Pope Francis Allows Clergy to Bless Same-Sex Couples

[Euthymios]

I don't get that. Do you think priests are that much better than other people? That's dangerous thinking, the stuff of enabling abuse.

And I think the notion that gay people are particularly depraved just is absurd, in my experience. It's a kind of spiritual blindness.

Because a homosexual has reached an exceptional level of depravity. I feel like these men have no business guiding anyone on spiritual life. Also, clergy handle the Holy Eucharist and conduct divine liturgies. This is not for everyone. I don't follow your reasoning that it enables abuse.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In today's news.

Pope says document on blessings makes clear the Gospel is for all

As people continue to react to a Vatican document on informal blessings, Pope Francis again explains its meaning and purpose....

www.usccb.org

 

[Euthymios]

CHURCH CANONS

Those who have been sodomized cannot be clergy (St. John the Faster's CANON XIX)

Sodomites excommunicated and deposed (St. Basil's CANON VII; See also, St. Basil's Canon LXII; St. John the Faster's Canon XVIII)

Fornicators excommunicated and deposed (Apostolic Canon 25; Saint Basil's Canon 3; Saint John the Faster's Canon XII)

Those who do not report such sins of others, but conceal them receive the same penalties (St. John the Faster's CANON XXV)

 

[Dewi Sant]

CHURCH CANONS

Those who have been sodomized cannot be clergy (St. John the Faster's CANON XIX)

Sodomites excommunicated and deposed (St. Basil's CANON VII; See also, St. Basil's Canon LXII; St. John the Faster's Canon XVIII)

Fornicators excommunicated and deposed (Apostolic Canon 25; Saint Basil's Canon 3; Saint John the Faster's Canon XII)

Those who do not report such sins of others, but conceal them receive the same penalties (St. John the Faster's CANON XXV)

A harsh reading of the Canons would dispose of many saints, and those who many consider saints.
I think here of a young man who in the 1960s cruised the streets of San Francisco in pursuit of same-sex love, and ultimately gave himself over to a greater love, that is Christ and the institution of monasticism.

Perhaps his priesthood was invalid if we take St John the Faster literally at his word.

 

[RileyG]

A harsh reading of the Canons would dispose of many saints, and those who many consider saints.
I think here of a young man who in the 1960s cruised the streets of San Francisco in pursuit of same-sex love, and ultimately gave himself over to a greater love, that is Christ and the institution of monasticism.

Perhaps his priesthood was invalid if we take St John the Faster literally at his word.

What about father seraphim rose?

 

[Dewi Sant]

What about father seraphim rose?

the point I was trying to establish is that we ought to be careful when applying the canons too rigorously, lest we sweep away men of such devotion as we see and read in Fr Seraphim of Platina.

 

[RileyG]

the point I was trying to establish is that we ought to be careful when applying the canons too rigorously, lest we sweep away men of such devotion as we see and read in Fr Seraphim of Platina.

If a man committed homosexual acts, but went to confession and was absolved, can he become a monk or priest?

 

[Dewi Sant]

If a man committed homosexual acts, but went to confession and was absolved, can he become a monk or priest?

I sincerely hope so.
God is merciful, society, not so much.
If the man committed the sin in a public manner which degrades his character, it may be prudent of the church not to elect him to the office of presbyter, lest he cause scandal. This is a sort of 'worst case' scenario. Regardless, with true contrition, confession, and repentance, the man would be thoroughly absolved from his sin, but people are not so forgiving as God and therein lies potential difficulties.

Usually I would say 'ask your priest', but this may be an 'ask your bishop' question.

As far as I am aware, Fr Seraphim broke from his old life before his reception into the Orthodox church and he was never public about his homosexuality (how much simpler it was before Twitter/Instagram etc. and digital photographs).

 

[Euthymios]

A harsh reading of the Canons would dispose of many saints, and those who many consider saints.
I think here of a young man who in the 1960s cruised the streets of San Francisco in pursuit of same-sex love, and ultimately gave himself over to a greater love, that is Christ and the institution of monasticism.

Perhaps his priesthood was invalid if we take St John the Faster literally at his word.

That's appeal to consequence, which is a fallacy. Church teaching is what it is. The Modernists today have no regard for the Canons, for Scripture or for the Tradition of the Church. I'm not accusing you of Modernism. The young man you speak of committed his sins before baptism. These canons would apply to men who were actually Orthodox Christians when they committed their sins. But it's unclear to me if Saint John the Faster's Canon XIX is referring exclusively to Orthodox Christians or anyone.

 

[Euthymios]

I sincerely hope so.
God is merciful, society, not so much.
If the man committed the sin in a public manner which degrades his character, it may be prudent of the church not to elect him to the office of presbyter, lest he cause scandal. This is a sort of 'worst case' scenario. Regardless, with true contrition, confession, and repentance, the man would be thoroughly absolved from his sin, but people are not so forgiving as God and therein lies potential difficulties.

Usually I would say 'ask your priest', but this may be an 'ask your bishop' question.

As far as I am aware, Fr Seraphim broke from his old life before his reception into the Orthodox church and he was never public about his homosexuality (how much simpler it was before Twitter/Instagram etc. and digital photographs).

the point I was trying to establish is that we ought to be careful when applying the canons too rigorously, lest we sweep away men of such devotion as we see and read in Fr Seraphim of Platina.

So, whenever anyone doesn't like a Canon, all they have to do is claim that it's being interpreted too rigorously? How convenient and arbitrary. What criteria would one use to make this determination? You either believe in the teachings of the Canons or you don't.