www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Origen?

Is it more accurate to call homosexual tendencies fallen, rather than sinful?

Maybe Origen was a closet homosexual . . .

{Or maybe that last sentence was just a cheap attempt on my part to keep on topic!}

Dear PaxTecum,

Unfortunately, Origen DID castrate himself - and that was well known.

But I post it for YOUR benefit rather than that of others here this time . . .

He was severely censured by his bishop for this act and placed under canonical penances.

As for Fr. McNichol, he is a priest and a Jesuit in good standing.

His icons are, in my view, excellent and I like them better than those of Robertz Lentz.

I think his icons of Our Lady are truly wonderful and he has even written an icon of the Martyr Nestor Savchuk, the priest who was murdered by satanic ritual in Odessa.

If a Catholic has a homosexual orientation, that is certainly no sin.

The acting on that orientation is when the sin comes into being, according to the Church.

I don't believe we ever have been in schism.

And just to show you my good will, what you said about your last comment being a cheap shot - I agree with you wholeheartedly and unreservedly.

You are absolutely right and correct!

Alex

Alex:

I know Origen castrated himself.

Mu qyestion was for Dave, who said that Saint Jerome also castrated himself.

Hisss . . .

Eric

Dear PaxTecum,

Oh!

Sorry!

It was too early for me when I read your post, then!

Either that, or old age . . .

Forgive me!

Alex

Being a "Jesuit in good standing" is hardly an indication of orthodoxy, celibacy or anything else in this age.
And I would call a tendency to sin a "sinful tendency" .
Fr McNichols' comments on his homosexuality were in the context of his response to reports that Rome is considering laying down the law regarding gay candidates for orders. Makes sense to me; if Christ is the bridegroom of the Church and if grace builds on nature then shouldn't a candidate for the priesthood have an orientation toward Woman? Someone with a homosexual orientation may find monastic life, or hermetical life or some other version of a celibate vocation to be the path to great holiness but it seems to me that the priesthood ought to be for men with a less disordered constitution. I say this well aware that there are priests burdened with this disorder who have been faithful to their celibate obligations.
That aside, Fr McNichols' icons are frequently non-canonical. I was taught, and believe, that the painting of an icon is not an opportunity for self-expression, but like the liturgy must be undertaken in the service to the Church and in respect to its traditions. Lenz and McNichols, though talented, violate this with impunity.
p.s.: are there any other iconographers on this forum? Shouldn't there be a separate catgory to discuss iconography?

Do we know that Origen castrated himself? I have before me Book II of the Loeb Classical Library edition (1980, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. In VI.VIII.1-3 ("On Origen's rash act"), it's ambiguous what is being described. The description could be perfectly consistent with castration, as far as I can tell, but there is uncertainty.

Anybody want to offer his two, er, cents?

Irenaeus

Dear Daniel,

As for non-canonical iconography, most of current Western religious art would fall under this condemnation, and yet it is used in liturgical worship.

I have seen non-canonical religious art used by Western Orthodox and this is allowed by their Eastern Orthodox bishops and Western Rite Vicars (Fr. Schneirla of the Antiochian Orthodox Church).

How is Fr. McNichols' work non-canonical? From an Orthodox only perspective - yes. But he is Catholic and works and struggles within the parameters, liturgical and theological, established by his Church. He portrays ONLY Christian saints and not-yet-canonized servants of God.

There are priests with a homosexual orientation who remain chaste, absolutely.

There are seminarians with such who, in the past, were encouraged to seek ordination as Catholic priests and continue struggling with that orientation.

Perhaps they shouldn't be so encouraged and that is the debate in the U.S. now.

Lentz portrays others outside the Christian tradition - that is his prerogative and if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Alex

Yes, well, Western religious art is religious art, not iconography. It decorates religious buildings and has no liturgical function. If McNichols wants to call his [nontraditional] work "religious art" that's fine but it's not iconography. To use the form and technique of iconography to portray homosexual activists with halos [as Lenz as done] is a kind of blasphemy, nearly as bad as the woman I stumbled across on the internet who does "icons" of pets...
As for Fr McNichols' work being noncanonical, I recently stumbled across one of his recent works featuring Fr Mychal Judge and St Francis hovering over the burning Twin Towers. Give me a break. Iconography is not at the service of trendy commentary or political passions.
It is important to realize that icon painting is not an Eastern parallel to Western religious art; it is sacred in a way that Western art is not and it is liturgical in a way that Western art is not.
Not that I don't think that Western art is ever sacred; I have stood in awe, absolutely transfixed, before Blessed Fra Angelico's Annunciation in Florence. And my friend Jim Langley of Steubenville has recently completed an altarpiece in the classic Western style that is breathtaking. But the sacredness of Western art is dependent on the religious genius of the artist in a way that the sacredness of icons is not. Of course religious genius helps here, too, but those possesing only a modicum of talent can produce an icon worthy of ecclesial blessing and veneration if they follow the canons.

Dear Daniel,

Again, I'm not telling you to purchase his icons!

As for portraying the twin towers, Byzantine iconography has always likewise portrayed great tragedies.

There is the icon of the seige of Novhorod, for example, where patron saints are depicted fighting alongside the soldiers on the ground.

The many icons portraying the Protection of the Mother of God, as at Pochaiv, where arrows and cannon-ball are being hurled back at the enemy.

St Nicholas of Mozhaisk is portrayed holding a sword . . .

The Three Bar Cross on the quarter moon of Islam was also introduced as a war-like symbol depicting the victory over Muslims etc.

Or the Holy Protection Icons with Kozaks and contemporary Christian kings depicted on them.

And I think iconography - all iconography - needs to be current.

I know a number of Christians who have bought and display Lentz's icon of the Mother of God of Sorrows of 9-11. There is a school near me that displays other icons of his.

I've no complaints about that.

Alex