That may be, but association with Opus Dei somewhat guarantees a very narrow viewpoint, to my way of thinking.

I think you are being unfair to Opus Dei, and perhaps even engaging in calumny. I am not officially a member of OD, but I have been very involved with them for some years now, even up to receiving regular spiritual direction from them. In that time I have never sensed any acrimony towards Eastern Christians. Yes, they are very "Latin" but that is not wrong, is it? I'm sure some members think that their particular spirituality is the only true spirituality, but they would not be the first Christians to believe this.

Father Ambrose, your comments on John Of Kronstadt are fascinating because I know that letters exist between him and his wife and they seem to have argued over money matters (so a OCA priest told me). If you are right about the nature of their marriage, his wife (at least in my eyes) should have the one who was canonized! Although he may have been all the good things that have have been said of him, he treated his wife miserably. In a word, he should never have married. One could honestly ask if he should have been canonized!

Why do you say this about him...because he did not want to consummate his marriage?

Did he not make this intention of living like siblings quite clear before he married?

His wife may have not liked it, or maybe she did, or maybe she didn't care all that much, or maybe she grew to accept it-- who are we to really know how any individual feels or what goes on in a marriage between two people and behind closed doors? Are we looking at this marriage through our sex obsessed modern culture that says that even 100 year olds are supposed to be happily having and wanting sexual relations and that absolutely no one should go without it?!?

The only alternative women had at that time in history was to remain unmarried and be called and labeled an 'old maid', which was a terrible fate and embarrassment to the family of a woman in the old countries.

Marriage is for the sanctification of both partners in Orthodox theology. How do we know that she was not fortunate in that maybe she became quite devout and graced by the Holy Spirit as a consequence of having such a platonic marriage and holy partner and that, thus, her soul is now in Paradise?

As for these 'money matters', that again, is a private and personal thing between two individuals, and is not a sinful thing in and of itself! St. John Krondstadt *was* a human being, and not a monastic one. Even the holiest individuals have to address wordly matters.

I do not think that defaming and idly gossiping about a saint is a good thing...the tongue is our most sinful member. I find this particular conversation quite distasteful and ask Fr. Ambrose and JohnZonaras to *not* continue with it.

May our Lord forgive us all. St. John Krondstadt intercede for us. Amen.

Alice, Moderator

Why do you say this about him...because he did not want to consummate his marriage?

Did he not make this intention of living like siblings quite clear before he married?

The only alternative women had at that time in history was to remain unmarried and be called and labeled an 'old maid', which was a terrible fate and embarrassment to the family of a woman in the old countries.

I perceive them - rightly or wrongly - as zealots and zealots, of any stripe, make me wary because I equate zealotry with intolerance.

If you are right about the nature of their marriage, his wife (at least in my eyes) should have the one who was canonized! Although he may have been all the good things that have have been said of him, he treated his wife miserably. In a word, he should never have married. One could honestly ask if he should have been canonized!

An interesting New York Times article , published today, on a married Ukrainian Catholic priest in Rdno, Ukraine. It also contains many pictures from his family and parish.