www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News SCOBA STATEMENT ON MORAL CRISIS IN OUR NATION

Theophilus, speak your truth with charity. The sarcasm doesn't help.

I do agree with your stance in favor of moral norms; however, Scripture instructs us to speak with reverence and respect.

LatinTrad

On the point of why no mention was made of any Old Testament quotes, I presume you mean mainly the Leviticus prohibitations? For some reason, this particular book has always made me think...we all deplore the "cafeteria Christians" who pick and mix their beliefs but surely if one is going to use the Leviticus teachings, then one should also enforce the other prohibitions? Though that raised a serious point, for me at least....as I am wearing clothing made from more than one material and enjoy eating shell fish....when do I expect to be stoned?



Anton

Anton makes a very good point. If we are bound by letter to the Levitical/Deuteronomical regulations, then

This point has been addressed in previous threads. To recap briefly, the Church notes a difference between God�s moral laws (which are unchangeable) and those laws given by God as a result of Israel�s continuing infidelity. If one chooses to argue against the Church�s distinction then really the only logical argument is to argue that all of the Law must be kept and not to dismiss the Law entirely.

Posted by the Administrator:

Dear Admin:

I ask this in all seriousness. (No disrespect or disagreement with any moral position taken by you is indended.)

How do we know which is which? Who decides what is "moral" and what is based upon Israel's infidelity?

Yours,

kl

K-L,

Thanks for your question.

In the past 2,000 years Holy Tradition has provided clear answers to these questions. We know which is which because the Church has made this clear to us. The wisdom of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Church�s stated teachings on these issues is always superior to our own.

There is actually a fairly recent book that addresses how the Church understands and applies the Mosaic Law. I don�t have it handy but if you are interested I could provide you the details of the book so that you could get it or maybe even quote extensively from it (under an appropriate thread). I am not aware of any convenient online summary of how the Church views the Mosaic Law, one that has extensive references to the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and etc.

Admin

Dear Theophilos,

Thank you for your response to my request for clarification.

Frankly, I was surprised by its tone.

It was illuminating. Suffice it to say that you appear to suggest that I've said things that I have not said or that you assume that I hold positions that I have not advocated.

Your posting doesn't appear to be germaine to the request or comments in my postings.

In the interest of peace among us, I will forgo further response in this matter.

Steve


Posted by Theophilos:

Dear Administrator,

In a recent post to K-L you said:

"There is actually a fairly recent book that addresses how the Church understands and applies the Mosaic Law. I don't have it handy but if you are interested I could provide you the details of the book so that you could get it or maybe even quote extensively from it (under an appropriate thread)."

Thanks for making the offer. Forgive my assumption that it was not limited to K-L. I think that either approach would make some valuable teaching available to us. I am interested.

Steve

Dear Admin:

I'm interested too!

Yours,

kl

Steve:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I apologize to you and the other members of the Board for my previous post. I also apologize for attributing to you views that you do not seem to hold. While it�s not a legitimate excuse, I�ve been feeling a bit Job-ish of late, for a variety of reasons, and wrote that post after finding out that, due to a malfunctioning hard drive on my home PC, I�d lost all of my data files � including course syllabi, lecture notes, my c.v., and other important documents. Luckily, I have my dissertation backed up in about three different places.

At any rate, if you�ll indulge me, I�d like to answer your question. You asked me to provide evidence in Dr. John�s writings that would support the following charge:

"It is clear that Dr. John, for all of his pious nonjudgmentalism, simply refuses to accept that the Church has not only the right but the obligation (1) to articulate Her divinely-inspired conception of moral virtue and (2) to propose to the secular polity that this conception ought to form the basis, in whole or part, of the common good that the polity legislates and enforces."

I, in turn, posted what Dr. John wrote on 4/23/03 in the thread "Where are the Bishops?" � evidence which you found wanting.

That post, in my judgment, at least confirms (2). Dr. John strongly suggests here that we are � as unique human beings with diverse talents and histories, distinct needs and wants, and differently perceived destinies � incapable of collectively deciding what is �acceptable PRIVATE behavior.� Given his skepticism, he went on to note that �Unless there are 'victims', who are coerced or forced against their will, then there is no justification for allowing others to decide to intervene.� This is a typical ploy of those who wish to argue against morals legislation and restrict intervention by the state (and others?) to the prevention or punishment of �physical harm� (see J.S. Mill�s �On Liberty�). They interpret what we might call �the empirical fact of moral pluralism� � i.e., the idea that human beings or groups of human beings possess different moralities and pursue different moral ends � as a humanly insurmountable obstacle to collective moral action.

Acknowledging the empirical fact of moral pluralism need not, of course, mean that one embraces moral relativism. That Smith believes it is right (or at least not wrong) to view pornography on the Internet and Jones believes it is wrong does not inevitably mean that these two moral views are equivalent or that we cannot adjudicate between the two. Simply put, one can (a) agree that different moral visions exist AND (b) hold that some moralities (or aspects of some moralities) are just plain wrong AND (c) further hold that the respective rightness and wrongness of different moral visions can be discerned (even if only somewhat darkly) and that the right moral vision can be / ought to be (as an act of both justice and charity) imposed on others.

Is the charge of moral relativism justified if one accepts (a) and (b) but not (c)? I�m not sure. What I do know, as an Orthodox Christian who believes that Christianity is not merely one narrative among many but THE narrative � is that the equation of anti-sodomy laws with the policies of �J. Stalin against Christians, and Hitler against the Jews, gypsies and Slavs, and the Chinese Communist party against the Falun Gong� is to suggest not only that one does not believe (c) but also that one does not believe, or is for some reason wary of believing, (b).

I read Dr. John�s conclusion � that he �[stands] for political freedom for every person in the US to live as he/she deems right�� as a sign that he believes the Church should not �propose to the secular polity that this conception ought to form the basis, in whole or part, of the common good that the polity legislates and enforces.� If this is a misreading, I would kindly ask Dr. John to inform us.

As for charge (1): Dr. John�s many posts in the �Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage� thread and his implied critique of the SCOBA statement (prior to his clarifying post of 8/28/03) seem to exude a great distrust of pronouncing norms, especially in the form of �laws.� His perspective is that one is not saved by obeying an external commandment but by freely tapping into, and actualizing, the potential for deification that has been opened up by Christ�s birth, death, and resurrection. As he stated, �Subjective (well-formed, not parroting) conscience is the primary rule to be followed.�

I confess that I do not disagree with this statement. The conscience is, as many of the Fathers taught, THE source of the natural law! As Origen notes in his Commentary on Romans,"conscience is a correcting and guiding spirit accompanying the soul, by which it is led away from evil and made to cling to good." But how, pray tell, are our consciences formed? Are we born with an innate ability to distinguish between right from wrong and to do what is right? Or can the conscience err and lead us to sin? I would suggest, that on account of sin, the ability to understand and do what is right has been limited, though not destroyed.

Is it possible that God has ordained law (moral and civil) as a remedy to help us develop mature, well-formed consciences? To reinforce our innate (but dim) sense of right and wrong? To move us to do what we are too weak to do on our own?

No one is saved by slavish obedience to the letter of the law or to promulgated moral norms. But even if the law does not save, that does not mean that the need for law or articulated moral norms has been entirely transcended. To the contrary, most of us, both within and without the Church, are still spiritually and morally childish and have not come to the point where we have fully internalized the law and consequently do what is right or good out of a pure love for what is right and good.

As an aside: I recognize that the law can only ever be partially just. Laws speak in generalities and cannot touch every conceivable unique circumstance or action. This criticism of law is as old as Plato and Aristotle � remember that, even in the Nomoi, Plato�s polity ruled according to laws is overseen by a �nocturnal council� of just old men, whose job it is to ensure that justice is done DESPITE the law.

I hope this answers your question.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Thank you for your apology.

I understand the great stress that you describe.

When I did my dissertation, the kind of high tech backup that you describe did not exist. I kept physical copies of the work in progress in several places and had to replace them when I did a revision. I am glad that you have backup copies available to you.

The fear of losing all of that work at this stage of your program is mind-numbing as I recall it.

I pray for the success of your work as you complete and defend your dissertation. I hope that you will be able to reclaim the other documents that you have lost.

Steve



Posted by Theophilos:
"Steve:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I apologize to you and the other members of the Board for my previous post. I also apologize for attributing to you views that you do not seem to hold. While it's not a legitimate excuse, I've been feeling a bit Job-ish of late, for a variety of reasons, and wrote that post after finding out that, due to a malfunctioning hard drive on my home PC, I'd lost all of my data files – including course syllabi, lecture notes, my c.v., and other important documents. Luckily, I have my dissertation backed up in about three different places...."

I have not yet found the book to provide the reference (yes, my library is in need of organization) and will post it when I find it.

I was talking with a friend who has studied this topic and he reminded me of a very interesting book written by a Jew who is examining Paul�s writings from a Jewish perspective. While the Law is not the topic of the book, the author does discuss the differences between the ritual laws and the moral laws in Judaism. It provides a good understanding of how the Law was understood by Jews in apostolic times (which is helpful in understanding how the Law is understood by the Church).

Paul the Convert, The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, by Alan F. Segal, Yale Univ Pr; Reprint edition (February 1992), ISBN: 0300052278. $13.97 at Amazon.com. [amazon.com]

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for the reference. I appreciate it.

If you can find the other text, I'd appreciate it.

Steve


Your library must be related to mine!