Creeping Liberalism

[gurneyhalleck1]

Orthodoxy is not just theological, it's moral. At what point do we draw a line? Am I still Orthodox if I advocate for ethnic cleansing, extermination of cultures, killing babies at clinics, or men sodomizing each other and calling it marriage? Sin is one thing, public opinions advocating against the tenets of our faith is another. I think our reluctance to be called "haters" and be considering "judging" is the lukewarm cowardice ruining our church and our times.

It is certainly difficult, but it is not for us mere mortals to blithely state that somebody is unorthodox because they support this or that cause that is directly in conflict with revealed truth.

 

[gzt]

The "this or that cause that is directly in conflict with revealed truth" was supposed to be under the entire conditional umbrella. There are some things that are unequivocally evil and in conflict, others that are more gray and depend on how, exactly, one supports it. As mentioned, there are ways to support the right of gay marriage that do not necessarily or obviously fall afoul the infallible teachings of the Church on faith and morals. I would also say that a layman has quite a bit more latitude to be mistaken than a cleric, and there is quite some time and effort before being mistaken or wrong about Christian theology and morals as a layman makes you into a bad Orthodox or an Orthodox out of communion, and it's not for us here on this message board to draw that line.

 

[All4Christ]

On the other side, there was a girl in our church who was very pro-choice in regards to abortion. She never mentioned his before her chrismation and was never upfront about her beliefs on morality. She was told directly from our priest to stop promoting her beliefs on legal rights of women to have abortions. She would not agree to this, and continued to promote that actively both in and out of church. Eventually, something happened with conversations between her and our priest, with the end result of her getting extremely upset about this, and leaving our church. I don't know if it was a "give this up or else" or if it was a giving up on her side for not being allowed to express herself. In the end, she left the state and went to a more liberal Orthodox parish.

This in my opinion is clearly wrong on multiple points. First off, the morality of abortion affects more than just the woman. Obviously, it also takes the life of the child. Secondly, if you are expressly told to stop, then it is your obligation to follow the directions of your spiritual father. On another note - this is a problem when an Orthodox Christian can disagree with a belief, be chastised about it, and instead of changing their ways, just go to a more liberal church.

 

[gzt]

Secondly, if you are expressly told to stop, then it is your obligation to follow the directions of your spiritual father.

Well, the situation as stated does approach the limits of my stance here, but I have a couple things, most specifically about this statement. First, is this statement really true? I'm skeptical about the level of obedience required to one's parish priest and extent of the parish priest's role as "spiritual father". I am of course not going to second-guess the priest's exercise of his pastoral ministry here - in either case. It's certainly the case that, depending on the exact nature of her advocacy, some discipline is necessary and well-advised, but I don't know if it needs to continuously follow her as I think it would be a pastoral prerogative to treat this rather than, say, something that needs to be referred up for further discipline. And, mind you, there are ways to discipline parishioners that you can't just go to another parish and have it relieved.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

The latter - making claims about the morality of homosexual intercourse - would certainly put somebody on shaky grounds as somebody in dissent about a doctrine, but that is still far from being Orthodox in name only. So the former - supporting some legal rights - is even farther from that, and I don't see where it, by necessity, is incompatible with Orthodox doctrine, since it does not, by necessity, make moral claims contrary to the received teachings of the Orthodox faith.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

Actually, I see what you are saying and I agree that believing in legalised gay marriage is not the same as believing that gay marriage is morally acceptable.

Politically, I am basically libertarian, meaning I think smaller, less intrusive government is generally better. Government has a role to protect life, liberty and property, as per Locke, but little else. So I would get government out of the marriage business.

That nuanced view that you seem to be advocating is, however, fairly uncommon. Too often, those who advocate for the legalisation of gay marriage are really advocating for the legitimisation of gay marriage. They are often the same people who would force a Christian baker to serve a gay marriage.

So I think we Orthodox need to be clear that gay marriage, whether legal (as I would accept) or not, is always wrong. And here, I think you are obfuscating somewhat. Believing a grave sin to be not sin is not just "shaky"--it is unorthodox, which would thus mean one were OINO.

 

[All4Christ]

Well, the situation as stated does approach the limits of my stance here, but I have a couple things, most specifically about this statement. First, is this statement really true? I'm skeptical about the level of obedience required to one's parish priest and extent of the parish priest's role as "spiritual father". I am of course not going to second-guess the priest's exercise of his pastoral ministry here - in either case. It's certainly the case that, depending on the exact nature of her advocacy, some discipline is necessary and well-advised, but I don't know if it needs to continuously follow her as I think it would be a pastoral prerogative to treat this rather than, say, something that needs to be referred up for further discipline. And, mind you, there are ways to discipline parishioners that you can't just go to another parish and have it relieved.

The accuracy of the statement quoted would be more or less accurate depending on the situation. Say, for example, someone is assigned penance of abstaining from the Eucharist for a certain period of time. Shouldn't that follow a person should said person go to another parish? What about different jurisdictions? Does that way to discipline parishioners without them just going to another parish to have it relieved apply to going from, say, an OCA church to a Greek church?

If the purpose of a parishioner moving to another parish (in another diocese) is to relieve their discipline, how can the pastoral ministry be upheld? I have heard that if a bishop assigns penance, the priest must uphold that penance. Does that happen with a priest assigning penance as well? I understand the relationship between a parish priest and a parishioner versus a spiritual father and spiritual child is different. That said, most of us only have a parish priest and do not have another specific spiritual father. I only know a handful of Orthodox Christian laypersons that have a different spiritual father. In my case, for example, I consider my parish priest to also be my spiritual father, as do most of our parish members. How can pastoral care be upheld if one can just skip out on the penance by going to another parish?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Following along.

I can't quite understand some of these things even happening.

Why go to the bother of becoming Orthodox if one does not plan to follow the teachings of the Church? That seems a pretty early question to address.

I'm a little interested in what can happen in various circumstances. All I was told is that if one priest says a person must abstain from the Eucharist (or any other similar directive) in the context of the sacrament of Confession, another priest cannot release one from that obligation. Though I'm told it is possible to appeal to the bishop of the priest that gave the directive, if it really seems something potentially harmful to the penitent. And I know a priest can dismiss a directive he himself has given, if he deems it best?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm just shaking my head. If I received a penance to abstain from the Eucharist for a certain period of time, I could probably (in most cases) go elsewhere and receive it. I have only had two priests so far contact my priest to verify I was Orthodox and in good standing.

But why would I do that? I'm not even sure what the spiritual implications are exactly. But if I believe in the authority of the Church, and I believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of The Lord - how could I possibly dare to approach?

And if I didn't believe, why would it be important enough to me to bother?

I don't get why someone would do it.

 

[All4Christ]

I believe scenarios like this are worse where deception involved. For example, a scenario where one denies that they hold a belief contrary to Orthodoxy and later admits to lying, would be worse than someone who is unaware that it is against the teachings of the church and learns about it afterwards.

The main question I have about penance following someone is the logistics of someone moving between two jurisdictions. Is there any communication regarding that? A person can claim to be Orthodox, have the baptismal cross, know the liturgy, etc. and partake of the Eucharist at another church without the priests discussing it amongst themselves. So is the maintenance of penance only upheld when a person seeks to join a new parish officially?

I haven't had to deal personally with penance between multiple parishes, so I am not sure what happens in most cases like this.

Edited to remove specifics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Amen, sister. Amen.

I'm just shaking my head. If I received a penance to abstain from the Eucharist for a certain period of time, I could probably (in most cases) go elsewhere and receive it. I have only had two priests so far contact my priest to verify I was Orthodox and in good standing.

But why would I do that? I'm not even sure what the spiritual implications are exactly. But if I believe in the authority of the Church, and I believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of The Lord - how could I possibly dare to approach?

And if I didn't believe, why would it be important enough to me to bother?

I don't get why someone would do it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Excellent.

Actually, I see what you are saying and I agree that believing in legalised gay marriage is not the same as believing that gay marriage is morally acceptable.

Politically, I am basically libertarian, meaning I think smaller, less intrusive government is generally better. Government has a role to protect life, liberty and property, as per Locke, but little else. So I would get government out of the marriage business.

That nuanced view that you seem to be advocating is, however, fairly uncommon. Too often, those who advocate for the legalisation of gay marriage are really advocating for the legitimisation of gay marriage. They are often the same people who would force a Christian baker to serve a gay marriage.

So I think we Orthodox need to be clear that gay marriage, whether legal (as I would accept) or not, is always wrong. And here, I think you are obfuscating somewhat. Believing a grave sin to be not sin is not just "shaky"--it is unorthodox, which would thus mean one were OINO.

 

[gzt]

I think all of this discussion requires knowing conditions that we do not know the answer to. Yes, if you're given a penance, you're supposed to abide by it and it cannot, generally be relieved by somebody else, though you are somewhat on the "honor system" since priests generally cannot follow up on every individual's situation.

We do not know the exact terms under which this lady was given discipline or penance, however. Nor should we.

Deception is indeed a grave matter. I don't know if one can read that person's heart and know for certain, however, that they did not believe in good faith they were acting in accordance with the moral teaching of the Orthodox Church. It's a matter for somebody who is not on a message to investigate.

 

[gzt]

That nuanced view that you seem to be advocating is, however, fairly uncommon. Too often, those who advocate for the legalisation of gay marriage are really advocating for the legitimisation of gay marriage. They are often the same people who would force a Christian baker to serve a gay marriage.

So I think we Orthodox need to be clear that gay marriage, whether legal (as I would accept) or not, is always wrong. And here, I think you are obfuscating somewhat. Believing a grave sin to be not sin is not just "shaky"--it is unorthodox, which would thus mean one were OINO.

Be very careful with what you are saying. I am not advocating for any position here. I am pointing out that there are positions which advocate for the legality of gay marriage which do not obviously transgress against the moral teachings of the Orthodox Church.

Being mistaken and wrong about one of the beliefs of the Orthodox Church is not enough to make one "Orthodox in name only" - this is a weighty judgment to throw against somebody and you are not the one to make it.

 

[All4Christ]

I think all of this discussion requires knowing conditions that we do not know the answer to. Yes, if you're given a penance, you're supposed to abide by it and it cannot, generally be relieved by somebody else, though you are somewhat on the "honor system" since priests generally cannot follow up on every individual's situation.

We do not know the exact terms under which this lady was given discipline or penance, however. Nor should we.

Deception is indeed a grave matter. I don't know if one can read that person's heart and know for certain, however, that they did not believe in good faith they were acting in accordance with the moral teaching of the Orthodox Church. It's a matter for somebody who is not on a message to investigate.

Please don't think that I'm am trying to judge her or investigate her; I have been debating (after posting) whether it was the best idea to even post the scenario (after all, this is a public forum). I do know some things first hand, but as you say, this is not the place for that. If anything, prayers for the situation are appreciated.

My questions however about penance is out of me not knowing what really happens with that, and out of curiosity to learn how that is typically dealt with by the church. I am by no means implying that I know exactly what happened in the pastoral care with her, but it is a relevant situation to the discussion. Perhaps we could consider this to be a hypothetical situation instead of a specific one?

 

[All4Christ]

I'm going to avoid saying anymore specifics about this situation as I feel that I have said too much already. I originally meant to explain the situation purely as an example of what would be past an acceptable limit. My posts afterwards were beyond what I feel I should have shared.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I have two random questions that the talk of Mr. Hanks and his conversion brought up. 1) Why would the church allow someone to convert for marriage purposes instead of actual belief purposes? What happened to time spent as a catechumen? 2) Tom Hanks was married before, but it was his wife's first marriage - is that marriage sacramental? Do marriages prior to conversion not count?

 

[gzt]

When somebody converts, it is for actual belief.

The Church does, in certain circumstances, allow people to remarry after divorce (see some other thread).

 

[gzt]

As for the person's situation, we don't know what the priest suggested. If the priest said, "As long as you're doing X or Y, you cannot take communion," I don't think that's the sort of thing that follows them around if they move to a new parish and their new priest says differently. If they say, "You cannot commune for 6 months," that would follow them around. If the bishop formally excommunicates them, then that follows them around as well.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

How does it follow them around? How does a new parish find out someone has been excommunicated in a different parish? Is it published somewhere?

 

[gzt]

No, it is not published. It follows them around in the sense that they're still bound by it, but there isn't going to be some enforcement for, say, a priest giving a six week penance to a communicant. As I said, there's somewhat of an honor system. But generally when somebody moves from point A to point B, somebody is supposed to be a member of a specific parish at any time, and there is supposed to be some contact between the new parish priest and the old parish priest or something. If the bishop excommunicates them, then, of course, the diocese would have a record. That is a much more serious thing than the other two examples I gave.