Tag: Christianity

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled June 25 the state’s charter school contract with the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School was in violation of state laws, the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

A state school board in Oklahoma had voted in June 2023 to approve an application by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to establish the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School, which would have been the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school if it survived the legal challenge.

While proponents of the contract with St. Isidore argued the Catholic school met all criteria for approval as a charter school and should not be discriminated against for its religious identity, some education activists and other opponents, who called it a violation of the separation of church and state, objected to the use of public funds for the school and filed a lawsuit asking a state court to block them.

Justice James Winchester wrote in the majority opinion, “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school.

“As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian. However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic faith as part of its school curriculum while sponsored by the State. This State’s establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause,” he added.

The high court also found that Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the state from using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution. A 2016 ballot measure in the state would have repealed that measure, but voters rejected that effort.

Supporters of the school, however, indicated they may pursue other legal avenues to seek approval.

“St. Isidore is considering its legal options but today’s decision to condone unconstitutional discrimination against religious educators and the children they serve is one that the school will continue to fight,” John Meiser, director of the Religious Liberty Clinic at Notre Dame Law School, said in a statement. “St. Isidore merely seeks to join Oklahoma’s diverse array of charter schools, bringing educational choice and opportunity to communities and families in need.”

In a joint statement, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City and Bishop David A. Konderla of the Diocese of Tulsa and Eastern Oklahoma said the ruling “is very disappointing for the hundreds of prospective students and their families from across the state of Oklahoma who desired the educational experience and promise of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.”

The bishops said they would “consider all legal options” moving forward, and that they “remain steadfast in our belief that St. Isidore would have and could still be a valuable asset to students, regardless of socioeconomic, race or faith backgrounds.”

The case placed the state’s governor and attorney general — both Republicans — at odds over the school board’s decision to provide taxpayer funds for the Catholic school, with the attorney general calling it unconstitutional and a potential gateway for Muslims and Satanists to do the same.

“I’m concerned we’ve sent a troubling message that religious groups are second-class participants in our education system,” Gov. Kevin Stitt said in a statement.

“Charter schools are incredibly popular in Oklahoma — and all we’re saying is: we can’t choose who gets state dollars based on a private entity’s religious status,” Stitt said. “Religious freedom is foundational to our values, and today’s decision undermines that freedom and restricts the choices available to Oklahomans.”

Stitt said he was “disappointed” by the attorney general’s “attack on religious liberty and the school choice movement.”

“I remain hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and grant St. Isidore the right to establish their school,” he said.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond in his own statement called the state Supreme Court’s ruling “a tremendous victory for religious liberty.”

“The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all,” Drummond said.

“Now Oklahomans can be assured that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism,” he said. “While I understand that the Governor and other politicians are disappointed with this outcome, I hope that the people of Oklahoma can rejoice that they will not be compelled to fund radical religious schools that violate their faith.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, praised the ruling in a joint statement.

“The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision safeguards public education and upholds the separation of religion and government,” they said. “Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school.”

But Misty G. Smith, principal of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, said in a statement, “Today’s decision is a setback for Oklahoma K-12 students and to the ideal of free choice and open opportunity in education.”

Smith said she hoped the court’s error would be corrected “and that St. Isidore will help open the path toward a future where the needs of all Oklahoma students and families are fulfilled, regardless of their background, income, or beliefs.”

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.” (CCC 2309) 

The Catholic Church’s “Just War” theory is like the classic novel “Moby Dick” — they are both mammoth tomes filled with wisdom that too few people read. For things like the 80th anniversary of the 1944 D-Day invasion, the theory helps us understand exactly what we were celebrating in Europe and back here at home.

On a personal note, my wife and her sister went to Normandy to commemorate the day and honor the memory of their mother, who served as a nurse in the Army Air Corps during the war. 

Granted, she never left the base in Kansas, but she did her part, and no German Wehrmacht troops got within 8,000 miles of Kansas while she was on duty. My uncle, on the other hand, also served in the Army Air Corps as the crew chief for a B-24 heavy bomber stationed in the UK, which played a more “kinetic” role in softening up German targets before, during, and after D-Day.

It has been said World War II was the “good” war. The line of separation between the opposing forces was never so well-defined in the unhappy history of human warfare. But the brutal reality is that all the bad done during the “good” war was not just from bad guys, but the good guys as well. 

People like me, at the tail end of the Boomer generation, were weaned on war movies. We loved them. We played war every summer, based on whatever war movie we had seen. We were also too young to understand Vietnam, and too old for everything that followed. 

One of my brothers was just the right age for Vietnam. Like many of his generation, he found himself carrying a high-velocity rifle and wading through rice paddies. Upon his return home, the damage that was done to his soul from real war experience was easy to see, if not so easy to diagnose in those days. Only through God’s grace, and, I am positive, my mother’s constant pestering of the Blessed Mother on his behalf, did he pull through. He lived a happy, faith-infused life, and raised a wonderful family. 

Before my wife and her sister went to Normandy, I insisted they watch “The Longest Day,” an early 1960s star-studded epic about the D-Day invasion. It still holds up, although like all war movies before and after, it truly pales in comparison to what real wartime carnage is like. But at least it gave some good factual background for my wife and her sister as they encountered Omaha Beach.

And the facts of that day were staggering: 150,000 American and Allied troops were put ashore. More than 4,000 of those men died on that day. Thousands more were wounded and maimed for life. On the other side, the German forces were slaughtered at almost double the numbers.

The horrors of the “good” war did not begin on that 12-mile stretch of sand and rocks, and more were to come. My uncle believed he was bringing a horrible war to an end against a homicidal enemy in the fastest way possible. But the argument can be made — and has been — that what the United States 8th Air Force did to German cities was a blatant violation of the Catholic “Just War” theory. Arguing a point more than 80 years old is futility on stilts, and I would not dishonor the memory of my uncle who sacrificed so much.

Instead, let us pray for all the uncles and fathers, brothers and sons, and now the aunts, mothers, sisters, and daughters who have fallen in any conflict. We honor them all best by cracking open that Catechism gifted to us by the Church and reading what could be read aloud in every military cemetery in the world.

“The Fifth Commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.” (CCC 2307)

Last month, “CBS News” aired a primetime “60 Minutes” interview between Norah O’Donnell and Pope Francis. Of all the topics that came up during the hour-long special, it was one exchange that got more attention than the others, prompting both celebration and condemnation from predictable corners of the online commentariat. 

The segment opened with commentary on how Pope Francis “has placed more women in positions of power than any of his predecessors.” 

“You will have many young boys and girls that will come here at the end of next month for World Children’s Day,” began O’Donnell. “And I’m curious … for a little girl growing up Catholic today, will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the Church?” 

“No,” replied the pope flatly. 

When pressed on whether or not his commissioned study of female deacons might provide a different answer, he responded that women “are of great service as women,” but not as ministers (within holy orders).  

As a woman who has worked for the Church in a variety of capacities, including in advisory roles for bishops and university presidents, I found this part of the interview to be frustrating. 

However sincere the intention or curiosity might be behind it, the question about female ordination sucks all of the oxygen out of the room whenever conversations arise about women in the Church. 

Because the priesthood dominates this topic—and repeatedly frustrates those who approach it in terms of power and function — attention is diverted from finding concrete avenues for women to find greater leadership opportunities and creative license in their work and ministry. It can also blind well-meaning men from seeing and addressing real issues of sexism within the organizations they lead. 

There is much work to be done to help Catholic entities hire, appoint, or commission women with an appreciation for and integration of their differences. Shifting the conversation about women’s roles away from ordination and toward the signs of the times — identifying where women are most needed — is what the young Catholic girls O’Donnell referenced need. 

Thankfully, this is precisely what author Bronwen McShea does in her new book “Women of the Church: What Every Catholic Should Know” (Augustine Institute-Ignatius Press, $24.95).

McShea, a scholar of Catholic history, provides a sweeping look at a few women who have played both leading and key supporting roles in the Church’s mission since its birth.  

“For a variety of reasons,” she writes, “there were wide gaps between what I had learned in my American Catholic upbringing about women in the Church and what scholars knew — and are still coming to know and appreciate — about the great diversity and complexity of countless women who for two millennia have been at the heart of the Church’s life and have been shaping history just as much as men.” 

The females McShea identifies were disciples, martyrs, queens, mothers, wives, teachers, writers, academics, founders of religious orders, physicians, artists, and social workers. Among these women who changed the course of history in their respective eras, McShea also highlights women who will rightly never be canonized, but whose influence remains unquestioned. 

Some of these women are names that we’d expect: Mary, the Mother of God, Mary Magdalene, Felicity and Perpetua, Catherine of Siena, Clare of Assisi, Teresa of Ávila, Thérèse of Lisieux, Katherine Drexel, Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, and Thea Bowman. 

But she also features lesser-known women like Christine de Pizan, a medieval laywoman who served as a court writer for King Charles VI of France, but who also wrote her own poems, biographies, books of advice, and a collection of stories about holy women at a time when others were highlighting their vices. 

Or queens of the Middle Ages: St. Adelaide, who was responsible for ensuring the reform of Benedictine monasteries; Blanche of Castille, who influenced her husband King Louis VIII of France in his crusade against the Cathars, and Jagwida of Poland, who helped to restore the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, where the future St. Pope John Paul II would do his doctoral studies. 

She details the lives of Catholic women in England who were executed for their faith after the reign of Henry VIII, like Margaret Clitherow, a convert, wife, and mother, who was arrested and executed for hiding Catholic priests, and Margaret Ward, who was hanged for helping a priest escape from prison. 

She poignantly recounts the witness of the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne, who one by one were executed at the guillotine, all the while renewing their vows and singing the Salve Regina, Te Deum, and Veni Creator Spiritus. 

And while it’s often said that behind every successful man is a strong woman, McShea brings to the fore countercultural men who championed women.

Among these women were Renaissance poet Vittoria Colonna, who was encouraged by Cardinal Pietro Bembo, a poet of the papal court, to publish a book of poems under her own name (something that was virtually unheard of at the time). Colonna’s poetry even influenced the work of her friend Michaelangelo, who dedicated an image of Christ on the cross to her. 

There was also Margaret Roper, the oldest daughter of St. Thomas More, whose intellectual pursuits were remarkable for her time. Her father invested heavily in Margaret’s education, even bringing the scholar Erasmus into their home for her to converse with. Margaret published an English translation of his work, “Devout Treatise on the Our Father” at 19. Her husband also supported his wife’s scholarship. 

If the key to a more robust theology of women is what Francis alluded to — an appreciation of women as women, then McShea’s book helps the cause. The key is not what women have done in history, but who they have been. 

In her introduction to the book, Catholic writer Patricia Snow drives this point home by praising how “relational” its heroines are, “how gifted at forging and sustaining the kinds of relationships that are essential to communities and also at encouraging, often behind the scenes, the more visible vocations of prominent, socially powerful men.”

“What modernity resists as a negative,” Snow added, “the Church has always affirmed as a gift: a gift for hearing and receiving, absorbing and remembering.”

That receptivity and the “good soil of the female heart” has been a cornerstone of God’s plan of salvation for mankind, as evidenced by how often (almost always) he chooses women to receive divine messages, like Mary, the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, or Bernadette Soubirous. 

Catholic women boggle the modern mind, dismissed as submissive to an outdated patriarchy who cares little about their flourishing. This book stands as a defense of the counterpoint: that when a woman leans into her vocation/mission with the full force of her feminine gifts, she can literally change history.

Photo: miloserdiedv.ru     

The method by which the Orthodox Church receives converts is a very controversial topic, and one which has provoked much online discussion. Should a convert be received by baptism, by chrismation alone, or perhaps simply after a recantation of previously-held errors? All three methods have been used in the past. And which groups should be received in which ways? Should the Oriental Orthodox (such as Copts and Armenians) be received in the same way as Pentecostals? What about Roman Catholics? The issue is far from clear, and has usually generated much more heat than light.

Obviously the issue cannot be settled here in a blog post by a single writer. But I would like to make a tiny point about an elephant in the room, one that is often overlooked—as elephants in a room usually are.

Fr. Alkiviadis C. Calivas has an excellent review of the history of how the Orthodox Church has received converts in his essay “Receiving Converts into the Orthodox Church: Lessons from the Canonical and Liturgical Tradition” in his 2018 book The Liturgy in Dialogue. In this essay he abundantly demonstrates that the rigorist views of St. Cyprian (d. 258), and of the local synods of Carthage (held in 255 and 256) were not followed by the Orthodox Church in the succeeding years and centuries. Rather, the Church followed the lead of men such as St. Basil, who in his famous Letter to Amphilochius opined that different groups should be received in different ways, according to their proximity to Orthodoxy.

Thus groups that were very different from the Orthodox Church (such as the Gnostic Valentinians) were to be received by baptism. Groups that had separated from Orthodoxy “for ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual resolution” (such as the Cathari or the “purists”) were to be received by chrismation alone “on the ground that they still belonged to the Church”. Groups that were a part of the Church but were led by insubordinate clergy rebelling against their bishop (in Basil’s words, those “who assembled in illegal congregations”) could be received back simply through their expressed repentance.

This nuanced and discerning view about there being gradations of separation from the Church was followed by Church councils. The regional Council of Laodicea (held in the fourth century) decreed in canon 7 that groups such as the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans should be received by chrismation alone.

The Quinisext Council (or the Council in Trullo) decreed the same sort of thing. In its 95th canon, it repeated canon 7 of the Council of Laodicea almost verbatim, while adding the names of other groups to the list. Thus it declared that Paulianists must be rebaptized, while Cathari and Apollinarians should be received by chrismation.

It seems clear then that the later Church simply rejected the view of Cyprian and his African compatriots that outside the Church was undifferentiated darkness and that all non-Orthodox persons must be received by baptism. Certain groups, labelled as “schismatics” rather than “heretics”, (in the words of St. Basil) “still belonged to the Church” even though they existed in a state of separation from the Church. I suggest that this “belonging to the Church” means that some grace was still found among them, even though this grace could not function as it should have as long as they remained in a state of schism and separation.

By saying that grace can be found among schismatics today, I am distinguishing between the heretical groups of the past (which intentionally rejected Orthodoxy) and modern Protestants (whose original quarrel was not so much with Orthodoxy as it was with the medieval papacy). That is, I am saying that it is not legitimate to equate a Presbyterian with an Arian or a Donatist. That means, I further suggest, that it is possible for devout conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics to be saved, to experience Christ’s transforming power, and to manifest the fruit of the Spirit. It does not necessarily mean that those denominations are therefore a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And it does not necessarily mean that their baptism should be accepted. The authenticity of a sacrament is a different question entirely.

For example, to the best of my knowledge no one has declared that no grace came through my ordained ministry in the Anglican Church, but yet I was still (quite properly) re-ordained in Orthodoxy. Saying that God used my ordination in Anglicanism as a vehicle for His grace therefore did not imply that the ordination was somehow “valid” in Orthodoxy or that the Orthodox Church should accept that I was a priest and not ordain me again. The question of God’s generosity and of His grace given even to humble souls in schism does not predetermine the different question of whether or not schismatic sacraments should be accepted.

On what basis should decisions be made regarding how to receive former schismatics into the Church? Some would suggest: on the basis on the schismatics’ use of water for baptism and the correct baptismal formula, as well as their holding a Trinitarian theology.

This seems to be the general view of the British Antiochian Church, which recently issued a very useful policy statement and summary of the Church’s historical praxis in a document issued January 9, 2024. The document recognizes that some “progressive” Protestant churches have altered the baptismal formula from “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” to a “more inclusive” formula such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” and on the basis of this alteration the policy statement rejects their baptism. As well as the correct formula, the schismatic group must also be Trinitarian to have their baptism accepted, and so the baptism of such non-Trinitarian groups as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, and Christadelphians is rejected.

The decision to base acceptance of a group’s baptism on correct baptismal formula and acceptance of the Trinity is, admittedly, in keeping with the praxis of the early church. That is why (for example) the 1667 Council of Moscow decided to accept the baptism of converting Roman Catholics and receive them by chrismation alone. But the times, they are a’changing, and the Christian ecumenical landscape now looks very different than it did in 1667—or even 1967.

That being so, we must compare the schismatics of earlier times with schismatics now.

In the days of the early Church there was a tremendous amount of common ground between the schismatics and the Orthodox. Indeed, in the cases of the Donatists, there was no difference at all between them apart from their opinion about the legitimacy of a certain bishop’s ordained status. Their views on such currently controversial matters as sexuality, morality, the authority of Scripture, and sacraments were identical.

A quick glance around at the Protestant denominations of today will tell anyone that this is not now the case. The elephant in the ecumenical room is that of liberalism—and in the case of Evangelical groups, the elephant of anti-sacramentalism.

Take first, for example, the Episcopalians or (here in Canada) the United Church. In these groups the authority of Scripture, uncontested in the past, has been definitively rejected, whatever lip-service might still be paid to it. These groups also openly defend abortion, endorse homosexual lifestyle and marry homosexuals. They are hardly alone: although such topics are still subject to debate within these groups, the mainline Protestant denominations have largely signed on to the secular understanding of abortion, sexuality, and gender.

One must also next look at the Evangelicals—admittedly a big tent, containing many sub-groups and many diverse opinions. Despite this diversity however, they almost all hold to an anti-sacramentalism which denies the regenerative power of baptism and its ability to bestow the remission of sins—an anti-sacramentalism which also denies that the Eucharist is the sacrificial rite in which we receive the true Body and Blood of Christ. Indeed, in many places, the minister while officiating at baptism or the Lord’s Supper makes explicit their rejection of these teachings.

My only point in focusing upon such liberalism and anti-sacramentalism is that these things make the modern schismatics dramatically different from the old schismatics considered by St. Basil and the ancient councils. The ancient Church would have received the Cathari convert by chrismation alone, for apart from a rigorism that refused forgiveness to those who lapsed or the possibility of a second marriage (thus St. Epiphanius in his Panarion), the Cathari were more or less indistinguishable in their faith and praxis from the Orthodox.

But what if the Cathari (as per impossibile) accepted and defended abortion and homosexuality, or denied the efficacy of the sacraments? Is there any doubt that these divergences would have caused the Church to receive Cathari converts by baptism? If divergences such as their refusal to tolerate a second marriage were sufficient to alienate them from the Church, how much more these other divergences from the Church’s praxis and faith?

The recent Antiochian policy statement admits that ancient groups such as Gnostics, Modalists and Arian extremists were problematic despite their use of the correct baptismal formula because “the theology of these groups was such that the Church could not recognize anything within it that it could embrace”.

Indeed. I therefore suggest that modern groups which openly embrace abortion, homosexuality, and transgender, and which further allow their clergy to deny the basic tenets of the Faith such as the divinity of Christ also have a theology which the Church cannot recognize or embrace. The same goes for Evangelical groups which embrace an anti-sacramentalism and repudiate such basic Orthodox piety as Marian devotion and recourse to the prayers of the saints. We should receive such converts by baptism—not because (as some say) “there is no grace outside of the Orthodox Church”, but because these groups have embraced a faith and praxis so foreign to Orthodoxy that we cannot discern our own baptism or faith in theirs.

In this matter, we still side with St. Basil over St. Cyprian. But St. Basil never met a Christian schismatic who was a lesbian bishop, or one who denied the regenerative power of baptism. If he did, after perhaps becoming a bit apoplectic, he would have received converts from that group by baptism. I believe that it is in his footsteps that we should follow today.

One final (and hopefully unnecessary word): to suggest that all such Protestant converts should be received by baptism does not at all mean that those who were received by chrismation alone were received improperly and that their chrismation must now be “remedied” by any “corrective baptism”. God’s generosity overcomes such things, and the divine grace fills up whatever is lacking. If you’re “in” by chrismation alone, you’re in. We must eschew a sacramental legalism which would give insufficient room for the boundless grace of God.

St. Josemaría Escrivá was born in Spain in 1902. His family was very pious, and at an early age, he developed a strong prayer life, with a deep devotion to Mary. He often asked Mary to intercede for him with God.

Josemaría was ordained as a priest in 1925. He taught law to support his mother and sister, while working to serve children, students, and others in need.

On a retreat, Josemaría had a vision of God’s mission for him, which was Opus Dei (“the work of God”). Opus Dei set forth a spiritual and vocational path for lay people, and became the focus of Josemaría’s life.

He moved to Rome in 1946, and received recognition from Pope Pius XII for Opus Dei. He continued to work hard to guide people and expand the work of Opus Dei throughout the world.

Josemaría died on June 26, 1975, of a heart attack. He was canonized in 2002 by Pope St. John Paul II.

June 5/18 was the 123rd anniversary of the birth of the fourth daughter of Emperor Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna—Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova.

Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna with Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna, Peterhof, 1901 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova was born on June 5/18, 1901 in Peterhof. She was the fourth daughter of the The Holy Royal Martyrs

“>holy New Martyrs Emperor Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna: by the time she was born the royal couple already had three daughters—Olga (b. 1895), Tatiana (b. 1897) and Maria (b. 1899). The Tsar wrote in his diary:

“Our daughter Anastasia was born at 6 a.m. sharp… Fortunately, Alix is well. The baby weighs 11.5 pounds and is fifty-five centimeters tall.”

The Grand Duchess was named after Princess Anastasia of Montenegro, the Tsarina’s friend. On June 17, 1901, Anastasia was baptized at the church of the Grant Palace of St. Petersburg by the imperial couple’s father-confessor, Protopresbyter John Yanyshev. Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna conferred on the Grand Duchess the highest order of the Russian Empire for women—the Order of St. Catherine of the First Degree. In honor of her birth, the Anastasia needlework schools nos. 1 and 2 for girls were opened in Moscow, and arrears from poor people for hospital treatment were written off.

Anastasia inherited her father’s large, expressive, gray-blue eyes and dark brown hair with a reddish tint.

“She was pretty, her face was clear, and her eyes shone with remarkable intelligence,” Yulia Dehn, the Empress’ close friend, wrote about her.

Grand Duchess Anastasia at the age of three According to the court physician E.S. Botkin’s testimony, little Anastasia was rarely ill and did not require special attention from doctors. Anastasia’s childhood and youth were spent in an atmosphere of love and provided by her parents and older sisters. Little Anastasia loved her sister Olga dearly, followed her everywhere, and kissed her hands tenderly. She was especially close with her older sister Maria, with whom she shared a room and to whose will she completely submitted. They were called the “younger pair”, while Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana were nicknamed the “older pair”. Anastasia took care of her sick brother Alexei who had hemophilia, sat next to him during his bouts of illness, trying to entertain him in every possible way. She was also very attached to the nursemaid Alexandra Tegleva, and sometimes literally poured perfume onto “her Shura” so that the nanny could “smell like a bunch of flowers.” (Anastasia’s favorite perfume was the Coty brand with the scent of violets.) The Empress mother would call Grand Duchess Anastasia, “My feet,” when she had to use a wheelchair due to illness. The family called the princess affectionately “Nastenka”, “Nastya” and “Nastaska”.

Grand Duchess Anastasia’s letter to her cousin Dick: “May 17, 1910. My dear Dick. I want to see you. What is the weather like now? Are you all alone in London right now? When will you be able to meet your cousins?” Little Nastya [a diminutive form of the name Anastasia.—Trans.] was very fond of sweets, and her pockets were always stuffed full of chocolates and Creme Brulee candies. She was a nimble and frisky child and loved to play pranks. Her mother would jokingly call her “madcap” and “imp” for her liveliness and the ability to invent various pranks and tricks. A.A. Taneyeva-Vyrubova recalled:

“Anastasia Nikolaevna was always playing pranks, clambering about, hiding, making everyone laugh with her escapades, and it was not easy to keep an eye on her. I remember a dinner on the Standart yacht in Kronstadt with a lot of guests. The Grand Duchess was five years old. She slipped under the table unnoticed and, like a dog, crawled there, pinching people’s legs… Realizing what the matter was, the Emperor pulled her out by the hair, and she caught it from her father.”

“The youngest Grand Duchess, Anastasia Nikolaevna, seemed to be not made of flesh and blood, but of mercury… She knew how to find the funny side in everything and was very fond of all sorts of practical jokes,” Yulia Dehn wrote about her.

“Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna was an out-and-out madcap and a faithful friend of the Tsarevich in all his pranks,” Empress Maria Feodorovna’s lady-in-waiting S.Ya. Ofrosimova recalled.

Anastasia loved to play hide-and-seek, and often even grown-ups could not find her. This is what the French tutor Those Who Remained FaithfulThe names of the faithful servants and close ones who voluntarily shared imprisonment and exile to Siberia with the Royal Family are inscribed forever on the pages of Russia’s glory.

“>Pierre Gilliard recalled about Anastasia:

“She was so cheerful and so able to drive away frowns from anyone who was out of sorts, that some of those around her called her ‘Sunbeam’, recalling the nickname given to her mother at the English.”

The Emperor’s children were brought up in the spirit of Orthodox Christianity, combining prayer and manual labor. According to their contemporaries’ reminiscences, they were not spoiled by luxury. There were icons, photographs and children’s drawings on the walls of the nursery; an army cot on which Grand Duchess Anastasia slept all year round traveled with her to the Crimea where the family would spend their summer vacations. It sailed along the Finnish skerries on the Standart yacht, and was even taken to the family’s Siberian exile. The girls were required to tidy up their rooms and make their beds. In the morning and in the evening the children took baths and were supposed to bring buckets of water to the bathroom themselves. They huddled together at the palace in Tsarskoye Selo—seven family members plus numerous servants. One day, Dr. Botkin found Grand Duchess Anastasia lying face down on the floor doing her assignment: Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich was studying in the classroom, and all the tables were occupied by her sisters or littered with things.

Grand Duchess Anastasia, c. 1912 Inexhaustible energy bubbled up in this child. There was no end to her tricks and jokes. Now she would climb a tree and only get down on her father’s order; now she would slide down the stairs on a tray as if on a slide; now she would “dye” her brother Alexei and the sisters’ faces with strawberry juice to “play circus.” She undoubtedly had the talent of a comic actress. When small home performances were staged, she was able to make the audience laugh. General M.K. Diterikhs wrote about Grand Duchess Anastasia:

“Her hallmark was to spot people’s weaknesses and imitate them with talent. She was a natural, gifted comedian. She would always make everyone laugh, keeping a pretended serious look.”

The Tsar’s youngest daughter never showed off her high position in society in any way, but she replied with dignity when her brother Alexei once remarked that she could become an actress: “A Grand Duchess cannot perform in the theater—she has other duties.”

Tatiana and Anastasia with Ortino dog. Tsarskoye Selo Park (spring 1917) St. Nicholas II’s family loved animals. Anna Vyrubova gave the girl a dog named Jimmy, who became the whole family’s beloved pet. Anastasia took it with her to Siberian exile. Jimmy died together with its owner when the Royal Family was executed; its body was found by the investigator N.A. Sokolov in the abandoned mine of the Ganina Yama Pit.

On June 18, 1908, Anastasia turned seven, and this meant that from September she was supposed to start home schooling, which included the Law of God, Russian grammar, history, geography, natural sciences, drawing, arithmetic, dancing, and music. Foreign languages were taught often—French, English and German—but the children spoke only Russian with each other. Anastasia was not very diligent in her studies; she wrote with errors and called arithmetic “piggishness” (apparently, she was a humanitarian). She was interested in literature, natural sciences, geography and drawing. Anastasia Nikolaevna evoked the special sympathy of the English teacher Those Who Remained FaithfulThe names of the faithful servants and close ones who voluntarily shared imprisonment and exile to Siberia with the Royal Family are inscribed forever on the pages of Russia’s glory.

“>Sidney Gibbes (later Archimandrite Nicholas).

“It wasn’t always easy to get on with this little Grand Duchess,” Gibbes recalled.

One day the tutor did not give her an “A” grade for a lesson she had learned middling well. Anastasia left the classroom and soon returned with a huge bunch of flowers. Trying to bribe the tutor, she asked with a charming smile: “Mr. Gibbes, won’t you improve the grades?” He shook his head, and then the young lady walked out and went to the Russian tutor and handed the flowers to him. One day she showed up for an English lesson in a chimney sweep’s fancy dress with a smeared face. Later their relations improved, and Anastasia brought him flowers after each lesson.

Flowers. Watercolor drawing of the Grand Duchess Peter Vasilyevich Petrov taught them Russian grammar. Anastasia was friends with him and corresponded with him from 1909 until her martyrdom. He instilled in his student love for reading, and Anastasia read a lot, preferring Schiller, Goethe, Moliere, Dickens, and Charlotte Bronte.

Anastasia was witty and observant; she painted well in watercolor and played chess masterfully. She inherited musical ability from her mother, and they would often play Chopin, Grieg, Rachmaninoff, and Tchaikovsky in four hands. The princess also played the balalaika and the guitar. Like the rest of the family, she was fond of photography, loved to play croquet and ride a bike.

Over the years Anastasia ceased to be naughty, matured and became more serious. Sometimes Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the princesses’ aunt, organized meetings of young people for them with dancing, games and tea.

“The girls enjoyed every minute,” Grand Duchess Olga recalled fifty years later. “My dear goddaughter Anastasia was especially happy. Believe me—I can still hear her laughter ringing in the rooms. Dances, music and charades—she was carried away by that.”

The high position of the royal children required their participation in palace ceremonies. At the age of fourteen Anastasia became the commander of the Caspian 148th Infantry Regiment. Together with the Emperor she participated in military parades, which gave her great pleasure. Anastasia was very proud of her regiment and signed her letters to her father, “Caspian”.

Maria and Anastasia at Tsarskoye Selo military hospital     

During the First World War, Olga and Tatiana worked as nurses at the Tsarskoye Selo military Hospital, and Maria and Anastasia donated their money to purchase medicine, knit warm clothes for wounded soldiers, and prepared bandages. They tried to morally support the wounded soldiers with their presence and sympathetic conversations, entertaining them, thus alleviating their suffering. Sometimes they played cards, checkers, tennis and billiards with convalescent officers, reading aloud to them, writing letters to their families at their dictation, and organizing small concerts.

“Even the wounded dance in her presence,” it was said of Anastasia Nikolaevna when she was at the military hospital.

In 1916 Grand Duchess Anastasia wrote in her diary:

“Today I sat next to our soldier and taught him how to read—he really liked it. He began to learn how to read and write here at the hospital. Two poor soldiers died, and only yesterday we were sitting next to them.”

Anastasia recalled that time as the best in her life. She wrote in a letter to her sister Maria from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg:

“I remember visiting the hospital a long time ago. I hope all our wounded soldiers have survived… Now I’m in the bedroom, writing on the table, and there are photos of our beloved hospital on it. You know, it was a wonderful time when we visited the hospital. We often think about this, our evening conversations on the phone, and everything else.”

Anastasia, Olga, Alexei, Maria and Tatiana after the measles (June 1917) At the height of the February Revolution, all of the Tsar’s children came down with measles. Anastasia was the last to fall ill. Everyone was lying with a fever, wrapped up in sheepskin coats. Heating, electricity and even running water had been disconnected, so they had to take water from an ice hole. On March 8, 1917, the Provisional Government decided to arrest the Imperial Family. On March 9, the children were informed about their father’s abdication from the throne. A new page in their life began, and this life under house arrest (from March 8 to July 31, 1917) was quite tolerable—they attended church services, and the children’s education continued. Together with their father and faithful servants, the Grand Duchesses planted a vegetable garden and grew vegetables, working in the garden. In the evenings the girls embroidered as their father read aloud to them. Anastasia embroidered and wove elegant bookmarks for books at that time.

In early August 1917 the entire Royal Family was exiled to Tobolsk. The education of the younger Grand Duchesses and the Tsarevich was gradually continued there. Together with all other members of the Imperial Family, Anastasia attended church services. The poem that she added into the album of Countess A.V. Gendrikova is symbolic:

Princess Anastasia (c. 1914) When your soul pines,

Hopes go out like lights,

Slander triumphs over the truth,

And you are surrounded only by enemies;

When your wings weaken in the struggle,

Trouble comes after trouble,

And you weep in anguish, powerless,

Don’t forget that God is with you.

[Author: Grand Duke Constantine Romanov.—M.T.]

The children rode down the ice slide, skied around the yard, and acted out scenes. In January 1918, all the children, except Anastasia, had rubella. In a letter dated March 21, 1918 to her aunt, Grand Duchess Xenia, Anastasia wrote:

“We have now found a new way of spending time: sawing, hacking and chopping firewood is useful and very fun to do.”

Olga, Nikolai Alexandrovich, Anastasia and Tatiana. Tobolsk (winter of 1917–1918) In the evenings the prisoners would wistfully look out of the window at passers-by walking freely. Tsarevich Alexei noted in his diary on November 22, 1917: “The whole day passed like yesterday and was just as boring.”

When Maria and the parents were taken to Ekaterinburg in April 1918, Anastasia comforted her sisters and her sick brother. Her duty was to “entertain everyone”. And Anastasia did not lose heart even then. Here is an excerpt from Anastasia’s letter to her sister Maria in Ekaterinburg:

“We played on the swings. When I fell off, it was such a wonderful fall!… Yeah! I told my sisters about it so many times yesterday that they were tired of it… The weather was awesome! You could just scream out of delight. I’m the most tanned of all, oddly enough, I’m like an acrobat…”

In exile Anastasia put on weight and was very shy about it. General M.K. Diterikhs wrote of her:

“Though she was seventeen, Grand Duchess Anastasia was still an absolute child. She made this impression mainly by her appearance and her cheerful character. She was very short and very stout, a “dumpling’, as her sisters teased her.”

At the age of sixteen she “was not yet a fully developed teenage girl”, the investigator N.A. Sokolov testified.

On May 23, the other family members were taken to Ekaterinburg as well. The Royal Family’s life in the “House of Special Purpose”¹ was monotonous and boring; a prison regime was introduced there. Anastasia sewed with her sisters, walked in the garden, played cards, read spiritual books aloud to her mother, played with her brother, and learned how to bake bread with her sisters. During that tragic time, prayer together united the family, helping them endure the sorrows, suffering and humiliations that had fallen to their lot. On June 18, 1918, Anastasia celebrated her last, seventeenth birthday.

Icon of the holy Passion-Bearer Anastasia Anastasia’s life (like those of the entire Royal Family) was cut short in the gloomy basement of the Ipatiev House. Witnesses questioned by the investigator N.A. Sokolov testified that of all the Tsar’s daughters, Anastasia had resisted death the longest. At the beginning of the shooting she apparently fainted. When they touched her, she screamed terribly. After that the executioners struck her on the head with the butt of a rifle and inflicted two bayonet wounds. So the innocent seventeen-year-old girl Anastasia died at the hands of ruthless villains. After the execution, Anastasia’s last drawing was found in the Grand Duchesses’ room: swings between two birch trees.

After her martyrdom, nearly thirty female impostors claimed to be “the miraculously survived Tsar’s daughter Anastasia”.

Together with her parents, sisters and brother, Grand Duchess Anastasia was canonized as a passion-bearer in the Synaxis of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia at the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in August 2000. Earlier, in 1981, they were canonized by ROCOR. Their feast-day is July 4/17.

The Royal Family’s tragic death in Ekaterinburg continues to agitate minds. Most modern historians agree that Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov were primarily responsible for the tragedy. The historian Vladimir Lavrov writes:

“The Communists were not doing away with Colonel Nikolai Romanov… The Communists were destroying the thousand-year-old great Orthodox Russia, the symbol of which had been the Royal Family.”

Sebastopol, June 24, 2024

Photo: RIA-Novosti     

Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noted on Russian TV that Kiev did not accidentally choose the great Orthodox Christian feast of Holy Trinity Sunday (Pentecost) to launch a cluster bomb attack on Sebastopol, which killed 4 persons (including three children) and injuring 153 as they were enjoying a day at the beach. 79 were hospitalized, some in serious condition; 27 of those hospitalized were children.

Photo: RIA-Novosti     

American ATACMS missiles and American drone surveillance were used in the strike, according to official information on Russian news agencies.

Photo: Y.Krymova / rg.ru     

Zakharova called it a “ritual” crime. “I am absolutely sure that the dates for such things—although they have become regular occurrences—like these terrorist acts from Zelensky were not chosen at random. The Day of the Holy Trinity. And we also understand what is the essence of the Kiev regime—profound hatred for everything connected with Russia, with Russian culture. And of course, (this means) Orthodoxy and Christianity as a whole. These ritual—as they must be called—crimes coincide precisely with great feast days,” Zakharova stated on the Russia 24 TV channel.

On the same holy day, there was also a terrorist attack by Islamists in the Dagestani Republic of the Russian Federation. Islamic terrorists Priest killed in terrorist attacks on churches in southern RussiaA priest who has been serving the Church since Soviet times received a martyric end in a terrorist attack against churches in Russia’s southern Dagestan Republic yesterday.

“>killed an elderly Orthodox priest as well as a church guard, and set fire to two Orthodox churches and a Jewish synagogue. Twelve public defense officers were also killed in the ensuing shootouts. A number of Dagestanis have left comments on Russian Telegram channels that the vast majority of Dagestanis do not support Islamic radicalization in their native land. However, outside forces have played a large role in the radicalization of certain sub-cultures, even while Dagestani soldiers are fighting and dying in Russia’s Special Military Operation.

Another RF official, governor of Cherson Vladimir Saldo, commented earlier this month after artillery fire by Ukrainian armed forces on civilians in Russian-controlled Cherson region killed or wounded several civilians on June 13: “Let me remind you that today is a significant Orthodox holiday—the Feast of the Ascension of the Lord. However, for the Kiev schismatics who have turned away from the true faith, this is just an excuse to intensify their terror. There is nothing sacred left in their souls.”

Venice, July 25, 2024

Photo: Romfea     

This year marks the 450th anniversary of the completion of the first Orthodox diaspora church. On June 16, festive events were held in honor of the St. George Greek Orthodox Church (San Giorgio dei Greci) in Venice.

The church, designed by the famous architects Sante Lombardo, Gianantonio Chiona, and Bernardo Ongarin, was constructed between 1539 and 1573. Over the centuries, it has served as a center for Greek Orthodox life in the diaspora. It has served as the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s Archdiocese of Italy since 1991.

The cathedral was built with contributions from the Orthodox faithful. “It’s heartwarming how many of the community members put up their valuables as collateral to be able to purchase this plot of land… We should be proud of what these people have done,” commented the president of the Greek Orthodox community of Venice, according to the Orthodoxia News Agency.

The community honored the anniversary with a hierarchical Divine Liturgy on Sunday, June 16, celebrated by Metropolitan Meliton of Philadelphia. In the evening, there was an academic conference and a concert of Greek music.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

Derbent, Republic of Dagestan, Russia, June 25, 2024

Photo: Telegram screenshot     

Locals have established an impromptu memorial to the Orthodox priest who was brutally slain in the Priest killed in terrorist attacks on churches in southern RussiaA priest who has been serving the Church since Soviet times received a martyric end in a terrorist attack against churches in Russia’s southern Dagestan Republic yesterday.

“>terrorist attacks on Sunday.

Two churches, a synagogue, and a traffic police post were attacked, leaving many dead, including Archpriest Nikolai Kotelnikov, 66, and a church guard named Mikhail.

Fr. Nikolai, having served as a priest for over 40 years, was known and beloved by many. In the city of Derbent, there is a monument dedicated to peace between three religions—Orthodoxy, Judaism, and Islam. Fr. Nikolai himself was the model for the priest in the monument.

Following his martyric death, local people have turned the monument into a memorial for Fr. Nikolai, placing flowers and candles, as seen in the video below:

​

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

As Americans prepare for the November elections, some Catholic groups are circulating checklists designed to help voters discern their choices at the ballot box.

At their fall 2023 general assembly, the U.S. bishops voted to approve supplements to the bishops’ teaching document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which consisted of a new introductory note that affirmed the bishops’ prior designation of abortion as “our pre-eminent priority” because “it directly attacks our most vulnerable and voiceless brothers and sisters and destroys more than a million lives per year in our country alone.”

But sometimes Catholic voters wonder how to apply those principles at the ballot box. Two groups recently released checklists to help them discern those choices.

Catholic Conscience, a nonpartisan civic engagement organization, published “A guide for Catholics (and others of good will)” about platforms and policies offered in federal U.S. elections. Meanwhile, Network, a Catholic social justice lobby, is urging Catholics to be “Pope Francis Voters” or multi-issue voters.

Network unveiled the first phase of “Vote Our Future,” its 2024 election education campaign in May, part of which is the “Pope Francis Voter Pledge,” which seeks to commit as many people as possible to multi-issue voting.

Meg Olson, grassroots mobilization manager for Network, told OSV News that part of its campaign is promoting the group’s “equally sacred checklist,” a list of key issues it wants Catholics to consider at the ballot box, which she said was inspired by Pope Francis.

Olson pointed to a portion of what the pope wrote in “Gaudete et Exsultate” (“Rejoice and Be Glad”), his apostolic exhortation on “the call to holiness in today’s world,” as guiding their effort.

In that document, Pope Francis wrote, “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.”

Olson said the pontiff’s framing “really captured our imagination, that these issues are all equally sacred, (and this) has been guiding our election, our voter engagement, and education work since 2020.”

Network’s “equally sacred checklist” calls on voters to support candidates who “promote the common good,” and highlights issues including access to health care, a healthy planet, a thriving democracy, and immigration policies that protect asylum-seekers and a path to citizenship.

Asked how Catholics could discern their vote between candidates for federal or state offices whose platforms include policy positions that may run contrary to Catholic social teaching, Olson replied that no candidate is perfect, but Catholics should equip “people to look through this checklist and think about all of these issues.

“It really is by thinking about what issues you care about the most deeply and knowing that they’re all interconnected,” and making sure “they all support the dignity of the human person,” she said.

Matthew Marquardt, executive director of Catholic Conscience, told OSV News that their voter “consists largely of analysis of party platforms and policies, putting them side by side against Catholic social teaching.”

Catholic Conscience offers voter guides for Catholics in several countries – including the U.S. and Canada. The organization’s U.S. federal election 2024 guide is a comprehensive critique of the policy positions of major and minor political parties on a wide scope of issues including abortion, immigration, and steps to address poverty.

“It’s very seldom that any parties or candidate platform completely coincides with the social teachings of the church,” Marquardt said, adding there are often “things that are difficult to reconcile with what the church teaches.”

“The point is that being a Catholic citizen, you’re supposed to understand what the options are and then inform yourself, and pray about it, and do the best you can to be engaged,” Marquardt said.

Humility of Mary Sister Eilis McCulloh, Network’s grassroots education and organizing specialist, told OSV News the group’s new Young Advocates Leadership Lab also seeks to connect first-time or other young voters with information about registering to vote and being engaged in the political process.

She said, “It’s been really inspiring for me to hear them talk about the issues that matter, how excited they are to be a part of democracy, to have the opportunity to vote.”