www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Orthodox Statement on Homosexuality

http://www.holy-trinity.org/morality/homosexuality.html

The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has been expressed by synodical canons and Patristic pronouncements beginning with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life.

Thus, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature.

Thus the function of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and their bio-chemical generating forces in glands and glandular secretions are ordained by nature to serve one particular purpose, the procreation of the human kind.

However, the human sexual apparatus appears to have been designed not only as the medium by which the necessary physical contact for the purpose of sex is affected, but as the generator as well and the center of a highly complex system of feelings which all together are known by the name eros, love between husband and wife.

Therefore, any and all uses of the human sex organs for purposes other than those ordained by creation, runs contrary to the nature of things as decreed by God and produces the following wrongs:

a. They violate God's ordinance regarding both the procreation of man and his emotional life generated by his instinctive attraction to the opposite sex not only for procreating but for advancing the personalities of a man and a woman to a state of completion within the association of the Sacrament of Marriage. For all this, homosexuality is an insult to God, and since it attempts to alter the laws regulating creation it is a blasphemy.

b. Homosexuality interferes with the normal development of societal patterns and as such it proves detrimental to all. These endangered patterns include personal values regarding sex which people normally take to be a vital part of their existence and a valuable asset to their living a normal life, esteemed by others.

c. The homosexual degrades his own sex and thus denies to himself the self-respect that is generated from the feeling that one is in line with God's creation.

Homosexuality appears to be of two kinds: physico-genetic and habitual. Physico-genetic homosexuality is of physical origin due to secretory abnormalities that may produce organic changes. This type of homosexuality is rather rare and is treated as any other medical disorder.

Habitual homosexuality may have more than one cause. All, however, point out to a moral failure at some stage of the individual's development, or to the animate environment from which the homosexual originated.

Thus, although homosexuality followed as a way of life by the sufferer, may be subject to psychopathological investigation and treatment, the origin of it, in all but the few physico-genetic cases mentioned above, brings with it a moral failure. It is because of the realization of this that homosexuality has been described from ancient times as a moral stigma.

Thus, the Orthodox Church cannot subscribe to the demand that homosexuals be recognized by society and its agencies as legal spouses and as deserving the same respect as men and women enjoy in the state of wedlock.

Society and its values, religious and societal, have legitimate claims over the behavior of its members, especially in so vital a function as the sexual one on which not only the survival but its quality as well depend. No one has the right to do whatever he wishes with his body and still claim recognition and respect on the part of society.

The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by society as an immoral and dangerous perversion and by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God's ordinance.

In full confidentiality, the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually.

Psychiatric restoration, without religious direction and reconciliation with God, is bound to prove short lived.

A healthy society and various religions do not recognize perversions. Rather, they work to restore the homosexual to the status of a self-esteemed individual and thus to a valued instrument of their own survival and wellbeing under God.

Alexandr

Good information on this problem. If the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome address this issue they will probably be in full agreement.

Rome and the East "officially" agree on much. The problem lies with certain interpretations held by members of said groups that cause difficulties. Even Moscow is now willing to band together with Rome to fight immorality and social decline in Europe. Who'd a thunk it?

Alexandr

Very well-thought-out, and articulated statement. Sadly, there are growing numbers of afflicted folks who just do not want to hear this message. Rather than seeking a cure or, at least, assistance for this disorder (and if you listen to Fr. John Harvey or the Catholic psychologist Nicolosi, there have been cases of reversal of this tendency where the causes are primarily "behavioral"-understanding the term as it is used in the field of psychology), some in our culture want to celebrate it as a "God-given gift". I am haunted by a statement made, some years ago, at a lecture, by a priest-moral theologian noted for his Catholic orthodoxy, to the effect that "if God does not punish this, he owes an apology to Sodom & Gomorrah". A comment worth contemplating.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

What is really sad is that I have read that statistics show that a large majority of Homosexuals have been molested in the past. Also, I have read that statistically a large majority of Homosexuals have had dysfunctional relationship with their father.

I feel sorry for people who suffer from S.A.D (same-sex attraction disorder). Many of them are living with a lot of hurt.

As someone who has family members and friends who are homosexual, I feel the need to interject something here. And please don't misunderstand, I'm not asking that anyone depart from the Church's teaching concerning homosexual acts. However, I have also seen in my lifetime people use that teaching to justify discrimination and hatred towards homosexuals (although I'm not accusing anyone here of that). I believe that the Catholic Church's teaching on how homosexuals are to be treated needs to be brought into this discussion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Article 6, II, 2357, states:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Again, I'm not advocating a departure from the Church's teaching-just that we be judicious and compassionate in our speech and in our actions.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan,

An excellent quotation from the CCC and I heartily agree. With all due respect to those who struggle, though, I worry more about the radical gay agenda that is making its way in our courts and legislatures. The predominant feeling of the social elite in most Western countries goes beyond tolerance and into radical social transformation of the meaning of marriage. This is extremely dangerous for society...as is the whole flexible notions of "gender" that are pushed in our schools, the growing number of prominent homosexual themes in media.

Not having witnessed hatred for homosexuals personally, I can understand why there could be a growing undercurrent of hatred for the gay agenda that is being thrust upon the culture by the government and media.

Gordo

Gordo makes a very good point.

No one is advocating or condoning hatred or discrimination of homosexual individuals, however, the great agenda which has formed gay clubs in middle and high schools, and which has made being 'gay' into a 'cool' thing to be at an age where most adolescents are inately confused about their sexuality is not a good thing.

One can be accepting and loving (I do have gay friends and coworkers) without judging or condemning. I do still believe that keeping one's private life to oneself, homosexual or heterosexual, is still the best etiquette and the best way to maintain mutual respect and civility in social relationships. (A female friend of mine who has a very close male homosexual friend has to keep on reminding him of this...)

Imposing one's countercultural lifestyle, whether it is swinging, adultery, promiscuity, or homosexuality, on others, will ultimately backfire.

Alice, Moderator

What if one's "countercultural lifestyle" is Holy Orthodoxy?

What if one's "countercultural lifestyle" is the hillbilly lifestyle?

Have not most Saints spent their lives spreading a "countercultural lifestyle"?

Dearest Alice:

I actually agree. Unfortunately, there's little left in this country with respect to what is appropriate to display in public and what is not-at least among younger generations (of which I'm a member, so I feel that I can get away with saying that).
Ryan

Ryan,

Your generation has suffered more than most from the exploitation and pornographication of society. Everybody (and almost "every body") wants to be seen on the internet these days doing things that are still illegal in some states south of the Mason-Dixie.

But I sense that, despite the addictions that are out there, there is already a fatigue setting in for many as a result of this overexposure. I have heard rumblings of a resurgence of interest in the values of modesty and simplicity. (As a small indicator of this trend, my wife has noticed an large increase in the sale of "modest" and traditional style dresses for girls on e-bay. Who knows...beauty and femininity may be making a comeback of sorts!)

God bless,

Gordo

PS: Ditto to Alice's points as well.

Gordo, i am surprised that you have been spared seeing this kind of hatred. I could tell you hair raising stories of physical and emotional hatred inflicted on gay people and nothing to do with some "agenda" but the old monster of prejudice.

Alice, I would respectfully disagree that something is being imposed in this free country of ours but rather it is a matter of people not living lies about themselves. This does not necessarily mean being the shouting activist (but these voices are often needed to shake us from our complacency) but just living one's life without fear of being bashed literally as is too often the case or emotionally. Maybe we can't understand each other on this point. But I pray for it.

Brian,

It depends on what you mean by "living a lie".

I would not equate the whole phenomenon of "coming out of the closet", such as we have witnessed lately with Doogie Houser and some stars of pop music, as a matter of personal integrity, but rather as a somewhat public abandonment (with or without the supportive media) or statement of an attachement to a fundamentally disordered and sinful lifestyle.

The lifestyle itself represents "a lie" in the language of the body.

The pressure to acccept sinful lifestyles has even found its way into corporations which are falling all over themselves to put a stake in the ground for "diversity" and "inclusivity".

I attended a Diversity and Inclusion workshop a number of years ago where members who were homosexual (and it appears obviously so) felt forced through the pressure of the group dynamic to stand and identify themselves as a member of this social identity group with pride. (It was driven in part by one of the facilitators who endlessly ranted about the joy he now experiences since the Commonwealth of MA now allows his son to make the same commitment to his male lover that he made years ago to his wife. He literally wept about it several times in the three day workshop. The whole experience came as close to a brainwashing session as I have ever experienced.) One woman refused, and we talked afterwards and she said "I don't feel as though it is anyone's business about my personal life." I told her "You are absolutely right. No one should feel pressured to share anything, especially not in the workplace."

The whole experience was madness. What's more, in my role within Human Resources, if I EVER spoke out against this nonsense, it would be the end of my career. And I say this as one who has worked with and respected the contributions of gay colleagues for years. It was never an issue. We knew where the other stood - we knew there would be disagreement - so for the sake of good working relationships, it was never broached, nor did it need to be. (Quite frankly, I feel that inserting this agenda into a mandatory program drives a wedge between good coworkers.) Teachers in public schools who oppose some of the infiltration of the gay agenda also risk open persecution and even disciplinary action if they oppose some of the nonsense that goes on.

This is not about integrity at any level. It is about exerting social, fiscal and governmental pressure on those who oppose the gay lifestyle to conform and affirm or suffer the consequences.

As to the persecution you mentioned, violence against another human being because of their lifestyle is always wrong. If anything, I believe that those who suffer with SSAD deserve our compassion. But that should not equate to affirmation of the lifestyle.

Peace.

CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY: RUSSIANS SPEAK OUT

http://www.orthodox.net/russia/2000-08-17-homosexuality.html

On August 15 the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a strictly conservative social policy platform that contained harsh criticisms of homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and artificial insemination. The social policy platform was adopted at jubilee-year meeting of the Council of Bishops, an assembly of top Orthodox clergy, held at Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. A day earlier the council canonized more than 850 new saints, including Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II.

This is the first formal pronouncement by the Russian Orthodox Church on contemporary social issues, on which it was not allowed to comment in Soviet times. It also represents the first unequivocal reiteration of traditional Christian teachings by a major denomination in recent years. "The Holy Bible and the Church doctrine unequivocally condemn homosexual ties as a perverse distortion of the God-given nature of the human being," the document stated. The bishops called for homosexuals to be barred from working as teachers, or taking up senior positions in the army and prison management. They strongly condemned proposals for same-sex "marriages" and transsexual operations. Russian bishops also condemned euthanasia as a grave sin that is both murder and suicide, and euthanasia victims are to be denied Christian burial or memorial services. The bishops also condemned child bearing by surrogate mothers and artificial insemination. Finally, the document reaffirmed the Church's opposition to abortion, which is widely practiced in Russia as a form of birth control.

The statement by Russian bishops should be welcomed as a timely reminder to Christians everywhere that succumbing to the relentless pressure of modernity is not only undesirable, but also quite impossible; any "Church" that accepts or even condones sexual deviance, euthanasia, or abortion ceases to exist as such. It may go through the motions of sacraments, but it can offer neither comfort nor salvation.

Attempts by some Christian denominations to come up with similar statements have caused deep divisions, and even when the majority reaffirms traditional teachings the activist liberal minority refuses to be bound by that decision. In August 1998 Third World Anglican bishops outvoted their liberal Western colleagues at the ten-yearly Lambeth conference, and adopted a motion affirming that lifelong heterosexual marriage is the only place for sexual activity, that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture, and that same-sex unions should not be blessed. And yet the defeated minority of Western "reformists" has ensured that the ruling does not affect their dioceses.

Reaffirmation of authentic Christian teaching has nothing to do with "tolerance". Christians should be tolerant of homosexuals in that they ought to feel compassion for people struggling with an affliction not of their own choosing. Indeed, a homosexual who keeps his propensity in check, and who strives to find release from his inclination, can enjoy grace. But seeking empathy does not mean that we can rewrite scripture, or that we should accommodate a sin simply because it is supposedly inborn, unchangeable, or common. By cutting conscience to suit latest fashions, we'll soon run out of cloth.

Homosexual activists and their apologists claim that if Jesus Christ did not specifically forbid a behavior, then it could not have been important to Him. "Jesus was more interested in love," they say. But their argument is flawed. An unmarried couple "in love" is sinning if it has sex before marriage. Adulterers may well be "in love" with their extra-marital partners, but God imposes immutable limitations on human relationships, regardless of "love." In other words, "love" does not sanctify a relationship. Things done in its name can be impure and sinful.

A more general point is that the Gospels are not the sole - nor even the most authoritative -- source of biblical authority. They do not contain a comprehensive behavioral code. All scripture has come to us by the grace of God, and the Old Testament is unambiguous in its condemnation of sodomy. It also understood normal sexual intercourse as not only a way of expressing a loving relationship, but also as a divinely appointed way of procreating new life. This is reiterated by St. Paul time after time.

Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but He did not mention incest or wife beating by name either. His silence does not invalidate clear prohibitions of such behavior elsewhere, in both Old and New Testaments. God's created intent for human sexuality is clear to Jesus. When asked about divorce He reiterates that God made us male and female; the Creator's intent was that the two would become one flesh: "what God has joined together, let man not separate." God's standard is clear: male and female, man and wife. To claim that this is anything less than an explicit is disingenuous.

Those who deviate from the standard may be Christian, and loved by God, but their behavior is not pleasing to Him. We do not necessarily cease to be Christians because we are sinning, but our faith as such does not legitimize the sin. And yet, too many Western clerics are no longer capable of grasping that professing Christianity is merely the basis for a life pleasing to God, not the proof that it is so. Joe Dallas, author of A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement and a former homosexual activist, has summed the problem up:

We would rather be nice. That is a strange tendency creeping into the church: "niceness" is taking precedence over truth. Immorality -- even among Christian leaders -- is going unconfronted, and many churches seem more concerned with making people comfortable than arousing in them a sense of their need for God. In such an environment, it is no wonder erroneous teachings like the pro-gay theology are flourishing. Evangelist and Pastor Greg Laurie summed up the problem nicely: "What is being depicted to individuals is a 'user-friendly' God who will smile benignly down upon their lifestyles of choice, as they continue to live as they like." But, however the social justice arguments of the pro-gay theology compel us towards 'niceness,' the God we represent places a higher premium on truth than accommodation. May we, by His grace, never shun the two-fold mandate to speak the truth, in love.

Homosexual behavior is a distortion of God's purpose and a misuse of his gift. But anyone making a stand against the rising tide of homosexuality will be accused of homophobia, and ultimately "hate crimes." It is our responsibility to see that, while loving in our firm response, we do not succumb to the dictates of political correctitude. The statement by Russian bishops should be emulated by all other Christian congregations.

Alexandr