ROCOR responds on Sr. Vassa

ArmyMatt said:

if that's the case, that explains why the ROCOR synod said it is bad anthropology

Click to expand...

I'm kind of curious why there is such a difficulty saying that it is possible people are born homosexual.

gzt said:

More that it is a variant that is not itself morally problematic and is no matter of choice. What one does with it, however, is where this is a field for moral activity, but, as I said, I withdraw the comparison, as there is nothing wrong with making use of your left-handedness while there is a moral problem with acting on your desire for intercourse with the same sex.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.

At any rate, I think it is accepted within the Church that to have that struggle is not at all sinful, if one doesn't act on it? I have been told some number of monastics became so because that was their struggle, and having no legitimate outlet for sexuality, they chose celibacy instead.

The Church does not condemn this, as far as I'm told?

Although while it doesn't represent the committing of a sin if it is not acted upon (in actuality or mentally), I think we can agree that being same-sex attracted is also not God's ideal or intent for humanity, so it does represent a deviation in that case? Just not a morally culpable one, as long as it isn't acted upon?

I welcome correction if I've gotten anything wrong. I'm asking more than telling, wishing to be sure I've gotten correct information.

Thank you all.

gzt said:

I'm kind of curious why there is such a difficulty saying that it is possible people are born homosexual.

Click to expand...

There is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that, but the homosexual lobby has much to gain from claiming they are "born that way".

Of course it is possible, just as it is possible that thievery, pride or anger have some genetic cause. Theologically there is no major problem if it were genetic, since we all suffer the consequences of the Fall in different ways.

gzt said:

I'm kind of curious why there is such a difficulty saying that it is possible people are born homosexual.

Click to expand...

that is not the issue as to why it is bad anthropology.

Jesus4Madrid said:

I think that ROCOR issuing this must be rather poignant

Click to expand...

I think the word you're looking for is ironic

Cappadocious said:

I think the word you're looking for is ironic

Click to expand...

actually, it's not ironic if that is in reference to Br Nathaniel, who was only allowed to come back after repenting, going back on medication he needs, and staying under spiritual guidance.

and I am still waiting for evidence of anti-patristic Romanticism in seminaries.

ArmyMatt said:

and I am still waiting for evidence of anti-patristic Romanticism in seminaries.

Click to expand...

Read virtually anything written on the nous

ArmyMatt said:

who was only allowed to come back after repenting, going back on medication he needs, and staying under spiritual guidance.

Click to expand...

I so and he has ceased his ways, then I retract.

Cappadocious said:

Read virtually anything written on the nous

Click to expand...

that does not really answer anything, because there are lots of seminaries out there, and they are not churning out simply books on the nous. you said before you had specific examples.

and simply because books have that, that does not mean that is what is taught in the seminaries. so again, what evidence do you have that romantic anti-patristics are being taught?

Cappadocious said:

I so and he has ceased his ways, then I retract.

Click to expand...

so far, he has been behaving. lots of ROCOR friends think it was when he went off his medication that he went crazy. pray that he stays put.

Cappadocious said:

I think the word you're looking for is ironic

Click to expand...

Well perhaps you thought it ironic or perhaps you were being pedantic. My feeling was that it caused distress to their feelings, so yes poignant.