Sunday, July 05, 2009

The service on the 15th anniversary of the glorification of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco


Video of parts of the liturgy on Saturday July 4th. There is also a close up of St. John's relics.

Hat tip to ROCOR UNITED.

The Incorrupt Relics of St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco

I was asked in a previous post about the relics of St. John (+1966) with specific reference to their being "incorrupt." Unfortunatly I did not take any pictures during my recent pilgrimage. This was more of a personal spiritual trip than sightseeing. The next time I go I will try and take some photos. However I did a quick google search and found several photos of St. John's relics.

The top one was taken some years ago during the transfer of his relics into a new coffin after his old one had rotted away. The middle photo is of his relics in their usual shrine in the right side of the Cathedral. And the last Picture is of him lying in repose looking towards his face (which in keeping with Orthodox custom is veiled). I can confirm that these photos were substantially what I saw in San Francisco last Friday.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Feast of the Holy Royal Martyrs of Russia




Sometimes it's easy to forget that saints were real people.

Holy Royal Martyrs of Russia
pray for us!

I'm back

I have just returned from a one day pilgrimage to the relics of my namesake, St. John Maximovitch, in San Francisco. While there I had the opportunity to venerate his holy and incorrupt relics, take confession (along with hundreds of other pilgrims) and attend the all night vigil in the Cathedral of The Virgin Mary Joy of All Who Sorrow. The experience was profoundly edifying and frankly one of the most emotional since my reception into the Orthodox Church.

I added my own contribution to the sea of candles burning before the relics of St. John for innumerable family (both blood and spiritual), friends and those who have touched my life in so many positive ways. Thank you to everyone for being there in the good times and not so good.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

A mobile military chapel

source

Feast of St. John of San Francisco and Shanghai

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the glorification of my namesake, St. John Maximovitch.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

The Antiochian Archdiocese: It's getting ugly

I am not under the Antiochian jurisdiction. As such I am profoundly reluctant to throw stones in what some might argue is not my fight. However I AM an Orthodox Christian who cares deeply about the Church as a whole. And I recognize that more than any other jurisdiction excepting perhaps the OCA; the Antiochian Archdiocese has been and is going to continue to be an integral part of what will eventually be a unified local North American Orthodox Church. Thus while the scandal now gripping it affects all Orthodox everywhere, it is felt most keenly here in the United States.

When a close personal friend and honorary Trustee of the Archdiocese sends vulgar and menacing emails on your behalf to Orthodox laymen, clergy and even bishops, that's not what I would call a good character reference. When said Trustee is also a gentleman with well documented connections to large scale narcotics and weapons trafficking then it is time for serious questions to be asked. And this time executive privilege will not fly. I don't care that Met. +Phillip is a Metropolitan. I frankly would not care if he were the Patriarch. Extremely serious allegations have been made and silence, under whatever pretext, is not an acceptable response.

The details of the most recent chapter in the ongoing scandal in the Antiochian Archdiocese (AOANA) are up over at ocanews.org and also the Ochlophobist has more on Metropolitan +Phillip's latest champion, Walid Khalife. The situation is starting to sound like an episode of the Sopranos with critics of the Metropolitan receiving very threatening communications from a man with simultaneously close ties to +Phillip and organized crime. I am not going to rehash the details of what has been posted at the two linked sites. But I do strongly recommend reading both posts.

So where are we? We have a Metropolitan who has refused an independent audit of the Archdiocese's funds since forever, who has been living a lavish lifestyle, who has been implicated in the forging of Patriarchal documents, whose supporters have used wholly deceptive means in an attempt to subvert the canons of the Church and reduce in dignity lawfully elected and installed diocesan bishops, whose supporters have further been implicated in the forging of Synodal and Patriarchal documents already alluded to, and who now has mobbed up "Trustees" trying to muscle his critics.

Enough!

Metropolitan +Phillip has been accused of things that in another day and age would have seen a bishop run out of town one step ahead of the angry crowd with pitchforks and torches. The Metropolitan must summon an emergency and open meeting of the Archdiocesan Synod and answer these (among many other) allegations for as long as it takes to satisfy everyone that he is and has been on the up and up. A forensic audit of the AOANA’s finances must be conducted. The ranks of its Trustees, honorary or otherwise, must be purged of gangsters and persons of similarly questionable backgrounds.

If he can not do this then he has forfeited any claim to obedience that might enjoin the other bishops and clergy in the AOANA. If he defies the faithful of the Antiochian Archdiocese and refuses to answer these very serious charges the bishops and clergy of the AOANA should cease to commemorate him and demand that he be deposed. The offense of forging Patriarchal and Synodal documents alone warrants excommunication.

Insured But Bankrupt Anyway

The New York Times is reporting that huge numbers of people who are facing bankruptcy over medical bills actually had insurance. This should not come as any particular surprise. There are a number of factors which contribute to the high rate of bankruptcies associated with medical bills. One is indeed a lack of health insurance on the part of a large number of Americans. This is a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed. But it is not the subject of my post.

The crux of the problem is that most Americans don't understand medical insurance, including what it is for. If you ask the average American if he files a claim against his car insurance when he has a flat tire or needs a routine oil change he would laugh at you. Likewise presumably most of us don't file a claim against our home insurance when the toilet backs up. We may swear a little as we run for the plunger, but we deal with it ourselves.

That's because we understand that our car insurance and homeowners insurance is for serious emergencies. A collision or fire or some other event that inflicts a high dollar bill on us. Why then do Americans feel that we need to call our insurance company to deal with routine maintenance or minor dings on... US?

Large numbers of people who have insurance either from work or purchased on their own tend to look for policies that will provide some coverage for routine medical expenses like the occasional doctors visit or a possible trip to the ER because someone gets stupid with a hammer and smashes a couple of fingers (been there and done that). But these same policies usually leave the buyer inadequately insured against the real danger to their finances and health.

That is not the flue or the measles or a smashed finger. It is the catastrophic medical crisis.

Being honest, most Americans who are stably employed could cover routine medical bills themselves if they set aside a little money in a rainy day fund. If you have around $5-10,000 in a bank account somewhere that is understood to be untouchable except for medical expenses then the average family could get the insurance they really need, which is major medical.

The vast majority of insurance policies held by Americans provide some coverage for the routine things and also some coverage for hospitalization and emergency medical care, a lot of which is unnecessary and merely adds to the cost of the policy. The only two things most Americans need to pay attention to on their insurance policy is the percentage of major medical expenses covered (hospitalization etc.) and total maximum lifetime payout amount.

The typical policy today covers around 70-80% of hospitalization bills. But that is frankly inadequate. The bare minimum needed to protect yourself from potential financial ruin is 100% coverage for major medical with a lifetime payout maximum of at least $3 million.

Consider a case from my own family. On March 30th of this year my step-mother collapsed while visiting her natural son in Florida. She was taken by ambulance to the local hospital which quickly diagnosed a massive stroke. Following protocols she was airlifted to a nearby regional medical center which specializes in neuro-medicine. She had emergency brain surgery performed on her that night. She spent the next 3 weeks in intensive care. And she is STILL in the hospital today, though not in ICU. I don’t know what her medical bills are but I would be surprised if they were not well north of a million dollars. Fortunately for her she is a retired teacher with excellent health benefits.

But a person whose insurance covers routine doctors visits but only 70-80% of hospitalization would be wiped out by this kind of event. Far too many Americans base their insurance needs on covering small minor expenses without considering what would happen if there were a serious medical crisis with very steep bills.

I can cover a few thousand dollars in bills from a quick trip to the ER if I needed to or even could arrange a payment plan if I was short on cash. But a high five or six figure medical bill would I suspect push me and most ordinary Americans over the financial cliff.

I believe the solution is for Americans to steer clear of the types of insurance that are most common today. They should save $5-$10k (depending on family situation) to cover ordinary expenses and low level medical emergencies. If the money is not needed then they are ahead of the game with money stashed and collecting interest. They should then purchase a major medical policy that will insure excellent care and protect them from financial ruin in the event of an extreme medical crisis. These policies are offered by most insurance companies with high deductibles of $3000 to $5000 (again you pay for the routine things) but they cover 100% after the deductible. They also have the added advantage of being generally less expensive than the ‘cover a little of everything’ policies most people buy because the insurance companies know they are not likely to have to pay out.

If many Americans are being bankrupted by staggering medical bills, I suspect it is in part a result of poor planning and bad spending habits.

In fairness many, indeed probably most Americans get their insurance from their employer. In some cases they have no real choice in polices and employer offered medical insurance rarely covers more than 80% of hospital bills these days.

In these cases the individual needs to consider his/her options.

There are essentially two ways to deal with the inadequate major medical coverage typical of employer provided insurance. The first is to opt out of the employer provided plan and buy the major medical policy on their own. The second, and usually the better choice, is to purchase a supplemental policy solely to cover any major medical expenses not covered by the employer’s insurance. As with catastrophic health plans, these policies are available from many providers and are usually quite inexpensive since they would only kick in in the event of a catastrophic medical crisis and then only to cover the 20-30% not covered by the employer provided policy.

But again for the math challenged, 20-30% of a six or seven figure medical bill is pretty substantial. A lot of families could not cover that on their own.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Why stagfaltion is coming


Both the money supply and federal spending have increased at breathtaking rates over the past year, unprecedented in peacetime. The policy decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board and Congress virtually assure we will enter a period of 1970s-like stagflation.

The recovery, when it comes, will combine slow economic growth, unusually long un- and underemployment, stagnating real incomes, rising interest rates and inflation. There is little that policymakers, having made colossal mistakes, can do to prevent such an outcome. However, there are steps that can be taken to shorten the period of stagflation and return to an era of robust economic growth, good jobs and stable asset and consumer prices.

The money supply is measured several different ways. They all show alarming increases. The monetary base (coins, currency and bank reserves) has doubled over the past year. It is increasing at a rate 12 times the average since 1981. M1 (the monetary base plus checking deposits) increased last year by roughly 16 percent, a near record and three times faster than average since 1981. M2 (M1 plus most savings deposits and money market funds) increased 9 percent in the past 12 months (a rate more than 50 percent higher than the average since 1981).

The demand for money is relatively stable and generally increases in proportion with economic activity (although precautionary motives play a role). Given the huge increases in the money supply and credit, future inflation is virtually ensured. Money supply will outstrip money demand, and the excess money will cause prices to be bid up.
Read the rest here

Hat tip Brian

Should we (the tax payers) pay for Bernie Madoff's crimes?

Let’s dispense first with the idea that the S.E.C. should be reimbursing Madoff victims. Why? Government agencies make mistakes, treat people unfairly, and do all sorts of things we all wish they wouldn’t. But by law, the federal government cannot be sued when it carries out an unjust prosecution or, for that matter, when it fails to uncover a giant fraud. Government negligence led pretty directly to the recent financial crisis. Does that mean the feds should be reimbursing us for our stock market losses? Of course not. Because it’s not really the S.E.C. that would be paying out the money — it would be the taxpayers. Why should my tax dollars go to helping Madoff victims? This is not 9/11.

Besides, as I’ve argued before, the S.E.C.’s negligence notwithstanding, shouldn’t the Madoff victims have to bear at least some responsibility for their own gullibility? Mr. Madoff’s supposed results — those steady, positive returns quarter after blessed quarter — is a classic example of the old saw, “when something looks too good to be true, it probably is.” What’s more, most of the people investing with Mr. Madoff thought they had gotten in on something really special; there was a certain smugness that came with thinking they had a special, secret deal not available to everyone else. Of course, it turned they were right — they did have a special deal. It just wasn’t what they expected.
Source

More drivel from the Liturgical Unitarians (TEC)

The theological commission of the Episcopal Church reports on their increasingly common practice of communing anyone (including the non-baptised). And they wonder why Metropolitan +Jonah ended ecumenical dialogue with them. Sorry, but if you are giving Holy Communion to Buddhists then we are not even on the same theological planet.

You are who you are in communion with.

Hat tip T-19

The new boys in the sidebar

OK I have done some updating to the sidebar. In particular I would like to welcome the blog Logismoi which I recently stumbled on. It's impressive enough that I am perusing the archives (something I very rarely do on blogs for want of time).

Also added is the Orthodox Christian Information Center. The wealth of truly great material there is astounding. But I feel obliged to add a caveat. Mr. Barnes (the site master) is from the conservative wing of the Church and some of the articles posted on his site are authored by Old Calendarists (though he is not Old Calendarist). While I am not passing judgment on their writings please note that some of the opinions there may be controversial.