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

Dear Dr. John,

You have stated a teaching of the Church regarding sin. What you have presented is the teaching of the Western Church. On 4-24-03 you posted:

"Culture has a major influence, and while some folks feel more comfortable with the notion of sinfulness being 'immutable' through time and space, this seems to fly in the face of canon law. What the immutable-sin folks seem to forget is that there must be the intention of sinning, - - knowing and believing that something is a sin and then making the deliberate decision to go through with it, despite its sinfulness."

In the Eastern Church, we ask for forgiveness of all sins, "voluntary or involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or ignorance, manifest or unseen."

If you are in the Eastern church, isn't this the prayer that you also pray each week prior to the eucharist?

If so, what does it mean regarding sin?

In Christ,
Andrew

Dr. John is addressing the wrong issue. The entire debate is about Senator Santorum�s comments about how difficult it would be to legally prohibit other consensual deviant forms of behavior if the courts established special protection for homosexual sexual activity. He was speaking directly to the Texas case in which those seeking to overthrow it are demanding nothing less than special protection for homosexual sexual activity.

Again, Dr. John is wrong. Laws prohibiting polygamy target certain people for their behavior. Laws prohibiting adultery target certain people for their behavior. Laws prohibiting adult-child sex target certain people for their behavior. Every law ever enacted targeted a specific group of people for their behavior.

Again, Dr. John is wrong. Our laws are built upon Judeo-Christian morality. No one can seriously pretend that it isn�t. One can only rightly point out that it was the Protestant flavor of this morality that formed the bases of our moral code. All of our laws, from those prohibiting murder, stealing, adultery, and etc. are based upon this Judeo-Christian morality. Dr. John proves the validity of Senator Santorum�s words because if Judeo-Christian morality could no longer be appealed to as the foundation of our moral system then we have no right to continue to prohibit polygamy or any other sexual practice we now currently consider immoral.

Yes. The state intervenes all the time. A person does not have the right to privacy to take illegal drugs or have consensual sex with children.

To use Dr. John�s example about gluttony, the proper comparison here is whether the courts should establish special protection for people to eat anything they want in the privacy of their own homes � and in �eating� we must include drugs and even suicide and euthanasia.

There is no such thing as a private act. All action affects the way we think and the way we think affects the way we act in public. Any introductory psychology class teaches this and the concept is certainly well rooted in Christian theology, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, and even in many non-Christian religions. Enactment of special protections for homosexual sexual activity teaches people � especially children � that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sexual activity. We cannot pretend to be Christians and support special legal protections for deviant forms of behavior.

Again, Dr. John has rendered the question incorrectly. Every law enforces specific sanctions upon one segment of the population � the group of people who break said law and engage in activity deemed illegal and immoral.

Again, Dr. John confuses the issue. If he seeks to nullify the laws against homosexual sexual activity he is free to do so. The issue at hand with Senator Santorum�s remarks is whether the state should enact special protections for such forms of deviant behavior. To confuse the issues is to fall into the agenda of the radical homosexual activists and is something that Christians cannot do.

Finally, I think that Fr. Thomas provided to each of us who call ourselves Christian a reminder of our obligation:

�I think that anyone who names the name of Christian and yet continues to practice homosexual acts should also think about how their actions are demeaning to the image of God in themselves, and how their actions will keep them from the true purpose of their life - to grow in the likeness of God. Practicing, unrepentant homosexuals, along with practicing, unrepentant adulterers and practicing, unrepentant perpetrators of incest (not innocent victims) will not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). It may sound �unenlightened,� it just happens to be the Apostolic faith.�

We must never forget that we have a responsibility to pray for homosexual individuals and to minister to them. We especially have an obligation to call those living an immoral sexual lifestyle to repent of their sins and reform our lives (just like we have to continually repent and reform our own lives).

I have been reading many of the posts on this topic and many of the replies bother me. Do people actually think homosexuality should be protected?

neither the catholic or orthodox church believe that homosexual acts are acceptable. Neither does the bible for that matter. If speaking out against homosexual acts makes me a bigot then I am a bigot for speaking out against murder. Because both are prohibited by God's Law. I am tired of society having to tolerate something that is not in accordance with the will of God. Homosexuality is simply a passion that because of the fall of man we have been infected with among other passions. We need to as a whole focus on overcoming our passions and seek God's will and union towards out Theosis. That includes the other sexual passions such as adultry and fornication etc. All are wrong.\

Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church teach that every unacceptable act is to be a criminal act.

I respect the legal profession and its committment to the law. I am sure one can make an agrument for the right of the state to imprision gay people for sexual activity but not the wisdom of the state excerizing this right. In fairness, it also would not be difficult to make the argument that the state does not have the right to imprision gay people for sexual acts but can prohibt the other matters Santorum identified. In fact, such is the petition the Court has before it.

It would be simlistic beyond belief to say teh powers to imprison are limited to two options -- the state may regulate all forms of behavior or no forms.

But for the record, Santorum did not limit himself to legal theories. The exact text (as provided by his office) of the comments preceding the Adminstrator's quote is:

So Santorum affirms that the Texas law is a purposeful law. That laws which imprision gay people for sexual activity have a good purpose.

Furthermore, this issue is independent of any other legislation proposed by one or more gay people. Certainly certain uncalled for demands by the Russian Orthodox Church or some of its followers does not make just adverse action towards Orthodox Christians.

In former times in our own society and in the present in some other societies, the punishment for sodomy was/is death. Those with a simplistic view of to not criminalize sodomy is to approve of it or the give gay people special rights need to offer a rationale against the captial punishment of such people (assuming they oppose this).

Axios

Posted by Inawe:

"Posted by Brian:

"I believe in tolerance strongly and I think that equating gay relationships with pedophilia, incest etc is not only wrong and uncharitable (and ignorant) but intellectually dishonest and as Alex pointed out above, is often a politician's game playing for votes on the right of his party."

Reply Posted by Inawe:
"Dear All,

I have a question based on Brian's comment above.

Let me be clear that I am not addressing the morality of homosexual behaviors.

Let me also state that I am not sure that being homosexual is a choice. Certainly I cannot understand why someone would choose to live as a homosexual given the denigration and even outright persecution that has been visited upon homosexuals in our society.

Some people in policy making roles in civil government claim that they have nothing against citizens who are homosexuals. Others say that they have nothing against any lifestyle, presumably including the homosexual life style.

They recognize that homosexuals exist in some numbers. They accept the idea that there is a homosexual lifestyle. Yet these same people create or want to sustain law that denies homosexuals the right to engage in activity that, if homosexuals are correct, arises from the sexual nature that is theirs.

It seems that Brian is correct. This does seem to be intellectually dishonest, does it not?

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Steve"


*********************

Response Posted by Administrator:

"Steve,

Your questions are very good but I do believe you are missing something. Even if the homosexual inclination is not a choice (that is, one is genetically born with homosexual tendencies), homosexual individuals do make a conscious choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Someone who is born with a tendency to steal is discriminated against when he or she engages in theft. That does not mean that society is intellectually dishonest for establishing societal prohibitions (including laws) against stealing. [I could come up with lots of examples.]

It is important to realize that some choices are wrong, even if there is a genetic predisposition towards choosing these types of behavior."

*******************


Dear Administrator,

Thanks for your response; but I did not miss the obvious! I did not question the teaching of the Church. My question did not have to do with the first three paragraphs of my posting which simply expressed my search for understanding about the source of homosexuality.

I was asking if I'd missed something when I read a fuller exposition of Senator Santorum's statements. He, it seemed to me as I read further presentation of the context to which I referred, did say that he does not have anything against homosexuals and is not against any lifestyle. If my understanding is correct, his position does seem intellectually dishonest though politically astute.

I was asking if I'd missed something in what Senator Santorum said.

+++++++++++

That being said, I do have a couple of further questions based on your response.

If homosexuality is as truly genetic as heterosexuality, is what you're saying the following:

God created homosexuals so that they are genetically attracted to persons of the same sex just as He created heterosexuals genetically to be attracted to persons of the opposite sex?

It is because of God's creative action that some persons can act on their sexual nature and other persons cannot act on their sexual nature because of the persons to whom they are attracted?

Because of this you advocate that the legislative or judicial system of an entity should treat as criminal the sexual activity of individual members of one group while overlooking the same activity performed by members of the other group?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what you seem to be saying, I am simply trying to be sure I understand your position.

Thanks,

Steve

This is just one of the many quotes where Axios makes this assertion of imprisoning homosexual people for coming homosexual acts (yes it was Axios that started this part of the discussion when he started replying).

It has also been said that a law that outlaws homosexual activity in the "privacy" of ones home is discriminating to active homosexuals.

Now I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the law Senator Santorum is commenting on, actually the case before the Supreme Court, says anything about homosexual sexual activity in those exact words. I am sure, as is the case in most states, that it law outlaws sodomy.

If one looks at the definition of sodomy, I will not post it here but here is a link to it http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=sodomy , you see that there are 2 acceptable definitions. Only the first on covers homosexuals, the second is about certain sexual activities between members of opposite sexes.

So if this is the case, a law against sodomy is not discriminatory in any way as what it outlaws it outlaws for everyone.

Just an observation.


David

Dr. John:

Christos Anesti!

You said: �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.�

Point well taken. But I don�t think anyone on this Board is advocating the establishment of any particular RELIGIOUS code � even Christianity � in toto or in part as the basis for positive law in the U.S. I certainly wasn�t.

Now, of course, law is in many ways the product of � an expression of � the culture it serves. If the culture is predominantly Christian (or Muslim or Zoroastrian or atheist), elements of the dominant religious commitment of the people will more often than not show in the laws created and enforced. There isn�t much you can do about this, especially not in polities where the ultimate kratia belongs to the demos. See Tocqueville.

It seems to me that the root of our disagreement is what we should do with the empirical fact that there are multiple moralities or competing visions of the good. As a Christian, and as one committed to belief in God�s creation of the cosmos and consequently in the existence of a natural law (however darkly we understand it in our fallenness), I assert that � normatively speaking � there aren�t and cannot be multiple conceptions of right and wrong, but only one, as revealed to us by God.

I, of course, can�t take this revelation into the public square and expect those who do not share my faith � Muslims, Hindus, atheists � to agree with me that Christianity (Orthodox Christianity) is the one true faith.

Lucky for us, God created this world. Despite what we have done to it through our disobedience, the order which he imposed upon it still shines through. Thus, using our capacity for reason, we can discern certain (fairly concrete) principles of right and wrong.

You seem to take the empirical fact of diversity of moral systems and use it to discredit attempts by the state to impose one or other form of morality. I take the more optimistic position that, though this diversity is not an illusion, there are significant areas of overlap between and among them: prohibitions against murder, sodomy, suicide, gluttony, etc. and the encouragement of moderation, charity, courage, wisdom, etc. (Let�s leave left-handed Hinduism out of the picture for now.) The Muslim pillar of faith, e.g., to be charitable coincides in some respects with Christ�s command that we sell our possessions. Reason, however darkly, can help us understand that it is the duty of all human beings to be charitable, insofar as charity is a basic good, an essential ingredient for all human flourishing.

Also, your assertion that there must clearly be �a victim - an unwilling participant� needs to be defined. What do you mean by victim? Someone harmed physically against his or her will? But why stop at physical harm? What about moral or psychological harm? You�ll need to do better than simply asserting J.S. Mill�s harm principle, for there is no logical or a priori reason for limiting the state�s jurisdiction to physical harm. That is why obscenity, e.g., is ILLEGAL.

You then state: �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.�

As the Administrator noted, ALL LAWS DISCRIMINATE. The question is: is the discrimination valid? Is it justifiable? Does the discrimination serve justice? So we are thrown back to ultimate questions of right and wrong, virtue and vice. What is justice? As Plato reminded us a long time ago, it is the giving to each person what is due him. Thus, if one is a thief, what does one deserve? Praise? No, censure, even punishment. If one is practicing sodomy, one deserves � what? You get the picture, I think. (Note, however, that Plato understood that written laws could only, at best, approximate justice � treating every unique person as a unique person is not a task any stable regime can fulfill perfectly. Hence the difference between iconic human justice and the thing in itself, Divine Justice.)

You then ask again: �Does the STATE have the right to intervene?�

I have attempted here and in my long post yesterday to respond to this particular question. While I appreciate your gratitude, I�d prefer that you answer that post and not ask the same question again and again as if no one had tried to answer it.

One last point: your regular comparison of gluttony with sodomy is interesting, but you seem unaware that prudence (phronesis, prudentia) � the consummate political virtue � plays a central role in determining why one is made the subject of the law and the other is not.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Axios is again distorting the topic. Senator Santorum spoke to two different issues. Santorum spoke against creating special protections for such deviant behavior because if one created special protections for that behavior it would be very difficult legally not to extend such special privacy protections to any type of consensual sex. He clearly echoed the words of Justice White who said the same thing in the ruling of 1986. He also spoke to the need for laws that justly discriminate against homosexual sexual activity but did not speak as to the specific types of punishments, only that he believed that those in the cited Texas case were constitutional.

No. To what moral system do you look to in supporting the laws prohibiting consensual adult-child sexual activity if you do not appeal to the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of our society? Please be specific. You can�t simply state that �everyone knows� because there are people who are complaining that society discriminates against them for their inclinations to have sex with children.

First, the correct term is �homosexual�, not �gay�. The use of the term �gay� is purposeful to paint a picture of something good and wholesome. Homosexual individuals are good and wholesome but their tendency towards homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered.

Second, Senator Santorum�s words about laws against homosexual activity were separate from his comments against the enactment of special rights for homosexual sexual activity. The laws that imprison homosexuals and others for deviant sexual behaviors are good and wholesome, although maybe our society has become so beaten down by the homosexual activists it will be impossible to retain them. I do agree that if we are not going to put adulterers in jail then we should not imprison people for homosexual sexual activity, polygamy, or adult-child sexual activity.

Look at Santorum�s words in the proper context: "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." And further: "My discussion with The Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family," Santorum said in the statement. "I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles." Santorum is stating that if homosexual sexual activity is held to be a right under the law then all other forms of deviant sexual behavior must also be treated equally under the law.

No. The homosexual activists have clearly indicated that once they win the �right� to homosexual sexual activity they will continue until they get legal recognition of same sex unions. They are only independent in they are separate assaults upon our society by these activists.

Again, Axios distorts the issue.

There are two very distinct issues here.

The first issue that Senator Santorum spoke to is the enactment of federal protection for homosexual sexual activity. He argues that the creation of such a �right� is wrong because legally one could not then prohibit other types of deviant sexual behavior. He is on solid legal ground because Justice White said much the same thing in 1986 (the previous ruling that is the current law on the matter).

The second issue is about the appropriate way to discriminate against homosexual activity. Both issues must be considered separately.

--

Steve,

Thanks for your post.

First, one must remember that this is an �if�. There is no scientific evidence that proves conclusively that homosexuality is genetic. There are, for example, numerous sets of identical twins where one twin grew up with a normal heterosexual attraction and the other twin grew up with a intrinsically disordered homosexual attraction.

Second, if it is someday proved that the homosexual inclination is genetic then the answer to your above question would be �yes�.

I�m not sure I understand the context of your question. God established marriage between one man and one woman as the only acceptable union and condemned all other forms of sexual activity outside marriage. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should not act on inclinations outside of marriage. Since God has prohibited homosexual sexual activity, homosexuals should never act on such inclinations.

The activity is not the same. Homosexual sexual activity cannot be compared to heterosexual sexual activity. The logical extension of your argument is that those people who claim a genetic tendency to have sex with children cannot be discriminated against by the legal system. The two cannot be put on the same moral or legal plane. The point is that society has the right to enact laws to justly discriminate against deviant behavior.

Axios:

Glory to Jesus Christ! (I am presuming that you are celebrating Great and Holy Friday today).

You said: "...I am sure one can make an agrument for the right of the state to imprision gay people for sexual activity but not the wisdom of the state excerizing this right."

Really? Based on the idea that "that which is genuinely and not just nominally called a state must concern itself with virtue" (Aristotle, Pol III.9), I'd say one certainly can make an argument that the state SHOULD criminalize sodomy. Yes, there are reasons it should not -- e.g., as I noted above, the possibility that anti-sodomy laws contribute to the prevalence of gay-bashing incidents.

But practical wisdom also suggests that it should. First, at an abstract level, insofar as sodomy (like masturbation) instrumentalizes the self and thus contributes to the disintegration of the human person, i.e. it is never right to treat oneself or another as a mere means to some end (see John Finnis), sodomy is destructive of the common good. How so? Because, through sodomy (and masturbatory) acts, one experiences not true human community but rather an illusion in which private gratification is the only end. If one regularly treats himself as a means to an end, will not such instrumentalization eventually (perhaps immediately) affect his self-understanding and his understanding of, and relationships with, others? A state must not only protect mere human life but must also contribute to human flourishing.

More concretely, we can say that a state which permits sodomy or remains "pro-choice" on the issue is, in effect, saying that sodomy is okay -- that if one wants to practice it, he should. Why does this matter? The state's permissive attitude toward sodomy harms the common moral good in two ways: first, by suggesting that sodomitical acts contribute to human flourishing (which they do not, for any action that treats human persons as means is by definition demeaning and destructive of human community); and second, by suggesting that sodomitical acts are somehow on par with marital sex, which thereby lessens � or has the potential to lessen � the importance we as a society attach to marriage.

Also, insofar as sodomy between homosexual men in particular is one of the main ways in which HIV is transmitted, a law limiting that behavior may be justified as public health measure.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Difficult? Many things are difficult. Nevertheless if internet betting were not illegal (a legitimate example of the state regulating behavior!) I would put down $20 that the Supreme Court does the 'difficult' and rules exactly that way - overturning the Texas law to imprison gay people for sexual activity while not extending it to other types of consensual sex.

I will be proven right or wrong on that soon enough.

The people defending sex with children don't go much beyond a certain ex-priest who carried around a fistfull of letters of recomendation from Cardinal Law.

If any change in the law eliminating or reducing a punishment given to people behaving contrary to Judeo-Christian moral foundation is ill-advised, was it regretable that the penalty for sodomy was reduced from death to jail? And the legalization of divorce? And the lack of civil penalties for masterbastion?

Asking that gay people who have sex in private not be put in jail is an assult on society? I know a little about assults.

As to the true intent of Santorum's babbling interview, who knows. He and his spin doctors are backtracking at full speed. He may well have some tortured rationale reconciling all of his statements. Almost exactly a year ago (April 2002) he was happy to invite in a group of homosexual Republicans and their sex partners (I would have said gay Republicans and their partners, but I have ben corrected on my terminolgy), getting $60,000 in campaign contributions out of it.

I agree that the Supreme Court will cave on the issue. I disagree that they will be able to create special protection for homosexual activity without also opening the door for similar special protections for other forms of deviant sexual behavior.

Actually, that�s not true. The rates of adult-child sex are similar in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities and are scary. The only reason that there is no activist movement similar to the homosexual activism is that this group has not organized and has not been successful in conning the public that there is nothing wrong with their activity. What happened in Boston, of course, is horrible.

I noticed that Axios has not answered any of my questions or those of other posters. He has only stated the usual claims of the homosexual activist movement.

Cave only if you support putting jail people in jail for homosexual activity. I repeat, I predict the court will accept the defense's petition and nullify criminal sodomy laws without touching any other law.

It is true. You used the present tense in your first assertion on this matter then switched to the future tense.

Yes. Due in no small part to the actions and inactions of an over-fed and scarlet clad spokesperson for 'Christian morality'.

I'm sorry. A lot of questions have been presented and some in extremely tortured language. Could you restate the more important ones in a simple fashion. No more than three at a time, please.

But let me ask one, first. The legal theorizing by non-lawyers is wearying. To get around the circular talk, and get to the issue that I find basic, do you think the Texas legislature would be well-advised to repeal this law? If not, is this (criminal laws against homosex) something that Christians in good conscience can diagree about?

Axios

P.S. Do you think Santorum should give back the $60,000?

A.

"It is important to realize that some choices are wrong, even if there is a genetic predisposition towards choosing these types of behavior."

I think a major breakthrough comes with this single statement. It is worth contemplating in this debate.

There are many "genetic predispositions" that we are born with, are culturally re-inforced, and socially and intellectually articulated.

But let's back up on the 'genetic' issue. My question to those who consider genetics an issue is this: If a man is genetically predisposed towards attractive women (read: an oversexed heterosexual who can't control himself), should he be held accountable for his actions (I will spare any details), that he may do in their presence? Should the argument of genetic predispositions be used to shield his actions and behavior?

Ladies?

The 'argument from genetics' looses steam when we forget that we can PRAY not to be led into temptation, assuming we believe that we SHOULD be led not into temptation. The call to holiness and purity in life is given equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals no matter what their genetics may be.

Many are making much of any type of association between gay sex and other deviant sexual activities, but I believe that such associations also charge much against heterosexuals too. Incest is not always a same-sex affair. Heterosexuals are grouped with the same group of sexual perverts.

We are more than human beings. We are made in the image (icon) and likeness of God. Sola Genetica leaves no room for the possibility of the workings of God and the transfiguration of men and women.

Joe Thur

Axios,

You are very talented at distorting the truth. I know very well from experience that if I answer your questions from your most recent post you will either ignore mine or answer questions other than those I have asked. I will, therefore, only answer one of your questions and invite you to answer my previous questions. If a group of homosexual Republicans donated $60,000 to Senator Santorum knowing that he disapproved of the goals of their organization he is free to keep the money. Senator Santorum�s strong support of Christian morality has been widely known from the early days of his entrance into politics. If this group objects to their donation he should willingly donate it to an organization that helps people leave the homosexual lifestyle and embrace a healthy lifestyle. All the evidence shows that therapy works, even though the homosexual activists loudly denounce it (please read page 8 of this thread).

Regarding my statement about a Supreme Court decision establishing special protection for homosexual sexual activity, I never suggested that should the court establish such special protection in overturning the Texas statue that it would automatically apply to other forms of deviant immoral sexual behavior. I was clear in stating that it would become very difficult for the courts not to extend such special protection to all forms of deviant immoral sexual behavior.

At any rate, since you profess to be an Orthodox Christian you have an obligation to witness Christ and his teachings to anyone that you know is living in an immoral relationship (heterosexual or homosexual). You seem to be more concerned with establishing special protection for such people instead of converting them to Christ. If we won over all these people for Christ there would be no need to discuss the issue of laws and special protection for immoral behavior.

Admin

Dear Theophilos,

You pose an interesting notion.

"Also, insofar as sodomy between homosexual men in particular is one of the main ways in which HIV is transmitted, a law limiting that behavior may be justified as public health measure."

Based on what what I've read about the plague that is HIV, I have a question.

In much of the undeveloped world HIV is transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Do you think that a law limiting that behavior would be justified as a public health measure? I have mixed feelings on that subject.


Steve