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

i will pray for you as well if you accept prayers from a terrible sinner.

Dr. John�s argument is illogical.

People who are overweight seek help in losing weight. They do not seek constitutional protections for their lifestyles. Speaking as a person with a tendency toward being overweight I plead guilty to the sin of gluttony. A possible genetic pre-disposition might reduce my culpability but I am still responsible for the food I put into my mouth. Yes, this is sinful. But at least I am not demanding special protections for my sinful lifestyle. Jesus would demand that a Christian approach me and lovingly suggest that I exercise more and eat less in order to be healthy (which my doctor does regularly).

Again, this is illogical and Dr. John�s position is clearly not in line with Catholic or Orthodox teaching. It is not common sense. He is arguing for nothing less than no standard of right and wrong. Our country was clearly built upon Judeo-Christian morality. Dr. John forgets that there are numerous victims when two adults choose to engage in homosexual sexual activity. The two individuals involved are just two of these victims.

There is much to say about the theme of promise and seed in Genesis. Many of the miraculous pregnancies had to do with those whose seed was not going to produce further descendants. God worked wonders in keeping the promise by allowing barren women to bear sons.

Keeping one's family line going was important. Homosexuality terminated that promise. Today, the need to keep the family line going is not as necessary as it was in pre-Christian Judaism.

Unfortunately, there is one aspect of homosexuality that is akin to the contraceptive mentality: it is not directed to or congruent with producing new life. Whereas abortion says "no" to life after conception and contraception says "no" to life during contraception, homosexuality says "no" to life without giving conception a chance.

Life doesn't have a chance with either of the three options. Never has; never will. All three are selfish and not life-giving.

Defining who a "victim" is can be dubious.

In many of the recent scandals that came to light in the Church, many of the priests stated that they were helping their boy-mates during tough times; that their sex was therapeutic and that there was no victimization. But one man's therapy (even if no immediate complaint was issued by the boy) is another boy's victimization. It sometimes takes years for a troubled boy victimized by pedophile priests to make sense of what happened.

Many young women who are of legal age and who pose for pornographers and engage in sex may not consider themselves victimized. Many young adult women who get into this business are sometimes troubled and/or desperate for money.

There has to be more than delinquint or delayed victimization for us to go on.

I do not think that anyone calling themselves Christian could imagine that sex between adults (priests or lay) and boys could be therapeutic.

Agreed. The fact that there are many victims who may not even realize that they are victims needs to be addressed. In the end, we must always fall back on the God's teachings.

I don't think any women on the board commented on
this. Do we react differently to Bright Week then men do?

Nicky's Baba

I am so sorry boys (this place seems to have less girls than....) that I have missed all this discussion.

I would just add one comment, on the sole, narrow aspect of this issue I have any interest in.

Santorum's comment was not to a general observation about gay people, but on the matter of imprisioning gay people in Texas.

Of course, all sorts of Christians object to various acts yet do not demand that these acts be criminal offenses.

One could incarcerate masterbators, divorcees, white liars, the uncharitable, etc.

Axios

This is not correct. Santorum�s comments were about a Supreme Court privacy case involving the Texas sodomy law. The law has nothing to do with imprisoning homosexual individuals, only individuals who engaged in homosexual sexual activity. One can argue over whether there should be such legal sanctions for homosexual activity but it is not acceptable to claim simply that the law imprisoned homosexuals.

Santorum spoke against establishing federally protection for homosexual sexual activity because if the country established such federal protection for homosexual sexual behavior then the law could not then go on to prohibit any type of consensual sexual activity, including polygamy, adultery and adult-child sex. The statement he issued on Tuesday maintained his position and offered information the AP reporter conveniently forgot:

�When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.�

�In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws.�

The senator�s remarks from the interview are on the first page of this thread.

The Administrator takes issue with several elements of my last post. I raised, as an example, the sin of gluttony that might be considered an issue that religion might want the government to intervene in. He notes:

"People who are overweight seek help in losing weight. They do not seek constitutional protections for their lifestyles."

Although the Administrator suggests that I'm being illogical, I would like to suggest that he examine his own above statement. My point is: it is not a question of seeking constitutional protections for lifestyle, it is a question of some citizens being singled out for specific bad treatment.

If the law would "fall with equal weight" upon all citizens (Supreme Court definition from about 3 years ago), then there would be no problem. But these laws target certain people and their behavior; and this is why the laws are wrong. To suggest that the law is justified because it represents an incarnation of Judeo-Christian morality is dangerous because it theoretically permits the State to enshrine one or another theology as the law of the land (let us look at the earlier Utah laws that permitted polygamy as practiced by Mormons) and, it is illegal under our Constitution because it singles out classes of individuals for specific surveillance while ignoring others who practice similar behavior.

Again, the Administrator notes: "Speaking as a person with a tendency toward being overweight I plead guilty to the sin of gluttony. A possible genetic pre-disposition might reduce my culpability but I am still responsible for the food I put into my mouth. Yes, this is sinful. But at least I am not demanding special protections for my sinful lifestyle.(italics added) Jesus would demand that a Christian approach me and lovingly suggest that I exercise more and eat less in order to be healthy (which my doctor does regularly)."

It is not a question of the Administrator's personal health or body image; this is just a diversion from the issue: does the STATE have the right to intervene? Sinful or not is between the individual and God and His Church. An individual's body mass or being-in-shape should NOT be a matter for the state.

I am then quoted: "Dr. John wrote: My point is: once we start demanding that one or another religious moral code be established in a nation, then we ourselves are in danger of becoming the victims of the Sharia or some other code. Unless there is clearly a victim - an unwilling participant - then we should back away from making rules about what a person may or may not do in the privacy of his/her own home."

And the response: "Again, this is illogical".

I honestly do not see where the logic is faulty. What the the elements that conflict?

Again: "Dr. John�s position is clearly not in line with Catholic or Orthodox teaching." That is not the point. The point is: what should the state be able to do or not do?

"He is arguing for nothing less than no standard of right and wrong."

Nope, and I have no idea how this conclusion can be drawn from my questioning what the STATE can do within the confines of a person's own home. I have no problem about the existence of good and evil and or right and wrong. But I AM questioning the ability of the state to make this determination. And allowing the state to enforce one or another standard in private is dangerous.

"Our country was clearly built upon Judeo-Christian morality." There are any number of historians who would suggest that it was a Deist and humanist interpretation of what were English style Christian morals. Watered down.

"Dr. John forgets that there are numerous victims when two adults choose to engage in homosexual sexual activity. The two individuals involved are just two of these victims."

For the life of me, I can't see who the other victims might be?

Again, the question is: does the state have the right to enforce specific sanctions upon one segment of the population without equally applying the sanctions population-wide?

(Also, apropos the "jailing" question, in the Hardwick case in Georgia, the two male individuals WERE jailed. Can anyone cite a situation when a male-female combo was jailed for private sexual activity? Special protections? No, it is special sanctions. If justice is indeed a Christian virtue, then how can a Christian not demand equal treatment for all people.)

Blessings!

"It is not a question of the Administrator's personal health or body image; ... An individual's body mass or being-in-shape should NOT be a matter for the state."

Dr. John,

Don't forget the insurance companies who ask that you list all physical ailments and use of drugs on their application forms. They want to know how to classify and rate you as a premiumholder. Are you high risk or not? Their questions are protected and guided by government legislation. There are also laws about disabilities and handicapped people. Handicapped parking permits are not given out freely without question. Your health is quite an important factor in many things. Smokers are also segregated from non-smokers in public places, and many public places have banned smoking due to public legislation.

If I state on my insurance form that I am not a smoker (in order to get a lower premium) and then smoke in the privacy of my home, am I a liar? Here, my private actions at home DO have an affect on the public: I opted to join a pool of risk takers in the public outside my home by lying and cheating them with actions taken inside my home.

The insurance industry demonstrates how my private life is intimately connected with the public. I may wish to partake of the benefits of lower risk takers (non-smokers, non-drinkers, etc) and the lower premium rates they get by lying about my smoking and drinking habits, activities I may only do at home. If I get lung cancer or get a DUI (after I stated that I don't smoke or drink), which side should the government take in my claim? Should the insurance company have to pay for my lie? What will happen if everyone lied about their health status?

All of this reminds me of how our private lives relate to the church community. If I divorce my wife and marry another woman at some Bible Church, do I have the right to receive Communion, even though I did not get an annullment? I may consider my marriage and home life 'private' but the church considers marriage as a sacred mystery celebrated within the community in public. All mysteries have the obligatory public witnesses.

The private sphere of our lives is not so private as Libertarians may imagine. Many have a rude awakening when they attempt to get married and try their best to make the church/community's rite of marriage an extension of their private reception (and not the other way around where the reception is a family celebration of one's marriage in the church commmunity). We demand to make everything privatized in our individualistic selfish ways, and consider any attempt to critically assess our private affairs as an intrusion. But pastors DO ask personal and confidential questions when assessing the worthiness of individuals seeking marriage. Compliance issues are always there.

Even those applying for church ministry must get a medical exam, police check and their fingerprints on record. Again, insurance and legal reasons.

Joe

Yes, the Administrator is right, the law was about imprisoning gay people for sexual activity.

Dr. John properly presents the issue -- does the state have the right to imprision gay people who are sexually active?

And, one should not belittle this question in either direction. I would say those who assert that gay sexual activity must not be criminal because otherwise masterbation could be criminalized are, at best, making a bad agruement. In turn, Santorum makes a bad arguement in the other direction, saying that teh state must be allowed to continue to imprision gay people for their sexual behavior in order to criminalize other sexual acts.

(note: of course, Santorum's examples show further illogic, in that bigamy, etc. is not a matter of private sexual behavior but of attempting to enter into a social, legal and contractual arrangement. One is no innocent of bigamy if they are only sexaul active with one spouse.)

Axios

P.S. Finally, I'll make a political onservation. To the degree one beleives the courts take soem accoutn of public opinion, Santorum's statement and the subsequent reaction, President Bush's refusal to come to his defense, etc. should only help the court decide that criminalizing private and consentual gay sexual behavior is not a legitimate action of the state.

A.

How did this thread get from 'consensual sex' to the imprisonment of gay people?

I believe this whole issue got side-railed when the news reporter inserted the word "gay" into the senator's words.

Nicky's Baba,

It seems likely.

Christ is Risen!

Sharon
(madly trying to finish a quilt by the end of the week in her copious spare time)

Dear Brethren,

I think that this thread has been most revealing of how far avowedly Christian people have strayed from the teachings of God.

I'm not speaking about how far they have strayed in their actions, "for all have fallen short of the Glory of God." Each of us is "first" among sinners. I am first. There is nothing new under the sun in this regard.

What is so sad and a sign that the devil has made great progress is the fact that they most certainly seem to have been deceived into believing that their actions can be justified and are that these actions are compatible with Christianity.

It is as if they would feel comfortable affirnming that great lie of the Devil now posted so frequently in our schools: "Believe in Yourself!" When (not if) they finally collapse under the weight of their own sins, the Devil will whisper, "Belive in Me!"

On this most Great and Holy Friday, I wonder if these participants have discerned what the cross really means for us.

Monotheistic interfaith dialogues have revealed that the humiliation of the cross is the part of Christianity that makes our faith so very unpalatable to Jews and Muslims.

They can accept a God who is born of a woman. They can accept a God who passes through death and rises again. They can even accept a God who dies out of love for us sinners. What they find so unacceptable is that this same eternal, glorious, all-creating, all-loving, and all-powerful God would accept the humiliation of the cross. The Father decided NOT to take the bitter cup from the Son! If one loses sight this act of humiliation by the Father of the Son, one loses sight of the significance of the humiliation. As more than one theologian has pointed out, one cannot humiliate oneself. One must be humiliated by someone else.

It is this humiliation that we are all called to accept. This calls us to deny our own plans, dreams, and desires and to accept our limitations, our thorns in our sides. Didn't Paul ask three times to have his thorn removed and the Lord responded saying, "My grace is sufficient."

I ask, for which of us is His grace not sufficient?

Especially those who practice homosexual acts, those who practice heterosexual acts outside of the context of marriage, those who practice incest, sodomy, murder, etc. should be throwing themselves at the mercy of God - "taking the kingdom by force" - and not wasting precious time justifying these acts to others.

Christ, and His Law, is the truth that will change us if we allow him. We must say "yes" to him, not to ourselves.

My recommendation for anyone who wants to wear the uniform of the Christian is "to get with the program."

Wishing all a most blessed, merciful, and glorious Pascha!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Axios is incorrect - Dr. John does not present the issue properly. Senator Santorum�s comments were not addressed to the issue of whether the state can imprison homosexual individuals for engaging in homosexual sex. His comments were addressed to the issue of if the supreme court enacted legal protection for homosexual sexual activity it would be difficult, if not impossible for the state to also continue to prohibit other forms of deviant sexual behavior. His exact words were: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." This is no different than the law of the land given in the majority opinion of Justice White in 1986 when he stated very much the same thing.


Again, Senator Santorum never stated this even though the homosexual activists are pretending that he did.

We should not forget the radical homosexual activists are demanding nothing less than special federal protection for the homosexual lifestyle as well as legal recognition of homosexual partnerships. Should the courts establish the special protection for homosexual sexual behavior they are demanding the next thing on their agenda is to push for legal recognition of homosexual partnerships as the equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

President Bush praised Senator Santorum this morning. If he does not speak out clearly on the issue I agree with Axios that it will make it easier for the radical homosexual activists to win in their ongoing attack on the moral foundations our society. I have already sent an e-mail to the White House urging him to stand behind Santorum.