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

Dear Administrator,

I concur with DT Brown that you have repeatedly and clearly stated and restated the teaching of the Church on the issue of homosexuality in the context of the Forum. That is, of course, your right and your responsibility.

I have a question based on a couple of your remarks, though.

Let me illustrate:

Axios wrote:
"The conclusion is that I will continue to lead my life as I beleive God wishes me to and without engaging you on this thread which seems to offer me nothing I find worthwhile and seems to give you nothing you find worthwhile."

Administrator responded:
"It is not the Orthodox Way for one to live one's life as he or she sees fit. It is the Orthodox Way to grow in the likeness of God, always working with a spiritual director. We are not to trust just in our own judgement in how we live our lives but to avail ourselves of the example of the Saints and the direction of our bishops, priests and spiritual directors."

In a later post in regard to Johann's posting, Administrator suggested, rightly, of course:

"I agree with LR. While I strongly disagree with Axios' opinions and believe them to be far from Orthodoxy on this topic no one here knows Axios and, therefore, can make no judgement on how he lives the Christian life. We must always assume the best, especially in internet forums such as this."

I am puzzled by the above. Your response to Axios seems to suggest that you conclude that he does not do as you suggest that he should do as an Orthodox Christian. I do not read his comments to be saying what you seem to see there. Have I misread or misunderstood?

Here's why I ask.

The statement you made in regard to Lemko Rusyn's posting reflects the best in statements of Christian Charity about rash judgements of our fellow humans, especially, it seems to me, our fellow Christians. Your posting in response to Axios appears to be off the mark of your later statement.

If I have misread or misunderstood what transpired in what I have quoted above, I apologize for it. I am not impugning your intent, but I am suggesting that your words might be contrued to mean that Axios does not follow the practices of Orthodoxy.

This seems to violate what you suggest is appropriate behavior for Christians. Could not other posters find in that a suggestion to continue to do the same?

Thanks for hearing me out!

Steve

Axios, dear brother in Christ, Christ is risen! You are more than correct in that any time you post on this and other issues, you are immediately attacked for the very reason that you exist, or so it seems. I am sorry and apologize for the unchristian behavior of many of those who post on this forum. I sometimes wonder why you stick around, but then I sometimes wonder why I stick around. Have a blessed Bright Week my brother and keep us in your prayers. Moe

Yes, you are misunderstanding my posts, probably because I have been clumsy in my explanations. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify since I am sure others may have also come to your conclusion.

I have no idea what type of Christian life any of the participants of this Forum lead. As far as I know, Axios could be a typical married American with 2.3 children. I respond only to the positions he has offered on this Forum. Certainly, since he has mentioned numerous times that he is involved with several homosexual activist organizations; as an Orthodox Christian he should be witnessing the correct teaching of his Orthodox Church to anyone who should indicate that they are involved in a homosexual sexual lifestyle. Axios wrote that his �conclusion is that I will continue to lead my life as I beleive God wishes me to�. Since I do not know the type of life he leads and cannot know why he choose to write in the first person, I purposely responded to the general problem we Christians (including me) have when we choose right and wrong for ourselves when I stated: �It is not the Orthodox Way for one to live one�s life as he or she sees fit. It is the Orthodox Way to grow in the likeness of God, always working with a spiritual director. We are not to trust just in our own judgment in how we live our lives but to avail ourselves of the example of the Saints and the direction of our bishops, priests and spiritual directors.

There was no suggestion that Axios does not follow the teachings of Orthodoxy. I do believe it would be fair, however, to state that anyone who actually embraced (as a lifestyle) the opinions offered by Axios on this Forum on this topic, that that person would not be living a lifestyle in conformance with the teachings of Orthodoxy.

Christ is Risen!

Moe,

Your post is confusing. I am confident that, even though Axios' opinions as expressed on this Forum are far from Orthodox, the goal of his life is to follow Jesus Christ. Is there another reason any of us should exist except to follow Christ?

I am not sure whom you are accusing of unchristian behavior but, in case it is me, I remind you that it is not unchristian to witness the Commandments of Christ. Axios is the one who has offered opinions contrary to Christian teaching and it is correct to challenge him and anyone who offers such opinions.

Admin

Dear Friends,

Christ is Risen!

Just a note to say that I take everything that I say very seriously and if I'm wrong from the standpoint of Christian whatever, I will repent - and you don't have to give me sixty days like the heretics of old got to do so either!

I never once tried to justify any behaviour that the Church says is wrong.

I am sorry that that was/is assumed by some.

Dr. John's analysis of the view that morality is immutable and therefore somehow above culture is more than correct - but not to those who don't share that perspective, obviously.

Even if we believe that morality is immutable, then we would still be at a loss to explain shifts in canon law over time - something that Dr. John was also quick to raise.

What I find offensive and "anti-intellectual" about the discussion here is that there are those who are quick to leave the rational forum of discussion to stand back and pass judgement on others' views, even suggesting that what they believe is against the Church's teaching etc.

If I ever questioned the Church's teaching so as to contradict it, and I don't believe I did, then I am certainly in the wrong.

And I would take that seriously - so seriously that I spent some time with my confessor on Saturday explaining my position and even showing him a downloaded version of this thread lest I am inadvertently trying to recast what I actually did say here.

My confessor takes things seriously too. And he found nothing to absolve me of - but if he did, I would have asked for absolution and I would be here right now withdrawing, apologising and asking for forgiveness.

This is the first time on this Forum that I've said something that I feel guilty about (and that's because I've been made to feel guilty - guilt is now some Ukrainian families and communities are run, you know) but for which I won't be making an apology.

I'm only sorry that the tone here has gone beyond a modicum of dispassion that one would hope should be characteristic of responsible discussion on such sensitive and important topics.

Let's remember that this is a discussion forum.

We should save our subtle and not-so-subtle excommunications and condemnations for an ecumenical council in future.

Thanks for hearing me out.

I'm outta here.

Christ is Risen!

Alex

Dr. John:

Christos Anesti!

Might the Chrysostom you cite be the same Father who said the following?

"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty... should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them... As for their passion for boys, whom they called their 'paedica,' it is not fit to be named" (Homilies on Titus 5).

"[Certain men] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that bolts are not launched, and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment" (Homilies on Matthew 3).

"All of these affections [cited in Rom. 1:26-27]... were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases... [The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men... And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment" (Homilies on Romans 4).

Your characterization of the Church's teaching regarding Christian love and judgment is, as well, clearly out of tune with Chrysostom's exegesis of Matthew 7.1. See his Homily on Matthew 23.

For all your obvious learning and more obvious wisdom, I'm surprised (and saddened) that you would employ such cheap hyperbole and resort to such a thoughtless attack on so-called "judgmental Christians" -- all the while failing to respond to the respectful answers given to your initial question: should the state make the sin of sodomy illegal?

Who, precisely, is doing the judging here? Seems to me you've done exactly what you claim to despise.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Axios:

Christ is Risen!

If the topic "bores" you, and you feel you have been unjustly attacked, then by all means you should discontinue your participation in this thread.

Of course, if you cannot muster an adequate defense of your posiiton from either within Orthodox Christianity (Scripture, Tradition) or the natural law, then perhaps that should suggest to you that your position is untenable.

Since I'm already aware of the mote in my own eye, I don't have any reservations about what I'm about to say: you sound like an immature brat. Grow up!

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos,

You can add to your list of quotes St. John Climacus warning about 'beardless youths.'

In turn, St. John also stated that married men "be satisfied" with the wives they already have.

In both cases, he knew all too well what happens (or will happen) if neither are taken seriously.

The call to holiness is meant for all of us.

St. John Climacus, pray to God for us!

Joe Thur

Dear Alex and Other Posters in this Thread,

Alex, you are correct. You have no reason to apologize because of what you said in this thread. It was strictly in accord with the moral theology that I was taught. Our understanding of what the Bible is saying is growing and sometimes it changes what we thought it said. There are indeed some Biblical scholars who have said that the temple prostitution by men was what is condemned in some of the Biblical passages cited as condemnation of homosexual activity. They cite other passages as condemning inhospitality. Our understanding can change. The nature of sin becomes clearer.

As I tried to suggest above, I wonder if advances in the natural and social sciences will also help to expand our understanding of what the reality of sin is. I wonder also if at some time in the future our understanding of the interplay of free will and genetics will alter our understanding of our sexuality and how it works.

The administrator is absolutely correct in my estimation when he posits that we cannot deny the fact of sin. In this case the misuse of our sexuality. What does change is our understanding of the freedom to choose and the nature of the sin involved.

Dr. John, it seems to me, clearly states the nature of the love mandated for Christians. He does not, in my reading, suggest that he disagrees with the teaching of the Church in this area. I think that he makes concrete a growing concern of mine.

I am troubled by what appears to be less than fraternal correction or statement of Church teaching. There is an increasing amount of what I call less than fraternal brow beating! At some point in this thread, I am not sure where, it seems to me that the line has been crossed.

I guess that I'm engaging in what the administrator properly says that we must do, correct each other in love. I am finding it increasingly difficult to find the love for the other expressed here. The issues raised here are difficult. Each time they are raised on the Forum, people are characterized in ways that do not appear to me to be justified by what they say.

It is indeed necessary to point out the truth as one knows it and as the Church teaches it. I don't think it is necessary to use the truth as a tool with which to gore those who disagree with us. Simple statement of fact, not personalization of evil, helps to continue discussion with Christian love. Goring others does not, in my opinion.

I'll stop now to look for the beam that is certaily blocking my vision. My apologies if my comments are improper.

They are written with the best of intentions. I'm not sure that they will be received that way, to my sorrow.

Thank you all for hearing me out.

Steve

Steve,

Thank you for your post. I have no doubt that you are correct that future advances in natural and social sciences will help to expand man�s understanding of the reality of sin. You have not suggested any conclusion, but I would like to state that such advances can only help the Church respond to sin and counsel the sinner. Such advances cannot change actions deemed morally unacceptable by God into actions deemed morally acceptable by God. His teachings on these issues are clear and unchanging.

Every eight weeks at the Sunday Divine Liturgy we pray a troparia: �You descended from on high, O Merciful Lord; you accepted the grave for three days to free us from our passions. O Lord our Resurrection and our Life, glory be to You.� This means that the power of Christ�s Resurrection frees us from enslavement to passions such as those under discussion in this thread. The natural and social sciences about these and other issues of sinful passions simply does not matter because through His Resurrection Christ has freed us from such passions if we accept that freedom and follow Him. This is our faith! I think that to suggest that some people are less free to choose the correct path is to deny the power of the Resurrection. Yes, it may be more difficult for some but the Resurrection makes it possible.

I agree that sometimes the fraternal correction of the ideas expressed in this forum has sometimes been less than fraternal (and I, myself, have at times been guilty of harshness). Remember, however, the errors in opinion expressed in this thread have been great and those expressing error have been steadfast in their claims. Such errors demand a strong response lest someone actually leave here believing that such paths away from Christ are acceptable to a Christian.

You are correct that each of us has a beam blocking our vision (in my case I suspect it is more like a telephone pole). One of the things I am most thankful for in my life is that I have numerous friends who love me enough to fraternally point me back to the correct path whenever I wander from it. Without them I think I would be lost.

Thanks again for your post.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Well, if you put it that was (in your last lines above) and you appreciate being corrected by those who love you, let me be first in line here!

The Church cannot "undo" what is objectively sinful.

But the Church's understanding of what is objectively sinful can grow and develop.

Your statement that socio-cultural and psychological factors have nothing to say here is at variance with the CCC where it is stated emphatically that such factors MUST be taken into account by pastors and confessors (i.e., excuse me for such a reference, the section on masturbation et al.).

For myself, I would rather have things in black and white only, especially with respect to marriage annulments . . .

If I had my way, I would extend this attitude to forbidding mixed Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian marriages and make it into a moral issue as well . . .

The Grace of the Resurrection can give us the gift of dispassion for even heterosexual marital relations, if you want to press that argument to the limit.

But the Church is not against the body or against sexuality.

A canon exists that states emphatically that married people are not to deny each other sexually during Bright Week. Fasting is much relaxed and even monks and bishops are allowed to feast on fish and cheese etc.

And before you say all this is illogical, irrational, immoral, nonsensical, silly, or comes from ethnic inbreeding . . .I will wish you a good day.

Alex

Alex,

Christ is Risen!

Thank you for your post.

Your post expresses an incorrect understanding the teaching of the Church on these matters. Nothing can turn morally unacceptable actions into morally acceptable actions. The socio-cultural and psychological factors you speak of can only affect the level of culpability of the action. A person who is addicted to a particular immoral activity can incur less sinful guilt from that activity but the Church is quite clear and unchanging that such activities are always wrong and always immoral. At no time is a pastor or confessor to bless such morally objectionable activity as acceptable.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I NEVER suggested otherwise.

Moral culpability always remains, but it can go from "more serious" to "less serious" depending on the circumstances judged by the Father Confessor.

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I said any differently.

I would like to ask you to reconsider your comments in this respect and kindly withdraw your judgement against what I said as being itself wrong.

I feel that you have seriously misread my comments and I am offended at the conclusions you have drawn.

If you don't reconsider, I feel I will have nothing further to say to you at this juncture.

Alex

Christ is Risen!

Steve and my fellow brothers in Christ:

Well, I must say, it is a revelation to me that Christian love essentially demands an �anything goes,� �live and let live� worldview. I�m sorry, but that type of fuzzy, lukewarm Christianity is not what the Orthodox (or Catholic) Church teaches. Ours is a prophetic Church, which asserts not only that we love the sinner but that we love him so much that we must do what we can to reform him.

I am increasingly dismayed by the level of discourse on this Board. I�m grateful that it exists, and have learned much. But it seems to me that there is a tendency to assert rather than explain, and � even more important � a tendency to either (a) ignore critical questions or (b) answer questions that have not been asked. Read back through this thread, and you will find numerous examples of this phenomenon.

For example: Someone asserted that anti-sodomy laws discriminate. I answered that all law discriminates, and that the crucial issue is whether the discrimination is valid, justifiable, just. I also noted that anti-sodomy laws are justifiable. Someone then asserted that anti-sodomy laws are discriminatory without ever even acknowledging the objection raised.

I spent four years as an undergrad and six years as a grad student in two very secular institutions of higher education here in NJ. At the very least, whether in seminar or over drinks, my friends and colleagues � most of whom live according to a worldview that I consider false and even deadly � never simply ignored the objections I raised but tried to give me an answer. I find it odd that we as Christians can�t do for each other what my liberal, humanist, and atheistic friends and I did for each other.

I am sincerely looking for an Orthodox justification of homosexual sodomy and/or an Orthodox defense of libertarianism. It certainly would make my life easier and a bit less awkward, especially my relationships with practicing homosexual friends, colleagues, and family.

As for the idea that progress in the natural and social sciences might �help to expand our understanding of what the reality of sin is,� I wonder if Steve might answer this question: does the fact that such types of study (genetics/genomics, psychoanalysis, etc.) focus on postlapsarian man not limit their possible impact on the theological understanding of man and his history, resources, and destiny?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Alex,

Thank you for your post.

I believe that I have been clear in differentiating between action that is always morally objectionable and the pastoral response concerning mitigating circumstances that might affect the culpability of the immoral action. Your post in which you stated that my comments on this were at variance with the CCC suggested that you believed that there are times when such activity can be deemed as acceptable and not sinful because of socio-cultural and psychological factors. If that was your conclusion it was a wrong conclusion. If that was not your conclusion I ask that you please clarify your position and be clearer about why you disagree with my post.

Admin