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

I've been away in Pennsylvania for the past few days doing some training, and have missed a lot of the postings.

There still seems to be a certain amount of circular logic going on.

The crux of the issue appears to be encased in two different principles:

The first is: Anyone who violates "God's Laws" as appearing in Scriptural revelation are intrisically wrong. And are guilty of sin.

The second is: Baptized Christians are obligated to follow the Law of "Love God, love one's neighbor as one's self" which means obligatory prayer to the Holy Spirit, reflection (discussion with a spiritual father?) and discernment.

Some suggest that following the second principle must lead inexorably to the first.

As noted above, perhaps 99 times out of a 100, this will be true; but then again, perhaps not.

One can find all sorts of Scriptural mandates for the Baptized. But even the most ardent defender of Principle One (including LatinTrad) sees that a poor man taking a loaf of bread to feed his children is not sinning. Which certainly implies that the "mandates" must be interpreted according to circumstances.

This is the point that I am always trying to make when confronted with the "This is it!" morality. With apologies to Fr. Elias, this was also the point I was trying to make about monastic and religious communities. There is really no model for vowed communal celibacy in the Scriptures; but, through the actions of Grace and the Holy Spirit, we have this reality in the Church. Were we to follow the "be fruitful and multiply" dictum, those without children, including monastics and Western clergy, would be on the "highway to hell". (I was listening to an oldies station on the trip home from Penna. Sorry for the rock song reference.)

I'm not arguing for 'relativism' or for 'promiscuity' or 'licentiousness', but rather for the "love of neighbor as one's self" that shows compassion and mercy to anybody and everybody that we meet. Just like Our Lord did.

As Byzinroswell notes, people make choices. Sometimes they seem to be good or bad, and they live with the results. But our responsibility as Christians is to abdicate the judgemental role that is so easy to assume, leave that to God, and pray for guidance in loving and serving our fellow human beings, not only as individuals but also as Church.

Blessings!

With all due respect to Dr. John, much of what he is posting is moral relevancy, not Christian theology. He continues to err on a number of points.

First, one who has done something that is objectively wrong is not necessarily guilty of sin. I have already noted and explained this numerous times. Even though one may not be guilty of committing a sinful act one would be guilty of committing an immoral act. This can never be condoned. One who is on the wrong path should always be called back to the right path. One should never encourage someone to stay on the wrong path because the wrong path is always injurious. Through prayer and example one must always call people back to the correct path which follows Christ. Occasionally a situation will present itself when words can also be used.

Second, the obligation to follow the Law of �Love God, love one�s neighbor as one�s self� includes using the Commandments as a standard of what is objectively right and objectively wrong. Christ made it quite clear �until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.� Dr. John may not understand the reasons why the entire Mosaic Law is not retained but, if this is the case, his argument should be to restore the entire Mosaic Law, not to abolish all Law.

Prayer is necessary for all decisions. It should always made clear that the Holy Spirit does not lead people to freely choose things that are immoral. Period. This really is black and white. Even a child can understand the simple difference between right and wrong. Yes, there may be times when one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils (as in the stealing to feed one�s family example which I addressed in an earlier post). There is never a time when the Spirit will lead one to freely choose to do what God has told us is immoral and against the Law. If Dr. John is suggesting this possibility he is wrong.

Regarding homosexual sexuality, it is always objectively wrong. It may or may not be sinful. The sinfulness is not the issue in this discussion. Because homosexual sexual activity is always wrong one can never approve of or bless such activity. One must always encourage people to refrain from sexual activity with people they are not married to (husband and wife). One is free to reject God�s Law but one should be clear that rejecting God�s Law is always wrong. Since no one ever died from not engaging in sexual activity there is never a justification for someone to choose to engage in sexual activity outside of Christian marriage.

Dr. John�s continued use of this example is really ludicrous. One cannot possible compare a group of people who live in a celibate community in a dispassionate state in order to radically adhere to the Gospel with people who are engaging in activity that God has told us is always wrong.

Further, the precept �be fruitful and multiply� applies only to those called by God to marriage. This does not mean that God calls everyone to marriage. Clearly He does not. Clearly also he has told us that those who are not called to marriage tare to live celibate lives.

I have made it quite clear that I judge no one in these discussions. I am not sure why Dr. John keeps mentioning that we are not to judge as there has never been disagreement on this. Arguing for people to adhere to God�s Law and to keep it as the center of their life because it is a necessary part of commending our whole life to God is not the same thing as judging individuals.

I thank the Administrator for his comments. And let it be clear, I am not even remotely suggesting that he or anyone else is judging inappropriately.

There is, however, a difference of opinion in theology. As he notes:

"It should always made clear that the Holy Spirit does not lead people to freely choose things that are immoral. Period. This really is black and white."

Here is the rub. Questions of morality are not black and white; they are, by their nature, dependent upon circumstances. This is the whole point of confession: the priest is obligated to interrogate the penitent about the matter and to both discern and advise the penitent.

"Even a child can understand the simple difference between right and wrong. Yes, there may be times when one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils (as in the stealing to feed one�s family example which I addressed in an earlier post). There is never a time when the Spirit will lead one to freely choose to do what God has told us is immoral and against the Law. If Dr. John is suggesting this possibility he is wrong."

I'm not so sure that I am willing to make demands on what the Holy Spirit can or cannot do. I think that the gift of the Holy Spirit, unknown in the Old Testament, is a certification that human beings need prayer to the Holy Spirit and discernment and not just an adherence to one or another Law, whether Old Testament or New. Otherwise, why has the Holy Spirit been given to us?

Again, the Scriptures contain all sorts of "legal mandates". The question is: do we follow all of them or none of them? And if the answer is: "some of them", then how do we discern? The decisions are all over the board.

There are all sorts of "cardinal sins" (to use the Western terminology), like pride, avarice, gluttony, intemperance, etc. Do these take precendence over other sins? E.g., like those in the Commandments?

Certainly, I have no problem with individuals who discern that they have a moral obligation to follow any and all mandates found in Scripture. And I wish those who try to follow them well. But I think that they are imposing upon themselves an incredible burden that they need not impose.

And I get concerned when this perspective of following any and all Scriptural mandates without question is imposed upon other Christians.

I think of the Sabbatarians who worship on Saturday because the Scriptures don't allow the transfer to Sunday. (And they don't!) Anti-alcohol Christians reject the Lord's mandate to use wine, and substitute grape juice instead. Catholics don't officially permit divorce; Orthodox Christians use 'ekonomia' to judge circumstances. So, much of it depends upon what one wishes to mandate, and what is dismissed as irrelvant. And this supposed universality of 'scriptural mandates' needs to be either accepted hook-line-and-sinker, or understood as subject to Christian discernment.

Blessings!

I thank Dr. John for his comments. His theological perspective is flawed.

God gave us a moral law. He has told us what is right and what is wrong. One must approach the hard cases (the stealing example above) with prayer and great trepidation. One can never reduce morality to personal choice based upon circumstances, even if that choice is made with prayer and the consultation of a spiritual father. A spiritual father cannot give permission to the individual Christian to do what God has told us is wrong.

Dr. John says that he is not willing to make demands on the Holy Spirit. Yet he himself makes unbelievable demands on the Holy Spirit when he claims that the Holy Spirit can lead people to engage in behavior that is destructive and against God�s law. The gift of the Holy Spirit leads people into righteousness, not into immorality.

Let us be clear here. The Holy Spirit does not lead people into freely choosing a behavior that no person has a right to engage in. The Spirit has not been given to us in order that we may choose what is wrong. The Spirit has been given to us to help us to choose what is right and just.

Let us also be clear about the topic at hand: homosexual activity. It is not one of the �hard cases�. There is never a reason for anyone to engage in such unnatural behavior. Homosexual sexual activity is always wrong. It can never be a morally acceptable choice. Christ has made clear to us that the divine plan is for a husband and a wife to become one flesh and that this union reflects God�s union with humanity through the Church. Homosexual unions pervert this divine truth and the Holy Spirit will not lead people into freely choosing that which perverts the divine truth. One can redefine the role of the Holy Spirit in an attempt to justify immoral behavior but such attempts won�t work because God has already told us that this behavior is always wrong. Dr. John is incorrect in his appeal to the Holy Spirit for approval of that which God has said is always wrong.

Regarding Scripture, Dr. John errs in his suggestion that there is no rhyme or reason for the Church�s application of the law. Christ Himself upheld the moral law. He has given us clear guidelines by which we are to live our lives. One simply cannot dismiss these guidelines under the guise of following the Holy Spirit and reduce morality to personal choice. Homosexual activity is not part of God�s plan for His kingdom. Those with homosexual tendencies must always live in a state of chastity.

Orthodox Christians certainly use �oikonomia� to address individual circumstances. Oikonomia cannot be used to render acceptable what God has told us is unacceptable. Dr. John is reducing the whole of Judeo-Christian moral teaching to personal choice. This moral relevancy is not something that a Catholic and Orthodox Christians can accept. One should not and cannot dismiss the clear teachings of God and His Church so easily. Those who love God should willingly attempt to follow Him and conform their lives to the principals He gave us to live by. One should not look for loopholes to justify activity that no human has a conceivable right to engage in.

AMDG

Back again. Can't stay away.

Regarding these two principles:

-the Traditional Catholic understanding of morality has always been opposed to "voluntarism," that is, the opinion that "x is wrong because God said so." Dr. John is right about that.

Rather, the Church has taught that "God told us x is wrong because x objectively violates our human nature." Thus, when we see Scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior, we KNOW it is wrong, because God in His goodness revealed to us that such behavior is a grave violation of our nature AS CREATED BY GOD. In other words, God created man for a specific "end" or "telos", and homosexual behavior prevents man from achieving that end. Aristotle was able to determine that homosexual actions were wrong, through the use of reason. Nevertheless, the full natural law, by reason alone, could only be discovered "by a few man, with much effort, and with the admixture of many errors" (St. Thomas Aquinas). Therefore, God gave us a SURE GUIDE to morality, through Divine Revelation.

Thus, contrary to what Dr. John suggests, prayer to the Holy Spirit could NEVER, EVER yield a conclusion contrary to Scripture & Sacred Tradition. Such conclusions come from the *other* spirit, from the ancient serpent, the Liar and the Father of Lies.

I hope this elucidates "position A" a little better.

In Jesus and Mary,

LatinTrad

Maybe the question of Legal recognition of Same-sex unions should be seen as a question of freedom of religion, that is the freedom of religion of for example Atheists, Liberal Prtotestants and Reformed Jews?

Why should a person who is not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian be forced by the government to observe Catholic/Orthodox morality?

And if the government is to enforce Catholic sexual morality, why only concerning homosexuality? Why not also concerning divorce/remarrige, contraception and premartial sex??

Just some thoughts...

Christian

AMDG

OrthodoxSWE brings up some good points. Some people have made the same argument about abortion: "if the gov't enforces some religious belief that abortion is wrong, why not enforce all kinds of other 'religious' beliefs," etc. etc.

Nevertheless, I think we have to say that unless governments legislate based upon what is objectively true, and rationally discernible as good for society, then they will have no (true) basis for legislation at all. Government will then be (as it HAS BEEN, for the most part, in America) reduced to the level of the animal trainer in Plato's Republic--whatever pleases the beast's passions is called "good," and whatever displeases it is called "evil" and "shameful". Similarly, a democratic society abandoning objective morality will deteriorate into an engine for the passions of the populace. Whatever pleases the majority becomes "good", etc.

We should not be afraid to legislate objective morality. The natural law is written on the hearts of men; the same cannot be said of the liberal mantras of "diversity" and "tolerance."

As Fulton J. Sheen once said, the world right now is suffering from tolerance--tolerance of evil and chaos.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

I love your quote from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

I hope that I will be able to remember it to pass on his unique wisdom.

One of my favorites from this great man was on the topic of being polite...

"Politeness is charity, charity is love, and love is God."

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LatinTrad:

"Some people have made the same argument about abortion: "if the gov't enforces some religious belief that abortion is wrong, why not enforce all kinds of other 'religious' beliefs," etc. etc."

But LatinTrad, don't you see this fundamental difference between homosexuality and abortion: No one is killed as a result of a Same-sex union?

Christian

Orthodox SWE,

I think you are making LT�s point for him. There are many who believe that no one is killed as the result of abortion. The respect for human life is one born of religious morality.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Not if you live in Canada . . .

Our politicians have given over this matter to the judges to decide on.

Bishop Fred Henry has already gone on record as saying that he won't give the Prime Minister Holy Communion, should he ever visit his Cathedral.

Our reporters tell us that we don't have a parliamentary democracy in Canada, but a "constitutional democracy" where judges decide whether laws meet the constitutional test.

So instead of one infallible person, we Canadians have nine . . .

Alex

But our Justices's robes are so tacky compared to those of Her Majesty's Courts. How can we take the US decisions seriously? Damnable Calvinist Puritans!

Blessings! (with a coy smile.)