www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Unions Between Homosexuals

The content of what follows is intended to offend no one except incumbent Catholic legislators (who are unlikely to read it anyway). J. Thur asked, sensibly, if there were any more comments on his original posting. I have one thought to offer - our entire discussion is largely pointless, because according to the original posting, the Pope is striving to encourage Catholic legislators to take a position on a question of morals. The fact is that there is no possibility that a signficant proportion of Catholic legislators will do any such thing. When did we last see our Catholic legislators take a firm stand against abortion and related forms of child murder and child abuse? That's right - such an event is not even within the memory of most of us. And at the present moment, how many Catholic legislators would have the courage even to appear to be listening to what the Pope and the Bishops might say? In the practical order of things, the legislators will bend over backwards to avoid giving any impression of allowing their Catholic believes to affect their public behavior (which then raises the question of why they bother to hold beliefs which do not affect their public behavior). This is not even a new development - when Senator John Kennedy was running for president, back in 1960, he faced a battery of Protestant ministers on national television and swore up and down that he would never allow his Catholic believes to affect his conduct! So forget about it; the pronouncement of the Pope will have no effect on legislation. Incognitus

Hold on now, lets not go overboard here. There are many good Catholics, who take strong moral positions in politics. Henry Hyde is one example.

Axios addressed this to David but I would like to respond. The moral issues raised in �Humane Vitae� are issues that Rome and Orthodoxy need to discuss and resolve. Issues like Orthodoxy�s acceptance of the use artificial contraception are part of what still divides the two Churches.

No. We always should treat one another with respect but one cannot �agree to disagree� on moral issues. Using such logic one would also have to give equal respect to Christians who reject the Scriptural teachings on abortion and etc. One simply cannot pick and choose what one wishes to believe and expect to be considered a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

Yes, it is sad when people reject God�s moral teachings. When they do so knowingly they put their eternal salvation at risk. In both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches those who reject moral teachings are to refrain from taking Holy Communion until they have had a change of heart, fully accepted the Church�s teachings and repented for their sinful actions.

Steve,

Thanks for your post.

First, I would like to commend you for your approach to these discussions. You appear to be seeking understanding of Church Teachings rather than condemning those who strive to uphold them.

Second, have you read Ratzinger�s
�Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church" [vatican.va] ? It addresses many of the issues we are discussing.

Steve asked:
What is legitimate discrimination? How is it different from discrimination that is not legitimate?

To discriminate is to make a clear distinction.

On an elementary level one may discriminate between white corn and yellow corn simply based upon individual preference. [Yes, I had corn on the cob at dinner and prefer the white corn. ]

On a more complex level one may also discriminate among people and behavior.

Discrimination against people because of who they are is unjust and condemned by both the Church and society.

Discrimination against people because of their behavior is just and enacted into both our religious and legal systems.

It is unjust to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin or because they have a physical deformity. No one has control over these things.

It is just to discriminate against someone because of the behavior they choose to engage in. We discriminate justly against people for murder, rape, driving while intoxicated, and etc.

Steve asked:
Is it a religious practice. Is it a practice on the part of the civil authorities?

Both.

Every religion carries with it a code of what types of discrimination are just and what types are unjust. The Catholic Church, for example, justly discriminates against a priest who chooses unrepentantly to deny the Trinity when it removes him from his position. The Orthodox Church justly discriminates against a lay individual who chooses to reject Orthodox Teaching by running an abortion mill when it excommunicates him (or her). [And, of course, neither Church is perfect in how it discriminates.]

Society also discriminates, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly. Society is unjust when it discriminates against people for who they are (black, Asian, Hispanic, and etc.). Society is just when it discriminates against people for the behaviors they choose to engage in (murder, theft, rape, polygamy, adultery, and etc.).

Among the issues here is the standard upon which a Church or society bases its moral code upon. For Christians this should be easy. We have Holy Tradition upon which to base our moral code. The Commandments gives us a list of things we are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, many Christians now reject Christ�s Teachings in favor of personal choice as their moral guide. [�Well, God gave me inclination to engage in X and since it is from God it must be OK to engage in X despite what His Commandments say.�]

Societal standards about the types of discrimination that are just and unjust are in disarray. Our society used to base its moral code upon English Common Law, which was in turn based upon the Ten Commandments. Albeitly, it was a Protestant understanding. Today, however, our society is in the process of rejecting a moral code that is rooted in Judeo-Christian Teachings and replacing it with one of consensus. The problem, of course, with using consensus as the foundation of a moral code is that it is constantly changing. It is this shift away from a Judeo-Christian foundation that has given rise to things like the right to abortion and etc.

Steve asked:
If its a religious practice, what makes one sin warrant legitmate discrimination and not another?

It is just to discriminate against all sinful activity. The question, I think, is what types of discrimination is appropriate for a particular sinful activity. The Latin Church conveniently divides these into the groups �mortal� and �venial� and within each group has an order from worst to least. The Byzantine Church does not use this definition but there is a distinction between lesser and greater sins and there are cannons to address them.

Steve asked:
Is the fact that something is made criminal by the civil authorities reason for discrimination in religious terms?

No. Christianity does not and cannot base its distinction between just and unjust discrimination based upon a civil distinction.

Steve asked:
If its a civil practice, is the fact that something is identified as sin by religious authorities reason for discrimination in civil terms.

Yes. Our Supreme Court, for example, has created a right to abortion. Despite this, Christians have the obligation to witness to society that abortion is immoral. Ultimately, we must convince society of the evil of abortion and hope it changes its laws to prohibit abortion. [Admittedly, this was much easier before Protestant Christians began abandoning Christian Teaching. Now we must somehow work towards a consensus.] [Also keep in mind that when one abandons all religious standards as a foundation for morality one is left with the confusion of consensus as a standard.]

Steve asked:
Are you referring to the practice among some religions of "shunning" those who are sinners? Are you referring to some other form of religious setting apart? Should a good Catholic family shun a son or daughter who is divorced and remarried, for example.

Shunning is a deliberate state of never communicating with another individual (as if they were dead). That is extreme and, in my opinion, unscriptural. What is Scriptural is for Christians to treat people who reject God�s Teachings as unbelievers.

A Christian�s responsibility towards an unbeliever is to respect him and be friendly towards him while also avoiding any sign of condoning any behavior which is immoral and not including the unbeliever as an intimate friend. In a family situation (in the example you site) it would be appropriate to let the individual know that you place your relationship with Christ ahead of your relationship with him (or her) and that because of this there are limits to your relationship.

Steve asked:
What sins make what sinners eligible for legitimate discrimination in the public forum religious or civil?

All sins are eligible for legitimate discrimination in the public forum, both religious and civil. As Christians we are to defer to the Teachings of Christ, both privately and publicly. As members of society we must witness the need for a fixed religious standard of morality. How those standards are applied will change in a pluralistic society. The questions facing civil society at the present are 1) what standard of right and wrong shall we use and 2) what types of penalties are appropriate for those who violate these standards.

Steve asked:
I'm asking because it seems to me that some sins are more equal than others. Committing them gets one a form of legitimate discrimination while committing others of a like nature do not.

Life is very unfair. Women have a right to an abortion in our society and believing Catholics are considered by many to be unfit for public office because they are Pro-Life. Many societal laws which should justly discriminate actually go overboard (while others do not go far enough).

With the topic in this thread I have stated before that no one has a right to immoral behavior. That much should be clear to everyone who calls himself a follower of Jesus Christ. Christians may disagree on the appropriate sanctions for immoral behavior but they should never argue for a right to such behavior or try to win respect for it.

Steve asked:
Knowing myself as a sinner, I find that it's easier to deal with sinners whose sins are more like mine. Sins that are different make it easier to turn from my brother or sister.

Same here.

Steve asked:
What's the objective standard that makes one form of discrimination legitimate and another not legtimate?

For the Christian it must be the Gospel and the Teachings of the Church. We cannot choose what is right or wrong because God has given us Commandments (right and wrong is not subject to negotiation). What we (i.e., the Church) can choose (and agree and disagree upon) is what type of sanctions we can apply to those who break the moral code.

For society it is more difficult. Since we have rejected God and His laws as the foundation of our societal moral code, there will be no objective standard other than consensus. This is why we have horrors like abortion. This is why we have the beginning of legalized euthanasia.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I'd like to thank you for your explication of what you mean by discrimination. It is most interesting and, for the most part, I agree with what you're saying. I am sure that it will help to keep clarity when you claim a legitimate discrimination.

I am glad that you appreciate my approach to these discussions. I was not aware that I have had another.

I am not aware, for example, that in any of the discussions on the issue of homosexuality that I've been party to here, I have condemned anyone who stives to uphold them.

I have never, in any posting done by me here, suggested that the teaching of the Churches on the moral status of homosexual behavior is wrong. It is the teaching of the Churches. I have been unfairly accused of it and accused of being a relativist. I am not.

Instead, as I posted earlier in this thread;

"You already know that I think that it is poor practice for Church in a secular society to get state to make civil law on the basis of revelation alone. The question becomes on whose revelation do we legislate? I believe in the long run that that will endanger the Church more than who enters into union with whom."

In short, I disagreed with an approach that seemed to see the state as an arm of the Church. Perhaps I misperceived.

I maintain that position.

I am glad to see that you recognize the need to arrive at a consensus definition of what must be enshrined in law. That is what I have been saying.

We cannot simply tell others in the civil arena that God wants this; we know it; we've told you so; so go do it. As someone noted, that approach in our current situation is the kiss of death for many.

We must raise issues with that in mind and with a clear reference to the fact that the Church teaches this or that. Yet we need to find arguements that will convince our secularized compatriots on bases that they can understand and agree with.

Our task is more difficult as you point out. That does not mean that we can simply resort to past practice to deal with issues like homosexuality and the law. We cannot simply say that homosexuality is a threat to the family. If that is true, we must demonstrate it to our fellow citizens.

Thanks again for hearing me out and for your quick and clear explanation.

Steve

How widespread is Orthodoxy's acceptance of contraception? I didn't think it was the norm in Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Anthony

Steve,

Thanks for your post. You have always had a good approach to these discussions. My comments were words of praise. I should have been clearer. You question because you wish to know and understand. Your ears are open to hear and you start from the position that what the Church teaches is true. Others question because they wish to sow doubt and legitimize their opinions by leading others from Church Teaching. Unfortunately, their demand for tolerance and respect is for the sinful activity and not just for the sinner.

I would like to make clear that what I offered was not �my� definition of discrimination. Also, what I offered about legitimate discrimination was not �my� definition. Both are taken from Church Teaching and can be found in numerous documents, but especially in the document I linked above. This discernment of just and unjust discrimination has its roots in the Old Testament, and especially in the Ten Commandments.

I have never suggested that the state should be the enforcement arm of the Church. All I have argued is that society should use Judeo-Christian morality as the foundation of societal morality. The problem with using only consensus as the arbiter of societal moral law is that this always leads to chaos in society. Each individual quickly chooses to use personal preference as his standard of right and wrong and then demands that society respects these choices. Soon, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

I agree that we have a job ahead of us to convince people about the negative impact upon society of all sexual activity outside of marriage. It is easy to construct arguments and the evidence is all there to support the argument. Already much has been written. But most are not interested in hearing.

Admin

I am with Steve on this one. We must clearly understand the difference between what we as Church folks say and do and what we can convince our society to say and do. And clearly, the "do this because we tell you" is not effective. (The Baptists pushed the non-alcohol thing and supported prohibition. We know where that went.)

But there is a further element. And that is the effects of physiology/genetics on human behavior. There is alcoholism in my family - both sides. When I was a kid, in January every year, the men in the parish were asked to stand and "take the pledge" to not use alcohol for the coming year. It was seen as a moral issue.

We now know that there is something akin to an alcoholic gene. And that those who have it react poorly to any alcohol ingested. (Priests who have the gene are allowed to use primarily water and only a tiny drop of wine or non-alcohol wine in the Eucharist. Catholic priests represent the second largest group of alcohol abusers in this country after -- military officers. And the Church is trying to ensure the well-being of our clergy by helping them avoid something ingestible that could cause serious medical consequences.)

So, early Church perspectives have considered a wide variety of behaviors as "moral failings". The mentally ill were exorcised. They were also strapped into ice-water baths to rid them of their evil spirits. Other clearly biological realities were also considered "moral failings". Tourette's Syndrome comes to mind. Schizophrenia was considered a curse from God to be either exorcized or destroyed by burning at the stake. ("They are cursed.")

My question is this: what if sexuality is multi-variant based upon genetics? What if homosexual or bisexual persons are discovered to be predetermined by God-given genetics to behave in a certain way? Through man-made laws, there is no possibility of any type of sanctioned relationship as there is for "normal" heterosexual-oriented people.

Can we be so sure that this is God's plan if we gradually discover that there is a predetermined genetic predisposition to a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

I recognize the prohibition against outside-of-marriage sexual activity, but if marriage is denied to this class of people, by the very exclusion of any type of sanctioned relationship, we may be imposing a mandate of celibacy upon folks based purely upon a human understanding of what God is demanding.

(Scripture scholars have proposed that the imposition of sexuality-only-within-marriage came as a practical mandate to make sure that the nation of Israel produced a large number of children in order to maintain their national identity and strength. Early scriptures were not clear on the mandate, but at the time of the Babylonian Captivity, the mandate was entered into the canon of sacred writing. The evidence is based upon the Hebrew terminology and idiomatics that date the mandate to a later period.)

As I noted earlier, I understand marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. But I also can conceive of a type of union that binds individuals to each other, either in a dyad, or as a group, like vowed religious communities. And I'm reluctant to willy-nilly dismiss any other type of relationship that is NOT marriage to the waste bin. If it's marriage-or-nothing, then the religious communities had better hit the barricades!

Blessings!

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.

Thank you also for your further clarification of your comments.

We can only pray that the Spirit will make clear what it is that we are to do to make His Loving Just Presence known and operative in our society. Then, we must work to do it. It may be that there is not just one thing or one way to get to where He would have us to be.

Thanks,

Steve

Dear Dr. John,

Thanks for your understanding. I look forward to hearing from you anytime that you post here. I may not always agree, though most of the time I do. But, I am always glad to see that you've posted.

I have a question or two, if you will. I am not trying to put you on the spot. So if I have extrapolated poorly from what you said or you choose not to answer, I certainly understand.

You've suggested that there is a possibility, in my own words if I've understood you correctly, of alternate forms of committed relationships being accepted as the context for sexual activity. Are you saying that genetic structuring of an individual may be one of God's ways of instructing an individual to a form of committed love? Are you saying that sexual activity in the context of these relationships might in some future time come to be seen as morally correct behavior. Such sexual activity will not be "outside of marriage" in the terms of current moral theology?

From what I understand, you are suggesting that the commandments about adultery in fact and desire, might be being interpreted incorrectly. In short, you seem to be saying that the Church might not have spoken the last word on this issue of sexual activity outside of what is today marriage.

That is an interesting notion. Your examples are clear and seem to support what you are saying. Is there theological speculation on this issue? If so, could you point me in that direction (the scripture scholars, for example).

I understand, of course, that this speculation does not change the teaching of the Church as it stands.

Thanks for listening to my questions.

Steve

reply:

Dr. John,
Fr. Thomas Hopko, former Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary has a very good answer to this line of reasoning. In a nutshell it is this: our genetics are also impacted by The Fall of our first parents and the generational sin passed on from our forefathers (see the tape series: "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal). Therefore, if we have sinful inclinations resulting from our genetics, it is incorrect to call these "God-given" (meaning God-sanctioned) as you are doing. They are no more "God-given" than other sinful traits we inherit from our parents whether learned our biologically passed on (lustfulness, alchoholism, drug addiction, chemical imbalances, and any other possible pre-disposition to sin). These are part of our crosses that we are called to take up and follow Christ. This is the exact opposite of denying the sinfulness of them and justifying them simply because we inherited them.

reply: "The mandate was entered into the canon of sacred writing?" Oh boy, here we go with Modern Biblical Cristicism, malarky. In other words, monogamous, life-long relationships between a man and a women were "Canonized." Sounds like these so-called "Scripture Scholars" have an agenda. It almost sounds as if they think they can de-Canonize this divinely given formula for marriage. I have come to the firm conviction that such so-called "Scirpture Scholars" are the work of the devil. How many souls have been led astray by their arrogant, faith-less, scientific approach to the Holy Scriptures. I think a good proportion of their work is absolutely meaningless (and detrimental). God have mercy on them for their arrogance and manipulation of the "Breath of God."

Jesus Christ was very clear and so has His Church always been about the sinfulness of sodomy and the true purpose of the Holy Mystery of Crowning.

reply:
Its not "marriage or nothing." Lets not muddy the water here. Marriage has always been between a man and a women. This is verified for the entire existence of Christianity and is commanded by Christ our Lord.

Secondly, are you really suggesting that relationships built on sodomy are equivalent to religious communities and to deny legal recognition to the former is to thereby threaten the institution of the latter??? What on earth are you saying? This is pure non-sense.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Dear Alice,

I have particularly enjoyed your many posts on this forum. I think the forum will loose a lot of insight, wisdom and experience (plus a women's perspective) if you leave. I, with Dave, ask you to reconsider and remain with us. I, for one, need your Godly wisdom, rooted in Orthodox Tradition, to learn from.

respectfully,
Ghazar

For some articles that discuss the Orthodox view of Homosexuality, please note the links at the bottom of the Stephanos page:

http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dr John,
Why would God leave this "multi-variant" idea of marriage so unclear? Why would he want us to "gradually discover" there is a genetic difference? If homosexual relationships are okay, I think God would have been a bit more clear.
denise

Dear Ghazar,

Thankyou! I think I will stay, because I really enjoy the intellectualism and religious and theological acumen of all of you...even those I do not agree with.

I have to say that my Greek compatriot (!), Dr.John, in this instance, has me totally astounded.

In Christ,
Alice