www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Catholic policy on Gay men in the Presbyterate

Going waaaaaay back to the beginning of this thread, someone mentioned the assessment of candidates for the priesthood.

40 years ago,, it was the practice of the religious orders - and perhaps the diocesans, too - to require that all candidates undergo a complete physical, dental and vision assessment, and a psychological assessment by an independent outsider. I was told that the purpose of the psych assessment was to weed out those with anti-social personalities who would not be able to live in a community, or those with specific personality disorders (manic/depressives, obsessive/compulsives, explosive personality, etc.). A former classmate of mine is now one of the screeners for a large Archdiocese.

So, the concept of total assessment of candidates is certainly not new.

Blessings!

>>>In general, my opinion is that the bishops should not be encouraging exceptions to the canon. However, the Church has needs and the available candidates are often few. Hence some inevitable compromises will occurr (even I can accept that). But if these exceptions become the norm amongst his candidates for ordination, then the bishop needs to reassess whether or not the Christian faith is being lived out within his diocese and whether or not he is doing all that he can to encourage men toward ordination who do not have such impediments.

With love in Christ,
Andrew. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I recognize you're trying hard NOT to make a blanket policy statemnt BUT I think that it is simply WRONG to consider a past sin such as fornication an "inpediment" to ordination. The canons also say if a boy is raped he can't be a priest because he "sinned". We don't buy that line of thinking today. This all smacks highly of a dualistic, manichean approach to sexuality, as if one having sex when they were unmarried somehow makes them impure later on. It horrifies me to think that 1) someday I may be rejected for clerical office because of mistakes I made before I returned from a lapsed practice of Christianity and 2) the bishop would look for people "without impediments first" as if just because someone had sex when they were a teenager somehow they should be given second consideration to someone who was a virgin when they married, when this is all occuring later in life anyway and repentence has been offered. Once one repents, the sin is gone. I am of the opinion that if one confesses a sin, he should not discuss it except in general terms if it will edify someone to hear a story of repentence. Bishops should not ask candidates if they had pre-marital sex whether hetero or homo. If they are married now and presumably otherwise-suitable for ordination then it should be left at that.

Sorry for the ramble!

In Christ,

anastasios

Brother Anastasios' post says it all.

We are all sinners.
(If you say you're not then you're nuts.)

The priest is not perfect. (He's just nuts to offer up his whole life to serve God's people.)

God's people NEED priests to serve the community. (Otherwise we'd just be a fraternal ogranization like the Masons or the KofC.)
If we waited only for perfect, almost-without-sin virgins, and saintlike-patient folks to present themselves for ordination, then we'd be like the priestless Old Believers. For no one would be worhty.

So, let's pray for sinners who acknowledge their sinfulness, and who have he insane vision to serve God's people WHERE THEY ARE and without being judgemental, and who are willing to live in borderline poverty and who are willing to step up to the plate of ordination. (Have we narrowed the field sufficiently?)

Lord, have mercy.

Blessings!

Dear Anastasios and Dr. John:

The ecumenical synod that you convened to alter the two thousand years of New Testament Tradition does not amuse me.

Do you understand my point? Individual bishops, and certainly participants in an internet forum, do not have the authority to alter our measuring stick or "canon." They (the bishops) have authority to make exceptions to it, under potential challenge by their brother bishops on their synod (remember, that old conciliarity thing).

The fact that we live in a sinful time (more or less sinful than any other time, I don't know) should have no bearing on the canon itself. Canonists agree that individual canons were usually formed as RESPONSES to sinful practices creeping into the Church, so "there is nothing new under the sun." The canons have already addressed anything that can come up. Perhaps the ethics related to biomedical engineering could be considered as a rare exception to this rule. Indeed, many hope that the next ecumenical council takes up that issue for the edification of the faithful.

I find it quite presumptuous to think that we in the past 100 yeras with 100 million killed between the wars and abortions, have advanced in Christian understanding beyond what our "old fashioned" ancestors knew to be good, right, and holy. We like their robes, but the humble station of their hearts seems tragically gone.

It was refreshing to meet several fine men in the Church of Albania doing excellent work as unordained laymen who expressed openly that their desire to serve in an ordained capacity had been hindered by past sins. What was particularly refreshing is that they accepted this for the glory of God and did not turn away embittered that "their rights" had been denied to them. Truly, everything that we need our Father provides to us, in his time and manner.

Sins are remitted and forgiven, they are not forgotten. If we forget them, then we don't learn from them and risk repeating them. Anamnesis, it is critical!

We will answer EVEN for every idle word that comes out of our mouths. Do you think that HE will just skip over our sexual sins so as not to embarass us?

Pray for me, first among the sinners.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Dr. John,

We may not agree on Church politics but when it comes to sin, we are in the same boat! ;-)

In Christ,

anastasios

Well said, brother in Christ Andrew. Your great wisdom and great humility are exemplary. (May I borrow some?)

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I still totally disagree with you, though. The fact that you met very faithful laypeople who were not ordained due to some hinderance suggests to me that there are some missed opportunities in Albania!

And I do believe that we are more enlightened than our ancestors. In fact, I strongly believe that. The Church develops in its understandings. For instance, essence and energies became more clear with St. Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas. So too our understanding of sexuality has progresed. The fact that the canons include things about boys being raped "sinning" is proof enough to me. We know that it is NOT a sin to be raped! Yet the canonists of that time thought so.

I have no idea what you mean by "we like their robes but the humble station of their hearts seems to be gone." As if there are not humble theologians today working hard in prayer to push the Church to accept certain canonical changes? And as if all the people that wrote the canons were somehow "holy" and "pure"? It's not fair to try and contrast the "canonists of the past with their humble hearts" with "the presumptousness of people who like robes but not humility". Knowing how Greek monks today act, and knowing how St. Cyril the "gangster" acted against (St.*) Nestorius, I would not be at all surprised if humility were the last thing on the mind of the canonists of the past.

The Orthodox Church is in need of some major canonical overhaul. Those canons were written by people influenced by manicheanism, dualism, regarding women as "lower" then men, etc. It wasn't the wrong cultural thing in their time but today it is just wrong. We're past all that. It's like those who chime about how a priest shouldn't have sex with his wife before celebrating the Eucharist. They never have a real answer "why?" except "the canons say so" or "you have to be obedient" etc etc. Well God gave us a rational soul and a nous so we could seek him out, not just rely on canons from the past. Canons are supposed to be a rule against which we measure our behavior, sure; but if the rule is so far removed from our culture today, how can they be considered effective, fair, reasonable, etc? The fact that the Rudder/Pedalion is 1000 pages long with canon after canon of things like "if a bishop rides a horse let him be deposed" shows that there is a totally different mindset. Sure in canons class at St. Vlad's we are told about how to understand them in their context, how to apply them to us today, etc. etc., but canons are NOT Holy Scripture NOR are they on par with dogmatic decrees of ecumenical councils!

As far as remembering sins, I'd rather go with the psalm verse "if you mark iniquities, Lord, who can stand" then "we forgave you, sure, but you can't be a priest because you had sex 10 years ago before you were married!"

In Christ,

anastasios

Anastasios:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Some good points, but I have a few questions:

�Those canons were written by people influenced by manicheanism, dualism, regarding women as "lower" then men...�

Wow! I expect such statements from Protestants, especially Reformed and Evangelicals, but not from an Eastern Christian. Proof? Specific canons I should consult?

What do you mean by ��lower� than men�? The canons pertaining to menstruation? Or is it the basic idea of male headship that you, enlightened by the new orthodoxy of egalitarianism, find so distasteful?

�Well God gave us a rational soul and a nous so we could seek him out, not just rely on canons from the past.�

Sounds a little too much like Mani to me.

�And I do believe that we are more enlightened than our ancestors. In fact, I strongly believe that...�

How do you KNOW we are more enlightened today? Because we don�t consider a boy who has been raped to have thereby sinned? Because we have better hygiene?

Thanks.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Anastasios,

Thanks for a good respense. Sometimes its good to disagree! We may even end up enlightened!

Please consider:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMATIC AND MORAL TEACHINGS

All canons, be they disciplinary or dogmatic, are simply elaborations upon the "parathike" handed by the apostles to the bishops. these elaborations become part of the "paradosis."

Our dogma and morals have never changed. The ten commandments are our ten commandments. One can show a trinitarian God working in Proverbs (hint for a good OT paper) without ever using the word "Trinity."

Palamas' teachings are the major expostulation of energies and essence. The hesychasts had practiced these things since time immemorial. The silent prayers of the OT priests, for example. There are numerous other hints of these principles in Scripture and Patristic writings. Paul wrote "pray without ceasing," etc. etc. Because the hesychasts were under attack, and only because of the attacks, did Palamas expostulate. He did not discern, develop, or start something new. He explained the "parathike."

All sacred revelation has occurred. Our job is to carry "it" forward, the "paradosis". And yes, there are answers (as I have been taught them) to all of the questions that you posed regarding the canons. "Ask and you shall receive."

SIN

I don't know which prayers you personally read before receiving the eucharist, but at SVS and almost everywhere else, they teach eastern christians to say:

"I believe and I confess that you are truly the Christ, son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am first,.....therefore I pray that you have mercy on me and forgive my sins, both voluntary and involuntary, whether in word or in deed, committed in knowledge or ignorance, manifest or unseen, and make me worthy....."

Now that covers everything!

A victim of rape confesses his or her sin as an involuntary sin. If it occurred at an early enough age, it was probably comitted in ignorance, in that the victim even didn't understand the seriousness of the harm.

Many sins are committed voluntarily and knowingly in a context that fosters them. He or she who commits the sin may be unaware of their action as a sin until reaching the light of the God's teachings for salvific human behavior (the root of this word is in the Latin "salve" meaning "health").

Your expressed view of sin is one that even the Western Church is now backing away from. It implies that to carry the burden of a sin, one must have acted voluntarily and knowingly. That is not the Eastern teaching.

So an eastern bishop resigned after striking a boy with his vehicle. The child ran out in front very suddenly. What sin did the bishop have? In the West none, but in the East, he was caught up in a sin. "Men are caught up in an evil time as fish are caught up in a net."

For example, I don't know what burden of sin I carry for my former role as a Naval Officer. My best bet is to start repenting now, even if I can't discern that burden.

Take this one to dogmatics class: "The fact that you are mortal, means that you are in sin." This is the Orthodox understanding of original sin. Adam's disobedience cut us off from the tree of life, hence we all suffer the sting of death, which is sin.

If one examines oneself, one finds that the root cause of so much of one's vain strivings (for glory, power, wealth, admiration, and even ordination) is rooted in our fear of death and the non-existence that it threatens. That is why the East has always placed the Resurrection of Christ at the center of all soteriological formulations.

Sin is with us until the resurrection and Second Coming because Satan is the Prince of this world. Let's get used to it, but not comfortable with it.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: On February 27th you heard and, hopefully, met your namesake from Albania who holds to those allegedly outmoded and anachronistic canons. No opportunities missed over there!

Thanks, Anastasios, for your words. Sin is always a potential for any of us; but it is the repentance and the love for God and neighbor that saves us.

I was talking with a human behavior specialist about some general issues, including those on sexuality.

Human beings have a physical presence in the body, as well as a spiritual presence in the mind and the soul. While we feel free to interact intellectually (both reason and emotion), and we can interact with each other spiritually (prayer, good works), the question of our physical interactions leads to a lot of confusion since our physical interactions are determined not only by God-given "algorithms" (the need for food, drink, clothes, shelter, social interaction, etc.) but also by cultural imperatives.

Problems arise when the innate and cultural (including religious) norms conflict. For a lot of cultures, any physical contact between persons is severely circumscribed, while in other cultures certain physical contacts are mandated. I think of Russians and Balkan Slavs, along with a lot of Mediterranean folks for whom the "embrazo" and a double cheek-kiss is absolutely normative - and when absent is considered an insult.

For others, any skin/skin contact is interpreted as potential eroticism, and is to be avoided at all costs. (As a kid, I remember that the nuns only shook hands with folks when wearing gloves.)

It's all in the interpretation.

Our Byzantine priests and deacons share a "kiss" before the anaphora; and our Latin brethren in the US share a handshake. Both are done to express love in the Christian context. Neither is interpreted as "erotic" despite the physical contact.

The question that folks should ask themselves is this: what physical contact is "eroticism" and what is just "physical contact"?

I fear that for some folks any physical contact is "eroticism" or minimally: "pre-eroticism" and are intrinsically sinful. For them, "chaste" means avoiding anything that is physical. And those who are huggie-kissie or "holders" or double-cheek-kissers, are immediately suspect of para-fornication. And God help those who act in this manner.

My suspicion is that these "don't touch me" folks started down this path early on, and because they themselves don't experience this, they become increasingly upset by the "unseemly" behavior of others.

A psychiatrist friend of mine summed it up by saying that the folks who are scared to death of REAL interaction with another person (including physical contact) will justify their self-imposed isolation by condemning the interactions of those who are not intimidated. The fear of interaction may arise out of a weight problem, a skin disorder, a personality issue or a whole host of other problems, and so the perceived "rejection" both by general society or by individuals encountered in daily life, will lead the individual to "justify" the isolation by appealing to religious principles.

Thus, some individuals seek out either the clerical state ("hey, it's OK to be alone") or a religious or hyper-religious state because this is "pleasing to Jesus".

So, is it any wonder that some homosexually oriented folks would seek out "religion" to justify the outcast status? Or that the folks with other "issues" (like weight, skin, height, personality, intelligence, etc.) should seek "religous status" as validation for the realities in their lives?

The answer lies in the realization that every Christian should be both accepting and loving of every other individual he or she meets. In doing so, the individual with the propensity to be rejected will not feel rejected, and will not feel the need to seek sanctuary in a "consecrated" life as a validation of the 'reasons' for rejection.

I believe that it's human nature to always try to do the "one-ups-manship" of feeling better by downgrading or subordinating others. I think that is what Christ was trying to teach us: -- "All God's children...." Even the fat ones, even the ones with pockmarked skin, even the short or tall, even the ones who are fearful because they've been pissed on, even the "foreigners", even the "different", even the old or the young, ...

That is the tremendous mystery of the teaching of Christ: it sublimates the nature of man to lord it over others. The Lord said: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart."

This is the real challenge of 'metanoia'; it is the constant effort to overcome the "I'm number ONE!" mindset.

So, I'd suggest that rather than worry about who in the clergy or laity is gay or straight, or who is gluttonously obese, or who abuses drink, or who seeks out "danger" in lifestyle, I would propose that we concentrate on providing each and all with open arms and a soft shoulder upon which to talk or even to weep. And never allow them to feel that they are NOT worthy of both real love (and not that 'fake' Jesus loves you stuff!) as well as REAL acceptance of whoever the person really is.

I really think that Jesus would like that.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

As you said, "I really think that Jesus would like that."

I agree!

Blessings to you, too.

Steve

Peace to all of you.

Axios

And to you also, Axios.

Steve