming our spiritual solidarity with our Western brethren. This moral act of justice and charity would be in itself an immense step forward on our part and the essential condition of all further advance.

St. Cassian need not become a different person or cease to care about keeping his clothes spotless. He must simply recognize that his comrade has certain important qualities which he himself lacks, and instead of sulking at this energetic worker he must frankly accept him as his companion and guide on the earthly voyage that still lies before them.

A Parable by Vladimir Soloviev

A Parable by Vladimir Soloviev

  Here is a parable which will perhaps bring out more clearly my general point of view and the purpose of the present work.

  A great architect, setting out on a voyage to distant parts, called his pupils and said to them: “You know that I came here to rebuild the principal sanctuary of the country which had been destroyed by an earthquake. The work is begun; I have sketched the general plan, the site has been cleared and the foundations laid. You will take my place during my absence. I will certainly return, but I cannot tell you when. Work, therefore, as though you had to complete the task without me. Now is the time for you to apply the teaching that I have given you. I trust you, and I am not going to lay down all the details of the work. Only observe the rules of our art. I am leaving you the solid foundations of the Temple which I have laid and the general plan that I have traced; that will be sufficient if you are faithful to your duty. And I am not leaving you alone; in spirit and in thought, I will be always with you.” With these words he led them to the site of the new church, showed them the foundations and handed them the plan.

  After his departure, his pupils worked in complete harmony and almost a third of the building was soon raised. As the work was vast and extremely complicated, the first companions were not enough and new ones had to be admitted. It was not long before a serious dispute arose between those who were in charge of the work.

  Some of them maintained that of the two things left them by their absent Master — the foundations of the building and its general plan — only the latter was important and indispensable; there was nothing, they said, to prevent them from abandoning the foundations already laid and building on another site. When their companions violently opposed this idea, they went further and in the heat of the argument actually declared (contrary to what they themselves had often maintained before) that the Master had never laid nor even indicated the foundations of the Temple; that was merely an invention of their opponents. Many of the latter, on the other hand, in their anxiety to maintain the importance of the foundations, went to the opposite extreme and declared that the only thing that really mattered in the whole work was the foundation of the building which the Master had laid, and that their proper task consisted simply in preserving, repairing and strengthening the already existing part of the building, without any idea of finishing it entirely, for (they said) the completion of the work was reserved exclusively for the Master himself at the time of his return. Extremes meet, and the two opposing parties soon found themselves agreed on one point, that the building was not to be completed. But the party which insisted on preserving the foundations and the unfinished nave in good condition plunged into various secondary activities for that purpose and displayed indefatigable energy, whereas the party which thought it possible to abandon the original foundation of the Temple declared, after vainly attempting to build on another site, that there was no need to do anything at all; the essential thing in the art of architecture, they maintained, was theory, the contemplation of its classic examples and meditation on its rules, not the carrying out of a definite design; if the Master had left them his plan of the Temple, it was certainly not with the object of getting them to work together on its actua1 construction, but simply in order that each one of them by studying this perfect plan might himself become an accomplished architect. Thereupon the most zealous of them devoted their lives to meditating on the design of the ideal Temple and learning and reciting by heart every day the explanations of that design which some of the early companions had worked out in accordance with the Master’s instructions. But the majority were content to think of the Temple once a week, and the rest of the time was spent by each of them in attending to his own business.

  There were, however, some of these dissentients who, from a study of the Master’s plan and of his own original explanation of it, perceived clear indications that the foundations of the Temple had actually been laid and could never be changed; among other remarks of the great architect they came across the following: “Here are the impregnable foundations that I have laid myself; it is upon them that my Temple must be built if it is to be proof for ever against earthquake or any other destructive force.” Impressed by these words, the good workers resolved to give up their quarrel and to lose no time in joining the guardians of the foundations, in order to assist them in their work of preservation. There was, however, one worker who said: “Let us admit our mistake; let us be just and give due honor to our old associates; let us rejoin them around the great building which we began, but to our shame abandoned and which to their incalculable credit they have guarded and kept in good condition. But above all we must be faithful to the Master’s conception. He did not mean these foundations which he laid to remain untouched; he meant his Temple to be built upon them. Therefore we must all unite to complete the building upon the existing foundations. Shall we have time to finish it before the Master’s return, or not? That is a question which he did not see fit to answer. But he did tell us explicitly to do everything to continue his work; and, moreover, he added that we should do more than he had done.” This worker’s appeal seemed strange to most of his companions. Some called him an idealist, others accused him of pride and presumption. But the voice of conscience told him clearly that his absent Master was with him in spirit and in truth.

  As a member of the true and venerable Eastern or Greco-Russian Orthodox Church which does not speak through an anti-canonical synod nor through the employees of the secular power, but through the utterance of her great Fathers and Doctors, I recognize as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by St. Ireneus, St. Dionysius the Great, St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, St. Ignatius, etc. etc. — namely, the Apostle Peter, who lives in his successors and who has not heard in vain our Lord’s words: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church;” “Strengthen thy brethren;” “Feed My sheep, feed My lambs.”

  O deathless spirit of the blessed Apostle, invisible minister of the Lord in the government of His visible Church, thou knowest that she has need of an earthly body for her manifestation. Twice already hast thou embodied her in human society: in the Greco-Roman world, and again in the Romano-German world; thou hast made both the Empire of Constantine and the Empire of Charlemagne to serve her. After these two provisional incarnations, she awaits her third and last incarnation. A whole world full of energies and of yearnings, but with no clear consciousness of its destiny knocks at the door of universal history. What is your word, ye peoples of the word?

(From Russia and the Universal Church)

The Fathers on Divorce

By Ronald M. Criss

Protestant churches allow unlimited divorces and re-marriages, the Eastern Orthodox churches, up to two "ecclesiastical" divorces and three marriages. In the following article I seek to prove that these practices are unscriptural as well as contrary to received tradition.


Matt 19:1-10 (New Jerusalem Bible)
Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him and he healed them there. Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, 'Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?' He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? [Gn 1:17; 2:24] They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.' 
  They said to him, 'Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?' [Dt 24:1.] He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning. Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife-I am not speaking of an illicit marriage-and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'
 
Most Protestants and Orthodox argue that Jesus allowed divorce when He granted an exception for the Koine Greek "porneia" (Matt.19:9), what the NJB translates as "an illicit marriage" and most Protestant Bibles translate as its derivative, "fornication", or in newer versions "unfaithfulness" or "unchastity". Good Catholic Bibles generally interpret the word to mean "illegitimate marriages". For example the New American Bible has, "unless the marriage is unlawful".  In other words these are marriages that would be subject to annulment by the contemporary Catholic Church.

As you will see, St. Clement (c.150-211/216), an ancient Greek Father whose first language was Greek, interpreted these verses in the way the Catholic Church does. Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus addresses this same topic:

Matthew 5:31-32
'It has also been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a writ of dismissal. But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Divorce for adultery was already legal under Roman law and was accepted by some Jewish authorities. There was some debate on the issue and in this instance the inquisitors were trying to get Jesus to side with one of the parties in the dispute.

For Jesus to have said that it was legitimate to divorce over adultery would have been to concede to them the Roman position. But if we examine the Greek we discover that the interpretation of porneia as "adultery" makes no sense, because the actual Greek word for "adultery" appears together in the same passage. A woman who had an adulterous relationship with a man would have been committing adultery, not "fornication". Jesus says that a man who divorces his wife in effect forces her to commit adultery by putting her into a position where she must re-marry, for financial or other reasons. It would be redundant for Him to suggest that divorcing a woman who commits adultery forces her to commit adultery. Obviously the word "porneia" cannot, then, mean adultery or unchastity, as some Bibles (Even some Catholic ones, sadly. Check yours!) translate the word.

What Jesus actually has in mind here are the Jewish laws concerning illegitimate marriages, such as bigamous marriages, marriage between a sister and brother, or marriage to a brother's wife (for which Herod was criticized by St. John the Baptist). In other words marriages which would be illegitimate or annulled in Catholic practice. St. Clement, a Second Century Greek Church father, held to the Catholic interpretation, as is clear in the following quote:

"Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of porneia;' and it regards as porneia, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive....'He that taketh a woman that has been put away,' it is said, 'committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,' that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband." (Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,2:24, A.D. 202, in ANF,II:379)

Clement states that Scripture "regards as porneia, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive." In other words, as the Catholic Church says, a marriage that is illegal from the start, in this case because it involves the marriage of someone who is already rightfully married to another. Then he says the man who marries a woman who is already married commits adultery and sins "for did he not take her, she would return to her husband." In other words he expects her to return to her husband even after committing adultery. This proves the Protestant/Orthodox interpretation is incorrect and that Clement conforms to the teaching of the Catholic Church and of St. Paul, which he, Paul, claims is from God:

1 Corinthians 7:8-11
To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up. To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord's: a wife must not be separated from her husband-or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband -- and a husband must not divorce his wife.

As should be clear by now, the Orthodox and Protestants, relying solely on their inaccurate translation of  Matthew and ignoring the above passage, both violate the Scriptural precepts by allowing divorce and re-marriage. The Catholic Church alone follows the Scriptural and Patristic understanding, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states authoritatively:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Autohagiography 2

  My family was nominally Catholic, and I went through the normal process of initiation into the American Church; Baptism, C.C.D. (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) classes till 8^thGrade, the accompanying sacraments of Confession (Lately re-named with the politically correct and less threatening title of “Reconciliation”), First Communion and Confirmation. Aside from attending Mass on most Sundays my family wasn't actively involved in parish life of a religious nature. I felt very much like a foreigner when I was at church. After Confirmation (around 14, I think) I wasn't forced to go to church anymore, so I didn't..

  I recall that, during that time in the late 60s, we still had a few nuns teaching C.C.D. Mostly I was bored in the classes. The Catholic religion, with its moral and physical limitations was the last thing a growing boy wanted to hear about. And on the rare occasions that I did have a difficult question for the teacher it was treated as a mortal insult and went unanswered. Nobody ever bothered to reason with us or to prove that God even existed. We were to take it on authority alone. Maybe nobody ever considered the possibility that we wouldn’t. We never cracked a Bible (Happily this has changed! When I taught P.S.R., today's C.C.D., each class had a shelf of Bibles and we made sure to use them.). Aside from the Ten Commandments I retained little.  Whether it was the fault of my own inattention or the methods, I didn't learn much.

  As a result of my unanswered questions and the prevailing secularism of Sixties society I concluded that the Catholic faith had neither the answers nor the truth. One of the few lasting memories from C.C.D. is of a young nun in a habit, a rarity these days, singing Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” and strumming on her folk guitar. A sign of things to come for the Catholic Church!        

Autohagiography

  I was born at St. Thomas Hospital in Akron, Ohio, which was at that time (the 50s) a Catholic Hospital. Founded in 1928 by the Sisters of St. Augustine, it was presumably named after St. Thomas Aquinas, the medieval philosopher-theologian and author of the Summa Theologica, which fact I consider significant because it augurs my future interest in the “Angelic Doctor”. Despite the fact that I returned to the Catholic faith in the 1980s I did not learn to appreciate his wisdom until I was 50 years old.

  There is something about this I find rather portentous. I was born in a place associated with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. And now, only after 50 years of life and 30 years of religious studies, have I finally come back to them, embracing the study of the writings of Thomas and Augustine. Formerly my interest was more Patristic than Scholastic, a product of my time in the Russian Orthodox Church. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

  Besides being notable as the place of my birth, St. Thomas Hospital is also known as one of the first hospitals to admit patients suffering from alcoholism. Dr. Bob (Robert Holbrook Smith), co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, had been trying for years to gain admission for his patients to Akron hospitals, but at this time alcoholism was considered a moral failing rather than a disease. Sr. Ignatia Gavin of the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine was the Admissions Officer of St. Thomas at the time and through a saintly subterfuge admitted Dr. Bob’s patients as sufferers of “acute gastritis”. Eventually Sr. Ignatia and Dr. Bob convinced the powers that be to open the first ever hospital ward for alcoholics, she attending to their patients’ spiritual ills while Dr. Bob attended to their physical ones.

  Sadly, in the 1980s, St. Thomas hospital gave in to secularizing pressures and began performing procedures considered gravely immoral by the Catholic Church. Apparently St. Thomas’ board of directors considered these procedures more important than their Catholic identity and, amidst much acrimony, the Church took away from them the title of “Catholic hospital”. When my mother ended up ill there in the 80s, before her passing, I recall that the beautiful, old Catholic chapel was periodically closed, punishing the patients and their families for the intransigence of the Catholic Church. At any rate, St. Thomas Hospital, like the city of San Francisco, is no longer Catholic, and I presume both saints are quite unhappy to see their names so disgraced.