ROCOR responds on Sr. Vassa

[jckstraw72]

I'm confused - are Orthodox people not allowed to "debate" amongst themselves in the main forum?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm confused - are Orthodox people not allowed to "debate" amongst themselves in the main forum?

That's correct, jckstraw. The way the rules are written, it's meant to be s no-debate forum.

There's a bit of overlap between discussion and debate, and discussion sometimes naturally flows in that direction. It really is not the intention to shut that down.

Part of the reason it was necessary to put a hold on this thread is recent activity in TAW surrounding this topic in particular. It has been affecting the interaction in TAW and generating a lot of reports.

I think most topics will be fine to discuss in TAW. There may be a few topics that should start out in St. Justin's.

If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to let myself or one of the other ambassadors or someone on staff know. Those of us who post in TAW are especially interested in making sure the forum serves both members and visitors well, and any input that helps us do that is appreciated.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am not yet Orthodox, and I realize my thinking is probably not very clear, so please correct me if anything I say is wrong or incomplete.
If someone identifies themselves as homosexual or heterosexual it seems to me that they are identifying themselves with their passions. This is certainly sin, "missing the mark. " If you are in Christ how can you find your identity anywhere but in Him.

Confession certainly must involve repentance, but repentance is something that must be in all of life. Sickness and
suffering are in the world because of sin. So whether I suffer from lust or envy or anger, cancer or asthma or gout, or even if
by His grace I gain victory over my passions, in all things I must repent, turn to the Lord who is my salvation.

Hello peregrinus2017, and welcome to CF and to TAW!

Generally speaking, I don't see anything wrong in your understanding, though some others may be able to delve deeper into nuances.

I'm kind of reserving my opinion/reply on the idea of confession/illness. I THINK I understand what is being said and would agree, if what I'm understanding is the intended meaning. But I'm not sure we've really nailed that part down yet.

As to identifying oneself as our sin, I do think that's a key point here. If Fred often lusts after his neighbor's wife, and has committed adultery with her, then he is an adulterer. But yet he doesn't likely identify with it, meeting people and saying, "I'm Fred, I'm an adulterer." And if he manages to stop the acting out on the desire, but still is attracted to his neighbor's wife, he doesn't go through life still identifying himself as "I am Fred, I am male, I am an adulterer" as part of his identity.

Yet we often treat same-sex attraction that way. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is close enough that it makes me wonder.

You picked an interesting thread for your introduction.

Again, welcome, and if you have any questions about the forums, please feel free to ask.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not yet Orthodox, and I realize my thinking is probably not very clear, so please correct me if anything I say is wrong or incomplete.
If someone identifies themselves as homosexual or heterosexual it seems to me that they are identifying themselves with their passions. This is certainly sin, "missing the mark. " If you are in Christ how can you find your identity anywhere but in Him.

Confession certainly must involve repentance, but repentance is something that must be in all of life. Sickness and
suffering are in the world because of sin. So whether I suffer from lust or envy or anger, cancer or asthma or gout, or even if
by His grace I gain victory over my passions, in all things I must repent, turn to the Lord who is my salvation.

I think you nailed what I was trying to say, much better than I did, so thanks!

and welcome to TAW!

 

[gzt]

If someone identifies themselves as homosexual or heterosexual it seems to me that they are identifying themselves with their passions. This is certainly sin, "missing the mark. " If you are in Christ how can you find your identity anywhere but in Him.

I don't think interpreting saying somebody "is homosexual" as "identifying themselves with their passions" is in any way a de fide opinion among the Orthodox. Somebody can certainly be described as homosexual without implying in any way they find their identity in anything other than Christ.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't think interpreting saying somebody "is homosexual" as "identifying themselves with their passions" is in any way a de fide opinion among the Orthodox. Somebody can certainly be described as homosexual without implying in any way they find their identity in anything other than Christ.

I tend to agree that people can be described as something while still having their identity in Christ. I tried to ask this earlier. Is it wrong as an Orthodox Christian who is dependent on alcohol to call himself / herself an alcoholic - while still holding his or her identity in Christ? Can we use words like that as a description- but not an identity?

For example, if an Orthodox Christian is in an AA group...he or she will always state "Hi I am xxx, and I am an alcoholic". Is that wrong? What about addicts? Adulterer? Etc.?

Likewise - regarding identity, though not related to our passions, I am a wife, I'd like to be a mother, I am a computer programmer, I am a dancer, etc., but I identify myself with Christ, despite having other ways I describe myself.

Those passions- or even good things that describe us - are not what control us. We now have Christ to guide us and we are new again. They still can describe us though.

 

[gzt]

Exactly.

It's also bad policy to liken homosexuality to alcoholism or adultery for a variety of reasons. It's more like being left-handed. I mean, you can't be an alcoholic without ever drinking, the more you drink the more likely it is you will become an alcoholic, there are courses of action that both prevent or have a reasonable probability of curing alcoholism...

 

[All4Christ]

Exactly.

It's also bad policy to liken homosexuality to alcoholism or adultery for a variety of reasons. It's more like being left-handed. I mean, you can't be an alcoholic without ever drinking, the more you drink the more likely it is you will become an alcoholic, there are courses of action that both prevent or have a reasonable probability of curing alcoholism...

There are some people who have a biological dependency and likelihood of being an alcoholic though. It isn't always cured - but rather is handled by abstaining. I'm not saying it is identical, but it is a result of the fall. Some have a serious tendency and likelihood to become an alcoholic if they indulge in any drink...which they don't know before that. They both can result in the passions. Having a predisposition to become an alcoholic is similar to having a predisposition to SSA. Again - not identical - but related.

 

[gzt]

Sure, but you won't ever become an alcoholic if you never touch a drop of alcohol. Somebody, however, can experience attraction predominantly or effectively exclusively to the same sex without ever engaging in it. But, yes, we are born in a fallen state which is not what God created us to be - and our sexuality is part of that - which by the way makes it odd to me that some people think it would be theologically wrong to say that people might be born homosexual (though the question is frankly irrelevant - empirically speaking people seem to have no choice in the matter).

 

[All4Christ]

The difference is that society calls someone an alcoholic only after they see that drink or indulge in that drink, whereas someone who is homosexual (please everyone - this terminology is for the purpose of communication here) has SSA (i.e. Homosexual) if they have the predisposition of that attraction. They can have a predisposition to it, just as people have a predisposition to alcohol. The difference is when society puts that label on someone.

SSA is a passion, even if they don't act physically on it, just as lust is a passion, even if you don't act on it. It is a cross, but that is what we are taught. Even thinking constantly about alcohol can be a passion, even if a person doesn't act on it. The Church Fathers taught that passions begin in the mind. If an adult is attracted to child - even if they don't act on it, then it is a passion. The passions start at temptation - rather when you start to indulge in that temptation mentally. It's missing the mark, though not a sin in action.

I feel for those who struggle with this - and I know I can't understand what they experience. It is a result of the fall though and is not what God designed before the Fall. Many times we don't support people enough - and I wish we all did that more - equally - for everyone who struggles.

 

[gzt]

Right, exactly, in that way it is not like alcoholism and likening it to it is not helpful.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not looking to be disagreeable, but is there really any difference in the way we ought to talk about the matter when the subject is a person being attracted to the same sex, or a person having other sexual attractions that are anything other than monogamous, age-appropriate, loving, opposite-sex (and anything else I'm forgetting) persons?

(I'm not trying to denigrate persons with SSA, btw ... I have a fairly close family member who has demonstrated that from an early age, and I love them and my heart hurts for the difficulties they face, and they are still relatively young, being college-age now. As well as close friends, children of close friends, and others over the years.)

But what of a person who only is interested in novelty in sex (a new partner always), or some kind of pain or indignity, or attracted only to children, or some other desire that we cannot condone? How is that different, or the same?

I'm hesitant to make comparisons with desire for adultery, or alcohol, because they are not perfect analogies. But if the passion involves attraction (maybe exclusively) to something that is not what God, and by extension the Church, sets forth as appropriate, then how do we consider these things?

Does it matter the source of the attraction? Whether it is inborn, developed through some traumatic experience, or purposely cultivated? Does it matter if the attraction is exclusive? Does it matter if it is changeable?

I'm not trying to be base, and I don't really like digging into such things, even in a theoretical sense. But it seems to me that if we consider like passions, in the end, many of these questions just muddy the water (especially with current social pressures) and makes the Truth harder to find.

I have said many times that SSA is not a special class of sin for which we ought to despise people. That would be a very hypocritical stance, IMO. But on the other hand, it also doesn't deserve a special "protected" status either, does it? I say this with all possible compassion for the heaviness of this particular cross, but when we are deciding how to consider and even more, how to respond to the question when it comes up with real people, how is it really different from other non-condoned attractions? Do we do a disservice to people to pretend that it is different?

(I say this too, seeing the aftermath of some of the public school teaching on all these many supposed "genders" that are sometimes taught, and the results of the encouragement to "experiment and explore". I know that a certain percentage of people will naturally fall in different places on a spectrum of attraction to the sexes, but I believe that what I see reflected is NOT the true reality. With such teaching and encouragement, it sometimes turns out that around 50% of students or sometimes more are "identifying" as something other than their own sex, attracted to the opposite sex. I don't believe this is the actual human condition, but the direct result of these kinds of programs. So ... IMO ... I think we need to be ready to think correctly on these questions, because we might start seeing a LOT more of it.)

I hope I haven't been offensive.

 

[All4Christ]

Right, exactly, in that way it is not like alcoholism and likening it to it is not helpful.

I wasn't likening it to all alcoholism - just trying to point out the biological predisposition to anything. We can agree to disagree on it being related. I still believe that a predisposition to anything is related though. It is not the predisposition to any passion that is the sin, but rather mentally or physically acting on it. Again, it is not identical.

I don't believe SSA should be considered worse than other sins, but it is a result of the fall. It is fallen sexuality.

I don't believe encouraging children to explore sexuality is helpful honestly. I also know it is not right to outcast those who experience SSA. We need to support all who seek God, and all who struggle with passions, no matter what passion they struggle with.

What's the answer? I don't really know. All I know is that we can't condone acting on it. We need to support people as they work out their salvation, including avoiding acting - physically or mentally - on the related passions. We can't condemn people, but we also can't say that's SSA is right.

I'd like to see more available I'm He Orthodox world to support people in whatever struggles they have. I know we have confession - and that is critical and very helpful - but support from others who struggle as well would be a wonderful thing to do. It doesn't even have to be the same struggle...just supporting people more in whatever they are trying to overcome.

ETA: FTR, I don't believe the predisposition is sinful.

 

[gzt]

In response to Anastasia, I think we need to be careful because we need to distinguish between somebody being assaulted by these ideas and the act of assenting to or entertaining these ideas and acting on these ideas, as well as avoiding pejorative terms and ways of speaking about these people. Our experience of sexuality is fallen, all of us and all of it - and even some of the Fathers say that sex as such is post-fall. I think the difference is that, while it's certainly the case that any heterosexual is going to at various times in their life (more likely to be constant once mature) going to experience inappropriate sexual temptation, we seem to kind of ignore that when we start talking about homosexuality and, oddly, our insistence that we can't say somebody is gay but instead demand some convoluted way of talking about their experience makes them more "identified" by this difference.

 

[~Anastasia~]

ETA: FTR, I don't believe the predisposition is sinful.

FWIW, I think I should also say that I don't think the predisposition, or even the temptation, to any of the things I've talked about above, or anything related (in any degree) that I've left out - is in itself sinful.

As gzt said in the next post, our experience of sexuality is fallen.

I suspect there are MANY kinds of related crosses out there being borne. Perfect purity in all sexual thought as well as action must be difficult, might be unattainable. I'm not sure.

 

[All4Christ]

FWIW, I think I should also say that I don't think the predisposition, or even the temptation, to any of the things I've talked about above, or anything related (in any degree) that I've left out - is in itself sinful.

As gzt said in the next post, our experience of sexuality is fallen.

I suspect there are MANY kinds of related crosses out there being borne. Perfect purity in all sexual thought as well as action must be difficult, might be unattainable. I'm not sure.

Agreed - though I believe through theosis - perfect purity is possible (eventually).

I do however believe (and in this case I guess I am pointing out something similar to the illness thing - though I still don't fully understand) that confession is a place we should even bring up temptation, even if we haven't acted on it. In this case, it is our fallenness - which is missing the mark even if we don't act on it. So while it may not be a personal sin if we don't act on it, any temptation (equal across all temptations and passions) is something that we ask God to help us overcome.

I do believe it is possible to overcome temptation though through the Grace of God, the sacraments, confession and God-willing, theosis.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In response to Anastasia, I think we need to be careful because we need to distinguish between somebody being assaulted by these ideas and the act of assenting to or entertaining these ideas and acting on these ideas, as well as avoiding pejorative terms and ways of speaking about these people. Our experience of sexuality is fallen, all of us and all of it - and even some of the Fathers say that sex as such is post-fall. I think the difference is that, while it's certainly the case that any heterosexual is going to at various times in their life (more likely to be constant once mature) going to experience inappropriate sexual temptation, we seem to kind of ignore that when we start talking about homosexuality and, oddly, our insistence that we can't say somebody is gay but instead demand some convoluted way of talking about their experience makes them more "identified" by this difference.

In how we talk about it, reading the last few posts, I think it's impossible to know if a person IS identifying themselves or others with their passion by using the words. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But from just a few sentences, you usually can't tell.

I have met people who certainly identified with being SSA, considered it a core part of their identity. Frankly, I find that a little strange, but in a society where they are heavily opposed, maybe the experience in society actually encourages that in a defiant sense.

I've also met people who identified others as being SSA, considering it a core identifier, and that was nearly always in the context of using it as a reason to despise them.

But then some identify self or others as being SSA and it's just an acknowledged fact, but the whole person isn't made to revolve around it.

I don't think we can easily tell in what way people might mean it.

I agree we shouldn't be purjorative, ever.

And being assaulted by the thoughts, temptations IS different from acting on them, or actively entertaining them, but all of that belongs between a person and their Confessor or SF, I think. In discussing it, there is a difference though, you're right.




Really, I think the key is what you said - our experience of sexuality is fallen. That's the condition we are ALL born into, and the condition through which we must struggle in our lives as we hope to become like Christ.

But that comes back to - does it really matter in what way that fallenness is expressed? Does it matter if our desire is for novelty, multiplicity, same sex, degradation, or whatever-have-you? (Except maybe in specific recommendations given by the Confessor.)

I do understand that there are likely passing temptations of a variety of kinds that assail all persons, while only some may be afflicted with a particular passion that tends to direct all of their desire, such as SSA. But other wrong desires are possible, and if they are present such that they affect all of a person's desire, I think it is no different really.

I'm not sure if this is actually productive. It is for me, to more clearly lay out and understand how to think of these issues, but I'm not sure if anyone else is following what I'm actually thinking here.

These are things we don't seem to discuss. I've wondered if they would be helpful to talk about, because I know of particular struggles some persons face. But I'm not so sure. The principles for healing probably remain the same. We need only identify what is passion, what is temptation, what is logismoi, etc. But in a sense, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to make anyone "bad" by associating their particular passion with other passions, or by comparing levels of sin. It just seems to me that in a way, the details don't matter. So the nature of the wrong-attraction might not matter either, in terms of dealing with it (again, except for particular recommendations from Confessors.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Agreed - though I believe through theosis - perfect purity is possible (eventually).

Agreed. It's just I'm no Saint, and neither is anyone who has told me of their particular struggles, so in terms of most of us living life ... perfect and constant purity in both thought and action seems potentially unattainable. Maybe I need to read more from married Saints, but I doubt this particular question is addressed in writings. The very rare persons I've thought perhaps may have arrived to that ability were either unmarried or widowed by then. But then again, I'm imagining also the repelling of logismoi, so maybe even Saints on earth still struggle to a degree.

I do however believe (and in this case I guess I am pointing out something similar to the illness thing - though I still don't fully understand) that confession is a place we should even bring up temptation, even if we haven't acted on it. In this case, it is our fallenness - which is missing the mark even if we don't act on it. So while it may not be a personal sin if we don't act on it, any temptation (equal across all temptations and passions) is something that we ask God to help us overcome.

I do believe it is possible to overcome temptation though through the Grace of God, the sacraments, confession and God-willing, theosis.

I agree with you. Except it occurs to me I might be thinking in a different way than is usually intended.

Does overcoming temptation mean simply not to act on it?
Or does it also mean not even to engage temptation, to "consider" perhaps, or imagine possibly doing it? Or does it mean the temptation doesn't even function AS temptation - easily dismissed. Or does it even mean that we never even become aware of any tendency toward the thought, that we never allow any logismoi or temptation even to enter?

I am not sure, but I think even the Saints still struggled with that last step at some times.

 

[All4Christ]

Agreed. It's just I'm no Saint, and neither is anyone who has told me of their particular struggles, so in terms of most of us living life ... perfect and constant purity in both thought and action seems potentially unattainable. Maybe I need to read more from married Saints, but I doubt this particular question is addressed in writings. The very rare persons I've thought perhaps may have arrived to that ability were either unmarried or widowed by then. But then again, I'm imagining also the repelling of logismoi, so maybe even Saints on earth still struggle to a degree.



I agree with you. Except it occurs to me I might be thinking in a different way than is usually intended.

Does overcoming temptation mean simply not to act on it?
Or does it also mean not even to engage temptation, to "consider" perhaps, or imagine possibly doing it? Or does it mean the temptation doesn't even function AS temptation - easily dismissed. Or does it even mean that we never even become aware of any tendency toward the thought, that we never allow any logismoi or temptation even to enter?

I am not sure, but I think even the Saints still struggled with that last step at some times.

I've never heard of logismoi, so I need to look that up.

This is the idea I was referencing:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/acquiring_the_mind_of_the_church/the_six_stages_of_temptation

That said, I think confession is for working on overcoming temptation as well as actual sins that we commit. Our temptations are often due to our fallenness, so we continue to work through them.

I don't believe being married is a barrier to purity or even theosis. Sexual intercourse for example within marriage is holy and ordained by God. Marriage is a way to work out our salvation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've never heard of logismoi, so I need to look that up.

This is the idea I was referencing:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/acquiring_the_mind_of_the_church/the_six_stages_of_temptation

That said, I think confession is for working on overcoming temptation as well as actual sins that we commit. Our temptations are often due to our fallenness, so we continue to work through them.

I don't believe being married is a barrier to purity or even theosis. Sexual intercourse for example within marriage is holy and ordained by God. Marriage is a way to work out our salvation.

That's a good podcast, and I was thinking along those lines too.


FWIW, I don't believe marriage is a barrier to purity either, and I agree that marriage is a way to work out our salvation. The only difference is in how that looks. Unmarried people may well struggle with sexual temptation as well, obviously.

But actually, I have only known a few people who approached that level of apparent holiness, and they just happened to be single/widowed.

Though there are two married women in our parish - I just don't know them quite as well to be able to consider them in the same way. Funny ... I am suddenly struck that there seems to be a certain transparency in the few I WAS thinking of that might be part of the whole thing.