Kallistos Ware Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage

[GregConstantine]

Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

 

[dzheremi]

Lord have mercy.

 

[Glaucus]

Huh, I just posted this thread here offering my thoughts. He's probably thinking similarly in many ways.

Homosexuality, Same Sex Marriage, and Why You're Wrong

 

[GregConstantine]

Huh, I just posted this thread here offering my thoughts. He's probably thinking similarly in many ways.

Homosexuality, Same Sex Marriage, and Why You're Wrong

This is not a political issue. It doesn't matter what the US or any other country says or what laws it makes. This is a serious pastoral issue, a doctrinal issue, and it has to do with the life of the Church and the Kingdom of God.

 

[Humble me Lord]

Sorry to butt in guys, but I thought Kallistos Ware was an NBA or NFL player, until I clicked the link.

 

[archer75]

Thanks for posting this.

I read it, and now I find the the title misleading.

The (obviously) "decorated" photograph of Met. Kallistos seems not only ridiculous on the face of it, but especially offensive given the Metropolitan's life of service to the Church. A rainbow pin is applied to him in an unflattering photograph, making the suggestion that he has, in retirement, willy-nilly chosen to associate himself whole hog with a certain social movement. I see no evidence for such in the piece that he wrote.

I guess to me the question is: why is such spit-in-your-face hatefulness approved so widely on the Orthodox Internet?

 

[Phronema]

Thanks for posting this.

I read it, and now I find the the title misleading.

The (obviously) "decorated" photograph of Met. Kallistos seems not only ridiculous on the face of it, but especially offensive given the Metropolitan's life of service to the Church. A rainbow pin is applied to him in an unflattering photograph, making the suggestion that he has, in retirement, willy-nilly chosen to associate himself whole hog with a certain social movement. I see no evidence for such in the piece that he wrote.

I guess to me the question is: why is such spit-in-your-face hatefulness approved so widely on the Orthodox Internet?

I thought I missed something in the quoted piece that he wrote. I see nothing there that suggests that he has either.

 

[Principal Moo]

The link is now forbidden.

In the future, can we provide a summary of what’s in the link so that we can know what’s being said?

 

[archer75]

The link is now forbidden.

In the future, can we provide a summary of what’s in the link so that we can know what’s being said?

What does it mean that the link is forbidden? It works for me still.

As an addendum to my earlier post...the headlines says that he "comes out" for homosexual marriage. Well, one, he doesn't. And two, the term "comes out" -especially with the photoshopped rainbow pin - suggests that he has "come out" - openly identified himself as homosexual / gay. Obviously, this isn't so. The purpose of this is to push the emotional buttons of persons who are easily aroused by such things and to prime them to think "Ware is a crazy homosexual who has betrayed the Church!" In other words - the goal of the article seems to be to inflame the passions by grossly misleading the reader.

 

[archer75]

The link is now forbidden.

In the future, can we provide a summary of what’s in the link so that we can know what’s being said?

What does it mean that the link is forbidden? It works for me still.

As an addendum to my earlier post...the headlines says that he "comes out" for homosexual marriage. Well, one, he doesn't. And two, the term "comes out" -especially with the photoshopped rainbow pin - suggests that he has "come out" - openly identified himself as homosexual / gay. Obviously, this isn't so. The purpose of this is to push the emotional buttons of persons who are easily aroused by such things and to prime them to think "Ware is a crazy homosexual who has betrayed the Church!" In other words - the goal of the article seems to be to inflame the passions by grossly misleading the reader.

 

[TuxAme]

Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, “A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.” Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?

Wow. Lots of heterosexual people lead chaste lives- some even live celibate ones- but it's an "unfair burden" to ask homosexuals to live the same way?

Orthodox-in-name-only.

 

[Phronema]

The link is now forbidden.

In the future, can we provide a summary of what’s in the link so that we can know what’s being said?

Here is a direct link to the piece the Metropolitan wrote. It's from a link inside the original link's article. The original link is about what archer posted above.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...4a767c66c7f/1528405608178/#13:14+Foreword.pdf

 

[Principal Moo]

What does it mean that the link is forbidden? It works for me still.

As an addendum to my earlier post...the headlines says that he "comes out" for homosexual marriage. Well, one, he doesn't. And two, the term "comes out" -especially with the photoshopped rainbow pin - suggests that he has "come out" - openly identified himself as homosexual / gay. Obviously, this isn't so. The purpose of this is to push the emotional buttons of persons who are easily aroused by such things and to prime them to think "Ware is a crazy homosexual who has betrayed the Church!" In other words - the goal of the article seems to be to inflame the passions by grossly misleading the reader.

Thanks for this. When I click on the link, it says that I do not have permission to view the blog.

The title suggests that Ware is now in favor of homosexual marriage. Without being able to read the article, it’s difficult to tell what’s in the article.

 

[Normand]

Here's a working link. Is this actually real though? Though the title is indeed misleading the content is nonetheless explicitly unorthodox, to the point that he could be deposed for having expressing such opinions.

His words from the article:

"Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, “A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.” Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?
...
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.
...
Why do we put so great an emphasis upon genital sex? Why do we seek to enquire what adult persons of the same sex are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms? Trying to gaze through the keyhole is never a dignified posture. What harm are they doing to others? (“Ah!” it will be said, “they are doing harm to themselves.”) I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it.
...
In the words of Brandon Gallaher, “To ascertain the truth we must experiment.” And as Vasileios Thermos maintains, “Our theological treasury . . . is waiting to be discovered.” Let us not as Orthodox be merely defensive and reactive, “running after the facts,” as he puts it; but let us listen to one another with creative courage, with mutual respect and, more than that, with (in his own words again) “loving compassion.” Let us acknowledge, moreover, the variety of paths that God calls us human beings to follow."

Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

 

[dzheremi]

While I don't read it as though he has actually come out and endorsed homosexual unions (and I think it rather unfair to stretch his words to make them seem like more than they are), I still wince at the idea that does seem to be advanced in them that traditional Christian anthropology somehow equates to obsession with "genital sex". H.E. does write the following:

There is a third question which we have to ask ourselves. The Orthodox tradition teaches clearly that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are not permitted. Yet at the same time, most of us recognise authentic spiritual value in deep friendships between such persons, even passionate friendships such as that formed by Father Pavel Florensky (see Giacomo Sanflippo’s contribution to this issue). Why do we put so great an emphasis upon genital sex? Why do we seek to enquire what adult persons of the same sex are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms? Trying to gaze through the keyhole is never a dignifed posture. What harm are they doing to others? (“Ah!” it will be said, “they are doing harm to themselves.”) I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it.​

+++

An obvious answer to this kind of thinking would be that same-sex friendships and same-sex 'marriage' are not the same thing, or at least can be reasonably said to differ in one important aspect that H.E. is saying that the more traditional among you are "obsessing" over. Were that not the case, then there would be essentially no difference between actually being married to someone and just being their very good friend who perhaps loves them passionately (though this is perhaps a curious choice of words, what with the ascetic drive being nourished in order that we might gain mastery over the passions and submit the body and the soul to Christ our God; is that supposed to go out the window or be lessened because the homosexual has a burden that the heterosexual does not have? So too the priest has burdens that the layman doesn't have...is the priest not then supposed to abstain when the Church says he must? And so on and so forth).

So to what extent is this really a case of EO 'obsession' over something, and to what extent is it due to the nature of the thing that is after all entered into so that its participants may not "burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:8-10)?

I'm sorry...I really hope I am not taken to be actively criticizing one of your metropolitans, as my point is more that in the context of asking that more rigorous inquiry be made into the reasons for things, it is also good to ask that more rigorous thought be put into what can be seen as objections to established practice, so as to not (perhaps unwittingly) be cast into the role of a person who is reevaluating that which cannot change for less-than-deep reasons.

Yes, celibacy is hard. Yes, people who experience same-sex attraction are people and they very much deserve love, mercy, and respect in dealing with their struggle against the passions. It just gives me pause to see anyone, of any rank and in any traditional church as I Know the EO are, frame these perfectly fine sentiments in ways that seem so negative towards his own Church. Why is it like this?

Or am I getting a wrong picture from being on the outside looking in, and in fact it is more common to see the flipside of this kind of talk -- i.e., statements regarding what people can do to conform themselves to the Church and its faith and belief regarding this issue -- than the kinds of statements we find from H.E. in the piece he wrote? That would be good to know.

As it is, while the story in the OP might take liberties, the actual linked writing itself is enough to make me wonder. The stated aim of "initiating discussion" seems to often be a code-phrase in more liberally-minded circles for "advocating for things we already know that the Church does not accept" (note: not saying that H.E. is doing that, but that he does write that this is the point of the issue in question, even as he does not agree with all of the contributors' stances), which I highly doubt any faithful EO would be very happy to entertain. And besides, even without taking it that far, such a discussion can definitely be had without this "Why are we so terrible?" hand-wringing, can it not?

I don't know. Maybe I'm overly sensitive. It's not even my Church (though I have no doubt that's coming to our doorstep soon enough, as more and more Copts are raised in the west), but still...discussions of anthropology and such don't strike me as very malleable. We are created in the image of God, not the 'pop-equality' fashion of the time.

 

[archer75]

@Normand , can I ask what in the content of the Metropolitan's text that you quoted is ground for deposing him?

 

[buzuxi02]

Kallistos Ware has always said strange things. Along with a penchant of never having a definite stance on Church teaching. He has always been in Anglican mode "unsure" of what the Church teaches.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Christ have mercy. I get the feeling that we will continue to see and hear men we should be looking up to go soft or squishy on issues of the family, sexual ethics, restraint, and celibacy. Across the board. Pray. For the genuinely confused. And those who seek to confuse others.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Mercy should never try to lessen the reality of sin. That is not mercy. That is foolish.

 

[archer75]

Kallistos Ware has always said strange things. Along with a penchant of never having a definite stance on Church teaching. He has always been in Anglican mode "unsure" of what the Church teaches.

Even if that's so, it seems no reason to misrepresent him.