QUESTION: Is AIDS a punishment from God?
ANSWER: Hundreds of thousands of innocent children are suffering from aids. What would you imagine they are being punished for? In answer to your question I am giving, first, a work by St Antony the Great, and second, an article I wrote on this subject when Protestants first started the myth that AIDS is a punishment from God.
SAINT ANTONY THE GREAT
God is good, without passions and unchangeable. One who understands that it is sound and true to affirm that God does not change might very well ask: `how, then, is it possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good, becoming merciful to those who know Him and, on the other hand, shunning the wicked and being angry with sinners.' We must reply to this, that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, because to rejoice and to be angered are passions. Nor is God won over by gifts from those who know Him, for that would mean that He is moved by pleasure. It is not possible for the Godhead to have the sensation of pleasure or displeasure from the condition of humans, God is good, and He bestows only blessings, and never causes harm, but remains always the same. If we humans, however, remain good by means of resembling Him, we are united to Him, but if we become evil by losing our resemblance to God, we are separated from Him. By living in a holy manner, we unite ourselves to God; by becoming evil, however, we become at enmity with Him. It is not that He arbitrarily becomes angry with us, but that our sins prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons who make us suffer. If through prayer and acts of compassionate love, we gain freedom from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him change, but rather that by means of our actions and turning to God, we have been healed of our wickedness, and returned to the enjoyment of God's goodness. To say that God turns away from the sinful is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind (St Antony the Great, Cap. 150).
ON THE IMMORALITY OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
(Reprinted from The Canadian Orthodox Missionary, May/June, 1995 edition)
I had intended to write something about the nature of morality in this issue of The Missionary. Reading the writings of Christos Yannaris and hearing the comments of Fr John Romanides and Fr Hierotheos Vlachos at our recent conference here in the monastery, reminded me of the extremely corrupt and destructive concept of morality being advocated by the so-called "Christian" Right and by right wing extremists in general. It is clear how these political perversions of the true concept of morality are leading to atheism and immorality of the worst kinds. More disturbing is the fact that under the influence of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, this perversion of "moralism" has infected the Orthodox Church in North America in a serious way.
In studying recent reports from the American Centres for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, as well as articles in a series of medical journals, my attention was redirected to the subject of immorality; in particular, the immorality of "moralism." We will have an examination of the true meaning of morality in a future issue, but at the moment, I wanted to point out a dangerous trend and explain why it is so dangerous to all humanity This trend is the politicalisation of moralism; perhaps I should say of "so-called morality," because few evils are so immoral as the professed morality of the "religious right" in America, with its political ultra-right extremism. The "religious right" in America (and to a lesser degree in Canada) is a hyper-moralistic (not necessarily moral) movement of judgmental self-righteousness which can roughly be compared to the extreme school of the Pharisees in Christ's time on earth. They consider themselves to be the only legitimate guardians of American religious dogma and morals. Basically, ignorance and superstition are integral doctrines of their faith, and they have a corrupt concept of the nature and character of God. They repeatedly confuse social moralism with actual Christian morality, and cannot distinguish between civil ethics and genuine moral concepts.
My attention was drawn to this subject by regular reading of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the British medical journal Lancet and a number of other medical and scientific journals, so we will begin our look at the problem from that perspective. The best place to begin is with a review of the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic -- an epidemic which, I assert, the religious right in America contributed to the spread of.
When the AIDS epidemic first appeared in America (not yet classed a "pandemic") alert medical researchers recognised something very dangerous, something which required immediate and urgent attention. The AIDS causing virus, not yet named, appeared in America first in a few Haitian immigrants, then in intravenous drug users. Epidemiologists would eventually trace the appearance of the virus in the homosexual community to the drug culture. It spread from the drug users into the homosexual community in New York and San Francisco via homosexual men who were also intravenous drug users and shared needles with other users. The virus was also later connected to regular international travellers who had been in certain parts of Africa (this includes the Haitian connection, which was traced to labourers from Haiti who had been employed in south central Africa). Let us pause in tracing the history of the epidemic to see what happened when news of the new, incurable virus appeared in the American media. Epidemiologists, infectious disease experts and many independent and governmental medical researchers immediately began urging the U.S. government for funds and laboratories to trace and identify this new microbial killer.
Then two things happened. Clergymen who were leaders of the "religious right," like a tree full monkeys, began howling and shrieking from their pulpits that this new disease was not an epidemic, but their gods punishment on the homosexual community in America (we use the term "their god" intentionally, since the god of the religious right and other 'Fundamentalists bears no resemblance to the God worshipped by Orthodox Christians). Egoistic Billy Graham and the ever-hysterical Jerry Falwell, and a host of others, dogmatized that AIDS was a sure and appropriate punishment, created by this god -- a sort of "designer plague" which would let their god blow off the steam of his malicious anger. Immediately, research of the illness became a political issue for the ultra-right. It is well documented that President Reagans minister for health and other officials in his government, which was heavily laced with members of the religious right, actually stalled and, in some cases, outright blocked research funds and provisions, even though well respected experts in the Centres For Disease Control in Atlanta and other organisations were begging for the funds.
Then, it appears the Fundamentalist god of the American religious right lost control of his designer plague. It began to kill innocent, new born children everywhere from Kinshasa, Zaire in Africa to Chicago. It also began to kill innocent people who suffered from haemophilia. Never mind; dogma was dogma. This was a god created punishment. Never mind the fact that the majority of victims were neither homosexual nor drug users.(1) They were mostly black, and apartheid was, after all, a Protestant dogma, politicised by the religious right in South Africa.
Meanwhile, the virus which causes AIDS was appearing all over the world. It had been spreading in Africa for a long time, unseen and often unreported because in poverty stricken countries these things do not get immediate attention. It began in Africa. Following commonplace principles of evolution, which microbes do so well, it developed from a precursor found in a number of species of monkey, spread to humans and continued its process of evolution. When it found a suitable ecology in which to take hold and spread, it did so with a vengeance.
It would take three years before medical experts in America could break through the shell of the religious right in American politics and obtain grants for research.
Most critical in this struggle with the religious right was the nations blood supply. As early as 1979, some experts were warned about the safety of the blood supply in America. By 1980-81, medical experts in Canada and France were voicing the same concerns. Nevertheless, it would be years before they were taken seriously. During this time, AIDS began to appear in Africa in new born infants who required blood transfusion, but most of all, it began to appear in haemophiliacs in America and Canada. Perhaps haemophiliacs were also on the hit-list of the god of the Fundamentalists, and a number of infants who were born with medical problems that required blood? The reason haemophiliacs were stricken so hard is that they use plasma extracts rather than whole blood. Plasma is purchased in American cities by often independent "blood collecting" businesses who pay from ten to fifty dollars a pint to anyone who walks in off the street and wants to make a quick few dollars. Unlike whole blood, plasma could be donated several times a month. Naturally drug users and alcoholics were attracted to this additional souire of income. Haemophiliacs use a plasma product for clotting blood, and there is such a small quantity of this substance in the plasma that each haemophiliac may be using a product which contains substances from the blood of several thousand paid "donors."
Much of the blame br the failure to act more quickly in the matter of research into the AIDS virus must be laid at the feet of the religious right in America. They moralised the problem, and actually resisted coming to grips with it. During the Reagan years, though the Democrats in the American Congress pressed for research grants and an active response to the problem, right wing members of Congress constantly strove to block it -- and this is particularly true of those who could be identified with the religious right.
We now know that what epidemiologists said from the beginning is true: AIDS is not a disease of one element of society; it is a disease of humanity. Viri, like bacteria and other microbes are adept at rapid evolution; New-varieties and species appear regularly, especially -when existing species are put under pressure.
Thousands of innocent people were dying from this new plague who would not have died had the religious right in America not, with their usual arrogant, puffed-up self-righteousness, moralised the problem, and sought to politicise their own perverse dogmas and moralisms.
It is correct that, among the very sexually active members of the homosesual community; a fertile environment was present for the success of the virus, though gay people with monogamous relations were exempt, and those with very few sexual partners had a safety margin. However, more dangerous is the spread of the virus in the drug culture. Why? Because the drug culture is also a haven for respiratory diseases such as the antibiotic resistant strains of TB. It is not a secret that microbes of every species exchange plasmids and transposons, even segments of RNA (microbes are not racists when it comes to swapping genetic information for the sake of survival). That is how they continue the process of evolution. There is absolutely no logical reason why the AIDS causing virus cannot become respiratory in those of the IV drug culture who are affected with both illnesses. AIDS could then be spread by sneezes, coughs or other close contact. This is a real possibility. Secondly, the homosexual community donated blood for the same humanitarian reasons that everyone else does, and they responded well when asked to refrain from donating. The drug culture, on the other hand, has not responded well. They do not donate blood, they sell blood plasma in order to help them raise needed money to supply their drug habits. Meanwhile, most logical and necessary steps being taken to contain the virus and help prevent its metamorphosis, were and are still resisted by the religious right.
ABSTINENCE: CHASTITY OR REPRESSION?
CONTAINMENT: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PROBLEM, NOT A MORALISTIC ONE.
Like it or not, the survival of millions of human beings, including white Protestant fundamentalists and other members of the religious right, depends largely on the ability to successfully contain not only this pandemic, but the great epidemics yet to come, many of which will be both sexually transmitted, and spread by other means. Containment from a medical point of view means a greatly expanded use of condoms and the use of safe needles in the intravenous drug culture. AIDS affects far more heterosexuals world wide than homosexuals. It affects far more people who use no narcotics at all than those who do. It is most dangerous to all humanity when it infects those who are infected with other diseases, and it is most insidious in the unidentifiable groups, such as those drug users who lead an outwardly normal life. If governments followed the dogmas and political agendas of the religious right, this plague would already be a thousand times worse than it is. No cure is going to be found for the virus that causes AIDS until one discovers how to cure any virus, a feat never yet accomplished. If a cure were found, it would take the virus only a matter of time before it would evolve to make the cure ineffective. It is a fact that we already have many bacteria which have evolved to the point where no known antibiotic can damage them. Containment is the only real option, and the only possible means of containment are things which the religious right opposes, because it suffers from the perversion of moralization, not understanding the actual meaning of morality.
From an Orthodax Christian point of view, the best defence (although it is certainly not an absolute guarantee) is to follow the principles of life given us by God. This means monogamous marriage, an active struggle to live chastely whether we are married or not. Chastity in marriage simply means a monogamous relationship based in sincere love. Chastity outside marriage means to abstain from sexual relations, not by means of moralistic repression, but by means of that ascetic struggle, firmly based in love, that is prescribed for us by the holy apostles and the revelation of the Holy Church. It also means to have enough sincere, Christlike love not to seek to impose our own path on the rest of mankind to the detriment of medical means of containing the disease. In other words, Orthodox Christians are expected, as a matter of faith and love, to follow a path of chastity, which is accomplished by lawful struggle, but we accept that not everyone, indeed, not even a majority are prepared to do that. This means that the medical profession, and epidemiologists in particular, must be left unhindered in their efforts to curtail this, or any other, plague. Moralising AIDS is sinful and anti-Christian. It shows only an arrogant self-righteousness and a willingness to see millions of people die horribly simply to satisfy, not Gods desire for vengeance, but ones own sick, perverted desire to see people punished.
The religious right, Protestant fundamentalism, and the infected segment of other religious groups, including some in the Orthodox Church, responded to the epidemic with predictable medieval superstition, and have sought to inflict this ignorance and self-righteous arrogance on the rest of Canada and America. No doubt there were some outbreaks of this "religious rightism" in other countries as well. If they had had the political power to proclaim in a legislative way that AIDS was a punishment of God on a designated portion of society, who knows how greatly they would have hindered medical research into the illness, and thus allowed its rapid spread throughout the entire population. After all, if the illness was a specific punishment designed by the particular god that the Christian Right confesses, there would be no need to test blood supplies to protect haemophiliacs or transfusion patients. Surely this god of theirs would be powerful enough to direct his created punishment toward only those whom the Christian Right thought deserved it. How long, blinded by such fanaticism, would it have been before the virus was traced back to the various species of monkey from which it evolved, and how long before it was realized that HIV is not a disease of a certain disenfranchised segment of the population, but a disease of all humanity In fact, HIV, the suspected source of AIDS, is only one in a long series of emerging microbial epidemics which is being caused by the actual immorality of mankind -- an immorality long supported and advocated by fundamentalist Protestantism: Global exploitation of humans and resources, the concept that wealth is a sign of their gods blessing, while poverty is a sign of their gods disfavour. Remember that apartheid was a religious doctrine which the Christian Right in South Africa managed to have legislated into national law. Remember that fundamentalists, the "Christian Right" justified slavery on the grounds of religious doctrine, and sought to keep black people in this bondage by means of the "Christian doctrine" they preached to them in America.
With eighty-five percent of the population of Uganda dying of AIDS, and Angola about to be totally engulfed by it, it is sheer racism of the most degenerate kind for the religious right to continue to seek the downgrading of AIDS research.6 HIV, the virus that causes AIDS is continually evolving. It will continue to do so, and it will be the most virulent where it has the greatest access to hosts and the best ecology for increase. It will be in the best interest of the virus to develop more efficient methods of spreading, and it will do so. Evolution is a fact which cannot be successfully denied. It takes place around us every day. It has allowed staph and strep, and dozens of other formerly treatable diseases to become untreatable. Our smallest enemies have achieved the greatest victories over us. Viruses respect neither race, religion, language, wealth or national boundaries. They also do not respect political parties, self-righteousness or sectarian boundaries. When wealthy, white fundamentalist Protestants begin to die from the epidemic formerly limited to blacks, Asians and the disenfranchised, then there will be a rapid "reinterpretation" of religious doctrine, and unlimited action and expenditure on the matter.
We are in the midst of a series of microbial pandemics in the world. The Marburg tragedy proved beyond a doubt that microbial infections can transmigrate between species, and pass from monkeys to humans. There is little doubt that, due to their ability to evolve rapidly, viruses, bacteria and other microbes can change both their hosts, their virulence and their manner of spreading. Nevertheless, the amount of money being spent on the development of military weapons, unnecessary luxury items and useless entertainment in every society, is being drawn away from coming to grips with the reality that the The woeful ignorance of the religious right notwithstanding, it is impossible to have a contagious disease in only one part of the world or one segment of the population in our era. A new variety of malaria which appears in India will move to South America within a year or two, etc. To suggest that a disease in Africa is of little concern to Americans or Canadians is stupidity, because there is no way we can make the disease "stay at home" Even if AIDS were "under control" in America (which it certainly is not), it would continue to mutate in an area such as Uganda, and every mutant form if it would find its way to America, and everywhere else eventually.
The very survival of the human species is in danger from newly emerging microbial forms which are completely immune to every medicine and antibiotic possessed by man. The primary victims of these new epidemics are the disenfranchised elements of world society: the poor and uneducated, women and children, refugees and others. For this reason, awareness of the danger is marginalized and often the suffering of the afflicted is "moralized."
This is a problem of the concept of morality that has been taught in most of the Western world, and it can be seen in the delusion that "we [read 'Americans] are Gods specially chosen nation, and our concept of righteousness and legalistic morality is the only concept."
There are two other aspects that I want to mention briefly. On average, 14 million children die each year in the world. Careful studies by highly qualified health care institutions conclude that at least 9 million of these deaths could be prevented by properly using the amount of money that U.S. tobacco companies spend each year on advertising (helping to create even greater health problems with their products.) Tobacco companies spend about 2.5 billion dollars world-wide to foist their products on the public creating massive illness and fatal diseases in the process. That is immorality, and each educated person, that is, one who know the facts, who uses or sells the products of tobacco companies is part and parcel of the immorality which they are actively supporting.(2)
The second global immorality connected with illness which we want to mention is the continued denigration of women, and attempts on the part of the religious right to marginalize or demonize womens issues is part and parcel of the immorality. In many parts of the world, girls can "morally" be sold into prostitution, in all parts of the world they can still be subjected to abusive husbands. In both cases, they can be used sexually and forced into becoming vectors of sexually transmitted diseases. Abusive husbands are not notoriously monogamous. Moreover, UNICEF, WHO and CDC studies have conclusively shown that child health care in particular and societal health care in general are greatly effected by the level of education and enfranchisement of women in a given society, and by the quality of freedom and social mobility women enjoy.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the attempts of the religious right to politicize its concept of morality and have it enshrined in legislation, particularly in North America, is the fact that ignorance and superstition would thus become powerful and destructive forces. The religious rights efforts to infiltrate the educational system with such follies as the fundamentalist view of creation reminds one of the Communist efforts to reshape genetic science so that it reflected "socialist realities." One of the most immoral aspects of the morality of the religious right is that it would hinder if not cripple the ability of legitimate Christians and legitimate scientists to encounter social and health care problems in a realistic and effective manner. It is terrifying to contemplate the results, for example, of the religious right in America having had its way at the beginning of the AIDS pandemic. Even now, there is a great danger in this immoral group gaining enough power to interfere with such programmes as condom distribution and safe needle availability, and this at a time when there is some suspicion that newer deadly infections such as Ebola may be or become sexually transmissible. It is absolutely necessary to teach and advocate monogamous sexuality within marriage and a sincere struggle for chastity outside marriage, but it is gross immorality to be so mindlessly fanatical as to try to interfere with anti-epidemic programmes which are necessary for the survival of mankind, and often on the basis of the notion that people who do not agree with you deserve to die horribly. The fact that a disease may be classed as "sexually transmitted" does not preclude its being transmitted by other means, and does not shield the innocent from becoming infected. There is no reason to suspect that Lassa Fever, Ebola or a thousand other exotic viral diseases cannot be sexually transmitted. God does not "design" diseases and plagues to inflict on selected portions of humanity.
We will take up this subject again, but I would like to ask sober-minded Orthodox Christians who may have become enmeshed in the religious right, via the sickness of Ecumenism, to re-think their involvement, and seek to come to understand the Orthodox Christian concept of morality as opposed to that of the religious right. Being a "born again good citizen" does not save one. Theosis, the struggle for the transformation of ones person, the ascent of ones being, true "askesis," this is the essence of the moral life, provided it is all based in genuine love and faith.