Photo: FacebookAccording to the head of the Eurosolidarity faction in the Kiev City Council, Marina Poroshenko, the Council recently voted for two draft decisions according to which dozens of Orthodox Churches will be “inspected” for “legality of use.”
The news comes just a week after Under cover of night, Ukraine destroys Tithes Church, built on site of first Kievan cathedralThe ancient cathedral was blown up by the godless authorities in 1936, but in 2006, the new church, belonging to the Tithes Monastery, was built by Kiev residents with the blessing of then-primate Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine.
“>Kiev’s Tithes Church was demolished in the middle of the night, as the previous church on the same spot was demolished by the Bolsheviks in 1936.
And Poroshenko indicates that the church inspections are aimed at breaking contracts for usage with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which the Council intentionally mischaracterizes as a “religious organization run by the aggressor country Russia,” reports Foma in Ukraine.
According to decision No. 379/8345, the proper status of contracts will be checked. If the contract period is over, it will not be extended, and the community will be forced to leave the church.
However, “If the term of the agreement isn’t over yet, we’ll have every reason to terminate this agreement ahead of schedule,” Poroshenko added.
Inspections must be carried out within three months from the date of publication of the decision, May 17.
According to decision No. 378/8344, “In the absence of properly executed contracts for the use and/or placement or construction of buildings or structures on the territory without proper permits, the territory will be considered illegally occupied or built up. The community will be forced to leave the territory, and ‘illegally placed’ buildings will be subject to demolition.”
The official list currently includes 73 churches, but will be supplemented.
Two years after construction began, the new icon studio school and chapel at St. Tikhon of Zadonsk Monastery in Waymart, Pennsylvania, was consecrated over the weekend.
The abbot, Schema-Archimandrite Sergius (Bowyer), and the monastery brotherhood broke ground on the studio school on St. Tikhon’s Monastery breaks ground on future iconography schoolIcons and art from the monastic community can be viewed on the monastery website.
“>June 4, 2022.
Photo: Facebook
And this weekend, as part of the monastery’s 120th annual Memorial Day Pilgrimage, the school and chapel were consecrated by His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon, the primate of the Orthodox Church in America, the monastery reports.
Photo: FacebookThe monastery’s iconography program launched its pilot year last year under the tutelage of iconographers Anton and Ekaterina Daineko. Learn more about the program, with the possibility of a 3-year residency, at stmarts.org.
St. Tikhon’s also offers a music residency program, and launched a comprehensive St. Tikhon’s Monastery launches comprehensive liturgical music resourceA new project of St. Tikhon’s Monastery has been launched, aiming to provide Orthodox liturgical music for every choir.
“>liturgical music resource in 2021.
Founded by the future Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow, St. Tikhon’s Monastery is the oldest Orthodox monastery in America. Since then, it has served the Church in America with daily Liturgies and the associated St. Tikhon’s Theological Seminary.
No one knows exactly when St. Augustine of Canterbury was born, nor are there any recorded details about his early life. He was likely born in Rome, and entered monastic life when he was a young man. He joined a community that had recently been founded by the Benedictine monk who would go on to be St. Gregory the Great.
Augustine’s friendship with Gregory had great historical consequences. Around the year 595, five years into Gregory’s 14-year pontificate, he began to work on a plan to convert England. The Anglo-Saxon invaders who had taken over were not converted by the isolated Celtic Christian holdouts, so the country had to be evangelized anew.
The pope chose 40 monks, including Augustine, who was selected to communicate for the delegation. He ended up taking on the role of leader, leaving for England in June 596, but returning soon after, only to leave again in spring of the following year. When they met with Ethelbert of Kent, one of the pagan kings, whose wife was a Christian, Augustine’s powerful presentation of the Gospel eventually moved Ethelbert to convert, and become a saint, but at first, he only agreed to receive the missionaries without hostility.
The monks made their home in Canterbury, processing through the city with a cross and an image of Christ. They lived according to the Rule of St. Benedict, but spent much of their time preaching and converting the surrounding areas.
In Gaul, Augustine was consecrated as a bishop for the English Church. By Christmas of 597, over 10,000 people had actively sought baptism.
Pope Gregory and St. Augustine both died in 604, after working tirelessly to evangelize England. Canterbury continued on as the ranking see of English Catholicism until its fall into schism in the 16th century.
There was a pool in Jerusalem called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, which means the House of Mercy. It was remarkable because an angel of the Lord would go down at a certain time there and move the water: whichever sick man then entered the pool first after the angel was healed immediately of whatever disease he had.
One day, Jesus Christ was in Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover. As He was walking by the pool, He saw a great multitude of sick people lying next to it. There were the lame, the blind, and the withered. Each of them waited for the moment when the angel troubles the water to be the first to enter it. There was one sick man among others who sat there languishing by the pool for thirty-eight years. When the Savior saw him, He took pity on him and told him: Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. Jesus told him: Get up, take up your bed and walk (cf. John 5:6-8). The paralytic immediately recovered, took up his bed and walked. The Jews who were there became indignant and told the healed man that he should not take up his bed, for it was a feast day.
But he answered them, He Who healed me, He said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk (cf. John 5:11).
“And who is that Man?” they asked. But he didn’t know as Jesus had disappeared in the crowd.
After a while, Jesus found this man in the temple and told him, Behold, you are now made whole; see that you sin no more, lest a worse thing happens to you (cf. John 5:12-14).
This is what we should all strive for when God delivers us from sickness. When we are sick, we often beseech God to help us, but later, once we recover, we don’t think about pleasing Him. When our strength returns, we forget about prayer and fall back into our old sins instead of reforming ourselves and beginning a new, more pious life.
The fourth Sunday after Pascha is called the Sunday of the Paralytic
“>Sunday of the Paralytic in memory of the miracle we have just spoken about. We hear the following hymn during the service this Sunday: “As of old Thou didst raise the paralytic, O Lord, by Thy Divine presence, raise my soul which is paralyzed grievously by all manner of sins and unseemly deeds, that being saved I may cry out: O compassionate Christ, glory be to Thy power.”
St. Philip Neri was born in Florence, Italy, in 1515. When he was 18, Philip was sent to live with his uncle, Romolo, a wealthy merchant at San Germano, to help him with his business, and in hopes that he might inherit his uncle’s fortune. Philip earned Romolo’s confidence and affection, but had a religious conversion shortly after coming to San Germano, and was no longer interested in wealth and material possessions.
In 1533, Philip decided to move to Rome, studying philosophy and theology, and tutoring young boys. Eventually, Philip tired of learning, and sold all his books, gave the proceeds to the poor, and visited the sick under the guidance of the Augustinians.
Philip co-founded the Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity, and began preaching, converting many. He was ordained in 1551. Many people came to Philip to receive confession.
Pope Gregory XIV wanted to make Philip a cardinal, but he declined and remained a priest. Philip then founded the Congregation of the Oratory, also known as the Oratorians. The order, dedicated to preaching and teaching, still exists today.
St. Philip Neri died on May 27, 1595, and was canonized by Pope Gregory XV in 1622. He is the patron of Rome and the U.S. Army Special Forces.
St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi was born Caterina, on April 2, 1566. She was an only child, and her parents came from prominent families in Italy. At a young age, Caterina was drawn to the Holy Eucharist, and she resolved to serve God as a consecrated virgin after she received her first Communion at age 10.
In 1582, Caterina entered a traditional Carmelite monastery, where Holy Communion was administered daily, which was unusual at the time. When she received her religious habit the following year, Caterina took the name Mary Magdalene.
From March to May in 1584, Mary became seriously ill, and was believed to be dying. On May 27, she made her religious vows, while lying on a pallet near death.
When she recovered, Mary had an extended mystical experience, lasting 40 days, and involving extraordinary experiences, which her religious sisters recorded in a set of manuscripts.
Throughout her life, Mary had many other spiritual occurrences. Many of her experiences were documented, although Mary was a private person, and would have preferred to keep these to herself.
Mary did want to call attention to God’s love, which she saw as tragically unappreciated and unreciprocated by humanity. She is remembered for making dramatic gestures, like running through the halls of her monastery, or ringing the bells in the middle of night, while proclaiming the urgent need for all people to awaken to God’s love and return it.
Mary Magdalene died on May 25, 1607, after suffering an excruciating illness for nearly three years. She was canonized by Pope Clement IX in 1669.
Erik Varden is a Norwegian Trappist monk and the bishop of Trondheim.
His newest book, “Chastity: Reconciliation of the Senses” (Bloomsbury Continuum, $22), came out earlier this year.
Varden has a doctorate in theology and religious studies from Cambridge and a licentiate of sacred theology from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. He speaks several languages.
“To do something beautiful for its own sake,” he writes, “for the intrinsic delight of it, without thought of gain: this, I’d say, is a way of beginning to live chastely in this world, poised to balance elegantly on whatever surging billow providence provides as a means to bear us homeward, towards the shore.”
“Surging billow,” in my own experience, might be pressing the point.
But if the book isn’t quite aimed at the person in the pews, it’s a beautifully written, powerful, and much-needed reflection.
In fact, considering for starters that all unmarried people in the Church are called not only to chastity, but to celibacy, one wonders why the issue isn’t discussed day and night.
We all know by now that chastity encompasses way more than sex.
Then-Father Erik Varden, abbot of Mount St. Bernard Abbey, poses in the brewery July 11, 2018, in Leicestershire, England. Father Varden, a Cistercian monk and spiritual writer, was ordained a bishop at the Cathedral of St. Olav in Trondheim Oct. 3, 2020. (OSV News/Simon Caldwell)
In an interview with Swedish journalist Malina Abrahamsson, Varden observed, “[Chastity is] about not instrumentalizing other people — not using them for your own purposes or your own pleasure. It is also about daring to examine oneself — one’s desires, wounds, and weaknesses and then arranging one’s drives towards a goal. In this way, you can become sanctified as a human being, living completely in balance with yourself.”
Gorgeous. Nonetheless, the chastity we exercise in refusing to instrumentalize people in general can be no higher, or fuller, than the chastity we exercise around our sexual powers, desires, wounds, and temptations.
And on the ground, the journey from those temptations to a somewhat ethereal aesthetic of chastity is messy, bloody, and ongoing.
On the ground, beset by obsessions, compulsions, and hearts hemorrhaging for love, we can question our sanity, our spirituality, our God.
It would hardly be appropriate for Bishop Varden to go deeply into his own journey. As he says, “I invite others to make contributions from other vantage points. More are needed, from both men and women.”
Here I am, Lord. Send me!
My own journey took a turn many years ago in a confessional. The priest was matter-of-fact and he was firm. And as I knelt in the pew afterward, up from my subconscious floated the question Jesus asked Peter, three times, after his Resurrection. Peter, who had betrayed him; Peter who, like me, did the thing he didn’t want to do, and failed to do the thing he wanted to do.
“Do you love me?”
Are you serious about the Way, the Truth and the Life — or not? If everyone thought and acted as I do with respect to human relations, what would be the eventual effect upon the sacrament of marriage? Women? Children?
If we’re serious, we allow ourselves to be pruned, sometimes it seems to us with needless severity. But as Bishop Varden so articulately points out: There is something in it for us. There is always something in it for us: freedom from bondage, the peace that passes all understanding, a purity of conscience that allows us to see more clearly and to love more fully.
We’re hard-wired to long for eternity, to pass on what we’ve learned, for life to continue after we’re gone.
Chastity, in all its forms, points to that longing.
The cover of “Chastity: Reconciliation of the Senses,” by Norwegian Bishop Erik Varden. (OSV News/Bloomsbury)
Chastity allows those of us without children to support — in a sense, to lay down our lives — for other people’s families and children.
There’s a park near my house that’s often filled with kids. They come out in droves after school and on weekends: shouting, sprinting, frolicking.
One recent afternoon a soccer game was in progress and a posse of parents had set up shop on the sidelines, snacking, chatting, and cheering. The shadows were lengthening. Beneath the pleasant surface noise lay a vespers hush.
I looked at these kids, who were not mine, for whom I had done not a single corporeal work of mercy, and thought, Through my celibacy I am laying down my life for you and all like you.
What I do is of course nothing compared to what an actual parent does. But I didn’t have to compare. I didn’t have to feel “less than” or “other than.”
Having taken way, way too long a walk on the wild side in my youth, I felt an incredible certainty that I was loved, that I have been forgiven, that I belong. I felt an incredible sense of gratitude for those parents who were doing the hardest and most important work any human being can ever hope to do.
There are many ways we lay down our lives for one another. Chastity — celibacy, if that’s our station — is just one of them. But for me it has been a particularly rich, fruitful, utterly unexpected grace. A way of healing and of giving that seems to the world like a negative, an emptiness.
But that in God’s economy is a fullness that I could never have engineered, or even imagined, on my own.
St. Phoebe, the DeaconessOn February 2nd, 2024, Ancient Faith Radio held a discussion about deaconesses, which was a documentary by John Maddox, interspersed with discussions between Fr. Thomas Soroka and John Maddox, and which eventually included callers, included me, among a few others.
There are a number of people whose opinions I respect who thought that the discussion was giving a platform to feminists with an agenda. Personally, I thought it was a mostly useful show, and found the full unedited interviews that John Maddox did with the various guest on the documentary to be even more revealing. Some of the interviews were more interesting than others, but in the description box on YouTube, you can select which interview you want to listen to, which makes navigating this more than 10-hour compilation manageable.
This show reminded me of the kind of shows that Kevin Allen (of blessed memory) used to do on AFR. The only difference being that he probably would have had Fr. Patrick Mitchell on with someone from the Phoebe Center for Deaconesses, and would have moderated an informal debate designed to let people hear how the two sides compare with each other.
I think both the shorter show and the full-length interviews make a very strong case against the push for deaconesses, and apparently the Phoebe Center for Deaconesses thought so too, because no sooner was the show over than they were claiming to have been victimized by the show, and the discussions which it sparked.
What Complicates This Discussion
There are several questions that complicate this discussion: 1. What were deaconesses, and how did they function? 2. If the office was restored, what would that look like? 3. Why did they cease to be a living part of the life of the Church, and should that office be restored? 4. Is there an agenda behind the push to restore deaconesses? So, let’s take a look at each of these questions:
1. What were deaconesses, and how did they function?
We know that deaconesses were celibate women, forty years old and above. They eventually became associated with female monasticism. They certainly assisted with the baptism of women adult converts—because the practice of the early Church was to baptize everyone in the nude, and obviously this required that adult women be baptized outside of the viewing of men. So, while a priest said the words of the baptism from behind a screen, a deaconess performed all of the functions, such as the anointing with oil, the triple immersion, the robing, the chrismation, and the tonsuring.
In addition to this, we know deaconesses took communion to women who were sick. They also maintained order on the side of the Church in which women were praying during the services. They also, at least in some places, formed a choir and sang parts of the services, antiphonally, with the male choir.
There is some debate about whether deaconesses qualified as minor clergy (analogous to readers and subdeacons), or whether they were part of the major orders of clergy (such as deacons, priests, and bishops). There is some good evidence that they were classed closely with deacons, in terms of rank, but this may or may not have been how they were viewed from the beginning, and in various places.
2. If the office were to be restored, what would that look like?
Without question, deaconesses did not function in the same way as male deacons. This is a key point upon which much confusion arises, because people like the folks at the Phoebe Center are pushing for deaconesses to be ordained on the same basis as male deacons—and so with the same age limit of twenty-five and older, no requirement for celibacy, and the same liturgical functions as male deacons. The problem with this is that this is not restoring the ancient order of deaconesses—this is the establishment of something entirely different. Were they actually calling for the restoration of deaconesses as they once existed in the Church, there would be a lot less controversy on this subject. But speaking of “restoring” deaconesses while actually promoting the introduction of something novel is not accidental sloppiness—it is a marketing strategy.
In the discussion on this issue, someone pointed out that the Phoebe Center was engaging in the “Motte-and-bailey fallacy.” This occurs when someone conflates two positions that share some similarities—one which is more easily defensible, and one which is not—and then go back and forth between these two conflated positions, depending on their need to retreat to the more defensible position, or their desire to push the indefensible position. I think this was an insightful observation. When people attack their push for women to function as male deacons, they appeal to the evidence for the ancient order of deaconesses, without ever actually engaging the merits of the criticisms of their far less defensible agenda.
3. Why did they cease to be a living part of the life of the Church, and should that office be restored?
It seems to me that the decline in adult conversions and thus the lack of need for deaconesses to fulfil this most important role was the biggest factor in the decline and eventual disappearance of deaconesses. The fact that they ceased to exist very early on in the Western Church was probably also a factor. I think it ultimately doesn’t matter so much why this happened as it does, as that it did in fact happen. That this order ceased to exist is good evidence that it was no longer needed by the Church, and so those arguing for the restoration of deaconesses have the burden of proof that there is a need for it now. But again, if they were actually talking about restoring deaconesses as they once actually were, it would not be that controversial.
For example, about an hour from Houston, there is a Greek convent. The abbess is a very holy woman, and were she made a deaconess, I certainly would have no reason to object. But the fact is, as an abbess, she already can function pretty much as a deaconess use to function. She cannot now commune in the altar, but she can do pretty much everything else. Even bringing communion to other nuns could be done when there was a need (such as when no priest is available because of the isolation of the convent), with the blessing of her bishop.
I have not asked the abbess for her opinion on this question, but I suspect that if I did, she would not be in favor of restoring deaconesses. I say this because when you look at who is pushing for restoring deaconesses, they are almost always academics.1 Serious and experienced monastics that are vocally supporting the restoration of deaconesses are as scarce as hens’ teeth.
4. Is there an agenda behind the push to restore deaconesses?
The evidence that those pushing the “restoration” of deaconesses have an agenda was made very clear if you listened closely to the full interviews. This is seen by the fact that they conflate restoring deaconesses as they once were with introducing women deaconesses that function like male deacons, but that is far from the only evidence.
John Maddex made a point of asking each of the advocates for “restoring” deaconesses whether or not they would agree that women should never be ordained as priests and bishops, and without exception, they all either dodged the question, or eventually acknowledged that this “could” happen, since “women deacons would inevitably lead to a conversation about ordaining women priests.” John pressed for them to affirm they were not going to go on to push the ordination of women priests and bishops, because he pointed out that if they took the position that this was impossible, this would relieve a lot of the concerns people have on this issue. But not one of them was willing to provide any such assurance, and that is clearly because they have no intention of stopping with women deacons. You will hear the same question being asked, and the same essential answer in the interviews with Dr. Carrie Frederick Frost, Dr. Valerie Karras, and Dr. Helen Theodoropolous. In each case, this question comes close to the end of the interview. In fact, if you compare all three interviews, they all answer controversial questions in ways so similar that it sounds like they all have agreed upon talking points.
You can see the sleight of hand at work on the Phoebe Center website. They have a FAQ page, and one of the questions is, “Does the St. Phoebe Center promote the ordination of women to the priesthood (i.e. the episcopos or presbytery)?” And the answer provided is, “No, ordination of women to those offices is not part of the Orthodox Christian Tradition and the St. Phoebe Center does not promote this.” This answer at first glance sounds like they are opposed to the ordination of women as priests and bishops, but they are careful to not say that. They say it is not part of our tradition… But that doesn’t mean they think it is impossible, because if they did think that, they wouldn’t refuse to say so. All they say is that “the Phoebe Center does not promote this.” But that is because it is part of their talking point strategy. In fact, Dr. James Skedros of Holy Cross Seminary (who did not seem to be an enthusiastic advocate for the “restoration” of deaconesses, but he certainly is not opposed to it, and he has been involved in Phoebe Center discussions on this issue), said that those advocating the “restoration” of deaconesses “recognize [the need] not even to bring up the topic” of ordaining women as priests. It is important to note that this is merely a marketing strategy, and has nothing to do with taking a principled position, being honest, seeking the Truth, or striving to be faithful to the Orthodox Tradition.
Of the interviews of those who best opposed ordaining women deacons, I would recommend listening to Dr. Edith M. Humphrey, Presbytera Dr. Eugenia Constantinou, Khouriah Frederica Mathews-Green, and Dr. Mary Ford.
My Part in this Discussion
I did not intend to call in to this show, but in the chat discussions on YouTube, there were many people who said that AFR should have me on to discuss the issue. Eventually, Fr. Thomas Soroka asked me to call in—he even sent me a private message. So I did call in. You can listen to my call here, but we got cut off, and I had to call back in twice.
In my call, I began by pointing out the dishonest use of the phrase “restoration” with relation to what they are promoting, when in fact, they are promoting something entirely different from a restoration. At the end of my call, I made a comment that the Phoebe Center folks took exception to, and claimed I was somehow unfit for the ears of women to hear. AFR eventually edited my comments, in a likely vain effort to make the folks at the Phoebe Center happy, but you can listen to the unedited comments by clicking here. This is what I said without editing:
“One other thing I would say quickly about the Phoebe Center, is they say, well, we’re not pushing for women priests, we’re only talking about deaconesses, and I’m very tempted to use a very crass reference to what guys often try to do to pressure women when they’re out in the back seat of a car, but you know, you say I just want to go this far, but no further, but once you get there, then what happens? I don’t trust that kind of an argument. I don’t think that is where they want to stop, and some of them have openly advocated for women being ordained as priests. We’ve seen this before. The slippery slope is a real thing, when you have people who intentionally grease it, and we just need to be really on guard.”
When I said that I was “tempted to use a very crass reference,” what I in fact went on to say was not the crass reference I was tempted to use. I instead toned it down to keep it acceptable for mixed company. Pretty much everyone above the age of fifteen knows what I was talking about, and anyone under that age was not likely listening anyway. I think it is an apt analogy. The point is, like the guy in the back seat of a car, they know that saying what they really want is not going to get the desired result, and so ask for something short of that… with every intention of pushing to go beyond that point once they get there. It is obvious that they really want women priests and women bishops, but they know saying so plainly would get them nowhere.
The faux outrage over what I said is especially rich given that many of those expressing that outrage are also are pushing the LGBTQP agenda and would never object to that agenda being pushed on kids in school, nor would you likely hear them expressing outrage over gay pride parades in which men expose themselves to children and engage in lewd public acts in their presence.
If I had been able to hear Dr. Edith Humphries interview before I called in, I might have simply referred to this a “sleight of hand” tactic as she did, so that they would not then be able to avoid dealing with the substance of my criticisms, and instead deflect attention by clutching their pearls, and by unironically appealing to pre-feminist notions that women are too fragile to hear such things said.
Before my call, there was a young woman who called in and who said that God had called her to be a deaconess, and asked what she should do about it. Fr. Thomas Soroka’s answer was very pastoral, but he did not say that she should be made a deaconess in the end. And so somehow this very pastoral answer was later referred to as being unkind. The woman who called in has published articles on this subject, and when you put your thoughts out there publicly, people do have a right to express contrary opinions. Also, when you claim God has told you something, people also have a right to question whether this was really God, or just symptoms of self-deception. There were people who made some unkind comments elsewhere about her. I certainly don’t defend being unnecessarily harsh with anyone. But the faux outrage that was expressed in this case was another example of having a double standard. You can’t contend that women are so strong and tough that they can do anything a man can do, while at the same time act as if anyone who contradicts a woman and makes her feel bad is a “big fat meany!” One of these two views may be a correct way to view women, but both cannot be true in the same universe.
In any case, here is what I have to say on the subject in a forum in which I have more time to lay out the case:
Now if the folks at the Phoebe Center actually agree that women can never be ordained as priests or bishops, because this would be an unthinkable violation of the Orthodox Tradition, I will gladly make a public apology in response. But I won’t be holding my breath in the meantime. They won’t say that, because clearly that is where they want to go next, and “restoring” deaconesses is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
See also:
Sister Vassa on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood
Stump the Priest: Altar Girls?
Stump the Priest: The Churching of Boys vs. the Churching of Girls
Dissatisfaction with the two leading American presidential candidates — and their two respective political parties — is nothing new.
Pew Research Center recently reported that about half of eligible voters would rather not vote for either candidate, and those who are voting will do so against the candidate they loathe, rather than for the candidate they support.
Since 2010, Gallup has found that only about 1 in 4 Americans identify as Republican and 1 in 4 as Democrat, while 2 in 4 Americans identify as politically independent. But the levels of dissatisfaction with either side is remarkable: Rates of independent identification are tied for the all-time highs in the history of the Gallup poll.
Pew’s finding last month that about half of Americans would replace both Biden and Trump if they could.
This has been borne out by the presidential candidate polls, and is notable due to the strength of third party candidates, particularly Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In the battleground state of Wisconsin, for instance, Biden is polling 38%, Trump 38%, Kennedy 9%, and “other” a substantial 15%. Similar numbers are found in battleground states like Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
Overall, Kennedy is polling at just over 10% nationally, more than enough to be a major factor in the election. Indeed, both major presidential candidates seem annoyed by the numbers third party candidates are achieving. That is probably one reason they both recently agreed to scrap the Committee on Presidential Debates in favor of an agreement with CNN that will likely keep third party candidates off the debate stage.
But we shouldn’t let the cynical and manipulative political powers that be cut us off from considering third party candidates. The entrenched two-party system has been bad for the country — and even worse for Catholics — for some time now.
It has pushed millions to the negative and toxic place (with the help of social media, which also rewards negativity and toxicity) of voting against someone rather than voting for someone. It has poisoned our ideas about politics, turning it into a kind of Machiavellian game of 4-D chess about how to maneuver to defeat the “bad guy.”
At times, it has misled Catholics into thinking that the Democratic party or Republican party — or candidates like Donald Trump or Joe Biden — represent the truths of the Catholic faith.
Sadly, the right vs. left secular political fight-to-the death has been imported and even absorbed into certain places in the Church — reflected by the fact that bishops, theologians, and even parishes are often classified as “conservative” or “liberal.”
But Catholicism, which is ever ancient, ever new — the product of both the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of centuries of tradition coming out of the first-century Middle East — cannot be made to fit into the dominant modes of secular U.S. politics.
Yet the temptation toward political idolatry pushes many Catholics to see their brothers and sisters in Christ as political enemies on “the other side” to be defeated — rather than fellow Temples of the Holy Spirit to be loved as siblings.
In this column and in other places, I’ve tried to self-consciously push back against this kind of idolatry. Through careful and consistent application of the vision of Christ’s Church, we can move in political spaces in ways that are faithful and not hateful. Nonviolent and not vindictive. Healing and not destructive.
Part of that call is to refuse to play the power game of our secular politics. Refuse to choose between two unacceptable options. In the past that might have been difficult, but this election is a real opportunity for Catholics to vote their conscience. Both major candidates are terrible. Both parties are corrupt and incoherent. We don’t need to choose between them.
Identify as a pro-life Catholic? Feeling the pressure to pick the lesser of two evils here? This has been one of the reasons Catholics have dutifully played their role in the Republican vs. Democrat idolatrous duopoly. And, truth be told, there may have been times in the past where it could have made a certain amount of sense.
But Roe is gone. And, as Lila Rose of Live Action has pointed out, Trump’s new feckless position on abortion is not pro-life. (Nor, of course, are his positions on torture, the death penalty, hooking up with porn stars while one’s wife is pregnant, and so on.)
For his part, Biden — a Roman Catholic — has been prioritizing abortion in his campaign, saying that it should be a constitutional right. His vice president became the first person in that office to visit an abortion clinic. Neither of the two major candidates are pro-life.
Indeed, the only presidential candidate who is genuinely pro-life is Peter Sonski of the young and fast-growing American Solidarity Party (ASP). If you haven’t yet checked out that party, and especially if you are fed up with the options you have with Biden and Trump, I encourage you to give them a first look.
But even if the ASP isn’t for you, we should refuse to stay trapped in a self-perpetuating, antagonistic two-party system that is undermining so much that is good about this country and the Church. Staying within the bounds of that system is a choice; U.S. Catholics can and should make different and better choices.
Happily, this election is setting up to be the best one in a long time for doing precisely this.
The Serbian Orthodox Church, both in Serbia and abroad, called its faithful to fervent prayer yesterday as the UN voted on establishing an annual commemoration of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.
The General Assembly resolution sponsored by Germany and Rwanda faced intense lobbying from the Bosnian Serb president Milorad Dodik and Serbian president Aleksandr Vučić, who see the resolution as branding the whole of the Serbian people as genocidal supporters of the killing of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims.
According to the site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije blessed for the bells in all churches to ring out at noon yesterday, “calling the faithful people of St. Sava to fervent prayer, calmness, mutual solidarity, and steadfastness in doing good, despite the completely false and unjust accusations to which they are exposed in the United Nations.”
“His Holiness invites the entire Serbian Orthodox nation to unite in prayer for justice and peace for all nations, especially those with whom we share a common history for centuries with the Biblical faith in our hearts and on our lips: “As the Lord lives, so thy soul shall live!” (cf. 1 Sam 25:26) Christ is Risen!”
And in America, His Grace Bishop Longin of New Gračnica and Midwestern America called upon his flock to unite in prayer “the for the salvation of our people.”
“We ask all the clergy and faithful of our diocese to turn to the Lord and All Serbian Saints in prayer today and tomorrow for the salvation of our people. Whichever service, akathist or individual prayer you offer, may it reach the throne of God and be heard unto the stopping of enemies and adversaries of the Serbian people,” the bishop writes.
According to the diocesan report, “This vote has the potential to label the entire Serbian nation as genocidal, undermining the tremendous suffering of the Serbian people during the war.”
The report concludes:
In these moments of collective prayer, Bishop Longin hopes to invoke the protection and guidance of the Lord and All Serbian Saints, trusting in their intercession for justice and the well-being of the Serbian people. This call to prayer is a profound expression of faith and hope, aimed at bringing about divine intervention and relief in times of need.
As the faithful respond to Bishop Longin’s call, their prayers testify to the enduring spirit of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its unwavering belief in the power of divine grace.
In the end, the UN voted 84-19 to establish June 11 as the annual Srebrenica memorial day.
Photo: Facebook According to the head of the Eurosolidarity faction in the Kiev City Council, Marina Poroshenko, the Council recently voted for two draft decisions according to which dozens of Orthodox Churches will be “inspected” for “legality of use.” 
Under cover of night, Ukraine destroys Tithes Church, built on site of first Kievan cathedralThe ancient cathedral was blown up by the godless authorities in 1936, but in 2006, the new church, belonging to the Tithes Monastery, was built by Kiev residents with the blessing of then-primate Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine.
St. Tikhon’s Monastery breaks ground on future iconography schoolIcons and art from the monastic community can be viewed on the monastery website.
St. Tikhon’s Monastery launches comprehensive liturgical music resourceA new project of St. Tikhon’s Monastery has been launched, aiming to provide Orthodox liturgical music for every choir.
Sunday of the Paralytic
