www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Where are the Bishops?

In black clad stealth bombers?

Steve

Posted by Administrator:

"The key is to love someone enough to call him or her to account and then to keep assisting him or her in allowing God to change his or her life while always hoping that others will love us enough to call us to account and keep us on the path to Christ."

Dear Administrator,

I agree, with a qualification that works for me.

If there is need for pointing out spiritual danger to my brother or sister, it is encumbent on me to do it. From that point, I must remember my place and allow God to take over since he does not need me to do it all. I can only wait till my brother or sister to tell me what I can do to help remove the danger, if it is in my power to do so.

The prayer of Fr. Mychal is appropos, I think.

Lord, take me where you want me to go;

Let me meet who you want me to meet;

Tell me what you want me to say,

and

Keep me out of your way.

It seems to me that sometimes we feel that we must act in God's place to help our brothers and sisters that we cannot let ourselves get out of His way with them. Goring others with the truth is one way to do that. I know that I find it hard to step aside.

I wonder if that has not been true here.

Thanks,

Steve

Dear Theophilos,

Thanks for your response.

Just a couple of comments.

I'm still not sure that the "anything goes" approach to morality and Christian correction is present in either of the two postings to which you refer.

In the case of Axios, I cannot read further that what he said. However he did not say I'll live as I want to. His qualifier was "as I believe God wants me to." All of us are bound to follow that guide. We are obliged to try to form our conscience as fully as we can and then to make moral judgements on that basis.

If, having done that, one understands that one should behave in a way that seems to be inappropriate to others, the person is obligated to do so. One must follow his conscience if he or she has in truth tried to form his or her conscience properly.

Based on what Axios said, it seems to me to be difficult to conclude that he is ignoring what his religion teaches as part of his personal moral decision making. I'm not sure that it is appropriate to draw such a conclusion here in a public forum.


In the case of Dr. John, I did not read at any place where he implied that anyone was free to sin. He suggested that if one felt the need, fraternal correction should take a form like the prayer of Fr. Mychal posted above. At least that was what I read. He then said that he personally would not address the issue with the sinner but would lift him or her up in prayer.

Perhaps I misread or misunderstood.

At any rate, I am glad that you asked about post-lapsinarian man. I agree that there must be limits that you speak about. I'm not sure that we'll know short of the Second coming what those limits are.

I pray that you and yours are experiencing the most blessed of paschal seasons!

Thanks again,

Steve

Steve,

I both agree and disagree.

There is a point where each of us gets so steeped in sin that we are the only ones who can make a conscious choice to reform our lives, with God�s help. When we do make a choice to reform, God often sends our brothers and sisters to help us in our struggles.

Sometimes, God sends our brothers and sisters to come to us and help us.

Sometimes, God sends a brother or sister to us to tell us that we are on the wrong path and that God loves us enough to help us reform our lives. This is often enough to rouse us from our sinful slumber to ask God to take over. Some people need only a word. Others (like me) need an occasional whack to get their attention.

God certainly does not need our help to reform others and we cannot reform anyone but ourselves.

God does, however, sometimes use us to call others to the process of reformation and to assist them in the struggle.

Admin

Sharon,

Yes. Didn't you notice one flying over your neighborhood yesterday?

They also drive in black Cadillacs and wear shades and gaudy gold rings. They talk to one another only using nicknames like Slick and Zeek.

They don't do Plutonium.

Be careful, nonetheless!

Joe

HEY!!! Ease up!!! Jesuits do NOT travel in Cadillacs, nor wear gold rings. (Too mafioso.) And the current idea of using black helicopters to travel about -- well it's too Millenialist and WAAY too expensive. AmTrak serves quite well. And as for being over our sister Sharon's neighborhood, well - who would dare what with all the homeschool science projects involving aerial dynamics and pyrotechnics.

As for the topic, I have two kinda compendium thoughts.

First: from the 'theological' perspective, the canons clearly state that one CANNOT absolve a penitent unless the penitent clearly understands and belives that a specific behavior is sinful. (Yes, I am aware about the requirement to have an adequately informed conscience, but I am also aware that arguments both for and against the sinfulness of something are going to evolve. I am aware that the early Christians had a serious problem with idols. Is it OK if we substitute money or goods as today's idols, and should we condemn those who have them? -- Although I DO wish I could win at least something in the Virginia Lottery.) So, as far as the law is concerned, a priest cannot absolve someone of a "sin" unless the person is clearly aware that it IS a sin.

Secondly, I think that there is a serious aberration that has been completely glossed over when we discuss the issues of homosexuals and gays . That is the mistaken idea that we are talking about "sex". We aren't. We are talking about interpersonal relationships and the reality of two people who have an ongoing interaction. While it may involve genital activity (EEEEK!!!) it also involves two people who provide both support and 'correction/guidance' to another. I am more than really aware that there are folks of the same gender who both support and kick butt when needed for others of the same gender. Is this "homosexuality" in the traditional Scriptural/Canonical sense? I'm not sure. Perhaps if there is an erotic element, it might be so. But monastics in community do this, without however the implication of eroticism. And there appears to be no problem with this.

Might one not say that the interrelationship between two individuals is OK, but an erotic expression of it is wrong? Or might one use the economia to say: this isn't the norm, but it may be working for these two. And it is for the spiritual director to decide what is really going on.

I am just distressed that in the "old days" when I was a very young (17) seminarian, I met a number of very elderly priests who thought that "niggers" were NOT human and that they had no souls and were NOT viable candidates for baptism or any of the other sacraments. (The community transferred them immediately out of any public ministry; they just had the opportunity to live in 'formation communities'. Thanks be to God, most of us determined that they were, with all respect to their priesthood, NUTS.)

But I am still plagued, to this day, with the idea that a theologically trained priest could hold these views about blacks (and, Lord knows, whomever else!!). I vowed then and there: everybody is God's child. I will never use categories. NO ONE fits in a pigeon-hole. EVERY ONE gets his/her own personhood and a chance to demonstrate the values of baptism. I must deal with the person; not with the label.

I know that this flies in the face of understanding categories of sin. But it has made me more than aware of the incredible acquiesence that we Christians need to make to the Law of the New Testament. It's each person, and his/her circumstances.

And love everyone.

Christ is Risen!!

NOTE: This prohibition against judgementalism applies, by special Apostolic indult, to Ukrainians, both of the normal as well as of the 'madcap' variety. Ukrainian lunacy is canonically protected. (OK Alex! Go get 'em!! Sheesh! A Ukrainian AND a Social Scientist! And a politico. You are indeed a unique breed of cat.) Special Paschal Blessings to our resident Super-Poster and diplomatic theologos.

Ooooooo! Then I wonder who they are? I'm beginning to get goose bumps. One even mentioned YOUR name and the fact that you gave them several recipes.

Dear Theophilos,

Just a footnote:

Posted by Theophilos:

"Nothing malicious intended."

Glad to hear that! I kinda enjoyed the conversation. Nothing malicious intended on this end, either.

But if you find an example of pre-lapsarian man...!

Steve

Dr John,

God said it is wrong! Who are you to say God is wrong? End of topic!

Dr. John�s first point is 100% accurate. This thread, however, has been about the fact that it is always wrong for individuals to engage in immoral homosexual sexual behavior. There has really been no disagreement about different individuals having different levels of moral culpability based upon where they are at in life.

Dr. John is incorrect on several points.

First, we are indeed talking about sexual relations. God gave us Commandments to live by and He told us that all homosexual sexual activity is wrong (in fact He told us that all sexual activity outside marriage is wrong).

Second, there are certainly interpersonal relationships between Christians helping one another in the struggles of daily life. These relationships can be good and wholesome (Dr. John offered the monastic example). The call of individuals living such common lives is always one to chastity. When two individuals decide to enter into a homosexual sexual relationship the positive aspects of interpersonal relationship are destroyed because such activity is contrary to the natural law and are in violation of God�s Commandments. Such sexual activity is closed to the gift of life. Homosexual sexual relationships do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity because genuine affective and sexual complementarity can only exist between a man and woman within the context of marriage. Dr. John may not be sure about this but the Church is very clear about this and has been consistently clear about this. Homosexual sexual activity is always wrong and always destructive.

Again, interpersonal relationships between Christians can be good and helpful to the Christian in his daily live. It is when sexual relations outside the context of marriage are introduced that the relationship becomes sinful and destructive.

No. One can not turn to economia in an attempt to justify or bless activity that is always immoral and always wrong.

Again, no. Christ gave us clear direction that when a brother sins we are to go and show him his fault, call him to give up his sinful ways and win him back. (Matthew 18:15). It is not only the spiritual director�s job to decide what�s going on. In our tradition it is often the grandmothers who are the first to understand that people have strayed from the path and to call them to account. Each Christian has the responsibility to call another back whenever he or she wanders away into sin.

I am not sure why Dr. John inserted this in to this thread. Discrimination against people for who they are (black, purple, heterosexual, homosexual) is always wrong. Discrimination against people because of the immoral activities they choose to engage in is just (provided that the type of discrimination is appropriate to the offense). One cannot rightly compare unjust discrimination against African-Americans because of their skin color with the just discrimination of individual persons because of the immoral activities they freely choose to engage in. Prohibitions are against actions, not individuals. Some actions are always wrong and always immoral. No amount of political correctness or cries for tolerance or false understandings of �love everyone� or accusations of judgmentalism can change God�s Truth.

Johan,

You mean there was a reason why God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve?

Dr. John wrote:

"We are talking about interpersonal relationships and the reality of two people who have an ongoing interaction. While it may involve genital activity (EEEEK!!!) it also involves two people who provide both support and 'correction/guidance' to another."

We should all contemplate God's design. The interest in Genesis was not man's relationship with other men, but man's (male and female) relationship with God. God's promise, a theme throughout Genesis, could not come about without 'seed.' Not merely spent seed between two men, but the miraculous conceptions of descendents from barren women and men called by name. God was in control, not man. Relationships between God and man were covenants, not contracts. This is how we as Byzantines should understand Ephesians and marriage, not as a barbaric Medieval practice of exchanging pigs and sheep for transfer of a woman from father to a new master (unfortunately, a ritual so prized in Hollywood versions of weddings!). In both creation stories we hear of God creating a nameless man (both male and female) and man who later gets a mate bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. In God's design, male-men were meant for female-men. Same sex relationships that go beyond the love of a father for his son is a mockery of God's design. Sex is a definite factor in these anomoly relationships.

The importance of having an heir was reflected in the number of women a married man had. Didn't Abraham have a son with another woman other than his wife? Didn't Jesus ignore the issue of polygamy in Mark 12:18-27?

One additional note: Paul's argument for marriage as a means to prevent sin has nothing to do with procreation. Here, Dr. John's 'relationship' argument may have weight. What you all think?

Joe

Sanctas Simplicitas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This reflects more of a fundamentalist Protestant mentality then a Catholic or Orthodox one in which there is more mercy.

I agree with JThur that we have to examine the realities of peoples' lives. And that for those who have a relationship with another personh, we have to examine it in terms of it utility to bring a person to the Father.

What distresses me is the fact that some folks take it upon themselves to determine that X, Y or Z is, ipso facto, immoral and therefore a license to come down upon an individual for being immoral. While this perspective is apparently a valid one, the fact remains that since the CHURCH demands personal acknowledgement of culpability in order to determine sin, many of the condemnators have little or NO experience in understanding those whom they are ready to judge.

I would challenge anyone to come with me to the local 'alternative' bars and clubs and actually talk with the kids I deal with. Really HEAR what they are saying and don't automatically determine that they are sinners because of whatever they 'are' or 'do'. Most of them are clearly ticked off at traditional Christianity because they perceive what is being talked about is not relevant to their lives. Should we just dump them because they don't conform to what we decide is appropriate? Scary!! They are frightened and they need someone to just 'BE THERE' for them.

Let's get it together. And be there for everyone, without judgement.

Christ is Risen!!

Yes, indeed, Dr John and many of these kids were are Catholic and Orthodox homes and were driven away through bigotry and hatred. I agree with you that those who are the first to condemn have absolutely NO idea of the lives or ordinary gay men and women. If they knew, maybe they would have more understanding and love. I pray that this happens

Brian,

Can it work both ways? Do gay men and women have any idea of the lives of ordinary men AND women? Can they understand too? In addition, there are many heterosexual men and women who cannot fathom marriage, but instead, rather exploit each other for sex and/or relationship reasons without a commitment.

You may see bigotry and hatred, I might see destruction of the fabric of society. Disaster and ruin has come to many a community who allowed such a lifestyle to enter. Monasteries have collapsed (figuratively), families and marriages have been ruined, lawsuits have be exchanged, fights and fear have reigned. Bishops and priests have been deposed and children have been violated.

Is bigotry the culprit? Is it bigotry that sends half a parish walking when they catch their pastor having an affair with another man? Is it bigotry when parishioners are met with stonewalling and defensive listening when they go to his superiors? Parents (men and women) are very watchful today in who their children are around. A lot of 'fear' has been ingrained in their consciousness because of past experience and lessons from history. Many mainline Protestant denominations have sufferend considerable population downturns after their authorities lifted the ban on homosexuality. Want to clean house quick? Organize a gay parade of clergy. There is something more terrifying to parents of children than the bigotry that homosexuals complaing about. Can you guess what it is?

But the social ills of society should not be weighted against homosexuality, but should equally include heterosexuals too. We are all to blame, not one particular group. How our society glorifies single parenthood, the way we tell men that they are not needed as fathers, how we transfer the financial burden of raising children from deadbeat dads to taxpayers, how Spring Break or Carnival (them beads replacing the rosary in our cars) has become license to belittle the sacredness of our sexuality, and the marriage tax penalty.

I think this returns us back to the senator's comments, which reflects the precedent courtcase, whereby homosexuality is grouped with other heterosexual problems. Much has been made over the implied relationship between homosexuality and bestiality, but I think the main point is missed: how far can we go in the name of privacy in degrading and destroying the family?

Joe