www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall what is name and author of book about russian orthodox vampire?

Eternal City: Confessions of a Vampire
by J. William David Kirkpatrick

Available at Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/content/1368866

Here is that thread:
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...William%20Kirkpatrick--Eterna#Post261234

So are we of a consensus that it is it acceptable to impale thousands of humans, made in the image of likeness of God and with intrinsic value, to scare off possible attacks?

That is bat...guano... crazy.

Alexis

All I am saying is that if it weren't for strong Christian kings and Emperors that Europe and therefore America too would not have the significant Christian populations that they do today.

This again goes into an argument about whether or not evil is permitted in order to bring about good. The Catholic Church, at least, says no.

Alexis

No, the Catholic Church says, "It depends".

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Alexis

Very nice, Alexis. But it means nothing in practice. The reality is it still depends. Let us look, for instance, at the matter of war (which is, of course, my specialty). If we believe that killing is an objective evil, the Church has long countenanced that evil as being necessary on occasion for the defense of the innocent against aggression. The same is true for killing of criminals by law enforcement, and use of capital punishment against convicted malefactors.

I am entirely aware that the Latin Church has developed all sorts of hedges around these areas to "justify" them, but (a) such attempts at justification begin only in the Middle Ages; and (b) were never developed in the Eastern Churches. Eastern Christian moral theology views the human being as an icon of the Creator, and the destruction of that image is objectively evil, even in cases of self-defense, even, in fact, by accident. The Eastern Churches make no effort to "justify" the taking of human life, other than to say in some cases it is necessary and in others unavoidable.

Thus, in the Christian East, one does not find "just war" theory, and soldiers who kill the enemy in battle are (in theory, at least) subject to the same canonical disciplines as ordinary murderers (i.e., three years abstinence from Communion).

The Latin Church has taken a different tack on this, but the net effect is the same, only we don't bother to pretty up what we have to do. Which is to say, we sometimes have to do objectively evil things to attain good ends. You weasel out of that by saying if conditions a, b and c are met, then the acts are not "evil". We beg to differ, which is probably due to our different perspectives on the nature of sin and its effects. The West has always tended to look on sin as a violation of an objective moral law, which in turn demands some sort of "penalty"; let us call this the judicial model of sin. The East on the other hand, views sin as a moral sickness in need of healing, hence instead of penalties we have "therapies" (prayer, fasting, abstention from communion, etc.). Call this the "medicinal" model of sin.

Under our model, all sin is a failure to live up to the image of God within us, a "falling short of the mark" (hamartia), which has both a personal and a cosmic dimension to it. When we kill, for whatever reason, even for the best of reasons, it is still a falling short of the mark that harms us and the Cosmos, and therefore requires healing. That doesn't mean we should be paralyzed into inaction by the fear of hamartia, but it does require us to look open eyed and objectively at what we do.

So, whether we take the Western or the Eastern approach, the correct answer is still, "it depends".

"We don't have to pretty up...you weasel out...etc." I really wish a Moderator would take a look at the tone of this post and how it comes off to Latin Catholics. I don't appreciate being told that my Church's moral theology is weasely. We are all Catholic Christians and there is no need for that.

Secondly, Stuart, you still haven't proved anything. You've basically just given a rundown as to why you think the Eastern view is superior. In another thread you recently accused me of tortured logic to skirt around the meaning of the text. I don't see how your approach with what is clear in the Catechism is any different.

Alexis

I confess I find the Latin way casuistic at times, which is probably one reason I am not a Latin. On the other hand, once you strip away the casuistry, the answer remains, "It depends". Sometimes killing someone is a justifiable evil, and sometimes it is not. But do not ask me to pretend that, because I can check off some abstract criteria on a list, it ceases to be intrinsically evil.

Alexis,

And just how does your tone about how we need to learn to speak Latin come across to Byzantines? You present theology in terms of the Latin Church. That is not how we speak. You are doing the equivalent of entering a Greek home and insisting we speak your language and then condemning us when we continue to speak theology in our native tongue.

I will ask both you and Stuart to post with more charity.

John

On a lighter note, every time I see the title of this thread I chuckle. I can picture a slapstick movie about a vampire who sends his casket to a Russian Orthodox cemetery and finds it went astray to a Russian Orthodox seminary. Think Monty Python. Or "The Princess Bride". Or "Fawlty Towers". With the casket arriving and being stuck in the chapel the vampire comes alive each night during the all-night Vigil. Just as he thinks the service is over and he can sneak out he hears "again and again, in peace let us pray".

You can always rent a copy of "Fearless Vampire Killers".