[Preorbtat]

Round and round we go! :

Should an individual come, however, deeply engaged with and submersed in modern-day neo-gnosticism, what will your response be?

Excellent question. My response to that person would be to first pray for them and then secondly to direct them to someone who has experience in dealing with such spiritual affairs, like for example a member of the clergy.

as before, the fact that some people are not in a position to encounter such material without it posing serious problems to their spiritual life, and who thus should not do so, has, I think, been a given from the beginning of this conversation - no one has ever suggested otherwise. I guess my problem with this quote is that it may not be some people who may encounter serious problems with their spiritual life from reading this book, but many, if not, God forbid, most! The Arian heresy was what the majority believed in many regions for many years. Will The Da Vinci Code create such movement? I don't know. From a purely statistical and historical estimate, probably not. Then again, I'm sure many felt Arius' writings would also be a flash in a pan and quickly disappear. We cannot underestimate the impact such heresies have as a whole, to all humankind.

Benign neglect and passive denial is what often allows a small incidental mole to transform into an aggressive and metastatic cancer. As members of the Church and examples to our fellow Christians, we should act as diligent surveyors, ready to remove it with the first sign of malignancy, rather than study its in situ growth and patterns and distinguishing characteristics. Sure, such study could allow us to publish many papers, but it risks the health and life of the Body, which is the Church. Yes, there are fascinating components attributing to its phenomenal and staggering growth, but meanwhile, one by one, the Body's members are being attacked, being infiltrated with cancerous thoughts, and dying away from the Truth. There are people right now reading this book who will deny Jesus because of what they have read. I continue to hold my position. For shame to me if I should swerve because of social pressure and any false sense of spiritual security.

[limpoporanique]

Speaking pastorally as a priest I have to say that I agree with Matthew. If a parishioner came to me about such things I would not counsel them against seeing the movie unless they were very weak in their faith. The irony here is that most likely the very people we would need to warn about the dangers of seeing this movie would go anyway.

[Preorbtat]

Father Raphael,

Thank you for your post. May I ask you if you have read the book or plan on seeing it in the theaters?

[limpoporanique]

Father Raphael,

Thank you for your post. May I ask you if you have read the book or plan on seeing it in the theaters?

It's not likely that I would either read the book or see the movie. But that's more to do with not having so much time when it comes to reading and having an aversion to religious movies. This aversion isn't 'doctrinal' though; it's more that I don't think the screen lends itself to conveying the real power of the Gospels in an accurate way. So I'm much more moved by a movie with good characterisation or good plot or just plain good sense that may seem outwardly secular in tone.

Recently we were the first place in Canada to get Turner Classic Movies on cable and there are many very pleasant surprises here. One thing is how much more carefully older movies are paced with a very sensitive portrayal of character. You have to slow down inside first of all just to watch these movies and there is quite often something good & moral about them even beyond the plot level. A few months ago they showed a version of David Copperfield from about 1935 with WC Fields as Micawber that was so moving I was reduced to tears. (Copperfield's aunt was also magnificent- don't know her real name- had the most interesting face I've ever seen and about 8ft tall it seemed). I think this movie would soften the heart of almost anyone.

Now pop in a video of The Passion or Da Vinci code and you'd not likely get much more than continual growling from me.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[GeraldCortis]

Dear All,

This is proving to be an interesting and exciting discussion, but I think much of it ultimately boils down to individual conscience. I know I could spend my $10 (8 Cyprus Pounds in my case) on charity instead of going to see the movie. I know I could be feeding my mind with much more healthy imagery and ideas. There are a lot of little "details" of my life that could benefit by a careful 'pruning' - small things perhaps, but troublesome and no doubt spiritually harmful habitual patterns of behaviour that amount to nothing less than indulgence of the lower self, the "mole growing into a cancer" as Antonios graphically describes it.

On the other hand, there is some substance also to the equally true assertion that we have a responsibility to others - as well as to ourselves - to be alert to the ways in which the Gospel is being corrupted by the moguls of popular culture, and to offer cogent and convincing responses to the arguments and casuistry with which our Orthodox faith is being undermined.

On a third level, I also think that Truth is Truth. The devil and his minions may try to twist it and conceal it through an infinite number of permutations, but ultimately they can only shatter their hideous faces against the rock of faith. Christ risen has nothing to fear from Hollywood or heretics, and true seekers eventually do come round to seeing this, however badly they've been misled - God makes sure they do. This doesn't mean those of us being saved by God shouldn't care; that's precisely why the point Matthew and I make about engaging secular culture on all levels, has substance. Ordinary Christian laypeople, whether they have academic credentials or not, cannot simply leave the intelligent response to the clergy. We must be ready to offer reasons for our faith - bright, convincing reasons - at ant moment we are called to do so. Of course, if we are unable to do this (we can hardly be expected to know an answer to everything!), then Antonios' suggestion of prayer and referral to an experienced member of the clergy is a good and viable response too (but will the doubter go?).

Fr Raphael, I like your light-hearted touch: But that's more to do with not having so much time when it comes to reading and having an aversion to religious movies. This aversion isn't 'doctrinal' though; it's more that I don't think the screen lends itself to conveying the real power of the Gospels in an accurate way. So I'm much more moved by a movie with good characterisation or good plot or just plain good sense that may seem outwardly secular in tone. As a former movie enthusiast, I've seen miles of celluloid in my own time. As a child I was moved by films with Jesus in them (here in Cyprus they still show Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" every Easter), and - importantly perhaps - found these movies to be an important source of religious knowledge in the otherwise quite secular environment I was growing up in. I didn't show my family or friends that I felt for Jesus, not because anyone would have disapproved, but I may have been mildly teased or "brought down to earth" in a well-meaning way. So religious movies can be helpful, although I entirely agree that they cannot capture the power of the gospels. And all the quaint donkeys, sack-cloth, beards and wooden staffs do make the genre rather cliche, detracting from the naturalness and profound beauty of the message. As an adult, I do believe in "keeping it real", and that can mean seeing the face of God in ordinary life as well as in the emotionally more focused atmosphere of a film. Still, I'm grateful when films with religious themes are being made - even perhpas heretical ones - because I think indifference to God and the spiritual life is one of the adversary's most powerful weapons. The vast majority of films made seem to teach cynicism, materialism, self-indulgence or some form of "social" message by which traditional values and beliefs are demonised and turned on their heads. I guess that's what happens when you ask a lot of extrovert film and drama students to comment on life by making a film (or when four men come in carrying a heavy cheque with the express request from the top dogs to make a movie about their own pseudo-liberal, neo-fascist, neo-gnostic self-interests)! Panem et circenses, anyone?

In Christ,
Byron

[Preorbtat]

Thank you everyone for this interesting discussion. Matthew, Byron and Father Raphael all make such excellent points, that it is easy to see how such a discussion could go on and on. (Especially Father Raphael's comments about the Turner Classic Movie channel. I've already tracked it down on my cable provider! ) I also especially appreciate Byron stating that in the end much of this boils down to individual conscience. Perhaps I'm very overly (to a fault) conscientious about such things, which would explain why my response would be to pray for the person mentioned and direct them to someone more knowledgable than try to offer a second rate response to them about things I know little about. Is this a cop-out? I dont know.. Is this the only right way to witness to the world? No, it isn't, but it may be for me.

I am reminded of Jesus' words about being the light of the world. He did not say that we must learn and entertain the darkness so that we could be the light for others. My take on this is to shun any darkness as to try to be an example to others. But Jesus also said " use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (Luke 16:9). Maybe this is why there does need to be some people who must know and understand such heresies in order to clarify to others why they exist and why they are wrong.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone out there. Please forgive me. As for me, I still refuse to either buy or read the book and I will not see it in movie form. Is this helping others find Christ? Likely it wont make any measurable difference (outside of my family and closest friends who will also not see it). I guess, personally, I will at least sleep a little easier at night knowing I didn't contribute to its popularity, its financial success, and the damage it is doing to unknown amounts of people. This is my rational. This is why I shun it.

[limpoporanique]

Thank you everyone for this interesting discussion. Matthew, Byron and Father Raphael all make such excellent points, that it is easy to see how such a discussion could go on and on. (Especially Father Raphael's comments about the Turner Classic Movie channel. I've already tracked it down on my cable provider! ) I also especially appreciate Byron stating that in the end much of this boils down to individual conscience. Perhaps I'm very overly (to a fault) conscientious about such things, which would explain why my response would be to pray for the person mentioned and direct them to someone more knowledgable than try to offer a second rate response to them about things I know little about. Is this a cop-out? I dont know.. Is this the only right way to witness to the world? No, it isn't, but it may be for me.

I am reminded of Jesus' words about being the light of the world. He did not say that we must learn and entertain the darkness so that we could be the light for others. My take on this is to shun any darkness as to try to be an example to others. But Jesus also said " use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (Luke 16:9). Maybe this is why there does need to be some people who must know and understand such heresies in order to clarify to others why they exist and why they are wrong.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone out there. Please forgive me. As for me, I still refuse to either buy or read the book and I will not see it in movie form. Is this helping others find Christ? Likely it wont make any measurable difference (outside of my family and closest friends who will also not see it). I guess, personally, I will at least sleep a little easier at night knowing I didn't contribute to its popularity, its financial success, and the damage it is doing to unknown amounts of people. This is my rational. This is why I shun it.

These posts have also given me a lot to think about. One thing is about Antonios' warnings about this movie using an analogy about Arius.


I have given this some thought but I think the difference is that Arianism was a conscious heresy, a conscious rejection of the Church's fundamental teachings and setting up of oneself as an alterrnative authority within the Church (remember it was the Church which ejected Arius from the Church not Arius himself). The da Vinci Code and such things however come from a space from without the Church. Not that they are not possibly just as heretical or harmful as Arianism- but there is something about this which is more a reflection of a contemporary cultural mind-set rather than the type of rebellion against the Church that Arianism was. (Maybe that's why pastorally we would still deal differently with a real Arian-if there were any left hiding out in the Egyptian deserts!- and a person who has trouble accepting Christ is really God and not just a very good man. And the latter is actually more technically heretical than what Arius believed).

I guess the best analogy to me for what I am trying to say would actually be the difference between involvement in Gnosticism and seeing the da Vinci Code. I'm pretty sure the former would bar one from partaking from the Cup short of open rejection of Gnostic teachings & involvement; but I'm inclined to think that if a parishioner wanted to partake after seeing the da Vinci code I wouldn't demand they come to confession first (Matthew Steenberg breathes a sigh of relief). So discernment and possibly spiritual advice would be needed in seeing or reading such things- but they're not the same as involvement in heresy unless one crosses a certain line onself.

It is in this way I think that we are quite justified as Orthodox Christians in wanting to understand the appeal and nature of movies and books like this (and how to understand this unless one either sees the movie or reads something trustworthy about it?) and even understanding how some of our own people may want to see this for entertainment purposes.

Thanks also to Byron for your kind comments. I often read your comments about film & sense you are getting into the subject of recreation and what is proper for an Orthodox Christian. To deny this need I think is simply wrong & even harmful. Of course we must take into account what is harmful or not and also how people change spiritually over the years. But this doesn't mean that most Orthodox including many monastics have to from time to time allow the bow to slacken a little (this theme actually is Patristic) in order that it not break. Straight-out denial of this common need tends to produce either a broken bow (often a hypocritical zeal beyond one's actual state leads to this) or worse (which is also quite common) a secret life-style behind one's grand words which is often worse than if one was open about what one was doing.

Anyway after all that hot air in my sails I have to say I still love film and when I want to rest my mind after a long & tiring day find nearly nothing so edifying as an old or new movie.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Junrlaeh]

Yes, Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox.

I know I am replying to an old thread, but according to this:
http://yya.oca.org/youth/yomail/back...Orthodox_Look:
Tom Hanks is not Orthodox. I suspect he attends with his wife and for doesn't deny the Orthodox rumors, but I can't find any solid proff that he is Orthodox.
If it matters...

Raphael

[GeraldCortis]

Dear Raphael,

The Wikipedia entry of Tom Hanks says he did join the Greek Orthodox Church see here.I wonder what Tom Hanks or his wife Rita Wilson (whose father is Greek-Pomak) bio here themselves think of the content of this book / movie? Perhaps if they had strong convictions regarding Christ's Divinity, they might have turned the offer down...but then again it's a matter of perspective.

In Christ
Byron

[limpoporanique]

It seems that Tom Hanks is on the talk show circuit at present probably in support of the movie. Considering how this works (I think the circuit may be part of the contract involved in an actor playing in a movie- maybe I'm wrong but I don't think these things are just spontaneous on the actor's part. When has it ever been seen that an actor got on one of the talk shows and said, "I just hated playing that role!" ) It has also been a long time since Hanks has not been able to choose the movies he would like to take part in. So I would guess that he supports the theme of the movie.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Impariclainna]

One can react in any number of ways. Surely what is untrue should be condemned as untrue, and exposed for what it is. Of course. But standing on one's pulpit and shouting to the world, 'You brood of vipers' is only part of the Church's witness. John the Baptist spoke to mobs, to crowds; by and large, Christ spoke to persons. He spoke to what ailed the person before him, often to a degree far deeper than anything they had expected, but to them, of them. Christ spoke out against adultery ('He who lusts in his heart... has already committed adultery...'), but when it came to his response to the adulterous woman, engaged with her. He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; he shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so.

Is our mission simply to tell the world how fallen and wrong it is? I see no precedent for this, in the life of Christ and the history of the Church, as a sole responsibility. We must never shirk it, but we must never think that shunning wrong and those who are touched by it is the fullness of Christian responsibility. The Church is the body of Christ to a sick and suffering world, and must be prepared to engage with that world in all its deficiencies and wrongs - precisely in its deficiencies and wrongs - if it is to fulfil its priestly and pastoral duty to offer the healing of Christ not simply to some generic concept of humanity, but to actual human persons, concrete people with concrete problems. We are called to be 'in the world, not of it'; it's not an either-or position from which one gets to choose.

This discussion is definitely both interesting, and starting to repeat itself. I believe everyone's opinion is valid food for thought on this issue, and as I stated before, I hope that whatever choice we make, it will be for the betterment of our spiritual lives.

I do want to respond to this quote by Matthew. In your post, especially this excerpt, you seem to be saying that we should not just "tell the world it is fallen" but instead "heal it" by involving ourselves in it as John the baptist did. I however have a problem with correlating how John the baptist speaking in front of "angry mobs" and expressing his faith and therefore offering healing is in ANY way comparable with spending $10 and sitting in the back of a movie theatre. No voice is being raised and no angry mob is being challenged as far as I can see. Furthermore, I see no healing being offered by silently offering our SUPPORT to the very heresy we are trying to avert. If you could elaborate on exactly how you are offering the world spiritual healing by seing this movie, I would love to read about it!

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[JessiPollo]

I think the point is not about contributing to the success of the film - of handing over one's £8 as it were - but of being prepared to answer the questions that people have, and will have, from it. My initial impulse to read the book (which I didn't do for a long, long time after its publication) was when individuals kept coming to me to ask what the Church thinks about x, or y, or z, as points that it had raised. Replying to the individual points is easy enough ('Did Constantine really do that?', etc.); but what became clearer over time was the fact that a general ethos was enshrined in the types of questions being asked - a kind of Gnosticising tendency of pseudo-historicism, etc. This was causing a much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds, that gave rise to the specific questions of detail. To understand that, I had to read the book.

Again, I think there's a tendency to polarise comments. No one is suggesting it's the duty of every Christian to see the film for pastoral reasons. Nor, I think, should there be blanked condemnations of those who do.

INXC, Matthew

[limpoporanique]

I think that Matthew's comments are pastorally correct. Nobody is forcing anyone to see this movie. And if they do see the movie it doesn't mean the acceptance of every premise of it. This obviously also goes for all we read or movies we see.

A good example of this is the addiction of pornography which is now reaching epidemic levels through the internet. Finding out about this through various studies and documentaries is extremely helpful for understanding what is behind this and then how to deal with the problem. This doesn't mean one has to become an addict to understand the problem (although speaking to such peolple is helpful) and studying the problem is not the same as being an addict.

The point here is that discernment and care is needed in every different situation.

This also brings up a related point I have been wanting to make for quite awhile now. It is striking how our thinking and actions are increasingly based on what is theoretical rather than the reality of the situations and people involved in them. This occurs I think from an increasing tendency in our society to not think personally but rather in splendid isolation to bounce our own ideas around our head as if this was reality. We don't [B]think, live & act[B] as personally as we used to so this allows us to see situations and people in much more theoretical way. And as this comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality there is something cold and selfish about the results. It's hard to recognise this in ourselves because these are the unrecognised results of social values that appear proper. We're much more 'open' & expressive ('real' is how we think of ourselves) than previous generations so it's very difficult to see how the fruits could come from how we perceive the tree. Could it be that self-control is far more personal than we have been led to believe?

We need to be aware of this and be extremely cautious of applying this same way of thinking where the pastoral and personal is always supposed to enter strongly into the equation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Junrlaeh]

Dear Raphael,

The Wikipedia entry of Tom Hanks says he did join the Greek Orthodox Church

As do many other sites, many repeating an article written by Judy West. In fact it's where wikipedia got its info. Let's just say there is room for doubt.

Raphael, the layman

[Preorbtat]

For those of you who have not read the book nor will go see the movie, (or if you have read the book and will go see the movie for that matter), this site pretty much covers alot of the controversial arguments. This is one way you can answer questions addressed to you about this story, without needing to financially contribute to it.

Matthew, I respectfully have a question. You stated that in order to understand the "much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds" regarding the "kind of Gnosticising tendency of pseudo-historicism, etc", you had to read the book. Lets assume this is true and a valid reason to read it: why spend the money to see it in the theaters and publicly endorse it? I am sure you have many people/students/peers who value your judgement and opinions. How are you now benefitting them? Although you may feel that by watching it (which would also mean financially contributing it to it) you will somehow gain a deeper insight into modern pseudo-historicism and its current sensationalism, aren't you risking propagating pseudo-historism by endorsing the book, supporting it financially, and telling other you now plan on seeing the movie? Wasn't it enough to read the book and read the headlines to try to understand the "much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds"

[limpoporanique]

I went to the goarch site and liked reading the article The X-files of Ancient Lies by Rev Dr Frank Marangos.

He writes : "The appearance of Gnostic creedal tenants such as: (a) the suspicion of authority, (b) private spirituality, (c) the rejection of external forms of worship, (d) the distortion of sexuality, (e) the rejection of bodily Incarnation of God, and (f) the refutation of absolute truths, attest to the Old Testament exhortation quoted above . . . indeed, “what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)."

I also liked this "G. K. Chesterton one said that when people cease believing in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing, but rather, they will believe in anything. "


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[GeraldCortis]

Dear Antonios,

Thank you for the link. It seems the movie is making enough of an impact for the GO archdiocese to feel the need to respond, so it is definitely something of a problem. The number of people I've met who now claim Christianity was cooked up by the Emperor Constantine and 'his' bishops for purely political reasons, suggests to me we need to respond with more than monosyllabic answers. The temptation to believe Jesus was 'only a man' is enormous in this scientistic post-modern deconstructionist age. Although we should certainly be able to respond academically, I don't see how that can be done effectively unless we familiarise ourselves with the enemy, both as book and film. As Fr Raphael indicates, to study a subject does not necessarily mean to become involved in it personally. The 8 quid for watching the movie does trouble me, though, as does the money for buying the book (my wife has read it in Greek, but I'd prefer to read it in the original). I wonder if there is a legal way around that.

I also appreciate Fr Raphael's perceptive comments about our contemporary way of thinking: This occurs I think from an increasing tendency in our society to not think personally but rather in splendid isolation to bounce our own ideas around our head as if this was reality. We don't [b]think, live & act[b] as personally as we used to so this allows us to see situations and people in much more theoretical way. And as this comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality there is something cold and selfish about the results. It's hard to recognise this in ourselves because these are the unrecognised results of social values that appear proper. We're much more 'open' & expressive ('real' is how we think of ourselves) than previous generations so it's very difficult to see how the fruits could come from how we perceive the tree. Could it be that self-control is far more personal than we have been led to believe? This suggests to me that knowledge (of another person or indeed of a system of ideas) is 'cold and selfish' when it is not personal in some way; yet paradoxically, the 'openness' and 'expressivity' of our generation, which prides itself on being more 'real' than its predecessors, may in fact be less truly personal than they were in the self-control which characterised their values and behaviour. This may be because apparent 'openness' and 'expressivity' can also be masks for a lack of genuine commitment. Also the perception of reality that "comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality" makes me think of a point made by Christos Yiannaras at a talk of his I had the good fortune to attend; he pointed out that young children today do not learn to have a genuine relationship with reality, because everything is subject to control by buttons. If a child wants light in the room, it learns to press a buton; if it wants heat, the same, sound and image also. Is this the same as a child 100 years ago who had to learn to chop wood and start a fire, feel the resistance of the material he used? For entertainment, this child depended on his parents' and his own imagination and storytelling capacities - is this the same as having one's sounds and images served up? Perhaps a reality which offers us some resistance is also the foundation of a more personal way of being-in-the-world, just as thought, action and life which is characterised by self-control is more genuine and more personal than non-commital reportage.

In Christ
Byron

[GeraldCortis]

P.S. For the continuing debate, here is one contribution from Terry Mattingly, an Orthodox writer, on who Dan Brown is.

[limpoporanique]

This suggests to me that knowledge (of another person or indeed of a system of ideas) is 'cold and selfish' when it is not personal in some way; yet paradoxically, the 'openness' and 'expressivity' of our generation, which prides itself on being more 'real' than its predecessors, may in fact be less truly personal than they were in the self-control which characterised their values and behaviour. This may be because apparent 'openness' and 'expressivity' can also be masks for a lack of genuine commitment. Also the perception of reality that "comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality" makes me think of a point made by Christos Yiannaras at a talk of his I had the good fortune to attend; he pointed out that young children today do not learn to have a genuine relationship with reality, because everything is subject to control by buttons. If a child wants light in the room, it learns to press a buton; if it wants heat, the same, sound and image also. Is this the same as a child 100 years ago who had to learn to chop wood and start a fire, feel the resistance of the material he used? For entertainment, this child depended on his parents' and his own imagination and storytelling capacities - is this the same as having one's sounds and images served up? Perhaps a reality which offers us some resistance is also the foundation of a more personal way of being-in-the-world, just as thought, action and life which is characterised by self-control is more genuine and more personal than non-commital reportage.

In Christ
Byron This theme seems to be a sub-thread through this entire conversation. How we are called to relate to what is problematic, broken or sinful around us? Indeed this seems to get to the point of how we are called to be pastoral- Matthew I think referred this as being 'priestly'. And in a related way Constantine B. Scouteris in a very nice book called Ecclesial Being says that as Orthodox Christians we are called to relate to the material creation in a liturgical way. I think this still very much applies to what is problematic and broken from sinfulness for it denotes a personal relationship and offering up of something to God. This is different from worldly relationship which denotes either full moral acceptance or rejection. There is something quite different in our relationship to what is around us so that we neither fall into the extremes of a compromise nor shunning but rather we allow Christ's healing Light into the situation. And this seems to always involve a death to ourselves in some way, fighting against the impulse to be selfishly involved in others' sinfulness or else disdaining them from a feeling of moral superiority.

Committment I think is also crucial in this type of relationship. In the self-sacrifice this involves there is always something long-term with no immediate answer. For the 'answer' is found through the committment to what is before us; ie it is not just an intellectual construct or emotion which is satisfied.

It's interesting Byron that you bring up "control by buttons" as an aspect of this. Not that we are dogmatically against technology but those who have fasted from such things soon notice the spiritual change in themselves. Watching 'reality shows' which involve returns to earlier ways of living one notices that the reality of that day was so much more hands on and in need of continual commitment. Most of the people go through a kind of nervous breakdown before they can really adjust. In the adjustment period one really sees just how selfish we have become. We are extremely demanding of other people and things.

This affects our life in the Church not only in the obvious problems we create for each other. There is also a similar undercurrent in the way we see and deal with 'problems' in the Church & the world around us nowadays.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Preorbtat]

Thank you Byron and Father Raphael for the excellent posts. You have given me much to think about.