Kallistos Ware Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage

[GregConstantine]

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

Those are great questions, I for one think the Church across the board does not deal with sexual sins very well, very consistently, or very clearly. I think that's partly why we are seeing this phenomena. I said before that this will continue to be a problem until we hear very clear, unambiguous, decisive actions and words from our hierarchs. Not just about homosexuality, but across the board, pre-marital sex, pornography, divorce, marrying outside the Church, etc. Most of the time, you either hear crickets chirping, or a recycled enclyclical from a decade or two ago. There is also no active ministries reaching out to and supporting people struggling with these passions, nor are there any obvious consequences to them.

The difference here though, is that we not really seeing or hearing any hierarchs talking about say, pre-marital sex in the same way Ware is speaking about homosexuality. That is why it would appear that more attention is being given to one passion over another.

 

[All4Christ]

Those are great questions, I for one think the Church across the board does not deal with sexual sins very well, very consistently, or very clearly. I think that's partly why we are seeing this phenomena. I said before that this will continue to be a problem until we hear very clear, unambiguous, decisive actions and words from our hierarchs. Not just about homosexuality, but across the board, pre-marital sex, pornography, divorce, marrying outside the Church, etc. Most of the time, you either hear crickets chirping, or a recycled enclyclical from a decade or two ago. There is also no active ministries reaching out to and supporting people struggling with these passions, nor are there any obvious consequences to them.

The difference here though, is that we not really seeing or hearing any hierarchs talking about say, pre-marital sex in the same way Ware is speaking about homosexuality. That is why it would appear that more attention is being given to one passion over another.

Yes, I see what you mean, and agree. I do have a concern about the final point though. What concerns me though is that we don’t even hear anything about the other things except for the church fathers. It is for the most part ignored and not discussed. Is it even worse for it to happen and not hear anything at all about it? We’ve heard about abortion, same sex marriage, etc from the pulpit - but has anyone heard sermons that reference pre-marital sex or pornography in a sermon? Is it worse to have an implicit acceptance by virtue of silence (not saying we are, but it could be interpreted that way) than it is to have a public denunciation by many hierarchy and a few that are ambiguous or for it?

As a convert, we learned about these topics - and those who attend the catechism classes (which are open to everyone) learn about it, but I know some have come up with rationalizations thinking that those scriptures don’t apply to everyone. Would it be different if it was discussed more often by the Church?

Just some thoughts.

 

[GregConstantine]

Yes, I see what you mean, and agree. I do have a concern about the final point though. What concerns me though is that we don’t even hear anything about the other things except for the church fathers. It is for the most part ignored and not discussed. Is it even worse for it to happen and not hear anything at all about it? We’ve heard about abortion, same sex marriage, etc from the pulpit - but has anyone heard sermons that reference pre-marital sex or pornography in a sermon? Is it worse to have an implicit acceptance by virtue of silence (not saying we are, but it could be interpreted that way) than it is to have a public denunciation by many hierarchy and a few that are ambiguous or for it?

As a convert, we learned about these topics - and those who attend the catechism classes (which are open to everyone) learn about it, but I know some have come up with rationalizations thinking that those scriptures don’t apply to everyone. Would it be different if it was discussed more often by the Church?

Just some thoughts.

Yes, I would add that it isn't just the silence alone, but the lack of action and consequences. That as the saying goes, speaks louder than words.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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?

I think I understand the problem.

A person can be one who goes out on a regular basis and meets different people and has sexual intercourse with them (if really doesn't matter whether same or opposite sex - for the sake of this particular distinction). This can be habitual, and it is sin. But they can come to Confession and they can repent, and they can say (and really mean) they have no intention of doing it again. And then they can go out and do it again. I'm no priest of course, but it seems to me that this particular sin is one that takes a number of intentional steps to accomplish so ... at some point I'm thinking behavior would show if a person was really at least trying to not fall into sin.

But a person who is in a relationship but unmarried, especially cohabiting, and routinely having sexual intercourse - if they truly repent and really agree that to be having intercourse outside of marriage IS a sin, then their repentance would more likely include no longer living together. It's more costly in terms of finances, action necessary to take, and real change within an established relationship. And if they have no intention to stop the sexual relationship or marry - then how can they claim true repentance? It's harder for them to demonstrate.

So it might be possible to say that we require more action on the part of one who is in a "committed relationship" because we are requiring them to redefine that relationship in some way.

But in truth, repentance is the same for either. It just looks different because of their particular life circumstances.

 

[narnia59]

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.

Thank you for your answer. It just struck me as very odd that he would be contrasting the two and saying the Orthodox Church would be seen as being much more 'harsh' with one and not the other, because that had to mean that the person who was routinely involved with different people could just go to confession, continue with those choices and all be well. It sounds like that is not reality (thankfully). But if so, then it does seem like a deliberate attempt by him to create a false contrast in order to plant a seed in peoples minds that, as he says, 'something has gone wrong here', which then implies that something needs to be fixed. If people accept the premise that the Orthodox Church needs to 'fix' something in this regard, then it starts down a path away from what is known to be true.

You are not alone in having the problem you describe. Faithful Catholics are in the same boat. And we have some leaders who do the same thing. In general they won't come out explicitly against the teaching of the Church. But they sow seeds, often very subtlely. And in my opinion they're more dangerous than if they just came out and blatantly said it.

 

[archer75]

@All4Christ , it seems to me that there is a very vocal group in the OC in the USA to treat the Church not as a hospital for sinners, but as a "cover" for genuine hatred - sometimes of others, sometimes of self. Under that cover (talk of love, compassion, repentance, formulaic phrases that we all know), the passions of hatred, rage, destruction, and obsession with sex can run unchecked. No need to confess them, since they all wear the mask of "zeal for Orthodoxy."

In an instance I know of personally, it has gotten to the point where - to a human observer, not to God, who looks on the heart - the person so afflicted appears to have been replaced completely by these passions.

Judging by some of what you read on the Orthodox Internet, that isn't the only instance.

Why should this happen with such regularity with reference to the matter discussed here, and not to the other matters you brought up?

Regardless of contemporary notions of "sexual identity" that are so often spat upon with delight around here, it does seem that matters of sexually-tinged attraction, which many people experience in some form from quite an early age, really "hit home" for many people and are experienced and thought of as a matter very close to the heart. If one tends to feel attraction to men or women or brunettes or whoever, that sort of thing tends to be repeated many many times and is a significant factor in how we locate ourselves in the world and in social situations. To a greater degree than our jobs or clothes or many other things...it feels like "us." Hence, the tremendous emotional energy on both sides of the social "debate." "This is WHO I AM..." "NO NO NO IT IS NOT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE..."

Actual actions taken, however - stealing, using porn, sleeping with a given person when you aren't supposed to - can felt felt as just so much random material of life, things that might as well have not happened - "meh." And so these actions can easily not be confessed, or confessed and absolved again and again and again, or just swept into a dustbin labeled "pastoral accommodation for me, but not for thee."

 

[narnia59]

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.

I think sometimes it's even difficult for the person to know if they really intend to change and how strong their resolve is. Pastoral care is definitely needed to help encourage and also to question their sincerity if that's what is needed.

 

[narnia59]

I think I understand the problem.

A person can be one who goes out on a regular basis and meets different people and has sexual intercourse with them (if really doesn't matter whether same or opposite sex - for the sake of this particular distinction). This can be habitual, and it is sin. But they can come to Confession and they can repent, and they can say (and really mean) they have no intention of doing it again. And then they can go out and do it again. I'm no priest of course, but it seems to me that this particular sin is one that takes a number of intentional steps to accomplish so ... at some point I'm thinking behavior would show if a person was really at least trying to not fall into sin.

But a person who is in a relationship but unmarried, especially cohabiting, and routinely having sexual intercourse - if they truly repent and really agree that to be having intercourse outside of marriage IS a sin, then their repentance would more likely include no longer living together. It's more costly in terms of finances, action necessary to take, and real change within an established relationship. And if they have no intention to stop the sexual relationship or marry - then how can they claim true repentance? It's harder for them to demonstrate.

So it might be possible to say that we require more action on the part of one who is in a "committed relationship" because we are requiring them to redefine that relationship in some way.

But in truth, repentance is the same for either. It just looks different because of their particular life circumstances.

Those are very good thoughts and you are correct, it may be more costly for them to demonstrate at that point for many reasons. I just don't see his point about the Orthodox Church being more harsh with one than the other.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those are very good thoughts and you are correct, it may be more costly for them to demonstrate at that point for many reasons. I just don't see his point about the Orthodox Church being more harsh with one than the other.

I agree that it is not more harsh. I had to think about it for a while though - on the surface it can sound reasonable.

But that's not really what happens.

And there I'm publicly disagreeing with the Metropolitan, which I'd rather just discuss ideas than speak against persons. But I guess there it is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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

we certainly should.

 

[FenderTL5]

It just struck me as very odd that he would be contrasting the two and saying the Orthodox Church would be seen as being much more 'harsh' with one and not the other..

Not really intending to be the contrarian here, but I agree with the Metropolitan that one is being treated more harshly than the other.
However, I think that harshness is what is required.
The more entrenched the sin, the more intermingled with other people and society the more difficult it becomes to be addressed. So yes, the one who commits a 1x act, repents and is given absolution is treated less severely than the one who literally takes up household with the sin.

 

[archer75]

Not really intending to be the contrarian here, but I agree with the Metropolitan that one is being treated more harshly than the other.
However, I think that harshness is what is required.
The more entrenched the sin, the more intermingled with other people and society the more difficult it becomes to be addressed. So yes, the one who commits a 1x act, repents and is given absolution is treated less severely than the one who literally takes up household with the sin.

Though I do wonder about the instances of 1x and 1x and 1x and 1x and 1x...that in some cases could add up to many more "acts" in a given timespan than those performed by people living together. Which brings us back to another sub-thread here - wondering how that is handled pastorally.

 

[rusmeister]

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.

So do you accept that “homophobia” - presumably an irrational and uncontrollable fear of.... what? Sodomy? The people who practice it? How many people, at the sight of a declared “homosexual” have you ever seen that shriek and curl into a little ball, unable to move, but only shiver, crying unintelligible words?

Seriously, the fact that the world repeats new words doesn’t mean that they express truth.

But if people are insanely harsh toward the sin of sodomy, and wish to treat it as no other sin is treated, which is the nearest rational idea I can find behind that false word, then I would agree that counseling is called for.

 

[rusmeister]

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

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

Agreed.
And false witness includes deceptive language that seeks to normalize sin as not-sin. That is surely bearing false witness.

 

[rusmeister]

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.

I completely agree. What I am kicking against is the deadly combination of using modern terminology never used by the fathers, loaded with evil euphemisms and lies, together with a form of compassion that does not love sinners enough to exhort them to repentance, but seeks to normalize deadly passions. That goes for all sexual sin, but above all the ones the world is foisting on us as normal and good.

 

[archer75]

So do you accept that “homophobia” - presumably an irrational and uncontrollable fear of.... what? Sodomy? The people who practice it? How many people, at the sight of a declared “homosexual” have you ever seen that shriek and curl into a little ball, unable to move, but only shiver, crying unintelligible words?

Seriously, the fact that the world repeats new words doesn’t mean that they express truth.

But if people are insanely harsh toward the sin of sodomy, and wish to treat it as no other sin is treated, which is the nearest rational idea I can find behind that false word, then I would agree that counseling is called for.

Rus, I agree with the notion (which I think I can attribute to you) that the term "homophobia" is tossed around at least a little too freely in certain circles. And of course we won't mention its odd etymology.

That said, fear is not expressed only by the cartoonish expressions of fear that you mention. Fear can also be expressed through social (or sensory) hypervigilance regarding the very fact of someone or something, hypervigilance that allocates to itself far more resources and energies that could possible be justified.

Some spiders are quite dangerous, and it is prudent to give them a wide berth. But a serious arachnophobe can turn it into their life's work.

In that sense, I have known several homophobes.

Armchair psychology about why someone would become so focused on the fact of same-sex sexual activity is, I guess, well outside the purpose of this thread.

But there is a real-world referent that that term can describe. Using that word - as it is sometimes used - in that way does express truth.

 

[archer75]

I completely agree. What I am kicking against is the deadly combination of using modern terminology never used by the fathers, loaded with evil euphemisms and lies, together with a form of compassion that does not love sinners enough to exhort them to repentance, but seeks to normalize deadly passions. That goes for all sexual sin, but above all the ones the world is foisting on us as normal and good.

As it seems to me, the ones @All4Christ mentioned are even MORE normalized, to the point where practically no one cares anymore. So - I dunno about pastoral choices - but it surprises me that they aren't on the front burner.

 

[Anto9us]

what if Ware is RIGHT ?

 

[ArmyMatt]

what if Ware is RIGHT ?

in what way?

 

[gzt]

what if Ware is RIGHT ?

I mean, he's not asserting much, he's certainly not asserting what the defamatory title of this post states. He's mostly pointing out some questions that will be discussed in the issue of the journal he's writing the forward to.