Record of Protest Against the Infringement of Religious Liberty

by the Department of Health and Human Services

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care.  We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative by e-mail, phone, or FAX letter:

• Call and contact the President/White House switchboard: 202-456-1111.
• Call and contact your Senators:
• John McCain – Prescott: (928) 445-0833, Washington DC (202) 224-2235; Web Contact
• Jon Kyl – Phoenix (602) 840-1891, Washington DC (202) 224-4521; Web Contact
• Call and contact your Congressmen:
• Paul Gosar – Prescott: (928)445-1683; Web Contact
• Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
• Additional contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at: www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

HT: American Orthodox Institute

Source: Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America

The Freedom of Religion in the United States of America is being threatened by our current federal officials. The Christian faithful of the Orthodox Church in the United States must act NOW to prevent this grevous transgression of our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights as Americans.

The time to act is now.

On January 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reaffirmed a rule that virtually all private health care plans must cover sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception. The rule is set to take effect August 1, 2012. Non-profit religious employers that do not now provide such coverage, and are not exempt under the rule’s extremely narrow definition of religious employer, will be given one year—until August 1, 2013—to comply.

Responding to the announcement, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated:

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” Cardinal-designate Dolan continued: “To force Americans to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. . . It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom.”

Noting that the Obama administration

“has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,”

the Cardinal-designate urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.

“The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation.”

Last August, the HHS issued a list of “preventive services for women” to be mandated in almost all private health plans under the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The mandated services include sterilization, all FDA-approved birth control (such as the IUD, Depo-Provera, ‘morning-after’ pills, and the abortion-inducing drug Ella), and “education and counseling” to promote these among all “women of reproductive capacity.” HHS’s interim final rule allowed only a very narrow exemption for a “religious employer.” The January 20 announcement makes this interim rule final.

To correct the threats to religious liberty and rights of conscience posed by PPACA, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467).

This measure will ensure that those who participate in the health care system

“retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.”

It is more important than ever that Members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure. For co-sponsors, please check H.R. 1179 and S. 1467 at: thomas.loc.gov.

ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative by e-mail, phone, or FAX letter:

• Call the President/White House switchboard: 202-456-1111.
• Call your Senators:
• John McCain – Prescott: (928) 445-0833, Washington DC (202) 224-2235; Web Contact
• Jon Kyl – Phoenix (602) 840-1891, Washington DC (202) 224-4521; Web Contact
• Contact your Congressmen:
• Paul Gosar – Prescott: (928)445-1683; Web Contact
• Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
• Additional contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at: www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

SEND THIS MESSAGE:

“Please co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) and help enact it into law.

“The Obama administration’s decision to require even religious institutions to provide coverage of sterilization and contraceptives, including drugs that can cause an abortion, makes passage of this measure especially urgent.

“Please ensure that the rights of conscience of all participants in our nation’s health care system are respected.”

The Mormon Temple. Not a cross to be found.

Ultimately, it is Christians, after all, who determine what beliefs are considered Christian and what beliefs aren’t. In other words, if you want to know if what you believe is Christian – ask one, especially one who can speak with some authority about Christian teaching (like, say, an Orthodox Christian priest?). Mormonism isn’t a Christian faith, nor an Abrahamic faith. It is polytheistic and its rituals are clearly and verifiably based on Freemasonry.

Again, if you want to know if you are a Christian, read THIS – The Nicene Creed. This is the historical statement of the Christian faith, what Christians believe and have always believed, and something no believing Mormon can affirm.

If you want to know more, try this: For Those Investigating Mormonism, and this excellent website: Ex-Mormons.org.

Reading the results of the Pew poll about Mormonism, reminds me of what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in “Strength to Love“:

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

The fact that two thirds of mainline Protestants and Catholics believe Mormonism is a Christian religion is an unfortunate example of both.

The Mormon faith is not the same as the Christian faith. Examples abound.

Consider these few.

The Ministry of Jesus

In the 2 Nephi 5:21, in the Book of Mormon, in 600 B.C., Lehi, a Jewish prophet from the tribe of Manassah, left Jerusalem with several others, sailed east and landed in South America. Two of Lehi’s sons, Lamen and Lemuel, rebelled against God. God cursed them and gave them dark skin — birthing the Native American race. In 2 Nephi 12:3-12, in A.D. 34, Jesus Christ descended from heaven, baptized the Native Americans, called and commissioned 12 disciples, instituted sacraments, and taught the message of the Sermon on the Mount.

According to the first four gospels of the Bible, Jesus Christ lived and ministered in the region of modern-day Israel. He never appeared in the Americas.

The Virgin Birth

The Mormon Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus through sexual relations with God the father. Brigham Young wrote in the Journal of Discourses 8:115, “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” Likewise, the Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote,

“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers”

(Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg. 547; Read also, The Seer, by Orsen Pratt; Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1; or The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson).

The Bible teaches that Mary, a virgin,

“was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).

It is a miracle that is difficult for many to understand, but not one that occurred as a result of Mary having intercourse with a human or a spiritual being.

The Spirit World

Mormons believe that God, angels and humans are the same. BYU religion professor Robert Millet clarifies this concept in “The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity” (1998, pg. 39):

“Latter-day Saints believe that angels are men and women, human beings, sons and daughters of God, personages of the same type as we are. Parley P. Pratt, an early apostle wrote, ‘Gods, angels and men are all of one species, one race, one great family.’”

Additionally, angels are created through sexual relations, better known as “celestial exaltation” between God and his heavenly wife in the spirit world. In the LDS Church manual, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, celestial exaltation

“includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage.”

Spirits are gender specific, immortal and eternal:

“Each [male and female] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose”

(“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, 1995).

Brigham Young stated:

“Mankind are organized of element designed to endure to all eternity; it never had a beginning and never can have an end. There never was a time when this matter, of which you and I are composed, was not in existence, and there never can be a time when it will pass out of existence; it cannot be annihilated. It is brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made angels, Gods — beings who will hold control over the elements, and have power by their word to command the creation and redemption of worlds, or to extinguish suns by their breath, and disorganize worlds, hurling them back into their chaotic state. This is what you and I are created for.”

(Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 48; see also Doctrines and Covenants 93:29-33)

The Bible teaches that angels (immortals) and humans (mortals) are to worship God (the sole eternal being) their creator (Hebrews 1). Angels have taken on anthropomorphic characteristics but they are not human. They bore messages to humans from God (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:11, 26, 2:9; Acts 8:26) and assisted Jesus (Matthew 26:53; Luke 22:43) and his people (Psalm 91:11, 12; Acts 5:19; Hebrews 1:14).

Jesus and Satan

The Mormon church explicitly teaches in the Pearl of Great Price in both the books of Moses (chapter 4) and Abraham (chapter 3) that Jesus Christ and Satan are both sons of God and are not only spirit brothers to each other but are spirit brothers to humans and angels as well. Brigham Young referred to

“the Devil, the mighty Lucifer, the great prince of the angels, and the brother of Jesus“

in the Journal of Discourses 6:207. In an Ensign magazine (a publication of the Mormon church) answer to a question from a reader,

“How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?” the magazine stated, “On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some–especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers….But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother” (1986, pg. 25).

The Bible teaches that God has only one son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16, 17) who came to destroy the work of the devil (I John 3:8).

Both Mormonism and Christianity make very different truth claims.

Christians must know what they say they believe otherwise their claim to faith is meaningless.

HT: Mystagogy

Source: The Huffington Post

What does it mean to repent? When our Lord Jesus Christ began His public preaching,he began with the word ‘repent.’

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

If we are to repent, then we need to know our sinfulness. That’s a tall order, frankly. As St. John put it,

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

This is basic Christianity 101. We are sinners. Christ tells us to repent. This is why the Church has always offered confession of sins prior to receiving the Holy Eucharist, for as St. Paul says,

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup…That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor. 11:27-28, 30)

The following examination of conscience is also available in print form in the narthex of the Church.

Preparation for Confession

During Great Lent, and the other fasts of the Church Year, it is customary for all Orthodox Christians to go to confession to their priest. Properly this should be done several times a year, the exact frequency depending upon how often one is blessed to receive the Holy Mysteries and on the counsel and blessing of one’s spiritual father.

As a preparation for this sacramental confession and to help one examine one’s conscience before coming to confession, the following  questions are sometimes distributed in parishes and, although of course the list is not exhaustive, it may be a help to those of our readers who are Orthodox Christians.

Sins Against God

Do you pray to God in the morning and evening, before and after meals?

During prayer have you allowed your thoughts to wander?

Have you rushed or garbled your prayers? or when reading in church?

Do you read the Scriptures daily?

Do you read other spiritual writings regularly?

Have you read books whose content is not Orthodox or even anti-Orthodox, or which you know is spiritually damaging?

Have you pronounced the name of God without reverence, joking?

Have you asked God’s help before starting every activity?

Have you made the sign of the Cross carelessly, thoughtlessly?

Have you cursed?

Have you murmured against God?

Have you sinned by forgetting God?

Have you been slack in attending worship?

Have you consecrated even part of the feast days, particularly Sundays and the Twelve Great Feasts, to God?

Have you tried your best to attend church on these days?

Have you spent them more sinfully than ordinary days?

If unable to attend church for some reason, have you nonetheless tried to devote some part of these days to prayer and spiritual reading?

Have you joined with people not of the Faith in prayer, or attended their worship services?

Have you kept the fasts?

Have you behaved irreverently in church, or before the clergy?

Have you laughed or talked in church, or moved about unnecessarily, thus also distracting other people from prayer?

Have dressed appropriately, modestly and in a becoming manner when in church?

Have you tried to pay reverent attention to the readings, hymns, and prayers in church?

Have you striven to pray with the service, crossing yourself, etc.

Have you rather simply stood and day-dreamed?

Have you prepared for the services beforehand, looking up the Scriptural readings, making sure you have the texts to follow the service etc.

Have you ever left church after the Divine Services, and particularly after receiving the Holy Mysteries and immediately engaged in light talk and thus forgotten the blessings and graces you have received?

Have you been ashamed of your Faith or the sign of the Cross in the presence of others?

Have you made a show of your piety?

Have you used your Orthodox Faith or its teachings merely to browbeat others or belittle them?

Have you used it as a shield or excuse for your own inadequacies rather than humbling yourself?

Have you believed in dreams, fortune telling,   astrology, signs and other superstitions?

Do you give thanks to the Lord for all things?

Have you ever doubted God’s providence concerning yourself?

Do you at least try to perceive His purpose in all the things that come upon you?

Sins Against Your Neighbors

Do you respect and obey your parents?

Have you offended them by rudeness or contradiction?

Have you properly shown respect and obedience to your priest? Teachers? Superiors?

Have you insulted anyone?

Have you quarreled or fought with anyone? Have you hit anyone?

Are you always respectful to old people?

Are you ever angry, bad tempered or irritable?

Have you called anyone names?

Do you use foul language?

Have you derided anyone that is disabled, poor, old or in some way disadvantaged?

Have you entertained bad feelings, ill will or hatred against anyone?

Have you forgiven those who have offended you?

Have you asked forgiveness from those whom you have offended?

Have you refused to forgive anyone who has hurt you?

Are you at peace with everyone?

Have you left the needy without help when you could have helped?

Have you attended the sick or elderly when they have asked you to do so?

Have you shown kindness and attention to all, remembering that God is expecting just such an attitude from you?

Have you hit animals without a cause or been cruel to them, or neglectful of those in your care?

Have you stolen anything?

Have you taken or used other people’s things without asking?

Have you kept money or things that were lent you without returning them?

Have you wasted your employers’ time or resources?

Have you taken things from work for your own use, used the firm’s phone or other facilities for your own purposes without permission or repayment?

Are you obstinate, and do you always try to have your own way?

Have you been inconsiderate of other people’s feelings?

Have you tried to have your revenge against those who have offended you?

Have you harbored resentment?

Have you deceived anyone?

Have you gossiped?

Have you told untruths?

Have you judged and condemned others?

Have you taken pains before approaching for confession to be reconciled with all?

Sins Against Yourself

Have you been proud?

Do you boast of your abilities, achievements, family, connections or riches?

Do you consider yourself worthy before God?

Are you vain, ambitious? Do you try to win praise and glory?

Do you bear it easily when you are blamed, scolded or treated unjustly?

Do you think too much about your looks, outward appearance and the impression you make?

Have you sinned in thought, word or deed, by a look or glance, or in any other way against the seventh commandment?

The seventh commandment includes the sins of adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage),  masturbation, engaging in unnatural sexual acts, sexual fantasy, pornography, etc.

Have you envied anyone over anything?

Have you been over-sensitive?

Have you been lazy?

Have you done your duties heartily?

Have you wasted your time, energy or abilities in things that do not profit the soul?

Have you become obsessive about anything?

Have you been despondent or listless?

Have you had thoughts of committing suicide?

Have you brought a curse on yourself or others or ill-wished them, being impatient?

Have you a weakness for alcohol?

Have you drunk too much, or become dependent on drink?

Have you taken drugs, other than necessary medicines? Have you smoked?

Have you watched television too much or  indiscriminately?

Have you given yourself up to any other similar pastime which wastes your time and energy and might have harmed you?

Have you been greedy, either with regard to food or to possessions?

Have you indulged in comfort-eating? (for example – have you become accustomed to eating between meals?)

Have you been picky about your food, or wasteful of foods, forgetting that so many people are without proper nourishment?

Have you been extravagant?

Have you been wasteful?

Do you care for and seek first the salvation of your soul, the spiritual life and the kingdom of God, or have you put earthly considerations in the first place?

Is there any other sin, which burdens your conscience, or which you are ashamed to tell?

+ + +

Anyone preparing for confession must ask God to help his resolve to tell all his sins. A penitent should prepare for confession and collect his thoughts regarding his sins at least a day before confession. The most valuable thing in the eyes of God is the confession of the sin which weighs most on the conscience. The questions listed are intended to help the  Orthodox Christian examine himself and identify the symptoms of his spiritual ills; they should not be taken as some kind of test to ascertain how well we are doing as if there was a certain “pass-mark.”

Before God’s perfections, we shall always fail. It is for that reason that, as believing Christians, we throw ourselves on the mercy of the Lord and do not trust in our own righteousness.

Remember that our sins can never outweigh God’s love towards us.

Even if we should seem to have failed with regard to all the points mentioned above and more, we should not lose heart but confess our sins without shame, we should regret the wrongs we have done, be resolved to make amends, and receive whatever remedy our confessor should be guided to lay upon us.

Most of all, one should be assured of the blessing of God which these endeavors will bring upon you.

Remember

He Loves You!

A national leader in the application of Christian Biblical principles to business and entrepreneurship, Chris is an attorney, entrepreneurial businessman, and university professor whose  business ethics and management articles, podcasts and personal blog can be found on ChrisBanescu.com.

He is a regular contributor to OrthodoxyToday.org, manages the conservative Christian site OrthodoxNet.com and the OrthodoxNet Blog. He regularly writes articles and commentaries, and has given talks and conducted seminars on a variety of business, ethics, management, and religious topics. He has also written book reviews for Townhall.com and articles for Acton.org. 

His career experience spans Fortune 500 corporations, traditional and online universities, small and medium-sized companies, and several Internet ventures.

President Barack Obama, a life-long Champion for Abortion, is hell-bent on forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control and abortion drugs coverage for their employees. New regulations implemented by the Obama administration mandate that sterilization options, abortifacients (abortion drugs), and contraception services must be included in virtually all health plans, including those offered by Christian charities, church-based hospitals, Christian universities, and other faith-based social services agencies. Obama now demands that his anti-life and pro-abortion agenda must be supported not only by our tax dollars, but also by the donations of Christians who consider the destruction of human life morally abhorrent and an abomination. Abortion is held in such high regard by President Obama that he is willing to violate the First Amendment religious rights of millions of Americans in order to impose and fund his agenda.

On January 20, 2012, the Health and Human Services (HHS) department, under the direction and influence of the Obama administration, issued a final rule that requires health insurance plans, including those of religious institutions,

“cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible.”

HHS’ rule further states that plans must cover the

“full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA – approved forms of contraception.”

The FDA’s list of approved methods of contraception includes abortifacients, abortion drugs prescribed to kill life in the womb after conception.

Pro-Abortion Groups Cheer and Praise Obama

Confirmation of the wrongness and immorality of this mandate came directly from the head of NARAL, a militantly pro-abortion organization. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, praised the Obama administration for its courage and stead-fast support of this government policy.

“The administration stood firm against intensive lobbying efforts from anti-birth-control organizations trying to expand the refusal option even further to allow organizations and corporations to deny their employees contraceptive coverage,” she said. “As a result, millions will get access to contraception—and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission,” she continued.

On its website, NARAL proudly touts its intense pro-abortion lobbying efforts.

“NARAL Pro-Choice America activists sent 135,543 messages to the Obama administration calling on the White House to stand strong in support of no-cost coverage of contraception. This latest activism adds to the list of actions it has taken to make no-cost birth control a reality for all American women.”

Clearly, Obama listened and agrees with their stance. As a result, his rules not only force faith-based organizations to cover these abortion services, they must also offer them for free, with support from donations and dues from their members whose religious beliefs and views emphatically oppose abortion.

Catholic Organizations Condemn the Mandate

Reaction from the Catholic Church, its bishops, several Catholic universities, and many other Catholic leaders has been swift and categorical.

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, sharply criticized the president’s decision and denounced the rule as unconscionable.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights,”

Cardinal-designate Dolan said.

“The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” the archbishop emphasized.

“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,”

said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals

. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society, a Catholic university watchdog group, denounced the “cult of choice” agenda of the Obama administration.

“The White House has sold the First Amendment for a few pennies of political support from the ACLU and the abortion lobby,” he said.

Despite the strong denouncements and intense opposition from Catholic groups, Obama only agreed to delay this mandate until 2013. This transparent “compromise” is obviously intended to help his re-election efforts and deflect the full effect of the controversy until after the November 2012 elections. Luckily, these political games have little traction with the Catholic Church.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”

said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan.

“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation.”

Archbishop Dolan and the Catholic Church understand the seriousness and severity of this latest attack on all faith-based organizations. Obama’s mandate sets a dangerous precedent for our democracy and undermines our Constitution. It is a wholesale assault on the specific protections of religious liberties afforded to all Americans by the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

If this obamination is allowed to stand, then the religious liberties of all Americans will be endangered, not just Christians and Catholics. Such an unconstitutional and tyrannical policy must be opposed and defeated if liberty is to survive in the

“land of the free and home of the brave.”

Silence is not an option, now more than ever.

Source: The American Orthodox Institute

An Orthodox Priest in the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas, Fr. Peter is pastor of St. Michael Orthodox Christian Church in Southbridge, Massachusetts and host of the Podcast Shepherd of Souls. Fr. Peter is a Stavrofor Monk and Founder of the St. Columba of Iona Orthodox Monastery. He is also is also the Chaplain for the Dudley Fire Department and Deputy Chief Chaplain of the Massachusetts Corps of Fire Chaplains.  Fr. Peter also serves as the Orthodox Chaplain at Harvard University and serves on the Board of Orthodox Christian Fellowship.

Three cheers to Fr. Peter, one of the first Orthodox Christians to criticize Pres. Obama’s arbitrary ruling forcing all Americans to comply with the anti-life agenda of the cultural left.

America has a very long tradition of freedom. We cherish these freedoms like, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and until recently, freedom of choice. I will admit right up front that I voted for President Obama because, like many, I believed we needed change.

Well I now feel I was duped and his brand of change is not what America needs at all.

As an Orthodox priest and an American I believe in traditional family values like marriage, family, saving one’s self for that person we plan to spend the rest of our life with — in other words I believe in Christian values as proscribed not only by my Church’s tradition but by Holy Scripture itself.

On Jan. 20th it was announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebellius that the religious exemption on certain parts of the health care plan would not continue and now religious organizations, like the church, would have to supply health insurance that provides coverage for contraception and abortion. The Roman Catholic Church has been carrying most of the water on this fight and as usual our Orthodox Bishops are silent on this. We have an opportunity here to make our voice heard but we are more concerned with territory and language than we are with issues that affect real people! It is time for our bishops to wake up and speak out. Our people are confused and need to hear their voices loud and clear.

Called the “contraception mandate” it requires private insurance to provide access, at no out-of-pocket expense, to contraceptive drugs such as RU 486. Under this plan, people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes or other health issues will continue to pay or co-pay for their prescription drugs, but people who wish to purchase contraceptive drugs will have no out-of-pocket expense.

I have no issue with the choices you make, you make those choices and you have to deal with consequences but this plan will in effect force me to pay for behavior that my religion calls unacceptable. There has always been an exemption for religious organizations for issues such as these. Prior to this ruling for example the insurance that the Roman Catholic Church offered to her employees did not have to cover abortion or contraception — now that will not be the case. The government of the United States is forcing us to violate our conscience and that is unacceptable. The Obama administration’s witch hunt against religion needs to stop!

I am a firm believer that in a country as wealthy as ours, something needs to be done about the out of control cost of health care. To live in a country that develops a majority of the procedures and medications that save lives but at the same time are out of reach of a majority of American is unconscionable. But I am not willing to trade my religious freedom either. There is no Constitutional right to health care but there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops, said at a recent press conference held on this topic,

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.” He continued, “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

Roman Catholics are not the only ones speaking out on this issue. In December the National Association of Evangelicals sent a letter to President Obama expressing their dissatisfaction with this mandate;

“the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice that the 1st Amendment starts with the freedom of religion. The framers of the Constitution placed this first even before freedom of speech, press, or assembly of the people! Religion was protected first, until the Obama Administration decided to throw it out the window and attack.

This is a direct attack on religious freedom in American and the start of a slippery slope to more regulations attacking the faith of Americans. In recent years it has become totally acceptable to attack religion and if we, the religious people in America, do not stand up and make our voice heard, including the Orthodox Bishops in America, we will see our rights eroded away.

This is only the start of a change in America that I cannot accept.

HT: The American Orthodox Institute

Source: The Huffington Post

The Orthodox Christian who directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Terry Mattingly’s writings are syndicated by the Scripps-Howard News Service.

Pope Benedict XVI cut to the chase when meeting with the visiting bishops from Washington, D.C., Baltimore and the U.S. armed services.

The pope mentioned “religious freedom” in the third sentence of his Jan. 19 remarks at the Vatican and he never let up — returning to this hot topic again and again.

The bottom line, he said, is that America’s once-strong political consensus has “eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.”

It doesn’t matter if these attacks originate in “radical secularism,” “radical individualism,” a “merely scientific rationality” or suppressive forms of “majority rule,” said Benedict, during one in an ongoing series of meetings with American bishops. Catholic leaders must strive to defend church teachings in ways that reach all believers in their care — including Catholic politicians.

Within hours, these American bishops had good cause to reflect on one Benedict passage in particular.

While he didn’t name names or cite issues, the pope noted that of particular Vatican concern are

“attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.”

The next day, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — a liberal Catholic — announced that the Obama administration would not back down on its new rules requiring the majority of church-based institutions to include all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of contraception in the health-insurance plans they offer to employees and even students. This would include, with no out-of-pocket payments, sterilizations and the contraceptives — abortifacient drugs — commonly known as “morning-after pills.”

“Some Catholics will hear this news with mixed or negative emotions, including many bishops,” noted Patrick Whelan of the Catholic Democrats organization. “At the same time, we know Catholic women, and by extension their families, use oral contraception at the same rate as the overall population. For over half a century, since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, Catholics and Catholic theologians have taken issue with the Church’s teaching on birth control.”

“Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women,” Sebelius announced. The administration’s decision was made “after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty.”

In a concession that further infuriated her critics, she said some religious institutions could apply for a one-year delay in complying with the rules.

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was not amused.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, in an online video. “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom.”

Pro-Vatican Catholics were united in their opposition to the new regulations, which also drew fire from conservative Protestants and Jews. At the same time, the struggle provided fresh evidence of painful divisions among American Catholics, including the reluctance or refusal of many Catholic institutions to defend church teachings.

For example, a mere 18 Catholic colleges — out of nearly 250 nationwide — united for an earlier protest of the proposed HHS regulations.

“Some Catholics will hear this news with mixed or negative emotions, including many bishops,” noted Patrick Whelan of the Catholic Democrats organization. “At the same time, we know Catholic women, and by extension their families, use oral contraception at the same rate as the overall population. For over half a century, since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, Catholics and Catholic theologians have taken issue with the Church’s teaching on birth control.”

Meanwhile, a cardinal long admired by progressive Catholics added his voice to the chorus of those who were outraged.

“I cannot imagine that this decision was released without the explicit knowledge and approval of President Barack Obama,” said retired Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, on his weblog. “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling. … For me the answer is clear: we stand with our moral principles and heritage over the centuries, not what a particular federal government agency determines.”

(Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Contact him at tmattingly(at)cccu.org or http://www.tmatt.net.)

HT: American Orthodox Institute

Source: The Republic Online

In 2007, the Diocese of Berlin and Germany of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia decided to canonize Alexander Schmorell, a member of the anti-fascist student organization “White Rose,” who was executed on July 13, 1943, in Stadelheim Prison in Munich for anti-fascist activities and confessing the Orthodox Christian faith. The act of canonization will be formalized on February 4-5 in Munich, according to the official website of the Orenburg Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Alexander Schmorell was born in Orenburg, Russia, in 1917. His mother was Russian, his father from a German merchant family. Despite the fact that his family moved to Munich in 1921, Alexander retained a spiritual bond with his faraway homeland for the rest of his life, and was a parishioner in the local Russian church. In 1942, while studying medicine, Alexander and his friend Hans Scholl began to write and disseminate anti-Hitler brochures.

The Resistance group “White Rose,” known to every European schoolchild, included Schmorell and his high-school friend Chrisoph Probst, and another student friend Willi Graf and Hans’ sister Sophie Scholl. The group was exposed in 1943, and they were all sentenced to the guillotine.

In 2008, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate announced that Alexander Schmorell is the first New Martyr to be canonized after the reestablishment of canonical communion between the two Churches. On February 4-5, 2012, bishops from Russia and Ukraine, including His Eminence Metropolitan Valentin of Orenburg and Saraktash, as well as His Eminence Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco and Western America will be present at divine services in Munich.

More on Alexander Schmorell can be found here, here and here. A video about The White Rose can be seen here.

HT: Mystagogy

Source

His Eminence Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos was invited by the Orthodox Christian Clergy Association of Greater Chicago to give the keynote address at the 2012 Pan-Orthodox Vespers Service on January 22, 2012. In a deeply felt address, His Grace advocated for the sanctity of all life, even in those of whom we believe we can discern nothing good whatsoever. He reminded those present that Christ demands this of those who wish to bear his name – who call themselves Christians – and that we as His faithful servants have been called to follow His example of self-less love towards all.

Photographs of the event can be found in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis Photo Gallery

A recent report on FOXNews after Christmas focused on the life of a young Palestinian woman living in Gaza under the Palestinian Authority. She was studying at university to be a journalist and, unlike most residents of Gaza who live in relative poverty; she was a member of a comparatively affluent family who owned a retail store. What made her story so interesting was the fact that she was recently released from an Israeli prison along with hundreds of others in exchange for a single Israeli soldier being held captive by Hamas. She was imprisoned because she had attempted to detonate an explosive vest she was wearing at an Israeli checkpoint but the explosives failed to detonate. Now, back at school and studying to be a journalist, she calmly tells her interviewer that she is awaiting the opportunity to repeat her suicide mission, looking forward to the day she can kill her enemy and enjoy martyrdom.

In a recent documentary on Cook Country Prison, a young adult’s numerous scars from gunshot wounds are revealed as the young man admits that he simply does what he needs to do until the day he dies:

“That’s just the way it goes.”

With nothing to live for, he has nothing to lose; when his time comes, he admits, it will not be

“any big loss.”

A recent article in the Greek Star, a local Greek-American publication, written by John Vlahakis, implicitly suggests abortion as the appropriate means to control world population now that seven billion people inhabit our planet, straining our resources and affecting our shared environment.

And just as recently, the introduction of a new version of the Air Jordan shoes, on the day before Christmas, resulted in several acts of lethal violence in the competition to gain footwear. Apparently the $200.00 shoes were equated with the value of a human life.

I begin with these descriptions that are only indirectly connected to my topic to illustrate an underlying issue of concern to all of us who have gathered at this Church of the Holy Apostles in the interest of the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel, the proclamation of eternal life, sacred life, for which our Lord was born, ministered, taught, died, rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven and sent to his disciples the Holy Spirit.

The underlying issue is the degradation of life’s sanctity exhibited in some form by all these examples: from distorted religious fervor, from what is essentially philosophical nihilism, from political relativism, and economic priorities for our standard of living. All these examples, among a host of others each of us could probably recall, subordinate the gift of life to other concerns. Interestingly, except for religious zealots of the world, very few propagators of what has rightly been called the culture of death commit suicide; those who espouse—in some form or another—the value of death are usually unwilling to die themselves. They do not, however, object to others dying: the undesired enemy, the unwanted or inconvenient preborn, the criminal, persons who live far away and who do not look, talk, or think like we do. This is, of course, hypocrisy.

One writer recently defined hypocrisy as,

“the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue.” He add, “Imagine how frightful truth unvarnished would be”

[Benjamin F. Martin, "France in 1938," 2005].

Many of the issues that we, as Americans, have come to argue so passionately are not immune from our collective hypocrisy. Our political discourse has become immersed in it.

On the political left, they euphemistically talk about a woman’s right to choose when they really mean her right to kill her preborn child, and certainly not about the right to choose to abstain from those behaviors that result in the conception of an unwanted child. Self-control is a virtue if it involves killing someone else; it is not a virtue if it involves moral behavior: a frightful truth unvarnished. On the political right, they will condemn this “culture of death” and espouse a “right to life” while advocating for capital punishment in the name of public safety and denying that right to persons deemed criminal, no matter how corrupt the system, no matter how many persons have been proven to be erroneously convicted. Christian politicians of the right routinely invoke moral values as originating from our Creator, court the Evangelical Christian vote, and protest the current administration’s “war on religion,” but also, as at a recent debate, routinely espouse the supposedly evangelical ideal concerning our enemies:

“Kill them” [Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry].

Truth unvarnished is indeed frightful.

The positions of both political parties, of course, can be reduced to self-concern and, indeed, selfishness. Political conservatives live up to the specific etymology of the word, serving themselves and their own interests; liberals have devolved, in many cases, to moral libertines. The two dominant political parties take diametrically opposed and un-Christian positions on two issues which, for Orthodox Christians, are inherently related since they both concern the execution of life.

Undoubtedly, most Americans who claim to support the so-called “right to life” or “sanctity of life” position do so with abortion in mind. Indeed, public opinion polls consistently show a majority of Americans are against the idea of elective abortion on demand. A far greater number assumedly would consider abortion “wrong,” but hesitate when making discussion turns to making it illegal due to largely hypothetical circumstances (such as rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother). This is why so many “pro-choice” advocates so urgently resist the label “pro-abortion.” In our culture, it is so much more difficult to argue against free choice. In any case, with some important exceptions—such as the Terri Schiavo case in Florida back in early 2005—a broad coalition of activists and supporters has successfully managed to make “right to life” and “anti-abortion” almost synonymous.

Public opinion polls regarding another right-to-life and sanctity-of-life issue, capital punishment, are likewise consistently high in the United States. Politicians who publicly vow to put an end to abortion routinely espouse the necessity for the death penalty. Among Evangelical and Free-Church Protestants, the overwhelming majority is opposed to abortion, but more than half support the death penalty in some form, in some cases. In some regions of the country, support is far higher. Through casuistry and sophistry, it would appear that many persons, claiming to respect the sanctity of life on moral or religious grounds, reason that the preborn are “innocent,” while those who have been found “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” have somehow either forfeited a right to live or, perhaps worse, they have decided that the general principle of life’s sanctity must be modified due to circumstances that are ugly, uncertain, or repugnant in and of themselves; it is as if disrespecting the right of others to live renders a convicted criminal’s life un-sacred in the eyes of God. There seems to be some type of cognitive, if not spiritual, dissonance at work in such minds.

I raise this point because when it comes to my main concern this evening, there is often an emotional, even visceral, reaction to the concept of capital punishment. The intentional causing of the death of the preborn as a matter of convenience—freely chosen murder—is always unjust and unrighteous (a distinction to which I will return). Yet there is often a sense that capital punishment is somehow necessary—however lamentable—for a just society. While not an exact analogy, the killing of Osama Bin Laden—a punishment for the horrific murders he ordered in our nation—aroused enthusiastic cheers across our land. Perhaps this can be rationalized as an act of war, so perhaps a better example would be an actual execution of a convicted criminal, by any comparison to others a true monster. A sigh of relief was heard around the world when Sadaam Hussein was hanged after his trial in Iraq, an outcome little in doubt at its outset for a man we have learned may not have had weapons of mass destruction, but either personally killed or ordered the deaths of literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.

There is a basic, well-ordered logic and rationale for the existence of capital punishment, at least as a response to some crimes. This is, in fact, part of its appeal—not to mention biblical warrant for it in the Old Testament. The United States is one of the few nations to retain it, though we would probably not like to be compared as a nation-state to the others such as China, Syria, Iran, and so forth. Nonetheless, in the context of retributive justice, there are times when capital punishment makes logical sense according to human reason. Opposition to the death penalty in all cases is rather incomprehensible and non-rational. And that is precisely why I am opposed to it.

Before proceeding, let me clarify one terminological distinction that I believe is quite important for Orthodox Christians. In the Bible, the Greek word δίκαιοςδικαιοσύνη and its cognates, such as δικαιοσύνη, is often translated “just,” “justice,” and so forth, as in the description of Joseph the betrothed of Mary: “a just man.” The word can also be translated as “righteous.” Indeed, when Joseph is introduced to us as a “just” man, the application is paradoxical in the context of Joseph’s Jewish culture and piety. We are told that he resolved to “divorce” Mary quietly or discreetly when she was found to be pregnant during their betrothal before their actual marriage and “coming together.”

Under the Law of Moses, “justice” would have been far stricter with Mary. Strictly, she should have been stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:22-24) since there is no indication she was pregnant due to rape. As far as Joseph knew, this was a violation of the Law. Joseph was actually violating the law in seeking to avoid the harsh penalty for Mary’s condition which, of course, was an act of God in the Holy Spirit as he is informed in a dream. Yet the Evangelist, in noting that He is δίκαιος, actually shows Joseph was concerned about “righteousness,” not justice as defined in his culture. In other words, Joseph—and not the letter of the law—was right.

In our culture, justice is ideally “blind.” Equality under the law is a basic principle, and identical (or nearly-identical) crimes are punished—in theory—with identical punishments. Yet we can clearly understand that “justice” being blind sometimes gets the story wrong. Justice and truth do not always coincide in our Western culture, not even ideally. There is widespread agreement that justice does not concern “truth,” but rather certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. Serving justice does not mean serving the truth. Sometimes the two might coincide; at other times they do not; and certainly sometimes what is just is simply not right: it is clearly wrong. As an example, we can return to the so-called constitutional right of a woman to abort her preborn child: it may be no injustice in our society, but it is clearly wrong.

In an Orthodox Christian context, we serve the truth who is Jesus Christ. Our concern is not about justice in the normal, we might say “human,” sense of the word, but about being right and righteous. The concept of justice might be ambiguous in our culture, but being right—and righteous before, with and in God—is never ambiguous: either we are or we are not. Either we are on the mark and right, or “off the mark” which is exactly what the Greek word signifying “sin” means.

There can be no doubt that, even in a biblical sense, the imposition of capital punishment in some cases is just. The Law came through Moses, but originates in God. There can also be no doubt that in the same biblical sense it is always wrong, and even the authors of the Pentateuch presume this since death itself, in any form, is always wrong and contrary to the will of God for His creation. It is the result of sin. Of course, this is more explicit in the Christian scriptures and I will return to this thought later in my presentation. Let me return to the subject of capital punishment.

I have long been an advocate for the abolition of the death penalty. My active involvement began when it was made personal. Prior to my personal involvement, it was theoretical: while I was vaguely aware of the issue and was always opposed to it in principle, I confess that my views were largely shaped by the injustice of capital punishment.

By this I refer to the fact—one that was vividly demonstrated here in Illinois—that the ultimate penalty of death can be, and often has been, imposed on those who were later proven to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. It goes against reason that those vindicated while on death row and subsequently released were the only examples of the miscarriage of justice: when a just sentence is simple wrong. We cannot know how many have been executed when actually innocent.

However, the injustice of our justice system continues beyond this. Rather than equal penalties for equal crimes, the death penalty is disproportionately imposed upon the poorest, darkest-skinned and most shoddily represented among us. Rather than saving the state an expense of life imprisonment, implementing the death penalty costs at least three times as much as the costs associated with sentencing a convicted criminal to life without possibility of parole. Rather than being a deterrent to crime, states with the death penalty actually have higher homicide and overall crime rates. Rather than providing victims or their families any timely sense of retribution, vengeance or closure, the condemned typically spend well over a decade awaiting execution during a complicated appeals process that often causes continued pain and anxiety for survivors.

The injustices of the system have all been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They provide compelling reasons to abolish the death penalty, and this is why an Orthodox Christian clergyman such as myself was able to work with a broad coalition of persons and organizations to organize against the death penalty. During my presidency of the Illinois Coalition Against the Death Penalty, I worked with persons who often held very different religious or even moral views from the Church, and some were opposed to capital punishment for reasons unrelated to any specifically Christian moral principle, such as for economic reasons. Nonetheless, I became involved because I saw this as both an opportunity to work toward a new moral awakening in our nation, to work for the cause of righteousness and not simply social justice. But above all, I felt it imperative to do what I was able to save lives. In fact, one specific life.

I met the “notorious” Andrew Korkoraleis at the Pontiac Correctional Institution, just weeks before his scheduled execution. Although I had visited inmates before, this was the first time I was to meet with a death row inmate. After encountering the institutional and callous prison personnel as well as enduring a body search, I passed through several gates, which seemed to close out the world behind. I was then taken to a cold, concrete visiting room and was instructed sit in one of four chairs around a bare table. All of them were bolted to the floor.

Andrew, with his hands shackled together, was escorted to my table by a prison guard. Of course, I will not reveal the details of our discussion. However, I need you to know that instead of encountering a monster I found Andrew to be a person of great faith, who was at peace with himself as well as with his accusers.

For all the 17 years he had been imprisoned, Andrew had maintained his innocence. On the basis of that first visit, and many other direct experiences I had with Andrew, I firmly believe that he was indeed innocent of the crime for which he was ultimately killed. Notably, others convicted as accomplices in the same crime (the so-called Chicago Rippers) were either not executed due to subsequent events, or were not sentenced to death. In any case, I cannot communicate to you what it felt like to have bonded so deeply with a person who had spent all of his adult life imprisoned.

Nor can I describe what it felt like to have seen Christ face to face in prison, shackled, alone, with no family or friends. His only remaining family was his Church. His Greek Orthodox Church stood by his side as his family and galvanized the wider religious community in the face of the great social evil of capital punishment. We felt it incumbent upon ourselves to stand decisively for clemency for Andrew and to stand in opposition to the death penalty in general. Even though our pleas fell upon insensitive and even deaf political ears, we knew that we had to do what was Christ-like.

And we tried – with letters, with demonstrations; with all the moral authority we could bring to bear. We publicized the fact that not a single shred of physical or scientific evidence existed that tied Andrew to the crime for which he was to be executed – no fingerprints, no DNA, no eye witnesses. In fact the only evidence against him was a confession obtained by police that Andrew almost instantly recanted.

As the fatal day of his execution approached, we gathered many religious leaders in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral to offer the then-governor our collective wisdom and prayers in his struggle. Former Governor Ryan, as you know, had turned a deaf ear to the religious community in general, and in particular to the religious community of which Andrew Kokoraleis was a part.

On March 17, 1999, our brother-in-Christ Andrew was put to death by the state of Illinois. Two days later I returned home from a very emotionally draining and difficult day at my office and received an ominous letter in the mail. It was from Andrew. With great care I opened the envelope and read the enclosed card. I absorbed every word into my being. I took what Andrew told me to heart and I clearly heard his every word as a personal calling. Andrew’s correspondence gratefully asked and hoped that somehow by his execution others might be spared a similar fate and that all executions might be terminated. He thanked me for the support I had provided him and told me that we would certainly see each other again in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I live everyday with the prayer that Andrew’s dying wishes will be granted. As it happened, two weeks after Andrew’s state-sanctioned homicide, Former Governor Ryan indicated a reduced obstinacy toward the religious community by making a public appearance at a Prayer Breakfast. Later, as we know, he publicly announced he regretted the various decisions he made in regard to the implementation of the death penalty in Illinois and placed a moratorium on executions, although in theory it was temporary until reforms for “fairness” and to ensure “just” executions occur—in other words, so that innocents not be put to death mistakenly, as so many in Illinois almost were, and perhaps—as I believe—actually were. Of course, more recently, under Governor Quinn, the hopeless broken system has been finally abolished—at least for now. Of course, there is still work to be done. Indiana, Iowa and Missouri, three states in which our Holy Metropolis has parishes, still maintain the death penalty. Obviously other states do as well, as does our Federal government. Working for abolition requires a long-term commitment. But after the United States, we will continue on to eliminate it in all corners of our world.

It is one thing to be an advocate for the unjustly accused or convicted. There is a generally recognized nobility in such a struggle. It is another thing—more difficult—to be an advocate for the guilty. Inevitably, this is what those who work for the abolition of capital punishment are—in part. And in our society, there is usually only scorn for those who seek to prevent even the guilty from being put to death by the state.

In Orthodox sacred tradition, every human being is created in the image and likeness of God. We are each of us an icon, an image of Christ and a mirror to one another of God’s living presence in the world. No human being – no murderer, no governor who in essence flipped the switch, nor the citizens whom she or he represents – no one is a “monster.” And every human being, including Andrew and every other death row inmate, is of value and worth as a person. This is true even for those who seem most evil, and this is a mystery and perhaps the ultimate challenge of our Faith.

Saint Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthians a “more excellent way,” the way of love. In the Bible and in theology, love is not a sentiment or feeling or emotion. It is a manner of existing. The Greek word in the New Testament for love agape, literally derives from ?-ἄ-ἐγώ, “not me.” Thus, to love means to live in such a manner as to not be concerned with the self, but only with the one we love. Of course, the teaching of Jesus Christ is that we love everyone, and this without condition. It means to be concerned with the life of the one we love, and this of course precludes ending that life. Love is always an act of freedom, a choice we make: to love or not to love. And the New Testament is clear, that if we love, we love because God first loved us (1 John). In other words, the capacity to love—and we each have this capacity—comes from God.

But as an act of freedom, love brings us to a place that is really beyond our conventional sense of justice and our commonly shared social ethics (what we ought to do or not do) and system of law. Love is not about law and ethics, but is all about our ethos, our way of being in the world. The simple text of the Bible is that we should love our neighbor (and this really means everyone as the Parable of the Good Samaritan shows). But Jesus Christ takes this one step further:

“as you did to the least of these, so you did to me.”

And this means precisely that we must treat each and every human being as we would treat Christ. This sounds rather simple, but is in fact the most difficult of teachings. For if we truly love, there is nothing that we would not do for our beloved. And this moves us beyond what “ought to be” done. It moves us beyond categories of right and wrong into the realm of self-emptying for the sake of the other person. It is sacrifice of our life, plain and simple, for another—whoever that may be.

Obviously, such a calling, such a vocation and ethos is simply impossible to legislate and is, as Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon states in his recent publication, Communion and Otherness,

“inapplicable in a justly, that is, morally, organized society. It would be inconceivable to regulate social life on such a basis [of unconditional love for our neighbor], for there would be no room for law and order” (Zizioulas).

Love is not a law (an infringement on freedom) nor can it be “ordered.”

The prescriptions of the Sermon on the Mount, such as the one to turn the left cheek to someone who strikes you on the right (Mt 5:39) is certainly a far cry from our society’s sense of justice. The call to love our enemies in the Christian tradition is another example of an ethos that is largely inapplicable in the American justice system or, frankly, anywhere in the world. But then the problem, from an Orthodox Christian point of view, is the very idea that justice can be systematically administered in a manner that is “righteous,” a standard that means for us consonant with God’s unconditional, self-emptying and self-sacrificing love and example.

One may point out that I have been an activist for seeking to reform our system of justice. This is not because I believe that the system can be reformed in such a manner as to be consistent with this ethos of love. It cannot. We live in a society of laws, a society of systems, a society where justice requires the payment of debts, not the forgiveness of them (unless you have extremely good political relationships with the U.S. Congress). It is a society where the death penalty still exists because it does, in fact, hold a certain logic of it own, consistent with the lex talionis: an eye for an eye, a life for a life. It also, paradoxically, perhaps, appeals to feelings and sentiment of grief and anger.

Yet as a bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ, I fight against the injustice of capital punishment precisely because the Church cannot abandon or betray or distort the Gospel, and present to society at large an ethos different from that of Christ’s life. In the final analysis, the Church is in this world, but it is not of it (Jn 15:16). Despite the “way of the world,” the Church must persevere in converting the ethos of the world, and this we can only do with acts of love, one at a time.

And so at a very basic level, to change minds and hearts (and the meaning of the New Testament word we usually translate as “repent”, μετανοεῖτε, literally means to change one’s mind), to change minds we begin at a common denominator of language—those elements on which we can agree. These are the practical and moral (because there certainly is a right and wrong) aspects of the calls to abolish state-sanctioned murder of human beings created in the image and likeness of God. On these, all rational minds can agree (whether they will or not). From this point, what I have called our new moral awakening, we can move to the more excellent way, and for Christians this is always the way of love in Christ Jesus.

We will never be capable of healing all the hurts of the world, and fixing all the problems. We are actually told this. Yet to live together as a sign and icon of the Kingdom means to endure in this age and fight against, as Saint Paul so aptly phrases it, our final enemy, death.

The images I presented at the beginning are indicative that there is still a great need for the proclamation of the sanctity of life in all cases and all forms. Perhaps, unlike ancient times, the message of hope that we proclaim at every Pascha rises to a place above where most hearts and minds can comprehend the Good News of the Resurrection. The success of Saint Paul and the Church in ancient times was predicated on a certain cultural perspective of life and death, one that has largely changed in our contemporary, western, technological, scientific and largely urban setting. The Church cannot simply offer words of encouragement to a world immersed in death and corruption. We must be actively seeking to put into action the annihilation of death and the wages of death within our own broken world in an obvious and practical manner. I, and others, will continue advocating in ministries revolving around social justice, for if we can achieve some measure of justice we can move on to righteousness, the “more excellent way.” By this, we can transform our culture from one where the execution of life—abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment—is commonplace to one where the goal is, indeed, the execution of death.

Source