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

Dear David,

Thank you for your response. I am glad that we agree on much.

Based on your disagreement, I have some questions and some comments. I hope that you'll bear with me.

What makes a homosexual a sin?

Isn't behavior, or at least a choice to behave, a necessary component of sin? Does engaging in adultery make the person a sin? Is an adulterer a sin or is the sin the adultery? Does someone who chooses to engage in the sin of usury become a sin? Is a usurer a sin or is the sin the usury?

You seem to be saying that a person is a sin. Isn't sin a freely chosen behavior which which separates us from God Who has taught us not to behave in this way?

According to what I've learned, no person is a sin. A person who sins is a sinner. According to the teaching that I've learned, sexual behavior on the part of one, two or more persons who are not married is sin. The persons are not.

Have I misunderstood what you've said here or am I misinformed about the nature of sin?

I have learned much from your postings. Thank you.

Thanks for hearing me out!

Steve

Dear Alex,

With eyes wide closed! I have a question.

When is a pun, PUNishing? :rolleyes:

Steve

Steve,
Yes, I will gladly bear with you, as you seem to be a very charitable person, rather than attacking and accusing me of things you chose to ask questions to further understand my point of view and how I think. I am grateful that you chose this tact rather than coming at me with a bristly attitude.

This is one of the places that I draw a line. When someone describes themself as a homosexual, or gay, rather than saying that they have a homosexual orientation. They chose to describe themself with a sinful act.

For someone who describes themself as a homosexual, would we allow, and in some cases praise, someone who chose to identify himself as a murder, a theif, adulterer, or a glutton?

Yes I know that the behavior is the sin not the person doing it, but to identify oneself with the sin in such a way as to call themself it is to promote that sin.

No I do not think that a person is a sin, what they do, or promote is a sin.

I do think that you misunderstood me, but let me ask you this.

Your statement, to me, seems to imply that God creates sin. Did I misunderstand you?


David

Dear David,

Thank you for your response with its kind estimation of who I am.

It helps me understand what you were saying. I am glad that what I was saying made some sense to you. I am here to learn and to share what I might be able to.

I'd like to respond to your last question to me first. This was your statement and question:

Quote:
"Your statement, to me, seems to imply that God creates sin. Did I misunderstand you?"

If that is what I appeared to be implying, I have expressed myself poorly.

I do not believe that God creates sin!
I do believe that He creates us humans, whom He loves. We choose to behave in ways other than those He has taught us to behave. He made us free to choose to sin. We are sinners, but we are not sin.

One of my theology profs once told a story about a young boy. He loved to throw baseballs to his friend. One day he overthrew his partner and broke the window of a rather testy neighbor.

The neighbor called him several things. He told the boy that he would tell the boy's father and the other neighbors that the boy broke his window.

The boy was so upset because he had broken the window that he ran away. When his father found him he asked why he ran away. The boy looked at his father and said, "I'm a window breaker!"

The boy continued, "The man said he would call you and tell you. I knew that you would be mad and it would cost you money. I'm a window breaker and You don't love me anymore."

The boy's father told him that he was his son and that he loved him no matter what. He said that they would work through it together.

The theology prof said that we sometimes see ourselves as our sins. We find it difficult to see how God could love us anymore. We even believe that those who know us wouldn't love us if they really knew what we've done.

He said that no one is a sin. So when I read what you said, that story came to mind and I had to ask. I meant no offense.

I understand what you're saying, David. A sinner is not his sin. When you say that a homosexual is sin, You're using that statement in a kind of metaphorical sense. It is certainly an attention getter and is intended to call the sinner back to God.

I responded to your statement because there are young people who have a confused sense of their sexual identity. There are others who are clear about their sexual identity. I have been told that a young person who believes him/herself to be homosexual commits suicide every half hour apparently because of their reactions or those of others.

Perhaps by saying that Homosexuals are sin, we reinforce the notion that they are inherently evil and bad. Saying that they are sin has dramatic effect.

In the life of people who cannot make subltle distinctions between what they are and what they do or feel inclined to do it might have unintended effects.

Saying that homosexuals are sinful if they choose to engage in homosexual activities reinforces the notion that they are sinners as the Church teaches. It includes them with the rest of us who are sinners, too, in one way or another.

It seems to me that it is fair to do that. More importantly, it makes your point that God made and loves the sinner and hates the sins we choose to do. This seems to more accurately teach the theological reality that the murderer, the theif and the glutton and the homosexual are God's much loved children who choose to sin in the same way that all of us do.

I hope that this makes sense and is not offensive to you. It was not intended to be.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

(a window breaker trying to let his Father's Love into his life and who fails and gets up again regularly!)

Dear Brian and Steve,

I ask your forgiveness for the silly and unacceptable pun I made and which I withdraw now.


Alex

Steve,
No problem, I like discussions such as this. We are learning from each other.

First let me say, I would not use the sort of language I use here with a teen who I knew was having problems.

The language I use here are for those who claim to know better but at times do not act as though they do.

I am glad that you understand me a bit better, but I still think you are missing my point.

Let me comment on part of your post, maybe this will clarify my point of view even more.

Here I believe that you are buying into the political correct crowd. I would not say it the way you did.

We would not allow a person who has homicidal tendencies to call themself a killer, would we?

I would say that a person commits a sin when they engage in a homosexual act or when they promote those acts. People who chose to call themselves homosexuals are promoting that life style.

I refuse to call a person who has a homosexual orientation a homosexual. I do not identify this person with a sin. When this person choses to identify themself with that sin, then they are promoting it.

Does that better explain my point?


David

In other words, David, there are only "heterosexuals" and those who are deviant heterosexuals (i.e., people who do not commit heterosexual acts).

And yes, there are celibate heterosexuals who commit heterosexual acts without violating celibacy.

There is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, am I reading you correctly on that?

I don't believe that this is the position of the Catholic Church.

Read non-conservative "crowd" The word "political correctness" is often used by conservatives to shut up those who might have a different opinion maybe to the left-of-center. It is a ruse.

No, I believe that I did say that there are those with a homosexual orientation and that orientation is abnormal.

Also, I do not go around calling myself a heterosexual. Even though I am one, one living a chaste life as befits my station in life.

I am more than just my sexual orientation so why would I want to label myself by that orientation only?

As for Brian's commment, his ignorance and abrasive attitude shows more than I could comment on.


David

What should be done about this abnormality? Can it be corrected?

And more on topic, what should/do our bishops do with prospective vocations who evidence this abnormality? What should their response be? Or what is their response? Especially when Rome has apparently not spoken definitively about it?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Lemko asks:

�What should be done about this abnormality? Can it be corrected?�

Even if one believes that homosexuality is genetic, I believe it is incumbent on us as Christians to trust that it can be corrected, i.e. that the love a homosexual man has for another man can, through prayer, kenosis, and good habits, be reoriented to a more proper, God-given end. We know, after all, from biology that the genotype � the full complement of the genetic information repeated exactly in every somatic cell � is a major determinant of the phenotypic attributes of an organism but is not exclusively responsible for a person's phenotype. A gene�s �expression,� so to speak, is dependent on its environment.

I do not doubt that homosexual love is real; in fact, there seems to be much in it that is good. It is, however, a love that is misplaced. Homosexual love speaks to the genuine human need and capacity for intimacy � rooted in the creation � but, as with much in this fallen world, it ultimately misses the mark.

�And more on topic, what should/do our bishops do with prospective vocations who evidence this abnormality? What should their response be? Or what is their response? Especially when Rome has apparently not spoken definitively about it?�

The Church ought to demand that all candidates for the presbyerate and all presbyters, including those who have engaged in homosexual behavior and/or are attracted to other men, exercise chastity.

Given the statisticial correlation between pederasty and homosexual orientation, however, I would say � as a father � that the Church ought to be more cautious when it comes to ordaining homosexuals.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear David,

Thank you again for responding to my comments and questions. I think that I get it.

It seems that you are saying that chaste people with a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex, should not be called homosexual. I am not sure what term would be appropriate for them.

If that is the case the only homosexuals are those who are not chaste. For someone to use the word homosexual to indicate their own sexual orientation somehow suggests that they want others to go and to engage in sinful sexual activity.

Is that right?

For most of people, even chaste homosexuals, if I understand correctly, the term homosexual is a word used when talking about a person based upon that person's sexual attraction for a person of the same sex. So to call oneself homosexual, or to call someone else a homosexual, on that basis does not of itself indicate that one engages in unchaste behavior or encourages others to do so.

I think that your recognition of the existence of homosexuals who live life as the Church teaches is important. I understand that you appreciate their their chastity and want to acknowledge it.

But, I'm not sure that to say in any forum that a homosexual is sin on the basis of your personal definition of homosexual is helpful.

Here's why I think so:


It seems to me that it can cloud discussion of homosexuality among us. Most people do not use the words that way. To use the word homosexual without the qualifier words chaste or unchaste can lead to misunderstanding. It can lead to a misunderstanding of what sin is. Pain for and mistreatment of homosexuals, chaste and unchaste, can result from such use of terms.

There are many sexual sins. Sinful behaviors of a sexual nature are the same for heterosexual or homosexual persons. Those acts are well known. To engage in or to encourage others to choose inappropriate sexual activity is indeed sinful. The church teaches that for both homosexual and heterosexuals.

There are sexual sins committed by heterosexuals, then, and there are heterosexuals who encourage such behavior. There are sexual sins committed by homosexuals and there are homosexuals who encourage such behavior. These are sins and we who commit them are sinners. We, heterosexual or homosexual, are not sin.

I applaud your desire to recognize chastity among homosexuals and, I assume, heterosexuals. I just am not sure that this is the way to do it without creating problems for people.

This is what I think. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. But if we all operate on our own definitions, doesn't that make talking more complicated than it needs to be?

Thanks for hearing me out!

Steve

Dear Alex,

Your sense of humor is well known! I'm glad that you are here and that you lighten things when they get heavy. That is a gift.

So, don't go!

Thanks for your removal of the pun in question.

Steve

Blessings to the Byzantine Forumites for having a generally civil conversation on a highly charged topic. Let's not go over the cliff now, guys.

Axios

The question regarding what a bishop should do when considering for ordination men who have committed homosexual acts or confess homosexual orientation (erotic attraction toward males) would be similar to the concerns that a bishop should have when considering men who have committed heterosexual acts outside of marriage or confess a heterosexual orientation (erotic attraction toward females).

While I write "similar," I don't mean "the same." If one accepts that homosexual orientation is abnormal, then the bishop should be more inclined to seek to uncover its source and its remaining strength as a temptation/weakness. By uncovering the source, recognizing it, and praying with the candidate, he may be able to diminish a reoccurrence.

In the same breath, we should recognize that not all heterosexual activity is normal, and the bishop would need to similarly weigh the source of those activities. I didn't list all of the canonical impediments to ordination in my previous post, but they do also include polygamy, bestiality, and sodomy, all quite abnormal.

And back within "normality," would a man who had spent years of his unmarried youth fornicating with numerous and sundry women be a good candidate for ordination? Based upon the Gospel image of Christian life, may we call him "normal?"

As the Apostle Paul wrote, "the sexual sins are the most serious sins...all other sins that a man does he does outside of his own body...."

With all considerations of candidates with canonical impediments (homosexual/heterosexual/ or other impediments), the bishop also needs to consider:

How long ago did these things occur?

How long did the activities go on (how deep-seated in the candidate's pattern of behavior)?

Would there be scandal to the Church because the other believers know of these past activities?

In general, my opinion is that the bishops should not be encouraging exceptions to the canon. However, the Church has needs and the available candidates are often few. Hence some inevitable compromises will occurr (even I can accept that). But if these exceptions become the norm amongst his candidates for ordination, then the bishop needs to reassess whether or not the Christian faith is being lived out within his diocese and whether or not he is doing all that he can to encourage men toward ordination who do not have such impediments.

With love in Christ,
Andrew.