Patriarch Kirill recently celebrated his first 100 days as Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the second-largest Church in the world. There is an interesting editoral in the St. Petersburg Times (co-authored by Robert Moynihan) about his work thus far:

Patriarch Kirill was installed in office on Feb. 1. His first 100 days have been marked by innovation not only in terms of style, but also in substance — much like the reign of Pope John Paul II in the Roman Catholic Church…

On March 8 in Moscow, Kirill showed the type of spirit that he is bringing to his pastoral task. He warned during a Sunday sermon not to trust radical Orthodox believers who are battling for the “purity of faith” and whose motto is “Orthodoxy or death!”

“When we meet a man who claims to be fighting for the purity of Orthodoxy, but his eyes are lit with the fire of anger … if we find someone who is ready to shake the foundation of church life to defend Orthodoxy … this is the first sign of that we have a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” he said….

Today, Kirill is arguably one of the most influential men in Russia. When he was enthroned as Patriarch Alexy II’s successor in the Christ the Savior Cathedral, the church was filled with the country’s beau monde and top political leaders. The first person to receive communion from him was the first lady, Svetlana Medvedeva.

Moreover, Kirill’s vision has a fully European scope, going far beyond the borders of the country. Kirill now heads a church with about 140 million adherents, far larger than the Anglican Church and second only to the Roman Catholic Church. With a significant percent of Orthodox believers living outside Russia, this gives the church a truly global reach….

One of Pope John Paul II’s most important goals was to put an end to the scourge of atheist communism, and Pope Benedict XVI still passionately hopes to see the restoration of a unified church. While Kirill has not spoken in terms of unification, he has helped improved ties with Rome. This explains why Benedict has made numerous gestures toward Kirill of welcome and appreciation since the moment that he was elected patriarch on Jan. 27.

All of this sounds very promising and I hope and pray that Patriarch Kirill can work with Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church to promote Christianity in Europe and the whole world.

sometimes even on fried salami.

(This story reminds me of the movie Henry Poole Is Here).

An example of decency in a sickening story:

Guns were missing.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash was lying around.

Crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs from criminal cases were tossed haphazardly in a metal bin.

Then, there were the two fetuses in the freezer from two sexual assault cases dating years back.

That was the chaos in the Middletown [Ohio] Police Department’s property room last year, according to hundreds of documents filed in a civil case in Butler County Common Pleas Court…

The fetuses, from sexual assaults of girls age 12 and 14 in 2005 and 2006, provided DNA samples to link the attacks to the suspects, said Butler County Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Muench-McElfresh. Both men pleaded guilty before their cases went to trial.

Police later delivered the remains – in two small Styrofoam containers – to the Breitenbach-McCoy-Leffler Funeral Home in Middletown.

“They said they had been laying around in a freezer on a shelf,” funeral director John Webster said. “I gave them a proper Christian burial.”

God bless Mr. Webster for treating these two little children as the images of God they are.

Pop quiz: What name is most common among popes?

Hint: Today is the feast day of the first pope with this name.

A barely-related story: my young son Peter tells me that he wants to be pope someday. I told him that he will have to change his name when he becomes pope, but he wants to keep “Peter” since it is the name of the first pope. I told him that there is a well-known prophecy that the pope who takes the name Peter will be the last pope and that will signal Christ’s return. He seemed to be even more inspired to be the next Pope Peter. Just my luck, my son will be the one who ushers in the apocalypse…

There has been a lot of bad news in recent months related to abortion. A certain “Catholic” university feted our president, in spite of his support for abortion anytime, anywhere and by anyone. Many Catholics in public life are saying we have to give up on making abortion illegal, and instead just work on policies to reduce the number of abortions. Our new HHS secretary is connected to late-term abortionist George Tiller. We will probably get a rabidly pro-abortion nominee to the Supreme Court in the coming months.

Yet I find something greatly encouraging in all these stories. What is it? That legalized abortion is still a controversial issue here in America. Unlike in Europe, where there is little debate over legalized abortion, killing innocent children still causes controversy in this land. After 37 years of Roe, Catholics and other pro-lifers absolutely refuse to accept legalized child-killing, and we refuse to allow it to become an acceptable practice in this country. We will continue fight against it until it becomes unthinkable again. We will never surrender the rights of our littlest brothers and sisters to those who consider them disposable. We will continue to support women in crisis pregnancies, continue to have more children than our opponents and teach them about the horror that is abortion, continue to pray and witness at the abortion clinics, continue to preach against child-killing from the pulpit, continue to fight against politicians who would cave in to pro-abortion pressure, and continue to pray and fast for God to have mercy on our nation for this terrible crime that cries to heaven for justice.

And don’t think all of these efforts have been without effect: a recent Gallup poll showed, for the first time, that a majority of our population self-identifies as “pro-life.” This in spite of the constant pro-abortion message from our media and many powerful segments of our culture.

We will never give up. We will always oppose legalized abortion anywhere and anytime. We will never surrender the fight for the lives of unborn children. And eventually, we will win.

I’ve posted my reflection on this Sunday’s readings, in which I take note of how the Bible defines love.

Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and well-known Evangelical leader, has a blog post in which he takes issue with the Pope’s (and the Church’s) dealings with Islam. Here is the text, with my comments in red:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians “Respect” Other Religions?
The world we now know is marked by religious pluralism and the clash of worldviews. The modern world brings individuals and groups of different belief systems into both proximity and potential conflict. How should Christians respond when asked about this? Should Christians “respect” other religions? [A legitimate inquiry, but it begs the question: what do we mean by "respect"? Does it mean we agree with the religion? That we think it has the right to practice its faith? Or something else? Mohler doesn't really define it here.]

Headlines throughout the world announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting Jordan, spoke of his “respect” for Islam. This came on the heels of the Pope’s notorious [this seems to be a loaded word] 2006 speech at Germany’s Regensburg University. In that speech Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II, one of the Byzantine monarchs, who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” [Note that the pope didn't say he completely agreed with that quote.]

The outrage throughout the Muslim world was immediate and overwhelming. The Pope issued clarifications and explanations, but Muslim outrage continued. This week, with the Pope scheduled to make his first papal visit to an Islamic country, the sensitivities were high.

The Vatican’s official transcript of the Pope’s comments at the Amman airport records him as saying:

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.

[Here we have the first problem with Mohler's analysis: he asks in the first paragraph: "Should Christians 'respect' other religions?" yet note that the Pope says that he has "deep respect for the Muslim community". He did not say that he had respect for Islam per se, but for the people who practice that faith. As Christians, we have respect for all people created in the image of God, so his statement is quite benign. The pope also wants to pay tribute to the "virtues" proclaimed by Islam. Considering virtues are always virtues, no matter who proclaims them, I see no problem with that either.]

There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. [It would be interesting if he explained at least one count. Why exact is the pope being a head of state intrinsicly wrong? Does it not allow him opportunities such as this one to promote Christ's Gospel?] Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. [Mohler seems to have a limited understanding of how the Gospel can be preached. History has shown that there are many means by which one can proclaim the Gospel - "diplomatic jargon" is not automatically excluded from that list. Furthermore, this pope has proven in the past that he is not against being blunt when the occasion calls for it.] Third, we have the Pope speaking of “respect” without any clear understanding of what this really means. [What? Why does Mohler say this? How does he even know how the Pope defines "respect." Again, it would be nice if Mohler himself defined it for us.] Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam? [Now we have it - this is the real issue that Mohler has with the Pope and Catholicism in general.]

Actually, he probably does — at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are “included in the plan of salvation” by virtue of their claim to “hold the faith of Abraham.”

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God’s salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

[I give credit to Mohler for at least going to official Church teachings - many Evangelicals and fundamentalists would not do this. However, he woefully misinterprets the Church's teaching, most likely because he simply doesn't have the background to understand it in context. The Church talks of the "plan of salvation" in the sense that God desires all men to be saved, and likewise, that all men on some fundamental level desire to be saved. Thus, other religions are often attempts by man to reconcile himself with God. These attempts are always inadequate, but they reflect the need for God within all men and often contain truths that are implanted into our DNA - like the existence of a power above us, our sinful nature, and our duty to serve others. These are things that are true no matter who proclaims them, and if someone acknowledges them they draw closer to God.

The Church has always proclaimed that only through Jesus Christ is anyone saved - this was proclaimed at Vatican II and it is in the Catechism. However, the Church does not arrogantly declare that God is bound to save people through Christ only in ways we know. We know that Christ is the only way to salvation and we must proclaim that fact (which the pope does again and again), but we also humbly acknowledge that we do not know all the ways of God and if He desires to save someone, through Christ, who is not outwardly Christian, He can do so if He wishes.]

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of “respecting” Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.

While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel.

In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. [Here is a difference between Mohler's worldview and the Catholic worldview: we believe that anyone who practices virtue and acknowledges truth (like the existence of one God) draws closer to God through that activity. Yes, it might be deformed and/or incomplete, but it still contains truth. And since Jesus is the Truth, he is present wherever truth is proclaimed.] Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive. [In this paragraph Mohler gets much closer to the Catholic position. It is the true elements of Islam that the Pope respects, not the false ones (this should be obvious). His statements here make me wonder if Mohler is simply looking for a reason to criticize the Pope.]

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.

Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.

[Mohler needs a broader view of what it means to preach the Gospel. The Church looks at things with a very long view. If the Pope spouted off in Jordan as Mohler wished, he might have gotten some kudos from Evangelicals. However, would it have been something that long term would have helped advance the Gospel in the Muslim world? I don't know, but I do know that the Pope desires that all men, including Muslims become Christian (well, Catholic, actually), so his "diplomatic" efforts are part of a long-term effort to bring the Gospel to everyone.]

There is a wonderful movie made in Russia called “Ostrov” (“The Island”). Here is the synopsis for the film:

Somewhere in Northern Russia in a small Russian Orthodox monastery lives a very unusual man. His fellow-monks are confused by his bizarre conduct. Those who visit the island believe that the man has the power to heal, exorcise demons and foretell the future. However, he considers himself unworthy because of a sin he committed in his youth. The film is a parable, combining the realities of Russian everyday life with monastic ritual and routine.

I watched the movie a year or so ago, and I found it quite moving. What I particularly enjoyed is how it depicted Christianity as practiced in Russia. We have a tendency to assume that all disciples of Christ practice their faith as we do here in modern America, as least generally. However, in the history of the Church and throughout the world, the Christian Faith has been lived in widely divergent ways while remaining true to the Gospel.

I just discovered that this movie is now available on YouTube in twelve parts:

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HehNS7zfnA4
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMgv-NNtoc
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvHBSa19Knk
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At6Gwl4qFmg
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKvAGhjje-s
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPVyVgUe4SM
7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_BlCb8unI
8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UbPXKvlJ_Q
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQd7BH9sy8
10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CM0dYRsm4
11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwNl40JnMRo
12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLc6E5ZXESA

(I am assuming that the YouTube version is not violating any copyrights, but if it is, I imagine YouTube will take it down shortly – in any case, renting or purchasing this movie is well worth the cost).

Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who tried to assassinate John Paul II twenty-eight years ago this week, says that he would like to be baptized after his release from prison next year. If true, this is wonderful news, and a fruit of JPII’s response to this man’s attempt to kill him. However, there is reason to be skeptical of Agca’s claims, as he has also claimed to be the Messiah previously, and seems to want to wait until he is out of prison to be baptized so he can be baptized at the Vatican.

Like JPII, we should pray for this man and know that Christ is all-merciful to those who turn to him.

There is an interesting article by Tom Bethell in the American Spectator about the demographic suicide the wealthy nations are currently committing. An excerpt:

I believe that two interacting factors shape population growth or decline: economic prosperity and belief in God. As to the first, there is no doubt that rising material prosperity discourages additional children. Fewer infants die; large families are no longer needed to support older parents. The welfare state—which only rich countries can afford—has greatly compounded this effect. When people believe that the government will take care of them, pay their pensions and treat their maladies, children do seem less essential.

A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.

The Bible consistently warns about the dangers of money, and we can see a primary reason for these warnings in the actions of modern man. Those who are best able to provide for children – the wealthy – are the least likely to want to actually have children. Money breeds selfishness, and the more money one has, the more likely he is to put his own comfort and desires above all else, thus killing the desire to care for others. In the end, this leads to cultural suicide.

Today is the feast of St. Matthias, the successor to Judas in the college of apostles. Today’s saint is mentioned once in the New Testament:

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)

This is a clear instance of the doctrine of apostolic succession: that the authority Christ gives to the apostles is passed on to others after their death. In the Gospels we see that Christ gives his apostles powers and responsibilities not given to other disciples (just as we see that he gives Peter even more power and responsibility than the other eleven apostles). Yet what happens to this power and responsibility after these apostles die? Does it disappear? Does it go to all Christ’s followers? The story of St. Matthias tells us what happens to it: it is transferred to successors chosen by the current holders of apostolic authority.

More information about this saint can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

St. Matthias, pray for us!

Dean, a friend and reader of this blog and a friend of Christopher West, makes some insightful comments regarding West’s appearance on ABC last week:

I can tell you that the ABC piece was unfair but not exactly a distortion. Chris very much likes to say things that are shocking or provocative (e.g., linking our late Holy Father and Hugh Hefner) in order to get your attention, and then follow that up with an explanation that is much less inflammatory (and very solid, more on that below). I’m not competent to say whether or not this is effective as a pedagogical strategy, but I can tell you that it doesn’t do him any favors in contexts like this. When people are exposed to some of his “quotable quotes” without having access to all the surrounding explanation and nuance of the full presentation, they have a tendency to react very negatively, and it’s not unreasonable for them to do so. So yes, ABC chopped and cut to make it into “good TV”, but given the way he likes to express himself this was (to some extent) a nice fastball over the middle of the plate for them.

Having said that, if you take the time to get the full presentation (whether at a talk or in one of his books) there’s no question but that he knows what he’s talking about, he is very much in line with JPII’s thinking, and that his intentions are absolutely of the best.

Read all of his comments here.

Take time today to read this speech by Archbishop Charles Chaput. It begins:

The Catholic faith is not simply a collection of doctrines and ideas, or a body of knowledge, or even a system of beliefs, although all those things are important. At its root, Christianity is an experience: a life-changing, personal experience of the risen Jesus Christ. Everything else in the writings of St. Paul, and everything else in our life as Catholics, flows from that personal encounter with Jesus Christ. If we truly seek him, then we will always find him. But when we find him, we need to be ready for the consequences, because nothing about our lives can be the same.

This is the underlying theme of my book Who Do You Say That I Am? As Catholics, we highly value the Scriptures, our Tradition, the doctrines of the faith and our liturgy. But all of these are intended to be in service of our personal encounter with Christ; each one should direct us to interacting more deeply with the person of Jesus.

Too often there are two opposing trends in our attitude regarding our Catholic traditions. On the one hand, there are those we say that these traditions prevent a deep relationship with Christ; we need to jettison them and return to a “pure” practice of the faith like in the first century. This, however, is faulty reasoning: by looking to see how our forefathers (and foremothers) in the faith followed Christ we can be given insights into our own discipleship. It is spiritual hubris to think that we can simply follow Christ without any guidance from the giants of the faith that have come before us.

On the other hand, there are those who elevate our Catholic traditions to be the end of our faith, not the means to deepening it. They believe that man was made for our traditions, not traditions for man. This was clearly condemned by Christ himself in the Gospels, but unfortunately it seems to be human nature to elevate our own creations above the Creator.

As Archbishop Chaput reminds us, what we need is to have a new life in Christ – everything we do and believe should be directed towards that goal. It might be painful at times and it might (and probably will) involve suffering, but the result is beyond anything we can imagine.

Yesterday in the mail I received my copy of Mark Shea’s three-volume work Mary, Mother of the Son. Here is some advance praise for this series:

“This fine book exploring the Church’s teaching on Our Lady will be a joy to Catholics and a revelation to Protestants. I highly recommend it for both groups.”
-Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.

“The single most helpful book on Sacred Tradition written in our generation.”
-Scott Hahn

I’m looking forward to reading it; unfortunately, it joins a backlog of about a dozen books on my “to read next” list.

If you are interested in ordering the book, go to Mark’s website and order directly from him.

Last week Christopher West, a popular proponent of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” was profiled on ABC’s Nightline. When I watched the piece (video available in the link provided), I have to admit I was a bit disappointed. The whole segment seemed to be completely focused on sexual acts, devoid of any serious context. It even presented Mr. West as being a fan of Hugh Hefner and made him appear to be supportive of the sexual revolution. I do not know Mr. West, although I am vaguely familiar with some of his work, but I do know the media and I assumed that ABC was to blame. Considering our culture’s distorted obsession with pelvic issues, it is not surprising that they would divorce issues of sexual acts from the context of male-female relationships as intended by God.

Well, it appears that Christopher West also takes issue with ABC’s presentation. On his website, he notes some errors with a number of points in the report. He also granted an interview with Catholic News Agency in which he gives further corrections to ABC’s sensationalism of his work.

However, some Catholics are still not happy with Mr. West’s apostolate, including Alice von Hildebrand. Her main objection seems to be that she does not think Mr. West is “reverent” enough in his discussions of sexual issues and does not take seriously enough the problem of concupiscence.

This is clearly an important issue. We live in a culture is that is incredibly sick when it comes to sex. You cannot walk in a mall without seeing semi-pornographic images and you cannot watch more than 15 minutes of prime-time television without some message urging sexual relations without any responsibility. High schools and colleges are deep in the “hook up” culture, which reduces the God-given gift of sex to an animal urge. How are we as faithful Catholics to respond to such a culture?

On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with some of the Catholic responses to the sexual revolution, which try to be like a “Catholic Dr. Ruth” or as “edgy” in its language as Howard Stern. Dr. Hildebrand has a point when she urges us to be reverent when speaking of sexuality and to always remember that we are all afflicted with concupiscence. Yet I also think that one of the beauties of JPII’s Theology of the Body is that it breaks free of the Puritan demeaning of sex. Sexual relations between a man and a wife is a wonderful gift from God and one of its purposes (along with begetting children) is to unite a man and a woman as “one flesh.” St. Paul tells us that marriage is a “mystery” that reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church – how incredible is that? The response to culture’s worship of sex is not to proclaim that “sex is evil” or even to avoid talking about sex, but instead show how sexual relations can and should point people to worship of sex’s creator. From what I have seen, this is the ultimate intention of Christopher West’s apostolate.

Inevitably, good people can make mistakes and perhaps go beyond the proper boundaries when discussing sexual relations. We need to pray that everyone involved in this type of apostolate stays close to the Lord and helps others to understand God’s gift of sex in its appropriate context.