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

Fr. Elias posted:

"The discussions we are having, on topics such as raised in this thread, show so many divergent foundations and attitudes, that it is hard to really speak, or respond directly to the points made. Am I fair to suggest that we are using vocabularly differently, and starting from divergent philosophical world-views"

Dear Father Elias,

Ahh, there's the rub!

You're certainly fair to suggest that. In fact, you're more than fair. When humans come to meet God, they do so carrying their baggage, including the world view, a kind of paradigm, that is peculiar to them and to their people.

God is as He is and knows Himself to be. He knows us as we are and as He would have us to be. We meet him, to borrow a useful turn of phrase, wearing rose colored glasses.

Part of the task might be learning when to take them off and see what He sees and what we miss in our assumptions about what He sees and misunderstand perhaps in what we assume that He wants us to be!

Steve

Indeed, Steve, and Fr. Elias.

Here is the rub: does the existence of "commandments" mandate to us their observance or are we obligated to do something else like pray and seek discernment and make unique/personal choices?

If the former, I'm uncomfortable.

If the latter, then we are needful of educational venues/programs that will educate our people into the skills of assessment without the need of supplying them with canon-law books.

Blesskings!

I too am uncomfortable, because the commandments of God are always challenging. But they cannot be replaced with I think are better choices for myself. God knows better than I do what is good for me. So he has given directions about how lives should be lived. We call them his commandments.

When I think I know better than God, and act accordingly, I risk ruin. God's ways are sure, but narrow. Many choose the wider way. I am a sinner, and the results of my poor choices (which are those that I make, prefering other ways over God's ways) are always dreadful. To seek to justify them rationally, is a deception.

A good orthodox Moral Theology, is based upon a reasonable Moral Philosophy. The good is readily discernable, and right and wrong can be known, even by those who do not know the scriptures and the commandments. The revelation of God always ratifies and confirms sound moral reason, and is consonant with it. If the revelation of God seems contrary to reason, then our reason is faulty, for God's revelation never is.

Once upon a time, reason served us. Killing babies is wrong, stealing is wrong, untruth is wrong, and sex is always in and for marriage and family. Revelation confirmed these moral attitudes.

Now that popular attitudes have changed and become unreasonable, i.e., killing babies is o.k., stealing is o.k. if you can get away with it, the truth is relative, and sex is about 'me' and for my pleasure, then revelation seems unreasonable, and so must be 'culturally conditioned' or re-evaluated in a new situation.

That is what I meant about different world views. If one challenges moral reason, and does not accept 'right and wrong' reasonably, I will not convince them by appealing to revelation?

Dear Dr. John and Fr. Elias,

It seems that the Church indicates that the latter is the way to go. The Church tells us that the Primacy of Conscience, properly formed, is paramount. It is on what we know at any given time in the process of formation that we must judge and choose the course of action in the muck that many times surrounds moral decision making. It is on that that we will be called to account.

The working of the Spirit, though often acknowledged, is just that, just acknowledged. The wonderous liberating and demanding power of the Spirit in the life of each of the Baptized within the wonderous liberating and demanding power of the Spirit in the life of the Church is not placed into the equation in many discussions of moral behavior.

Personally, I think that it is just as fundamental as the gift of the law in making moral decisions and living a moral life. It is extremely difficult to know what He is doing since He does what He wills and we see things as in a mirror darkly.

Sometimes we get a glimpse of the wonders He is working even in our weaknesses and even our sins. Our God is a God full of wonders and surprises. He can even use our sinfulness when we try to exclude Him.

Pronouncing on the degree of sin in a person is a dangerous proposition. It is the Spirit Who convicts. I hesitate to take on that responsibility.

We have been taught that some behaviors are sinful, we can say that. What we cannot say is that someone is a sinner or to what degree someone is a sinner. That is God's work of redeeming love.

Dr. John, you asked:

"does the existence of "commandments" mandate to us their observance or are we obligated to do something else like pray and seek discernment and make unique/personal choices?"

The latter is the gist of what the proportionalist moralists were addressing in their time. Whether they got the mix right or wrong, I'm not sure. At least they raised the issues.

Others in the history of the Churches have raised issues and presented teachings that caused real conflict and problems among believers. They were roundly criticized for that. (If I understand, St. Gregory Palamas (sp. ?) was not warmly accepted by the West, for example). Yet their teachings have come to be accepted.

It seems to me that we are obligated to pray and seek discernment and make unique/personal choices about the way that the commandments apply in our moral decisions.

It is tougher to do that than just to simply apply the commandment literally, as in the case of "Thou shalt not steal," though that is one of the elements of the Decalogue. It is tougher to do that than to just say follow Jesus' love, though that makes eminent good sense.

It is real work being an adult. It is especially difficult in dealing with our responsibility to cooperate as adults with the Spirit as He shapes us into the beings that He knows that we will be. It is our responsibility to become adult moral decision makers, just as it is our responsibility to become adults and take charge of caring for our physical health, it seems to me.

If that's true, as you say:

"... then we are needful of educational venues/programs that will educate our people into the skills of assessment without the need of supplying them with canon-law books."

That is certainly an endeavor that the Churches are working on.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Brothers and members of the Byzantine Forum,

a quote from one of the most illuminating and enriching reads for me in a long time: "Light for Life"

"Often people come to the Church for an esthetic or uplifting experience -they like the music, the icons, the fellowship- but they also want to continue living an immoral life. In Christianity, this cannot be done: it is fantasy, delusion. In repentance, we are commending "our whole life to Christ our God," not just a "spiritual part" of it. We cannot separate the life of prayer from the moral life. As mentioned above, in the spiritual effort, we seek God and His will, in order to do it. We cannot seek the one without the other. In effect, we would be telling God, "I want an intimate experience of You, but do not expect me to act as though I belong to You." (Bk 3, p.33)

This, in a nutshell is the Orthodox and Catholic position. If Dr. John and Steve want to preach the legitimacy of a life of sodomy, this is an exercise of their free will and choice. But make no mistake, this is not Catholic nor Orthodox, it is rather in accord with Classical Liberal Protestantism. I can only conclude they are Episcopalians (or something similar) like those who just elevated a man in their hierarchy who thinks sodomy and Christianity are fully compatible.

This is so rediculous and has missed the mark so greatly in referrence to what God is calling us to, I see no need even to debate. Under this logic, the Episcopalians would have ordained the pre-repentent Mary Magdaleen because not only do they ordain women to what they consider to be the Episcopal office, they now ordain those who openly reject Christian morality.

I see no debate here. You two are advocating a teaching diametrically opposed to the clear teaching of our Lord, St. Paul and the Apostles and that of every Church Father.

Go on, follow the Episcopalians but remember the words of the Lord:

"Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I see no point of even discussing such rubbish and filth as what you are pretending is in accord with the Apostolic Faith.

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Dear All:

I hope this is my last post on this subject (I think most of us are tiring of it anyway).

I have not read every single word/sentence posted by Dr John and others.

But I don't think he is condoning homosexuality.

I don't condone it.

I don't condone same sex unions or marriage, etc.

I believe in the teachings of the Church.

But I think what Dr John (I am not trying to put words in his mouth) is trying to bring to our attention is the broken-ness of humans and the difficulty of life.

I work in a hospital. Daily I see results of people's stupid decisions. I see alcoholic men that look 9 months pregnant because the fluid is backing up because of their deteriorating liver. I see teenagers mangled because they drove too fast and crashed. I see smokers slowly dying over months because of emphysema. I see people who shot themselves because they think they have problems -- well, now with a whole in their gut they really have a problem. I see.... alot.

Now, it is so easy to see these people and think "what stupid idiots". But does that help them? No, we have to fix them up as best we can. And sometimes, often, we can't.

I am not comparing the morality of what I see in the hospital with homosexuality. Although I do think it is a sin to smoke or attempt suicide, etc. But, in the hospital we are not faced with a condition -- alcoholism, for example -- we are faced with real people. So we can't afford to think "what stupid idiots" or some other judgement or think just in black and white terms.
We have to see the "Christ" in each individual as the good little nuns taught me many years ago.

How many of you out there smoke? or eat the wrong foods when you are diabetic or have high cholesterol? How often have you tried to quit or change your lifestyle. Not easy, is it?

Just stop for a few minutes and consider the broken-ness of all of us. I have issues I try to justify to myself -- try to justify to G-d. Attachements I shouldn't have. Slowly working on not justifying what I shouldn't.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for a homosexual (I am not talking about the promiscuous ones here) to try and live without ever having someone to share any affection with.

Okay, I've rambled enough, not sure if I've made any point here.
denise
[I meant to post this under "Bush wants homosexuals out of marriage" . Does anyone know how to move it there???]

I appreciated your heartfelt comments, Denise. But to me, what you said above begs the question - isn't it possible to live with and share affection with someone, without having sex with them?

Remember that what we are talking about here and in other threads does not (IMHO) take anything away from the issue of compassion and caring for individuals who suffer from their homosexual orientation. They are our brothers and sisters and deserve our love and support, if for no other reason than that they are made in the image of God. We should always try to see Christ's face in everyone we meet.

But the issue we are discussing here is whether or not the laws (in the Church and in the government) should be changed to recognize "gay marriages". That is a matter of public (and Church) policy, not a matter of tolerance and respect towards individuals.

I hope nothing I've said here would be construed to mean that I think somehow I'm "better" in the eyes of God than anyone else, just because I don't have this particular affiliction. That's not my intention at all! As you say, we all have our "broken" areas to contend with.

Dear Ghazar,

You posted this:

"If Dr. John and Steve want to preach the legitimacy of a life of sodomy, this is an exercise of their free will and choice. But make no mistake, this is not Catholic nor Orthodox, it is rather in accord with Classical Liberal Protestantism. I can only conclude they are Episcopalians (or something similar) like those who just elevated a man in their hierarchy who thinks sodomy and Christianity are fully compatible"

Dear William,

I have read your posting. I have some questions and some requests based on it.

What leads you to believe that I have done as you suggest above?

Here's why I ask.

I have never suggested that the teaching of the Church is untrue. I have never said or suggested that sodomy is an option for Christians according to the teaching of the Church.

I request in the name of justice and charity that you read any and all of my postings in this thread or in any other thread on any topic in which I say what you are asserting that I am preaching.

That may take you some time, but I am a patient man and I believe that you are a fair man. When you find something I will apologize for it. Until you can produce evidence to support your inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements about me cited above and more fully present in your posting, I request that you withdraw it.

I ask that you make no assumptions about me. Please accept what I assert to be true about me.

I believe that your posting is an overreaction to what you have misperceived me to say. Please take the time to read what I have said and react to that! Whatever caused it, it is unjust.

What you have done here is to rashly judge, it seems to me.

I ask the Administrator to do the same search. Since he has been involved in all of the discussions on this topic that I have been involved in over the years, I believe that he can support my statements in this posting about my words and about my beliefs in the teaching of the Church as they appear in this posting.

Again, until youhave evidence to the contrary from what I say and not what you think that I say, I ask you in the name of common decency to remove that assertion.

In addition, I ask these three things:


1.
What is the teaching that you refer to when you posted this:

"You two are advocating a teaching diametrically opposed to the clear teaching of our Lord, St. Paul and the Apostles and that of every Church Father?"


2.
Further, on what authority do you direct me to
"Go on, follow the Episcopalians but remember the words of the Lord:.... The role of Steve's spiritual director is already taken. I don't remember asking for such poor advice from anyone.

My brother in Christ, I have been working all of my life, more years than I care to remember, within the Catholic Church to remember the words of the Lord and to guide my behavior by them. I constantly pray that the Spirit guide me as I make my personal moral decisions in the light of the teaching of the Church. That is what I have suggested others to do.

3.
Where have I suggested that anyone else do otherwise?

You have taken it upon yourself to make assumptions and make assertions about what I teach or what I believe.

I believe that you have likewise taken upon yourself the responsibility to provide the supporting evidence for those assumptions and those assertions.

Again, please read what I said, not what you think that I said. Please understand what I have said.

Do not assume that you do. Based on your posting, I can tell you directly that you do not!

Thank you for hearing me out!

Steve

Dear Administrator,

I ask that you respond to my request in the previous posting.

Thank you

Steve

Dear Steve,

If you are not suggesting that homosexual unions are to be accepted as legitimate expressions of Christian life, then I do take back every word addressed to you and apologize from the bottom of my heart. It sure seemed to me you were at least entertaining such an idea.

On another point, if you do not know what teaching Christ, the Apostles and the Church Fathers have regarding sodomy or those who pretend sodomy is not wrong and totally unnacceptable, then I don't think I can help you. This is because, if you are as actively involved as a Catholic as you say, I have no idea how you can have possibly missed it.

sincerely,

Wm. D.G.

Dear William,

Thank you for your apology.

In turn, I am sorry if my words could be miscontrued to say what you thought I was saying.

What I was doing was discussing the need for Christians to know the Law, the immutable truth and yet deal with the necessity of determining how and when the Law is properly applied in the muck. The specific muck that I referred to was a decision that had to be made regarding the placement of my mother in a hospice and what treatment was proper there and what was not.

I should have specified that. It had nothing to do with homosexuality; the example that I used was stealing. Looking at the setting of the discussion I should have been clearer. I was talking about the need to grow in applying the Law to situations where the proper applications are unclear.

The context of that discussion was a part of a posting from Fr. Elias. Here is what he said:

"As an academic too (or as one impersonating an academic) I don't know how to 'chime in' on these questions, as important as they are. The discussions we are having, on topics such as raised in this thread, show so many divergent foundations and attitudes, that it is hard to really speak, or respond directly to the points made. Am I fair to suggest that we are using vocabularly differently, and starting from divergent philosophical world-views."

Also on my mind was the thoughts of the theologians that LatinTrad refreshed in my memory. He talked about the the proportionalists. In that discussion, I raised the issue of stealing as an example.

The context was a discussion of world views and how they influence moral discussions.

In that context, I addressed the need of helping adults to become adult moral decision makers. I concurred with Dr. John about that.

I believe in moral decision making situations, like the one on my mind involving my mother, but unfortunately not presented in my posting, it is of vital import to recognize that the Spirit is an active and real participant. His presence is liberating in horribly complicated times.

I believe that the same concerns arise in other situations where the moral choice is not clear. I believe in the Law. I do not believe that there is perfectly laid out application of the Law in all situations.

The discussion was an exchange about factors in moral decision making.

I raised the issue about St. Gregory not to ask or comment about his or any father's teaching on homosexuality. I understand their teachings on that topic.

What did I say to lead you to believe that I was asking about their position on homosexuality.

I was saying that sometimes one side or another misunderstands what another is saying about a theological truth. The other is considered in poor light and even scorned. Yet, like St. Gregory, what they have to say is later accepted to be a way of looking and expressing the truth.
It comes to be valued.
Might I request that in the future when something that I say seems to be out of sync with the teaching of the Church, you ask first if that is what I mean. Your reaction had me condemned and driven out of my Church to the arms of the Episcopal Church before I had a chance to clarify what I was talking about.

Perhaps a question would have helped.

Perhaps I should be clearer.

I affirm my belief in the moral teachings of the Church. Evil cannot be made into good! There is no question in my mind about that.

I do beleive that it is important for us as Christians to be adult in our decision making by learning what the Law is and praying for the wisdom to know how to apply it in the world around us.

I am sorry that my words did not convey those nuances or that I did not forsee how my intent could be misperceived from my words in the larger context in which they were spoken.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

reply:
You are welcome Steve. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. Sorry also if I jumped to conclusions. I think what happenend was that I thought you were affirming the same thing Dr. John was affirming. It appeared to me you were expressing agreement with his many affirmations that Chirstians might accept open, unabashed life-long unrepentent sodomy. This is the filth and rubbish I was/am shocked to see any Christian argue support for.

reply:
I'm sorry, Steve, this doesn't make sense to me. I don't see the law of Christ you are breaking by using hospice and what this has to do with the sin of sodomy (or any other sin for that matter).

reply: A principle I go by is this:

You don't conform the truth to meet the demands of a situation. A Christian is called, rather, to conform the situation to meet the demands of the truth. This is what makes true Christians different from all others.

This is my problem with Dr. John's ideas, I see no attempt in them to call homosexuals to conform their lives to the call of Christian morality. Ofcourse, belief in Christ comes first. But we cannot forget, as that previous quote from "Light for Life" stated (its worth quoting again):

"Often people come to the Church for an esthetic or uplifting experience -they like the music, the icons, the fellowship- but they also want to continue living an immoral life. In Christianity, this cannot be done: it is fantasy, delusion. In repentance, we are commending "our whole life to Christ our God," not just a "spiritual part" of it. We cannot separate the life of prayer from the moral life. As mentioned above, in the spiritual effort, we seek God and His will, in order to do it. We cannot seek the one without the other. In effect, we would be telling God, "I want an intimate experience of You, but do not expect me to act as though I belong to You." (Bk 3, p.33)

reply:
Yes and LatinTrad gave a wonderful presentation of the correct answer to that very common question. The answer shows no sin is being committed nor is a "law" being broken. Therefore this is a false dilema in regards to breaking God's Law or (as I would much rather phrase it) committing a sin. Therefore, I don't see how this example of stealing relates to homosexuality which is a sinful act -or- using hospice which objectively is not a sin at all. I really have no idea what this analogy of stealing is justifying in your understanding.

reply: Yes but are you talking about the Christian world view or a secular, or neo-pagan world view? Anyways, life in Christ transcends world views and provides us with the true view of man and the cosmos. No matter which culture we come from Christ's call is the same for us all.
"Be reconciled to the Father, turn away from sin and do good." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins."

St. Paul sums it up with these words: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulteres nor male prostitutes, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor the evil-tongued, nor the greedy will possess the kingdom of God."

reply:
I don't think it is a question of helping people make "adult choices" at all. Adults make many choices, some in accord with God's will and some very opposed to it. Christ calls us to make Godly choices in accord with the Father's will.

This is why God revealed His will to us, so that we could know "the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] has sent." But, "he who says, 'I know Him,' but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." And this is where the other verse about relaxing "one of the least of these commandments and [teaching] men so" comes in. This is why I reacted so strongly against Dr. John's views. A homosexual struggling to follow Christ's call, after reading the Dr.'s comments in this thread, would have much encouragement to continue on in his painful rejection of the Law of Christ. And this, is a filthy thing to do to someone struggling to follow Christ's call in the face of great difficult, ascetical struggle.

Homosexuals don't need such patronization. It is beneath them as fellow creatures made in the image and according to the likeness of God. True love doesn't compromise or water down God's emancipating Law of Liberty. This is the difference b/t the OT and the NT. The OT commanded it without giving us the strength to fullfill it. The NT while maintaining every "jot and tittle" also gave us the power of the Holy Spirit to be truly free from the sins which ensnare, entangle and enslave us.

Why would any Christian promote a view which encourages others to remain enslaved to sin? This is what Dr. John is doing and by your many agreements with him, is what I thought you were doing too. (Sorry for the confusion).

This is long enough,

I'll reply to a few more of your points, Lord willing, in my next post.

Trusting in Chirst's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Dear Steve:
a couple last replies to your comments to me:

you said:
I was saying that sometimes one side or another misunderstands what another is saying about a theological truth. The other is considered in poor light and even scorned. Yet, like St. Gregory, what they have to say is later accepted to be a way of looking and expressing the truth.
It comes to be valued.

reply:
Yes, but St. Gregory the Theologian was not advocating anything unOrthodox like the acceptance of sodomy as sign of Christian love (as the Dr. is doing). The only way one will be remembered advocating such a view is in the manner of Arius, Nestorius and others who contradicted the doctrine of Christ's Church. This is like a new heresy trying to plant roots in the Church. The ones who will be remembered (if any) are those who fight against this Sodomist heresy.

you said:
Might I request that in the future when something that I say seems to be out of sync with the teaching of the Church, you ask first if that is what I mean.

Your reaction had me condemned and driven out of my Church to the arms of the Episcopal Church before I had a chance to clarify what I was talking about.

reply:
I agree, I should have asked you to clarify. But may I suggest in the future you distance your self and avoid the appearance of conniving with views which suggest that an evil so great it is called in Scripture an "abomination" may someday be acceptable and just.

Btw, I never condemned you nor the Dr. I expressed great concern and distaste at the ideas he expressed. But I never condemned any person, not even those who commit sodomy. Comdemnation is not my perogitive, nor do I wish it to be.

And all I said about the Episcopalians was that the pro-homosexual view being expressed in this thread matched the same logic which just ordained a man a Bishop who rejects the very truths he has been entrusted with to teach. This is all.

Dear William,

Thank you for your posting.

I have offered you an explanation to explain what I was doing and thinking about when I wrote words which apparently led you to reach the conclustion that I meant things that I did not intend to convey in my writing. I am not sure what function additional discussion will serve.

I will not recount further for your understanding the issues that my family had to analyze in attempting to deal with the issue of hospice care for my mother in her last illness. I do not feel that it is necessary or appropriate. I simply told you about the fact that we had much to consider because it was on my mind when I wrote the posting in question.

The moral issues raised concerning hospice care made sense to me and to my family at the time. They made sense to the hospital chaplain and pastor with whom we consulted. The issues were complex and did not lend themselves to the approach that you suggested. If they did, we would have saved ourselves a great degree of anguish.

As I said above I was not dealing with the issue of homosexuality in the postings that raised your level of concern. That was not what I was talking about in the postings with TradLat and Fr. Elias and Dr. John.

I am sorry that that is not coming through, but it is so. I cannot ease your concern or erase your conclusion that it is what I was dealing with.

I am done with the issue.

You may believe what you choose about what I believe. I apparently cannot explain myself clearly enough for you. That saddens me.

I have explained what I was thinking and doing when I wrote words that evidently led you to conclude what I did not write into my words.

I have attempted to clarify. You are finding fault with what I say in my clarification. I cannot clarify the words or meaning of anyone but myself. You explain the meaning of Dr. John's words. You request that I distance my self. I did not place myself where you concluded that I did.

I am sorry also that you are having difficulty understanding my comments about formation of conscience and appropriately applying the Law in a situation in which the moral thing to do is not clear. I agree that "You don't conform the truth to meet the demands of a situation." I am sorry that I cannot make clearer the difference between that and discerning how to apply the Law in a situation.

Apparently, I cannot.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinions and conclusions. William I was not trying to make points, simply to describe a thinking process in its context.

Thank you for sharing your further conclusions and opinions with me.

Let me summarize:

In the postings containing conversation between Dr. John, Fr. Elias, TradLat, and me. I was talking about theological issues concerning while thinking about the application of the principle of double effect and its application in the light of immutable moral teaching in a specific situation.

The unfortunate location of that discussion is just that an unfortunate location in a thread about a different topic. That is how I understand it. It is a quite common happening here it seems to me.

I was not writing about homosexuality. I was reflecting on issues of moral decision making in siutations which contain complexity of issues.

I was not writing about St. Gregory and any teaching on homosexuality.

William, may I say again that I am not engaged in any contest with you involving point making.

You are my brother in Christ.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I am sorry also, that you think I have misunderstood you so. My evaluation of your positions (at least from my persepctive) are not as bad as you might think. While explaining how I came to such a conclusion, I also accept that this is not what you meant and in your mind were thinking of a totally unrelated subject (unbeknownst to us). Being you don't want to discuss how this seperate issue relates to the topic of this thread (a choice which I truly respect) how can I understand you much better than this? I too am quite willing to let it go.

I am also sorry for the difficulties you are encountering with your mother's health issues and how best to care for them. My family and I will remember you and your concerns in our morning sacrifice of praise on this Sabbath day and ask the Lord to send your entire family the great Comfort of the Holy Spirit.

Your Brother in Christ's Light,
W.D.G.