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

Nicky's Baba,

Thank you. What little I mentioned (and I won't go into further detail) was only the tip of the iceberg. I do have a diary with names; so does my attorney. So I am not worried. The problem clerics are gone now. Even those classmates who were later ordained have been sent packing from the active priesthood.

If some weren't having problems back in seminary days, they developed them later in parish life where loneliness was sharp and painful. They left good paying careers behind to enter church ministry only later to get such low pay for their services, great stress from all sorts of people, sometimes exhaustion, and utter loneliness at times. Only then one might begin to look for answers in a bottle or a chance encounter with a vulnerable person who is also lonely and just as mixed up in life.

I had the chance to get to know many currently active clergy who have their heads on straight and are deeply spiritual people. They have my respect and gratitude. I am also happy to be associated with them in our own Church. Many of our clergy are sharp characters.

Joe

I am very happy that JThur has been able to rise above what was clearly a most disturbing and distressing series of incidents. There is no question in my mind that those who intend to present themselves for ordination should be both stable and honest.

When issues such as sexual activity were addressed in my community, and there was this "thing" known as "via tertia" ('third way'= marriage, celibacy and interpersonal-relationships that may or may not involve physical activity), I was just appaled.

Why? Because in a religious order, and - for diocesans after ordination - there is a public promise to remain celibate and unmarried. And, as a kid who grew up real poor, I was told that a man without money or power or authority had only one golden thing: his word. And if your word is not worth anything, then you have absolutely nothing. So, if a priest or vowed religious had made the public promise in vows/promises, then to renege on that was to witness to the fact that one had absolutely nothing to give to anyone else. Even 'your word' was worthless. How incredibly impoverishing!

I'd rather deal with an affirmed hooker than with a person whose word is worthless. Blessings to you, Joe. And may your service to the Church and God's people be rewarded by the Lord.

Christ is Risen!!

Dear Joe,

I can only echo Dr. John's and Nicky's Baba's comments. It is truly a saddness that you had to experience what you did. It is a tribute that you have maintained your faith and your concern for God's Church.

It is good that you are among us.

Steve

Dear Axios,

You bear in your flesh the marks that are so often the results of prejudice and intolerance. I hope that these will heal and that you will be granted the ability to find strength from the experience. Judging from your persistent presentation of your position here where most do not share that position, you have. Most importantly, you seem to do it with love.

You shall know them by their love!

Steve

Blessed Easter to all.

Axios

Happy Easter to you, too, Axios. May I join you as you wish all here a Happy Easter, too?

Steve

Happy Easter!

No it is not offensive. Had you chosen not to participate in this thread no one would be asking you to explain your position on this issue, which appears to be at great odds with Orthodoxy.

That is quite a short response given all that Fr. Thomas wrote. Do you acknowledge and embrace the Orthodox teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual sexual activity? Do you take actions to call individuals involved in immoral homosexual sexual activity to reform their lives and live in chastity as taught by your Church?

If you reject the Judeo-Christian morality regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual activity you cannot then appeal to it to discriminate against other forms of immoral behavior. If you reject the Islamic, Buddhist and other religious teachings that homosexual sexual activity is immoral you cannot then appeal to them that adult-child sexual relations are wrong. When you reject religiously based morality with strong definitions of right and wrong, you argue for morality by consensus. You cannot legitimately claim that the society has a right to restrict any other forms of sexual relations, be they adultery, adult-child consensual sex or any other form of sexual behavior. There are some small organized groups in support of the legalization of consensual adult-child sex who also reject Judeo-Christian and other moral codes. If you reject these moral codes in arguing for tolerance and /or special protection of homosexual sexual activity you cannot apply them to others who argue for tolerance and / or special protection for other forms of sexual activity.

Again, since you have rejected Judeo-Christian morality on the issue of homosexual sexual activity you cannot then appeal to it regarding issues of whether children can give consent to their engaging in sexual activity. Our society has already begun to travel down this road. In many states, women under the age of 18 who are pregnant now have the right to a taxpayer funded abortion and their parents do not have the right to object or even be informed of the abortion. If you argue for special protections for consensual homosexual activity you cannot then argue that prohibitions against consensual sexual activity of any kind should not also receive special protection, be it sexual activity by adults, children or between the two. Furthermore, this special zone of privacy must also extend beyond sexual activity and include other things that can happen in the privacy of one�s own household, including but not limited to drug use and suicide.

This is faulty extension of logic. Again, if you have rejected Judeo-Christian morality regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual activity and seek to establish special protection for immoral homosexual behavior you cannot then appeal to Judeo-Christian or other moral systems to prohibit children from the freedom to engage in the sexual behavior they choose and with whomever they choose. Once you rejected Judeo-Christian morality you must than build an entire moral system based only on consensus, and there is a sizable minority who believe that children should have complete freedom in choosing the sexual activity they engage in.

This is a fair question and entirely different from the desire of the homosexual activists to establish special protection for immoral sexual activity. The state has a responsibility to establish legislation which justly discriminates against immoral activity. Laws against adultery, for example, assist in providing for the wife and children who have been aggrieved. Laws against homosexual sexual activity demonstrate that such activity is immoral and should be discouraged. Since homosexual sexual activity is always immoral it should always be illegal.

--

Well stated. As Fr. Thomas pointed out so eloquently on page 8: "I think that anyone who names the name of Christian and yet continues to practice [sinful] 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." We must remember that it is only by holding God�s consistent Commandments (given in Scripture and as taught through Holy Tradition) that we Christianly minister His love to the world. As Christians we cannot ever support anything that endorses sinful activity or even hints at acceptance of such activity but must always call the world to repentance. When we confuse our Christian responsibility to accept all people and welcome them into Christ�s embrace with acceptance of sinful activity we do a great disservice to Christ and the individuals we seek to minister to. When we accept sinful activity as normal and refuse to call people to change, believing that they can change, we deny the power of the Resurrection.

Christ is Risen!

Dear Administrator:

1. I disagree with your opinion.

2. I find that whenever I give an honest and sincere response to your question, you get testy and say I am twisting things.

3. I have just had the joy of the Easter Eucharist and am continueing the celebration of Bright Week.

4. Responding to this topic has come to bore me.

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.

Happy Whatever you Catholics are doing next week.

Axios

"Happy Whatever you Catholics are doing next week."

Axios,

I find that offensive! I am sorry you are outside Christianity but there is no need for remarks like the one above. I suggest you seek a Good Spiritual Advisor who is in good standing with Orthodoxy (i.e. Greek, Russian, etc...)

I can understand Brother Axios' consternation, especially during this most holy season.

Our Father, John Chrysostom, in his Easter Sermon, speaks of all barriers being torn down, our absolute need to love everyone, including "even those that hate us", i.e., the pagans and Jews. How incredibly awful of Christians to get on high horses and to condemn anyone else, especially those of the baptized. It is reminiscent of the 19th century theology of bringing Christianity to folks as an army of Christians intent upon making people 'believe' and 'acquiesce'. It's the "onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" theology. Christ would have been horrified.

He ate with tax collectors; He allowed a prostitute to bathe his feet and anoint them; He talked with Samaritans; He interacted with all sorts of people and made the 'establishment' crazy -- crazy enough to get Him murdered in the name of the state.

And then we see Christians who in all holy dudgeon, go out and do the same 'righteous' things to His children, and -- to do it IN HIS NAME. This is both insanity if we say that we are His followers, and an affront to the principles that He taught to us. People call upon the scriptures to validate their hate and their right to persecute others. The last I remember reading in the Scripture is that He came to fulfil the Law, and to give us a new one: love God and love one's neighbor as much as one would love one's self.

And so, while I respect those for whom judgementalism is a core aspect of their attempts to be "righteous", I would respectfully request that if one has a problem with the way that someone else lives his/her life, then they should speak with the individual, but if the individual cannot accept the judgement of the self-appointed intervenor, then the intervenor should rely upon prayer and not instigate some sort of Christian jihad to exterminate those with whom he/she disagrees.

I can remember the time when Catholic theologians were seriously considering the issue of whether missions to Africa were worth it, since they were not sure that blacks had souls that could be saved. Baptizing "them" might not be efficacious because they were not capable of salvation. It is the selfsame theology that considered Jews as "Christ-Killers" thereby theologically validating anti-Semitism and allowing any persecution that folks would care to dream up. It is the same perspective that says that "women should be silent in the church" thereby validating the idea that baptized women had a limited role in the life of the community. It is hearing that homosexual people are black-marked and are therefore subject to whatever penalites a depraved society would wreak upon them. It is saying that the 'savages' who inhabited this land before the Europeans came must either get 'baptized' or get killed because, obviously, without 'baptism' they were less than worthy of humane treatment.

Hearing these perspectives as both a child and as a young seminarian made me furious; and it does the same thing today whenever I hear that Christians are girding up their loins (I hope that that is not too sensitive for some!) to go out and render justice based upon their perceptions of what the "Law" requires -- gee, I thought that THAT law was fulfilled and the Lord's law of love and acceptance was now the norm. Guess I was absent the day that we were taught that persecution was A-OK for Christians to practice.

Well, "for me and my household, I will follow the Lord", and I will never under any circumstances allow myself to be the judge of any of my brethren or any other human being, even outside the household of the faith. Should others choose to be 'judge', then it is their own judgement that will come back to them, as the Lord clearly says. "Judge not, lest you yourselves be judged."

Christ is Risen!!

Axios:

Axios wrote:
1. I disagree with your opinion.

I have long realized this. Your disagreement with me is of no consequence. The problem is that you also disagree with the teaching of your own Orthodox Church.

Axios wrote:
2. I find that whenever I give an honest and sincere response to your question, you get testy and say I am twisting things.

You misunderstand. You have the right to your own opinion and I respect your opinion. The problem is that you distort the teaching of the Orthodox Church you claim to belong to. I have every right to object when you imply that your opinion is the teaching of Orthodoxy.

Axios wrote:
3. I have just had the joy of the Easter Eucharist and am continueing the celebration of Bright Week.

An excellent thing to celebrate. May you find the courage to call everyone you meet in your daily life to abandon all and follow Christ, imitating His example of a sinless life.

Axios wrote:
4. Responding to this topic has come to bore me.

I realize that you know that your positions are not in accordance with your Orthodox Church.

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.

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.

Axios wrote:
Happy Whatever you Catholics are doing next week.

And a very joyful Pascha to you, too.


--

Dr. John�s post is a very incomplete definition of Christian love. Our absolute need to love everyone is to love the individual yet hate the sin. It is not love to tell someone you that love them, that God loves them, and then embrace them and allow them to continue on a path away from Christ. It is a cop out to allow someone to remain on the wrong path without an offer to help them or � worse yet � not even to tell them they are on a path leading away from Christ. It is incredibly awful for a Christian to tell someone on the wrong path that the path they are on is �OK�.

Dr. John is correct that Christ ate with tax collectors; allowed a prostitute to bathe his feet and anoint them, talked with Samaritans and so much more. But we must not forget that Zacchaeus reformed his live, giving back what had taken. Christ told the prostitute to: "Go now and leave your life of sin." The examples of his healing �your sins are forgiven� are always in the context of a change of lifestyle. This is what we need to preach to the world. If we love one another as Christ loves us then we are to care enough to call others back to the path of salvation. We cannot let even a single opportunity pass us by without calling people to Christ. We must love our neighbor enough to call him to account and help him reform his lives just as we hope that others will call us to account for our shortcomings and sinful ways. To call this �judgementalism� is to have an incomplete understanding of the Gospel. Just as Christ was clear in His command not to judge others He was also clear in his command to call others to account. Christ told us that when our brother sins we are to go and tell him his fault. When our brother hears us, or others who go with us, and reforms his ways we have gained back our brother.

Christ is Risen!

Oh, my! If this is a "race to the bottom" then congratulations, Johan, you've just won. :rolleyes:

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.

Christ is Risen!

Axios wrote:

I think the Administrator is doing a great job in making sure that the Church's position on this subject is clearly stated.

Axios,

You wear your views on the morality of homosexual acts on your sleeve by linking the webpage you do on your profile. If you really believe that the morality of homosexual acts can be defended from an Orthodox point of view, please explain your position.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com