Skycop150's Blog

Well dear readers,

I am off to Thessaloniki, Greece tomorrow afternoon. I am going to try and spend as much time as I can "sight-seeing" as opposed to blogging; so you won't see me back here, till school starts again when I come home. I may make an entry or two while I am in Greece so keep an eye out. Otherwise I will tell you all about my trip when I come home.

Please keep me in your prayers as you all are in mine!

This was to good not to post on. I have always loved the space program. Now it seems as though the first private spacecraft final made its first voyage.
This is cool, this is worthwhile, and a lot more enjoyable than reading about the ravages of war. Just maybe someday these types of things might catch on enough so that the others will die out.

Excerpt from MSNBC.com ~Copyright laws are applicable.

Click on the text to go to the main story.

By Alan Boyle
Science editor
MSNBC
Updated: 10:04 a.m. ET June 21, 2004
MOJAVE, Calif. - Nestled beneath an alien-looking airplane, the SpaceShipOne rocket plane rose into the air Monday on a flight that could make it the first privately developed craft to go into outer space.

I plan to take a few days away from the blog-O-sphere. I will be back later...

:-)

I went to see this movie the other night and I thought it was very good. I didn't realize they changed out the actor who plays the Dumbeldor character though. That was a surprise, I kind of got used to the other guy. No real big deal though. I went with a friend of mine and on the way home we were thinking which of our school professors reminded us of the professors in Harry Potter...it was a hilarious conversation.

UPDATE: Karl, since you have asked repeatedly I will try again to explain what I said when I commented on your post. All my new comments will be in bold type.

First of all, when I commented on your post I did not mean to insult you personally. A few things however have become clear to me. Chief among these, is that you did not mean to say what I gleaned out of your post. I never really thought you were bashing the Holy priesthood [as opposed to the Royal Priesthood], I simply thought the post you made was poorly written. Usually your posts are very well written and are accurate; scripturally, canonically, etc... I thought you left to much out in this particular post and you seem to have taken my criticism more harshly than I intended it. I want to clear this issue up first before I get on to what I originally said.

As to the post which started this whole discussion; I, like I said, felt it was poorly written. In your most recent comments you made the following remarks:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I:
Peter,
"freedom of choice and that there is no special esoteric or arcane knowledge which clergy or monastics have that others can not"

So, in denying this, you are stating that there really isn't a "priesthood of all believers"...that in fact, the clergy can become more holy than the laity simply by their functional status in the Church? And that the relationship between spiritual father and child must be built on true freedom?

Is that correct? If not, then you did in fact misread my post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not denying, that the Royal Priesthood [all inclusive of the Christian body], which you mention, and St. Paul speaks about, isn't a "preisthood" at all. Obviously St. Paul is much more capable of speaking to the Gospel of Christ than I am. For me to assert otherwise would be nutso. You, in the original post say after this that the division between the laity and the clergy is not a sharp one. This is not true, and I am not just basing this on my own opinion. If you read the Scriptures, as well as other realated materials, canons of the church, writings of the fathers etc... it is clear that the division between laity and clergy is a sharp one. This does not mean that one group is better or 'more holy' than the other, but there is a "sharp division". Which is why I stated that clergy have more to answer for when they go before Christ. I wasn't implying that you were opposing that view point at all. I placed it there to illustrate that there is a "sharp division" between these two groups. Even St. Paul exhorted Timothy and Titus to be better than the whole. (I know that is a bad paraphrase, but I hope you will understand that comment better now.)

They way in which you worded this [the post itself] was the begining of my problem with your post. I felt that you used the quotes ambigiously and the original meanings of them were not kept intact. I read the articles you linked to on your post and I felt there was a fairly large gap between what you were saying and what the links you posted to said. By introducing the post the way you did speaking about freedom of choice and so forth, it gives the impression; obviously that impression made more of an impact on me than others; that you are down playing the role of the priest. I think Huw even commented that he saw what I was eluding to. Although it is clear from his remarks that he did not feel it was as prevelant of a problem as I did. {probally because he knows you better than I do} In the end you wind up pointing back to the spiritual father as the one who is the authority. That is why I said, that I felt you contradicted youself in your post.

When I stated that the post you made was dangerous I did so because of the wording in your post. You said what you said, and then finished up by stating that, "No matter how good an apologist I might be..." You took offense to my retort in which I said, you weren't an appologist, and you asked why you would need to worry about that. Actually, I said that I never viewed you as an appologist. Between your post and what you have said in your own comments you have taken that title for yourself. Which is completly fine. Again I just thought that the post was in err.

All to often these days I see the Holy Priesthood [again not to be confused with the Royal Priesthood] being down played in very subtle ways. Which over time have done a great deal of damage to the office of the Holy Piresthood. So if I commented harshly and swiftly that is why. I know however that this is a real problem in the church. Basil, commented on the fact that this is typical seminarian stuff. Well, maybe so? But there is to much ambiguity in the church these days where it concerns the priesthood and since that is what I want to do I take it to heart. I honestly and truly believe that the man is changed after ordination (reference the prayers I placed below) and that the Holy Spirit changes him. In my opinion, this is what Fr. Hopko & Deacon Chryssavgis were refering to when they said that God uses the weak. He takes that weak man and purifies him and most importantly, changes him, through the Holy Spirit. So yes in that regard we do differ because I do believe that priests are set apart from the laity.

Finally what I want to finsh up with here is the following:

"If I write something and you as a reader don't understand [or misperceive it] the fault isn't yours its mine as the author."

When I made this comment you called it silly. Well, it may be silly but it is also the truth! The example I gave was of a playright who wrote a play and gets the heave-ho from the audience. How we speak and present things has a major impact on how others percieve us. Unfortunately, if we don't get our point across or someone takes it to mean something else than there is a problem. Like it or not the fault, be it 100% or 30/70 or what ever other percentage, is going to lie with the speaker, writer, the one in charge, etc...

Yes, we all have a responsibility, and there will come a time when there is nothing else that can be done but initally the danger area lies with the originator. This is something you may not agree with but I do, which is why I said it. When I was in the military I saw this all the time. If something went wrong it was always the one in charge who got 'jacked-up' the hardest. Who ever that poor sob was, man or woman, it didn't matter. I also see this in other areas of life as well. A good example is, the priest in any church, who gives a sermon or instructions which are misinterprted and WHAMO he is diced up and thrown out. It may be, that what he said, was meant contrary to the way it was recieved, but in the end he must still shoulder the blame for creating the 'incident'.

It isn't that I want to promote clericalism or I am saying that the clergy are better and more holy. I am saying that in the order of life which God has given us clergy are to be set apart, and therefore, I believe, above but not better than the rest of the body of Christ. In much the same way the angels are above humanity. They aren't better they are simply different. Clergy are different then the rest of the body of Christ. I felt your post was stating something very much to the contrary. I am guessing that you still won't see my point of view here and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinions, as much as I am, or as much as, the next person is. I hope that this helps you to understand my position better.

This post is an answer to a comment about something I disagreed with on Karl's blog. It is a little to large for comments and so I am putting my comments here. You can read the original post and comments on Karl's blog here.

First off Karl I don't have to slow down at all. Please save the patronizing for someone else. I disagreed with you I didn't patronize you. You most certainly did assert that the priest was nothing special. Your quotes talk of individual freedom of choice and that there is no special esoteric or arcane knowledge which clergy or monastics have that others can not. This isn't true at all. On the day a man is ordained he receives a special blessing from [The Holy Spirit makes complete that which was lacking in the man] the Holy Spirit.

He is specifically set apart to be a proclaimer of the Gospel, to minister unto the word of truth, offer the spiritual gifts and sacrifices. Also the first prayer that is read at the ordination says, "The grace divine, which always healeth that which is infirm, and completeth that which is wanting, elevate through the laying on of hands, the most devout Deacon...to be a Priest...etc... This is the reason why the Priest [as well as, the bishop and deacon] have so much more to answer for before Christ.

The quotes which you have placed on your post and the way in which you have used them contradict what I read in the service of ordination.

You mentioned the class of 2004 from Holy Cross being more spiritually developed than the laity they are going to serve. No of course every single one of them isn't. However they aren't all receiving ordination and the ones that are aren't even ordained yet. When they do get ordained they will most likely spend time as an assistant somewhere to learn what they need and to develop pastoral skills. The fact that your own priest laughs at the idea that clergy are more holy/knowledgeable/pious/etc... than those of their spiritual children worries me. The fact of the matter is whether or not he wishes to perceive that the priesthood is a special calling or not ["special status", were the words you used] is moot. The priesthood is just that it is a special calling or special status and if presently ordained clergy don't recognize that then it is a shame and something they will have to work out with God. I never claimed being ordained was based on meritocracy but it is the pure of heart and worthy that are called out to be clergy. From the Apostles, to the Seventy, to the first deacons. Luke 10:1-24; especially see Acts 6:3 {"Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, fully of the Holy Spirit and Wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business...}

You then go on to quote Fr. Tom Hopko, who is quoting St. John Chrysostom {and I would love to know the source} and says that one's personal holiness has very little to do with being called to the priesthood. Huh!?! If you read the scripture quotes above then you will see that this portion of your quote is inaccurate. For some that holiness is always been there and for some, like St. Paul, God brings it out in them in His time. Nonetheless if holiness isn't a part of being a priest than I am at a complete loss. You claim good priests are the ones who are repentful...well no kidding but if they aren't holy than all the repenting in the world won't do them any good. If St. Stephen, the first martyr, wasn't a holy man than he would have never have been chosen. But according to what you are telling me {via Fr. Hopko} holiness isn't a requirement. I don't buy that at all.

I did read the last two paragraphs of your post again and that is where I found contradiction in the post over all. You start out by saying free choice and anyone can give advice and then wind up by saying, you aren't an apologist and that you can only offer a little advice and we should turn back to a spiritual father.?.

I don't think I misread something in to this post I simply thought it was poorly written and you didn't explain your points at all. That is dangerous because people reading this take it and say it must be true I saw it on the Internet. If I write something and you as a reader don't understand [or misperceive it] the fault isn't yours its mine as the author. The playwright who pens a bad play gets the 'heave-ho' not the audience. If you are an apologist as you claim so many in your life believe you to be then live up to that position and clearly define what it is you are speaking to. You don't have to be the world's greatest but you do have to work harder at it than you did in this post.

Comment away if you like I am done weighing in on this subject it was quite upsetting to me.

In the next few days I am going to post on the authority of the bishops in the church. I was inspired to write such a post because of my previous post on Catholic bishops. Stay tuned...

This article made me sad, to the point of tears, for numerous reasons; and I am not even Catholic. The whole idea of this article is so ridiculous it is amazing. A bishop has no say in who comes to communion?!? Huh?!? Oh just let the people figure it out?!? I get a chill down my spine when I read that quote [see below]. You know, St. John Chrysostom once said, that, the road to hell will be paved with the souls of bishops and priests, and I believe him.

What bothers me even more, is that this is a group of people [the Catholic church as a whole] the Orthodox church is in dialogue with, to eventually reestablish communion that they broke 950 years ago. For what? The administration of the Catholic church isn't what it once was and this article helps to illustrate that fact. I am not against talking to someone about the Orthodox faith but there comes a point in time where you have to look at what the results would be. I don't ever want to hear a bishop in the Orthodox church say what Cardinal Keller said. I am also smart enough to realize that there is a very real danger of this type of thinking permeating the Orthodox church, if it hasn't already. By the way I found this link on Serge's blog.

This article is the property of the Baltimore Sun, and Copyright laws are applicable.

Cardinal Keeler calls for keeping politics out of Communion
--Issue is between Catholic and conscience, he says


By Frank Langfitt
Sun Staff
Originally published May 28, 2004

Addressing a national controversy for the first time, Baltimore's Cardinal William H. Keeler said he opposes an attempt by some bishops to politicize Communion and deny the sacrament to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

Keeler said in an interview this week that it was not the business of bishops to choose who receives Communion. Instead, he said he supports church policy that individual Catholics should determine whether they are in a state of grace with the church before partaking in the Eucharist, the heart of Catholic worship.

"Our position is ... Catholics have a responsibility to examine their own conscience and see if they are in a state that is appropriate for the reception of the sacrament," he said. "We don't need bishops to get into the act."

In recent months, several bishops have said they would not give Communion to politicians who support a woman's right to an abortion, which violates church teaching on the sanctity of life.

At least one, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, singled out Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry by name, saying he would not give the sacrament to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Keeler would not say whether he would give Communion to Kerry, but he strongly suggested that he would. With five months to go before Election Day, Keeler also expressed concern about bishops involving themselves in a national political race.

"We have said again and again as bishops, we are not in partisan politics," Keeler said. "We dare not be pulled into a dispute between one party and another."

The debate over linking Communion to politics seems unlikely to subside soon.

Earlier this week, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said he had instructed priests not to give Communion to gay-rights protesters who might wear rainbow-colored sashes to churches this weekend. George said he wasn't denying the Eucharist to the protesters because they are gay, but because they are trying to politicize the sacrament.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church's national leadership group, has set up a task force to address how the bishops relate to Catholic politicians, but it is not expected to report for several months.

While not new in the Roman Catholic Church, the debate over tying Communion to abortion has re-emerged with greater ferocity as conservative bishops found a high-profile target in Kerry, who is expected to become the first Catholic nominee for president from a major party in more than four decades.

The controversy raises difficult questions about the authority of church and state and the role of faith in politics. It comes at an awkward time for Catholic leaders trying to rebuild trust and moral standing after the priest sex abuse scandal.

"It's moronic," said Ted G. Jelen, professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "This is a crucial moment for the American church, and I think those bishops are handling it very badly."

Influence in Rome...

In addition to four bishops who oppose extending Communion to abortion-rights politicians, 17 others have said that such politicians should voluntarily abstain from the Eucharist, according to an informal phone poll by Catholics for a Free Choice. Although those who oppose abortion-rights politicians taking Communion represent a fraction of the nation's 300 Catholic bishops, they appear to have some support in Rome.

Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, who is often mentioned as a potential successor to Pope John Paul II, said recently that a priest should refuse Communion to a politician who is unambiguously pro-abortion.

It is a sign of how American Catholicism and U.S. politics have evolved over the decades that a debate over abortion and Communion is surfacing as the country prepares for an election.

In 1960, voters questioned whether John F. Kennedy was too Catholic to be president. Today, some conservative bishops ask whether John Kerry is Catholic enough.

Not since Kennedy's bid for the White House, when some voters feared he would take direction from the pope, has the question of following faith over politics received such attention in a presidential race.

Analysts say the bishops are using Kerry to publicize and politicize long-standing concerns about faith and society. Among them: increasing permissiveness regarding sexuality and the sanctity of life, as well as what they see as the hypocrisy of Catholic politicians who say they oppose abortion personally, but not officially.

Turn back the clock...

John Kenneth White, a professor of politics at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., says the bishops want to return to a time when there was a strong moral consensus in the country and religious leaders commanded respect and authority:

"What they would like to do, if they could, is turn back the clock entirely to 1959."

The debate has already generated sniping. After Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who heads the bishops' task force, said he would not be comfortable denying Communion to Kerry, a Roman Catholic anti-abortion group targeted him with print advertisements showing a photo of Jesus in agony on the cross.

"CARDINAL McCARRICK, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE NOW?" the ad read.

Catholic lawmakers

In a letter to McCarrick this month, 48 Democratic, Catholic members of the House of Representatives warned that denying Communion based on politics could divide the church and revive anti-Catholic sentiment.

"Opponents to John F. Kennedy expressed the view that, if elected, his first act would be to build a tunnel from the White House to Rome," the Congress members wrote.

"While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice."

It is not clear how far the debate has filtered into the pews, but it is not hard to find division.

Monsignor F. Dennis Tinder, pastor of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Towson, and Stephanie Rohe, one of his parishioners, both abhor abortion but differ on how to handle Catholic politicians who support a right to it.

Rohe says public officials must choose between political positions and the sacrament.

"As far as I'm concerned, too many politicians ride the fence," said Rohe, 54, who lives in Anneslie and has five children. "It's like anything else. You join a club, you follow the rules. If you don't, then you shouldn't participate."

Tinder worries that such an approach will further polarize Catholics and alienate those who most need to hear the church's message.

"My fear with this present initiative is that it ends up being so associated with the political process and party that it robs us of any capacity for moral teaching," said Tinder.

Keeler said he hopes the U.S. bishops' conference uses the current attention to better teach what it calls "The Gospel of Life." Published in a 1998 document, the gospel urges people to respect all human life beginning at conception and to defend it against attacks ranging from starvation and war to abortion and euthanasia.

"For us, it's a teachable moment," said Keeler.

Not a voting bloc...

If conservative bishops raised the issue of abortion and Communion in hopes of drawing votes away from Kerry, analysts doubt such a strategy will have much success. Catholic voters are no longer the reliable bloc they were when they voted overwhelmingly for Kennedy, said Mark Gray, a research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

Today, they tend to vote along party lines and, politically speaking, generally view abortion much the way the rest of the country does.

A March poll by the apostolate showed that 45 percent of likely Catholic voters preferred Kerry, compared with 39 percent for Bush. Fewer than 10 percent were undecided.

Analysts think most of them will be swayed by the major issues most Americans are focused on such as the economy and the war - not abortion.

Given the church's position on a wide range of issues, including opposition to stem cell research, the death penalty and the war in Iraq, it would challenge a faithful voter to find a religiously appropriate candidate.

If a citizen strictly applied church teaching at the ballot box, "you wouldn't really be able to vote for anyone," said Gray.

The direct link to the article is here.

It is better for a man to purify himself for God than to speak of God as a theologian.
--St Isaac of Syria

I found this little quote over on Huw's blog and I really like it. It makes me realize, that we out here in the blogosphere sometimes go over board, and would do better to seek rather than speak about that which do not know enough about.

This article was found on CNN.com and is from the AP, copyright laws apply.

Now I ask all of you to read this article and I dare anyone of you to try and explain to me that this isn't a government operation. Opa!

Grand Canyon in deep trouble
Panel can't agree on how to fix it
Tuesday, June 8, 2004 Posted: 4:59 PM EDT (2059 GMT)

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (AP) -- It's hard to get the sense anything is wrong in the Grand Canyon while floating through it.

On a recent spring morning, the Colorado River was cool and calm. Trout leapt, splashing back into the river with a plop. Stands of salt cedar lined the banks, offering shade from the desert heat.

But all is not well in this crown jewel of America's national park system.

The salt cedar and trout are invaders, part of a wave of alien fish and plants that have moved in and devoured or crowded out the native species. The sandy shorelines are washing away. And once-buried Indian archaeological sites are slipping into the river.

The Grand Canyon is in deep trouble, and the government-appointed panel assigned to come up with solutions is torn by competing interests and cannot muster the political will to act decisively.

"The best that we can do is keep slapping on as many Band-Aids as we can and hope the patient survives," complained Pam Hyde, one of two environmentalists on the panel.

The Colorado is a different river from one explored by the one-armed Civil War veteran John Wesley Powell, who in 1869 led the first expedition through the Grand Canyon. The landscape and biology have been transformed by the Glen Canyon Dam, built upstream in 1963 to generate hydroelectric power and store water.

Before the dam was erected, the Colorado would fill with snowmelt and flood violently in the early summer, then dwindle to a trickle in the winter. The dam smoothed out the flow.

In Powell's day, the Colorado was warm and muddy. Now it runs cold and clear, because sediment gets caught behind the dam in Lake Powell and because the water released through the dam comes from the reservoir's lower, cooler depths.

Over the years, nearly $200 million has been spent assessing what the dam has done to Grand Canyon and exploring what can be done to fix it.

In an ambitious experiment to see whether Glen Canyon Dam can help solve the very problems it created, the U.S. Geological Survey has unleashed floods, released pulses of water and even simulated a summer drought to see if this would build up the sandbars and restore the river in other respects.

Also, lasers and sonar map the canyon's loss of sand. Implanted microchips allow scientists to monitor endangered fish and follow the movements of boulders downstream.

But an overall plan for saving the Grand Canyon has yet to emerge, and much of the research merely confirms what scientists already know. The sophisticated tests "measure the ever-fainter pulse of the patient," said John C. Schmidt, a veteran canyon researcher from Utah State University.

For example, four of the canyon's eight native fish species have disappeared, and the prospects for a fifth, the endangered humpback chub, are grim. The chub is being hurt by a number of factors, primarily the cold water, which hampers reproduction, and the Asian tapeworm, a non-native parasite that is killing the fish.

The job of directing the science and developing a plan for the Grand Canyon rests with a panel of river users and interest groups assembled by the Interior Department in 1996 in what was itself an experiment.

The 25-member group involves everyone with a stake in Grand Canyon: a river guide, a trout fisherman, tribes, environmentalists, water managers and power company officials. The group reports to Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

But the panel finds itself pulled in different directions as each member looks after his or her own interests. Environmentalists see life or death for the canyon. The states want to ensure access to water for irrigation and 25 million households in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Power officials worry about lost revenue from adjustments to the river flow.

In one particular clash, fishermen want to catch trout, while environmentalists want to preserve chub. One problem: Trout eat young chub.

"That's where the program has the hardest time: What are you willing to give up in return for improving something else?" said Leslie James of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association.

At some point, scientists say, the group will have to make a choice: Trout or chub. Beach-building floods or healthy plants on the riverbanks.

A retreat is scheduled for this month to get the program back on course. The alternative is lawsuits and the possibility that a judge could dictate the balance of interests in the Grand Canyon -- exactly what the Interior Department hoped to avoid by giving everyone a place at the table.

"The program is not willing to stand up and announce that the program's a failure," Schmidt said. "They're not willing to say the irreversible price for Glen Canyon Dam and its power and water storage is the deterioration of the Grand Canyon."

I found this news story on AOL(tm) news and I also found it interesting (and sad). Ah the French...

This article is the property of Reuters and copyright laws are applicable.

French Bury Shrivelled Heart of Boy King
Louis XVII's Heart Laid to Rest With Parents Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette
By Joelle Diderich, Reuters


SAINT-DENIS, France (June 8) - France's royal descendants and their supporters on Tuesday buried the shrivelled heart of Louis XVII, the boy king who died during the Revolution, after DNA tests confirmed the organ's authenticity.

Exactly 209 years after the heart was cut from the king's body following his death in a grim Paris prison, a crystal urn containing the tiny pickled organ was carried to the cathedral of Saint-Denis outside Paris, burial place of French kings.

Following a two-hour mass, it was laid to rest in the royal crypt next to the remains of his parents Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who were both executed by the revolutionaries.

To a chorus of trumpets, Amaury de Bourbon de Parme, a young boy related to the former child king, brought in the urn draped in a purple cloth and placed it next to a crown on a column draped in the royal fleur-de-lis pattern.

"Finally, he will be able to rest in peace with his parents," said Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, a Spanish banker whose blood ties date back to Louis XIV and who was cheered outside the cathedral by supporters shouting: "Long live the king!"

The ceremony comes four years after DNA tests confirmed that Louis-Charles de France perished in jail of tuberculosis at the age of 10, putting to rest centuries of speculation that he had escaped his captors and was survived by royal heirs.

The heart was removed from its resting place in the Saint-Denis cathedral in 1999 to enable scientists to compare its DNA make-up with samples from living and dead members of his family - including a lock of Marie Antoinette's hair.

Eight-year-old Louis-Charles automatically became King Louis XVII when Louis XVI was guillotined before huge crowds in central Paris at the height of the revolution in 1793.

At the time, the boy was held like a caged animal in the forbidding Temple prison to prevent any monarchist bid to free him, and was forcibly separated from his mother.

At her subsequent trial, a signed statement from the boy was produced claiming that she had forced him to commit incest. Marie Antoinette was executed shortly afterwards.

In his sermon, Cardinal Jean Honore said Louis-Charles had been a pawn of sadistic captors. He compared the child's plight to that of modern-day victims of paedophilia.

"The conscience of a child is sacred. A child is not a toy," said the cardinal. "In the treatment that he was subjected to, there was certainly the desire to eliminate a child who represented something greater than himself."

Though organisers said they did not want the privately funded ceremony to have political connotations, it drew mainly monarchists who want to see Louis Alphonse de Bourbon restored to the throne. No senior government official was present.

"I am grateful towards this family because France gives the impression that it exists only since the Revolution," said Monique Jaeger, 78, one of several hundred people who watched the mass on a screen outside the church in the scorching sun.

By contrast, 20-year-old salesman Benjamin Zeller said he did not know about the ceremony and did not care.

"Those days are over," he said, referring to the monarchy.


06/08/04 10:39 ET

I found this article on CNN.com and something about it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Whatever happened to parents actually taking responsibility for their kids. These days it seems that the prospect of that is just to time consuming. I realize that R movies aren't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but where does it end. I have a novel idea lets go back to the original concept of if your 17 or under you can't see an R movie without your parent.

This excerpt is from an article which was taken from CNN.com Copyright laws are applicable.

BLOOMINGTON, Illinois (AP) -- Still weeks shy of her 16th birthday, Sydni Norris caught the R-rated war epic "Troy" on the big screen last month while her parents stayed home.

The Bloomington teen-ager's way around the rating system's age limit was a parent-approved pass card that has started a debate over convenience vs. parental responsibility and raised fears that the government might jump in to settle the dispute.

Supporters say parents can sign off on movies for their kids without the time and expense of chaperoning them with the new R-card, which Springfield-based GKC Theatres began rolling out last fall in parts of its 22-city chain in Illinois and three other Midwest states. The card only works for the R-rating, which requires children under 17 to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian...

Some things that I was pondering on today include:

God is very merciful to grant me another day!

How my friend's son is doing? My friend is a priest and his son is in the Navy. He is still in my prayers.

The weather in Boston changed...again! My friend told me yesterday that the crazy weather is why people are the way they are up here, that being crazy, I agree!

I know the whole country lost a former President when Ronald Reagan died but all this attention has to be even more difficult on his family.

I don't like the way they cook stuffed peppers in the cafeteria and I wonder why I keep trying them?

I miss watching Saturday morning cartoons, like the ones from when I was a kid.

I lost a DVD I rented from Blockbuster and it is really annoying me...mostly because I don't know where the damn thing went?

I have to clean my room before I goto Greece...uggh!

Preserve me O Lord through out this night. Protect and keep me, at all times, and in all things. Grant me a peaceful rest O Lord; do not allow me to wander from the road which Thou hast returned me to so graciously. Shield me O Lord from the arrows which the demons loose against me. Do not allow my soul to be pierced; do not allow my heart to be impaled by the shafts of the demons. I am sorrowful O Lord in the night hours, for the way in which I have conducted myself this day, and the way in which I have brought shame to rain down upon my head. Now O Lord I seek Your mercy; and in the darkness of the night hours, I ask that you allow my soul to know Your stillness; so that I might know peace in my soul, and that I might allow my mind to dwell within the stable of my heart, and thereby may I see Thy True Light. I love Thee O Lord, truly I love Thee. Yet, I know how I have saddened Thee by my actions. Yea O Lord in these long hours of the night redeem me and grant me the forgiveness of my sins. For I know not if I shall wake to see the Sun and the glorious rays from its Light. How sad would it be O man, should you not wake and be not redeemed? One cannot bear to even think of that fate; beg the Lord therefore O sinful man to guide you through the night. As the lighthouse, sends it’s Light into the darkened seas, and calls out to the ships upon the sea, from a far off, to keep them from danger, look to heaven and seek out the Lord, and His Light, to avoid the rocks that the demons have laid in the way of thy soul. Lest if you look not to heaven your soul shall crash upon the rocks and be ruined. God forbid O man that you should be subject to that fate! In the night hours I will not fear for I have called upon the name of the Lord. Like the wise Virgins I shall keep oil stored for the lamp to my soul. And when the bridegroom comes to announce himself, I shall rejoice! In the hours of the night O Lord, quench the fires that the evil one has set against me. For on all sides they surround me. Let him not prevail against me this night O Lord. Stay with me through out the night. For you alone are my Lord and God, and all the days of my life I will remember and rejoice in Your mercy. Glory be to You O Christ my Loving Master!

These words of St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10) are very pertinent to certain things in my life right now...

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Today I was speaking to a friend of mine about some personal things and so forth. You know the type of conversation I am talking about. Kinda deep, very personal, and so on...

At one point during the conversation, my friend is trying to explain something to me about the number of experiences that I have gone through in life (which is a lot) and she looks at me and says, "Pete your old...no offense but you are old...ya know what I mean?"

I just laughed, friends are really great sometimes.

She didn't call me crazy though! :-)

Craziness, complete craziness! &-)

Excerpt courtesy of the Associated Press; Copyright Laws are applicable.

Former President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93
By ROBERT JABLON, AP

LOS ANGELES (June 5) - Ronald Reagan, the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was 'morning again in America', died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease.

"My family and I would like the world to know that President Ronald Reagan has passed away after 10 years of Alzheimer's disease at 93 years of age. We appreciate everyone's prayers", Nancy Reagan said in a statement...

President Reagan was always one of my favorite Presidents for a lot of reasons. I admired the way he did things while he was in office and even in his private life. May his memory be eternal.

Help me O Lord for I am lost. In the night hours, I have been neglectful of the path which thou O Lord has set before me. I have wandered into the realm of the evil one; and I am beset by his wickedness and his demons are rejoicing. I walk now aimlessly, at the noon day hour, yet I am enclosed by darkness; when the sun is at its brightest I cannot see it. What horror is this to befall a man? That when the sun is at its brightest, I cannot see its rays with my wretched and darkened eyes. I am unable to find my way back to my homeland. I find myself behind the enemy’s lines; and have entered into inhospitable lands. My defenses are shattered; my armor and shield are worn and broken. My sword is useless and has become dull at the point. I have no allies in this land and I find myself surrounded by the demons on all sides. They ravage my soul without mercy, and I am in danger of loosing that precious gift which thou O Lord, hath given unto me; that which is so precious, that gift which You, Yourself O Lord, did breath into me. How wretched I am that I have treated such a gift as this one so carelessly? Hear me O Lord; hear my feeble words, which seemingly cannot rise above the clamor and rejoicing of the demons and their war party. I beg thee O Lord search me out in this foreign realm and rescue me; for pity sake O Lord come back to me; the lost sheep, even though I have turned from You, the Sheppard. For the demons mount an attack and I cannot stand another assault from that wicked host! I call for help but there is no one else that can come to my aid; there is no one else that can grant me salvation. O wretched am I, and foolish, in thinking I could find my own way. For now the hour is late, and I am truly lost, beset by those who seek my destruction, and will not relent, until they have seen my soul spilled upon the field of battle. I beg thee O Lord to shelter me in Thy arms and to be my defense. In spite of myself O Lord, shelter me now in this dark time. Do not leave me on this wretched plain to be prey for the predators. Hear me O Lord; I know that I have sinned against You, and against heaven, and all that is pure and holy. Cast out the darkness and restore Your Light to me; that I may not perish; but may I spend the remainder of my days singing, and praising You. Return me to the path which I have so carelessly turned from. Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon me O Lord and cleanse and purify that which I have fouled and dragged through the trench where the demons lay. For when men fall it is only the wicked ones who rejoice. For when men fall the angles in heaven weep. For they the heavenly ones O Lord, truly know the price which Thou hast paid! Why! Why O Lord cannot I not realize what the righteous know and the heavenly hosts have announced unto mankind? Do not allow my will to triumph O Lord; for in that hour I will fall into the abyss and be lost. Not dead, for death would be a welcome at that hour, but in everlasting fire, terrorized by the evil ones; without recourse. Yea though I am sinful O Lord please have mercy on me now. That the evil ones would know that they cannot stand against You. I know O Lord that I am unworthy of my request, but yet my soul begs of Thee, for mercy and pity! For if I were to ask for justice, and Thou were to grant such, where and how could I stand? Nay, I seek not justice O Lord but Thy never-ending mercy and love which Thou has for mankind. Even those such as myself; sinful and reckless and wicked. Forge my soul anew O Lord by the Holy Spirit, as Thou didst impart to the Holy Apostle and faithful on the day of Pentecost. Allow the Comforter to come also to one so wretched such as myself. As the thief begged of Thee O Lord I also cry out, remember me O Lord in Thy Kingdom! Now know this O foul ones; I have called upon the Lord in this dark hour and I have faith that He will show me mercy. Come, come O Lord, and destroy this enemy before me and restore my soul. Stay the course O wretched man, and the Lord will come to thee. He will aid thee and guide thee back to the homeland. Do not be reckless, do not despair, but rather rejoice now in this hour of darkness! For Christ is Risen and the bonds of death and hell are shattered! He has Ascended, and the Comforter has come to guide those who seek out the Lord. Rejoice O man in darkness, Rejoice for those who would assault you cannot bear the Holy Word! Rejoice O man for He will save your soul! He will find you now as the Sheppard finds the lost sheep! For I have cried out unto the Lord! Rejoice O man for He hast shown you great mercy and has withheld his justice, for pity sake. Rejoice O man, for the armor and weapons which you have clung to so dearly and futilely, have been re-forged. They are not now weapons of men but rather of the Spirit! The wicked cannot stand and flee from the field of battle! The darkness is parting and the Sun is restored, and you shall be reclaimed by the Holy Light! Made anew! Know O man that you have the gift restored which you have brought to ruin! For the Lord is merciful, the Lord has paid the fee to bring you back across the river of death. Indeed, death is shattered and that river has been diverted, so that thou O wretched one, could return to Him who gave you life. In spite of all you are O wretched man, the Lord hast shown you his love and mercy. Be ever mindful and I say, Rejoice in the Lord! Now O Lord I shall rest at ease in Thy arms and my enemies shall not prevail; for I have called out to You my Savior, my Lord, and my God!

Today, I attended two lectures sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in America. The first presentation was given by, Dr. Helen Creticos Theodoropoulos, titled, Patristic Understandings of the Laity and Holiness. The second presentation was given by, Mrs. Ann Bezzerides, director of the Office of Vocations and Ministry here at HC/HC (Ph. D. Candidate at Boston College), titled, Teaching Laity: St. John Chrysostom as a Resource for Contemporary Religious Education.

This conference was the annual meeting of this organization, The Orthodox Theological Society in America. Without meaning to sound too harsh, I wasn't very impressed. The first lecture, was disjointed and I feel Dr. H. Theodoropoulos contradicted one of the main parts of her thesis. Mrs. A. Bezzerides's presentation was definitely better presented, even though I didn't fully agree with her thesis.

The theme of the first presentation, was basically that the majority of the written patristic sources, are geared towards monastics and that fact presents problems when trying to teach the laity. Also a distinction was made, that there is really no difference between the clergy, monastics, and laity; in regards to the holiness that they may attain as individuals. This distinction was pointed out because according to the lecturer, in Orthodoxy today, there is a misconception that the clergy and monastics are somehow more holy than the laity of the church. She did point out, that monastics were in fact, lay men and women. Yet, she then went on, to refer to secular laity (non-clergy and non-monastics) and monastic laity. My primary question at this point in the presentation was, if there is no difference, then why continue to perpetuate this misconception in labeling the two groups in this manner? Dr. Theodoropoulos went on to make some interesting points that St. John Chrysostom made in the fourth century. St. John was not taken in by this misconception and believed that each manner of life could be equally holy. I must say that the only part of this discussion I agreed with were the quotes provide from St. John [I didn't agree with the way in which they were used however]. I found the remainder of the presentation rather disjointed and confusing so I am going to comment only on what I have recorded here.

I have no doubt that the life of the monk, nun, and clergymen (bishop, priest, or deacon) can and should be equally holy. The point was also made that clergy should be the 'best of the best' of all of us; also a point which I do not dispute, and in fact, I agree with very much. What perplexes me, is this continuing misrepresentation of the monastic life in the Orthodox church here in America [perhaps elsewhere as well --I only know about American Orthodoxy though]. As in previous post which I have made, I do not so much believe that the monastic life is a 'calling' but rather a gift from God to an individual. Such a gift, must be accepted by the individual, so that he or she may then continue onto the goal of salvation; which should be the most important goal for all of us as members of the church [regardless of the office or position we hold]. In the matter of Patristic sources being mostly geared towards monastics I am not surprised. In the evolution of monasticism in the early church, the fathers had a unique task, that being the instruction of the faithful in their charge (St. Symeon was used as an example at one point during the presentation). I mean by that, the fathers of the early church were dealing with a situation [monastic life] which called for a different 'set of rules' than one who was living in a city or village. Those of the faithful who lived in 'the world' didn't have the same difficulties in developing a 'set of rules', so therefore, there wasn't a great need to write them down in the manner the fathers wrote for monastics. Also Dr. Theodoropoulos pointed out that such sources can be used by one who isn't a monastic. Many of the writings to monastics by the early fathers were to prevent heretical or other improper practices by monks and nuns.

Some non-theological observations concerning this presentation were as follows: The speaker showed up late, and then upon conclusion took two questions, the answers to which were lengthy and didn't do a lot to clarify matters. Furthermore, it appeared to me, that she was unprepared to answer the questions which were posed. Another annoying thing was that at various points during the lectures (both of them) about 8 to 10 people were sleeping while the talks were ongoing. Excuse me but if your tired get up and excuse yourself. There is nothing more...I can't even think of a word to put here, when I look over and see so-called distinguished doctors, academics, and clergymen sleeping.

Mrs. Bezzerides, as I said, did a much better job of presenting her material, in my opinion. Her primary point, was that the laity of the church aren't receiving the instruction they need in the church, due to the fact that, there is a lack of outlets to provide such education. Also she stated, that often times seminarians [and clergy] were able to test on material presented in classes, but are unable to impart that to the remainder of the faithful. I agree with her on this point to a degree, but not fully. She seemed to place the majority of the responsibility on the seminarian, and I feel the professors have a burden to carry in this regard. Part of the reason for this, has to do with some of the classes I have taken myself here at seminary, both undergraduate and graduate. I was rather surprised at the level of instruction when I arrived at seminary. I can't really say that I have been challenged here at seminary by academics [with the exception of Greek languages classes--which are causing me to have gray hairs]. I can really only point to, two professors who challenge students to learn and more than that, they push students beyond their limits. Some classes have been nothing more than a professor standing in front of a class, and reading verbatim from a text book. That in my opinion is not teaching. I had to leave a little early during Mrs. Bezzerides' presentation so I didn't hear questions which were posed.

If I go to the lectures tomorrow I will place some more comments here.

Later today I am going to post a tidbit on the following subject: Orthodox and Roman Catholic dialogue. Why you ask? That very such thing [dialogue] is going on at the seminary right now and it really baffles me.

Also there is another conference that I will goto today concerning the role of the laity which should be interesting. I will make some comments on that conference here as well. Everyone please have a blessed day and God keep you!