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

Perhaps this is pertinent to Dr. John's last post?

This is an excerpt from 'OrthodoxDynamis', an internet sermon sent each day to e-mail subscribers.... Alice

...What then might be some reasons for preferring either the monastic life
or the married life? Certainly it would not be because one state in life is of
greater "purity" than the other. St. John Chrysostom states plainly the
wisdom of our Orthodox Christian Tradition against any such view: "And if any
persons have been hindered by the marriage state, let them know that marriage is
not the hindrance, but their purpose which made an ill use of marriage." The
contemporary theologian Paul Evdokimov echos St. John in very plain language:
"Yet, the future of the world depends on a solution tailored to man. It is
not "in spite of marriage,' but in its fulfillment that spouses live the
supernatural and holiness of their union....the nuptial "kenosis' unveils its secret
only to the eyes of God and to no others."
The key to our primary life-shaping decisions, Evdokimov reminds us, is
neither to accept the banalities which the modern world promotes, settling for
the "licentiousness of legalized mating," nor is it to flee into the vocation
of monasticism out of frustration with the whole corrupt culture which pledges
allegiance to the "kingdom of intercourse." Rather, he affirms in a classic
Orthodox manner that "a balanced asceticism helps one understand that the life
of the body and the soul, in celibacy or in married life, is an art of the
spirit; chastity stands at the beginning of these two expressions of an integral
Christian humanism, turned toward the End," which is Christ.
What St. Paul and the Tradition after him uphold are decisions of persons
free to marry or not, because of being "in the Lord" (vs. 39). In God,
marriage and monasticism are one.
May all of us, Thy servants, shine like the stars of heaven in Thee, O
Lord our God.

I know this is off topic but I felt it needed clarifying...

Dr. John,

You state: "Priests who have the gene are allowed to use primarily water and only a tiny drop of wine or non-alcohol wine in the Eucharist."

This is not correct. Priests with alcoholism or stomach problems that prevent them from using regular wine are permitted to use mustum (new wine) i.e. natural, unpasteurized grape juice. Anything else is invalid, including non-alcoholic wine, or using more water than wine in the chalice. I know this because two priests with whom I serve regularly have this dispensation.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

I have never suggested that we should. I have suggested that as Christians we have the specific responsibility to call other people who consider themselves Christian to follow the Commandments and to center their lives around the Teaching of Jesus Christ. I have also suggested that we have a general responsibility to call everyone in society to follow Christ and to encourage society to base its moral code upon Judeo-Christian morality.

Scientific research may someday provide evidence of a genetic tendency towards alcoholism. The Church, however, does not respond by telling the alcoholic to go, drink and have fun. The Church knows that alcoholism is not healthy and helps people to refrain from partaking of alcohol.

The issue of whether sexuality is based upon genetics is irrelevant. God gave us clear laws to live our lives by. They are not �man-made�. They are God made. They are not negotiable. Those who have deviant sexual tendencies are called to live a life of celibacy. Your argument seems to be with God�s Law.

Yes. If it is someday discovered that there is a genetic predisposition to a homosexual or bisexual orientation it would then be fair to argue that there is a predisposition towards having sex with children, having multiple partners, stealing, murder and whole host of deviant behavior. Establishing these behaviors as genetically based in no way makes them acceptable. God has clearly taught us that all of these behaviors are wrong.

No. God�s law is very clear. Sexual activity is not a right. It is a privilege that God has given to a man and wife within marriage. You are incorrect about your understanding of Scriptural scholars. The Scriptural scholars within the Church are all quite clear on these teachings. Only those who are looking for a way to justify deviant behavior find confusion.

One can conceive of many types of unions that are immoral. Because one can conceive of them does not make them acceptable. God has issued specific prohibitions against certain types of behavior. Your dismissal of His prohibitions as �willy-nilly� is not consistent with the clear and firm teachings of the Church.

Admin

Is our church an official participant in the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries? Check this out:

- - - - - - -

Healing and Feeling the Pain
Oakland Diocesan Conference on Homosexuality Puts the Church "In Context"
By Bob Clarke

In the second week in September, about 140 people gathered in the Marriott Hotel in Oakland for the 7th annual conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries �

The conference was co-chaired by Michael Harmuth and Margaret Roncalli (a member of the association board and chair of the Diocese of Oakland's Task Force for Outreach to Gay and Lesbian Communities and their Families), and tables were set up to promote diocesan gay ministry organizations, the Berkeley Franciscan School of Theology, the Sagrada bookshop in Oakland "serving people of all faiths," and The Gay & Lesbian Journey Weekend, a non-denominational retreat sponsored by St. Francis (Catholic) Special Ministries of Sacramento �

Many of the participants came from California, with others from places like Richmond, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina, and upstate New York � While those identified themselves as clergy and religious were, for the most part, lay-attired, three individuals did wear clerical clothing. An auxiliary bishop from Cincinnati was the only self-identified member of the hierarchy in attendance. Also in non-civies were A BYZANTINE PRIEST ON THE FACULTY OF AQUINAS HIGH SCHOOL IN SAN BERNARDINO [emphasis mine], and an elderly Dominican nun.

After a rendition of the conference's theme song, "Jubilee" which emphasized setting captives (homosexuals?) free, the first evening's events included the first of five plenary sessions. This was called "Jubilee is for Everyone." �

On Sunday morning, about a third of the conference attendees met for the closing ritual, directed by a female singer-musician. She offered up incantations to various gods, such as that of ecstasy, to which members of the audience responded with one-word affirmations. Following a final rendition of the conference song and much hugging and touching, the gathering dispersed.

- - - - - - -

The news article from back then (Fall, 2000) states that a �Byzantine� participant was in attendance at the annual conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. Is our church a participant in �promoting diocesan gay ministry organizations� or was this fella just acting on his own?

The entire article can be read here:

http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2000/1200bc.htm

Joe

I think I found my own answer in a blurb from the NACDLGM convention site. Here is the description for Focus Session B that will be held on September 27, 2003:

- - - - - - -

B2 "Friendship in the Byzantine Christian Tradition"

Rev. James Graham and Rev. Justin Rose will examine the Service for Making Brothers found in prayer books dating from as far back as the 10th Century and discuss what applications it might have in the modern Church. They will also look at Patristic writings on friendship and apply them to contemporary ministry. Rev. Rose is Administrator of St. Philip's Melkite-Greek Catholic Mission and Campus Minister at Aquinas High School both in San Bernardino, CA. Rev. Graham is Pastor of St. Elias the Prophet Melkite-Greek Catholic Church in San Jose, CA, and President of the Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association of Northern California. He has been a member of the NACDLGM Board since 1999.

- - - - - - -

The entire text of the 2003 Convention (to be held at the beautiful Hilton Palm Springs Resort) can be read here:

http://www.nacdlgm.org/conf2003.htm

I guess bishops aren't the only ones not utilizing monasteries and/or seminaries for their conferences.

- - -

Service for Making Brothers?

Bishop John Elya answers what this is ...
http://www.melkite.org/Questions/M-4.htm

He states:

"More recently, unfortunately some groups have tried to find in it a form of "marriage" for same sex partners. That this was not the intent can be seen in the history of its use."

Comments?

Joe

J Thur<<Service for Making Brothers?>>

This ancient service needs much more research. I seriously doubt that it ever was intended to sanctify homosexual unions! AFAIK, at best it was a Service to bless the *adoption* of a non-blood-related adult male as a *brother* for purposes of inheritance before the civil law. That which was blessed by the Church was then recognized by the civil authorities. I never heard of the Church at any time universally blessing or recognizing homosexual unions. At any rate, this Service never gained universal acceptance in the Church at any time, but seemed to be confined only to certain local Churches during certain periods of history.

OrthodoxEast

I received this response from Bishop John Elya of the Melkite Church. I had asked about the Melkite priests speaking at the NACDLGM gathering and this is his reply. I share this here with his permission.

He then referred me to the article on the Melkite website that has already been referenced by Joe above.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I've been following this thread and thinking about the whole issue of same sex unions/marriage, and how some homosexuals claim scriptural meanings are not clear on the subject.

This is just one small suggestion, and I realize I am not a great debater:

But, in neither the Old nor the New Testament are there any examples of "righteous" couples who are same sex. We only have examples of male-female/husband-wife. We have Abraham and Sarah, we have Joseph and Blessed Mary, and many others. If G-d wanted same sex unions surely He would have given us an example or two during the history of His people, the Israelites.

My point is that, we are not always given guidelines spelled out, such as the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes. Sometimes we are given guidelines in the lives of the Saints and their example.
denise

Through the course of all the postings, I sense several themes.

The first is the distinction between the "moral code" of the Church and the "civil code" of the State. Some folks do not see these as separate and are willing to allow the "moral code" of the Church to serve as the paradigm for the making of civil law.

The second is the perspective on moral theology. Seminaries and other institutions of higher learning present moral theology as theology, i.e., the "science of God", that uses principles to determine what is correct and what is not. There are others whose moral theology is encapsulated in the bumper sticker: "God said it; I believe it; that settles it." With these folks, there is no argument (in the good sense) or debate whatsoever. With these folks, any questions about priorities or free-will or determinationism is completely lost. It is best to withdraw from ANY discussion with these folks because they always retreat to the "God said it" proposition.

As for the moral theology issues that affect peoples' relationships with each other, I think it is best to establish priorities ("Love God, Love one's neighbor as one's self" comes immediately to mind!!) and then proceed accordingly. The "God-said-it" group will not (can not?) understand this perspective, but in the long run, I think it is the manner that is most pastoral and will ultimately bring souls to the understanding that "God is Love and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him". (Hmmm. Where IS that from?)

I am NOT advocating licentiousness, nor an "anything goes" theology/philosophy, but rather a prayerful examination and reflection upon one's life and an OBJECTIVE assessment of the love-God-love-Neighbor commandment, based upon the reality of the person's life.

As for the "God-said-it --- that-settles-it" folks, we can only pray for them.

Blessings!!

But, Dr. John, God did say it, therefore we should not un-say it.

Priorities are fine, especially telling us sinners that God loves us. Yet this can't be accompanied with a denial of the fact that God loves us too much to leave us on our sinful paths which are directed away from Him.

you said:
"God is Love and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him". (Hmmm. Where IS that from?)

reply:
That's from the same beloved Disciple and Saint who wrote: "The way we may be sure that we know Him is to keep His commandments. Whoever says, 'I know Him,' but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

you said:
"As for the "God-said-it --- that-settles-it" folks, we can only pray for them."

reply:
Yes please do. As we will pray for the "God didn't really say it" crowd, or the "Lets not tell them God said it" folks. Or the "lets pretend like God didn't say it" crowd. Yes, lets pray for one another.

Other than this, I don't see how you can avoid teaching the honest-to-God truth. The same truth that was proclaimed by the Fathers. Studies have shown just the opposite of what you are advocating. This is why the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists get so many converts from the lasped who received relativised moral instructions in the ancient Churches.

People today want to be challenged. The are sick to death of wishy-washy mediocre religion. They want something to strive for, something difficult requiring struggle.

The silly-sixties message of "I'm o.k., you're o.k." and "Smile God loves you" are a flat out lies and deceptions. I'm not o.k. and neither are any of us. God's love for me, requires much more than a stupid smile. We are fallen and in need of a Savior. This is that part of the True Gospel, which the Evangelicals have and use quite effectively putting us, many times, to shame!

The watered-down liberalized message which pretends to be of the Gospel that is being advanced in support of tolerance of sodomy is a bankrupt message. And, as you indicate, many of our seminaries are mother-house of where these lies are disseminated.

Lord, help us to believe what YOU have SAID.

Dear Denise,

You make a very good point.

We women don't have to be great debaters to get our points across! I have enjoyed your 'female' input.

Dear Ghazar,

I agree with you completely. We need to be challenged with the truth. Following Christ is NOT easy...perhaps it is at first, but not if one cares to continue to grow on the path of theosis.


In Christ,
Alice

I understand what Ghazar is saying and in general I agree with much of it. Perhaps the issue is the understanding of "law".

The ATT home page has a question today that asks if it is midnight and you come to a red traffic light, and there is no one around, do you go through the light. The law clearly says no. Red means stop. And I would stop. (I even obey the blinking 'Don't Walk' signs!!) Why? Because it is both prudent and the right thing to do. Someone may be driving without lights on and you could get broadsided. The law is there for a practical purpose; the value of the law does not subsist in itself, but rather in its purpose.

I view morality in the same way. There is a purpose in morality and we follow morality for the benefit it confers. The Lord speaks of not destroying the law, but rather of fulfilling it. And He goes on to give us a new commandment - of loving God and loving one's neighbor "for this is the summation of the law and the (teachings) of the prophets." I think this is what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke "O the freedom of the children of God". The old understanding of "law" - i.e., make sure that you do this and make sure that you DON'T do that - is superceded by the overriding responsiblity of making a prayerful judgement. It doesn't mean that the "law" or "morality" is out the window, it means look at the law as a guidepost, but don't slavishly follow it like an automaton.

As Alice notes, in the beginning it is relatively easy to follow the Lord and to wonder at the gifts that faith bestows. But as time goes on, the practice of love and 'philanthropia' becomes somewhat more difficult precisely because one has got to prayerfully determine what is "the best" for the other person.

We sometimes think that "law", both civil and moral, is like science formulas. But it isn't. Precisely because human beings have free-will and are not immutable, laws that apply to human beings must also be understood as having variables. Because people are variables.

Thus, the "God said it...that settles it" viewpoint is way too simplistic and in my perspective can lead to sin precisely because it allows the individual to abdicate the prayerful responsiblity of making appropriate choices. It's the old "I was only following orders" defense.

In the liturgy, we pray to be delivered from "anangki", poorly translated as "need". The term refers to being put in a situation where one has got to make difficult or impossible choices, sort of the 'lesser of two evils' situation. It is this moral conundrum that can cause spiritual pain and even spiritual darkness. When a person is dying of a painful cancer, do we pray for a miraculous healing or do we pray for an easy death? "Anangki". This situation occurs more frequently for those whose prayer life and spiritual sensitivity puts more things on the moral radar. Devolving into "what does the law say" just doesn't work. Sometimes there is no "law", and sometimes there are conflicting laws. (The clergy sexual abuse issue comes to mind. We are clearly mandated to follow the "as we forgive those who trespass against us" mandate; but we also required to make sure that the offender is not going to repeat the offense. Treat and forgive the offender or defrock and dismiss? Anangki. Hard choices.)

Let us all pray for each other.

Blessings!!

Dear Dr. John,

I understand what you're saying.

It's basically what a professor of moral theology said to us in class one day.

He was talking about Harring's book, The Law of Love ( I think the title's accurate). He said that we are obligated to judge each situation in the light of Jesus's Laws, that we love one another as we love ourselves and love eachother as He has loved us. He said that 99 out of 100 times the letter of the law is what we will come to. It is the 100th time that makes all the difference.

I think that that's what I hear in your words. We really have to judge each situation in the light of Jesus's Law of love.

That is not the same as relativism. Actually, it's harder to live that way than just to stick to the letter all the time.

The difference is all in the 100th case judged by the law of love!

Thanks for your insights.

Steve

AMDG
Dr. John and Steve,
I detect a possible error here that must be avoided: the error of proportionalism.

Proportionalism is the heresy that eschews universal moral norms for the following criterion: always do the most loving thing in the situation you're in.

The problem is that without clear moral laws, such an ethic has no intellegibility whatsoever.

The "laws" like "never commit a homosexual action" and "never commit fornication" cannot be abandoned in favor of such vague formulae as "follow Jesus' love." Formulae like that can be twisted and turned to justify anything and everything. The fact of the matter is that we cannot KNOW what the TRULY loving thing is, if we throw out the "laws." They come straight from our Creator, and are even more trustworthy than the commands that come on the little tag with your printer: "Don't throw printer in bathtub" and "don't hit printer with sledgehammer." The reason WHY those instructions are there is to let you know what will mess up your printer and prevent it from fulfilling its function.

SO TOO WITH MAN. We were made by God for a certain end, a telos that we are rendered incapable of achieving if we ruin very selves through immoral actions. THAT IS WHY GOD SO GRACIOUSLY SUPPLIES THE _LAW_. We know with assurance that doing those things to ourselves will ruin us.

Thoughts?

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

Thank you for your concern. I try very hard to avoid heresy. I have a strong aversion to burning! So please don't let them plant that pole!

Let me pose a couple of situations that are surely way out there. But they are conceivable.

The law forbids stealing. Thou shalt not steal! Point blank and to the point.

A starving poor person with starving minor children finds that the only recourse available to feed self and children is to steal a loaf from the table of a baker who refuses to give one to this person. Think of a third world situation.

The starving person comes to you who have nothing to give and asks for your insight as to the moral thing to do.

Should the person steal the loaf and live (self-preservation and the preservation of life for his or her children. Should the person refuse to steal it and die and condemn his or her children to die?

Another? Think third world again. A sick person needs an injection of medication that will save his or her life. The medicine is not his or hers. A hypodermic is on the cabinet in the office of the doctor who will not give it to him or her? Should he steal it, inject him/herself and live. Should theperson refuse to steal it and die?

That person comes for your input on the moral thing to do.

Way out there examples? Maybe. Denial of the law that says do not steal?

Thoughts,

Steve