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

Dear Cantor Joseph,

One may also make the argument that the American Revolution was based on economics. I wish that all of Eastern Europe had to endure the same kind of "totalitarianism" of the British that the U.S. "endured" - I wish it on everyone, but let's not go there.

Morality and law are linked - but because the law doesn't follow Christian morality doesn't mean it is immoral. The two have different goals as well.

Let's remember also that historically Orthodox Christian nations often made deliberate choices to be under Muslim control rather than under the "Christian rule" of Roman Catholicism. So not even all Christians liked Christian government.

And, as I've said before, not everyone shares the view that homosexuality is a deviant behaviour, no matter how many Bible quotes we can muster.

I didn't make that up, it's just the way it is.

Alex

I think that the link between morality (and particularly religious morality) and the law goes right back to the earliest foundations of American society and is a part of American "particularity", if you will. We were a nation founded, to a certain extent, by religious zealots who wanted freedom from their own "state religions", but not to live in a libertine society, but rather in an even more hyper-religious society than that governed by the "state church". This trauma over the historical "state church" certainly manifested itself in the constitutional hostility to an established church from the very beginning, but God Himself was all over the Declaration of Independence and permeated the thinking of the people who framed American institutions. The important thing was to avoid a "one church fits all" approach, not to ban religiously motivated ideas from expression in public policy. That strain has persisted in this country ever since, in spite of the attempts to kill it off during the 20th century. There's something very American about it, as troubling as it may seem to those who live outside this country. So I don't think we'll see a change in that kind of rhetoric soon. Think of how important it was, politically, that Bill Clinton (someone with very different views from those of Senator Santorum) be seen going to church, bible firmly in hand, virtually every Sunday. In other countries, that kind of religiosity in public leaders makes people nervous (case in point the UK, where many critique Tony Blair for being too religious), but not here. Still important here to be married and church-going if you want to rise to the top of the political system here.

Even if the Senator equated homosexual "activity" with incest, pedophilia etc, it would still be in my opinion, slanderous and uncharitable to gay people. I don't claim that is the Church's view (I don't speak for the Orthodox or Catholic Church) 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. Democratic party politicians do the same.
I do feel that the strident "cultural politics" wars in the US are often destructive and I am glad that in Canada, they seem to have surpassed them or at least keep to civil discourse about them.
I don't claim to agree with the Admin or David etc on many things. I'm sure we don't. But I'm not a liar and I try to live a Christian life within my own fallenness and also, that is between me and Our Lord and not a group of people on an Internet forum (however beloved)

Here endeth the Lesson!

Brian

Friends,

I can't help but think that this whole thing is a witch-hunt to bring down a prominent pro-life senator. If he was pro-abortion, would there be such outrage?

As far as the media is concerned, being pro-abortion covers a multitude of sins. Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, my previous state of residence, was once a recruiter for the KKK. In 2001 he used the infamous "n" word on national television twice. Where was the firestorm to oust him from office? Because he is a defender of abortion on demand the media gave him a pass.

If you want to see some truly shocking and bigotted remarks made by a U.S. senator, check out what Robert Byrd has said about african americans at the following link:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp

Would a pro-life senator be able to get away with as much? Think about this.

Anthony

Dear Administrator,

Then at least we understand each other . . .

I just wanted to address your statement about what I said as being "illogical."

I took that personally . . .

Perhaps it is illogical, as you've said. I'm merely stating how the law sees it today. We may not like it, call it illogical, but so what?

Your comparison to thieves is not a comparison because theft is a criminal act and its perpetrators, when caught and convicted, are denied the same sorts of freedoms that other law-abiding citizens enjoy.

Homosexuality and homosexuals do not fall into that category under the law today.

And it is an issue for the Church, to be sure, when it comes to affirming Gospel morality.

But, on the other hand, we are assuming that the issue of homosexuality is "settled" by the Bible and the Church.

Is it?

There are Catholic theologians who posit that when the Bible speaks of "homosexual acts" as St Paul does in the quote offered by Cantor Joseph, they make the argument that the Bible and the people of the Bible's time never knew anything of the view that a person can be inclined toward homosexuality - something we know today.

We know that aristocrats in Rome practiced homosexuality while being fully capable of heterosexual relationships. They did this to differentiate themselves from the "rabble" who only knew heterosexuality. The same is true of the ancient philosophers. And they performed all kinds of perversions with food et al. for the same reason.

Some have made the argument that the Bible only condemns homosexuality practiced by those who are of a heterosexual orientation. That such was the case in ancient times is something that is incomprehensible to our modern era, but so are a lot of things that went on years ago.

But only IF this can be proven - it is all on the level of argument alone so far.

I think I've said enough controversial things for one Holy Thursday . . .

Alex

Dear Brian,

I'm in your corner all the way on this one, Big Guy!

Alex

Dear Anthony,

Well, I don't think your political system was made for the Angels either!

Alex

Herein lies the problem. Anything that is not supportive of the homosexual sexual agenda is automatically considered to be slanderous and uncharitable to those homosexuals who are leading the charge against Christian morality.

Brian misses the point. It is not about equating these different forms of deviant behavior. It is about the fact that if one rejects the traditional Judeo-Christian prohibitions against one of these types of behavior one cannot then rely on Judeo-Christian prohibitions against other types of behavior. It is certainly not intellectually dishonest to include these as part of the discussion.

One of the things about the homosexual activist crowd that bothers me is that anyone who expresses the Christian teaching on homosexual activity or even raises the issue for discussion is automatically considered to be a homophobe or a bigot.

I have never suggested that Brian was a liar � only that his logic is faulty and he is advocating tolerance of something that Christians consider to be sinful. Where his tolerance is for Senator Santorum and his advocacy of Christian morality?

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."


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

Dear Brendan,

Can we really say that polygamy of any kind is in keeping with general community standards in North America today?

But there are people who do live in polygamous relationships et al. and get around things.

We had quite the debate in Upper Canada about female circumcision - does the law have the right to prevent it and, if it does, is this an enfringement on cultural rights etc.?

The law decided that it did have the right to prevent it and that it wasn't an infringement of rights.

Again, this was based on community standards and whatever principles our law-makers have left . . .

IF you are suggesting that the law would do well to adopt Christian principles, it isn't going to, as you know.

The Puritans who came to found your country were among the most bigoted and nasty bunch in the history of Christianity.

If your country were still under their rule, you wouldn't be able to even celebrate Christmas which they deemed to be a pagan tradition.

The Puritans left Britain because the people of Britain, following the Great Rebellion and 11 years of Cromwellian dictatorship finally revolted against Puritan totalitarianism and brought back their (Catholic minus the pope) monarchy, culture, sense of humour and ability to enjoy themselves on holidays.

(The Puritans cut the head off of their King Charles I because he was against bishops in Anglicanism - they were ready to forgive his "despotism" as long as he agreed to quash the episcopacy - and he wouldn't).

"Freedom" for the Puritans only applied if you were a Puritan.

And many of your founding fathers were Deists too, as I understand . . .

And so what if "all men are created equal" - that didn't apply to African-Americans until the Civil . . . protests of Martin Luther King.

I think it's a good thing that your courts can interpret the laws made by others in other times . . .

Alex

A big Catholic BINGO! for our Administrator for pointing out the obvious.

The parliamentary system has nothing to do with Christianity, as I have seen it can get very nasty.

But if it is determined that my behavior has been uncharitable and the Admin asks me to leave, I will do so.

But I will still say that it is wrong to promote falsehoods and to misrepresent what others say. This is something we will always disagree on Alex, I think it is not only correct to point out when someone does it, it is a duty to correct such a thing.

As for tolerance.... To say that something, which is sinful, is not as bad as any other sinful act is the uncharitable thing.

To say that we can not equate homosexual acts to incest, pedophilia etc in the name of tolerance or charity is wrong. It makes it appear that these acts are acceptable, when they are not.

As I have said before, Sin is Sin and will always be Sin. To say that it isn't a Sin, or that it is a Sin but not as bad as other Sins is wrong and misleading and IMHO is sinful to do so.

That being said I think I will now bow out of this converstaion.


David

Actually, they do (or, at least traditionally have). There are numerous states that legally prohibit homosexual sexual activity. Like other statues against adultery they are no longer enforced but they are still there. As Brendan mentioned, the statues against adultery at least give the aggrieved party legal ground for divorce and provide financial sanctions (of divorce settlements) as a bit of discrimination against that deviant behavior. Even if unenforced the statues against homosexual activity show it to be something deemed unacceptable by society.

Yes. The only change in the Church�s teaching is one acknowledging that the tendency towards homosexual activity might not be chosen but might be genetic. The Church has never hinted that homosexual activity might someday be deemed morally acceptable. Ratzinger�s 1986 Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons [vatican.va] was quite clear on this. You are correct that there are some theologians who argue otherwise but the teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on this issue remains consistent.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

No, I'm not backing down or asking for forgiveness for what I've said - just for the record.

But your point about asserting Christian teaching on homosexuality that is automatically seen as being homophobic is an important one (and much more important that Dr. John's comment on "natural law" - he must be a Jesuit! ).

This is the crux of the issue as I see it, quite apart from discrimination issues et al.

The fact is that what we are coming up against is a time in a society that will deem Christian moral teaching itself as being discriminatory and "against the law."

And once that happens overtly, which religion would be safe from intrusion by the state to tell it what is or is not moral?

Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church may not approach Communion. Would they have a case of discrimination?

When our Catholic system became fully-funded, the issue of hiring "Catholic-only" teachers in a system that is publicly funded came to the fore.

And I see that when you say "homosexual" you appear to mean it in the sense of "organized gay lobby."

If so, then I agree that it doesn't represent the entire gay community.

Alex

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.

Admin