www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Catholic policy on Gay men in the Presbyterate

What is the Metropolias policy on ordaining chaste/celibate gay men? Does it happen? Are there and guidelines in this matter..

Just curious.

In the past, or now?

As with the Roman Catholic Church, its generally a policy of don't ask...don't tell.

I am asking about our Church's current policy.

Hmm..."Don't ask don't tell." Is that accurate?

This doesn't answer your question but I thought I'd pass it along. I note your emphasis on "chaste/celibate" and I can see the reasoning. I wonder if the policy of the Metropolia would be the same as the USCCB (NCCB?). Maybe not but I don't think the "don't ask, don't tell" idea is current thinking in Roman Catholic circles.

I cannot speak about the metropolia, as a Roman Catholic I have an acquaintance that came recently to the US from missions in the Philipines. He is Polish and wanted to incardinate within the United States.

He was subjected to a battery of psychological tests out of state to determine his fitness for pastoral work. This was apparently a new procedure that was not expected. Thank God they didn't find any reason to reject him and he is now attached to a parish but the delays were terrible for him, he had no regular source of income for months.

Clearly, this was not a case of "don't ask, don't tell" but I have no idea what criteria were used to finally determine his suitability. I didn't feel close enough to ask. I thought the seminaries had new, more stringent guidelines, perhaps they have been published somewhere?

Really though, IMO the formation process would have to be extra difficult for someone with gay tendencies. Placing a gay man into a virtually all male environment for several years might be something like putting a heterosexual man in an all female environment for several years and expecting chastity. The temptation would be more than many young men could stand for sure, myself included, but others may be made of sterner stuff.

Michael

Dear Robert,

In regard to the subject that you raised, of course, according to the canons, the past practice of homosexual acts in any context or the past practice of heterosexual acts outside of the context of a sanctified marriage (fornication, adultery, or incest), is an impediment to ordination. There are other impediments also.

In exercising ekonimia, a bishop would need to discern the usual in relation to any ordination:

(a) What are the needs of the Church at this time?

(b) Is there a qualified candidate available?

(c) Is there a willing candidate (and spouse) available?

However, I have a problem with how you have phrased the question, because I think that it leads us in the erroneous direction of existentialism.

If a man is addicted to drinking, I would agree to label him as "an alcoholic." While he's breaking the addiction, I'd even agree to call him "a recovering alcoholic." Thirty years after his last drink, I do not agree to label him "a recovering alcoholic," but perhaps, "a former alcoholic."

The problem with existential labels (such as those that I have used above) is that they presuppose a permanence of condition that we as humans don't have. We can't justifiably say, "I am" anything. If we dare, we might say, "I am for a little while." After all, "I AM" is HIS name!

Permanence of condition also denies Christ's ability to heal that one who is addicted to drinking. In Christ, he can be made whole. Perhaps he will always be tempted by drink, but he is indeed healed of drinking. With God, all things are possible."

In stead of saying that "I am a farmer," we are better off by just saying, "I farm." If someone takes our land, seeds, and tools, will we be able to indefinitely say (some thirty years later) that "I am a farmer?" I believe that we should use functional descriptions.

A priest only "serves as a priest." I know a non-canonically-ordained priest in Canada who was serving the Divine Liturgy. Now he serves as a psalt/chanter, but communes at the altar as a priest. "IS" he a priest? "IS" he a chanter? I would look at what he does, and not what people call him. We could say that, "He IS a man who chants but also communes as a priest at the altar because...." Life is a long story.

I hope that I have made my point. We are the sum of what we do. If the hypothetical candidate is practicing celibacy and chastity, I would never insult him by calling him "gay" or homosexual." The candidate appears to be healed! And for that, may glory be to Jesus Christ!

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Friends,

Reader Andrew's deep pastoral sensitivity again shines forth!

The fact is that the Church has canonized Saints who admitted they had an homosexual orientation, although remained celibate.

St Aelred of Rievaulx is probably one of the more famous cases.

And I have met priests who were of a homosexual orientation but chaste/celibate and whose bishops knew of this etc.

I've also met priests who were heterosexual and, unfortunately, unchaste.

Alex

This is where Alex has hit the nail squarly on the head.

The issue is not do they ordain gay men, this issue is do they ordain chaste/celibate men.


David

Andrew, Alex and David,

Amen!

Goodness, Health, Holiness, Chastity, marriage and celibacy: sounds like a recipe for good, healthy, holy, chaste and celibate or married priests. That's what we need.

Does it matter if he also made them heterosexual or homosexual?

Steve

Dear Inawe,

Comment withdrawn, along with myself from any further discussion here.

Alex

Steve,

I agree with everything you said except....

I do not buy into this line of thought. God does not create or cause sin. A murderer is not created a murderer by God.


David

Oh Alex, not that old Fundamentalist cliche !

I do not buy into this line of thought. God does not create or cause sin. A murderer is not created a murderer by God.


David [/QB][/QUOTE]


I'm sorry but it is pretty disgusting to equate a gay person to a murderer. That line of reasoning is not at all Christian and rather ignorant. Those 2 things are NOT the same.

Brian,
Sin is sin. Yes some sins are worse than others, but that doesn't change the fact that a sin is a sin.

To say otherwise is not only uncharitable but is also allowing sin to abide.

David

In don't think that David B was making an equation (this = that) but an allegorical association.

Perhaps it is a sensitive topic and that is why I chose an allegorical association with alcoholism -an ongoing habit, something one may be inclined toward, for whatever reason, but also capable of mastering, over time, with God's help.

Murder is usually a one-time event and usually in the heat of the moment between people who know and (at least ostensibly) care for one another.

Part of what I would hope comes from this discussion is realization that all have crosses to bear, each his or her own. We should not fall into a complex of victimization, woe is me, and a hating of God (especially if one believes that the tendency toward homosexuality, murder, heterosexual acts outside of marriage, narcotics, or alcoholism has been placed there by God).

Reading and accepting the Book of Job should cure us of this.

Or from James: "count it all joy when you fall in to diverse temptations....that the trying of your faith works patience....let patience have her perfect work, that you may be perfect and whole, wanting nothing."

God allows and prevents blessings and crosses as He wills according to his plan. What one day appears to us as a curse, we see years later as a blessing.

Irenaeus wrote of the Providence of God that: were we given all good things without a struggle, we would be like the spoiled child who is thankful for nothing.

And although we often struggle, still we often are like that spoiled child.

With love in Christ,
Andrew.