tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64575999800350353482024-03-13T04:57:12.564+01:00Ad Sanitatem Gentium"...the tree that gives life, bearing its fruit twelvefold, one yield for each month. And the leaves of this tree bring health to all the nations." (Apoc. 22:2)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-55772079313820819202014-09-26T09:53:00.002+02:002014-09-26T09:54:39.986+02:00Sad developments in ParaguayAn ugly case has come to light in Paraguay: The Bishop of Ciudad del Este, Mgr. Rogelio Livieres Plano, has been dismissed as Bishop by Pope Francis and the diocese put under administration.<br />
<br />
It is sad because Mgr. Livieres Plano was in fact a highly successful and orthodox Bishop: according to some reports, his diocese had about 240 seminarians, more than the rest of the country's dioceses combined, and his tenure had sparked a revival of the Faith in the diocese. He was also very supportive of the traditional liturgy and critical of Liberation Theology and Pansexualist ideology.<br />
<br />
But the good Bishop was apparently also an appalling judge of character. His dismissal is connected with his employment, and promotion to Vicar General (i.e. second-in-command of the diocese) of one Fr. Carlos Urrotigioity, an Argentinian priest with a track record of creating serious trouble.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/ciudad-del-este-opus-dei-bishop.html#more">Rorate Caeli</a> have an in-depth analysis which is rather lengthy and contains some diversions so I will summarise the main points below. Additional information is available <a href="http://www.ucanews.com/news/pope-sacks-bishop-in-paraguay-for-promoting-alleged-pedophile-priest/72050">here</a> (note that while this article refers to Fr. Urrotigoity as a 'pedophile', I have not seen anything that indicates that he is suspected of molesting minors, only inappropriatly touching young seminarians under his care).<br />
<ul>
<li>Fr. Urrotigoity started his priestly career in the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX), but was dismissed after a short while because he exhibited questionable character traits (having a guru-like influence on other priests and seminarians) and was suspected of homosexual behaviour.</li>
<li>The priest instead was incardinated (employed) in the diocese of Scranton. When the superior of the FSSPX, Mgr. Bernard Fellay, found evidence of indecent behaviour towards a young seminarian while he was in the FSSPX, he wrote the Bishop of Scranton a <a href="http://www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/10-February-1999-Bernard-Fellay-SSPX-Confidential-to-Bishop-Bishop-Timlin-with-link.pdf">letter</a> disclosing all and strongly recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Fr. Urrotigoity. </li>
<li>Nothing happened, however, until the advent of a new Bishop of Scranton, who seems to have taken the charges seriously and dismissed Fr. Urrotigoity from the diocese. It is not clear if new accusations emerged at this time.</li>
<li>However, no procedures were undertaken to reduce Fr, Urrotigoity to the lay state, and thus he was allowed to be incardinated in Ciudad del Este, where apparently he won the trust of Mgr. Livieres Plano and was promoted to Vicar General.</li>
<li>When this came to the knowledge of the Bishop of Scranton, he informed the Vatican and the ecclesiastical authorities in Paraguay. When the leader of the Church in Paraguay, the Archbishop of Asunción, learnt of the allegations, he demanded that Urrotigoity be dismissed from his position. But Mgr. Livieres Plano refused and embarked on a rampant counter-offensive, publicly accusing the Archbishop of being a homosexual and all his other brother Bishops in Paraguay of being heterodox.</li>
<li>The Vatican announced a visitation of the diocese (a fact-finding mission), and at its recommendation eventually both Fr. Urrotigoity and the Bishop were dismissed.</li>
</ul>
It is a sad end for what appears to have been a fruitful episcopal reign, but given the Bishop's horrendous dispositions it was probably inevitable. Not only did he hire a priest suspected of inappropriate behaviour towards young men - that could have been forgiven had he agreed earlier on to comply with the recommendations to dismiss him, but he verbally abused his brother Bishops in the public forum and thus created serious rifts in the entire Church in Paraguay. I suspect it was the latter consideration which led to his dismissal rather than anything else, though one can also speculate that the visitation concluded that the Bishop's erratic behaviour was due to a malign influence from Fr. Urrotigoity that made him unfit to be Bishop.<br />
<br />
What now of the Bishop, and of Ciudad del Este diocese? I hope all will accept the decision of the Pope; the last thing Paraguay needs is that a group of priests and laypeople led by Fr. Urrotigoity, or even Mgr. Livieres Plano himself, break away in schism in protest. Of course, Rome will also have to be responsible in choosing a new Bishop who will find acceptance among the apparently Conservative/Traditionalist-leaning clergy and laity of the diocese and who can build bridges between all factions in the Paraguayan Church.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-39332462649945742612014-05-16T13:01:00.000+02:002014-05-16T13:26:56.497+02:00Can we worhsip God wrong? An Orthodox Christian explainsRobert Arakaki, an Orthodox Christian, has written an insightful essay <a href="http://preachersinstitute.com/2012/09/14/the-eternal-liturgy-vs-contemporary-worship/">here</a> with an Orthodox assessment of 'contemporary' Protestant worship - pop music with catchy tunes, young preachers in jeans delivering hip powerpoint-assisted sermons etc. Needless to say, the article is very critical of contemporary worship styles, showing how far away they have strayed from the style of worship practiced by the early Church and by the Jews, and demonstrating that Orthodox worship instead is solidly rooted in Scripture.<br />
<br />
In the course of the article the author also takes a couple of (unwarranted) shots at Catholic liturgy, but virtually all his points about Orthodox liturgy are applicable to Western Catholic liturgy as well (bear in mind that there are also Catholic Churches that use the exact same rites as the Orthodox). So I thought I would provide the most relevant excerpts below. Main points are highlighted by myself.<br />
<br />
Mr. Arakaki starts by explaining the origin of Old Testament worship:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #cccccc;"><b><u>First we need to ask: Is there a guiding principle for right worship?</u></b> St. Stephen, the first martyr, gave a sermon about the history of the Jewish nation. In this sermon he notes that Old Testament worship was “according to the pattern.”</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, <i>according to the pattern he had seen.</i> (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Acts%207.44">Acts 7:44 NIV</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />, italics added). </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">(...)<br /><br />The phrase is a reference to <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Exodus%2024.15-18">Exodus 24:15-18</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> when Moses went up on Mt. Sinai and spent forty days and forty nights up there. On Mt. Sinai Moses was in the direct presence of God receiving instructions about how to order the life of the new Jewish nation. <b><u>Thus, the guiding principle for Old Testament worship was not creative improvisation nor adapting to contemporary culture but imitation of the heavenly prototype.</u></b></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
Next, he shows that Orthodox (and Catholic) worship is rooted in the Old Testament:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #cccccc;">Worship in the Orthodox Church is patterned after the Old Testament Temple. Typically, an Orthodox church has three main areas: the narthex (entry hall), the nave (the central part), and the altar area. This is similar to the Old Testament Tabernacle which consisted of the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Exodus%2026.30-37">Exodus 26:30-37</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />,<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Exodus%2027.9-19">27:9-19</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Kings%206.14-36">I Kings 6:14-36</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; II Chronicles 3 and 4). <b><u>The layout of Orthodox churches may seem strange to those who attend contemporary services, but it is patterned after the Old Testament Temple.</u></b><br /><br />Orthodox worship is also patterned after the worship in heaven. At the start of the second half of the Divine Liturgy the church sings:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">This is a participation of the heavenly worship described in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%206.3">Isaiah 6:3</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> and <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%204.8">Revelation 4:8</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />. <b><u>For the Orthodox Church this point of the Divine Liturgy is not so much an imitation as a participation in the heavenly worship.</u></b><br /><br />Another way Orthodox worship is patterned after the heavenly worship is the use of incense. Incense was very much a part of the heavenly worship. In his vision of God, Isaiah describes how as the angels sang: “Holy, Holy, Holy” the doors shook and the temple in heaven was filled with incense (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%206.4">Isaiah 6:4</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). The Apostle John in Revelation describes how the angels in heaven held bowls full of incense and how the heavenly Temple was filled with incense smoke (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%205.8">Revelation 5:8</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%208.3-4">8:3-4</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2015.8">15:8</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />).</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
Then he goes on to demonstrate that the Old Testament prophecies foretell of Orthodox/Catholic worship:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">Orthodox worship is more than an imitation of Old Testament worship. <b><u>It is also a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.</u></b> The Old Testament prophets besides describing the coming Messiah also described worship in the Messianic Age. Within the book of Malachi is a very interesting prophecy:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord. (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Malachi%201.11">Malachi 1:11</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />)</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">(...)<br /><br />What is striking about Malachi’s prophecy is the reference to incense. Where before incense was offered in the Jerusalem Temple, in the Messianic Age incense would be offered by the non-Jews... <b><u>Thus, whenever an Orthodox priest swings the censer and the sweet fragrance fills the church one experiences a direct fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.</u></b> Protestants may complain about how strange incense is, but they should realize that the use of incense was an integral part of Old Testament worship and is one of the key markers of authentic biblical worship in the Messianic Age.<br /><br />Malachi’s prophecy about “pure offerings” is a reference to the Eucharist. <b><u>The Jewish rabbis taught that when the Messiah comes all sacrifices would be abolished with the exception of one, the Todah or Thanksgiving sacrifice. This was fulfilled in the sacrament of the Eucharist,</u></b> that is, the last supper Christ had with his followers when he gave thanks over the bread and the wine (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2022.17-20">Luke 22:17-20</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). The word eucharist comes from the Greek word evcharisto “to give thanks.” <b><u>Jesus’ statement about the cup of the new covenant meant that he was about to inaugurate the Messianic Age.</u></b><br /><br />(...)<br /><br /><b><u>For the Apostle Paul the Eucharist was just as important as the Gospel message.</u></b> As he went about planting churches across the Roman Empire, Paul taught them the Good News of Jesus Christ and how to celebrate the Eucharist. This can be seen in Paul’s formal phrasing: “For I received from the Lord what I also pass on to you….” in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Corinthians%2011.23">I Corinthians 11:23</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> for the Eucharist and in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Corinthians%2015.3">I Corinthians 15:3</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> for the Good News (Gospel). Paul’s phrase: “What I received from the Lord….” parallels that in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Exodus%2025.9">Exodus 25:9</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />: “exactly like the pattern I will show you.” <b><u>The infrequent celebration of the Eucharist in Evangelical and Pentecostal worship shows how far they have moved from historic Christian worship.</u></b></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
Mr. Arakaki also points out that the common view of Protestants that Old Testament worship has been abolished by the New Covenant and Christians are to worship God in a completely different way is contrary to the Gospel:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #cccccc;"><b><u>The Evangelical approach to worship seems to be based on the assumption that Jesus abolished the Old Testament.</u></b> Because of this Evangelicals ignore the Old Testament teaching on Tabernacle worship and focus on the New Testament for instruction on how to worship God. The paucity of New Testament passages on worship has been taken as grounds for an anything goes approach to worship. But, this assumption is wrong. <b><u>Jesus made it clear he did not come to abolish the old covenant but rather to fulfill it:</u></b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%205.17">Matthew 5:17</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;"><b><u>An examination of the gospels shows Jesus’ adherence to the Old Testament pattern of worship.</u></b> Jesus was in the habit of attending the synagogue services (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%201.21">Mark 1:21</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />;<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%203.1">Mark 3:1</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%206.2">Mark 6:2</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). Likewise, he observed the great Jewish festivals at the Temple: Passover (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%202.41">Luke 2:41</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />), Feast of Tabernacles (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%207.1-13">John 7:1-13</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />), and Passover (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2026.18">Matthew 26:18</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%2014.14">Mark 14:14</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2022.7-11">Luke 22:7-11</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). Like Jews throughout history, Jesus considered the Passover meal the highlight of the year. Jesus told his followers: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2022.15">Luke 22:15</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />)<br /><br />(...)<br /><br /><b><u>Likewise, we find Jesus’ apostles continuing the Old Testament pattern of worship.</u></b> Following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the first Christians met at the Temple courts (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%202.36">Acts 2:36</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). The Temple court was a focal point for the early Christians (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%205.20">Acts 5:20</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). The apostles preached the Good News in hope that the Jews would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Just as significant we find them relying on the ritual prayers used by Jews. This can be seen in the fact that a literal translation of Greek in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%202.42">Acts 2:42</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> would be “the prayers.” We find that Paul, like Jesus, attended the synagogue (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2013.5">Acts 13:5</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2013.14">14</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2014.1">14:1</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2017.2">17:2</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />, <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2019.8">19:8</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). Even when Paul had become a Christian he continued to make it his habit to attend the synagogue services...<br /><br />(...)<br /><br /><b><u>Where Evangelicals assume a sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, the Orthodox Church sees a strong continuity between the two.</u></b> The Evangelicals’ assumption of a sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments has led them to ignore the Old Testament teachings on worship... As the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ took the Jewish forms of worship and filled them with new content and meanings. Orthodox worship took the Jewish synagogue and Temple worship and made them Christocentric.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
He goes on to question both the origins and the fruits of contemporary worship:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #cccccc;">The classic shape of Christian worship consists of two parts: the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of Holy Communion. This was the way all Christians worshiped until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s... <b><u>The Protestant teaching “the Bible alone” resulted in the sermon becoming the center of worship. Priests were replaced by Bible expositors, and the altar was replaced by the podium. This marked a decisive break from the historic form of Christian worship.</u></b><br /><br />But the break from historic worship did not end there. In the early 1800s a more emotional and expressive form of worship became popular on the American frontier. Then, in the early 1900s Pentecostalism emerged with its emphasis on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and other charismatic manifestations. Where mainstream Protestantism stressed sober singing and the rational reading of the Bible, Pentecostalism stressed ecstatic worship and experiencing the Holy Spirit...<br /><br />Just as influential on Protestant worship was pop music popularized by music groups like the Beatles. The pop culture of the 1960s shaped in profound ways the values and outlooks of the baby boomer generation. A cultural gap widened between the more traditional church services that relied on organs or pianos and had traditional hymns, and the more contemporary church services that used guitars and sang simpler and catchier praise songs. <b><u>Many churches were split as a result [of] “worship wars” — hymns and organs versus praise bands and praise songs.</u></b><br /><br />The third influential movement was the church growth movement. Though less visible to the public eye, it influenced the way many pastors understood and ran the church. <b><u>The church growth movement brought market analysis and business techniques to the way the church was run.</u></b> With the introduction of the concept of the seeker friendly church, church worship moved away from edification of the faithful to evangelizing outsiders. Numerical growth was seen as proof of God’s blessing. This is exemplified by mega churches packed with thousands of enthusiastic worshipers. However, despite its good intentions the church growth movement introduced several serious distortions. <b><u>Worship of God often became spiritual entertainment. The sermon shifted from an exposition of Scripture to selecting Bible verses to support teachings on how to live a fulfilling life. In seeking to tailor the Christian message to non-Christians many pastors have dumbed down their message with the result that many of their members know very little of the core doctrines. Just as troubling is the fact that many churches have become spiritual machines that rely more [on] organizational techniques, high tech electronics, and social psychology than the grace of the Holy Spirit.</u></b></span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: #cccccc;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">In short, Protestant Christianity has undergone a major uprooting as a result of the influence of Pentecostalism, contemporary Christian worship, and the church growth movement.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
Finally, he wraps up his analysis by pointing out that Scripture speaks of the necessity of worshipping God in a manner acceptable to and prescribed by Him:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #cccccc;">A non-Orthodox might ask: What difference does it make to God how we worship? The better question would be: <b><u>What does the Bible teach about worship?</u></b> Does the Bible teach it makes a difference how we worship God? The answer is God does care about the worship we offer Him. We read in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Peter%202.5">I Peter 2:5</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices <b>acceptable to God</b> through Jesus Christ (NIV, emphasis added).</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">This concern for proper worship goes all the way back to <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Leviticus%2022.29">Leviticus 22:29</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">When you sacrifice a thank offering to the Lord, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf (see also <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Leviticus%2019.5">Leviticus 19:5</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />) (NIV, emphasis added). </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">If we are instructed to offer “acceptable” sacrifices, this implies we can offer improper worship that will be rejected by God.<br /><br />(...)<br /><br /><b><u>If salvation is about a right relationship with God then worship plays an important part in having a right relationship with God.</u></b> Before the Fall Adam and Eve enjoyed unbroken communion with God; after the Fall they became alienated from God and mankind has suffered as a result. God has been at work throughout human history working to bring us back into fellowship with him. This work of restoration reached its climax with the coming of Christ (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%201.1-2">Hebrews 1:1-2</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). The author of Hebrews stresses that Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant (5:7-10; 9:9-14) and as a result of His death on the cross we are able to enter into the Most Holy Place (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2010.19-25">Hebrews 10:19-25</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />) and take our place in the heavenly worship (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2012.22-24">Hebrews 12:22-24</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" />). In Revelation 7 is a description of the great ingathering of the Jews and the Gentiles in worship at the throne of God.<br /><br /><b><u>Our ultimate destiny is not to be Bible experts but to have communion with God...</u></b> The heavenly worship described in Revelation is not in some far off future but can be experienced in the Sunday liturgy in an Orthodox church. In <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2022.3">Revelation 22:3</a><img border="0" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" /> we read:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cccccc;">And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face and His name shall be on their foreheads (NKJV).</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cccccc;">The Greek word “serve” can also be translated “worship.” <b><u>As we stand in worship facing the altar we behold the throne of God; this is because the altar, like the Ark of the Covenant, is where God’s presence dwells.</u></b> The phrase we shall see God “face to face” finds its fulfillment when we face the altar looking at the icon of Christ the Pantocrator (the All Ruling One). The icon is more than a religious picture, it is also a window into heaven. Lastly, “His name shall be on their foreheads” is fulfilled in the Orthodox sacrament of chrismation where the priest anoints the foreheads of converts with sacred oil forming the sign of the cross. Every Orthodox Christian has this spiritual seal on their forehead as a sign of their belonging to Christ.<br /><br />Thus, it is not Orthodox worship that is so strange and different but contemporary worship. <b><u>Orthodox worship only seems to be strange because it is not of this world. It is part of the worship of the eternal kingdom.</u></b></span></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" with "https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.logos.com%2Fimages%2FCorporate%2FLibronixLink_dark.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKwcaiu1YwPQiZ2HzwiA8BOlmoJs9S0KFQGx2sd2kaNBvy45LUU-uC5g_NFACPGuHIj7A0C4SNjP2ivW9GGwmn9uBvnBkjiYf9FCUkveEA" -->Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-3367444281260977042014-03-09T10:59:00.000+01:002014-03-09T10:59:27.013+01:00REPOST: Discovering Ethics IV: Basic Questions 3 (Pinckaers 1995)<i>This is part 4 of a series on Christian ethics I originally wrote some years ago. The rest of the series can be found <a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.dk/search/label/Discovering%20Ethics">here</a></i>.<br />
<br />
Yet another post in my series on Pinckaers' book, with yet more basic questions regarding the relationship between ethics and a number of fundamental issues intrinsic to human existence:<br />
<br />
5. Love: Pinckaers notes that, following the New Testament, "all Christian ethicists recognize the prime place of love in Christian morality". St. Augustine redefined the four classical cardinal virtues as different movements of charity. St. Thomas taught that the act of loving something for its own sake was the first movement of the human will and that it was perfected by the virtue of charity through the grace of the Holy Spirit. According to him, without charity no other virtue, faith included, is truly alive.<br />
<br />
However, Catholic ethicists of recent centuries have, Pinckaers asserts, turned the issue of love somewhat on its head by placing it within the context of obligation: What charitable acts are required of us? "Practical primacy is given to obedience to the law... obedience to legal obligations is now seen as the true form of the virtues". The issue is this: do we love out of obedience or obey out of love?<br />
<br />
This approach has created two distinct strains in modern thought, Pinckaers argues: on the one hand, ethicists are suspicious of love and passion because of its close connotations with sex. On the other, there is a widespread movement both in the world at large and within the Church for spontaneous and care-free love, without due concern for integrity and truth. The absolute necessity of sacrifice for authentic love, so obvious in Scripture, is completely forgotten, as witnessed by the ever-growing number of broken homes. Furthermore, some modern thinkers have developed a thoroughly pessimistic view of human nature, where all human action is placed within the context of the fight for survival and class struggle. To answer this, Pinckaers says,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">...it is not enough to introduce a merely sentimental love. A love is needed that dares to confront violence, and knows how to uproot it... This calls for a genuine rediscovery of charity and friendship, our weapons for the combat.</span></blockquote>
6. Truth: According to Pinckaers, the moralism of recent centuries has tended to confine the issue of truth within the context of the obligation to believe certain truths of the Christian faith. But the scope of the word truth is much wider than that. In Scripture, truth is often associated with love and with upright living and knowledge of that which is true is not something that is gained through purely intellectual activity, but rather from experience, flowering in love.<br />
<span style="font-size: 14px;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">We might apply here the classical definition of truth - "the mind's grasp of the thing" - but with a new interpretation. The "thing" is not now something material we think about but a personal reality - God or neighbor... "Mind" is not now abstract reason but intelligence united to will, love and desire, informing and directing them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14px;">This kind of intelligence is active, because it leads to action in truth. In this sense we can talk about doing the truth. Truth is beneficial; through upright love it creates a profound harmony between our various faculties and between persons.</span></blockquote>
Pinckaers concludes that "love of "the fulness of truth," as St. John puts it, or the search for wisdom" is essential in Christian ethics. "We might define the ethicist's task as a search for "the fulness of truth," so that it may throw light on all human actions."Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-81975165479576188722014-01-29T18:33:00.002+01:002014-01-29T18:33:49.359+01:00REPOST: Discovering Ethics III: Basic Questions 2 (Pinckaers 1995)<i>This is part 3 of a series on Christian ethics I originally wrote some years ago. The rest of the series can be found <a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.dk/search/label/Discovering%20Ethics">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
(Originally posted 26 April 2009)<br />
<br />
Continuing my analysis of Pinckaers' book (earlier entries <a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.com/search/label/Discovering%20Ethics">here</a>), some further basic questions regarding the relationship between ethics and a number of fundamental issues intrinsic to human existence:<br />
<br />
3. Life's meaning and goal. Pinckaers quotes the pioneering Austrian psychiatrist, Alfred Adler, as saying "The psychic life of man is determined by his goal." St. Thomas taught that happiness is our ultimate end, but later moralists dismissed this idea of Man's ultimate end as "too speculative" in favour of "the study of individual actions in relation to law, the study of cases of conscience". But this misses the point that finality is essential to human existence.<br />
<blockquote>
Since the question of life's goal or ultimate end is so important, we might define Christian ethics as the science that teaches us the meaning of life. It shows the supreme end toward which all our actions should be directed, the end that gives them meaning, value, and wholeness. Within this perspective, the work of the ethicist and the priest will be to help every Christian, indeed all whose lives they touch, to respond personally to the question of the real meaning of life. Their task will be to point out the highest good in the light of the Gospel and to show how all lesser goods can lead to it.</blockquote>
4. Suffering. Pinckaers observes that "the manuals of moral theology have little to say about suffering", choosing instead to refer this matter to treatises on asceticism. But as he points out further, both Scripture and human experience shows the centrality of suffering in human existence. The life of Christ and His disciples is steeped in suffering. The theme is prominent in the Psalms and in Job. Even on a relatively mundane level, suffering leads Man to appreciate good. According to Pinckaers, the failure of ethicists to deal with this concept is another result of the over-emphasis on obligations: "once the idea of obligation becomes dominant and determines the scope of morality, the consideration of suffering becomes marginal, since it is not a matter of obligation," and continues, "On the other hand, if the idea of happiness is the initial consideration in moral theology, the place of suffering will be obvious, for it is precisely the reverse of happiness. Suffering will then be an element of moral theology from the start." The concept of suffering is prominent in St. Thomas, too, and closely tied up with the virtue of courage, Christian martyrdom, and the Passion of Christ.<br />
<br />
Pinckaers believes that the separation of ethics and suffering is the product of a rationalistic mindset, according to which reason and will occupy the paramount position in the moral life of the individual, while love and suffering are secondary concepts. On an even lower level is to be found the (largely irrational) sentiments, which must be dominated by reason. But, says Pinckaers,<br />
<blockquote>
In setting up this dichotomy between reason and appetite, rationalism misunderstands the existence of what might be termed spiritual sensibility... [which] is associated with direct perception - a kind of instinct or connatural knowledge - and with the unique movement of selfless love which is the love of friendship... And delightedly [St. Thomas] called the gifts of the Holy Spirit "instincts of the Holy Spirit" in both intellect and will.</blockquote>
Instead, Pinckaers, here as always, calls for a more integrative approach which can also effectively take in the question of death which is so prominent in our society.<br />
<br />
I can't determine whether his assertion that the separation of ethics and asceticism is due to rationalism is correct, or whether this separation necessarily implies that one is superior to the other. It might seem reasonable to separate the two for investigative purposes. But the integrative approach called for by Pinckaers certainly seems to promise a more rounded view of human existence and the role of ethics in it.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-17179591770517051402014-01-27T15:58:00.001+01:002014-01-27T16:10:43.134+01:00REPOST: Discovering Ethics II: Basic questions 1 (Pinckaers 1995)<i>This is part 2 of a series on Christian ethics I originally wrote some years ago. The first part can be found <a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.dk/2014/01/repost-discovering-ethics-i.html">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
(Originally posted 12 March 2009)<br />
<br />
I started working through Servis Pinckaers OP's work <em>The Sources of Christian Ethics </em><a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.com/2009/02/discovering-ethics-i-introduction.html">here</a>. Moving on from placing the issue in its historical context, Pinckaers posits some basic questions regarding the relationship between ethics and a number of fundamental issues intrinsic to human existence.<br />
<br />
1. What is a person obliged to do and not do - what Kant called the moral imperative? This was touched upon in the previous post. Pinckaers points out that Catholic moral teaching of the last six centuries has tended to assign an unjustifiably large importance to the role of moral obligations. For instance, ethicists have discussed how often we are obliged to pray, or perform works of charity. Some, especially Protestants, will infer that this is silly since we are required to do so incessantly. This is a bit beside the point, for such discussions took place in the context of determining when people were obliged to go to Confession - if a person had not performed a charitable act for two months, should that be considered a grave sin which needed to be confessed? This is a valid question for a Catholic. However, there is a danger, Pinckaers argues, of equating morality simply with the science of obligations and duties. This is a reduced view of morality, since - as the Saints demonstrate - what drives Christian life is the interior workings of the Spirit, which, while ensuring the honouring of obligations and duties, also calls Man to go beyond them.<br />
<br />
2. The role of happiness. Some more modern moralists are perplexed that St. Thomas Aquinas, the great master of theology, has very little to say about obligations. But, Pinckaers argues, this is because he frames his teaching on morality in a somewhat different way than later generations of moralists. St Thomas, in fact, bases his whole moral teaching on the question of happiness, beatitude. This is not something novel. Both the Pagan Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church viewed the question of happiness as the primary principle in dealing with morality. When St. Augustine is asked what we should ask of God, he replies, "<em>Ora beatam vitam</em>" - "Ask for the happy life." Right living, it was unanimously believed, would lead naturally to a state of happiness. Friendship is another important theme, especially among the Greek Fathers. St. Thomas defined charity as friendship with God. Pinckaers notes:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">This theme has completely disappeared from modern books on morality. The reason is obvious: friendship, being essentially free, could hardly be considered an obligation. Friendship can create obligations, but the inverse is not true. As a result, friendship has been excluded from the field of morality as an indifferent sentiment...</span></blockquote>
As Pinckaers points out, the approach of the Fathers and St. Thomas is profoundly scriptural, much more so than that of later moralists. The wisdom litterature, the Beatitudes in Matthew's Gospel, St. Paul all speak of morality in the context of the search for happiness. Later moralists seldom quote Scripture apart from the Decalogue.<br />
<br />
Now, I and many others would infer that all this talk about happiness is very good, but is there not a risk of perverting the quest for genuine happiness - which is found only in the beholding of the glory of God - into a self-seeking hedonism? Pinckaers acknowledges this concern, but, he argues,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">The quality of our desire for happiness depends on the love that inspires it and on our concept of the human person. If the love is selfish, and still more if the human person is seen as a being with needs craving satisfaction, then the desire for happiness is bound to be self-centered... If, on the other hand, a person is capable of true, unselfish love for God and neighbour... then the desire for happiness can lead that person to be open to God and neighbour and become generous.</span></blockquote>
According to Pinckaers, obligations and happiness are not antithetical to one another. A proper moral theory of beatitude should well be able to accord obligations and the Commandments their proper place within it. Going on, he says,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">This would be to place Christian ethics in a very different context. It would be seen as the science of happiness and of the ways that lead thereto... In Scripture, God always approaches us with promises of happiness before speaking of precepts. Inspired by the desire for happiness, the movements of the human heart and all its actions, even on the level of emotion, can work together to foster moral growth...</span></blockquote>
I completely agree with Pinckaers that this must be the starting points of Christian ethics. After all, the Beatitudes were the starting point of Christ's moral teaching. This in no way reduces the radical demands of the Gospel, but rather places them in their proper context. As I see it, what many perceive as "traditional" Catholic moral teaching, i.e. that of the last six centuries, for all the truth it contains has shown to be vulnerable in that it stresses law for law's own sake, thereby separating it from the concerns and challenges of the individual. This has probably been a factor in the large-scale defections from the Church in recent decades. In contrast, by positing law as the answer to Man's legitimate search for happiness, its relevance in the life of each individual shines forth clearly, and we realize that our innate longing for happiness is fulfilled by adhering to the revealed truth about God, our ultimate end.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-79808494064764201932014-01-25T19:05:00.000+01:002014-01-27T16:10:43.138+01:00REPOST: Discovering Ethics I: Introduction (Pinckaers 1995)<i>In the coming days I will revisit a series of posts I wrote some time ago on the Swiss Catholic theologian Servis Pinckaers' important work </i>The Sources of Christian Ethics<i>. At that time I provided a summary and some reflections on the introduction, in which he explains the scope of the work and asks some basic questions to start off his investigation. I now offer these posts again for reflection and discussion, and hopefully I will soon delve further into the book:</i><br />
<br />
(Originally published 28 February 2009)<br />
<br />
This is the first of a probably long series of posts where I will relate my thoughts on works on ethics which I am reading. In this day and age, it is hard to distinguish good, orthodox Christian books on ethics from dissenting ones. There is such confusion as to what constitutes genuine Christian thought, which is why everyone studying this type of subject should consult theologians whom one knows to be solidly orthodox and whom one trusts.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, I got Servis Pinckaers OP's book <em>The Sources of Christian Ethics</em> as a present from my mother, who is not Catholic. But I had confirmed by a Priest whom I trust that it was an excellent work. Pinckaers is a member of the Order of Preachers, the Dominican Friars, who have a long tradition of scholarly excellence. Sadly, many of them have lately veered off into speculative non-Christian theology, but Pinckaers places himself squarely in the ancient tradition along with the greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas (also an OP).<br />
<br />
Pinckaers' main point, with which I heartily agree, is made clear from the very start: any genuinely Christian view of ethics and morality must be based in the sources of the Christian faith - namely, Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers. This seems self-evident, but, as he shows, the sources have been largely neglected, not only during the past century, but in fact since the late Middle Ages.<br />
<br />
I am always wary of theologians who imply that the pre-Vatican II Church went 'off course', as if it had completely misunderstood the message of the Gospel. Such a notion is of course intolerable for a Catholic. Yet Pinckaers is not the first I have seen raise the point that the late Middle Ages saw some unhelpful shifts happen in Catholic theology, and it seems there is something to it. If we look at the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and further back of St. Augustine and most of the Fathers, they are adamant that the participation of the human intellect with Divine Reason, the source of all existence, is a necessary element of Christian faith. Life as a Christian is "Life in the Holy Spirit", is communion with God. Though we are fallen and sinful human beings, God's grace gives us the ability to overcome sin and become ever more like Him.<br />
<br />
But from the late Middle Ages until modern times, moral theologians focused increasingly on the duties and obligations required of the Christian. Pinckaers points out that the need for Priests to determine (especially vis-à-vis Confessions) which actions were sinful and which sins were mortal and which venial (for an understanding of this distinction, read <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV">here</a>) led to the drawing up of manuals classifying sins according to their nature, and listing moral obligations imperative upon Christians. These were intended for the formation of Priests, but Priests were influenced by them in their preaching, which perhaps at times led to an unhealthy focus on the letter of the Law rather than its Spirit in the life of the Church in general.<br />
<br />
I contend here: duties and obligations are indeed important, something which our age has largely forgotten. Ills like divorce and abortion arise from a lack of sense of duty and a supreme focus on one's personal well-being. It is also important to know what is sinful and what not. But it is true that a genuine sense of duty and of love for others cannot arise from a purely juridical view of ethics which easily degenerates into legalism. It must be born from the encounter with the Divine, the infusion of God's grace into our lives.<br />
<br />
Of course, moral theologians of the past centuries would have largely agreed. But Pinckaers' issue with them is that they wanted to treat moral theology as a science separate from the rest of theology, essentially leaving it in the hands of jurists who would work out what was sinful and not according to more or less arcane casuistic principles. This concept of morality focuses very much on the Moral Law, starting from the Ten Commandments as an expression of the Natural Moral Law (the Law inherent to all Mankind) and adding various prescriptions of the New Covenant, as well as some particular laws of the Church (such as the ancient obligations of fasting and attending Mass on Sundays). One can be forgiven for seeing in this the works-centred Christianity which Luther rebelled against (although it has nothing to do with 'justification through works'). It certainly is, Pinckaers says, a system which is more concerned with sin than with virtue.<br />
<br />
Instead, or rather to complete this truncated view of ethics, Pinckaers offers a view of ethics as<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14px;">the branch of theology that studies human acts so as to direct them to a loving vision of God seen as our true, complete happiness and our final end. This vision is attained by means of grace, the virtues, and the gifts, in the light of revelation and reason.</span></blockquote>
According to Pinckaers, theology has suffered from being divided into ethics, dogmatics, and various other disciplines. It must rather be integrated and seen as a whole. Also, ethics must focus more on both the external and internal, individual and communitarian realm, rather than merely on cases of individual conscience, such as the casuists did. All this is to direct us to God, our final end, but it must include the dimension of love, without which ethics is sterile. Also, it must include the dimension of happiness; not understood in a sentimental way, but as the natural aim of our actions. Grace builds on nature. It is perfectly natural for us to want to attain happiness, even if we have a distorted view of what happiness constitutes. By God's grace, our natural impulses are given the proper direction and become vehicles of grace.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-24992937672195298042014-01-24T12:01:00.000+01:002014-01-24T12:14:18.382+01:00Blogging againAs <a href="http://lilletsmor.blogspot.dk/">my lovely wife</a> decided to take up blogging, I thought I might have a go at it again after a four-year hiatus. I think I need somewhere to pen thoughts that are deeper than a facebook update can bear.<br />
<br />
Just to recapitulate what I want to do with this blog:<br />
<ul>
<li>Share thoughts on various issues I grapple with, such as: Christian faith and morality, medical ethics, unborn rights, family, fatherhood, the place of religion in society, politics, traditionalism, art...</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Try to uncover the meaning of human life and the mystery of the human person, with the help of Catholic Christian teaching and the great philosophers and theologians, Christian as well as non-Christian.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Promote a vision of human life as a pursuit of truth, of beauty and of happiness - not understood as pleasure but as a state in which life is suffused with meaning and beauty, even in the face of struggles and adversity, a happiness that can only be fulfilled by fellowship with the Creator.</li>
</ul>
Looking back at some of my previous posts I can see that I have since matured somewhat in my way of thinking and reacting. Some of what I wrote then was perhaps rather unreflected and harsh, but I hope to do better in the future and that all I write will be edifying for all who happen to pass by.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-39491268082036058052010-04-02T22:24:00.003+02:002010-04-02T23:14:42.897+02:00Divine Beauty: Love Unto the End<div align="center"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/S7ZUpg0T-xI/AAAAAAAAADY/NezGdb_SeEY/s1600/Diego-Velazquez-The-Crucifixion-1632.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455641070766652178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 262px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/S7ZUpg0T-xI/AAAAAAAAADY/NezGdb_SeEY/s400/Diego-Velazquez-The-Crucifixion-1632.jpg" border="0" /></a> Popule meus, quid feci tibi? </div><div align="center">Aut in quo contristavi te? Responde mihi.<br />Quia eduxi te de terra Aegypti: </div><div align="center">parasti Crucem Salvatori tuo.<br /><br /><em>My people, what have I done to thee? </em></div><div align="center"><em>Or wherein have I afflicted thee? Answer me.</em><br /><em>Because I led thee out of the land of Egypt, </em></div><div align="center"><em>thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Saviour.</em><br /><em></em><br /><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urgBpKSQRvo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urgBpKSQRvo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Crux fidelis, inter omnes<br />Arbor una nobilis:<br />Nulla silva talem profert,<br />Fronde, flore, germine.<br />Dulce lignum, dulce clavo,<br />Dulce pondus sustinens.<br /><br /></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"><em>Faithful Cross! above all other,</em></div><div align="center"><em>one and only noble Tree!</em></div><div align="center"><em>None in foliage, none in blossom,</em></div><div align="center"><em>none in fruit thy peers may be;</em></div><div align="center"><em>sweetest wood and sweetest iron!</em></div><div align="center"><em>Sweetest Weight is hung on thee!</em></div><br /><p align="center"><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ro0rD60e4Ec&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ro0rD60e4Ec&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-86582873600996056502010-04-01T02:51:00.007+02:002010-04-02T00:09:20.554+02:00The New York Slimes, the Church, and ChildrenEven as we Christians celebrate the great mysteries of our redemption, I am compelled to state the following: The <em>New York Times</em> has gone completely off on a limb <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html">accusing Pope Benedict</a> of being complicit in shielding a particularly gruesomly perverted US priest from justice.<br /><br />The priest in question abused around 200 deaf boys in his care in the 1950's-1960's. These really are sickening and heartbreaking stories. But the Pope has nothing to do with them. First of all, they were investigated by local police at the time who did not find grounds for prosecuting; however, the priest was removed from his position and only occasionally functioned as priest thereafter.<br /><br />Second, it took 20 years for the local Bishop to make the Vatican aware of his crimes, and a Church trial was in fact begun against him by the Vatican office headed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Only when it was clear that the priest lay dying did Ratzinger's deputy decide that it would be impossible to go ahead with the trial, and instead he was completely removed from active ministry; he died a few weeks later.<br /><br />All this is perfectly clear from the NYT's own <a href="http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1">documentation</a>, which is available on their website. It provides no support for their assertions about the Pope. This is not journalism. This is harrassment.<br /><br />And as pointed out by <a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/"><em>Rorate Caeli</em></a>, <strong>who the Hell do the NYT think they are</strong> to all of a sudden set themselves up as some kind of children's rights campaigners? As <a href="http://www.getreligion.org/?page_id=986">this</a> article documents, they have for decades campaigned for the legal right for parents to destroy their children before they have even seen the light of day, and <strong>they have even defended the most gruesome and detestable form of abortion, that which is commonly termed 'partial-birth abortion'</strong>, which even some usually pro-abortion Democrats in the US Senate a few years ago found so "close to infanticide" that they felt compelled to abolish it, <em>Roe</em> or no <em>Roe.</em> (see e.g. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=WS7IqNEKUFQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT51#v=onepage&q=&f=false">this</a> book, p. 43 ff.)<br /><br />Partial-birth abortion is a form of abortion where the infant is literally partially born before it is aborted, i.e. killed. The cervix of the mother is dilated, and <strong>the baby is pulled out into the birth canal until its legs are outside the mother but its head is still inside. Then the baby's skull is pierced and its brains sucked out.</strong> Before its abolition in 2003, this procedure was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html">often performed</a> even on perfectly healthy infants of 20 weeks gestational age and above.<br /><br /><strong>And people who defend such barbaric and inhuman procedures have the gall to claim the moral high ground over the Catholic Church???</strong>Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-80608457985336267892010-03-29T00:11:00.004+02:002010-03-29T00:28:44.866+02:00The Cure for Pain and DeathThe erudite Anglican priest Fr. Hunwicke* today has a <a href="http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/03/olive-branch.html">post</a> pertinent to this blog, due to its connection with the Scripture verse from which the title of the blog is taken:<br /><br /><em>"Ancient Jewish tradition held that the tree of life standing in the midst of the garden of Eden was an Olive, from which came the oil of mercy that cured both pain and death. That is why patristic sources insistently associate the Chrism </em>[oil for anointing] <em>of Confirmation with immortality and resurrection.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>There is evidence that for the 'hippolytan' writings, the tree from which this oil flows is the tree of the Cross. It seems to me that here the images of scripture and tradition merge and mingle. The Cross, the New Tree in the New Garden, is the true tree of life, and the Anointing (Chrisma) which makes and marks us as Christians unto everlasting life flows from that tree. And it is the tree of which Venantius Fortunatus in his </em>Pange lingua<em> teaches us that it is itself soaked, anointed, through and through, with the blood of the lamb (...quem sacer cruor perunxit fusus agni corpore) </em>[hymn for the Adoration of the Cross, Good Friday]<em>.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>A pre-Christian Jewish writing pictures Adam begging to be given of the oil that flows from the tree in garden. He is given for anwer: 'It shall not be thine now, but at the end of the times. Then shall all flesh be raised up and God will give them of the tree of life'. Praise be to God, who, here in the end-time, gives us to be marked with the anointing of eternity."</em><br /><br />(*Caveat for observant Catholics: Fr. Hunwicke is one of the few Anglican priests I have no problem calling "Father", since he is in fact an impeccably orthodox Catholic Christian who just happens to labour under the factual error that the Anglican Church is a schismatical church rather than a heretical sect and has valid Holy Orders.)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-80011276996725783662010-03-11T13:13:00.009+01:002010-03-11T15:38:09.097+01:00State Morality and the Myth of Moral RelativismFrom time to time I slip into 'blog apathy' and simply can't bring myself to write posts, which is why I haven't posted since November. Things have also been rather hectic in my life recently (nothing sinister, merely purely professional challenges that I am quite happy to tackle). But the world is moving fast and lots of things are going on. No time to comment on them all, but an issue that has been addressed more and more frequently in the British Catholic blogosphere is the government's <a href="http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/02/children-schools-and-families-bill.html">bill</a> to teach sex education to children as young as five - including information on contraception from eight years of age and on abortion from 11 years. Initially these provisions were made mandatory also for 'faith schools' - such as Catholic schools which absolutely could not in good conscience teach a curriculum that said contraception and especially abortion were perfectly legitimate options. After much consternation, including a sharp comment from <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8492597.stm">Pope Benedict</a>, an amendment was introduced that opened up for such schools to be able to present the views of the denominations they are affiliated with - but they would <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100027058/ed-balls-catholic-schools-will-have-to-provide-info-on-accessing-abortion-catholic-education-service-goes-to-ground/">still be required</a> to present opposing views in addition to their own, including providing information to little girls about how they can have sex without getting pregnant and how they can have their babies killed if it happens anyway!!<br /><br />Though the government will deny it, what it is doing is passing moral judgments in the manner of religious authorities. It is not possible to divorce sex & relationship education from morality: no matter whether you teach that abortion is acceptable or unacceptable, you are expounding a particular morality. Even if you desire to remain 'neutral' by presenting both sides of the argument and leave it to the pupils to decide you are still sending the message that both are legitimate options in their own right. This shows the flaw of Moral Relativism - though it purports to be 'neutral' and 'balanced', by arguing for the moral equivalence of multiple paths of moral reasoning, it is itself passing a moral judgment that it is perfectly legitimate for a person to abitrarily select one such path or the other. As such the very concept of Moral Relativism is self-contradictory, because it itself presupposes the existence of the very Absolutist principles it claims do not exist (it is readily demonstrable that the statement "Everything is relative" is self-contradictory because it is Absolutist - as long as one believes in logic).<br /><br />(Interestingly, secular schools are not required - or even allowed - to present more than one side of the arguments on S&R issues. This does not seem particularly 'pluralist'. Indeed, most contemporary Western governments do not even base their policies upon moral relativist reasoning intended to represent a genuine plurality of viewpoints, but rather increasingly upon an agressive 'secularism' which embodies a distinctive morality of its own that <em>a priori</em> excludes the legitimacy of other viewpoints. Thus the 'secular' view that contraception and abortion are legitimate options is made the <em>norm</em>, and the 'religious' view that they are not is merely <em>tolerated</em>, and then only to a certain degree. This 'secularism' is thus an ideology in itself that seeks to exclude and destroy opposing ideologies and as such it is irrational to tout it as a common platform for all of society.)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-81331857583376966032009-11-25T16:00:00.008+01:002009-11-25T16:55:08.131+01:00Divine Beauty: The Byzantine Liturgy - The BlessingNope, they aren't 'Orthodox' - they are as Catholic as anyone, but merely follow their own distinctive (and gorgeous) liturgical and other traditions. These so-called Eastern Catholics also elect their own Bishops and follow their own legal code, all in perfect harmony with the Patriarch of Rome (that's the Pope for you). Here, some of their Bishops are seen blessing the congregation with the <em>dikirion</em> and <em>trikirion</em>, candlesticks with two and three candles, respectively, with which he makes the sign of the cross:<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5408061084897444274" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 266px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/Sw1K51DtAbI/AAAAAAAAACk/jfzQUaBbLLE/s400/Blessing2%5Brorate+caeli%5D.jpg" border="0" /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5408061083957840194" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 266px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/Sw1K5xjryUI/AAAAAAAAACs/9IwIN9fuQ54/s400/Blessing%5Brorate+caeli%5D.jpg" border="0" /> <div>The <em>trikirion</em> symbolizes the Holy Trinity and the <em>dikirion</em> the dual nature of Christ: God and man.</div><div></div><div></div><div><br />(H/T <a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/">Rorate Caeli</a>)</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br />On a related note: this evening I will be attending the annual meeting of the <a href="http://www.sobornost.org/">Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius</a> in Copenhagen. The fellowship exists to promote unity between Eastern and Western Christians - mostly Orthodox and Anglicans/other traditional Protestants, respectively, but I'll try to have some Catholic viewpoint thrown in. In fact, the unity which the fellowship seeks is already effected in the Catholic Church, where Eastern and Western Christians are even now under the same roof, united in doctrine and with equal rights and dignity - but unfortunately most of those involved in the fellowship don't realize that that unity is already there and just waiting for them to join in.</div>Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-44004825439317521852009-11-21T12:42:00.003+01:002009-11-25T16:49:29.287+01:00Obama's Stall on Stupak Betrays His DuplicityI thought the Stupak Amendment deserved a post for itself. This bill, introduced by pro-life Democrats, attempted to exclude most (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125841816079551393.html">though by no means all</a>) abortion coverage from the health care bill of the US House of Representatives. I am not betting that it will get past the Senate, especially since President Obama is <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/axelrod-signals-obama-try-strip-abortion-language-health-care/">seeking to roll it back</a> - this despite the fact that all polls show that the American people were <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm">overwhelmingly in favour</a> of the amendment . He even has the gall to claim that it violates the status quo on abortion - which it does, but in the opposite direction of what he claims: since the status quo is that no federal money whatsoever goes to abortion (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1">at least not inside the US</a>), by allowing federal insurance to cover abortions in case of rape and incest it will in fact expand federal funding for abortions infinitely. But even this is not enough for the President, whose rhetoric about seeking <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html">'common ground'</a> on abortion rings more hollow by the minute.<br /><br />His assertion that the amendment "restricts women's insurance choices" is a red herring since he is putting up a system that will create federally-sponsored health insurance ex nihilo; even if they do not cover abortions, they still will expand insurance coverage to many people who have never had it, so where is the restriction? Ah, unless of course he is betting on a great number of people who now have private insurance trading it for the public option - something left-wing legislators are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98">hoping</a> will eventually lead to a single-payer European-style system, a system which Obama <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk">has previously supported but now publicly claims he is not working for</a>.<br /><br />Either way, it just goes to show that the man can't be trusted. No more than your average politician, anyway. This is a guy who calls himself a 'Democrat' but doesn't care what the majority of the population wants or does not want.<br /><br />(Actually, the amendment part aside, it was remarkable that the bill could get through the House at all since <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/06/obamacare-huge-majority-does-not-favor-current-bills/">72% of the US public opposed it</a> in its current form. Not surprisingly, since the Speaker wanted to hide from them what was in the bill before it was voted on - even <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/05/obamacare-surprise-suprise-pelosi-breaks-her-word/">breaking a clear promise</a> to publish it.)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-76500166227702542922009-11-20T00:18:00.003+01:002009-11-25T16:49:11.897+01:00Life Issues UpdateLots and lots of things have happened in the bioethical world since I last wrote, judging from my foremost pusher of bioethics news, the excellent <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/">Wesley J. Smith</a>. First of all, the UK Department of Public Prosecution has <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/09/23/uk-assisted-suicide-public-prosecutor-declares-some-lives-more-worth-protecting-than-other-lives/">issued new guidelines</a> on prosecuting assisted suicide, effectively decriminalizing cases which it is not deemed "in the public interest" to prosecute, viz.: where the victim has a "terminal" or "severe and incurable" or "severe degenerative" disease and expressed a desire to be killed. This is not humane. It is a blatant abandonment of the weakest and most vulnerable in society; the people who have the greatest need to hear confirmed, over and over again, that their life is valuable, that things would not be better if they were gone. And it does nothing to ensure that these vulnerable persons are not subjected to insiduous erosion of their will to live ("You know, darling, I really love you, but I can see you are suffering so much... You know, you don't have to do this. There is a way out... I can help you...")<br /><br />And more from the UK: a severely disabled baby boy with congenital myasthenic syndrome has been taken off his ventilator and allowed to die, <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/04/uk-court-to-rule-whether-baby-better-off-dead-than-disabled/">even though he was awake and cognitively well-functioning</a>. To be sure, CMS is a terrible and irreversible condition - but there is no way around concluding that this child was killed.<br /><br />Canada has <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/28/stacking-the-deck-for-euthanasia-in-canadian-end-of-life-commission/">set up a 6-member commission</a> to investigate the issue of euthanasia. Shock and horror, the Chairman and at least 2 other members are ardent euthanasia proponents, one is a Dutch euthanasia researcher, and the last 2 seem not to have any special interest in the issue. Selection bias anyone?<br /><br />The UK is on a roll these days: a man has died after he was apparently <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/12/liverpool-care-pathway-man-misdiagnosed-with-cancer-dehydrated-to-death/">starved and dehydrated to death</a> in a hospital. Sound horrifying? That is in fact now an accepted and common procedure in the UK these days, it turns out. Certain terminally ill people, instead of being actually cared for at a hospice, are subjected to a 'care pathway', entailing that not only all medical treatment (except painkillers) but also all food and fluids are withheld from them and they are sedated for the last part of the ordeal (which can take weeks). As far as I am concerned, this is simply cynically speeding up their death to save costs. But in this case, things went even more wrong: what was thought to be a relapse of a lung cancer turned out on autopsy to be a simple pneumonia. As if the procedure wasn't bad enough in itself. And it most likely is <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/11/liverpool-care-pathway-uk-deadly-danger-of-treating-patients-as-category-members-instead-of-individuals/">not the first such incident</a>.<br /><br />Former leader of the Human Genome Project Francis S. Collins, who has written a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391">decent book</a> on the relationship between science and religion and is a Christian (Epsicopalian, I think), has been appointed to head the NIH in the US. I was convinced by the sincerity of his religious beliefs in his book, but I thought he was wishy-washy on some issues. Indeed, he has stated that he supports <a href="http://www.tothesource.org/7_30_2009/7_30_2009.htm">therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research and even eugenic abortion</a>. Which begs the question, has the great scientist found a way to determine that embryos are not human or merely a way to determine the fastest way to gaining the top biomedical job in the US?<br /><br />On a more positive note, assisted suicide bills have been defeated in <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/18/close-call-as-south-australia-rejects-euthanasia/">South Australia</a> (by the narrowest possible margin - one MP had a change of heart at the last minute, citing a troubled conscience) and <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/18/assisted-suicide-blocked-in-new-hampshire/">New Hampshire</a>. Also, a former Director of a Planned Parenthood facility <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/02/planned-parenthood-leader-changes-sides/">resigned her post</a> and began working for the pro-life cause after she viewed an ultrasound of an abortion (she also claimed that the facility were being told to aggressively push for more abortions rather than conducting prevention programmes since abortions generated more income). Finally, Switzerland <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/28/swiss-may-be-turning-tide-against-assisted-suicide-free-for-all/">may outlaw suicide tourism</a>, even though assisted suicide will probably still be legal for Swiss citizens.<br /><br />The war for the dignity of human life is raging on all fronts (also ones that are not covered here, of course, but since I am a medical person, these are my special concerns). Next summer, I will probably be joining the fray. I hope that I will be allowed to get on with my job and save some lives in my own country and abroad, but it is becoming increasingly probable that I will one day find myself being forced to act against my conscience for the sake of some phoney 'right' dreamed up by a biased committee. If it so happens that I am persecuted for this, I will gladly accept it to expose the illiberality of our supposedly tolerant society.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-45774039865264767272009-11-19T20:55:00.008+01:002009-11-20T00:24:31.454+01:00Gearing up again...Well, time to get this blog up and running again. I am ashamed that it has been almost 2 months since I last wrote a post - I have been extremely busy, and on top of that I suddenly developed an awful distaste towards writing posts myself, even though I've been quite active on other blogs. I have even been admitted onto the authoring panel of the, if I may say so, excellent Danish blog <a href="http://katolsk.eftertanke.dk/">Katolsk Tradition</a> which aims to help restore authentic Catholic Christianity in Denmark.<br /><br /><br />Most of all, I am amazed to see that in my absence I have gained two followers - of whom one is the <a href="http://katolsk.eftertanke.dk/">Caveman</a> himself!!! VSC, you are very welcome but damn, that's something to live up to. (The other one is of course a nutter who runs a completely ludicrous blog which screwed up my browser when I checked it out, so I will block him if he attempts to write anything.)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-32636179776653976872009-09-23T17:34:00.007+02:002009-09-23T22:32:08.294+02:00Do Women Have Souls?It is a well-known fact that up until at least the sixteenth century, Christian theologians were still debating whether or not women have souls.<br /><br />At least, I have heard this assertion several times from different people, so it must be true.<br /><br />Or is it?<br /><blockquote><p><em>A young scholar, Valentius Acidalius, was working as a teacher in Silesia, and, like many young scholars, he was short of money. He thought to turn an honest penny by publishing a “diverting” pamphlet. In Latin the word homo, like the word man in English, primarily means “a human being, male or female, young or old,” but has the secondary meaning of “adult male.” Valentius thought it would be fun to use this ambiguity to “show” that in the Bible only adult males have souls. If he thought the pamphlet would amuse, he was grievously wrong. Simon Geddicus, a Lutheran scholar, launched a mighty counter-pamphlet entitled A Defense of the Female Sex, in which he proposed... to “destroy each and every one of the arguments put forward by Valentius,” [who] took a seizure and died.</em></p><p><em>The pamphlet, however, often bound with the refutation by Simon Geddicus, survived, and it appears that it was published at Lyons in France in 1647... [T]he offending book caught the attention of Pope Innocent X, who put it on the Index of Prohibited Books (Decree of June 18, 1651). So much for the allegation that the Church holds that women do not have souls.</em></p></blockquote>But that did not stop this terrible misunderstanding from spreading to anti-Catholic bigots who were only too willing to believe it. Read the rest <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/002-the-myth-of-soulless-women-3">here</a>.<br /><br />If you repeat a lie enough times...Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-27260090152201551282009-09-12T20:53:00.007+02:002009-09-13T00:49:53.996+02:00Murder of Pro-lifer Exposes Pro-choice BiasSo, it happened. Just a few months after the US <a href="http://ad-sanitatem-gentium.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflections-on-murder-of-abortionist-dr.html">went berserk</a> over the murder of abortionist George Tiller, an anti-abortionist protestor has been shot dead. And yes, it has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12slay.html?hpw">confirmed</a> that the murder was due to the fact that the murderer did not like his protests.<br /><br />Now, it does sound as if this murderer was a complete nut. He certainly doesn't seem to have had any connection with any Pro-choice organization. Pro-choicers are making a great deal out of this - while in their uproar over the Tiller shooting they conveniently downplayed the fact that his murderer was also a nut without any formal connection with Pro-life organizations, choosing instead to blame the Pro-life movement as a whole for the killing.<br /><br />At that time, some people <a href="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/uncategorized/time-to-revisit-criticism-of-dhs-report-on-right-wing-extremists/">opined</a> that the Department of Homeland Security had been right to issue warnings about the prospects of violence perpetrated by "right-wing extremists". The National Organization of Women labeled the act a case of "<a href="http://www.now.org/press/06-09/06-01.html">domestic terrorism</a>". President Obama issued a <a href="http://adjix.com/eg9y">condemnation</a>, while the former president of Planned Parenthood <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/06/01/george_tiller/">called</a> on him to "immediately outline an action plan to increase federal protection for providers and clinics".<br /><br />It will be interesting to see how this current episode plays out in the media over the coming days. As of today, CBS has <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/09/12/cbs-skips-killing-pro-life-activist-abc-sees-flip-side-killing-abortioni">not reported</a> the story. I wonder if the media will be publishing allegations about "left-wing domestic terrorism" and whether the President will make a statement.<br /><br />But one thing is the news media. When Dr. Tiller was murdered, I looked through a considerable number of internet forums where pro-lifers were derided for not being strong enough in their condemnations and even for being hypocrites when they condemned the murder. Well, now if you click into the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/anti-abortion-activist-ki_n_283486.html">combox</a> at the über-liberal Huffington Post, you will discover some nifty comments such as these:<br /><br /><em>"If some weirdo was waving signs depicting aborted fetuses outside my kid's school, on a regular basis, I'd be a bit peeved, too. In my case, I'd probably just give the twisted f*ck a well-deserved stomping, but many people lack my exceptional self-control."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"Being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing sometimes brings about an abrupt end."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"To use a school for his vile tirades, I say he got what was coming to him. Now if only the protesters outside funerals and churches could only get a little of the same. No pity here!"</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"One less birther pro life crazy."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"Sorry, some people are a waste of time and space and there are only so many strawberries to go 'round."</em><br /><br />CMR has <a href="http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/09/huffpo-on-pro-life-murder.html">more</a> from earlier in the day. Now, most of the comments at the Huff are civil and condemn the killing. So did most of the pro-lifers who commented on the Tiller murder. A great deal were, in view of Dr. Tiller's very publicized and unapologetic work to end the life of little babies in the womb, rather indifferent but stated as a matter of course that violence was never a solution to the problem of abortion. A few expressed real hatred of Tiller and even glee at his murder. This was very sad to see and was rightly picked up upon and condemned. However, the above comments show clearly that pro-choicers need to acknowledge that there are problematic people on their side of the aisle as well. They must acknowledge that hypocrisy and disgusting attitudes towards other people is certainly not the prerogative of Conservatives or religious people. Each side must acknowledge its failings so we move beyond name-calling and start tackling the real issue at hand, which is not whether the persons on this or that side are morally superior, but which value we should assign to the lives (for they are alive) and rights of the babies in the womb - or foetuses or whatever we want to call them. The morality or otherwise of abortion is not determined by the virtues and failings of those who are for and against it, but by its objective nature.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-7434827714519736732009-09-11T00:00:00.002+02:002009-09-11T01:26:01.141+02:00Just Following OrdersI don't even know how to begin reporting this revolting and outrageous <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html#ixzz0QcrzUSS0">story</a>. So without further ado:<br /><br /><em>"Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday. Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early. They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment."</em><br /><br />"Just following..." Now where have we heard that one <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_trials">before</a>?<br /><br />But it gets better. Listen to this nasty bit of nitpicking:<br /><br /><em>"Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks. In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks."</em><br /><br />So - two (2) days later and the doctors would have agreed that he would have had a chance of survival - even though the 'guidelines' say this is not so until a week later? If they are willing to show a latitude of 7 days, why not 9? This is simply a disgusting show of bureaucratism. You can laugh at this kind of thing if it happens at a post office where the clerk complains that your stamp slants at 2 degrees too much, but here we're talking people's lives!<br /><br />There is no doctor with respect for his job and profession who makes decisions on whether to intervene or not based on arbitrary limits composed by bureaucrats. Doctors may, and very often do, decide that treating a particular patient is not feasible - but they do it by drawing on their theoretical knowledge and clinical experience and <em>applying it to that particular individual patient in front of them</em>! Doctors are not machines, where you insert patient data into one end and out the other pops a prescription. And any doctor who acts like he is such a machine is not fit for his profession, which is not so much a job as it is an <em>art</em>, as the ancients acknowledged.<br /><br />And now for a bit of background knowledge on this curious 'guideline':<br /><br /><em>"Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago. Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'."<br /></em><br />We'll return to that phrase presently. Now spot the non-sequitur here:<br /><br /><em>"More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care. The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care."</em><br /><br />So bloody what? I bet the NHS spends about the same amount on wages for top-level managers and 'commissions' like the one that crafted these rules.<br /><br /><em>"Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain."</em><br /><br />Except that, like so much of what 'experts' say, that's not true:<br /><br /><em>"But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment. Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year."</em><br /><br />And now the clincher:<br /><br /><em>"Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age."</em><br /><br />Time to revise the guidelines, you might think? Oh no. Remember, there's money involved.<br /><br /><em>"However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates. Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities."</em><br /><br />I actually happen to think that 1 percent is not too bad. Anyway, the job of doctors is first and foremost to save lives, and this we should always try to do if at all possible. Only when it is not possible, or when intervention is arguably riskier than non-intervention, do we settle for next best, i.e. alleviate suffering. In fact, the most unsettling thing about this story is perhaps that the doctors didn't even want to do that - they allegedly wouldn't even see the baby once it was born. Because they were afraid that they would be overcome by the impulse to treat it, perhaps? Anyways, to refuse to treat anyone out of hand on the basis of purely arbitrary criteria is beneath a doctor and an insult to the people he is supposed to serve - as human beings, not as so many appliances on an assembly line.<br /><br />I was made aware of this story by Matt Archbold over at <a href="http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/">CMR</a>, who, though a little off the top sometimes, is always good for some incisive comments. Like this, referring to the 'best interests' comment in the guidelines:<br /><br /><em>"Pardon me but I get a little tired of hearing the government decide what's in the 'best interests' of people."</em><br /><br />And further:<br /><br /><em>"Pro-choice punks are all about allowing the mother to decide if the baby's allowed to live or die until the mother actually decides she wants the baby to live. Then and only then does the government jump in and say sorry, now we actually care about what's in the best interest of the baby. Then the mother doesn't get to choose. And guess what? The government decides it's in the best interests of the baby to die."</em><br /><em></em><br />He even goes so far as saying this proves that Western civilization has turned into a "death cult". I won't go that far, but it certainly shows that when you're a poor little foetus, there is just no way you can win in this world.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-10508783169051951922009-09-04T04:04:00.003+02:002009-09-04T04:12:31.490+02:00Divine Beauty: Cope of Pius XI<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/SqB2Mo9ojwI/AAAAAAAAACc/D07HKKaYes8/s1600-h/cope_pius_xi.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377427914606808834" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/SqB2Mo9ojwI/AAAAAAAAACc/D07HKKaYes8/s400/cope_pius_xi.JPG" border="0" /></a> ... or possibly a mantum. They just don't seem to make them like that any more...<br /><br />(Can't remember where I found this. Probably the <a href="http://newliturgicalmovement.org/">NLM</a>.)<br /><div></div>Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-63119210994308023402009-09-02T00:42:00.010+02:002009-09-02T01:48:49.857+02:00The BMJ Doesn't "Get" Disabled PeopleI have more than a little trouble with the Deputy Editor of one of the world's three most respected medical journals suddenly coming out to express an intense contempt of disabled persons.<br /><br />Mr. Tony Delamothe of the British Medical Journal recently voiced his <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/aug26_1/b3446">opinion</a> in the journal's 'Observations' section that<br /><br /><blockquote>"The debate on assisted dying has been hijacked by disabled people who want to live. It needs to be reclaimed for terminally ill people who want to die."</blockquote>I can't begin to enumerate the things that are wrong with this statement. But it gets better. After referencing the view of Baroness Campbell, herself a severely disabled member of the House of Lords who needs a ventilator to be able to breathe, that<br /><br /><blockquote>"sanctioning assisted suicide would make doctors and those who help disabled people think that death is what is wanted by disabled people, 'the very people who need every encouragement to live and not to succumb to society’s prevalent view that our situation is so tragic, so burdensome, so insufferable that surely we must want to die,'"</blockquote>he says, "I don't get it."<br /><br />However, it is not that he does not understand the argument, but it is certainly true that he doesn't "get" it:<br /><br /><blockquote>"I understand that changing the law might mean that some people could feel under some obligation to bring about their premature end to avoid being a burden to others—and that severely disabled people might feel this more than most. But should such a risk override the freedom of competent terminally ill people to bring about their own end at a time of their choosing?"</blockquote>So, in other words (though not really), guaranteeing the freedom of the 'competent' - i.e. the strong - to choose for themselves whether they want to live or die is more important than securing the rights of those who might feel tempted - or pressured - to get themselves killed due to weakness, pressure from unloving relatives, lack of encouragement from caregivers etc.? Never mind if a few weaklings get thrown overboard, we have to make way for the übermensch, eh?<br /><br />Plus, it costs an awful lot of money to have them pesky disabled people hanging around.<br /><br />Think that's an unfair assessment of Mr. Delamothe's point of view? Then tell me why, to back up his stance, he invokes the infamous Baroness Warnock, according to public opinion Britain's "leading moral philosopher," who has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html">publicly stated</a> that people who suffer from dementia are "wasting [their] families' lives and... wasting the resources of the NHS," and that it is perfectly understandable that they should feel a 'duty to die'.<br /><br />I understand Mr. Delamothe's and Baroness Warnock's argument for euthanasia - but I don't "get" it. And as a future doctor who joined this profession to care for the weakest, I sure as hell don't want to.<br /><br />British Medical Journal? More like Brutish Mengele Journal to me.<br /><br />H/T <a href="http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/">Fr. Tim</a>Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-64691296194675654042009-08-14T22:39:00.002+02:002009-08-15T00:00:19.824+02:00Humanizing ObamaAfter the slant of my last couple of posts I feel I need to say this to all who might come across this blog:<br /><br />My blog is not intended to be political. But when politics come across the major themes of my life, religion, ethics, and health care, I urgently feel the need to speak out. I am not anti-Obama, and I consider the conspiratorialists - well represented among Republicans - who believe he's not an American citizen and as such is not a legitimate President to be right nutters. But no more so than the conspiratorialists who think the Bush administration was behind 9/11 - who are equally well <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Birthers-and-Truthers-and-Mike-Stark-oh-my-52222302.html">represented</a> among Democrats.<br /><br />Truth is, I would not have so much against Obama if he - and everyone else - just acknowledged that he is simply a politician cut from the same block as all other (successful) politicians, perfectly willing to wheel and deal and half-truth and even lie himself to power. Conservatives do it, and Liberals do it. It's not exactly news. But the mainstream media, in a disgusting display of double standards, has accepted at face value his claim to be some sort of Messiah, "The One" who will lead not only the US, but the entire world, from the dark abyss of tyranny and oppression towards green pastures of freedom and light. I'm not even exaggerating here - a Newsweek editor literally assigned him a role in world politics as a "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA">sort of God</a>"! Truth is, of course, it's all a fiction, like everything else in politics. It only goes to show how desperately people want to believe that there is Someone out there who will liberate them from their troubles and lead them into the Promised Land.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-48404530899567333462009-08-14T21:54:00.003+02:002009-08-15T00:00:48.597+02:00America, Behold Thy Saviour Cometh...This is supposed to be the guy who's going to save American health care?<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KbpWonUzlrc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KbpWonUzlrc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Of course, it's the same guy who said this:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpGH02DtIws&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpGH02DtIws&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />and this:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />not to mention this:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LOy66WYXqaQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LOy66WYXqaQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />But we all know that it was George W. Bush who was the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA">speech-impaired moron</a>, don't we?Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-60753606933106442002009-08-05T12:42:00.002+02:002009-09-14T00:30:50.617+02:00Divine Beauty: Rheims Cathedral<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/Snlv187S4GI/AAAAAAAAACU/N782LO_jwt8/s1600-h/rheims2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366443403667234914" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 291px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hck48zg24cU/Snlv187S4GI/AAAAAAAAACU/N782LO_jwt8/s400/rheims2.jpg" border="0" /></a>Once the venue for the coronation of the Kings of France. May the French people by the intercession of St. Louis come to acknowledge Christ as King.Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-11385572123929894472009-08-04T03:00:00.005+02:002009-08-04T03:13:42.073+02:00The Change We Don't NeedIn today's "don't expect to see this in the mainstream media" section: how come President Obama is so adamant to bring 'hope' and 'change' into the American health care system when<br /><ol><li>Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.</li><li>Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. </li><li>Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. </li><li>Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. </li><li>Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. </li><li>Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. </li><li>People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. </li><li>Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. </li><li>Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. </li><li>Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.</li></ol>Apart from the screening bit, which is not altogether unproblematic, it doesn't seem too bad after all, does it? Go <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html">here</a> for the details.<br /><br />(H/T <a href="http://newsbusters.org/">Newsbusters</a>)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-41149841299428471602009-08-01T16:46:00.005+02:002009-08-01T18:39:54.464+02:00Macchiavelli: a Liberal HeroI find it extremely ironic that Liberals always complain about cynicism and foul play on the part of Conservative politicians yet they have no problem playing politics as if they wrote the playbook.<br /><br />Case in point: <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig2n-N48bvgGAWA-wHlMPQpOdinQD99P6G9G3">AP</a> reports that an amendment to the health reform bill currently being reviewed in the US Congress which would have set strict limitations to coverage for abortion was voted on in the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House on Thursday. The amendment had been proposed by Republicans fearful that a reform resulting in near-universal health coverage would be used to drastically expand access to abortion.<br /><br />Several Conservative Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for the amendment, and it was initially approved. But then, just a few hours later, something strange happened: the committee Chairman, a Democrat, invoked some House rules which made it possible to vote on the amendment a second time. And all of a sudden, one of the Conservative Democrats (Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.) who initially had voted in favour was now against the amendment, and another who initially hadn't voted now also voted no, sending the amendment crashing by the slimmest possible margin of 29-30.<br /><br />I wonder what Rep. Gordon was offered or threatened with during that lunch break?<br /><br />(Via <a href="http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/">CMR</a>)Gideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.com0