Kallistos Ware Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage

[Dorothea]

On another note, the "ethnic" names on a lot of jurisdictions in the US give some people the impression that the OC teaches that people should worship according to ethnicity. That's too bad. Yet still we have trouble cleaning up the mess with all the jurisdictions.

Not sure how this has anything to do with the subject at hand, but I agree that there is a problem with the mess with jurisdictions in America and ethnic names on Orthodox Churches can be confusing to people who aren't of that ethnicity, if you will. I could go on on that subject, but this isn't the thread for it

 

[archer75]

I think I'm understanding you when you say the Church can't be divided, even if people teach against its doctrines and dogmas. Yes, falling away/apostatizing is very real and is happening a lot. I just hope I stay close to Christ and His Church the rest of my life because without Him and His Church, I'd be sunk.

That tactic is pretty deceptive.

I still wonder which is the Church if there's a schism not over the faith.

 

[dzheremi]

Why would you wonder that, in the context of this topic? I am confused. Any waffling on the anthropology of your Church is a matter that definitely deals with the faith, no?

 

[archer75]

Why would you wonder that, in the context of this topic? I am confused. Any waffling on the anthropology of your Church is a matter that definitely deals with the faith, no?

Not really in the context of this topic. I probably shouldn't have replied with that. I just thought of the usual talk about "you're either in the Church or out" and wondered - if there's a purely political schism initiated simultaneously on both sides...who's the Church?

 

[archer75]

double post

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think I'm understanding you when you say the Church can't be divided, even if people teach against its doctrines and dogmas. Yes, falling away/apostatizing is very real and is happening a lot. I just hope I stay close to Christ and His Church the rest of my life because without Him and His Church, I'd be sunk.

That tactic is pretty deceptive.

oh yes, the devil always sweetens his poison.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not really in the context of this topic. I probably shouldn't have replied with that. I just thought of the usual talk about "you're either in the Church or out" and wondered - if there's a purely political schism initiated simultaneously on both sides...who's the Church?

that would not happen.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church and Homosexuality: A Meditation – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

 

[TheSynergist]

The Church and Homosexuality: A Meditation – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Thank you. We are living in strange and difficult times.

 

[gzt]

I've just got to say about the first post: thou shalt not bear false witness.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you. We are living in strange and difficult times.

You're welcome.

I suspect this will be the consensus response. Just wanted to put that out there.

I know it seemed a time of upheaval as I was coming into the Church as they were looking forward to the Council a couple/few years ago. I was disturbed over some months at things I was hearing.

I don't know how typical over time the idea of upheaval and change might be - it might well be a new thing but I suspect it's happened before many times? I do know that dissent and confusion is not utterly new but has happened since the time of the Apostles. The Church always steadies itself. (Though looking at the iconoclast period was not exactly comforting.)

I think by now we are so spread out among the world and with such a deeply entrenched history that there is really little risk of the Church running aground. The faithful wouldn't stand for it if the hierarchy did. Thank God we have the structure we do. No one man, or even a few, can run the whole thing aground. Seeing that kind of response was alarming in a way (we are all in the process of becoming like Christ but not there yet - so the individual voices can be less than comforting) ... but overall it gives me great comfort now to know that the hierarchs, the faithful, the monastics - everyone is charged with keeping the Church on track. (We just have to be careful about overzealous voices on the other side who would schism too readily.) But it does become a comfort for me. The Church is not going to disappear or become unrecognizable.

 

[Lukaris]

Thank you. We are living in strange and difficult times.

Seconded.

 

[All4Christ]

Hi, Fender,
I don’t think you read my response to Met Kallistos’s words. It is entirely possible for a person to say, “I don’t defend X”, and then proceed to defend X. It would be absolutely thoughtless to suppose that it is not possible. And if the Metropolitan does not suggest that we “bluntly” set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, he DOES suggest that it has never been questioned and satisfactorily answered by the Church fathers, but rather, as you yourself say, “because the Church says so”. He DOES suggest that we should delicately set aside Orthodox teaching because these issues never occured to the early Christians; what with them not talking about “sexual orientation”. He does suggest that the Church has not really understood the issue over the past two thousand years but that he could help us “enquire more rigorously”. Why doesn’t HE enquire more rigorously and report back what the fathers have said across the ages, on the basis of Scripture and the rest of Tradition. That the pastor and shepherd of a local church says that he doesn’t know why and trumpets that publicly, he does challenge the legitimacy of the teaching of two millennia. Yes, he says it is not God’s plan. But he does speak in terms that work to normalize it as acceptable behavior, via economia, etc.

All sins are bad. This sin stands out, though, for the effort with which Christians seek open approval for it. The same is not true of drunkenness, adultery, etc. For that reason, it is necessary to double down on Church teaching, not cast it as unreasoned dogma with strawman arguments.

I’d say that Christians often do the same with promiscuity / unmarried couples having sexual intercourse before marriage. The latter is even considered normative by many. The same goes for divorce. There are plenty of sins where people promote them as being normal and an equally valid way of doing things.

An important thing to remember (and I’m not pointing at you, just in general) is that someone who seeks to change in this area but still struggles should be supported in their journey to try to follow God despite their passions that they struggle with. If we seek to change with God’s help...then the Church should support us throughout our struggle to do so.

 

[Dorothea]

oh yes, the devil always sweetens his poison.

True.

 

[Lukaris]

I think Metr. Kallistos probably should ponder what is the fine line of empathy vs sympathy in pastoral counseling. I think Hieromonk Herman knows this (within the recent link posted by Anastasia).

If there is outright homophobia being exerted by clerics, then they. need counseling too. I would think any form of counseling must be done within the basic framework to love God & neighbor while living by the 10 commandments.

 

[GregConstantine]

This is going to continue to be a problem until our hierarchs show clear, decisive speech and action in response. Until then we will continue to see and hear of such things as this.

 

[narnia59]

...
A second anomaly is to be found in the way homosexuals are commonly treated in the sacrament of confession. All of us recognize that there is an important distinction to be made between those homosexuals who engage in casual encounters, seeking out in some “gay” bar a partner for a single night; and on the other hand, those homosexuals who are committed to a permanent relationship, faithful and monogamous, in which deep love is involved. Surely no Christian is in favour of sexual promiscuity.
…
What happens, by contrast, to the faithful and monogamous homosexual? Perhaps the priest says in confession, “Are you willing to give up your homosexual relationship?” The penitent may answer, “I cannot do that.” The priest may rejoin, “You can continue to share a common life, marked by mutual affection; but will you abstain from further sexual activity?” The other may well reply, “I am not yet ready to undertake that.” (Yet I have known homosexuals who have indeed transformed their relationship in this way.)

The priest, faced with this refusal, may well feel that he cannot bless the penitent to receive the sacrament. Now here certainly is a paradox. The homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship is treated more harshly than the homosexual who is casual and promiscuous, and who is seeking not true love but passing pleasure. Something has gone wrong here.

I have a question about this I haven't seen discussed elsewhere in the thread, and it's really about this statement "The homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship is treated more harshly than the homosexual who is casual and promiscuous, and who is seeking not true love but passing pleasure. Something has gone wrong here."

Based upon my Catholic experience, I would assume the questions for both of these individuals are the same -- are you repentant of this sin and resolve to do it no more? And if the answer is no to either of those, then absolution would be withheld, because true repentance means a resolve to avoid that sin.

That doesn't mean that people won't fall and be back in confession. But it boils down to the difference that I recognize this is sin, I am sorry I committed this sin, and I resolve with the help of God's grace to resist this sin in the future. And if those conditions are not true, then there is no absolution.

So I see no difference in the way the two are being treated, or should be treated.

But it's almost like he's saying the person can be promiscuous, just keep coming to confession, receive absolution, receive communion, and then keep on living the same pattern. Sin, confess, receive communion, repeat.

I find that confusing because I doubt that the way the Orthodox view the sacrament and receiving absolution is different than how Catholics would view this. Don't you believe that in order to receive abolution there has to be an intent to resist the sin going forward? And if I'm right about that, then I don't think his viewing one is being treated more harshly has any merit at all.

So I am confused and wonder what I'm missing?

 

[GregConstantine]

I have a question about this I haven't seen discussed elsewhere in the thread, and it's really about this statement "The homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship is treated more harshly than the homosexual who is casual and promiscuous, and who is seeking not true love but passing pleasure. Something has gone wrong here."

Based upon my Catholic experience, I would assume the questions for both of these individuals are the same -- are you repentant of this sin and resolve to do it no more? And if the answer is no to either of those, then absolution would be withheld, because true repentance means a resolve to avoid that sin.

That doesn't mean that people won't fall and be back in confession. But it boils down to the difference that I recognize this is sin, I am sorry I committed this sin, and I resolve with the help of God's grace to resist this sin in the future. And if those conditions are not true, then there is no absolution.

So I see no difference in the way the two are being treated, or should be treated.

But it's almost like he's saying the person can be promiscuous, just keep coming to confession, receive absolution, receive communion, and then keep on living the same pattern. Sin, confess, receive communion, repeat.

I find that confusing because I doubt that the way the Orthodox view the sacrament and receiving absolution is different than how Catholics would view this. Don't you believe that in order to receive abolution there has to be an intent to resist the sin going forward? And if I'm right about that, then I don't think his viewing one is being treated more harshly has any merit at all.

So I am confused and wonder what I'm missing?

You're not confused at all, you are 100% correct and yes, the view of the sacrament of confession is very similar.

However, we unfortunately have voices within the Church that wish to muddle the waters so to speak, and we have people here who defend these people and try to make the claim that the rest of us are "misunderstanding" them, and that's not what they are really saying. They then accuse us of being "fundamentalists" or "rigorist", then turn around and accuse us of bearing false witness. It would be funny if it wasn't true, but unfortunately it is.

 

[All4Christ]

I have a question about this I haven't seen discussed elsewhere in the thread, and it's really about this statement "The homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship is treated more harshly than the homosexual who is casual and promiscuous, and who is seeking not true love but passing pleasure. Something has gone wrong here."

Based upon my Catholic experience, I would assume the questions for both of these individuals are the same -- are you repentant of this sin and resolve to do it no more? And if the answer is no to either of those, then absolution would be withheld, because true repentance means a resolve to avoid that sin.

That doesn't mean that people won't fall and be back in confession. But it boils down to the difference that I recognize this is sin, I am sorry I committed this sin, and I resolve with the help of God's grace to resist this sin in the future. And if those conditions are not true, then there is no absolution.

So I see no difference in the way the two are being treated, or should be treated.

But it's almost like he's saying the person can be promiscuous, just keep coming to confession, receive absolution, receive communion, and then keep on living the same pattern. Sin, confess, receive communion, repeat.

I find that confusing because I doubt that the way the Orthodox view the sacrament and receiving absolution is different than how Catholics would view this. Don't you believe that in order to receive abolution there has to be an intent to resist the sin going forward? And if I'm right about that, then I don't think his viewing one is being treated more harshly has any merit at all.

So I am confused and wonder what I'm missing?

If someone does not want or intend to stop the sin, then yes, the priest has multiple things that can be done, including withholding the Eucharist until confession when the penitent desires to change. The difficulty would be when someone says he / she desires to change, yet does not make an effort. The priest would have to evaluate that. Father Matt could speak to that more authoritatively than I can.

 

[All4Christ]

Do we pursue the problems of other prevalent sins as much as the sin currently being discussed? Do priests handle persistent sins such as sexual intercourse outside marriage, fornication, etc with the same level of severity and concern? I know of many who have continued the first sin I mentioned on a consistent basis who still are communing regularly. I haven’t seen it much in my parish, but I know of other cases.

In all cases, we should support people who are trying to change their ways, as the Church is a hospital for those who seek to follow God. We should be consistent though across the board imho.

Father Matt - do you have any insight on this? @ArmyMatt