www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall At Notre Dame, gay film fest

Something here makes me thing of slippery slopes...
It makes me wonder what's next!
More... [chicagotribune.com]

It makes one wonder if the Orthodox not in communion with Rome are correct.

Dan L

Why? Does anyone possibly think that Rome would find this acceptable? Or should Rome micromanage the local church? [Aren't the Orthodox always complaining about centralization?}
The fact that American Catholic institutions are centers of dissent and secularization does not at all reflect on the moral leadership of the Holy See.
For example, contraception is widely accepted by American Catholics, and few prelates teach against it with any clarity, yet the Pope's position is clear to all; when it is contradicted or ignored it is clear to all where Rome stands. On the other hand, the so-called canonical Orthodox Churches accept it. Officially. How does this tempt you?
I certainly understand the attraction of Orthodoxy liturgically and aesthetically but it is precisely the confusion on moral issues [and the canonical problem] that tempers this attraction for me.

Daniel,

I'm confused by your final paragraph. Your comment as to (Orthodoxy's) confusion on moral issues seems to be at odds with your remark in the prior paragraph about Orthodoxy's official acceptance of a stance against birth control. Please clarify for my old and addled brain (it's probably what comes of reading posts at 4:20 in the a.m.).

Many years,

Neil

If 99 pct of the visible Catholic Church were homosexual, they would still be defying the Church's teachings.

Now, now. I've seen any number of very queer films that had nothing whatever to do with erotic misconduct!
Has anyone noticed Senator Paul Sarbanes and his position on abortion?
Incognitus

Neil- You are staying up too late. I said the canonical Orthodox Churches [GOA, OCA,etc] ACCEPT artificial contraception in spite of ancient tradition against it...
And once the procreative aspect of sex is severed from the unitive aspect there is really no reasonable objection to homosexual activity in a committed relationship.

Dear Iconophile,

First of all, family planning is not the same as artificial birth control. Secondly, does not the Catholic Church allow and even sanction Natural Family Planning for the avoidance of pregnancy? Third, chastity is highly encouraged in the Orthodox viewpoint of marital sexuality, in that every Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, (if one is receiving the Holy Mysteries on Sunday), and Sunday, AND the plentiful amount of fasting days, (ie: Nativity Fast, Dormition/Assumption Fast, Lenten Fast, etc.) are days of complete sexual abstinence. Fourthly, no one, except a spiritual father/confessor knows the personal, spiritual, physical, emotional, health, financial, familial and temptational challenges a married person that ALREADY HAS CHILDREN may have. Dispensation is based upon these considerations, not on a 'let's be liberal and modern' mentality.

Additionally, the intent to NOT have a family is considered a grave sin for a married couple in the Orthodox church. Permanent contraceptive solutions such as 'tubal ligation' and 'vasectomies' are also considered grave sin, as they preclude the possibility of life.

We DO NOT sanction homosexuality in any form whatsoever, sir, and I resent your implication that the pastoral dispensation given for limiting one's family size is at all comparable to sanctioning homosexuality. Such acts in hetero and homosexual, married or non-married unions, are considered extremely grave/mortal sin. So are abortions, period.

I admire those with large families, but not all are called to have them. Most of our priests can hardly handle their vocations with two or three children, no less fifteen. God bless those with many children, but do not condemn and judge those who don't want many.

I am sorry to have posted this, but I sense that you did not want to let go of the anger you felt at my church's position. I believe that I have sufficiently cleared it up. If you don't like it, fine, you aren't Orthodox!

As this is a very sensitive topic, better suited for the confessional and one's conscience with God, I will not be engaged into it any further.

May God bless you and your wife, and your children. May God bless my children, my greatest blessings from God, also.

In Christ,
Alice

iconophile:

Please qualify your use of "so-called canonical Orthodox Churches." What does "so-called" here mean? That they are not so?

Can you offer substantiation of "so-called canonical Orthodox Churches...officially" accepting contraception? Please elaborate.

What is the "canonical problem" to which you refer?

And, to what confusion on moral issues do you refer? Please give substantiated examples.

Tony

Daniel,

Thank you for the clarification. However, with that said, I have to wonder on what you base that statement? My understanding of the position of the mainstream - canonical (whatever you want to term them) Orthodox Churches is akin to what Alice has written above. While I have no doubt that there are individual clergy who differ in their take on the subject, that is no different than is the case in our own Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Alice and everyone,
First of all I am not angry at anyone! I am typing this in a calm state of mind, okay?
Does anyone deny that the mainstream Orthodox Churches allow artificial contraception? So far as I am aware, only ROCOR officially condemns this practice.
I agree that not everyone is called to large families. When that is the case, periodic abstinence is the moral choice [Natural Family Planning].
I am well aware that the Orthodox do not consider homosexual activity moral, I am only pointing out that such a stance does not bear scrutiny if artificial contraception is allowed. Think of it: if sex is not intrinsically open to life then its purpose is to express affection and pleasure. True, these are among the purposes of sexual activity. However, all sex must be radically open to new life, with nothing changing the nature of the act. If this is not intrinsic to the act, then homosexuals can certainly express affection in a pleasurable manner. You may continue to oppose this on fideistic grounds, but philosophically, you are sunk.
I mention the canonical problems of Orthodoxy only because Catholics would recognize many expressions of Christianity as bearing apostolic succession and valid sacraments that the mainstream Orthodox would not. Indeed there seems to me to be considerable confusion within Orthodoxy regarding canonicity. To cite one example, is the OCA an autocephalous body? They say so and are recognized by the MP but the EP doesn't recognize them as such, nor does the GOA.
Please, do not accuse me of hostility toward the Orthodox for pointing these things out; I feel more at home at Orthodox worship than at a Roman Mass and there is very much to admire. I am deeply attracted liturgically and aesthetically; these are the sorts of things which keep me in union with Rome. I think it is true that Orthodoxy lacks the well-thought out moral theology that characterizes Catholicism.
I am really sorry to have annoyed sweet Alice...
that's got to be some sort of first.

Daniel,

In John Meyendorff's, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, the learned Dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary writes,

He continues that this is not something that a couple chooses selfishly and the advice of a good father confessor can be consulted.

Now given what Alice has said about the sexual abstinence days (see above), ISTM that the Orthodox are left with Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday outside of the Fasts for conjugal relations, this may not coincide with NFP at all times.

Using your philosopy any sexual activity that allows procreation would be licit. So, a married man can have extramarital sex licitly as long as there is no birth control involved? The same goes for premarital sex? I think you are sunk.
You have still not qualified what you mean by canonicity. While the ranking of some churches may be disputed that does not affect their canonicity. I think you're using sloppy language, certainly you are not using language that Orthodox use. I really think, however, that perhaps you are mislead by some listserve or bit of information you might have heard here or there.

If the OCA and the EP/GOA had such problems why would the GOA/EP be represented at HERMAN's intallation as evidenced here [oca.org] here? Note the caption "Joining the entire Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America were: Bishop Georgios of Nilopolis, representing Patriarch Petros II of Alexandria, Bishop Demetri Titular Bishop of Jableh and Bishop Savas, Chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Church in America representing His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Church in America."

If the OCA and the EP had such problems why would the Chancellor of the OCA be one of only two priests to concelebrate at the consecration of the new church in Havana? (Note, the other concelebrating priest was the GO Chancellor for that Archdiocese.) See evidence here [oca.org] . Note the caption "Protopresbyter Robert S. Kondratick, OCA Chancellor, was one of two priests who concelebrated with the Patriarch."

And, why would yesterday (and probably today) "His Grace, Bishop DIMITRIOS of Xanthos, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" have been at St. Tikhon's for the rite of election of a new bishop in the OCA? See that here [oca.org] .

Then there was the visit of HERMAN to Constantinople...if you like I can post that link too.

And I do deny that the Orthodox Churches officially endorse or allow artificial birth control. It is not regulated to the best of my knowlede like it is in the Catholic Church.

Considering the lack of substantiation that you have provided I find your posts slanderously libelous.

Tony

Openness to life is not the ONLY requirement for sexual activity, it is merely an essential one. Of course one must only engage in sex with one's spouse. Sheesh.
I did not say that the GO do not recognize the canonicity of the OCA, only that they do not recognize it as the autocephelous Orthodox Church for North America, which the MP does.
And if contraception is not "regulated" as you say then it is allowed. See the Deacon's quote from Fr Meyendorff.

I am starting to get very discouraged.

The fact is, this is a Catholic institution and a Catholic problem. What we have is a flagship institution of Catholic higher learning allowing this to go on. I know it's not Christendom College or Franciscan/Steubenville but Notre Dame has a high name recognition and a reputation.

Remember the disgrace of Georgetown University booing Cardinal Arrinze?

What the hell is going on here?

Now I realize there are probably few (if any) strictly Orthodox Universities in North America (at least I am not aware of them), but does anyone truly feel that an Orthodox University would host a gay film festival?

If the Catholic Communion is serious about it's commitment to Christian reunion and communion between sister churches it certainly must realize that the public institutions (Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Universities) symbolically represent all of the sacramental, apostolic churches to the people of the world. By virtue of it's imposing size and visibility the Catholic church gets attention. What we believe, what we teach and the message we want send to the culture around us is showcased in places like this, this is an embarassment not only to Catholics but all people of faith.

It would be far better to present a good wholesome face to the world than our backside.

Michael