www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Unions Between Homosexuals

It took YEARS to get through the discrimination people faced because they were/ are HIV positive. I have met men who were dying of AIDS whose Orthodox and Catholic families abandoned them. Surely that is a greater sin!!!!!!!!!! Luckily, they did have loving friends, of all Faiths and of no particular Faith to help them. Where was the "Love the sinner, hate the Sin" then????? When one gets to know an individual and love them, one drops the labels such as gay etc etc. I have found that it is the people who don't know any gay people (at leats none that would come out to them for fear of rejection) that preach the loudest on just this particular issue.

Alice, I have admired your ecumenical posts but I must respectfully disagree with you here. I have too many friends who have died of Aids or who are gay and have been cut off from their supposedly "good and proper" Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant familes. It is really a terrible shame.

Discrimination against people for who they are is unjust.

Discrimination against people for the deviant behaviors they choose to engage in is just.

God gave us Commandments to center our lives on. He expects us to actually follow these Commandments. Those who reject God�s laws need to be discriminated against. As Christians we are to both love them and call them to repentance.

In our politically correct society those who proclaim God�s word and invite others to embrace the Christian lifestyle are labeled as intolerant and bigoted. Those who reject God and his Commandments are labeled as progressive and tolerant.

And some Christians prefer to love them and call them to repentance from opposite sides of a prison cell.

Axios

Brian,

Please read the post by the Administrator above.

Alice, I have admired your ecumenical posts but I must respectfully disagree with you here. I have too many friends who have died of Aids or who are gay and have been cut off from their supposedly "good and proper" Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant familes. It is really a terrible shame. Dear Brian,

I wonder why you think that I would condone ANY family or friend abandoning a loved one who has AIDS? I wonder why you would think that I am not compassionate? I wonder why you would think that I might think that the families you mentioned were living the spirit and the love of our Lord?

Brian, I am very unhappy with the spirit of lust, BOTH hetero and homosexual that pervades in our culture. I will not apologize for that. My opinions have their foundations in Biblical and Church truth. I did not make them up to be the bad guy. My priest (married and young) once told a young man who came with a sexual identity confusion, 'do you think that it is EASY for me to not look at other women and lust, just because I am married? I avoid the temptation because it is a sin, just as you should try to avoid your temptation.'

I really do resent that just because someone believes in certain absolutes of their faith, that often time, in our culture, he or she becomes the 'intolerant, unloving, uncharitable and uncompassionate' enemy. Are we not all TRYING to follow Jesus Christ and the truths of the Bible here on this beautiful forum?

You have assumed things about me which are really unfair. I grew up in New York City, live in its suburbs now, and was in Interior Design for a while. Come on Brian, do you really think that I don't know any gay men?

However, I know of many, many good religious, RC and Orthodox, who care for AIDS patients. The Archimandrite I once mentioned here, works with and takes care of HIV/AIDS women five days a week in Connecticut. I spoke about institutions and religious, Brian, not families. So, actually, I conclude that we are in agreement....what those families did, is indeed 'a shame'.

God bless!

Alice

It is horrible for someone to die alone and to have no one to minister to their needs. It is also very difficult for Christian families when family members reject the Gospel and embrace in immoral lifestyles. Christian Tradition is quite clear that we can never approve of immoral behavior nor closely associate with people who engage in it. But when someone becomes ill it does not matter how they got that way. We have a Christian responsibility to care for their needs. The Father welcomed back the Prodigal Son even after the Prodigal Son spit in his face by demanding his inheritance. He cared for his son�s needs and would have done so even if his son did not repent. We must do the same. Even when people spit in God�s face with their lifestyle choices we must be prepared to care for them when they are in trouble.

Dear Brian,

I will add one thing to this thread, and then better get out because of the heat!!!

When a person wants respect for WHO they are, they don't need to graphically flaunt their sexual preferences...

I will leave you two examples:

1. Every year there is a GAY parade on Fifth Ave. here in NYC. There have been obscene 'shows' put on by the participants on the sacred steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral.

2. I was visiting the most holy monastery of St. John the Divine on Patmos, in Greece one summer. There is a sign at the foot of the hill approaching it explicitly asking for reverence in behaviour and dress, as this monastery is where Revelation was written. In the horde of tourists visiting, there was a gay couple. One of the men was wearing a t-shirt with a most obscene and pornographic homosexual scene on its back. I had two small children at the time whose eyes I had to divert. Not to mention how difficult it was to regain the spirit of prayer and pilgrimage.

Is all this really necessary???

Interesting proposition.

Darling, I was there this summer!! When I was there, the gays were the best behaved people.

Axios

I agree with you Alice, that some peoples' behavior is beyond all comprehension. It is the lack of education, or the lack of thought. It's what I call the sin of "Look-at-me-ism". No one else enters these folks' radar screen. There's all kinds of stuff that goes on at Gay Pride Parades, but in many ways, it's a variant on the Hooters restaurant theme: in your face sexuality (as part of the 'look-at-me-ism').

A woman at my office (a professional - and well paid) dressed to the nines, was making a comment about how men were giving her the eye on the street. And she felt put upon. My only response was: if you dress in an 'attractive way', don't complain about the attention. If you don't want to appear attractive, I suggest wearing a lab coat. It's just a whole cultural syndrome. (Why are teenie-boppers wearing tube tops baring their entire midriffs.)

There is no question that the commercial world has realized that 'sex sells', and they waste no opportunity to inject sexuality into advertisements to sell their products. And the more tittilating/double-entendre it is, the more attention grabbing. How does one fight this? I honestly don't know. But I don't think prohibition will work. (It didn't work with alcohol the last time.)

I personally choose to avoid a lot of this in any way I can; I've never seen "Sex in the City", except for more than a few minutes in a out of town hotel room while channel surfing. I don't buy 'slick magazines'; and I have never been in a 'topless bar'. What more can I do?

I think sexuality is a wonderful thing. But it must be placed in the context of interpersonal relationships, with full knowledge and respect for each other. And this is the model of what we must present to the world. And, we must not do the Carrie Nation thing, because it will surely backfire.

So, I am hoping that in our overall approach to sexuality, we can make certain that the interpersonal relationship is solid, and that young folks see good models of people who actually love - and not lust - for each other. Personally, I have seen this in a wide variety of contexts. Heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, black/white couples, black/asian couples, older/younger couples, etc.

I will join Alice and anyone else who objects to the commercialization of sexuality, or the folks who engage in the "look-at-me-ism" because that is truly sinful: it desecrates the sexuality that should serve as the catalyst for a loving relationship.

Blessings!

Not at all and most gay people, the ones I know anyway, would ABHOR those kinds of things. But like with all people, we have to see them as individuals and not say across the board "They are gay, they are like this" That. to me. is where things start to go wrong.

An interesting thread to read...

I think when pressed once before "Axios" said he didn't want to discuss his views on the morality of homosexual acts but would rather discuss civil rights issues regarding gays.

I would be very interested in hearing his views on the synodal affirmations "On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life" from the 10th All American Council in the section discussing homosexuality:

http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/d.../synodal-affirmations.html#homosexuality

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

If I may be allowed a bit of light-heartedness, one of the underlying issues of this discussion reminds me of the 200-year-old conundrum: were the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Fitzherbert really married or not? The Catholic Church emphatically ruled that they were indeed man and wife; the English government with equal emphasis insisted that they were no such thing. Reading a history of the matter (I almost said "the affair", but in this context that would have been a poor choice of words!) can leave one convulsed with laughter and yet depressed. Leaving aside personalities, the gist of it can be put simply: the Prince of Wales (who later became George IV) went through a marriage ceremony with Mrs. Fitzherbert (a widow at the time, and a Roman Catholic) in a church in London; of that there is no question. However, the prince had not obtained the consent of the king his father (George III - a name Americans will recognize) and the wedding violated the English law forbidding an heir to the throne to marry a Roman Catholic. Hence under Catholic canon law the marriage was a valid one; under English civil law the marriage was hopelessly null and void. Later the prince broke off with Mrs. Fitzherbert and married a German Protestant princess. Later still, he tried to ditch the German Protestant princess - by now Queen Caroline of England - by charging her with adultery. Queen Caroline appeared in court, affirmed that she had indeed committed adultery, but with only one man - and that one man was the husband of Mrs. Fitzherbert! Since this was something that the English government could not afford to deal with, the case against Queen Caroline was immediately thrown out of court, and George IV was stuck with her. While all this has its funny aspects it points out that both Church and State have an interest in regulating marriage, and the regulations may differ profoundly between the one and the other. Even as we pursue the discussion, there is a building area of church-state tension: divorce. Not only does US law allow divorce (which is of course contrary to Catholic law and morality), but the US courts are becoming increasingly annoyed with the Catholic annulment process. Watch this space; there's trouble coming down the pike. [In case anyone's wondering, I stand foursquare for Mrs. Fitzherbert; my only criticism of her is that she should have known better than to marry that lecherous ne'er-do-well!]. Incognitus

Incognitus,

Thank you so much for bringing up this VERY neglected part of history but quite fascinating.

Yes, Prince George (Later George IV) did break English law not only by marrying a Catholic (the violation of the Act of Settlement) but also a more recent law (passed in the 1770's) wherein, the Heir to the Throne could not marry without the Reigning Monarch's consent. Old George III with great prescience felt that he could not trust his wayward sons to marry wisely and within the policies of State. I believe that the wedding ceremony that they went through was Anglican (and the government tracked down the poor Rector who obllged the Prince!!) Mrs Fitzherbert apparently was assured by her Confessor and Rome that she commited no sin by going through the Anglican ceremony and that yes, according to Catholic canon law, they were married. Like you, my sympathies are with the good widow and somewhat with Queen Caroline despite (or because of?) her eccentricities. Anyone who had to put up with that particular Hanoverian scion would have my sympathy

I don't really accept that it makes a good case for whether the Church or State should be involved in marriages. If anything, it indicated that it shouldn't. The Crown wished the Prince to marry a Protestant Princess and not his chosen wife (and certainly not a women they would have called a "Papist") and so he reluctantly broke with Mrs Fitzherbert. The State and the Church (by Law Established) both interferred in the first choices of both husband and wife. But, then again, this was the late 18th Century and the Idea of "love Matches" as being acceptable were only later in the 19th Century accepted for minor aristocracy and below. They were certainly forbidden for those of Royal stature until Very recently.

Thanks again for a NEEDED break in polemic with a fascinating subject, the ENgland of the late 18th Century.

There are two things that the West has come to study outside their natural home: the Bible and sex.

Anytime we remove something from its natural home we risk introducing problems. In our culture we have gotten used to studying and applying the Bible outside the liturgy. Many Catholics and Orthodox who know the history of the Bible know thae problems that come with Sola Scriptura, a Bible removed from its environment. But how many of them know the problems from a sexual relationship or activity removed from marriage?

Both CAN exist independently from their natural home, but both bring on problems.

Do you tire of the fundamentalist telling you that the Catholic Church is the Babylonian Whore - for not allowing the Bible to reign supreme? All we need is the Bible to tell me so, not where the Bible found its home.

Likewise - and follow me here - there are those who are trying their best to tell you, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, that sex and its varied relationsal set-ups should reign supreme. All we need is sex to tell us so, not where sex has its true home.

We've grown tired of hearing how Catholic bishops knew of pedophile priests and played the Turkey Dance. Sex outside marriage eventually offends us all. The latest 'reality' TV shows only promotes a sexual life without a wife. More are starting for our entertainment. Public schools promote alternative lifestyles. They hand out condoms. Family Planning has a home there. Classes in Marriage and Family are taught there. The Internet is filled with porno sites.

Christians have become gullable and politically correct. In our home, we run a tight ship with the kids, but in the public sphere we wish not to offend. We adopt the arguments from the street, Hollywood, and those listed in Romans 1. We don't know what we do.

Granting homosexual unions is a great offense to the institution of marriage. It is just another means to undermine. This culture we face would do anything to rid of Judeao-Christian values. Are you ready to join them? Legalizing such relationships and granting them coverage as a type of 'family' only re-affirms their perversity and sickness.

But, of course, for years we have failed to hear on this subject because so many clergy were suspect themselves. The seminaries taught 'tolerance' and 'homosexuality' conferences along with their mandatory celibacy talks. A culture of sickness grew like fungus. We now see the results of this. We didn't like what we heard. We lost our trust. We lost vocations because straight guys didn't want to have any association with these troubled and mixed-up children. The Church basically lost its moral voice in our culture.

Joe

Dear Mr. Brown,

My immediate reaction to the statement would turn to the admirable purpose of this board -- ecumenism. On that matter, I am hopeful that Orthodoxy's failure to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church as expressed in the letter 'Humanae Vitae' does not cause any increased division between our two communions.

Hopefully, rather than contraception being an issue of which each communion expects the other to conform to its own postition, I would hope we could agree that Christians simply have different views on this matter, and even if we think the other is mistaken, we can still give them respect, fraternity and concord.

I do sadly note that some Catholics don't accept that one can disagree with one aspect of their Church's teaching on sexual morality without rejecting all of it.

Axios