The Orthodox Church and gay marriage

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that gay marriage is constitutional in Canada & that parliament has the right to pass legislation making it legal. The Prime Minister immediately said that legislation legalising gay marriage would be introduced in parliament as soon as possible.

What do you think should be an Orthodox Christian response to the two following points often made by gay couples or those who support gay marriage:

1)gay marriage doesn't hurt those who are involved in heterosexual marriage; it doesn't hurt anyone else at all.

2)gay married couples provide the same loving care to each other & their children as does heterosexual marriage.

Thanks for considering this question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Eugene]

I think a sin is not only something that hurts anyone or not necessarily lack of loving care. Hurting or not caring is sertainly sinful, but not hurting and caring is not enough. I'm not sure if I can define in general what is sin, but I think we can say that sin is anything that doesn't allow us to be in Communion with God, that breaks the communion, that doesn't allow the Holy Spirit to abide in us. Homosexuality is sertainly one of those things, even though it may not hurt anyone explicitly. Yet we can still say that it hurts spiritually. It spiritually hurts the homosectual people themselves first of all (exactly because it doesn't allow them to enter in communion with God), and it hurts other people around them spritually because it constantly sends a message that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

However, this concept of sinfulness of homosectuality is totally alien to people who don't accept the Christian faith. From the point of view of humanistic-relativistic ideology of the modern society there is nothing wrong in it. This fact simply shows how far the values of the modern humanism stand from the values of Christianity.

[Owen Jones]

The problem with the so-called "gay" debate is as much a philosophical as a religious one. A religious person can say that, ipso facto, engaging in sodomy is wrong according to the Bible, but has no means of actually confronting the various arguments in favor of "gay rights" that will have any social/political impact, other than to become an Orthodox Christian. That is offered as the only solution. Not a bad solution, but it is a solution, again, that has no impact on the society, or on so-called "gay people" themselves, unless one has an agressive evangelistic effort among "homosexuals" themselves, much as Christ admonished us to minister to prostitutes, to the sick, to those in prison. We do not wait for such people to become Orthodox Christians first in order to qualify for Christ's ministrations. So absent either a philosophic refutation of the idea of "gay rights," and ministrations to "gay people," the Orthodox Christian position on both "gay rights" and on homosexual behavior is really a narrow sectarian position.

One has to look at the arguments in favor of homosexuality and on "gay rights" and engage those arguments head on. The argument is that it is a natural part of things, part of the natural order of things that some people are born homosexual, it is part of their nature, not a fault or a sin, and a homosexual is merely expressing his or her true nature, and that therefore it is a sin for society to suppress that true nature for narrow sectarian reasons. This is a very powerful argument, taken on its own.

So without a real profound theological and philosophical discussion of the nature of nature, one really cannot deal with the issue. What do we mean when we use a word like "nature?" Is there even such a thing as nature as an authority to which one can appeal to justify certain beliefs, attitudes and behaviors? Since that is what is being done.

Christians are simply on the defensive on this issue because we have no working knowledge of what WE mean by nature, and end up reinforcing the stereotype of Christianity as a force against human freedom by saying that homosexuality is wrong, full stop. Is nature wrong? Is nature mistaken? You see, what has happened is that we say that God cannot be wrong, and yet we see that much in the world is wrong. But we also say that nature is good in its essence. The pro-gay argument is that nature is good, not evil, just as we say it is. So they appeal to the authority of nature. Nature says it is so, that some people are born "gay." It is wrong to go against what nature has authored. One must therefore first dispose of the naturalistic argument, a form of fundamentalism, that has its roots in Rousseau and the 18th Century Romantics. Christians must know about all of these antecedents in order to understand the "gay debate" if we wish to have any social impact. And there must be ministrations to so-called "gay people," if we wish to speak with moral authority on the issue.

[Eugene]

Good point, Owen. This is another axiom of humanism - everything natural is good (sometimes they say - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). A simple problem is that this statement contradicts to reality. Humans have "natural" inclination to love himself, to lie, to steal, to please himself as much as they can possibly do, many of those "natural" forces do harm other people, so it would be wrong to say that everything natural is always good. The Christian point of view, I think, is that humans inherited sin from Adam and Eve not as a blame or curse, but as a sickness of soul - the inclination to self-love and everything that pleases this self-love. Holy Fathers actually cal this sinful decease anti-natural, although it seems like this anti-natural inclination is deeply and "naturally" rooted in our soul. St. Maxim the Confessor, for example, explains that a human can experience and exercise natural, anti-natural, and super-natural. Humanism, however, has no concept of super-natural, considers natural everything in human and doesn't differentiate between anti-natural and natural the way Christianity does.

[Owen Jones]

But an even more primary question is, what is nature? Good, bad, indifferent, what is it? Can we even say with assurance that there is something called nature? Or is that term shorthand for an ideological formulation, or a mythology? Is it an experience? What is it?

[Eugene]

"what is nature?" Good question! I will let more theologically knowleageble people answer it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From my reading of the Holy Fathers (since they do address this subject) I would say that first of all nature does not exist in the abstract. There is human nature, dog nature, cat nature, etc. It is nature which constitutes the distinct being & character of each species (St John of Damascus uses the word species in the general sense). So it is human nature which makes us human.

Further it is also a Patrisitc teaching that specific to human nature is the fact that it always exists within individual hypostases.

In any case a discussion of nature is what applies properly to the subject of homosexuality since as Owen rightly points out the gay community & society at large has used the argument that gays are so by nature.

This obviously then brings us to the characteristics of human nature; ie what are the characteristics that God created it with? St Gregory of Nyssa said that at the deepest level human nature is unknowable which is analogous to how God's nature is unknowable.
However we can still I believe understand the characteristics of human nature by looking at the virtues. In other words what God has given us in His commandments for us corresponds exactly to the nature we are created with. However due to sin this aspect of our nature is now darkened and it is not at all clear at times how to distinguish sin from virtue.

To jump ahead I would say that the point is crucial about nature and homosexuality. In a sense this is what my questions are trying to get at. In other words we must explain how married love is according to human nature while the appeal to 'gay love' is not. I agree that just saying "it's wrong" won't cut it precisely because (for example as I saw while watching this on last night's news) the images of the sweet female or male couple with their children sitting in a nice suburban kitchen seems the most 'natural', innocuous and even sweet thing in the world. One could sympathise with our faithful thinking to themselves after seeing that, "so what's the problem anyway? Just as they say, they don't seem to be hurting anyone."

By the way: there was an interesting choice of words used by the Supreme Court judges. They specifically mentioned that legal change was valid because 'modern society evolves.' I don't want to get into a discussion about evolution (I wasn't thinking about it in this way anyway). But I thought it was interesting that as a legal principle evolving society was appealed to. As I have pointed out before especially in the British legal system & those influenced by it- legal interpretation is influenced by moral standards. Thus legal changes of the present may well have seemed abhorrent to people of the past even though the constitution is identical. The Supreme Court judgement thus recognises & legitimises changing moral standards to interpret one law.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Evgeny,

You don't need a theologically knowledgeable person to tell you the answer. If they did give you a formulaic answer -- a definition if you will -- it still would not be an answer to your question. The answer lies within you and is answered in the process of loving questioning. You are nature. Nature is not some external thing to yourself which is given a definition apart from who and what you are. Once you understand who you are you will understand nature. Because, as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain states, man is the macro-cosmos.

[Owen Jones]

And of course that flawed legal theory stems from a fallacious theory of nature stemming from the fundamentalism of Newton et al. It is the case of the reductionist fallacy, and the literalist fallacy, what Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It is not a problem of either particularity on the one hand or universals on the other, but the tension between the two, and it is this tension that is dismissed in principle by the fundamentalists of the naturalist persuasion. One cannot "explain" nature just by describing nature. In the next post, I will quote a case in point that very nicely exposes the problem.

[Owen Jones]

On the Immediate Experience of Nature


A plant is a plant. You see it. You don't see its physical-chemical processes, and nothing about the plant changes if you know that physical-chemical processes are going on inside. How these processes will result in what you experience immediately as a plant (a rose or an oak tree), you don't know anyway. So if you know these substructures in the lower levels of the ontic hierarchy (beyond the plant which is organism) and go into the physical, chemical, molecular and atomic structures, ever farther down, the greater becomes the miracle how all that thing is a plant. Nothing is explained. If you try to explain it in terms of some mechanism, you have committed the fallacy of reduction.
If you deform your experience by trying to explain what you experience by the things which you don't experience but which you know only by science, you get a perverted imagination of reality—if you see a rose as a physical or atomic process.

[Eugene]

Right, Owen. Or, stated in simple words, created nature can't understand itself on its own. That's why we can uderstand ourselves and our nature only when a true knowledge is revealed to us by God, when our nous is enlightened by Holy Spirit.

[Irene]

Father Raphael,

If Canada has made Gay Marriage Legal then what happens when A Church refuses to let them marry within the Church? Could the Gay people call on anti-discrimmination laws to cause the Church grief?

The last I heard our Prime Minister said he would never agree to legalising gay marriage.

In Christ
Irene

It looks like while I sleep everyone talks.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Owen,

You wrote: "If you deform your experience by trying to explain what you experience by the things which you don't experience but which you know only by science, you get a perverted imagination of reality—if you see a rose as a physical or atomic process."

Yes there is a serious flaw in much current thinking that tries to grasp reality by the secular method. Many ascribe this to modern man's arrogance. Perhaps however it is as much a longing to know and be in communion again with that which he has lost being in communion with; a deep nostalgia for communion with the reality that surrounds him.

Perhaps in a way the inclination to know others in a sinful way is also a nostalgia for that deep communion with others which we have lost.

We will know others sacredly through & in Christ. Or we will crave to know others in a most sinful variety of ways.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Irene,
You asked:


"If Canada has made Gay Marriage Legal then what happens when A Church refuses to let them marry within the Church? Could the Gay people call on anti-discrimmination laws to cause the Church grief?"

Thank God any legal religious body has the right to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. This is because in the Charter of Human Rights & Freedoms (our constitution) there is a clause to protect religious freedom. As the issue of gay marriage is still very divisive with about 60% or so in favour the courts & parliament are always very careful to make mention of our right to perform a religious gay marriage. Civil commissioners however do not have this right & have already been notified in writing by the government that they cannot legally refuse to perform such marriages.

I heard that New Zealand just passed some sort of law legalising same-sex 'unions' rather than marriage. Australia is another case as I believe the governing party is Conservative(?). You might see a change if Labour gets back in. Here our Conservative party is against all of this. But they have lost every step of the way in the courts. With the Canadian Charter of Rigths & Freedoms there is absolutely no legal leg to stand on.

As a Church we are legally protected. But it does feel like another one of those barriers has been crossed for society. I consider it a tragic day for our country.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Irene]

Dear Father Raphael,,

Sorry I didn't mean to be disrespectful by addressing my msg to Father Raphael and not Dear Father Raphael! I was very preocuppied with the thought of Canada passing this law, it is so very dissapointing. Canada to me means cleanness, the great outdoors, God's country, family suitable movies (the ones we have seen anyway) and lovable actors (or actors that at least give that impression) such as (the departed) John Candy and others I can't recall off hand.

And ...... You are very right that we have a conservative government at the moment. Mr Howard has been Prime Minister for ever and in the last election the swinging voters swung in his favour so he increased his power even more. So I can see there is some good in having the government we do. (Even though our Prime Minister doesn't have a clue that a packet of bread does not cost under $AUD1 but actually nearer to $AUD3!)

I am very glad that the Church hasn't been put in a hazardous position. Thank God indeed.

In Christ
irene

[Eugene]

Dear Father Raphael,

I also heard that it's illegal in Canada to publicly criticize homosectuality. Does this apply to preaching in Church?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Evgeny,

Preaching against homosexuality is not illegal in Canada as protected under the freedom of religion clause of the Charter of Human Rights & Freedom. We are also able to legally criticise homosexuality in a public way because of freedom of expression or opinion.

I do not know the details of the law protecting homosexuals from discrimination and persecution. It could be part of the anti-hate law (ie anti-racism law) which usually applies to racism.

Personally I do not think that Christians or those religions which do not accept homosexuality are under direct threat in Canada for their beliefs. Not to deny that as society increasingly supports such change there could be legal grey areas where a homosexual might claim discrimination. But to my knowledge in other areas such as women's ordination where discrimination could be charged there has never yet been a legal case launched against those Christians groups which do not allow this.

I would say that the greatest danger to the Church is the gradual erosion of Christian values, of a Christian mind-set (phronema). This is all the more pressing because those such as homosexuals appeal to tolerance which at first glance seems a Christian virtue.

As others have pointed out homosexuals already seem to have everything that God has created humanity with. A good, loving nature. Nurturing families; well-adjusted children. What except pure prejudice and closed-minded hatred could refuse to accept this? It is in this area that I believe we must devote ourselves so that we have a suitable Orthodox Christian answer.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41841

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
Israel recognizes homosexual couples 'Jewish state risks becoming
next Sodom and Gomorrah'

By Aaron Klein
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Same-sex couples in Israel will now have many of the same rights as heterosexual spouses according to a decision today by the Jewish
State's attorney general which drew fire from many rabbis who warned Israel risked becoming another Sodom and Gomorrah.
In a precedent-setting directive, Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz decided not to appeal a district court decision in Nazareth
recognizing a same-sex couple in a recent inheritance ruling, indicating homosexual couples have the same rights in matters of
property, taxation and inheritance as common law spouses.
Mazuz's decision reverses the previous attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein's decision not to recognize same-sex couples, although
homosexuality has been legal in Israel since 1988.
The decision not only equalizes homosexual couples in matters of taxation and real estate, but dictates they will also be able to
transfer gifts between them without paying taxes.
Haaretz quoted an unnamed source close to Mazuz as saying, "There must be distinctions made between various types of property, with an
emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility, in the spirit of the times and the changing reality as well as personal status, which requires a
more cautious approach and is usually a matter for the legislature."
Moshe Gorli, a legal reporter for Maariv, said the courts and the Knesset are already preparing the groundwork in light of Mazuz's
reversal.
"The State of Israel will stop formally fighting against the efforts of same-sex couples to institutionalize their relationship. I think
this is an honorable sign as to how far society and the state have come over the years," Gorli told the Jerusalem Post.
Knesset member Roman Bronfman said the attorney general's decision was "a milestone in the struggle of the gay community for equal
rights and an expansion of the concept of the nuclear family."
But the Orthodox community was not pleased. Some rabbis warned that Israel risked becoming the next Sodom and Gomorrah. According to many, God destroyed the biblical cities because of their rampant homosexuality.
David Batzri, a prominent Israeli rabbi, said the ruling will bring God's vengeance and possibly a great flood upon Israel. "There were
such laws in Sodom," his son, Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri, told Army Radio in his father's name. "The Torah, our book of laws, says that such things are sacrilegious," he said. "To make this permissible and positive ... is very grave. Instead we need to help these people to come out of this."

[Edward Henderson]

This is such a complex issue. However, I think we often try to confuse marriage in the theological sense with the legal understanding of it. Strictly speaking, Orthodox Christians are only allowed to marry other Orthodox Christians. Now, as an American citizen, I have the right to marry any unmarried woman I please, whether she be Orthodox, Hindu, Moslem, etc. The Orthodox Church also has the right to refuse to perform the Marriage rite, if they do not approve of whom I am marrying. So, I think the issue of legal gay "marriage" or "civil union",is not a theological debate. We know where the Orthodox Church stands and should a homosexual couple request a marriage ceremony in an Orthodox Church, we know they will be refused.

However, I believe we must give individuals the freedom to make their choices. A civil marriage is in reality a contract that handles taxation, property, child custody, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. It is a legal relationship. If we believe in individual liberty (within reason), how can we oppose the will of a homosexual couple who wish to enter into such a legal contract? God has given us all free will. For the sake of order, we have submitted some of that freedom to governments. The question with gay marriage is, how much of our divinely given freedom do we wish to give to a governing body. Do we wish for governments to decide whom we can and cannot marry? While I will stand by the Church's teaching on sexuality, I do not feel that consenting legal adults engaging in sinful acts such as fornication, adultery, or homosexuality should be considered in violation of any civil law. They are in violation of God's law, but it is their choice and a choice to which the civil government, in most cases, has no business, in my opinion, meddling in.

I, personally, prefer a society that is free. I would prefer to continue to attend church services, partake of the Church's mysteries, and try (though often failing) to be an obedience child of the Church, not out of any legal compulsion from the State, but because I have chosen, of my own free will, to do so.

[Eugene]

What you said, Edward, makes sence. Senturies ago in Christian countries, when the Christians were majority, civil law reflected the Christian values. In our days, when we are minoirty, civil law reflects the values ans choices of the majority whch do not share our vaues. So, what can we do? Thanks God we still have freedom to live according to our Christian values, in some countries people don't even have that privilege.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Edward,

I think that this issue is complex in the sense that it is not easy to make a clear-cut distinction between the civil & theological. First of all many homosexuals do try to justify themselves by an appeal to what is 'natural'. Because they feel that their 'lifestyle' is natural & proper from this they make the argument that it should also be legally approved. Thus they make the same moral-legal linkage that we as Christians do.

I believe that we can see this in practice as many homosexuals try to obtain a union not only civilly but also religiously. Is this not why they use the word marriage when it could as easily be called a union? Indeed in those countries where homosexual union has been denied the status of marriage it is assumed that marriage is a union of a special, unique category- which is partly what homosexuals are reacting against. In other words homosexuals want not only an equal civil union in the eyes of the law & state. They want a union that is seen as being morally equal to marriage. It is precisely in this area that I believe that homosexual marriage impinges on what is theological & of the Church.

The second part of your post also brings up important points- I will try to get to them later.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

This debate is not a debate between Christian "values" and secular "values." That is a nihilistic way of looking at it. There is a tension between the sacred and secular, Church and state, just as there always has been and always will be. This tension existed during the period of Christian Empire. It is a necessary and healthy tension in which the boundaries are always being tested. But in the West today, there is a faction that is living parasitically off of the civilization that they are systematically trying to destroy. Christians have not only the right to speak out in defense of Christian civilization, while they are still free to do so, but an obligation, at the risk of public persecution, which is indeed happening. That, of course, is a practical consideration from the Christian standpoint. But that is not the only point to be made. People in vast numbers are killing themselves through sexual excess, and, of course, we are blamed for it, and forced to pay for the medical cost of that excess, and then told to shut up and not moralize. The issue is no different than the abortion issue. It is the idea that Christian Orthodoxy is bad for people because it deprives them of their freedom. Which is a false premise. We cannot allow such lies to be broadcast throughout the land without defending Christian truth, especially when many millions of lives are at stake. The freedom to kill yourself and others through sexual excess, or to kill your unborn baby because it becomes a nuisance, is not freedom at all. It is slavery to demonic forces. This needs to be spoken of. It can be done forcefully AND with love at the same time. But the truth is hard for most people to bear.

Then there is the slippery slope. As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court banned all laws against Sodomy, Justice Scalia said that it would mean that we would be forced to permit pedophilia and incest. That's next, believe me.

Finally, it would be incorrect to use a term such as homosexuals in a political context, as if they all want the same thing. Most homosexuals living together don't want it to be apublic thing. Such people are not harrassed and persecuted. The ones demanding legal marriage are frankly not doing so because of the property issue. That is a red herring. They demand it, as a right, as a justification of their so-called lifestyle. It is a bad-faith argument, just as were the arguments in favor of perpetuating slavery. Such arguments prey on the natural sense of fair play that people have in a liberal society, who are incapable of thinking through an issue to its natural conclusions. Many people believed that slavery is simply part of the natural order of things. They appealed philosophically to God and nature as a defense of slavery, and got away with it for thousands of years. Therefore, people have a right to have slaves, just as a man has a right to have multiple sex partners of the same sex, infect them with a dreaded disease, kill them, with absolutely no consequences, and then you are I are blamed for it, because of our narrow minded-ness, as if that caused it, and we are forced to pay for their medical treatments. That's freedom? No, it is the worst form of primitive superstition and tribalism, no different than what prevails in Africa, where it is believed that people get AIDS because of the evil eye placed upon them, and the way to purify themselves is to have sex with a ten year old virgin.

[Eugene]

Owen, you wrote: "It is slavery to demonic forces. This needs to be spoken of." Being a Christian, I totally agree with you, but how can you use this argument to convince someone who don't even believe in demons? Atheists don't even understand what we are talking about (well, they think they understand, but they don't). Yet, we still have to speak about it openly, and to use our voting rights. It's democracy after all.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To continue...

The relationship between Church & state even in the days of Orthodox monarchy was ambiguous. With the rise of the secular state this relationship is even more so. However there are two constants I think we need to keep in mind. One is that in a relative sense we are called as Christians to feel a loyalty to our country & to care for its well-being; the other is that at least until recently the state did uphold a relative moral order which we were at home with.

Now however the relationship is even more ambiguous. The modern state increasingly draws on its secular roots. Secularism is its own 'logic', and in this sense we should not be shocked when we are told that the moral standards that govern the state change.
On the other hand how can we not as Christians feel concerned for the moral state of the country we live in? The irony is that as the secularist makes his appeal under the banner "each man alone defines his values", the Christian replies "no man is an island." Thus society's values are seen to be inherently anti-social while the Christian who is critical of society prays for its unity.

In any case as we said it seems only proper that the Christian will care about the moral state of his society. This in some cases will even top the issue of liberty. For instance those in favour of abortion will also appeal to liberty. But having passed laws all through the west legalising abortion there is an abiding sorrow from Christians for what we have done. We rightly feel that it is a stain & wound on the fabric of our society.

Personally I think we should examine under the spotlight of the Church whether homosexuality is a true relationship as it claims to be. Is it really love? If not, what is it based on? What society accepts as relationship obviously goes to the very heart of how it defines itself as a society. For it goes to the heart of what that society means by relationship, of what defines relationship.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Actually, the Symposium gives a brilliant presentation on misdirected love (Eros) which is what sex generally is, but especially sex with the same sex. It's virtually a Christian treatise on the subject of love, without carrying the "baggage" of Christian dogma that so many people are afraid of these days. The only difference is that Diotema the prophetess revealed this to Plato. Although we would say it was Christ revealing it. But it's patristic in almost every other sense. The problem is that people generally don't respond to philosophical arguments either!!!!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Edward, just a brief message to say that it is very nice indeed to see you back here again.

INXC, Matthew

[George Hawkins]

yes, NZ has just passed a "Civil Union" bill. I think it is more to do with next-of-kin rights than anything else, and the majority of people it affects would be people living in a de facto relationship, but why they don't just get married is beyond me - what is lacking in their relationship that it can not be formalised, after all, you don't have to get married in a Chuch in this country. That being said, it also recognises same sex relationships, which is a big worry, as the next logical progression is of course marriage, and there are a few MPs that would support it (though not many, and i don't think the public would accept it yet, but it's only a matter of time.)

I don't understand why it is seen as a natural behaviour, when other behaviours are (rightly) seen as abnormal, yet the person perpetrating them might well feel it is part of their nature and something inbuilt. Aside from more 'adult' examples, what about things like kleptomania. Should we provide special shops where kleptomaniacs can go and steal things, it is part of their nature, and to persecute them for stealing would seriously infringe on their human rights! But we don't provide shops for them, instead we try and help them. Quite stealthily, over the last few decades homosexuality has gone from being viewed as something wrong as to being something quite acceptable....http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Evgeny,

In response to your post #26, in which you responded to Owen, I submit this answer: "...The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." Said another way that reads, "A Christian must put the Gospel message on a loop, for all those who do not know the truth."

We must take a stand -which will always be in the public square- not despairing of the persecution and indifference which will come.

There are those who will say -in this politically correct atmosphere- that drug addiction and homosexuality are caused by a particular gene, and so think to silence with science, those who're of faith saying that such things are sin. We however, must not give ground. Yes some will perish without the God we know, love and live for, and others will become fellow travellers on the road to deification.

(Forgive me, but that for some reason made me think of the Bob Hope, Bing Crosby movies)

the sinful and unworthy servant
Moses

[Eugene]

"Quite stealthily, over the last few decades homosexuality has gone from being viewed as something wrong as to being something quite acceptable."

I think, George, that's because secular society totally lost any concept of sin, so it looks at things from the perspective of whether it's harmful for others or not, and harm is considered only from legal and materialistic point of view - the concept of moral or spiritual harm has been gradually dismissed. So, pushed by gay activists and their propaganda, the society gradually stopped considering homosexuality as being harmful. I expect we will be seeing more of this trend in the future, groups of people with all sorts of addictions wil start claiming that their addictions are harmless for the society and because of that the society and the law should not consider their addictions as something illegal, bad and harmful.

[Clare]

I just skim-read this discussion but the other day I came across a response to this question that quoted every single mention in the Bible. Here it is.

On the Coptic Orthodox Church Network is a lecture given by H.H. Pope Shenouda III on Homosexuality.
http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/ordofwom/index.html

LECTURE
HOMOSEXUALITY
I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to the ministers
of the Church of England. I mean, to speak to the angels of the
Church and the ministers of our Lord; those who were
mentioned in the Book of Revelation as stars in the right hand
of our Lord.
I thank God that He has given me the opportunity to speak to
those to whom the Lord said: "You shall be witnesses to Me."
(Acts 1:8). `Witnesses to Me', that means, witnesses to the
truth; to the Holy Bible; to the commandments of God; and to
what the Holy Spirit has passed on to the Churches.
I want to speak to you about numerous things, and if you would
like a discussion about a particular issue, I am willing to discuss
it with you.
The Holiness Of The Church
The first matter is the holiness of the Church. In the holy
Creed we say: "We believe in one holy Church". This holy
Church is Apostolic and Universal. In the Apostolic age, all
believers were called saints. A believer in the teachings of the
Bible means a saint, because we are sanctified with faith,

sanctified in baptism, sanctified in the holy Chrism, and
sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
We are not merely human beings, we are temples of the Holy
Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is abiding in us, as it is written in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 3 and 6. As temples of
the Holy Spirit, we should have communion with the Holy
Spirit. The work of a believer is not simply the work of an
individual, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit itself in that
person, who is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
We are also the image of God, and we project to the world
the image of God. The world sees in our conduct and in our
behaviour what demonstrates that we are really children of God.
At the beginning of the Epistles of Saint Paul to the Romans, he
writes: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
Apostle, separated to the gospel of God.. to all who are in
Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Rom. 1: 1,7).
Also, in another Epistle, he writes: "To the church of God
which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus,
called to be saints" (1Cor. 1: 2). Further still, in the Second
Epistle, he says: "To the church of God which is at Corinth,
with all the saints who are in all Achaia " (2Cor. 1: 1).
When he writes to Ephesus, he sends his greetings to all the
saints in Ephesus, and to the Philippians he does the same.
Again, when he writes to the Hebrews, for example, in chapter
3, he writes to those who are called to the Divine Call, who are
also saints.
9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are supposed to be saints, then how must we behave,
and, more importantly, how can we convey that holy
Image to the world?
In the Apostolic age, not everyone was allowed to enter the
Church. Only those who were worthy could attend the holy
Eucharist and partake in the Blood and Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ. This holy life is what we are called to, because we are
the children of a holy Father. Saint Peter speaks about this
point and says: "...as obedient children, not conforming
yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He
who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
because it is written, 'Be holy, for I am holy '" (1Pet. 1: 14-16),
and this was written in Leviticus (Lev. 11: 44).
Holy people do not live in the lust of the flesh, but they
behave according to the Spirit.
A holy person has two characteristics. The first is that his flesh
is guided by the spirit; by his human spirit. And the second is
that his spirit, his human spirit, is guided by the Spirit of God.
So the Spirit of God is guiding the whole person; guiding both
the spirit and the body, and hence that person should be holy in
spirit and in body.
Let me read some verses from chapter 8 of the Epistle of Saint
Paul to the Romans about the body and the spirit. The holy
Apostle says: "There is therefore now no condemnation to
those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to
the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8: 1). And in
verse 5, he says: "For those who live according to the flesh set
10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be
carnal minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and
peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is
not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Rom. 8: 5-
7). And then he says: "... if Christ is in you, the body is dead
because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness "
(Rom. 8: 10). Then he says: "Therefore, brethren, we are
debtors- not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if
you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit
you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as
many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God"
(Rom. 8:12-14). Here, Saint Paul depicts the sons of God as
those who are led by the Spirit of the Lord.
Let me now venture to speak about a subject that is rather
contentious, and is currently quite outspread, and that needs the
grace of our Lord to be overcome; this subject of
homosexuality. I am sorry to even have to speak about this
issue, it should not be a matter of discussion.
Homosexuality Is Against Nature
Homosexuality is against nature because sexual relations are
permitted only within the confines of marriage, and marriage is
only permitted between a man and a woman, male and female.
Hence, any sexual conduct outside these confines can only be
described as an abnormality; an act against nature.
When our Lord Jesus Christ discussed the issue of
Homosexuality with the scribes and Pharisees, as written in the
11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Saint Matthew chapter 19 and the Gospel of Saint
Mark chapter 10, He said: "From the beginning.. God 'made
them male and female '", man and woman. This is the proper
way of nature and the will of our Lord form the beginning of
creation.
But when people behaved according to the lust of the flesh in
the Old Testament, they received severe punishment from God,
as at the time of the Flood when only the pure, the eight people
in Noah's Ark, were saved, and all others perished. Also the
people of Sodom, who were unclean, were burned with fire.
They also behaved according to the lust of the flesh, the lust of
the body; they were unclean in their spirit.
Homosexuals Shall Not Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven
Carnal people cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. We read
this in the Book of Revelation, chapter 21, where it speaks
about the heavenly Jerusalem and says: "But there shall by no
means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination"
(Rev. 21: 27).
Homosexuals Were Punished By Death
We read that homosexuality is a kind of abomination which in
the Old Testament was punishable by death. If we, for example,
read Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22, God says: "You shall not
lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." And
also in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13, "If a man
lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have
12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.
Their blood shall be upon them."
Homosexuality Condemned In The New Testament
Of course, the New Testament is no less pure than the Old
Testament. So we find at least four examples against
homosexuality. In Romans chapter one, in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians chapter 6, in the Epistle of Saint Jude, and in
the Epistle to Timothy. I will now read some of these verses to
remind us of the teachings of the Holy Bible.
Example (1)
In Romans chapter one, it is written: "For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness." How is the wrath of God revealed? Verse
24 says: "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in
the lusts of their hearts, to dishonour their bodies among
themselves." `Gave them up', this means that the grace of God
has left them, that they were forsaken to their own uncleanness
to dishonour their bodies. In such abnormality they debase the
flesh.
The honour of the body is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
But if it is abused then it is a dishonour to the body. "For this
reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their
women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing
what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of
their error which was due" (Rom. 1: 26,27).
In his Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul also spoke about the
debased minds, and about things which are not fitting. So,
when he says: 'exchanged the natural use for what is against
nature', it means that homosexuality is against nature.
Furthermore, he says that it is an act of uncleanness, an act that
dishonours of the body and that is worthy of punishment. Thus,
according to the teachings of Saint Paul, homosexuality is not
only an act against nature, as was created by our Lord, it is
shameful and abominable.
Example (2)
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 6, the Apostle
says: "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites... will inherit
the kingdom of God" (1Cor. 6: 9). None of these will inherit
the kingdom of God.
As for living in the Spirit and not according to the flesh, he also
says: "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is
outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins
against his own body" (1Cor. 6: 18). What is meant by `his
own body'? It means that he is sinning against the temple of the
Holy Spirit. The Apostle says: "... do you not know that your
body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you
have from God, and you are not your own?" (1Cor. 6: 19).
14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your body is not your own; your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit.
When a person sins against his body, it means that he is
separating himself from the Holy Spirit. Light and darkness
cannot exist together in one place. From the beginning God
separated light from darkness (Gen. 1). Therefore, we cannot
have the Holy Spirit abiding in our body if we sin against it by
what is shameful.
The Apostle says: "...glorify God in your body and in your
spirit which are God's" (1Cor. 6: 20), meaning that both the
body and the spirit belong to God, and hence should be
glorified. Also, in chapter 3 he adds: "Do you not know that
you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in
you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy
him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are"
(1Cor. 3: 16,17).
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 6, the Apostle
also says: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of
Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them
members of a harlot? Certainly not!" (1Cor. 6: 15). We are
the members of Christ because we are His body and His bones.
Saint Paul says: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in
me" (Gal. 2: 20). So, if Christ lives in us, how can we abuse
our bodies in such ways, how can we defile the members of
Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit? How can we abuse
and dishonour the holy image of God by living in the lust of the
flesh? This is against holy life and against chastity.
15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example (3)
In his Epistle, Saint Jude says: "...as Sodom and Gomorra, and
the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having
given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after
strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
Example (4)
In the First Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle says: "...knowing
this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the
lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and
murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for
sodomites" (1Tim. 1: 9,10). Saint Paul includes 'sodomites', or
homosexuals, among the murderers, the lawless and the
ungodly.
Hence, this sin was condemned in both the Old and the
New Testaments. So, can we disobey God in order to please
some sinners? Is it not better to show them the right way than
to let them lose their sanctity and be punished in eternal life? Or
let them depend on the Church making this matter lawful?
Homosexuality Is Against Health
I think that in our present day, our Lord God has given us a
grand warning in the form of AIDS. A warning to those who
16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subject their bodies to such defilement. Unfortunately people
are no longer fearful, even of such a dreadful disease.
Homosexuality Is Against ManHood
How can a person who is used as a woman be called a man?
He is deprived of his manhood and is not considered to be a
man any longer.
Homosexuality Is Against the Good Name of Christianity
What may be said of Christianity in its supreme ideology?
Christianity teaches the sublime ideas of spirituality. How can
other religions have any idea about this spiritual life if they
know that there is homosexuality in the Church and that the
Church is discussing whether it is wrong or right?
Church life should be a life of holiness. A holy person is a
member of the Church, but the unholy is not a member of the
Church at all. And this is what was mentioned in the Book of
Acts, chapter 2, verse 47, where it is written: "And the Lord
added to the church daily those who were being saved". The
Lord added to the Church those who were being saved because
the Church is a congregation of Saints; an abundance of
holiness.
17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality Is Against the Holy Sacraments
What can we say about the renewal of life in Christianity if such
defilement exists inside the Church? How can we say that we
received the new life? ... the renewal of life? ... the new birth?
What kind of new birth have we received if we have such
defilement among our members? What can we say about
salvation? What kind of salvation is it? About baptism, what
kind of baptism is it? What can we say about holy Chrism when
we are faced with such defilement?
Homosexuality is against the Sacrament of Marriage, and it is
also against self-control. People who suffer homosexuality
should be ashamed. If they knew the meaning of spiritual life,
they could not confess that they are homosexuals. It is quite
inconceivable that anyone can lose their sense of shame and
openly confess to being homosexuals. It is even more
unbelievable is that such people ask for their human rights as
homosexuals.
Rights For Homosexuals
What rights are there for homosexuals? Their only right is to
be led to repentance. But to live in such defilement of the
body, in such dishonour of the body, in such abomination and
sin, and then ask for their so called human rights unthinkable!
Furthermore, being encouraged and defended by some of the
members of the Church, they ask to be ordained priesthood,
while still practising homosexuality, this is simply beyond belief!
18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual Priests
What may members of the congregation say when they know
that their priest is homosexual, and that he holds the Body and
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?
How can a homosexual priest lead the congregation to holy life
without having repented, without having confessed, without
changing his life? If he cannot repent how can he guide others
to repentance? If he cannot control himself, how can he guide
others to such control? If he cannot enjoy the beauty of holy
life, how can he speak about holy life? If he leads a carnal
life, how can he guide others to live a spiritual life?
What will be said about the teachings of Christianity if such
abominations take place in the Church itself?
Homosexuality and Love
It is claimed that homosexuality is simply love between man and
man. No, my brothers, love should be spiritual and pure. We
love others in purity. We love others in the Spirit. And loving
others should not be against our love for God, because our
Lord Jesus Christ said `He who loves father, son, wife, sister, or
brother, more than Me, is not worthy of me, is not worthy to be
My disciple.' We cannot love any other person more than our
Lord Jesus Christ. Every love which we have should be love in
the Lord. We love in the Lord, not outside, not against.
It is not love, but lust, and there is a great difference
between love and lust. The word 'love' is not suitable for such
19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a relation, because in the Gospel, we say `God is love.' How
can we say `Homosexuality is love'? It is not love, it is a
physical lust, lust of the flesh, and a lust which should be
corrected.
If a man loves another man, can he abuse the man whom he
loves? Is this love or destruction? If a man really loves another
man, can he lead this man to lose his eternity and be punished in
eternal life? Is it love to make another lose his image, the image
of God?
Homosexual by Nature
Another excuse given is that such a person is born that
way. If he is born that way, we need to heal him, to purge
him, to correct him, to pray for him, to guide him to repentance,
to cure him medically and spiritually. But not to say to him:
"Alright, we accept you as a member of the Church and give
you the Body and Blood of our Lord." It cannot be said that a
person is homosexual by nature. Surely, it is the result of a
traumatic experience in life, and this can be corrected.
We have in the history of the Church many saints who were
fornicators before being saints, before repentance, and they
were corrected. They were not homosexuals, but they were
fornicators; the same sin but not abnormal. Saint Augustine is a
good example. Saint Moses the Black is another example.
Saint Pelagia is another example, and there are many others,
and through the grace of God, through the work of pastoral
care, they were corrected. We cannot accept homosexuality,
for if we do, it means that we allow such an abomination, it
20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
means that we permit that person to remain in sin and not
repent. Moreover, it means that homosexuals have rights, one
of which is to be ordained as priests.
The Spiritual Way of Pleasing Others
We cannot flatter people at the expense of the
commandment of God. May I read you one or two verses
from the First Epistle to the Galatians: "For do I now persuade
men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still
pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ" (Gal. 1:
10). If 1 go on pleasing men in contradiction with the
commandment of God, then I will not be the servant of Christ.
If I want to please men in a correct way, then I should
guide them to repentance. This is the spiritual way of
pleasing others, not to let them stay in sin and perish.
What is the benefit in pleasing other if such pleasure leads
to condemnation? In the heavenly kingdom, in the kingdom of
God, no person who lives in defilement is allowed to enter. No
fornicators, nor sodomites, may enter the kingdom of our Lord,
as is clearly expressed in the teachings of Saint Paul, Saint Jude,
Saint Peter, and many others?
Once I read a book written by one of the clergymen -I do not
want to say, one of the bishops- defending homosexuality. He
began to attack Saint Paul and say that he is abnormal. Can we
please men to the extent where we speak against Apostles?
Against a person that was elected by God Himself in a
21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
miraculous apparition, and chosen to be the Apostle for the
Gentiles; to be our Apostle, for we were Gentiles. Is it
acceptable that we try to please men, even if it means going
against the teachings of the Lord?
I now return to the first words I said to you. I said I am happy,
I am glad, to be among the persons who are chosen to witness
to the Lord. Our Lord said: "But you shall receive power when
the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses
to Me." As for homosexuals, He said that without repentance,
they will perish. This judgement of our Lord was repeated
twice in the chapter of Saint Luke's Gospel, chapter 13, verses 3
and 5. It is written: "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you
will all likewise perish" (v. 3), and in verse 5: "I tell you, no;
but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
So, can we say to such sinners, to whom our Lord said:
"...unless you repent you will all likewise perish", `no, no, no,
we will find excuses for you. The Church loves you and wants
to search for excuses, so that you may remain in sin and not
perish?' It is not within our power, I repeat, it is not within our
power to justify sins, or to please sinners. Instead, we should
be trying to guide them to repentance.
The Way to Repentance
Initially, a person who sins may be embarrassed, and cannot
confess to this abomination. However, if that person openly
declares his homosexuality, and begins to seek his rights as a
homosexual, without seeking repentance, and even goes so far
as to ask to be ordained priesthood, then this is an outrage.
22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if we make it clear to that person that such actions
are sinful and against the will of God, then perhaps his
conscience may act against him, always condemning him and
reproaching him: `You should repent. You must change your
ways'.
The Authority Of Clergymen
In the Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 18, our Lord Jesus
Christ gave His servants, the Apostles, the priests, authority,
saying: "I say to you whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in
heaven" (Matt. 18: 18). Whatever you bind or loose should be
according to the Bible, in harmony with the teachings of the
Bible, in obedience to the commandments of God, but whatever
you bind or loose against the Bible will not be accepted. How?
If we read the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, verses 8 and
9, we find some very fearful words. It is written: "But even if
we (the Apostles), or an angel from heaven, preach any other
Gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be
accursed' (Gal 1:8). This is also repeated in verse 9, "If anyone
preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received,
let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9).
Our duty as Clergymen is to guide people through the
commandments of God. We have no power, nor any
authority, to give declare laws against the laws of God. So,
why did our Lord give us authority, and how can this authority
to bind and loose be explained? Perhaps we can find an
explanation in what was written in the prophecy of Malachi,
chapter 2, verse 7: "For the lips of a priest should keep
23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for
he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal 2:7). People
take the law of the Lord from the priest's mouth because, when
it comes to God's teachings, he is more knowledgeable than any
other member of the congregation. He is the teacher; the guide.
So he binds according to the law of God which he knows quite
well, and he looses according to the law of God, and never in
contradiction, as Saint Paul said: "If we, or an angel from
heaven..." As Saint Basil of Caesaria Cappadocia said: "Saint
Paul dared to anathematize angels."
The Grave Responsibility Of The Clergy
What then should we say to people? There is a commandment
given by God in the Old Testament. It is repeated twice in the
same prophecy of Ezekiel, in chapter 3, and again in chapter 33.
May I read you some of the words said by God to Ezekiel: "Son
of man, I have made you a watchman (to watch people) for the
house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give
them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, 'You shall
surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the
wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked
man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will require at
your hand" (Ezek. 3: 17,18).
We are pastors. How can we suffer that the blood of these
wicked persons who will perish be required from us? We
should warn them and say to them: "This way leads you to
destruction". And at the same time God says: "Yet, if you warn
the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from
24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have
delivered your soul' (Ezek. 3: 19).
The same words are also mentioned in chapter 33, because our
Lord God wants to emphasise this point. "So you, son of man:
I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel, therefore
you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me.
When I say to the wicked, `O wicked man, you shall surely die!'
and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that
wicked man shall die in his iniquity,. but his blood I will
require at your hand" (Ezek. 33: 7,8).
We must fear such condemnation. We must warn the wicked
and say to them: `This is the way of death. If you walk
according to the flesh you will die; you should obey the
commandments of God.' If we love our children in a spiritual
way we should guide them to repentance; we should try to
purge them, to cleanse them, to heal them, to save them, not to
justify their sins. This is not good for them nor for us. They
will perish and their blood will be required at our hands.
The following are some of the questions asked by members of
the congregation and the answers given by His Holiness:
Question 1
We repeat in the Nicene Creed, I believe in one holy
Catholic Apostolic Church". As the Catholic and Apostolic
25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Church is divided, how can we claim it to be holy? How
can holiness and division go together?
Of course this is a tragedy, and for this reason we are trying to
work toward Christian unity. We are trying to be one in faith,
and one in theology and in doctrine. Our Lord God does not
accept this division because in the Gospel of Saint John chapter
10, which we call the chapter of the Good Shepherd, it is clear
that He wants the Church to be one flock, for One Shepherd,
and this Shepherd is our Lord Jesus Christ. And also in Saint
John's Gospel, chapter 17, He asks the Father for His disciples,
for the whole Church, to be one, saying: "...that they may be
one just as We are one." There is no unity more mystical than
the unity between the Father and the Son. Of course,
separation and division is not a holy matter and for this reason,
we are working for the unity of the Church.
Question 2
While we are alive, is it not possible to enjoy bodily
pleasures without hurting others, while striving for spiritual
ascendancy?
For this reason we said that this bodily pleasure, according to
your expression, is enjoyed in marriage and between male and
female, but not against nature, not against the commandment of
God. As we enjoy bodily pleasures in eating food and
delicacies, and control ourselves in the days of fasting, a person
may also enjoy bodily pleasures to a certain extent, not to be
against his spirit, not to be against the commandment of God,
26

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not to be against nature, not to be against purity of heart, and
many pleasures are given to us, but not abnormal pleasures.
Question 3
How can we bring healing to people of homosexual
tendency who wish to be healed of that tendency and to
walk the way of holiness? How may we help them?
The first point on which I spoke was that the Church cannot say
that their wrong way is acceptable, this is against the essence of
the teachings the Bible. We cannot pass their acts as acceptable
behaviour, and excuse them for supposedly being born that way.
Sin is sin, whatever the reasons are.
In order to help them, firstly say to them: "This is a sin. This is
an abomination", and then let them enjoy the spiritual life. A
person who tastes the sweetness of spiritual life may leave such
a way of abomination. Because people are always occupied
with worldly matters, they do not give time for prayer, for
contemplation, for spiritual songs, for reading the Bible, for
reading spiritual books, so their spirits become very weak, and
such weak spirits cannot resist temptation. If we try to
strengthen their spirits, to let them practise spiritual ways, as I
said, they get better.
Also, we must pray for them, fast for them, celebrate Holy
Masses for them, we must try to help them by using all spiritual
means. If there is a situation that requires medical treatment,
then let them try it. But, whatever the circumstances, we
27

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cannot justify their sins. It is not within our authority as
clergymen or pastors.
Question 4
Does the Church see the sexual desire in marriage between
husband and wife as lust or good appetite?
Saint Augustine said that it is something attractive from nature
to help the act. First marriage was for giving birth to children
and to let the world continue, but if there is nothing attractive in
such a matter, perhaps people will not have sexual intercourse.
As with food, if food is not delicious and of good appetite (I
may use appetite here for food), people will not eat and they
will die. So God put something attractive in the nature of these
matters in order that the act may be completed. But some
people who have full love for God may not practise such
matters very frequently.
There is something said by Saint Paul in the seventh chapter of
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he said: "Do not deprive one
another except with consent for a time, that you may give
yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again so
that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-
control" (1Cor. 7: 5). And at the beginning he said that when
we practise fasting we need self-control to abstain from food.
At the same time, if a person, if a husband or wife, can be away
from the other partner, in order to practise fasting and prayer in
a useful way for the spirit, it should be in consent. The two
should approve of the matter, if not, we cannot cause offence
for the other partner; this will not be "with consent".
28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot take everything that your body craves. Solomon,
the wisest person, said that he gave himself all kinds of pleasure,
and what was the conclusion? I will read what Solomon said:
"Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not
withhold my heart from any pleasure" (Eccl. 2: 10). And what
was the end? It was against him and he found that "all was
vanity and grasping for the wind" (Eccl. 2: 11). A person may
take from the pleasures of the world to a certain extent, yet self-
control from time to time.
Question 5
How should we relate our Lord's assurance that the wheat
and tares will continue together until the end, to the stress
on all members of the Church being called to be saints?
Of course, the tares are not members in the Church. The wheat
are the elect and the tares are the work of the devil, as our Lord
God explained this parable in the thirteenth chapter of Saint
Matthew's Gospel, saying that the wheat is the work of God
and the tares the work of the devil.
There is sin and there is holy life. Of course, we cannot say that
the kingdom of God covers the whole world, but the work of
the Church is to have plenty of wheat and to guide the tares to
be wheat if possible. This is our duty; to correct others. But of
course our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about the tares in this
parable as the persons who will perish (not to be corrected).
But in the Church we have only wheat.
29

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church in its identity is a group of saints worshipping God
together. They are holy vessels in which the Holy Spirit works.
The definition of the Church is people who are the image of
God, who are the true sons of God, who always keep the image
of God, have communion with the Holy Spirit, and lead holy
lives. These are the true members of the Church; tares are not
the true members of the Church.
Question 6
Can we suggest that different branches of one whole may
not be evil but that they may all be partakers of God's
truth?
Of course we should distinguish between evil and good. There
are many kinds of good ways, as for example, marriage and
virginity. They are two holy ways which guide to God. But we
cannot say that chastity and fornication are two ways which
guide to God. Of course not. There may be a kind of variety
but inside holiness and not outside holiness, and this is
acceptable.
For this reason we have different branches in the holy Church,
as for example when Saint Paul spoke about the gifts of the
Holy Spirit in chapter 12 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
He said there are different gifts but the Spirit is one. In the
Church there are Apostles, there are teachers, there are priests,
there are prophets, there are ordinary persons. All these may be
different in rank, but all of them are holy.
30

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say "may all be partakers of God's truth". Partakers of
God's truth inside holiness and not outside holiness. Our Lord
God said that the good earth may give thirty, sixty and one
hundred. These are degrees, but all of them are fruitful and
good, although they vary. But as for the plants which were
surrounded by thorns and withered away, we cannot say they
were good, nor was the land from which the seeds were taken
by sparrows.
Question 7
If a homosexual goes to the church and repents and
abstains from homosexual activity, how is he viewed in the
eyes of God if desires about men remain?
I want to say that sometimes repentance may take steps. The
first step of repentance is to abstain from the action of sin.
Sometimes the person abstains from the action of sin and at the
same time still has the desire. He is now clean in flesh but not
clean in spirit.
The second step is to change his mind and change his desires.
In the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 12, the Apostle says: "I
beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that
you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be
conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of
your mind" (Rom. 12: 1). A person may have another concept,
another idea, another way of thinking about the world. He does
31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not look at sin as pleasure but as defilement. He may change
his mind, and in changing his mind he may change his desires
also. It may take steps.
The first step of repentance is to leave sin, not to do it. But
the perfection of repentance is to hate sin, and sin will not
be suitable for the person's new nature in our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Our great teacher Saint John the Apostle said that the son of
God cannot sin: cannot, because he is the son of God. His
nature has changed. This is the renewal of life. As pastors,
our work is to guide people toward the renewal of their life,
to stress on a new point, to give them practice in spiritual life.
Day by day they find spiritual life not only acceptable but also
favourable and they find their pleasure in God, their
pleasure in spiritual life.
Question 8
Does the Coptic Church have a view on the use of artificial
contraception?
Yes, we accept it if it is not a way of abortion. This means if it
is used to avoid, rather than terminate, a pregnancy. However,
once a pregnancy has occurred, than it is a sin to abort the baby,
even if its age is only one hour. So, it is acceptable only to
prevent pregnancy.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

In my opinion, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III speaks very well here:


It is claimed that homosexuality is simply love between man and
man. No, my brothers, love should be spiritual and pure. We
love others in purity. We love others in the Spirit. And loving
others should not be against our love for God, because our
Lord Jesus Christ said `He who loves father, son, wife, sister, or
brother, more than Me, is not worthy of me, is not worthy to be
My disciple.' We cannot love any other person more than our
Lord Jesus Christ. Every love which we have should be love in
the Lord. We love in the Lord, not outside, not against.
It is not love, but lust, and there is a great difference
between love and lust. The word 'love' is not suitable for such
a relation, because in the Gospel, we say `God is love.' How
can we say `Homosexuality is love'? It is not love, it is a
physical lust, lust of the flesh, and a lust which should be
corrected. If a man loves another man, can he abuse the man whom he
loves? Is this love or destruction? If a man really loves another
man, can he lead this man to lose his eternity and be punished in
eternal life? Is it love to make another lose his image, the image
of God? One of the most powerful arguments for homosexuality in the secular imagination, is that it is all about "love". I remember at university, I was myself misled into owning and wearing a t-shirt on which stood the motto: "love knows no gender", or something similar. A recent film, "Brokeback Mountain", tries to convey the same message quite successfully, if one is not aware of what "love" really means. Interestingly, the same movie also appeals to the "natural" argument, by casting its protagonists amid lavish scenes of beautiful countryside. In my estimation, the appeals to nature and to love are the two most powerful weapons in the philosophical armoury of gay-rights activists. Interestingly, the Marquis de Sade also makes frequent appeals to "Nature" in his pseudo-philosophical, grossly perverted and pornographic novels. This is why I agree with Owen entirely that intelligent reasons must be articulated by us as traditional Christians as to why homosexual relations are neither loving nor natural. These reasons do exist within the wealth of Orthodox literature, and there is no reason to become anxiously dogmatic or take a fundamentalist stance on what has been known and accepted by the Church for centuries. Homosexuality is an illness, like all sin. The Church has the power to cure it, if only in helping people so afflicted to live lives of chastity with this particular cross to bear. After all, "normal" sexual desires aren't exactly easy to live with and to confront - or more appropriately, perhaps, to transform - in a Christian way, are they?

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Bauman]

Unfortunately, not everyone either knows or cares what the traditional stance of the Church is. Already here in the U.S. ordained clergy are publically advocating a more 'merciful' response, i.e, acceptance of homosexuality as a part of human nature that should not be proscribed. This is exactly the kind of thing that Fr. Raphael was speaking to on the erosion of the Christian mind.

The errosion is not new and has been going on for sometime, unfortunately, it seems by episcopaly benign neglect of the moral standard of some of their brothers and some of their priests.

[Owen Jones]

Where are these priests? Who are they? Do they have the blessing of their bishop to say this? Is nobody challenging them on this?

[Michael Bauman]

Fr. Robert Arida: http://www.pravmir.com/response-to-myself/ and Fr. Alexis Vinogradov: http://www.ocanews.org/news/Vinogradov7.12.11.html

Yes, there have been several vigorous responses from other clergy, but not the bishops of the priests.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Interesting that the continuing meme of "gay people do not choose to be gay" keeps being repeated. I am not convinced that this is true. There may be a possibility that for a small subset this may, in fact be the case (conjecturally speaking since nothing has really been proven), it says NOTHING about the supposedly "bisexual" individuals who obviously, by definition, have a choice but insist on having the same recognition as those who supposedly have no choice. Therefore, for some it is indeed a CHOICE. And if we are to believe the Scriptural testimony, it is not a good choice, and should certainly be treated by the Church in the same manner as it treats any other who chooses to continue to practice a particular sin. To not acknowledge it a sin is to do a disservice to the individual, be it homosexual or heterosexual sex outside the context of a church-blessed marriage. Sin is sin and to call it something other than sin does nobody any good. To deny a sickness is not going to cure it. If we say cancer is not a disease then why bother to treat it?

If homosexuality is indeed an incurable disease, how best to minister to it? THAT seems like a worthwhile discussion to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Jan Sunqvist]

I didn't see anything outrageous in these articles. Unlike Herman, I am convinced there is very little choice, if any, in being attracted to same or opposite sex. There is choice in how one deals with it.

And so I agree with the following





If homosexuality is indeed an incurable disease, how best to minister to it? THAT seems like a worthwhile discussion to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Max Percy]

I think, George, that's because secular society totally lost any concept of sin, so it looks at things from the perspective of whether it's harmful for others or not, and harm is considered only from legal and materialistic point of view - the concept of moral or spiritual harm has been gradually dismissed. So, pushed by gay activists and their propaganda, the society gradually stopped considering homosexuality as being harmful. I expect we will be seeing more of this trend in the future, groups of people with all sorts of addictions wil start claiming that their addictions are harmless for the society and because of that the society and the law should not consider their addictions as something illegal, bad and harmful.

I think we also have to acknowledge that we have done a really poor job articulating a theology of sexuality. We have done a good job of touting ethics like in the so-called "Manhattan Declaration" but there really is not a clear theology of what sex and sexuality are for or mean. What is the relationship between agape and eros? It is entirely possible that I am blind and/or stupid, but I must confess that Fr. Arida's questions seem to me to be fairly reasonable questions. Will our bishops provide answers or guidance? It is moments like this that make our jurisdictional squabbling seem particularly petty when priests and the world are asking for guidance and get apparent silence or reproach.

[Jan Sunqvist]

I couldn't agree more with Max's post.

Perhaps it is because I am very misguided, but it is my impression that in some way agape is eros transformed. But eros untransformed/ repressed leads to numerous neuroses, sometimes even physical ailments.

My apologies, I am sure this is not theologically correct to put it this way, but as Max said, the theology of relationship between sexuality (sexual energy, not necessarily sexual acts) and spirituality is far from clear.

[Kosta]

Gay marriage is simply an artificial construct, politicians wanted it to create a new voting bloc. Eros and love have nothing to do with marriage. Where are these mythical concepts found in the wedding service? Why are the fastest growing segment of lesbians HETEROSEXUAL divorced women?
We live in a post christian society now, this gay marriage fraud will cease as soon as the state which invented it crumbles, and the western world will crumble soon.

[Alex Haig]

Eros and love have nothing to do with marriage.

I don't think this statement holds up - whilst a marriage based only on eros is quite clearly not Christian, it is still a part of it. We see in the lives of the saints, however, that for those who were married the sexual part of their marriage became less and less important.

As for same sex attraction, the teaching is clear: sex outside of (Christian) marriage is sinful. This is as much true for heterosexuals as homosexuals. Further, it is possible for sex within marriage to be sinful - a wedding service does not "legalise" sex whenever and wherever the couple desire it. In any case, being homosexual is not a sin: engaging in sex outside of marriage is.

We are all of us given crosses which we must carry - these do not (necessarily) imply sin on our part but are the result of living in a fallen world. Someone may be born with a propensity towards being violent - any violence he commits is still sinful even though it is natural - just because something is natural does not mean it is to the glory of God. Likewise, homosexuality might be natural, but sex outside of marriage is not to the glory of God nor leading towards salvation. This is a great cross for someone to be given, especially in our permissive and anything-goes society.

Please forgive my ramblings.

With love in Xp

Alex

[Kosta]

Eros and agape are concepts with meaning if understood in its philosophical context of ancient hellenic thought. Today they have been hijacked and are simply myths, Ask 100 different people what love is anbd you will get 100 different answers. These mythical concepts of marrying because you have the hots for someone are not found in scripture nor in the wedding service of the church. Heterosexual fornication and adultery is a sin because its unlawful, homosexuality is a sin because its unnatural. Perhaps the western clergy need to emphasize this more bbut they cant because there too busy sticking up for their depraved 'western culture and values' and making excuses for it like Fr Arida does. Perhaps if he ever read Justinians codex he would of had a better understanding of slavery as well.

[Alex Haig]

Eros and agape are concepts with meaning if understood in its philosophical context of ancient hellenic thought. Today they have been hijacked and are simply myths, Ask 100 different people what love is anbd you will get 100 different answers.

I agree that modern (and even ancient) people understand love in different ways, but that does not mean that we cannot use these words: they must, however, be understood in a Christian way. Therefore, it can be useful for analysis to differentiate between agape, eros, philos etc but these have to be understood in a Christian context. I would say that in a Christian marriage, when a child is conceived an erotic act has taken place. This may be a problem of the use of vocabulary, non in legendo sed in intelligendo.


These mythical concepts of marrying because you have the hots for someone are not found in scripture nor in the wedding service of the church.

I do not think anyone would claim this, but I think it also unhelpful to say that this is not a part of it: a small part, certainly - but not completely lacking.

That there may be given unto them soberness of life, and fruit of the womb as may be most expedient for them; let us pray to the Lord.
That they may rejoice in the beholding of sons and daughters; let us pray to the Lord.
That there may be granted unto them the happiness of abundant fertility, and a course of life blameless and unashamed; let us pray to the Lord.

(from the Mystery of Crowning)


The focus is clearly on 'soberness of life', but eros is still a part.


Heterosexual fornication and adultery is a sin because its unlawful, homosexuality is a sin because its unnatural.

Should we promote this distinction between law and nature? What is natural in the fallen world is not necessarily to the glory of God. A lion killing a man in the desert is natural but not as God intended it. Likewise, many in the homosexual lobby claim that they have natural feelings and to deny that they are natural, for some of them, may seem as if we are denying their humanity. Natural does not mean something is not sinful.


Perhaps the western clergy need to emphasize this more bbut they cant because there too busy sticking up for their depraved 'western culture and values' and making excuses for it like Fr Arida does.

There is a difference between 'sticking up' and 'engaging'. We are to be the salt of the earth, not pretending that the world is not there and getting on with our own "spiritual" lives, but to challenge the world, tell humanity that there is sin, there is evil, there is the devil, but in Christ we do not have to be caught by it - we can rather transfigure and offer it to God for His glory.

I do not offer these points as an arguement against you, Kosta, but to point out another way of looking at things. I have probably erred from the Tradition in much of what I have said, and I open this up to those wiser than I who can point out my errors.

I ask your forgiveness.

In Xp
Alex

[Paul Cowan]

In any case, being homosexual is not a sin: engaging in sex outside of marriage is.

We are all of us given crosses which we must carry - these do not (necessarily) imply sin on our part but are the result of living in a fallen world. Someone may be born with a propensity towards being violent - any violence he commits is still sinful even though it is natural - just because something is natural does not mean it is to the glory of God. Likewise, homosexuality might be natural, but sex outside of marriage is not to the glory of God nor leading towards salvation.

This comment does not hold up scripturally. Homosexuality is a sin AND sex outside marriage is a sin AND sex inside a marriage "can" be sinful. Homosexuality is not natural to the nature of man. It is a perversion of what God gave us. A cross to bear; for sure, but a chosen cross.

Paul

[Alex Haig]

In any case, being homosexual is not a sin: engaging in sex outside of marriage is.

We are all of us given crosses which we must carry - these do not (necessarily) imply sin on our part but are the result of living in a fallen world. Someone may be born with a propensity towards being violent - any violence he commits is still sinful even though it is natural - just because something is natural does not mean it is to the glory of God. Likewise, homosexuality might be natural, but sex outside of marriage is not to the glory of God nor leading towards salvation.


This comment does not hold up scripturally. Homosexuality is a sin AND sex outside marriage is a sin AND sex inside a marriage "can" be sinful. Homosexuality is not natural to the nature of man. It is a perversion of what God gave us. A cross to bear; for sure, but a chosen cross.


Dear in the Lord, Paul

Could you please cite the scripture to which you are referring? As I read the Scriptures, and I admit I do not know it as well as I should, I see very little regarding being homosexual, rather it is the act of sex between two of the same sex that is sinful. I'd be gratefully corrected on this point.

I agree that homosexuality 'is a perversion of what God gave us' but so is much of the fallen world, where brother kills brother and people try to exist without God. Could you give a source for the teaching that it is of necessity chosen (rather than natural) behaviour? That is, an authority (preferably one of the Fathers) who has said everyone who is homosexual has chosen homosexuality rather than having it naturally as a passion and therefore no choice. At the moment, my understanding is that there is a difference between being homosexual and acting homosexual but perhaps the Scriptures or the Fathers put forward the opposite position?

With love in Christ
Alex

[Max Percy]

Dear in the Lord, Paul

Could you please cite the scripture to which you are referring? As I read the Scriptures, and I admit I do not know it as well as I should, I see very little regarding being homosexual, rather it is the act of sex between two of the same sex that is sinful. I'd be gratefully corrected on this point.

At the moment, my understanding is that there is a difference between being homosexual and acting homosexual but perhaps the Scriptures or the Fathers put forward the opposite position?

With love in Christ
Alex

Alex quite rightly points out at least part of the problem that makes this issue "new" in our context. It seems that until recently there was a focus on homosexual acts. Now, in our day the Church is confronted with the assertion of being gay, apart or in addition, I suppose, to the acts. This, I believe, is new. It also, I think, is a companion to the notion of "sexuality" in addition to sex acts. This is what we are confronted with. It is, as far as I can tell, something new. As a result, I do not think there is going to be a simple proof texting approach ( I use that as a term of convenience, not negatively) to scripture or the fathers that is going to be sufficient, but it is going to have to be developed by our contemporaries. Perhaps some present in this forum now!!! In some ways, what Philip Sherrard and Christos Yannaras have done begins to formulate possible responses, but are by no means complete. It is, I think, an opportunity for evangelization. I hope that our bishops take the lead on this and formulate an evangelizing response beyond what the Russian Orthodox Church did in its Social Issues publication.

[Kosta]

The problem is that homosexual sex is a WORSE sin than fornication. Any heterosexual fornicator can repent and confess and enter into marriage engaging in the sexual act with the spouse, a gay person would have to remain celibate. It is not the sexual act which is sinful in heterosexual fornication but the lack of self control.
Again the so called 'western values' which bishops have allowed to influence them are contrary to human nature and demonic. That heterosexual fornication is an equal sin to homosexual fornication is a lie and contrary to the scriptures and teachings of the Fathers.

[Thomas Brunson]

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that gay marriage is constitutional in Canada & that parliament has the right to pass legislation making it legal. The Prime Minister immediately said that legislation legalising gay marriage would be introduced in parliament as soon as possible.

What do you think should be an Orthodox Christian response to the two following points often made by gay couples or those who support gay marriage:

1)gay marriage doesn't hurt those who are involved in heterosexual marriage; it doesn't hurt anyone else at all.

2)gay married couples provide the same loving care to each other & their children as does heterosexual marriage.

Thanks for considering this question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

"I have read some of the replies and I think if one tried to talk with those outside the Church on a theological level using the theological discourses I read they would certainly lose them quickly. It is much more simple to state that when God created mankind, he created them male and female. Eve was Adam's helper and there is the beginning of what our relationships should be. We have friends which are both male and female which is good in the eyes of God, but we are not to be sexual with them, in fact we are not to be sexual until our marriage. A relationship outside of how we are created is not only sinful, it is a bad example to everyone who they come into contact with, so they do harm to other people, as well as the children they are responsible for.

Christ attended the wedding ceremony in Cana which was marriage between a man and a woman as it was intended by God. There is not one place in Scripture that you will find anything that says it is OK for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, in fact it states directly in Scripture that kind of gay relationship is considered a grevious sin and those types of sin separate us from God because they are not in harmony with the way God created us. (they go against our nature and are sinful) There are just a few examples of how gay marriage, or just casual gay sexual relationships go against our human nature which separates us from God."

[Max Percy]

Again the so called 'western values' which bishops have allowed to influence them are contrary to human nature and demonic.

What are the criteria for evaluating human nature and what is "natural" when nature is fallen?

[Thomas Brunson]

Hi Herman the Pooh, Years ago when I was in college I did a paper on homosexuality and in one of my reference materials from an excellent source it stated that over 80% of gay men and women who went to a psychologist or psychairtrist reported having been molested as a child. I think this speaks for itself.
+Thomas

[Michael Bauman]

Neither hetrosexuality nor homosexuality is a matter of 'being' To state it that way is to immediately buy into the modern fallacy in such a way that the battle is already lost.

The satisfaction of one's sexual desires has nothing to do with salvation or holiness.

An old friend of mine used to remark that Satan was the most reasonable of all creatures.

The path to holiness is not reasonable, it is fundamentally unreasonable.

So, we have to decide: the world and its 'reasonable', humanistic drive to nothingness which accepts all things as equal except the desire to be as God wants us to be (unreasonable foolishness to the world) or, the narrow path of union with Christ that we declared for prior to our baptism.

The teaching of the Church is neither complicated nor difficult to understand: God created us male and female; only sex within the unity of marriage is blessed, all other sex is illicit and sinful and therefore detrimental to our salvation. Like with every other besetting sin, those who wish to enter and walk the path of repentance need strength, courage and good guides, not a whispering in the ear that there is no need to even enter the battle.

Only our own unwillingness to strive for holiness against the ease and perversion and 'reasonableness' of the world allows us to complicate the issue. When we seek the world rather than the kingdom of God, everything then becomes possible, 'reasonable', compassionate, etc, etc. The Satanic seduction should not flow from the mouths of priests.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:8-10 (KJV)


Lord have mercy on us all.

[Paul Cowan]

Hi Herman the Pooh, Years ago when I was in college I did a paper on homosexuality and in one of my reference materials from an excellent source it stated that over 80% of gay men and women who went to a psychologist or psychairtrist reported having been molested as a child. I think this speaks for itself.
+Thomas

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I am glad to see my observations through the years as attested in the other threads on this topic are finally supported by a collegiate paper. I'll bet if you dig deep into that last 20% you will find they also were molested or abused as children.

If we restrain premarital relations as the only precursor to sin, then what do we do when a civilization condones gay marriage? Human standards are not God's standards. Being homosexual versus acting homosexual? They are synonomous. The verb "to be" is an action word. It is the act of homosexuality. One is not homosexual if there has not been an action. What constitutes the action? That's where God comes in to decide. Not us!!! Same sex attraction is not homosexuality. It only makes the chaste life of that person perhaps a bit harder. But does it really? If an opposite sex attracted person also practises chastity, is the burden lighter? I don't think so. We ALL have our crosses to bear.
Alex: You asked for scripture. Here is one OT and one NT.

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Then go read the story of Sodom and Gemorrah.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

We live in a fallen universe. There are people who are attracted to the same sex. They may have the harder burden to bear. But just as straight people, gays must also practise chastity and ultimately celibacy. Is this too burdensome? No, as there are many non-same sex attracted people that also practise celibacy. Homosexuality is a choice. It becomes an easier choice to make when one falls into the sin over and over. Kinda like the old addage. It's easier to kill the second time.

This from the antiochian website.
The Church Fathers, not knowing the terminology of modern psychology, used the term "passions" to describe our bodily dispostions, and include both the object of the attraction as well as the strength of the attraction itself in their definition. Is it not possible to consider that the biology we possess is the material substrate of these passions? This is not to say that the passions are not also in the mind (cognitive content) and influence the nous (spiritual mind). We are, after all, created as composite creatures of mind and body and in leaving our natural state of interior harmony after the fall of Adam, both our minds and bodies are affected.

That the passions may have a biological component is indicated by the Church Fathers in their teachings on how the passions work. St Macarius the Great wrote: "We can cultivate the ability to discern right and wrong if we understand the three movements which lead to passion: The first is a natural movement, inherent in the body, which does not produce anything sinful or burdening to the conscience, but merely lets it be known that it exists in the body -- such as hunger." St. Macarius' teaching can be interpreted in light of St. Mark the Ascetic: "Natural body appetites 'innocently' expresses themselves: 'feeling the pangs of hunger, we prepare food and eat to fullness'" (The Teachings of the Holy Fathers on the Passions, 1986).

In simple terms this means that thoughts may come to us involuntarily, often suddenly. However, until we engage these thoughts with our will, they constitute neither virtue or vice but merely disclose the inclination of our will. Sexual orientation and desire easily fit this model. This is another reason why the term biological substrate may be appropriate in discussing sexual orientation and the passions may be appropriate. Orthodox anthropology suggests "natural movements" and "inclinations" that, when willfully engaged, lead to more passions and more sin. (I believe what are called "natural movements" are not the same as the "original nature" of man, but arises as a result of our fallen state. I have found however, these concepts of the Holy Fathers to be pastorally and clinically useful in dealing with both homosexual and heterosexual individuals attempting to live a life in Christ.)


and more from the fathers
The way to keep guard over our heart is immediately to expel from the mind every demon-inspired recollection of woman -- even of mother or sister or any other devout woman -- lest by dwelling on it for too long the mind is thrown headlong by the deceiver into debased and pernicious thoughts. The commandments given by God to the first man, Adam, told him to keep watch over the head of the serpent (cf. Genesis 3:15), that is, over the first inkling of the pernicious thoughts by means of which the serpent tries to creep into our souls. If we do not admit the serpent's head, which is the provocation of the thought, we will not admit the rest of its body, that is, the assent to the sensual pleasure which the thought suggests-and so debase the mind towards the illicit act itself" (Philokalia I).

The monastic rule of St. Joseph Volotsky warned against homosexual temptation as well as outlined in the ordinances that guided the governing of monasteries. For example, one rule stated: "...it is not proper for beardless boys to live in the monastery and concerning other necessary causes," clearly a recognition that some monks struggled with same-sex desire, and by prohibiting young boys from monastic life, tempation would be easier to manage. Other counsels include: "In wanting to be saved, therefore, let us move far away from them as from a flame. Let us not turn towards them in a house or in a place where no one sees us. Let us sit far away from them on benches ... lest in some way looking in their faces, we get the seed of lust from the Adversary ... Let us not believe the deceitful thought, which suggests to us that this is not tempting" St. Ephraim wrote: "It is a great calamity for boys to be in a coenobium. Even if we converse with them about chastity, we are stabbed in the heart" (Volotsky, Ninth Discourse).


Paul

[Alex Haig]

Being homosexual versus acting homosexual? They are synonomous. The verb "to be" is an action word. It is the act of homosexuality. One is not homosexual if there has not been an action. What constitutes the action? That's where God comes in to decide. Not us!!! Same sex attraction is not homosexuality. It only makes the chaste life of that person perhaps a bit harder. But does it really? If an opposite sex attracted person also practises chastity, is the burden lighter? I don't think so. We ALL have our crosses to bear.

Dear in the Lord, Paul

As I stated in a previous post in this thread, it's not in the words but the understanding. My distinction was between being homosexual and acting homosexual whereas yours is having same sex attraction and being homosexual (as I understand). If this is the position of the Church, then it is an important distinction of which people should be aware, especially as the world uses these words differently.

I do not think we were arguing different points but using differing terminologies - perhaps Monachos should have a dictionary to say what words mean in the context of this forum! :-)

In Xp

Alex

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

This is an interesting thread, especially with the recent passing of gay marriage into law in N.Y.C.. I would also see same-sex desires as belonging with sexual desires generally, and I'm glad they appear to be discussed here in this context. Fr Thomas Hopko's book on same-sex attraction is very good on this issue.

Now a general question: is lust wrong because (a) it makes us worship the creature rather than the Creator, and (b) it aims at our own selfish pleasure, and in doing so renders persons into objects?

What does it even mean, to regard someone without lust? Must we become saints to know what this means? Is it just a pious wish with no basis in human reality? If I wish to eat something, then pretty much any dish will stimulate my appetite. Is it as wrong to look at cookery books and T.V. chef shows, as it is to view pornography? If St Basil could say of himself that he was "not a virgin" though he had never known a woman, what chance does Joe Bloggs have of remaining pure?

And here is an even more difficult question: why is ecstatic sexual union with a large number of partners not love? You may argue that love without responsibility is not love - but what if people decided to live in a sexual commune, where physical love would be as freely expressed as social responsibility, e.g. children being communally cared for, health issues attended to etc etc. In other words, apart from (a) and (b) given above, what about (c) adultery is the opposite of purity? Why is it wrong to love more than one person in body and soul?

Which brings us back to gay marriage. The strongest argument in favour of it is that it is love between two members of the same sex, and marriage even encourages monogamous "respect", expressed as a commitment between the partners. Hard to argue with - unless that "love" is not really love, and monogamy is only really meaningful across the sexes (but why?)...

Lots of difficult questions I'm afraid...

In Christ
Byron

[Max Percy]

The satisfaction of one's sexual desires has nothing to do with salvation or holiness.


While I agree that just satisfaction is problematic, That does not really seem to be the case for sexual desire. How do you understand the Song of Songs and/or the frequency of the metaphor of Bride/Bridegroom for Church and the Lord, etc...

[Jan Sunqvist]

Dear all,


Now a general question: is lust wrong because (a) it makes us worship the creature rather than the Creator, and (b) it aims at our own selfish pleasure, and in doing so renders persons into objects?



That's interesting. I am not sure why St. Paul seems to say the case that only homosexuality is a result of worshipping the created (flesh?) rather then Creator? Is heterosexual lust not the same?

[Andrew Pantelli]

In my understanding of this issue, a Civil Partnership is acceptable, giving the couple security of tenure and of the finances. Marraige can never, ever be a homosexual union, this is against the purpose of God, creating man and woman.

[Kosta]

Civil partnerships or whatever one calls it are not neccesary and simply a reflection of the depraved arrogant foolish west. It does not benefit society, does nothing to stabilize society and offers nothing to the couple except for a piece of paper. Its a fraud just like paying for a certificate of absolution was a few hundred years ago. It was invented by these evil politicians to gather votes by forming a new interest group. It will cease as soon as the government that prints out and files these union certificates collapses.

I will say it again love is not an aspect of the marriage ceremony. Theres only one reference to love in the entire ceremony found in the betrothal and it has nothing to do with having the 'hots' for your spouse. The concept of love is a modern myth just like the tooth fairy, a great marketing tool for love songs, romantic movies and valentines day.

[Father David Moser]

In my understanding of this issue, a Civil Partnership is acceptable, giving the couple security of tenure and of the finances. Marraige can never, ever be a homosexual union, this is against the purpose of God, creating man and woman.

A "civil partnership" is a construct of the secular state which extends the "contractural" and civil rights inherent in civil marriage to two people who are not married. The "civil partnership" is in fact all that the state can offer, even to heterosexual married couples since the state cannot bestow the sacraments on anyone. In that sense a civil partnership is really of no importance either way to the the Church.

However, the very different issue that this brings up is the role of the Church in the life of the society in which she is found. "Civil Partnerships" have come into being as a result of political pressure to have homosexual unions recognized by the state as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Thus do we, in the Church, sit back and let the state do what it will - or do we work to convert and sanctify the society in which we live. In a Christian culture, the role of the state is to create and maintain a society which is most amenable to the working out of our salvation. Does the secular recognition of the state of a civil homosexual union as the legal equivalent of civil marriage fulfill that role? I think not! When the state departs from its place as the maintainer of the salvific culture, then the Church must exert whatever influence she might have to draw the state back into harmony with the Church.

This might be a different discussion - or perhaps the most reasonable continuation of the original question - How does the Church in a society where the state is divorced from the Church (separation of Church and state) properly influence the state and the society to draw it into greater harmony with the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Jan Sunqvist]

In a Christian culture, the role of the state is to create and maintain a society which is most amenable to the working out of our salvation. Does the secular recognition of the state of a civil homosexual union as the legal equivalent of civil marriage fulfill that role? I think not! When the state departs from its place as the maintainer of the salvific culture, then the Church must exert whatever influence she might have to draw the state back into harmony with the Church.



Fr David Moser


Dear Fr David,

with all due respect, this issue is very confusing to me. I think the separation of Church and state is necessary. Perhaps I believe this because my faith is weak. But if the Christian culture influences the state past the simple 'live and let live (do not hurt, at least in a universally accepted meaning of hurt)' philosophy then our faith and 'works' are not 'voluntary' somehow. I am not sure how to put this, but despite believing that homosexual marriage for an Orthodox Christian is obviously not an option, I still believe that civil unions between same sex couples is a human right if two individuals so choose. Is this belief of mine un-Christian? I don't know why but this sense of allowing people their freedom of belief is very important to me.
If I put myself into anyone of my non-believing friends shooes I cannot see how denying them this right is acceptable. What other option do they have? How could I convince someone to live a celibate lifestyle or marry a person of the opposite sex if they don't see any point to it? Besides what if there is a same sex couple that wishes to live together, and be recognised as such by society but does not commit the sin against nature?
I think the Church obviously has the right to proclaim the Faith, and its teaching, but if it ever goes beyond that, is it not beginning to impinge on our free will?


Please forgive me my heretical opinions

[Paul Cowan]

From what I have read, I think it profitable to go back to pre-bolshevik Russia where the Tsar was under the authority of the church and the church that of the Tsar. The church and state need to work together for the betterment of its people. Not one to dominate and persecute the other.


I still believe that civil unions between same sex couples is a human right if two individuals so choose

This is a falacy of the movement. The ONLY human rights we have are to breathe. We don't have a "right" to drive a car, or to have a job or to live in a house or even to eat. God said to Adam by the sweat of your brow you will eat. It wasn't a right as it was in the Garden. To assume eating is a right means to assume someone else must furnish it to you. Jesus said we will have the poor with us always. And it is right to give alms. I don't have to if I don't want to and until I am forced to give charity, the hungry will remain hungry.

Civil contracts are the same. They are not a right. If two people want to live together as room mates to share the expenses as many do in college, great for them. But to afford the the same civil rights as married people is NOT a human right. It is nothing more than a tax code.

People are allowed to believe as they wish. I suppose that is another human right. When their fre beliefs run up against God's laws, they either can ignore it and stay in their sin or they can reevaluate their position and come around to a Godly lifestyle. You don't have to convince your friends of anything. Celibate, marriage or just being room mates. THEY will have make their own decisions. I have gay friends. I don't approve of how they live, but I am not in a position to condemn them either. I can respect them as people, I can share my faith, but at the end of the day, I go to my home and they to theirs.

Can the church impinge on our free will? Or are we living in a manner that brazenly defies our creator and His will? I think I am a very sinful man. God does not need to change to accomodate me. I need to change to accomodate Him. Since the Church is His representative here on earth, the church dictates how we live and behave. Not our passions.

Paul

[Kosta]

If western homosexuals werent so arrogant and truly wanted equality then they would argue for the state to abolish civil mariage altogether. Instead they want to assume the tax perks that married people have to the expense of everyone else and every other living arrangement. Married people are granted tax perks because bearing children is an expense and its in the interest of the state to maintain the family which in turn creates a firm tax base and a stable community. They 'may' also want to keep tabs on marriages in order to know whom to go after for child support, civil marriage was an insurance policy for the woman, so she wont be a single mom and jobless to boot.

Israel and Lebanon and (Greece until 1982) and other countries never had civil unions, they know that government is not meant to be in the marriage business. In the west they no longer even remember why the government may have an interest in keeping tabs on married heterosexuals. Its only because heterosexuals procreate and increase the population, so a state has an interest in that. Why does the state want to grow and offer a piece of paper to people that cannot affect the census or social services ? Will married homosexuals ever be the cause for a need to expand schools or create an increase in sanitation services or public transportation?

If 100 homosexual couples reside in an apartment building what concern is it to the state?? On the other hand if 100 heterosexual couples reside in an apartment building with an average procreation rate of 2.1 births per couple, within a few years that swells to over 400 people putting a demand on public services. BBut the politicians of today do not care for common sense but cater to the arrogant western homosexual in exchange for his vote. Truly it is a demonocracy. Amazingly it was homosexuals who vehemently cried that people should keep out of their bedrooms, now there going to cityhall to let everyone know about it.

[Jan Sunqvist]

From what I have read, I think it profitable to go back to pre-bolshevik Russia where the Tsar was under the authority of the church and the church that of the Tsar. The church and state need to work together for the betterment of its people. Not one to dominate and persecute the other.





Personally I am quite happy not to live under such Church/state relations. What if the Tsar gets overthrown and the next ruling Tsar or whatever changes his religion?? Must I then become a follower of this new religion?

As to the whole issue of civil unions and taxes, i think the issue is not really just the taxes or hospital visitation rights etc, but simply dignity. I or the state should choose to recognise them as a couple because THEY so wish. That's part of their life, their belief. If I wish to be recognised as a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist by the state, that again is my right, a right in a civilised democratic society. Perhaps those are 'depraved western' values to some, but I am extremely glad for them.

Besides, is it really that unimaginable that other than sexual attraction, same sex couples can have genuine feeling of love and care for one another? I can accept that homosexual lust misses the mark, and is not what God intended, but how could I say all your feelings for one another are wrong? I just think we need to be more sensitive and not so black and white. Just my misguided opinion.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Paul writes
Can the church impinge on our free will? Or are we living in a manner that brazenly defies our creator and His will? I think I am a very sinful man. God does not need to change to accomodate me. I need to change to accomodate Him. Since the Church is His representative here on earth, the church dictates how we live and behave. Not our passions. Paul, I agree with you. I've never felt that God or religion should accommodate itself to human passions. Yet I also agree with Jan, who writes
I think the issue is not really just the taxes or hospital visitation rights etc, but simply dignity. I or the state should choose to recognise them as a couple because THEY so wish. That's part of their life, their belief. If I wish to be recognised as a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist by the state, that again is my right, a right in a civilised democratic society. Perhaps those are 'depraved western' values to some, but I am extremely glad for them.[...]is it really that unimaginable that other than sexual attraction, same sex couples can have genuine feeling of love and care for one another? I can accept that homosexual lust misses the mark, and is not what God intended, but how could I say all your feelings for one another are wrong? I just think we need to be more sensitive and not so black and white. Fr Thomas Hopko, in his book on Christianity and same sex attraction, suggests civil unions ought to be permitted just in order not to inspire notions of hatred and feelings of discrimination; some in the gay community may understand what Christians mean by such terms as 'nature', but surely not many will take kindly to being denied what they rightly or wrongly perceive as a human right to self-expression. If tax benefits turn out to be biased in favour of such couples, the government can and should pass laws to restore fairness to heterosexual couples with children. A person in the grip of a passion - heterosexual or homosexual - is probably unable to, or perhaps just doesn't want to hear any arguments to the contrary of his (self) will: they are like persons weakened by a sickness (I mean passion here, homosexual or not), and their strength to resist is compromised. Yet they may have other redeeming features, as Jan says; they may be a good person in other ways, loving and considerate. Consider the woman Jesus forgave (and urged not to sin again), for she 'loved much' - man is not a black-and-white image. So I think the Church has a responsibility to name passions, calling a spade a spade based on its traditional wisdom and on an informed current understanding of the issues at hand; but I don't think the Church should use any force other than the persuasion of grace. If there are Christian politicians, good; they can use, as Fr David suggests, their rhetoric and their influence to promote a society based on Christian values - which may include voting against the passage of civil union laws, if that's how the Lord directs them. But God may also inspire us to vote for such laws, may he not? Are we to define what God inspires? I'm just thinking out loud here... If not all politicians are Christian, that's sad, but it's preferable to resorting to suppression, totalitarianism or deceit, which are surely not the ways of the Church. Render unto Ceasar...

In Christ
Byron

[Andrew Pantelli]

Forgive me in advance for my forthrightness, I do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings here.
For the last sixteen years I have been involved in 'helping' those who have been abused, marginalised, and corrupted, and in turn, became the mirror image , in some cases, of those who had abused them. I have said this, to hopefully show you that I love all! I do not judge the fact that a man has a sex change, I do not challenge the fact that someone tells me that they were born to love others of the same sex. I do not challenge when someone says 'it is my right'! Where is this leading us to though?
They say that pediohpiles are born that way, and there is no possible way for them to alter their lifestyle. An Iman some years ago said to me 'dont be surprised if we dont soon see a pediophile walking down the road, holding the hand of a child, and both agreeing with each other that they love each other and also that it is their 'Right'! Would all those that would not like to hurt someones feelings, accept this? Or, if one wishes for something different, go to Belgium, to a certain farm, take your pick! they too, would surely claim that it is their 'Right' Nothing I have said is new. What is new, is that at a visit to the National Gallery here in London, to listen to a recital, the overtly homosexual and camp singer sang a song called 'Street boy' with explicit lyrics about sex with a boy prostitute. This event occured at 6pm and had families there. The disturbing thought that I was left with, was of the audience giving him a standing ovation! I have recieved an appology from the NG. History shows that when homosexuality, decadence, is in the ascendancy that we are in for a correction.

[Jan Sunqvist]

Dear Andrew,

the state and secular society does not grant paedophiles that right simply because it deems persons below a certain age of maturity unable to give their consent in full understanding of what they are doing. This is obviously there for the protection of minors. There are laws about this in most countries, it actually makes sense.
I am not sure if this is what you are implying with the Belgian farm reference, but animals are not able to give their consent either, and so it is considered inhumane, and frankly I find this comparison itself inhumane and lacking the very dignity and respect that the gay-rights folk are fighting for, in my opinion...

[Anna Stickles]

Jan and others,

Maybe it can help to think of it this way.

The Church throughout history, even in the OT, has had the job of being the culture's conscience in whatever way this best can be accomplished. Our conscience does not have the power to force obedience, but it at least has the job of making us uncomfortable with our sin. Our conscience doesn't take away our freedom or force us to believe something, we can always ignore it and try to shut it up, but it is something God given to help us toward what is truly good and right.

It is unfortunate that Christian political action often tries to go beyond these bounds, thinking of itself in terms, not of the culture's conscience but of being the culture's police force. Once this line is crossed, I think we have stepped beyond what God has called the Church to. But if we give up our role as the culture's conscience then we have abandoned them in their sickness, we are no longer acting as our brother's keeper.

Indeed in Rom 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV)St Paul warns us that God does allow this to happen, but woe to us, if even in the midst of this the Church abandons her role as intercessor and prophet praying for the people and warning them of the judgment to come.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

It is unfortunate that Christian political action often tries to go beyond these bounds, thinking of itself in terms, not of the culture's conscience but of being the culture's police force. Once this line is crossed, I think we have stepped beyond what God has called the Church to. But if we give up our role as the culture's conscience then we have abandoned them in their sickness, we are no longer acting as our brother's keeper.

Where in the Fathers do you find this "line," Anna? It is true the Church itself is an essentially voluntary and "akratic" organization, which does not itself use force against anyone, but this has never been taken to mean that Orthodox Christians may not participate in government or that government may never use force consistent with Christian values. In fact, the Church has always urged government to use force when appropriate to restrain evil. That's how we got rid of gladitorial games.

[Anna Stickles]

Individual Christians participating in govt or the govt using force is not something I have a problem with at all. I think you missed what I was trying to say.

[Kosta]

As to the whole issue of civil unions and taxes, i think the issue is not really just the taxes or hospital visitation rights etc, but simply dignity. I or the state should choose to recognise them as a couple because THEY so wish. That's part of their life, their belief. If I wish to be recognised as a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist by the state, that again is my right, a right in a civilised democratic society. Perhaps those are 'depraved western' values to some, but I am extremely glad for them.





Besides, is it really that unimaginable that other than sexual attraction, same sex couples can have genuine feeling of love and care for one another? I can accept that homosexual lust misses the mark, and is not what God intended, but how could I say all your feelings for one another are wrong? I just think we need to be more sensitive and not so black and white. Just my misguided opinion.


The issues of hospital visitation rights simply demonstrates how low and how arrogant the homosexual lobby has become. Anyone can vist any person in a hospital without needing to take some polygraph test for sexual orientation. Likewise if a patients in ICU, many times no one is permitted to visit. Medical decisions can be made on behalf of a patient if the patient gives power of attorney. When my grandmother was ill and i was the next of kin she still had to give me power of attorney to make her medical decisions, in front of a notary. Finances? Anyone can share a joint bank account or a mortgage or whatever. Gay unions may very well be the biggest scam that the depraved western civilization has wrought upon mankind.

When my cousin married a few months ago, he was living with his fiancee for a few years. What drove them to eventually get married? Because when they decided to start a family his girlfriend wanted the insurance policy of a civil union before she started having his children. And this is precisely THE ONLY REASON why a government would want to be in the marriage business. A government NEEDS TO PROMOTE married couples over the alternative; which are single moms on the welfare system.
The depraved western civilization on the other hand has forgotten this common sense reasoning as to why they waste taxpayer money to perform civil marriages. Because in the days when women were stay at home housewives and before DNA testing for paternity, a single mom was a major financial burden on the system, civil unions eliminated this social problem by linking which father is responsible.

Gay unions on the other hand simply do not benefit society, has no effect on the community and thus governments should have no role in regulating them. In fact legalized gay unions have become the source of discrimination. Why is a gay couple living under the same domicile afforded benefits but two sisters or brothers are not? Why are two roomates not given tax perks simply because there not shacking up with each other? Again benefits and tax perks are afforded to married heterosexuals because rearing children is a huge financial burden and its in the interest of the state that they do it well.

[David Puline]

Hello. I think most christians/and many Orthodox Christians really do not take for serious what scripture or even the philokalia say. The philokalia is a must read to deal/kill the passions. I am reading Vol 3 on the 8 stages of contemplation by St Peter of Damascus. The 1st stage is really seeing ourselves and our faults, short-comings and sins before we can go to the 2nd stage The main problem that christians may have is dissecting too much what secularism and liberalism has to say which has invaded the church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

This whole discussion is just another symptom, more evidence that mankind is working hard to destroy itself. Somewhere in the communal consciousness, we KNOW this is wrong. Birthrates in western countries are dropping. Abortions are rising. Hardly a day goes by where we do not read about some father or mother murdering their own children. It is as if western society has determined that it is too sick to continue and seems intent on committing cultural suicide by wiping out future generations.

The end may indeed be coming sooner than we think. As Kosta points out, many countries are indeed actively discouraging procreation and the nuclear family. All the more reason to keep our eyes on Christ, to pray, to raise Christian families and strive to be lights in a darkening place, where many no longer want light, who do NOT want to "see" what they do. Pray for strength and faith in these dark times.

[Jan Sunqvist]

A government NEEDS TO PROMOTE married couples over the alternative; which are single moms on the welfare system.


Dear Kosta,

I totally agree. I think a government also needs to promote same sex civil unions over the alternative; single, promiscuous gay population spreading sexually transmitted diseases. This benefits society tremendously. The secular wisdom will also tell you that when people settle down in some kind of family unit at least, they become more productive to the society too.
To me the far greater evil is the notion of 'sexual liberation' which advertises happiness through hedonism and promiscuity.

[Father David Moser]

Just a reminder that this forum is not about politics or social practice - it is about Orthodoxy in its patristic, monastic and liturgical expression. Please refrain from political or social commentary and focus your remarks on the teaching of the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Bauman]

I am amazed at the sloppy thinking of many even within the Church on moral issues: The teaching of the Church is clear, the truth about human beings is clear (male and female), the purpose of marriage is clear from a Bibilical and Patristic perspective. Same sex attraction is a temptation to sin, acting on that attraction is sin. Normal human affection is not, in and of itself, Godly. That is what needs to be taught, practiced and accepted if one is even going to titularly call oneself Orthodox or even Chrisitan. There is no need for a 'dialog' with the world inside or outside the Church, only prophetic witness in word and deed. That includes paying more attention to the whole practice of marriage within the Church so that is too does not just mimic the sad state to which it has descended in the world. Liturgical discipline for those who live in sin (my how archaic that sounds) or seek to practice some version of serial monogomy. Our opinions and preferences really don't matter if they are not in accord with the manner in which God created us (99.9% of them BTW). That is exactly why the Church holds fast to Holy Tradition and the faith once delivered to the saints. The only purpose the Church serves is to be the witness in the midst of darkness, a beacon calling all to salvation, the living truth in earth. She is not meant to be an ethnic social/cultural club (pick your ethnic) dedictated to promoting worldly living and making everyone comfortable and at home with themselves. Just the opposite.

The more government and culture stray from the revealed truth about God and man, the darker it will become and the more difficult it will be to uphold the truth. Persecution in the 'west' will be just as rampant as it is in Islam. It has already begun and is focused on blessing homosexuality and sexual depravity in all its forms (ultimately). We have to decide who/what we serve. There is no fence, there is no reasoning with untruth. There is no accomodation with evil. The Church will egage the world either in prophecy or hypocrisy. Take your pick.

We need an equal emphasis on the manner of living a life of repentance, sacramentally and daily, along with priests trained and dedicated to being good spiritual guides and confessors. We are all in a state of rebellion against God and only a life of repentance allows us to be reconcilled and enter into the salvation which He won for us on the Cross.

When priests stray in teaching or in practice they, too, should be brought to contrition or defrocked. Those are the canons after all.

People will leave, no doubt, but not as many as some fear and the Church will gain strength in the process. The world will see a lilving alternative to the souless, hedonistic and egalitarian nihilism being practiced everywhere. That is love, not the the emotionally depraved sentimentality to which so many 'leaders' call us.

Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Nothing less brings life.

[Michael Bauman]

Just a reminder that this forum is not about politics or social practice - it is about Orthodoxy in its patristic, monastic and liturgical expression. Please refrain from political or social commentary and focus your remarks on the teaching of the Church.

Fr David Moser

Bless, Father, but on the moral teaching of the Church what you seem to ask is neither possible nor responsible. Just affirming that homosexual practice is sinful, that homosexual practice has to be repented of if one is to share in the sacraments of the Church is both a social and poltical statement even if only by inference. The Church is incarnate is she not? The life of Christ is everywhere present and fills all things does it not? We are called to prophetic witness, in the world, not of it, are we not? The liturgics, the Fathers and monastics throughout history have affirmed such witness have the not?

If your concern is to caution us to avoid using worldly criteria and political categories for discussing the life of the Church rather than using the teachings of the Church to discern the way of the world and the content of our own lives, then you have a point. Your wording above, however, is not clear, at least not to me.

[Father David Moser]

If your concern is to caution us to avoid using worldly criteria and political categories for discussing the life of the Church rather than using the teachings of the Church to discern the way of the world and the content of our own lives, then you have a point. Your wording above, however, is not clear, at least not to me.

My concern is that as one of the moderators of this forum to keep the discussion focused on the purpose of the forum. There are plenty of places on the internet for political and socio/cultural discussions - what governments should do, what people should do, what kind of pressures create a particular societal phenomena etc - but that place is not here. Here we talk about Orthodoxy and everything must be centered in the teaching, tradition and life of the Orthodox Church. This forum is not here to solve all the problems of the world or to provide a broad spectrum perspective. This forum is here for the narrow and specific purpose of talking about the Orthodox faith in its patristic, liturgical and monastic tradition.

Fr David Moser - sometime moderator

[Max Percy]

Where in the Fathers do you find this "line," Anna? It is true the Church itself is an essentially voluntary and "akratic" organization, which does not itself use force against anyone, but this has never been taken to mean that Orthodox Christians may not participate in government or that government may never use force consistent with Christian values. In fact, the Church has always urged government to use force when appropriate to restrain evil. That's how we got rid of gladitorial games.

This reminds me of a quote from Metropolitan Anthony The excerpt was quoted in an article that appeared in Le Messager in 2009.
“It seems to me, and I am personally convinced, that the Church must never speak from a position of strength. It ought not to be one of the forces influencing this or that state. The Church ought to be, if you will, just as powerless as God himself, which does not coerce but which calls and unveils the beauty and the truth of things without imposing them...As soon as the Church begins to exercise power, it loses its most profound characteristic which is divine love [i.e.] the understanding of those it is called to save and not to smash…”

While symphonia has been a historical reality associated with the Church, I am not sure that it is the best. I seem to recall Fr. Florovsky labeling it as an experiment that has failed.

[Jan Sunqvist]

which does not coerce but which calls and unveils the beauty and the truth of things without imposing them...



Thank goodness for this quote. This is what makes Christianity so much more powerful than Judaism or Islam.

[Max Percy]

It has already begun and is focused on blessing homosexuality and sexual depravity in all its forms (ultimately). We have to decide who/what we serve. There is no fence, there is no reasoning with untruth. There is no accomodation with evil. The Church will engage the world either in prophecy or hypocrisy. Take your pick. ...

Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Nothing less brings life.

I agree with your focus on repentance, etc... The trouble to me, and I imagine for our priests, is that the contrast you highlight is never that stark in the actual people that come through the doors looking for Christ's truth. It is always mixed. I agree that emotionally depraved sentimentality should be rejected, but must be rejected for the stock broker or lawyer who cheats and lies, for the military persons hailed as heroes by our sentimental culture but who may=-- or may not-- be murderers of women and children, it must be rejected for bankers/usurers who participate in the interest game which creates wealth by doing nothing. I agree with Herman here: we KNOW these things are wrong. This sentimentality must be rejected for all who deem themselves "respectable" in any fashion-- and I accuse myself here-- but who turn away from the Gospel for their respectability. Just look at our various Church advisory boards, committees, etc... There are not a lot of fishermen. We value what the world values... and this is a counter witness.

[Michael Bauman]

Ok Max, pastoral response to any sin must be one of mercy, guidance and blessing, but come on. When groups of sinners band together with those who wish to excuse their sin in a concerted effort to overturn the moral teaching of the Church: There can be no dialog. It is neither merciful nor loving to excuse sin just because calling it sin makes folks uncomfortable or ashamed. Isn't that the point of naming sin, whatever the sin is? The labeling of anyone who continues to support the moral teaching of the Church on homosexuality as 'homophobes' is just the old totalitarian game. It has no real content and is intended to push 'nice' people around. BTW the word nice has the same root as ignorant.

And please, don't throw the military in the same basket with lust, greed, fornication, sloth, anger. Some military people in the course of their orders kill other human beings. That is a tragedy for both the killer and the one killed and must be dealt with pastorally in order to restore the killer to wholeness. However, it is not as you describe it. It is not, ipso facto, murder. The Church has known that for her entire history The Church is not a pacifist organization nor has she ever been. Being a soldier does not automatically compromise one's salvation as the sins you mention and as homosexuality does. To try to make it so is just another example of the political sentimentality that often comes in tandem with approval of abortion (strangely enough) and approval of homosexuality as normal. There can and needs to be a profitable dialog on military service and war in the modern era. It is a completely different category. Combining it, as you do, muddies the water and weakens the traditional witness against the moral depravity of the current age.

Whoever comes in the door, with whatever sins, the call is the same: repent. There can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation if a sin is excused because of worldly political pressure. In that case the Church looses her savor and will be trampled under foot, however we loose our savor, no matter what sin we compromise with. Whatever the sin, if one is not willing to submit to the process of repentance and healing the Church teaches and embodies, there is no reason to be a member of the Church. That goes for fornicators, greedy malefactors (who often financially support the Church out of their own sense of power and guilt), anyone who persists in sin. However, it is even worse to call on the Church to stop calling sin, sin. That is the point. That is the agenda that must not be allowed.

Prophetic witness to the truth combined with merciful and compassionate pastoral care for all those wounded and struggling with sin. That is our job. That means, BTW, public witness against the political establishment most of the time. No more bishops comparing the President to Alexander the Great, or kow-towing to tryannical foreign leaders, or communing members who publically violate the moral teachings of the Chruch in the private and/or public lives like several members of the NY legislature.

[Michael Bauman]

Father, I don't mean to be contentious, but I really don't understand the separation you are trying to make.

[Evan]

I agree with your focus on repentance, etc... The trouble to me, and I imagine for our priests, is that the contrast you highlight is never that stark in the actual people that come through the doors looking for Christ's truth. It is always mixed. I agree that emotionally depraved sentimentality should be rejected, but must be rejected for the stock broker or lawyer who cheats and lies, for the military persons hailed as heroes by our sentimental culture but who may=-- or may not-- be murderers of women and children, it must be rejected for bankers/usurers who participate in the interest game which creates wealth by doing nothing. I agree with Herman here: we KNOW these things are wrong. This sentimentality must be rejected for all who deem themselves "respectable" in any fashion-- and I accuse myself here-- but who turn away from the Gospel for their respectability. Just look at our various Church advisory boards, committees, etc... There are not a lot of fishermen. We value what the world values... and this is a counter witness.

Mr. Percy,
In charity, there is more than "depraved sentimentality" at work in our liturgical prayers for those in the armed forces, who lay down their lives to preserve the lives and (of late depreciating, it must be said) political freedom of their fellow citizens and the Church's acknowledgement that finance can be a noble enterprise (our very interaction on this discussion board is the fruit of investment in technologies, and interest is simply a means of ensuring that productive use is made of a loan one has made-- every moment that money/resources loaned are not being used productively is a moment it's out of the hands of someone who might be able to use it productively). Those who strive daily to preserve our earthly lives and political freedom and those who give financial support to activities that would not otherwise take place are indeed worthy of our respect insofar as they do so in a godly manner. Our sentiments towards such activities ought to be categorically different from that of the homosexual vice.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that there's a parity between such "sentimentality" and that expressed towards the homosexual vice in our present culture. You qualify your criticism of certain professionals by referring to specific practices that are obviously worthy of condemnation and would not attach to all such professionals. Hopefully, you can clarify your comments in light of the concern I've expressed.

As to the primary issue raised by this thread, homosexual conduct is the embodiment of a lie about the structure of creation, the physical expression of the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. That does not mean that every homosexual is an idolator-- St. Paul's description of the crime against nature in Romans serves is part of a larger description of a morally depraved society, not of any individual. But if we have any interest in working out our salvation in a civil society that does not embrace what God has condemned, I think we are obliged to work to the extent that we can in resisting the imposition of laws that approve evil (being conscious of the fact, of course, that we are obliged as a matter of conscience to obey civil authorities unless expressly commanded to do evil ourselves.) Civil society, though not salvific and a product of the fall, is here for our benefit in a fallen world, to promote good and discourage evil, and we must work, with God's help ) to press it along towards fulfilling its high vocation. We must always, of course, be mindful of the fact that only one perfect society ever has or ever will exist and it is not the fruit of sinful man's labor.

Thus St. Irenaeus ("Against Heresies," Book V, Chapter 24):

"For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: For he bears not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him who does evil. And for this reason too, magistrates themselves, having laws as a clothing of righteousness whenever they act in a just and legitimate manner, shall not be called in question for their conduct, nor be liable to punishment. But whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner, so that under the fear of human rule, men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wickedness among the nations. And considered from this point of view, those who exact tribute from us are God's ministers, serving for this very purpose."

In Christ,
Evan

[Jan Sunqvist]

But if we have any interest in working out our salvation in a civil society that does not embrace what God has condemned, I think we are obliged to work to the extent that we can in resisting the imposition of laws that approve evil (being conscious of the fact, of course, that we are obliged as a matter of conscience to obey civil authorities unless expressly commanded to do evil ourselves.) Civil society, though not salvific and a product of the fall, is here for our benefit in a fallen world, to promote good and discourage evil, and we must work, with God's help ) to press it along towards fulfilling its high vocation.


Secular democratic society has a different idea of what 'evil' is. It is based on live and let live (do no harm to other) philosophy. I hope I never have to live in a society/under a government which defines what 'evil' is, based on any one religious dogma/revelation.

[Jan Sunqvist]

'The assumption that God created man and woman with the intention of them
engaging in carnal, sexual relations is faulty and can lead to dangerous
conclusions. God created mankind in an unfallen, sinless, pure, angelic state.
Carnal relations, as we can see from the Fathers cited above, came about as a
result of the fall. Finally, there came a time in the life of the Old Testament
Church, when it was time for it to be replaced by the New Testament, revealed
by the incarnate Word of God, in Whom man's nature was finally made whole.
Man's wholeness was not accomplished through the carnal union that
occurred in blessed marriages throughout the Old Testament, but rather
man's wholeness was accomplished in Christ, Whose incarnation occurred
without carnal relations.'

After posting on this thread, I read this quote on 'Sanctity of Sex' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?8505-Sanctity-of-Sex). It seemed very interesting to consider this in relation to this topic of same sex attraction, as related to man's original nature vs. man's fallen nature, and also the centrality of 'wholeness accomplished in Christ' vs blessed (or unblessed for that matter) marriages.

[Paul Cowan]

But we do live in that society. And we are apt to repeat history if we are not vigilent.

[Jan Sunqvist]

But we do live in that society. And we are apt to repeat history if we are not vigilent.

Yes, that may unfortunately be true. But again, repentance can never be forced.

[Father David Moser]

Yes, that may unfortunately be true. But again, repentance can never be forced.

No, repentance cannot be forced - but it can encouraged and supported by creating an environment that encourages virtue and discourages sinfulness. It doesn't impinge on our "free will" but a society that supports a moral and sinless life through the societal values that are embraced makes exercising our free will in a Godly manner so much easier.

Fr David Moser

[Darlene Griffith]

Secular democratic society has a different idea of what 'evil' is. It is based on live and let live (do no harm to other) philosophy. I hope I never have to live in a society/under a government which defines what 'evil' is, based on any one religious dogma/revelation.

A secular democratic society has a religious philosophy of its own and it's called secular humanism. Its facade of "live and let live" - "do no harm to others" is not unlike the popular saying in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." "Live and let live" unless of course it is a living, breathing child in the womb. Then it can be called a fetus and easily disposed of. "Live and let live" unless of course that person is elderly and draining the healthcare system of funds that could be put to better use.

"Live and let live" is a deceptive phrase masquerading as compassion when in actuality it has become a utilitarian concept applied to situations which benefit a secular democratic society that meet its goals and serve its perceived needs.

[Michael Bauman]

Our secluar society is in service to evil at the moment because it is loosing the remnants of civic and private virtue that come from Christianity. Actually Jan, democratic or paticipatory societies are based on the assumption that people will act virtuosly (more or less) without having to be corerced (most of the time). That always requires some sort of religious foundation. It did for the Athenians and it has for the English speaking people (the only societies that have ever promoted the concept of paticipatory government under a rule of law.) John Adams famously remarked that the Constitution of the U.S. could only govern a Christian people and was wholy indadequate for any other. That is because Christians are supposed to follow Christ in freedom. Without Christ, there is no freedom. We become slaves to our passions. That is reflected in our culture and our government. It works best when there is a relatively homogeneous faith foundation (one the prevails over others).

Alexis De Tocville observed with keen insight the freedom of the U.S and its dependency on the honest relgious faith

I am afraid you assume that religious faith is a constraint on freedom. I view it as a constraint on license that allows the government not to use force to restrain us.

Yes we have unparallelled bounty of goods and unprecedented material prosperity, but we are spiritually bankrupt. The deadliest rulers the earth has ever seen have been communists, virulent atheists who tried very hard to stamp out all religious faith and used the deadly force of government to inforce their will.

Government has no right to depart from virtue, in deed less right, than do we as private persons. Without a strong and virbrant faith that give live to the culture, however, they surely will.

The Church is not democratic--there is a reason for that.

[Michael Bauman]

I agree wholeheartedly Father, exactly why I feel it is essential for we Orthodox to not be in an ivory theological tower, but living the Gospel in the world as a witness. That is why I have such difficulty with what I view as a rather arbitrary split that you say is the focus of this site.

[Jan Sunqvist]

No, repentance cannot be forced - but it can encouraged and supported by creating an environment that encourages virtue and discourages sinfulness. It doesn't impinge on our "free will" but a society that supports a moral and sinless life through the societal values that are embraced makes exercising our free will in a Godly manner so much easier.

Fr David Moser

Fr David,

I agree. I guess I am going around in circles, so I promise to stop. I just wish to point out that a same sex couple also wishes to live in a society that supports a moral and sinless life, but moral and sinless in the way THEY understand what that means. Freedom to choose your religion/philosophy...

[Jan Sunqvist]

I apologise to everyone for stubbornly expressing my opinion when it is obviously not making anything constructive or enlightening come out of the dialogue. I promise to stop, and I write it too cause I had promised myself to stop, but it didn't work, perhaps when I promise in writing...

On the other hand, I am very curious if the quote of St Athanasios the Great from link in post #84, could add anything to the understanding of what 'fallen nature' really means when it comes to sexuality and all the ways it falls short of God's original creation.

[Father David Moser]

but moral and sinless in the way THEY understand what that means. Freedom to choose your religion/philosophy...

But morality and sin are not relative, but grounded in the absolutes set down by God. If "they understand" it wrong, that doesn't mean it is right, healthy or profitable - it is wrong. We believe in an absolute Truth for God, Who is Truth, is unchanging. You cannot define right and wrong, truth and falsehood, righteousness and sin in relative terms. There is One Truth and just because I want or understand the Truth to be different doesn't make it so.

Fr David

[Jan Sunqvist]

But morality and sin are not relative, but grounded in the absolutes set down by God. If "they understand" it wrong, that doesn't mean it is right, healthy or profitable - it is wrong. We believe in an absolute Truth for God, Who is Truth, is unchanging. You cannot define right and wrong, truth and falsehood, righteousness and sin in relative terms. There is One Truth and just because I want or understand the Truth to be different doesn't make it so.

Fr David

Yes, I completely agree. Never claimed otherwise. This was the lastest one I promise...

[Evan]

Fr David,

I agree. I guess I am going around in circles, so I promise to stop. I just wish to point out that a same sex couple also wishes to live in a society that supports a moral and sinless life, but moral and sinless in the way THEY understand what that means. Freedom to choose your religion/philosophy...

To borrow a phrase, prudence may dictate that persons be allowed, in a secular, democratic society whose foundations are not provided by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but "the laws of nature and nature's God" (although certainly the Framers did not preclude the identification of the former with the latter, nothing in the Framers' political thought requires this) to "choose" their religious/philosophical beliefs. They ought be free, in a certain sense, to believe whatever they like, even if we are equally free to reprove them for such beliefs, should they be presented in a manner that invites debate or challenge.

However, we are not speaking here of mere beliefs, but relationships that in the vast majority of cases involve conduct that undercuts the foundations of our society, to say nothing of the consistent witness of the Church. Certainly the state's recognition of such relationships constitutes tacit approval of such relationships-- that's why people on "both sides of the debate" are so invested in ensuring that the state either does or does not recognize them. Society only takes root in the first place because families are not sufficient unto themselves, and families emerge naturally only from the union of man and woman (not that reproduction is the only "purpose" of sex, of course). To "bless" union between same-sex persons is to encourage activity that is essentially hopeless and destructive of society itself.

I note in this context that Thomas Jefferson, hardly an "orthodox" believer in any sense of the word and a vigorous defender of freedom of conscience, introduced a bill in 1779 that would have mandated severe punishments for sodomy (I will forego the details here). We live in a republic framed by men who presumed that certain notions of virtue and vice were written on the souls of every man and would be accessible to all. We should strive, I think, to restore those notions to their proper place of prominence in public life. Certain actions are obviously wrong and harmful to society, and should not be given encouragement.

In Christ,
Evan

[Paul Cowan]

I apologise to everyone for stubbornly expressing my opinion when it is obviously not making anything constructive or enlightening come out of the dialogue. I promise to stop, and I write it too cause I had promised myself to stop, but it didn't work, perhaps when I promise in writing...

On the other hand, I am very curious if the quote of St Athanasios the Great from link in post #84, could add anything to the understanding of what 'fallen nature' really means when it comes to sexuality and all the ways it falls short of God's original creation.

Dear Jan,

I am sorry you are ending this dialogue with this position. I don't know what "other Christian" faith you practise from your profile page, but there has been nothing BUT constructive and enlightening coming out of this discussion. YOU just don't want to accept it from an Orthodox prospective. You will not convince Orthodox to abandon their positions on this topic regardless how you word or wrap yourself in the gay propoganda.

I also think the understanding of "fallen nature" is pretty self evident here. Before the fall Adam and Eve (a man and a woman) were celibate. They were as the angels. Since the fall, we have clothed ourselves in our fallen nature (in our passionate sinfulness) and over the millenia we are now discussing the rights and priveledges of not only noncelibates buts those who are trying to force their "rights" of perverted equality on those who do not adhere to their particular passions.

God does not move. Nor do His rules. WE however do all we can to interpret those rules to suit our own passions even when doing so is completely contrary to what God mandated. To not see that is just ignorant blindness. (I am talking to the masses not you on that last sentence.) I do this. We all do this to some degree.

This may be a poor analogy...The boss tells me to finish a project by the end of the day. Pretty straightforward right? Well what if I start thinking to myself "Did he mean by the end of today or the end of any day, maybe tomorrow? DO I really need to finish it today or can I just get pretty close and finish first thing in the morning before he comes in to work. Do I personally need to do this task or can I solicit someone else to help me or can I just delegate it to someone else and get off the hook altogether. What if I delegate it to someone else, tell them it is due before the boss arrives in the morning then I can work on something else and be twice as productive? Won't he be proud of me?

What do you think? What did the boss say? You can see how warped I made his instructions. Do you not see the parallels? Now consider the "boss" has been gone for 7500 years or even just 2000 years. How did the vinedressers in the gospel treat God's servants and finally His Son? They beat them and killed them because the Owner, God, had been an absentee landowner for so long.

We have to do the last thing He told us or He will not entrust to do the next thing. Whatever that last thing was.

Paul

[Anna Stickles]

On the other hand, I am very curious if the quote of St Athanasios the Great from link in post #84, could add anything to the understanding of what 'fallen nature' really means when it comes to sexuality and all the ways it falls short of God's original creation.

There are a number of threads here that deal with this topic if you wanted to search for them. Unfortunately, like this thread, things tend to heat up at times with people simply throwing opinions around rather then engaging in constructive dialogue of the Patristic position. We all fall into it at times.

[Max Percy]

Ok Max, pastoral response to any sin must be one of mercy, guidance and blessing, but come on. When groups of sinners band together with those who wish to excuse their sin in a concerted effort to overturn the moral teaching of the Church: There can be no dialog. It is neither merciful nor loving to excuse sin just because calling it sin makes folks uncomfortable or ashamed. Isn't that the point of naming sin, whatever the sin is? The labeling of anyone who continues to support the moral teaching of the Church on homosexuality as 'homophobes' is just the old totalitarian game. It has no real content and is intended to push 'nice' people around. BTW the word nice has the same root as ignorant.

And please, don't throw the military in the same basket with lust, greed, fornication, sloth, anger. Some military people in the course of their orders kill other human beings. That is a tragedy for both the killer and the one killed and must be dealt with pastorally in order to restore the killer to wholeness. However, it is not as you describe it. It is not, ipso facto, murder. The Church has known that for her entire history The Church is not a pacifist organization nor has she ever been. Being a soldier does not automatically compromise one's salvation as the sins you mention and as homosexuality does. To try to make it so is just another example of the political sentimentality that often comes in tandem with approval of abortion (strangely enough) and approval of homosexuality as normal. There can and needs to be a profitable dialog on military service and war in the modern era. It is a completely different category. Combining it, as you do, muddies the water and weakens the traditional witness against the moral depravity of the current age.

Whoever comes in the door, with whatever sins, the call is the same: repent. There can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation if a sin is excused because of worldly political pressure. In that case the Church looses her savor and will be trampled under foot, however we loose our savor, no matter what sin we compromise with. Whatever the sin, if one is not willing to submit to the process of repentance and healing the Church teaches and embodies, there is no reason to be a member of the Church. That goes for fornicators, greedy malefactors (who often financially support the Church out of their own sense of power and guilt), anyone who persists in sin. However, it is even worse to call on the Church to stop calling sin, sin. That is the point. That is the agenda that must not be allowed.

Prophetic witness to the truth combined with merciful and compassionate pastoral care for all those wounded and struggling with sin. That is our job. That means, BTW, public witness against the political establishment most of the time. No more bishops comparing the President to Alexander the Great, or kow-towing to tryannical foreign leaders, or communing members who publically violate the moral teachings of the Chruch in the private and/or public lives like several members of the NY legislature.

Well, I knew I provoked when I got the "Mr. Percy" from Brother Evan. Thanks for you kind response Michael and Evan. Just because the Church has gone through a period of not being 'pacifist" -I use that word as a term of convenience, only- does not mean that the Church should not be moving in that direction. I am familiar with the arguments etc... it is just that the justification of the military always seems to be in at the very least, tension, with the words and witness of the Lord. Further, as you kindly acknowledge, there is real ambiguity in comparing the US military out being the policeman of the world and pursuing "interests" in military action abroad, and say defending one's border in the 5th century in Armenia. The fact and role of transnational corporations based on the legal fiction and probably blasphemy that the corporation is a legal "person", also radically changes the situation from anything that the vast majority of fathers knew. Your rapid exoneration of the military from "lust, greed, fornication, sloth, anger" is precisely the sentimentality is was trying to draw attention to. It strikes me that we are somehow replicating the "culture wars" here and that seems off to me- and I include my self in this.

Just to be clear with regard to Evan, the type of response from Evan regarding the military I am not suggesting any parity, however, I am saying that responses like:

"Those who strive daily to preserve our earthly lives and political freedom and those who give financial support to activities that would not otherwise take place are indeed worthy of our respect insofar as they do so in a godly manner. "

are reflective more of American civil religion than the Gospel. Respectfully, the last phrase, "in a godly manner" probably renders judgment more than exoneration. I am really asking this: Why are so wound up about gay marriage, and not the way the US military dominates budgets, expenditures, etc... as well as the other professionals I pointed to. I agree with Michael that the position of the Church is likely to be "public witness against the political establishment most of the time". I think this includes the military and economic establishments as well.
Lastly, the defense of interest/usury by Evan is interesting to me as there is way more condemnation of usury in the Scriptures(by numerical occurrence) than anything having to do with sex, homosexual or otherwise. How did we get to the point where we ignore those condemnations so easily?

So whats my point? Beats me... I guess I am grappling with the sex issue because it strikes me that there is a move through history toward a more personalist vision/experience of sex and marriage that includes Kosta's position, but there is more than that. I think it is difficult to read the Song of Songs without acknowledging that. I think the gay marriage issue is an opportunity to think through and articulate what sex and marriage are for with a fulness that far exceeds what the culture offers. I think that this requires more than referring to Leviticus.

[Evan]

Well, I knew I provoked when I got the "Mr. Percy" from Brother Evan. Thanks for you kind response Michael and Evan. Just because the Church has gone through a period of not being 'pacifist" -I use that word as a term of convenience, only- does not mean that the Church should not be moving in that direction. I am familiar with the arguments etc... it is just that the justification of the military always seems to be in at the very least, tension, with the words and witness of the Lord. Further, as you kindly acknowledge, there is real ambiguity in comparing the US military out being the policeman of the world and pursuing "interests" in military action abroad, and say defending one's border in the 5th century in Armenia. The fact and role of transnational corporations based on the legal fiction and probably blasphemy that the corporation is a legal "person", also radically changes the situation from anything that the vast majority of fathers knew. Your rapid exoneration of the military from "lust, greed, fornication, sloth, anger" is precisely the sentimentality is was trying to draw attention to. It strikes me that we are somehow replicating the "culture wars" here and that seems off to me- and I include my self in this.

Just to be clear with regard to Evan, the type of response from Evan regarding the military I am not suggesting any parity, however, I am saying that responses like:

"Those who strive daily to preserve our earthly lives and political freedom and those who give financial support to activities that would not otherwise take place are indeed worthy of our respect insofar as they do so in a godly manner. "

are reflective more of American civil religion than the Gospel. Respectfully, the last phrase, "in a godly manner" probably renders judgment more than exoneration. I am really asking this: Why are so wound up about gay marriage, and not the way the US military dominates budgets, expenditures, etc... as well as the other professionals I pointed to. I agree with Michael that the position of the Church is likely to be "public witness against the political establishment most of the time". I think this includes the military and economic establishments as well.
Lastly, the defense of interest/usury by Evan is interesting to me as there is way more condemnation of usury in the Scriptures(by numerical occurrence) than anything having to do with sex, homosexual or otherwise. How did we get to the point where we ignore those condemnations so easily?

So whats my point? Beats me... I guess I am grappling with the sex issue because it strikes me that there is a move through history toward a more personalist vision/experience of sex and marriage that includes Kosta's position, but there is more than that. I think it is difficult to read the Song of Songs without acknowledging that. I think the gay marriage issue is an opportunity to think through and articulate what sex and marriage are for with a fulness that far exceeds what the culture offers. I think that this requires more than referring to Leviticus.

Max,

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to clarify a couple of things. First, I addressed you formally because we'd not interacted before, and I understood that to be the policy of this forum. Second, "insofar as" should be taken as a qualification. IF those who serve in our military and encourage productive economic activity do so in a godly manner, then I would submit that they do well. It is my understanding that neither activity is in and of itself evil.

I would categorically distinguish a state's decision to recognize homosexual couples for the purpose of distributing benefits from a decision to spend money on military initiatives precisely because I understand it to be the Church's abiding witness that there is no place in the Christian life for homosexual activity, whereas the Church does acknowledge that, in a fallen world, the state may provide a strong defense against those who would undertake to destroy those under its care-- that this is part and parcel of not bearing the sword in vain.

It is not my understanding that the Church takes the condemnations against usury one finds in Holy Scripture to preclude the charging of interest, notwithstanding the frequent admonitions against this practice in certain of the Fathers' writings. I would welcome correction on this point.

In Christ,
Evan

[Max Percy]

It is not my understanding that the Church takes the condemnations against usury one finds in Holy Scripture to preclude the charging of interest, notwithstanding the frequent admonitions against this practice in certain of the Fathers' writings.

I agree with you that this is the case. My question is how did that come to be? What were/are the interpretative presuppositions that guide the Church to this conclusion against a pretty vigorous stream of admonition, as you rightly concede.

[Evan]

I'd like an answer to how the Church presently regards interest as well, and, more specifically, why it seems to have taken a less hostile view recently towards the practice than did, say, St. John Chrysostom (emphasis on "seems"-- I mean to provoke). Perhaps a developed understanding of economic efficiency, such that it is no longer regarded as necessarily self-serving and exploitive? Somehow, I doubt that's all there is to it. Really doubt it.

In Christ,
Evan

[Michael Bauman]

On the question of interest on loans, I found this quote from Fr. John Whiteford on his blog, http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2011/07/bible-church-and-homosexuality.html:

It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like Gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest, and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.

[Michael Bauman]

It is quite common to hear in the Orthodox world and it has been asserted on this thread that human beings before the fall were 'angelic' in nature with no carnal desires. I've been thinking about that since it was posted several days ago. I find a basic untruth in that statement. Angelic beings are without gender. They are not androgynous either, they are without gender. God made us male and female. That is a big difference. It was not an accident.

I agree that the passions of carnality had not yet interfered but we still had the incredible male-female synergy that God designed into us and into creation. That synergy is part of what we need to fulfill His command to us that we "dress and keep the earth". Without the carnal passions, that synergy can produce (be fruitful) in an enormous amount of ways and allows the sacramental reality to be fulfilled.

The idea that we were 'angelic' before the fall really is a denigration of marriage and the manner in which we are created to. Our complimentary nature allows us to, by God's grace, become higher than the angels.

Unfortunately, I think it unintenionally lends creedence to the egalitarian argument that homosexual activists make in their attempt to overturn the anthropology and moral teaching of the Church.

Once we fell and carnality and passions became part of our make-up, the sanctification of marriage became necessary for the synergy to continue to be fruitful and provide a solid foundation for the multiplicans, our children.

The monastic striving for the angelic life is of a different order altogether and requires a very different ascetic struggle than that required in marriage. Unfortunately, the monastic life is often praised in such a way as to denigrate marriage and those who are not called into the monastic struggle....

[Herman Blaydoe]

On "carnal":
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:6-7)

Whatever the relationship between Adam and Eve was supposed to be, it was probably supposed to be something different than what we call "carnal". Whatever reproduction was to entail, it would not have involved the pain associated with child birth. I doubt it was supposed to be "androgynous" and something other than "angelic" perhaps, but I somehow have a problem with believing it was supposed to be "carnal" in the way it is normally defined.

[Paul Cowan]

DO we need to start a couple new threads here? One on usury and interest and another on angelic sexuality? We are getting off topic from "The Orthodox church and gay marriage".

[Father David Moser]

It is quite common to hear in the Orthodox world and it has been asserted on this thread that human beings before the fall were 'angelic' in nature with no carnal desires. I've been thinking about that since it was posted several days ago. I find a basic untruth in that statement..

If you actually read what the fathers say about this, they do not claim that the pre-fall nature was angelic, but rather that we were near to the angels, or more like the angels than at present which they contrast by pointing out that we are now more like the beasts (and in fact going back to the Genesis account being "clothed with skins" is interpreted as meaning that our bodies were changed to become more like the beasts, losing some of the angelic like qualities in exchange for beast like qualities.) So despite what some might say here, Orthodox teaching has never been that men were angelic in nature before the fall.

Fr David MOser

[Max Percy]

On the question of interest on loans, I found this quote from Fr. John Whiteford on his blog, http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2011/07/bible-church-and-homosexuality.html:

It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like Gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest, and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.



This assertion by Fr. John does not really indicate what were/are the interpretative presuppositions that guide the Church to this conclusion against a pretty vigorous stream of admonition. Shouldn't we be able to articulate why/how the Church abandoned its condemnation of usury in the face of Scriptural admonitions? If we cannot, then we leave the door open to being dismissed by the appearance of simply serving power and wealth.

[Olga]

May I remind folks to keep posts related to the topic (homosexual marriage) at hand. :-) The matter of usury/interest on loans is for another thread.

[Jason Huck]

Fr Thomas Hopko is probably the best spokesperson the Church has on this issue. His is a kind, compassionate and understanding voice. Gay people are not arrogant. They are law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country. Many gay couples raise children as well and in order to protect themselves and their families they deserve to have the same rights as other couples.

[Paul Cowan]

Fr Thomas Hopko is probably the best spokesperson the Church has on this issue. His is a kind, compassionate and understanding voice. Gay people are not arrogant. They are law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country. Many gay couples raise children as well and in order to protect themselves and their families they deserve to have the same rights as other couples.

You will find many will differ with you on this topic as has already been stated in the numerous pages before this one in this thread.

BTW: wht does hopka mean?

[Jason Huck]

yes, Paul, I have read them. If we want to be a Church that truly wishes to bring gay people in its doors, than we need to start by not chasing them further away. I believe Fr. Hopko understands this. I know for a fact that Christians do not like sweeping generalizations being made of them as a group, to be vilified and all placed under some discriminatory banner, title or name. If so, then we should not do this to other groups of people, esp when they do contribute to our society. We are Christians, Orthodox Christians, but we must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.

[Jason Huck]

You will find many will differ with you on this topic as has already been stated in the numerous pages before this one in this thread.

BTW: wht does hopka mean?

I am sorry. I misspelled Fr Hopko's name.

[Paul Cowan]

We are Christians, Orthodox Christians, but we must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.

No, we don't. rights and priveleges are subjective terms and are at the whim of every democratic society since the very term means majority rules. The majority is not always "right" and the minority do not always deserve "priveleges". Ask any judge who deals with people who commit multiple driving offences. Driving is a privelege not a right.

Open our doors, absolutely to all who will work and strive to adhere to what God teaches us through His prophets and the Holy Spirit and to those who righlty divide the Word of Truth. For the rest? We either commit to changing our lives to be perfect as He is perfect or we don't. It is a struggle. It is a difficult struggle. It is what we are called to do.

WE do not have to "must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.". Gays contributing to society is not what the argument on this thread is. The argument is the place of homosexuality in the church and how the church deals with gay marriage. As stated many times above the church does not recognize gay marriage. Therefore it is a nonissue. If gays are raising children, that is a separate topic and one the church also has to deal with not only for the so-called "parents", but also the dysfunctionality of the child that is reared. All this does is put off the problem another generation.

Paul

[Jason Huck]

No, we don't. rights and priveleges are subjective terms and are at the whim of every democratic society since the very term means majority rules. The majority is not always "right" and the minority do not always deserve "priveleges". Ask any judge who deals with people who commit multiple driving offences. Driving is a privelege not a right.

Open our doors, absolutely to all who will work and strive to adhere to what God teaches us through His prophets and the Holy Spirit and to those who righlty divide the Word of Truth. For the rest? We either commit to changing our lives to be perfect as He is perfect or we don't. It is a struggle. It is a difficult struggle. It is what we are called to do.

WE do not have to "must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.". Gays contributing to society is not what the argument on this thread is. The argument is the place of homosexuality in the church and how the church deals with gay marriage. As stated many times above the church does not recognize gay marriage. Therefore it is a nonissue. If gays are raising children, that is a separate topic and one the church also has to deal with not only for the so-called "parents", but also the dysfunctionality of the child that is reared. All this does is put off the problem another generation.

Paul

Gay people, gay couples have been raising children for decades and there is absolutely no evidence that these children fair any better or worse than children raised by two, opposite sex married couples. I happen to know quite a few gay parents, and they love their children, make sacrifices for them, as I would hope any good parent would. And yes Paul you do. You, we, have to figure out how to hold on to our beliefs as Orthodox Christians but live in a world with other Christians and non-Christians who disagree with us. And comparing gay people and their quest for equal rights to those who commit "multiple driving offenses" is not only wrong and misleading, but its not the way you win converts.

[Jason Huck]

Open our doors, absolutely to all who will work and strive to adhere to what God teaches us through His prophets and the Holy Spirit and to those who righlty divide the Word of Truth. For the rest? We either commit to changing our lives to be perfect as He is perfect or we don't. It is a struggle. It is a difficult struggle. It is what we are called to do.

WE do not have to "must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.". Gays contributing to society is not what the argument on this thread is. The argument is the place of homosexuality in the church and how the church deals with gay marriage. As stated many times above the church does not recognize gay marriage. Therefore it is a nonissue. If gays are raising children, that is a separate topic and one the church also has to deal with not only for the so-called "parents", but also the dysfunctionality of the child that is reared. All this does is put off the problem another generation.

Paul

I think that you and I might have a different idea what it means to win converts. Of course gay marriage is a non-issue within the Church. I would hope that all of us understand what the Church's stance is on this issue, but we do or probably will have to live with our homosexual "neighbors", as we have to live with all manner of people who disagree with us or do not share our beliefs. As for gay people raising "dysfunctional" children, there is no evidence to suggest that the children of gay parents fair any better or worse than those of opposite sex parents. I speak as someone who personally knows several gay parents and they sacrifice for and love their kids. I also think its problematic and misleading to compare law-abiding, tax-paying gay individuals or couples to people who "commit multiple driving offenses".

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As for gay people raising "dysfunctional" children, there is no evidence to suggest that the children of gay parents fair any better or worse than those of opposite sex parents. I speak as someone who personally knows several gay parents and they sacrifice for and love their kids. I also think its problematic and misleading to compare law-abiding, tax-paying gay individuals or couples to people who "commit multiple driving offenses".

I'm pretty sure that we're going over territory here that was already discussed a few weeks ago.

The idea about children however being raised just as lovingly in whichever environment is something which needs to be looked at more carefully by Orthodox Christians. By definition for us love does not mean a pleasant atmosphere where people get along. Rather it means a place (a home, parish, monastery, etc) as assigned by God in which a life of ascetic self sacrifice to Christ and others is ongoing. This precisely is the ground through which the child learns.

The various life styles then that are nowadays put forward as equal and good because they are 'equally loving' to those found elsewhere is a delusion we need to be able to spot. For if attraction is the main impulse behind relationship then there is little to nothing of love here as Christ seeks to convey this to us. Rather what we are teaching our children by word & deed is a distorted love of self satisfaction and always seeking nice and pleasant things.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

If we want to be a Church that truly wishes to bring gay people in its doors, ... We are Christians, Orthodox Christians, but we must find a way to not only get along but ensure those who disagree with us have the same rights and privileges we do in this democratic society.

First, and foremost it is of the utmost importance to recognize that the Orthodox Church does not want to be "a Church that truly wishes to bring gay people in its doors" The Church doesn't care whether a person is gay, or a glutton, or a murderer, or a gossip, or a slanderer, or a harlot, or judgmental, or whatever other kind of sinner. The Church has "open doors" to all sinners regardless of what kind of sins they (we) commit. We aren't out to "attract" gay people, or really any other kind of people - we are out to provide spiritual healing and care to those sinners who wish to be saved. This we do through offering the chance to and the support to confess our sins, repent of our sins, deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Christ.

Second, the Church does not "ensure" rights in a democratic society or any other society. The Church actually has little to say about rights but is more interested in mercy ("I desire mercy and not sacrifice" says the Lord) "Rights" are and ideal made up and created by those who would deify man and make him more than he is before God. In the Church we come before God Himself on a moment by moment basis - and before God we have no "rights" but only the hope of mercy.

Fr David Moser

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The Church doesn't care whether a person is gay, or a glutton, or a murderer, or a gossip, or a slanderer, or a harlot, or judgmental, or whatever other kind of sinner. The Church has "open doors" to all sinners regardless of what kind of sins they (we) commit. We aren't out to "attract" gay people, or really any other kind of people - we are out to provide spiritual healing and care to those sinners who wish to be saved. This we do through offering the chance to and the support to confess our sins, repent of our sins, deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Christ.

Father, we probably don't disagree much on this, but I'm more than a little uncomfortable with they way you've put things. The Church DOESN'T care whether a person WAS gay or a glutton or whatever, but it DOES care whether a person IS gay or a glutton or whatever: It DOESN'T want them to continue in such sins, and one way it provides healing and exercises care for souls is by restricting the participation of such sinners in the Church, principally by excluding them from Holy Communion and from offices and activities that require one to be in communion.

As you know, in the past the Church also excluded non-communicants from the Liturgy of the Faithful and even from the nave of the church. It showed a very public regard for one's spiritual standing and often required sinners to perform public penance. It didn't try to hide its moral teachings so as not to scare away sinners. It saw its role in the salvation of the world as bearing witness to the truth, offering people a clear choice of the way of life and the way of death. It didn't try to make converts by bait and switch, thinking it could trick people into truth. It also didn't make the mistake of thinking that people can be saved merely by overwhelming them with "unconditional love" regardless of truth.

Today these things are not done, and as a result the Church, in America at least, is falling more and more under the influence of unrepentant sinners. Gays expect to be allowed to sin openly but confess and do penance only privately. They object to hearing their favorite sin condemned. They demand that everything be open to them and that no one judge them for what they say and do. They intimidate both clergy and laity into accommodating them by allowing them to live as they please and still commune, by silencing the voice of truth in church, and by driving away their enemies.

I speak from painful experience. If we do not become less open to gays, they will destroy us.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell wrote:


They object to hearing their favorite sin condemned. They demand that everything be open to them and that no one judge them for what they say and do. They intimidate both clergy and laity into accommodating them by allowing them to live as they please and still commune, by silencing the voice of truth in church, and by driving away their enemies.

In a general way this is what has always occurred in terms of the persecution of truth by falsehood. But such persecution often times occurs in a way that feeds off of and justifies itself from the views of society- and it is these views which have changed and become more radical.

When I began in Orthodoxy in the late 1970s, the most 'hip' and 'far out' Orthodox (among which there were many) would never defend what is now being defended. There were gays among us but they lived in a changed way as best as they could. They never put forward what I am reading on this thread and have heard reported for the past year or so (but didn't believe to be accurate until I saw it here stated openly).

I can only think then that what has happened is that as we in the Church have let ourselves be influenced by society's values to such a great degree that we have lost track of ourselves. As society's values have become more of this world we have gone along with that. It's almost like we have lost that critical sense about the world that was heard so much in the Church at one time and which the world itself relatively speaking also held to with its 'old fashioned' values. I mean, what does it say when what we are defending not only goes squarely against what the Church has taught for 2000 years, but even throws out the window what those not of the Church held as being a moral standard or as common sense?

These threads in the Forum then have led me to think that we as clergy need to resolve to preach more resolutely on how Orthodoxy calls us to live in a way not of this world; of how the world casts its own delusive and powerful message before us, but which is always harmful to us as human beings. We need to preach about why this is so, of how this is the true 'humanism', as much as a doctor would preach about why drinking gasoline is harmful to you. This call to live in a different way needs to be taken up and then offered in practical terms (such as living a more modest & simple life style- something I never hear preached about). Only within this context I think will we be able to protect ourselves amidst new challenges which we face in the world.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Jason Huck]

Today these things are not done, and as a result the Church, in America at least, is falling more and more under the influence of unrepentant sinners. Gays expect to be allowed to sin openly but confess and do penance only privately. They object to hearing their favorite sin condemned. They demand that everything be open to them and that no one judge them for what they say and do. They intimidate both clergy and laity into accommodating them by allowing them to live as they please and still commune, by silencing the voice of truth in church, and by driving away their enemies.

I speak from painful experience. If we do not become less open to gays, they will destroy us.

When you talk about the Church falling more and more under this "influence", as you call it, are you talking about he Orthodox Church? I don't know of any Orthodox Church that suggests or even by its silence allows for a gay person to sin openly. Do you have any examples? I'm all for public confessions as long as those confessions are required of all sinners and all people who are asked to go to confession. Gay people have been persecuted for decades and it saddens me to hear Orthodox people using fear to further alienate a group of people who need to hear the message the Orthodox Church offers. This issue does not have to be about us vs them.

[Jason Huck]

I'm pretty sure that we're going over territory here that was already discussed a few weeks ago.

The idea about children however being raised just as lovingly in whichever environment is something which needs to be looked at more carefully by Orthodox Christians. By definition for us love does not mean a pleasant atmosphere where people get along. Rather it means a place (a home, parish, monastery, etc) as assigned by God in which a life of ascetic self sacrifice to Christ and others is ongoing. This precisely is the ground through which the child learns.

The various life styles then that are nowadays put forward as equal and good because they are 'equally loving' to those found elsewhere is a delusion we need to be able to spot. For if attraction is the main impulse behind relationship then there is little to nothing of love here as Christ seeks to convey this to us. Rather what we are teaching our children by word & deed is a distorted love of self satisfaction and always seeking nice and pleasant things.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that most gay parents (most likely most parents in general) wouldn't define love as a "pleasant atmosphere where people get along". Love requires struggle, sacrifice, humility, perseverance, patience, kindness, etc. All of these are things I've seen embodied in gay couples and same-sex parents. I fully realize that this, same sex parenting, is not the ideal that the Church wishes for anyone involved, but to simply try and diminish what same sex parents do for their children and for each other by couching it all under some warm-fuzzy-they-don't-understand-what-real-love-entails banner is somewhat patronizing and is not honest or truthful. Fr Hopko seems to understand this. He's moved beyond the old arguments and wants to engage people where they are in an honest, open and truthful manner all the while realizing we all have to live together in this world. Its inspiring.

[Father David Moser]

I'm all for public confessions as long as those confessions are required of all sinners and all people who are asked to go to confession. Gay people have been persecuted for decades and it saddens me to hear Orthodox people using fear to further alienate a group of people who need to hear the message the Orthodox Church offers.

First point - public sin requires public repentance (not necessarily public confession, but rather sin that is paraded visibly in front of the world requires repentance done in a similarly public forum. If a person is ashamed of their sin and thus hides it from the world, then it is appropriate for their repentance to be in private. And confession need not be public in any case.

Second point - I have yet to see any "fear" being used by Orthodox people, and particularly by Orthodox clergy in speaking of this issue. In fact I'm not sure I can say that I have read anything in this forum that indicates "fear" being used to alienate people from the Church. Certainly those who suffer from this temptation who are under my own spiritual care would tell you that while I do not "pull punches" in regard to their sin, neither do I use fear or threats or any similar method to "alienate" them from the Church. In many cases, the honest but loving approach demanding repentance and struggle against their temptation has been instrumental in bringing them back to the Church. If I had told them "its ok" or some other foolishness, they would have seen through it and would have remained alienated from the Church. (btw, they were alienated from the Church not by the fear of others towards them, but by their own fear that they might not receive forgiveness and reconciliation if they spoke of their sin.)

The best and only course for the Church in this regard is to unflinchingly maintain the stand that homosexuality in whatever form it may manifest is a sin but that we are all sinners and that mercy and forgiveness is open and available to all who confess their sin and repent.

Fr David Moser

[Jason Huck]

First point - public sin requires public repentance (not necessarily public confession, but rather sin that is paraded visibly in front of the world requires repentance done in a similarly public forum. If a person is ashamed of their sin and thus hides it from the world, then it is appropriate for their repentance to be in private. And confession need not be public in any case.

Second point - I have yet to see any "fear" being used by Orthodox people, and particularly by Orthodox clergy in speaking of this issue. In fact I'm not sure I can say that I have read anything in this forum that indicates "fear" being used to alienate people from the Church. Certainly those who suffer from this temptation who are under my own spiritual care would tell you that while I do not "pull punches" in regard to their sin, neither do I use fear or threats or any similar method to "alienate" them from the Church. In many cases, the honest but loving approach demanding repentance and struggle against their temptation has been instrumental in bringing them back to the Church. If I had told them "its ok" or some other foolishness, they would have seen through it and would have remained alienated from the Church. (btw, they were alienated from the Church not by the fear of others towards them, but by their own fear that they might not receive forgiveness and reconciliation if they spoke of their sin.)

The best and only course for the Church in this regard is to unflinchingly maintain the stand that homosexuality in whatever form it may manifest is a sin but that we are all sinners and that mercy and forgiveness is open and available to all who confess their sin and repent.

Fr David Moser

Re: Fear: From Fr Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell: "I speak from painful experience. If we do not become less open to gays, they will destroy us." This is a small example, but it does not stand alone. Honest but loving is one thing, but to suggest that a group of people as a whole will destroy us, well, to me, that smacks of fear-mongering to some degree anyway.

I'm curious, what would constitute a sin that is "paraded visibly in front of the world"? I'm fairly certain that most people who come to confession come because they are indeed ashamed of what they have done. Would you suggest that anyone come to confession who isn't sorry or even ashamed for what they have done? If so, why then would a public repentance be required of anyone? What would you say to someone so shy, so petrified at the thought of doing this that its nearly impossible? I'm guessing this would have to be decided on an individual basis?

Fr David. I could not agree more with your last paragraph:

The best and only course for the Church in this regard is to unflinchingly maintain the stand that homosexuality in whatever form it may manifest is a sin but that we are all sinners and that mercy and forgiveness is open and available to all who confess their sin and repent.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Re: Fear: From Fr Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell: "I speak from painful experience. If we do not become less open to gays, they will destroy us." This is a small example, but it does not stand alone. Honest but loving is one thing, but to suggest that a group of people as a whole will destroy us, well, to me, that smacks of fear-mongering to some degree anyway.

I'm curious, what would constitute a sin that is "paraded visibly in front of the world"? I'm fairly certain that most people who come to confession come because they are indeed ashamed of what they have done. Would you suggest that anyone come to confession who isn't sorry or even ashamed for what they have done? If so, why then would a public repentance be required of anyone? What would you say to someone so shy, so petrified at the thought of doing this that its nearly impossible? I'm guessing this would have to be decided on an individual basis?

"paraded visibly in front of the world"? would be a "married" homosexual couple receiving the sacraments. For many homosexuals, anything less than complete acceptance of their lifestyle is going to be deemed "intolerance", and those who cry "intolerance" the loudest are often the most intolerant. A "loving homosexual couple" is simply not going to be "accepted" by the Church, the relationship has to change, otherwise the individuals involved and indeed the entire parish will not be edified.

"Public repentance" does not have to be a public declaration of "I've sinned" in front of everybody, but it would require a visible change in the relationship, acknowledging repentance, which would be a conscious acceptance on their part that such a change is even required. At that point they are no longer a homosexual "couple".

I have to acknowledge that there are people out there that I am not to enter into a "marital" relationship with, such as a non-Christian, if I want to remain in the Church. Being a Christian has consequences and perhaps some of us lose sight of that. It SHOULD affect what we do and do NOT do, even if some people seem to ignore or "forget" that.

Change, metanoia, metamorphosis should, indeed be visible. We are NEW creatures and if our Faith does not make a noticeable change in our lives, if the hope within us is not evident to others, then we are doing something wrong.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain,
Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

With all due respect, I'm fairly certain that most gay parents (most likely most parents in general) wouldn't define love as a "pleasant atmosphere where people get along". Love requires struggle, sacrifice, humility, perseverance, patience, kindness, etc. All of these are things I've seen embodied in gay couples and same-sex parents. I fully realize that this, same sex parenting, is not the ideal that the Church wishes for anyone involved, but to simply try and diminish what same sex parents do for their children and for each other by couching it all under some warm-fuzzy-they-don't-understand-what-real-love-entails banner is somewhat patronizing and is not honest or truthful. Fr Hopko seems to understand this. He's moved beyond the old arguments and wants to engage people where they are in an honest, open and truthful manner all the while realizing we all have to live together in this world. Its inspiring.

With respect Jason- this is exactly my point. That we need to see the real difference between a Church directed life where giving of oneself is the very principle of one's life; and one where attraction is the starting point of relationship. Here exactly is where I am confident that nowadays we often see the latter relationships with rosé coloured glasses, seeing only what society portrays- a kind of Norman Rockwell presentation of life's aim being that we all get along.

But Christ neither presents this social ideal as the ideal we should follow as Christians. Nor is it the reality (once we get beyond the popular presentations) which very often prevails. For where attraction is the starting principle of life, passion is a close and destructive partner, whittling away at relationship and causing it to be still born. Whereas for those who struggle as couples in the Church, whenever passion begins to darken their lives, repentance is the path that they follow so that their relationship grows and is strengthened. In other words their lives are blessed through the deepening of ascetic self sacrifice to each other. How then would it be possible for the Church or a priest to bless a way of life that is completely contradictory in its very principle to this?

I would repeat my point then from yesterday that we are in serious need of detox from society's presentation of reality and to instead immerse ourselves in the ascetic Church reality. We are all sinners and no better than anyone else (likely worse). But if we learn to listen in one direction only- that of the Church- we will hear a Voice that warns us against the relationships based on worldly things. And as an added blessing that Voice even explains to us why such things are destructive for us, of how they are based on the classic falsehood of offering much and giving nothing of eternal value; whereas what the Church offers makes us human and establishes us in real joy and freedom.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father David Moser wrote:


I have yet to see any "fear" being used by Orthodox people, and particularly by Orthodox clergy in speaking of this issue.

I can confidently say that on this issue there is a lot of economia used by the clergy. If anything the most critical questions have been of whether we have been looking 'the other way' too much.

However economia and compassion doesn't mean that we stop saying that sin is sin. This is like giving someone cake with lots of icing on top while inside it's full of nails. Nice to the taste but very harmful to the person.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Re: Fear: From Fr Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell: "I speak from painful experience. If we do not become less open to gays, they will destroy us." This is a small example, but it does not stand alone.

If I may speak for Fr Brian: That's not fear - that's reality based on the observation and recent history of other once strong religious confessions.


I'm curious, what would constitute a sin that is "paraded visibly in front of the world"? I'm fairly certain that most people who come to confession come because they are indeed ashamed of what they have done. Would you suggest that anyone come to confession who isn't sorry or even ashamed for what they have done? If so, why then would a public repentance be required of anyone? What would you say to someone so shy, so petrified at the thought of doing this that its nearly impossible? I'm guessing this would have to be decided on an individual basis?

For example: if a man were to openly and publicly leave his wife and move in with another lover, showing not only no repentance, but insisting that others accept his relationship as appropriate or justified - that would be a public sin. Should that man come to his senses and repent of his sin, I would expect him to publicly leave his lover, apologize to his wife and to any others that he tempted by his actions and either return to living with his wife (if she would have him back) or (if she wouldn't) living an obviously celibate life. If he publicly advocated that his sin was "normal" and "acceptable" and denounced his marriage - then I would expect him to recant his statements in the same venue.

If - otoh - this same man had continued his affair in secret telling no one, but was eventually convicted of his sin and confessed and repented - then he would need do little else than seek reconciliation with his wife and either return to his marriage or if she won't have him back to quietly separate and remain chaste. No public apologies or recantations needed.

And yes, this is a pastoral issue and so would be applied on a personal basis according to the needs of the penitent and the community to which they belong. This is all for our salvation (both corporate and personal) not for punishment.

Fr David

[Anna Stickles]

Jason,
The first commandment is love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your strength, all your mind, and the second is love your neighbor as yourself. But attempts at fulfillment of the second when the first is being disregarded will always end up as something human and fallen, not a Christian love, not something redeemed in Christ.

Jesus says, " 23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14)

How can children be raised to love God in a home where the very foundation of the home is disobedience to God's commands? The hypocrisy will be immediately evident and the child will either simply absorb the fact that obedience to God and pleasing Him is not important, but that rather living as I please is ok as long as I don't upset the people around me, or will rebel against their parents hypocrisy, if indeed the parents are claiming to be Christians.

[Jason Huck]

It appears that most of the people who have been replying to my posts, and I'm guessing then most of the people here who have responded to Fr Hopko, are missing the point. I'm probably doing a poor job of trying to make that point so I suppose I have no one to blame but myself. We, Fr Hopko, myself and other, are talking about living with those who disagree with us. The conversation seems to remain revolving around how things are done in the Orthodox Church, but most of the rest of the people, at least in this country, are not *In* the Orthodox Church. We have beliefs which must be upheld to be sure, but we obviously have to allow the world to work for those who exist outside the Church: Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. I fully understand what is expected within our Church, what I've been trying to speak to, and forgive me if I am wrong Fr Hopko, but what I believe Fr Hopko is speaking to is the reality that the vast majority of people in the US do not belong to the Church. I've been trying to talk about how people within the Church deal with laws - call them secular laws - that obviously have to extend to those outside the Church. An example would be Fr Hopko's incredibly compassionate, fair, and understanding view that Civil Unions for gay couples ought to exist. To help protect their partners and their children. So we are clear, I am not asking that the Church change its views on homosexuality.

[Jason Huck]

For where attraction is the starting principle of life, passion is a close and destructive partner, whittling away at relationship and causing it to be still born. Whereas for those who struggle as couples in the Church, whenever passion begins to darken their lives, repentance is the path that they follow so that their relationship grows and is strengthened. In other words their lives are blessed through the deepening of ascetic self sacrifice to each other. How then would it be possible for the Church or a priest to bless a way of life that is completely contradictory in its very principle to this?
In Christ-
Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael - are you suggesting that Orthodox romantic relationships don't often begin with the people involved being "attracted" to each other? I know for a fact that all the Orthodox couples I've had the pleasure of knowing began with attraction. I'm not asking for any Orthodox priest or church to bless same sex relationships. That has never been my point. My point is to recognize those God given qualities in people that are NOT in the Church. Asceticism's home is surely within the Church, but to think that people do not harbor and exhibit ascetic qualities outside the Church is not truthful, just, or fair. Parents outside Orthodoxy, even same sex parents, can be seen exhibiting those same ascetic qualities of self-sacrifice, etc. I think the starting point for us should be to recognize this truth. Sometimes we stop short of saying that ALL people are the children of God and made in His image, but then we don't really seem to put this into our practice or believe it, and this can be seen in the way we treat other people and in what we say about them, esp when we malign an entire minority group like gay people.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It appears that most of the people who have been replying to my posts, and I'm guessing then most of the people here who have responded to Fr Hopko, are missing the point. I'm probably doing a poor job of trying to make that point so I suppose I have no one to blame but myself. We, Fr Hopko, myself and other, are talking about living with those who disagree with us. The conversation seems to remain revolving around how things are done in the Orthodox Church, but most of the rest of the people, at least in this country, are not *In* the Orthodox Church. We have beliefs which must be upheld to be sure, but we obviously have to allow the world to work for those who exist outside the Church: Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. I fully understand what is expected within our Church, what I've been trying to speak to, and forgive me if I am wrong Fr Hopko, but what I believe Fr Hopko is speaking to is the reality that the vast majority of people in the US do not belong to the Church. I've been trying to talk about how people within the Church deal with laws - call them secular laws - that obviously have to extend to those outside the Church. An example would be Fr Hopko's incredibly compassionate, fair, and understanding view that Civil Unions for gay couples ought to exist. To help protect their partners and their children. So we are clear, I am not asking that the Church change its views on homosexuality.

Well, in that this is an Orthodox Church-related forum and not a civic or scecular or political one, irrespective of what one particular and somewhat controversial priest thinks, I don't know that we are obligated to comment on how Moslems or Buddhists or Atheists or "Tea Party" members view homosexual couples. Nor is there any implied obligation to fight for their "rights" to live in sin. Should we also work to support legislation to protect/support adultery or to NOT support the unborn since abortion is a legal "right" in many places?

If a person advocates abortion, even when it is legal, it is still a sin. I, as an Orthodox Christian, feel NO compunction to support a woman's "right" to "her body" over the body of the unborn child within it. Therefore, I cannot fault any Orthodox Christian who does not feel compelled to "fight" for the "rights" of homosexual couples, regardless of what secular society believes.

Herman the obstreperous Pooh

[Jason Huck]

If a person advocates abortion, even when it is legal, it is still a sin. I, as an Orthodox Christian, feel NO compunction to support a woman's "right" to "her body" over the body of the unborn child within it. Therefore, I cannot fault any Orthodox Christian who does not feel compelled to "fight" for the "rights" of homosexual couples, regardless of what secular society believes.

Herman the obstreperous Pooh

Herman,

I can see we may just have to agree to disagree. Fr Hopko seems to be approaching this issue from the point of justice, mercy and compassion and others seem more inclined to start from the position of righteous indifference or indignation, and sometimes anger. Even if you don't want to "fight for the rights" of others, I would hope you could at least understand the compassion behind having laws that protect same-sex couples, many of whom have been together their entire lives. Fighting against some basic protections for these couples and their children can only serve to drive these people further away from the Church and make the Church the enemy when it should be something else. I realize I'm not going to win any hearts and minds on this forum, but I do hope people think more about how the Church presents itself to a minority group (gay people) that has indeed suffered persecution at the hands of some who would call themselves "Christian".

[Herman Blaydoe]

Fr Raphael - are you suggesting that Orthodox romantic relationships don't often begin with the people involved being "attracted" to each other?

Well, actually any "romantic" relationships can certainly be toxic, and I think the Church is aware of this. Once upon a time marriage had very little to do with romance, marriages were arranged but the idea was (is) still that the intention of this blessed union was (is) for that couple to work out their salvation as one and that the raising of children within that relationship was (is) an important part of that relationship, if God blesses them in that way. Romanticism is highly over-rated and physical attraction, while evidently a biological imperative, is not necessarily a Christian one.


but then we don't really seem to put this into our practice or believe it, and this can be seen in the way we treat other people and in what we say about them, esp when we malign an entire minority group like gay people

I find the rhetoric unconvincing. Terms similar to those in defense of homosexuality are already being voiced to justify pedophilia. It may have a mdeical basis, it has been practiced in the past, it does not "harm" children since we are "sexual beings" from an early age. Should we not speak of pedophilia in less than endearing terms for fear of "maligning" a minority?

Herman the "I have a problem with that" Pooh

[Jan Sunqvist]

'm not asking for any Orthodox priest or church to bless same sex relationships. That has never been my point. My point is to recognize those God given qualities in people that are NOT in the Church. Asceticism's home is surely within the Church, but to think that people do not harbor and exhibit ascetic qualities outside the Church is not truthful, just, or fair. Parents outside Orthodoxy, even same sex parents, can be seen exhibiting those same ascetic qualities of self-sacrifice, etc. I think the starting point for us should be to recognize this truth.

Jason,

this is precisely the point I have been trying to make in this thread as well as 'A sad and dangerous movement within the Church' and 'Born again' threads.

I agree I still see a disproportionate amount of fear about this topic. But then, I keep remembering the words of St. John Chrysostom on this sin being 'worse then murder', so then I think, if there are people who are not willing to say they disagree with something as harsh as that, then what could I possibly say that would make anyone consider...

Anyway, I had spent a lot of time particularly on the 'sad and dangerous movement' thread trying to examine this from every possible perspective I could think of, and in the end I decided to just leave it all, I don't even know whether I 'believe' anything on this issue anymore... (I am still secretly hoping though that one day someone will enlighten me on the topic of the 'inherent gender' of one's soul and Spirit, as I still struggle with this view of souls still being male or female in some although 'non-sexual' way, in the life to come ...)

anyway, good luck with this...

[Jason Huck]

I find the rhetoric unconvincing. Terms similar to those in defense of homosexuality are already being voiced to justify pedophilia. It may have a mdeical basis, it has been practiced in the past, it does not "harm" children since we are "sexual beings" from an early age. Should we not speak of pedophilia in less than endearing terms for fear of "maligning" a minority?

Herman the "I have a problem with that" Pooh

I haven't heard anyone trying to defend pedophilia. Please provide examples if you have. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is as old, well at least as old an argument as I am :) The main difference here however is that you are trying to compare consensual sex between two law abiding adults with an illegal practice, an act between an adult and a child. Its an unfair and misleading comparison, but one that I've heard many times through the years, given to try and justify how we treat this particular minority.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman,

I can see we may just have to agree to disagree. Fr Hopko seems to be approaching this issue from the point of justice, mercy and compassion and others seem more inclined to start from the position of righteous indifference or indignation, and sometimes anger. Even if you don't want to "fight for the rights" of others, I would hope you could at least understand the compassion behind having laws that protect same-sex couples, many of whom have been together their entire lives. Fighting against some basic protections for these couples and their children can only serve to drive these people further away from the Church and make the Church the enemy when it should be something else. I realize I'm not going to win any hearts and minds on this forum, but I do hope people think more about how the Church presents itself to a minority group (gay people) that has indeed suffered persecution at the hands of some who would call themselves "Christian".

People approach the issue of abortion in just the same manner, and that is why abortion is legal even though I do not believe it should be. If I cannot support laws that do exist, how do you expect me to support the creation of laws I do not agree with? So yes I will continue to disagree with Fr. Thomas and with you on this subject, but that is not what is important. What matters is what does the CHURCH have to say on the topic? Do you agree or disagree with that? Have we misrepresented what the Church and the Patristics have to say on the subject?

If I say abortion should be illegal am I persecuting those who participate in abortion? If I say pedophilia should not be legal, am I persecuting those who are pedophiles? There are those who would emphatically say yes I am. I will continue to disagree with them as well. But again, in this forum, which "opinion" matters? If you can show that what I have expressed does NOT accurately reflect what the Church teaches then I am certainly willing to listen and I look forward to correction.

Herman the somewhat disagreeable Pooh

[Jason Huck]

Jason,


anyway, good luck with this...

Thank you Jan :) It is indeed a complicated and complex issue. I appreciate the fact that you've actually struggled with it! I still struggle with it myself. I think if we can get past intellectually dishonest arguments where we begin by comparing law abiding, tax-paying same sex couples and parents with pedophiles and traffic offenders, then we've made some progress.

[Jason Huck]

If I say abortion should be illegal am I persecuting those who participate in abortion? If I say pedophilia should not be legal, am I persecuting those who are pedophiles? There are those who would emphatically say yes I am. I will continue to disagree with them as well. But again, in this forum, which "opinion" matters? If you can show that what I have expressed does NOT accurately reflect what the Church teaches then I am certainly willing to listen and I look forward to correction.

Herman the somewhat disagreeable Pooh

Hermann,

I think we are talking past each other. This isn't the type of persecution which gay people have received at the hands of Christians that I am talking about. I would ask that you please stop comparing gay people, couples and parents to pedophiles. It is nothing but a dishonest comparison. As for abortion, I would only ask that you extend some compassion towards those who have had abortions. Do you support the right of atheists to get married and raise their children without religion if they so choose, either by your complacency or by your actions? Do you feel they have the right to get married?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Jason Huck wrote:


Fr Raphael - are you suggesting that Orthodox romantic relationships don't often begin with the people involved being "attracted" to each other? I know for a fact that all the Orthodox couples I've had the pleasure of knowing began with attraction.

Jason- such does happen. But then this needs to be rapidly overcome as the basis of a relationship or else it becomes very destructive.

My point though was that in Orthodox marriage such things precisely can be overcome. Whereas in gay relationships they never can be since they are the principle of the relationship in the first place.

To not have understood this however I think is the indication of the problem in the first place. We're clearly not understanding what the parameters of Orthodox love are- of how it is always guided by an ascetic ideal which the faithful are enjoined to follow on a day to day level in practical terms in their lives. The exact opposite though is a gay lifestyle which unless we reverse the meaning of ascetic is not Orthodox in its own guiding principle.

By the way- Unless I missed something in the discussion above, the theme was suddenly broadened to that of how the Church should regard secularly legislated law or social custom when it does not reflect its own standards. For the sake of the discussion it should be stated more clearly- are we speaking of changes in the civil law from previous standards and how the Church should see this change? Or are we speaking of the Church's own standards? Can we clarify what is it that we're actually addressing?

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Darlene Griffith]

Where is this podcast or writing of Fr. Thomas Hopko's? My husband and I really respect Fr. Tom and listen to his podcasts often. However, my husband just made a good point. Paul the apostle said, "What do I have to do with judging outsiders?" It is those within the Church that we should judge. As an Orthodox priest, in that capacity Fr. Thomas has no business getting involved with or commenting about what the Church should do, or how the Church should act toward gay civil unions. This is not the Church's mission nor her business. And to expect the Church, specifically the clergy, to get involved is bluntly, wrong. The Church should first and foremost be concerned with its own spiritual condition.

Well, this is my husband's opinion and although he isn't Orthodox, I think he's got some good points.

[Jan Sunqvist]

Jason Huck wrote:



My point though was that in Orthodox marriage such things precisely can be overcome. Whereas in gay relationships they never can be since they are the principle of the relationship in the first place.

To not have understood this however I think is the indication of the problem in the first place. We're clearly not understanding what the parameters of Orthodox love are- of how it is always guided by an ascetic ideal which the faithful are enjoined to follow on a day to day level in practical terms in their lives. The exact opposite though is a gay lifestyle which unless we reverse the meaning of ascetic is not Orthodox in its own guiding principle.


In Christ-
Fr Raphael


Fr Raphael,

Please forgive me, but it sounds to me you are speaking from doctrine and not experience of having met and interacted with many lifelong gay couples. Those do exist. And yes they too go through self-sacrifice in order to have their relationships last. These relationships may not be ideal, but they do exist whether we like it or not. I am so saddened that the gay phenomenon is equated with promiscuity as the gay lifestyle. That like the paedophilia arguments intellectually doesn't hold up.

The more I spent time with this question the more it became clear to me that we don't really understand much at all about what gender inherently is, spiritually speaking, as the causal factor for someone being created with a male or female body (science understands the xy chromosome reality on a physical level but what of the spiritual, does that proceed from the physical reality of conception, but what of the 'point of entry' of the soul during conception and in the embryo. Has the 'soul' which 'enters' the creation process already been created male or female by God, and then has the possibility to go wrong through wrong development? What the heck does all this really mean? I keep hearing comparison about man and woman being the image of Christ and his Church, which in itself is very meaningful yet it tells us little about the inherent 'genderness' of each soul, if that is truly the case, as I am somehow more inclined to think that souls are by nature gender neutral, and even more so the Spirit but of course I have no idea.
Is there any Patristic writing that would shed light on genderness of not just the physical body, but of the soul, and of souls in the life to come. (I have here heard that we pray to saints, still being male or female, but what does that mean in a heavenly sense, if there the souls are like angels not having relations? Are they still paired up in the life to come? )

[Byron Jack Gaist]

I haven't heard anyone trying to defend pedophilia. Please provide examples if you have. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is as old, well at least as old an argument as I am :) The main difference here however is that you are trying to compare consensual sex between two law abiding adults with an illegal practice, an act between an adult and a child. Its an unfair and misleading comparison, but one that I've heard many times through the years, given to try and justify how we treat this particular minority.

Dear all,

Jason, people do try to defend even these "rights": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Boy_Love_Association.

For me the question of homosexuality is a very complex one (unlike pedophilia, which I do consider very clearly abusive), and I've been very favourably impressed by Fr Hopko's answers; he even broadened my mind on the possible societal advantages of granting civil union (not marriage) status to such relationships through the secular state, though I'm still undecided because I'm not really sure how I feel about the secular state in the first place! If it adds peace, it could be the right thing to do pastorally speaking in certain circumstances, but I can't see the long-term point of it. Perhaps I ought to let others be the judges of laws etc, I just hope to be useful to people while they're searching for their answers.

One thing that seems to me very clear about "how we treat this particular minority": always lovingly, never with prejudice, discrimination, persecution, violence. Such "approaches" may sadly have been perpetrated by Christians, but they have nothing to do with Christianity.

Jan's expressed need to understand gender seems to me, as a psychologist, most understandable and potentially useful - if made the sole purpose of our quest however, I suspect it will ultimately prove fruitless, since gender is a mystery. It seems to me that above and beyond what gender is, lies the issue of what we are to do about desire - and that is something we Orthodox do know something about, thanks to our wonderful Tradition and Christ Who stands behind it. It has been correctly pointed out that heterosexuals may also be attracted to each other for all the wrong reasons, and that "love" needs to be transformed too. This is also where the admittedly unpalatable comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia may nonetheless be valid, whatever the objections of political correctness - not forgetting too, that many homosexual people are underage and encounter an older gay person when starting out on a homosexual life (as may be said of many heterosexual people also). Many pedophiles, themselves abused in their past, sincerely believe their intentions towards children are pure, and have been justified, acceptable practices in other societies and geographical latitudes (as indeed they have). They may not wish to impose anything they perceive as invasive or physically coercive upon the child, sincerely believing that their relationship is based on mutual love and warmth. But we know, in our heart of hearts, that such people are profoundly deluded (not to mention dangerous to society). We are less sure that adult homosexuals are as deluded in believing they love each other. And who among us, as a heterosexual, can be so confident that their own feelings for the opposite sex, or more precisely their Christian spouse, are indeed pure and unselfish? Perhaps only those few heterosexuals who have such holy relations would be genuinely able to shed light more fully on the nature of homosexual self-delusion, if such be the case. What we can affirm using only our voice of reason, is that homosexual relations cannot lead to procreation. A Roman Catholic may be satisfied with that, and say that is proof enough it is not according to nature. But as Orthodox, we do not only believe in the procreative, but also in the unitive function of sex, and indeed in both together (as in practice Roman Catholics also believe). So, perhaps the $64,000,0000 question is: can the procreative and the unitive function of sex be intentionally split, without damage to the soul? A response in the negative would embarass many heterosexual Orthodox Christian couples who use contraception.

Such a logical approach to the issue seems fruitless, since it leads to black-and-white, yes or no answers. I think real life isn't like that, and probably only God can see things that clearly, at least so it seems to me. God and His saints.

I think as Orthodox Christians we don't seek to affirm our rights, we ask God in humility what He wants us to do. For me, this includes loving all people, regardless of their tendencies or their current frame of mind; but love doesn't always mean saying "yes", it can mean saying "no", too.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Jan Sunqvist wrote:




Fr Raphael,
Please forgive me, but it sounds to me you are speaking from doctrine and not experience of having met and interacted with many lifelong gay couples. Those do exist. And yes they too go through self-sacrifice in order to have their relationships last. These relationships may not be ideal, but they do exist whether we like it or not. I am so saddened that the gay phenomenon is equated with promiscuity as the gay lifestyle. That like the paedophilia arguments intellectually doesn't hold up.
Dear Jan,

I'm speaking from and doctrine and experience. You are aware that in Orthodoxy our firm belief is that these two are never separate? In any case what I mean by ascetic is how Orthodoxy sees this. Not just self sacrifice in general (which all people of any moral state could practice to some extent) but ascetic self sacrifice as understood in Orthodox fashion as following in obedience the standards which the Church has set. In other words Orthodox practice as opposed to that of society is to follow that standard as set by the Church- not that standard as set by oneself and which may involve as a secondary aspect some level of self restraint.

I don't believe I can be more clear about this though. Orthodox relationship of any sort- marriage, as found within monasticism, or whatever, is always based on an Orthodox understanding of ascetic life. Such life styles now put forward however do not follow this and so by our standards do not attain love nor do they involve in a real sense self sacrifice. For they operate first from the principle of the self and its attractions.This is the very opposite of what the Church puts forward for our inner and outer health and salvation as human beings.

And honestly, this last brings us to the firm belief that such life styles are always self destructive and launch one out onto a path that is stunted and deformed. The fact that society nowadays recognizes these last states as 'fulfilling' and 'being what you really are' only points out to us that we have to be vigilant of the 'reality' that society sees and wants us to follow.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Please forgive me, but it sounds to me you are speaking from doctrine and not experience of having met and interacted with many lifelong gay couples.

Please forgive me, but you seem to be speaking from an ignorance of what Orthodoxy teaches.

So are the teachings of the Holy Church, the treasury of the preserved Apostolic Witness to be discarded simply because it does not fit with certain preconceived modern notions? Generally speaking, we Orthodox do not operate or think that way. If you expect a different reaction you will continue to be disappointed.

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Jan Sunqvist wrote:


Has the 'soul' which 'enters' the creation process already been created male or female by God, and then has the possibility to go wrong through wrong development? What the heck does all this really mean? I keep hearing comparison about man and woman being the image of Christ and his Church, which in itself is very meaningful yet it tells us little about the inherent 'genderness' of each soul, if that is truly the case, as I am somehow more inclined to think that souls are by nature gender neutral, and even more so the Spirit but of course I have no idea.
Is there any Patristic writing that would shed light on genderness of not just the physical body, but of the soul, and of souls in the life to come. (I have here heard that we pray to saints, still being male or female, but what does that mean in a heavenly sense, if there the souls are like angels not having relations? Are they still paired up in the life to come? )

Orthodoxy holds that each person is created as male or female and that this is an inherent eternal aspect of what they are. Thus in the icons for example the Theotokos and saints are not shown as generic but according to what they were created as - male or female. And the icon, which reveals humanity in that more final deified state, actually reveals them in a perfected state of being male and female- and not in a generic form at all.


In our theology and hymnography we also see that Christ is referred to as the Son of God while the Virgin Mary is Mother. Being Son or Mother is not some sort empty title but central to who they actually are. Although in this case we see that being male and female does not stand on its own as if it were a central fact of their existence, but rather is always tied into who they are as Son or Mother. Surely this also provides a lesson in today's culture where gender is held up as a prime identifying marker so as to indicate the way forward towards following various life styles.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Anna Stickles]

When I began in Orthodoxy in the late 1970s, the most 'hip' and 'far out' Orthodox (among which there were many) would never defend what is now being defended. There were gays among us but they lived in a changed way as best as they could. They never put forward what I am reading on this thread and have heard reported for the past year or so (but didn't believe to be accurate until I saw it here stated openly).

I can only think then that what has happened is that as we in the Church have let ourselves be influenced by society's values to such a great degree that we have lost track of ourselves. As society's values have become more of this world we have gone along with that. It's almost like we have lost that critical sense about the world that was heard so much in the Church at one time and which the world itself relatively speaking also held to with its 'old fashioned' values. I mean, what does it say when what we are defending not only goes squarely against what the Church has taught for 2000 years, but even throws out the window what those not of the Church held as being a moral standard or as common sense?

These threads in the Forum then have led me to think that we as clergy need to resolve to preach more resolutely on how Orthodoxy calls us to live in a way not of this world; of how the world casts its own delusive and powerful message before us, but which is always harmful to us as human beings. We need to preach about why this is so, of how this is the true 'humanism', as much as a doctor would preach about why drinking gasoline is harmful to you. This call to live in a different way needs to be taken up and then offered in practical terms (such as living a more modest & simple life style- something I never hear preached about). Only within this context I think will we be able to protect ourselves amidst new challenges which we face in the world.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

Brian brings this up and I too see this as an important issue, which I touched briefly upon in the "A sad and dangerous movement..." thread.

So, perhaps the $64,000,0000 question is: can the procreative and the unitive function of sex be intentionally split, without damage to the soul? A response in the negative would embarass many heterosexual Orthodox Christian couples who use contraception.

Honestly, the Church has no moral ground to stand on in the whole homosexual debate unless it first recaptures for itself an understanding of marriage firmly grounded in the ascetic vision of the Church. This issue goes back much farther then the 1970's. Contraceptives started being used on a wide scale much earlier then this. Now I don't know what went on in Orthodoxy when this started happening, but I know that there are people in the Protestant Christian traditions who recognized the dangers here and spoke up. This was one of the early influences on my own path. I would assume that maybe there were some Orthodox who spoke up also, but what kind of traction have they got, and to what degree have they been listened to?

I certainly don't advocate a ban on contraceptives - this would be far too much of a burden on couples in our society. BUT certainly there needs to be an understanding that the use of contraceptives is by way of economy, in the same way that people engage in differing degrees of fasting. Without this very dangerous attitudes about sex are left unquestioned, and the whole purpose of marriage becomes fuzzy. Also to leave in place an unquestioning allowance of the free use of contraceptives, and then try to speak at all on the issue of homosexuality is no better then cutting off the branches but doing nothing about the root.

[Herman Blaydoe]

To leave in place an unquestioning allowance of the free use of contraceptives and then try to speak at all on the issue of homosexuality is simply hypocrisy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but at least within the ACROD, "free use" of contraceptives is definitely discouraged and this is the official published position of the diocese by our beloved Metropolitan Nicholas of blessed memory, and all discussions or writings on the subject that I have come across always been preceeded by a discussion of the importance of child-bearing in the salvation of a married couple regardless of jurisdiction so I am not sure where this idea of unquestioning allowance is coming from exactly. Most pastorally-oriented discussions only go so far as to say that there may be certain situations where use of contraceptives may be appropriate but nowhere have I seen anything to say that "free" use is advocated by Orthodox clergy. What needs to be "recaptured" exactly? I don't think it ever "escaped" save for the occasional well-intentioned but misguided priest.

[Anna Stickles]

Thanks Herman -- You caught me! Maybe the Orthodox church is much more free of this then I would have thought from how far it has penetrated into the other Christian traditions. Our parish is fairly conservative, but I don't trust too much on judging the wider state of the Orthodox church by my parish. I am glad my assumption is wrong. :-) I have simply not heard previous to this, the issue ever being raised.

Also, I have to admit that quite of the bit of the teaching on marriage that I have seen put out by modern Orthodox writers is not exactly free of modern toxins in it's view of marriage. While I have not seen the issue of contraceptives specifically raised, much of the underlying assumptions about what a marriage is, and about the part that sexual relations plays does not exactly accord with St John Chrysostom's homilies that I am currently reading, nor in general does it fit in with a Patristic view of our sexuality. Like everything else it gets watered down to warm fuzzies in an effort not to rock the boat too much. But that is off the topic of this thread and coming to a more Patristic understanding of marriage is something I am still working on myself. Recognizing when something is off key doesn't mean that one knows what the right note is.

BTW what is ACROD?

[Herman Blaydoe]

American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, the little diocese with the big name; you should have seen it before we shortened it! (Not kidding!)

[Darlene Griffith]

Ok...I'm going to ask again. Where is this writing/presentation of Fr. Thomas Hopko on the defense of civil unions that some here have mentioned? I've read a few things that Fr. Thomas has written on the subject of homosexuality, but what I've read thus far was conservative and supportive of Church teaching.

[Jan Sunqvist]

Anna,

the issue of contraceptives in Orthodoxy is not something I'm yet familiar with. I wonder though, whether an average Orthodox family in 'good standing' should more or less be the same size as a large Muslim family for example... I am sure this is not necessarily something that people discuss on forums, like whether a couple purposefully decides to abstain from relations around the time the woman is likely to conceive, or the use of contraceptives, but how do the 'practical life considerations' like the financial circumstances play into an Orthodox couple's decision whether to bring the ninth child into the family...

[Jan Sunqvist]

Jan Sunqvist wrote:



Orthodoxy holds that each person is created as male or female and that this is an inherent eternal aspect of what they are.

Fr Raphael,

Is there any Patristic indication as to what this really means in the life to come? If in heaven there are no sexual relations, what is the significance of gender? If Adam and Eve were meant to create children originally by non sexual means, as has been hinted, how does this creation happen? Will new souls and new bodies be conceived in the Kingdom of Heaven? Is there an equivalent of 'till death do us apart' in Orthodoxy? What of people who had been in more then one marriage in the Earthly life? What will be their relationships to their (former?) spouses be in the life to come? Theotokos is the Mother of God incarnate, Is she also the Mother of Christ the Eternal Logos, that existed before Abraham? Please forgive me if I am blaspheming here, my knowledge of theology is quite low.

I don't mean to be silly... I really don't. And like Byron said, the issue of gender is a mystery, and on that level it seems alright to just say one has to accept, this is how it is, but often this acknowledgment that essentially we don't know is missing.

[Paul Cowan]

Will new souls and new bodies be conceived in the Kingdom of Heaven? Is there an equivalent of 'till death do us apart' in Orthodoxy? What of people who had been in more then one marriage in the Earthly life? What will be their relationships to their (former?) spouses be in the life to come?


Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
So what is an angel like? That is how we shall be.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Brian brings this up and I too see this as an important issue, which I touched briefly upon in the "A sad and dangerous movement..." thread.


Honestly, the Church has no moral ground to stand on in the whole homosexual debate unless it first recaptures for itself an understanding of marriage firmly grounded in the ascetic vision of the Church. This issue goes back much farther then the 1970's. Contraceptives started being used on a wide scale much earlier then this. Now I don't know what went on in Orthodoxy when this started happening, but I know that there are people in the Protestant Christian traditions who recognized the dangers here and spoke up. This was one of the early influences on my own path. I would assume that maybe there were some Orthodox who spoke up also, but what kind of traction have they got, and to what degree have they been listened to?

I certainly don't advocate a ban on contraceptives - this would be far too much of a burden on couples in our society. BUT certainly there needs to be an understanding that the use of contraceptives is by way of economy, in the same way that people engage in differing degrees of fasting. Without this very dangerous attitudes about sex are left unquestioned, and the whole purpose of marriage becomes fuzzy. Also to leave in place an unquestioning allowance of the free use of contraceptives, and then try to speak at all on the issue of homosexuality is no better then cutting off the branches but doing nothing about the root.

Dear Anna,

I didn't clarify in my post that my understanding of Orthodox teaching on contraception is indeed that it is not to be used indisciminately and without concern, but always within marriage, and always after the prayerful, discerning communication between Orthodox spouses and their priest or spiritual director.

However, I did raise the issue because it presents us with a logical-sounding objection re homosexuality: namely, if contraception may be used as a matter of pastoral economy between Orthodox spouses, why can't the same economy be applied to other forms of non-procreative sexual encounter? Of course, the 'simple' answer is that God does not condone sin, and sex outside marriage, heterosexual or otherwise, is sin. As Fr Raphael has pointed out, if we're going to practice ascesis, then we need to make sure it is Orthodox ascesis, not a self-imposed regimen of discipline - because it's one thing to be a good and moral person, and another to be a good and moral person seeking to please God.

The whole thing, put like this, doesn't even seem worth discussing really - it sounds so obvious. Yet we are asked to justify our Orthodox morality to a secular world with its own moral code and its own understanding of what is rational, science-justified morality. And that's where things get tricky, because Orthodoxy is not entirely based on discursive reason. Not even on formal dialectical reasoning of the philosophical variety. It is based in revelation and the operation of the enlightened nous. In secular terms, it is a 'religion', although to us it is the fulness of Truth. Maybe we'll never therefore make sense to the sort of person who cannot accept mystery and surrender to God? God only knows...after all, C.S. Lewis famously set off on a short motorcycle ride as an atheist not believing in Jesus as the Son of God, and ended his ride as a Christian!

But we still need to find the words to justify our doctrine and experience to those who doubt us. After all, a doubt is also an enquiry.

BTW, Thomas Hopko's book, someone enquired, is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Faith-Same-Sex-Attraction/dp/1888212756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316671972&sr=8-1.

In Christ
Byron

[Jan Sunqvist]

So what is an angel like? That is how we shall be.

I may be wrong, I thought angels are genderless, even though in in iconography they are depicted as male, and given male names... So in what way like angels, yet gendered?

[Father David Moser]

So what is an angel like? That is how we shall be.

We are only like angels in that we shall neither marry nor be given in marriage. I think there is some discussion of this elsewhere (I have a vague memory of writing some things along this line). In any case the scriptures also point out that we are not like angels, but created a little higher than the angels - iow we are different and in a sense superior to the angels in our created nature. I would suspect that the major difference is the fact that we are composed of both a physical and spiritual nature while the angels have only a spiritual nature.

We will not be exactly like the angels in all things, but in this one thing we are like them - neither marrying nor giving in marriage. In other things we will be different because we are created differently.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Raphael,

Is there any Patristic indication as to what this really means in the life to come? If in heaven there are no sexual relations, what is the significance of gender? If Adam and Eve were meant to create children originally by non sexual means, as has been hinted, how does this creation happen? Will new souls and new bodies be conceived in the Kingdom of Heaven? Is there an equivalent of 'till death do us apart' in Orthodoxy? What of people who had been in more then one marriage in the Earthly life? What will be their relationships to their (former?) spouses be in the life to come? Theotokos is the Mother of God incarnate, Is she also the Mother of Christ the Eternal Logos, that existed before Abraham? Please forgive me if I am blaspheming here, my knowledge of theology is quite low.

I don't mean to be silly... I really don't. And like Byron said, the issue of gender is a mystery, and on that level it seems alright to just say one has to accept, this is how it is, but often this acknowledgment that essentially we don't know is missing.

Male and female are aspects of person. They shape as do other aspects of a person's temperament who a person is. And since each person is different then this shading is distinct in each person but in a way that still retains its real male or female characteristics. In other words just as the inherent strength of a St Basil is retained and purified or glorified after death, and the inherent mystic bent of a St Gregory of Nyssa is also retained and glorified so all aspects of who that person is are retained. In other words after death in Christ's glory we don't turn from distinct persons into generic humanity. This isn't salvation.

In connection with this not literally new souls and bodies will be given us in the Kingdom- but rather renewed souls, bodies, and our entire being.

About marriage and relationship in heaven. I think that all of forms of earthly exclusivity will be transcended in a spiritual communion with each other that we can only begin to imagine right now.

The theological point of maintaining the title of the Theotokos for the Mother of God is that she is indeed the Mother of the Pre-eternal Logos. This is so because the Pre-eternal Logos is the operating Person of the incarnate Christ. The incarnate Christ that the Mother of God gave birth to- is the Pre-eternal Word. However along with this we also have to keep in mind that the Word has His pre ternal origination from the Father.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Brian McDonald]

I've followed Monachos discussions for a long time though have only attempted one post (that disappeared into virtual space.) But I do want to say that as a veteran observer of certain discussions sites that generate more heat than light, I’m deeply appreciative of the way discussions are conducted on this one. Here I find that the most sensitive and divisive issues—such as gay marriage—are discussed with a blend of candor, charity, and thoughtfulness. No one seems to be screaming at each other or past each other. Yet at the same time, those presenting the Church’s teachings seem to be firm and clear rather than mushy and “concessive” to modernistic attempts to distort or abandon the foundational teachings of the Church.

As a result, threads like this one on gay marriage frequently seem to progress into an increasingly deep and multi-faceted understanding of the subject at hand. I appreciate the way the focus on this topic has seemed to move from “gay marriage” itself to the much larger one of what sexuality and marriage mean for Orthodox Christians, and whether those of us who regard ourselves as such are actually practicing marriage after the pattern given to us in our Lord’s teachings and the Church’s understanding.

If I may now add my two cents: Gay marriage can’t be treated as a “stand alone” issue. Its advocates are almost (if not invariably) sexual “liberationists” up and down the line and firm supporters of artificial birth control, abortion, “no fault” divorce, living together outside of marriage, or marrying with the intention not to have children. This isn’t a coincidence. The popular phrase, “birds of a feather flock together” is as true of viewpoints as it is of people. They share among them this common bond: they’re all aspects of the sexual revolution. And what fuels the sexual revolution is the slogan shouted by many of us hippies in the sixties: “If it feels good do it.” That is “trust your passions” rather than “control your passions and let them be transfigured in Christ.”

The struggle here isn’t between new “progressive” ideas such as Gay marriage” against retrograde and outmoded prejudices of the Church. Rather we’re simply involved in the latest phase of a perennial war between the Church and the “trust your passions” culture of paganism. A number of pagan philosophers seemed to endorse (as many practiced), forms of homosexuality, especially pederasty. (Plato’s Symposium is very eye-opening on this.) Abortion and infanticide were completely accepted and fornication was no big deal. In fact, the ancient Graeco-Roman world was remarkably contemporary! But the church followed a lord that said, “It shall not be so among you.”

The power of the early church was that to a large extent it created a culture in which such things “were not so.” Orthodox Christians today—besides learning to recognize old sins when they put on new disguises--need to ask ourselves how seriously we take the Lord’s “It shall not be so among you.” This means not picking and choosing which of our Lord’s teachings on love and marriage we’ll follow and which we’ll reject. After all, that’s what we object to in those who call themselves Orthodox and yet support gay marriage! Our first concern ought to be what we practice and not what they do. Are we refraining from fornication? Are we married folks open to having children or choosing to be childless or maintain our lifestyles by severely limiting family size? Have we married for life or have we a kind of reservation clause that will let us divorce if the going gets too tough? Are we dressing modestly or in exhibitionistic ways? Are we living like those who trust the Lord rather than trusting our passions, or are we really very little different form “the world” except we’re a bit old-fashioned about gay marriage?

[Jason Huck]

If I may now add my two cents: Gay marriage can’t be treated as a “stand alone” issue. Its advocates are almost (if not invariably) sexual “liberationists” up and down the line and firm supporters of artificial birth control, abortion, “no fault” divorce, living together outside of marriage, or marrying with the intention not to have children. This isn’t a coincidence. The popular phrase, “birds of a feather flock together” is as true of viewpoints as it is of people. They share among them this common bond: they’re all aspects of the sexual revolution. And what fuels the sexual revolution is the slogan shouted by many of us hippies in the sixties: “If it feels good do it.” That is “trust your passions” rather than “control your passions and let them be transfigured in Christ.”

The struggle here isn’t between new “progressive” ideas such as Gay marriage” against retrograde and outmoded prejudices of the Church. Rather we’re simply involved in the latest phase of a perennial war between the Church and the “trust your passions” culture of paganism. A number of pagan philosophers seemed to endorse (as many practiced), forms of homosexuality, especially pederasty. (Plato’s Symposium is very eye-opening on this.) Abortion and infanticide were completely accepted and fornication was no big deal. In fact, the ancient Graeco-Roman world was remarkably contemporary! But the church followed a lord that said, “It shall not be so among you.”

I'm sorry Rdr McDonald but you would be wrong to assume that gay marriage advocates are all "sexual liberationists" as you put it. Many of the gay people I know do not support abortion. This unfortunately shows the presumptions that are made by people within our Church and the lack of understanding that exists between both camps. Until we fully understand each other we will never be able to see the other as anything more than an enemy, and that makes me incredibly sad

[Jason Huck]

Dear Anna,

I didn't clarify in my post that my understanding of Orthodox teaching on contraception is indeed that it is not to be used indisciminately and without concern, but always within marriage, and always after the prayerful, discerning communication between Orthodox spouses and their priest or spiritual director.


In Christ
Byron

I'm sorry, but I find it interesting that male indiscretions regarding sexuality seem to have been tolerated and/or encouraged for hundreds of years, by religious and non-religious elite alike, and yet it was only when female contraception came to the forefront in the latter half of the last century that anyone in Christendom, including Orthodoxy, seemed to make the issue of indiscretion, re: females, a real issue. I'm sure there are the rare few who said this or that, but this to me smacks of some huge hypocrisy.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm sorry, but I find it interesting that male indiscretions regarding sexuality seem to have been tolerated and/or encouraged for hundreds of years, by religious and non-religious elite alike, and yet it was only when female contraception came to the forefront in the latter half of the last century that anyone in Christendom, including Orthodoxy, seemed to make the issue of indiscretion, re: females, a real issue. I'm sure there are the rare few who said this or that, but this to me smacks of some huge hypocrisy.

I feel that Reader Brian, Byron, and previously Anna did address this issue in a serious way. That we are all called to struggle against sin and passion without regard to who we are or whether we are single, married, or monastic. This is what they either clearly said or clearly implied.

We have to be careful though so that we are not justifying sinful behaviour by pointing out the sinful behaviour of others. This accomplishes no good and overlooks the fact that the Church has indeed condemned sin across the board for the past many centuries. What we have to do though is to participate in this program of healing.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Timothy Mulligan]

One of the best discussions I've heard or read on the issue of same sex attraction and Orthodoxy is the two-part series by Steve the Builder on Ancient Faith Radio. You can listen to the podcasts here:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/orthodoxy_and_homosexuality_part_one
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/orthodoxy_and_homosexuality_part_two

(http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/orthodoxy_and_homosexuality_part_two)Steve's basic point is that same sex attraction is one of the passions. It is a grave error to identify with our passions. If those of us with same sex attraction consider those feelings as "me," then of course we will feel that we are under attack when homosexuality is discussed in light of Orthodoxy.

While I do not subscribe to "change therapy," I do subscribe to Orthodoxy. And as St. Paul warns us, we should not conform our nous to the present age.

Let's repent and approach the true Fire for healing of the nous and real love.

[Brian McDonald]

Jason Huck wrote: "I'm sorry Rdr McDonald but you would be wrong to assume that gay marriage advocates are all ‘sexual liberationists’ as you put it."

To save space in an already too lengthy post, I included the qualification, "are almost [always] (if not invariably) sexual 'liberationists.'" (I accidentally left out the word "always" in my post.). I had hoped that this qualification would indicate my recognition that individual cases may vary. I do stand by my original point, that supporters of gay marriage (of whom I know a good number) would in general be supporters of a constellation of other views that logically flow out of the sexual revolution.

And it was the “logic” that I was trying to emphasize in my comments that gay marriage wasn’t a “stand alone” issue. If one sincerely believes that traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality has been a confining and oppressive yoke that the human race is better off rejecting, the logic of that position will tend to lead one not only to the support of gay marriage, but many or most of the other positions I also identified.

I hoped to draw attention to the bigger picture, that for Christians trying to “test the spirits,” gay marriage is less important in and of itself than it is as an expression of a “mind set,” one that I see as a revival in modern dress of much that was in the ancient paganism. And I did that in turn, not to condemn pagans, but to emphasize how important it is for Orthodox Christians to increase our discernment, to understand the difference between what’s of “the world” and what’s of Christ, and so be equipped to follow him in a more discerning and earnest manner.

I should also add that in differentiating pagans from Christians, I’m not condemning the former. Identifying someone as a “sexual liberationist” is not the same thing as calling him/her a bad person. A good number of my colleagues at the university I teach are “sexual liberationists” in the sense that they support a lot of the changes in belief and practice of sexuality that have taken place since the sixties. They do so precisely as people of good will, genuinely idealistic and attempting to advance their vision of fairness, goodness and justice. In fact, one of the painful and conflicting ironies of my life is that my academic colleagues are every bit as idealistic as the people in my church, anxious to advance their views of a better world, though their beliefs are polar opposites!

[Paul Cowan]

I'm sorry Rdr McDonald but you would be wrong to assume that gay marriage advocates are all "sexual liberationists" as you put it. Many of the gay people I know do not support abortion. This unfortunately shows the presumptions that are made by people within our Church and the lack of understanding that exists between both camps. Until we fully understand each other we will never be able to see the other as anything more than an enemy, and that makes me incredibly sad

I think we fully understand each other pretty well. In each "camp" there are extremists and dare I say conservatives. But as one "camp" describes their position they lean towards one side until the other "Camp" challenges them and then they scream well look at your far side. We're swallowing the fly for the camel. (I don't think I got that saying right, but you know what I mean). The two "camps" will never agree becuase this is a personal issue between the God and the individual; the Church being God's representative.

When the "camp" that gets involved is speaking and manipulating the individual then there is confusion between the individual and the Church. When we align ourselves outside the teachings of the historical church, we are aligning ourselves with modern and in some cases ancient errors. Errors the church knows how do heal IF the individual will realign their desires with what the church teaches.

This does not have to be a "we versus they" battle but rather a "we versus I" battle. And it IS a battle. A battle against OUR passions regardless if that passion is lust, gluttony, sloth etc...

Paul

[Michael Bauman]

Jason, two things:

1. I have seen nothing here that suggests that people who struggle with the passion of same sex attraction are enemies.
The enemy is sin and our own passions often excited by demonic influence and societal acquiescence to the fallen. Those are enemies everyone shares and must be vigilant against. It is only by standing together within the Ark of Salvation and holding firm to the teachings of the Church that call us to repentance of all sin are we allowed to participate in the victory our Lord has gained for us. What may seem like personal enmity is the unbending refusal to label sin (any sin) as not a sin. I see that as an act of love and hope that my brothers and sisters do not allow me to fall into the trap of identifying with my sin. We may not share the same passions, but we do share the same struggle. In this there is no "us" vs. "them".

2. Your charge of hypocrisy against the Church regarding male sexual liberties is unfounded. Even a cursory read through the cannons on marriage in the Rudder for instance makes it clear what a foul sin fornication is considered and how men who commit fornication are severely chastised and subject to long penances. Do not forget that St. Paul in Romans 1, includes fornication in his list of condemned activities. What you see is not the Church, but the influence on people within the Church over centuries. The homosexual lobby is intensifying our awareness of what the true teaching of the Church is. We should be grateful for the pressure being exerted on us by the homosexual advocates. It gives us an opportunity to stand up and return to the praxis of the Church; to the revealed foundation. To put it succinctly: sexual activity is only blessed in marriage and even there it is not blessed in all of its forms. Fornication and other sexual sins can and do occur within marriage when lust and selfishness are the driving factors. Sexual activity must be within certain bounds even between two married people. That is part of what Fr. Raphael is alluding to when he says that Orthodox marriage is an ascetic endeavor. In Orthodox marriage sex is always a reward for our continence (a phrase from the crowning if I am not mistaken). Without continued continence, there is no blessed reward. It should always a gift given out of love rather than a treat to be desired and demanded like a 5 year old in a candy store. Once again the Church shows us that both Victorian style prudishness and libertine excess are equally wrong. That is the standard. One does not overcome hypocrisy by giving into error. One overcomes hypocrisy by actually practicing the truth.

One last point

Lest anyone think that asceticism is marked by dourness, unhappiness and joylessness--the opposite is true. Only God directed asceticism allows human beings to know real joy, the transcendent joy of God's grace being manifest. The mystery of gender that God put into his creation is not just about sex. That we are even tempted to think about it in that manner is an indication of how far we have fallen. The suggestion that because there is no sexual activity in the Kingdom, that gender becomes superfluous is part of that. The male-female synergy is the manifestation of God's fecundity that allows us to be fruitful stewards of His creation beyond just multiplying our kind. Even sex within marriage is not just a duty to make babies (although that is central), it is also a sacramental act that assaults the suspicion, envy and fear and plain incomprehension between men and women that are the result of the fall.

Unfortunately, male-female synergy is impossible between two folks of the same gender. No matter what is attempted psychically or physically to mimic the synergy, same sex unions will always be fake--a man-made idol.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Jason,


male indiscretions regarding sexuality seem to have been tolerated and/or encouraged for hundreds of years, by religious and non-religious elite alike, and yet it was only when female contraception came to the forefront in the latter half of the last century that anyone in Christendom, including Orthodoxy, seemed to make the issue of indiscretion, re: females, a real issue.

It seems to me that you are misperceiving the way the Church has operated historically, because you are trying to "read" its intentions through a set of uncritically accepted modern assumptions which do not apply to it. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that female contraception has given women social power which the allegedly conservative old patriarchal institutions, like the Orthodox Church, have resented and fought against in the latter half of the last century; you also seem to be suggesting that the same Church had hypocritically turned a blind eye to male sexual indiscretions for centuries prior to that.

I think even a cursory glance at sexual ethics throughout the history of the Christian Church disproves this thesis. The same strict measure of sexual purity demanded of women has been equally demanded of men. There is no theological justification for letting one gender off from the call to ascetic endeavour. If societies across the globe have practiced a double-standard wrt sexual ethics historically, I would say that has been despite, not because of the Church's actual teaching. The Church is not an exclusive boys' club, and has been eager to teach and preserve the wholeness of her children, men and women Orthodox Christians, throughout its history (if only we shared even a little bit of that fervour in our personal lives)!

I think Rdr McDonald has been explaining this very well in his posts, as have other monachos posters. Rdr McDonald, I feel I share your poignant sense of pain at the fact that serious-minded and idealistic colleagues we respect and love may think the exact opposite of what we do about 'sexual liberation'. I struggle with notions of repression / acting-out daily as a human being and a psychotherapist, and I find it interesting that psychological science is currently saying that if, f.e. we want to learn to control our anger, hitting a pillow may not be such a good idea after all. Similarly I would say, if we want to be in control of our sexuality, sexual acting-out and surrender to our desires and fantasies would in fact hinder us. Just as rage is the opposite of true assertiveness, sexual incontinence is the opposite of sexual freedom and true intimacy. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church for both sexes. It is not that the Church has "repressed" sexuality, pushing it out of consciousness, denying it or regressively twisting it into something else, like say prudishness or priggishness - instead, it is the fundamental insight that this fallen sexuality (heterosexual or not) is "not me" which can give the Church the confidence to suggest we should not do as pagan civilization had done (even in pagan Greece, however, it should be noted that a man was admired for 'enkrateia', sexual continence). St John Chrysostom is neither prudish nor priggish, yet he was a celibate monk; similarly I am sometimes astonished by the sexual candour found in the imagery of some of our Church hymns, regarding e.g. the Theotokos. Sexual prudishness, as Foucault has argued I think, is in fact a modern, not a pre-modern phenomenon. The old Christian world which 'progressive' thinkers admonish, could in fact look at our the temples of our bodies with surprising sincerity and humanity.

In Christ
Byron

[Brian McDonald]

Jason Huck said: I'm sorry, but I find it interesting that male indiscretions regarding sexuality seem to have been tolerated and/or encouraged for hundreds of years, by religious and non-religious elite alike.


Jason, I know you’ve already got a couple of responses to this, but I can’t resist adding my own thoughts here just because somewhere close to the time you posted, I’d been reading from Sir Thomas Malory’s great 15th century Arthurian cycle, Le Morte D’Arthur. The episode I was reading directly speaks to your claim above. Sir Percivale “gets naked” with an immensely attractive woman, but before he does anything he happens to glance at his sword hilt and his smitten with contrition when he sees the image of the crucifix engraved in it. He stoops himself and the whole of the next chapter is taken up with his anguished repentance.


“Fair sweet Father, Jesu Christ, ne let me not be shamed, the which was nigh lost had not thy good grace . . . . Then Sir Percivale made great sorrow and drew his sword unto him saying: Sithin [since] my flesh will be my master I shall punish it; and therewith he rove himself through the thigh that the blood stert about him, and he said: “O good Lord, take this in recompensation of that I have done against thee, my Lord. . . . “How nigh was I lost, and to have lost that I should never have gotten again, [I]that was my virginity [emphasis added].” (Bk xiv, ch. x.)

Now I’m not recommending self-mutilation as response to remorse! Rather I offer this telling quote as evidence of how Christian men from earlier centuries might take the ideal of chastity. Sir Percivale is a fictional character, to be sure, but we may take his reactions as fairly typical of serious Christian men of the time. The intensity of his feelings should serve as an indication that far from “encouraging male indiscretions,” the “religious elites” of earlier ears may have on the contrary, been drumming a very rigorous sexual ideal into men.


Michael Bauman said: To put it succinctly: sexual activity is only blessed in marriage and even there it is not blessed in all of its forms. Fornication and other sexual sins can and do occur within marriage when lust and selfishness are the driving factors. Sexual activity must be within certain bounds even between two married people. That is part of what Fr. Raphael is alluding to when he says that Orthodox marriage is an ascetic endeavor. In Orthodox marriage sex is always a reward for our continence (a phrase from the crowning if I am not mistaken). Without continued continence, there is no blessed reward. It should always a gift given out of love rather than a treat to be desired and demanded like a 5 year old in a candy store. Once again the Church shows us that both Victorian style prudishness and libertine excess are equally wrong. That is the standard. One does not overcome hypocrisy by giving into error. One overcomes hypocrisy by actually practicing the truth.

Michael, you’ve put so much more clearly and succinctly what I was trying to get to! I think this is a superb summary of the Church’s teaching on chastity, sexuality, gender and marriage that I want to highlight in case any one else wants to do what I just did—store it with sayings to remember for the future. I think “One does not overcome hypocrisy by giving into error. One overcomes hypocrisy by actually practicing the truth” might be worth repeating at least once a day.

I think the crying need for Christians of our time is to avoid getting sucked into sexual identity politics and subject ourselves to a kind of “demystification” of sexual passion itself. Sex in our era (again a resemblance to earlier paganism) is treated as a well-nigh irresistible force we must bow down and worship. One of the things that most astonished the pagans about the early Christians was their practice of chastity and sexual restraint. Would we could create that same kind of astonishment again!

[Anna Stickles]

In Orthodox marriage sex is always a reward for our continence (a phrase from the crowning if I am not mistaken). Without continued continence, there is no blessed reward.

Which phrase from the crowning? Seeing sex as a reward, is still to see it as "candy" even if we are struggling not to be demanding. .... Not exactly what the Father's teach as the ideal of what we are struggling toward as far as I understand it. To be working for a reward in faith toward God is better then to be working out of fear of hell, but the ideal is love. This statement has not yet reached that ideal as it is portrayed in the Patristic witness.

But maybe what we need to do is ask Fr Irenei to start a Theme of the Month thread on love for Nov and Dec.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think the wording of the crowning has it as children being the fruit of the marriage bond.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Anna,


Seeing sex as a reward, is still to see it as "candy" even if we are struggling not to be demanding. .... Not exactly what the Father's teach as the ideal of what we are struggling toward as far as I understand it. I agree with what you're saying about seeing sex as a "reward", though I have heard of it referred to as a 'gift', compared to Holy Communion itself. I think the only problem with the "reward" image is that one is rewarded for something good one has done - fasting? Prayer? Vigil? Acceptance of suffering? I don't think sex is a reward, but I do think it is a gift, and I sense that it is also an image of a greater union to come. Also, regarding the pleasure of sex, C.S. Lewis says pleasure is God's invention, but the devil urges us to make inappropriate use of it.

In Christ
Byron

[Anna Stickles]

St John Chrysostom, in his commentary on I Cor 7 indeed sees a physical joining as taking place in this union - more then just the obvious fruit of having children -- a union of the partners themselves.

But I think that we have to beware of giving physical communion equal status with Holy Communion. Certainly the whole testimony of the Church is that our spiritual being is higher and more substantial then the physical aspects of our being.

And also, we know that this physical existence of ours is fallen. The resurrection of the flesh which will allowed for an unstained and pure physical communion is not attainable until after the general resurrection. Also at that point this physical communion will not be exclusive, but universal.

However, the Fathers tell us that a resurrection of the soul and an unstained and pure communion with God is to a much greater degree possible now.

So much emphasis in the current discussion revolves around this whole issue of pleasure vs Puritansim, etc. that I think the deeper issues are being missed.