ROCOR responds on Sr. Vassa

[Jesus4Madrid]

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...

Wow, you just don't stop your relentless effort to downplay the seriousness of the soul-destroying sin of sodomy. You trivialise a serious orientation to sin by likening it to left-handedness.

There is no scientific evidence that SSA is hereditary or even genetic. A far better simile would be to say that SSA is a sinful orientation like an attraction for children or animals would be. Such attraction, whether genetic or acquired, can never be acted upon without sinning, unlike heterosexual attraction.

 

[gzt]

Here we have a perfect example of the destructive and insulting equivocation we warn about! Here we're talking about the mere phenomenon of orientation, but he brings up sodomy, which is an action and not a mere temptation.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Here we have a perfect example of the destructive and insulting equivocation we warn about! Here we're talking about the mere phenomenon of orientation, but he brings up sodomy, which is an action and not a mere temptation.

It is you who have equated SSA with left-handedness, a really cruel and destructive comparison. Your simile invites a discussion of sodomy because SSA is unlike lefthandedness:

If I have a left-handed orientation, I will act upon that and write left-handed, throw left handed. Acting on that orientation is not a sin.

Acting on SSA implies committing sodomy, which leads to death according to St. Paul and the Fathers.

Your metaphor fails because acting on the one is not a sin, but acting the other is. But I understand as part of a effort to trivialise homosexuality that one might make that comparison. You have defended Sister Vassa who suggested homosexuality was a less serious sin than other sexual sins, so I suppose equating it with left handedness is quite coherent.

I just hope people reading this will understand that Orthodoxy does not consider SSA like lefthandedness. The good news is that the God of the universe can change and heal our sinful orientations, including SSA.

 

[gzt]

You're right that this was perhaps not the most apt comparison, in which case I will retract it, but your example is still bad.

 

[jckstraw72]

Some people would even rebuke a whole Synod of bishops to their faces in order to justify soul-destroying pastoral advice from within those bishops' jurisdiction. Such stubbornness is unlikely to be broken down online. But it's good, Jesus4Madrid, that you are presenting the true Gospel for others to see.

 

[Lukaris]

Is it possible that some people might love an individual of the same sex like a sibling and might even be meant to be together? Is there any mention of how such individuals might be able to be lifelong, non carnal siblings which would negate any concept of marriage since the relationship would be that of siblings? Is it possible that such individuals could be spiritually counseled to pursue a spiritually based sibling love rather than a carnal, sinful, non heterosexual impulse that leads to varying degrees of sodomy? Perhaps the example of Jonathan and David in 1 Samuel 18:1-5 come to mind?

I mean this for living in secular society. The vast multitude of people will never be monastics although that must be the best option for transformation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it possible that some people might love an individual of the same sex like a sibling and might even be meant to be together? Is there any mention of how such individuals might be able to be lifelong, non carnal siblings which would negate any concept of marriage since the relationship would be that of siblings? Is it possible that such individuals could be spiritually counseled to pursue a spiritually based sibling love rather than a carnal, sinful, non heterosexual impulse that leads to varying degrees of sodomy? Perhaps the example of Jonathan and David in 1 Samuel 18:1-5 come to mind?

I mean this for living in secular society. The vast multitude of people will never be monastics although that must be the best option for transformation.

I think we would say yes. not to be cute, but that pretty much describes Christian roommates who are good friends.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is it possible that some people might love an individual of the same sex like a sibling and might even be meant to be together? Is there any mention of how such individuals might be able to be lifelong, non carnal siblings which would negate any concept of marriage since the relationship would be that of siblings? Is it possible that such individuals could be spiritually counseled to pursue a spiritually based sibling love rather than a carnal, sinful, non heterosexual impulse that leads to varying degrees of sodomy? Perhaps the example of Jonathan and David in 1 Samuel 18:1-5 come to mind?

I mean this for living in secular society. The vast multitude of people will never be monastics although that must be the best option for transformation.

I would think the answer would be yes also, that it's possible.

I remember hearing Orthodox teaching that speaks of our "path to salvation" and/or "vocation". Some seemed to disagree a bit that the only usual valid options considered seem to be monasticism or marriage. I wouldn't know from the pov of the teaching of the Church, but singleness does seem as though it might need companionship, accountability, encouragement, as well as the challenges in relating to people that help us grow. I would think the oversight of a priest would be helpful, as in other living situations.

Anyway. Offhand I can think of women who have lived their lives in this way, though the ones who come to mind are not in the Church. I also know women in the Church who live this way after losing husbands. Though the majority live either alone or with family.

 

[gzt]

Some people would even rebuke a whole Synod of bishops to their faces in order to justify soul-destroying pastoral advice from within those bishops' jurisdiction. Such stubbornness is unlikely to be broken down online. But it's good, Jesus4Madrid, that you are presenting the true Gospel for others to see.

I would certainly repeat my concerns to them that this is an ambiguously worded response that seems to misread Sr Vassa and imply something which is false about Orthodox soteriology and anthropology and ask for clarification.

 

[KernelPanic]

Some people would even rebuke a whole Synod of bishops to their faces in order to justify soul-destroying pastoral advice from within those bishops' jurisdiction. Such stubbornness is unlikely to be broken down online. But it's good, Jesus4Madrid, that you are presenting the true Gospel for others to see.

Clericalism isn't a function of the church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Clericalism isn't a function of the church.

Hello KernelPanic, and welcome to TAW.

This particular issue goes a little deeper for us, and I would just like to caution that there's a great deal going on here.

It's not about clericalism, but if you wish to debate that, you're in the right area, but it wouldn't fit well in this thread. If you like, please feel free to click above on the main St. Justin Martyr's forum and begin a new thread to discuss or debate the issue of clericalism, if you wish.

Again, welcome to TAW/St. Justin's.

 

[truefiction1]

I once read that left-handedness was considered to be an evil trait:

"The bias against left-handedness across many cultures may reflect an intuitive understanding of the left hand's (right brain's) relationship to the dark, primitive aspects of our nature. These biases likely date back into prehistory, when the left hemisphere may have exerted less inhibitory control over the right. Think about the French word gauche and the Italian word sinistre for left and all their tasteless and evil connotations. By offering the right hand in greeting, early humans may have been more likely to behave in a civilized manner, and less likely to act out selfish or violent impulses. An examination of cave drawings in Southern Europe suggests that the bias toward right-handedness has existed for at least the last 5,000 years (Coren & Porac, 1977, quoted in Louis Cozolino, "The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy: Healing the Social Brain" (W. W Norton & Company, 2010) Loc 1776, Kindle edition.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Clericalism isn't a function of the church.

absolutely true, but jckstraw was not speaking of clericalism

 

[prodromos]

I once read that left-handedness was considered to be an evil trait:

"The bias against left-handedness across many cultures may reflect an intuitive understanding of the left hand's (right brain's) relationship to the dark, primitive aspects of our nature. These biases likely date back into prehistory, when the left hemisphere may have exerted less inhibitory control over the right. Think about the French word gauche and the Italian word sinistre for left and all their tasteless and evil connotations. By offering the right hand in greeting, early humans may have been more likely to behave in a civilized manner, and less likely to act out selfish or violent impulses. An examination of cave drawings in Southern Europe suggests that the bias toward right-handedness has existed for at least the last 5,000 years (Coren & Porac, 1977, quoted in Louis Cozolino, "The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy: Healing the Social Brain" (W. W Norton & Company, 2010) Loc 1776, Kindle edition.

At the Holy Monastery of Simonopetra on Mount Athos is treasured the incorrupt left hand of St Mary Magdalan

 

[truefiction1]

At the Holy Monastery of Simonopetra on Mount Athos is treasured the incorrupt left hand of St Mary Magdalan

We are truly blessed to have such a relic. None of us would claim that the left hand of sanctified people, or that left-handed sanctified people are evil. The point that is being made is that there is a very real bias in favor of the right, especially in the metaphorical physical and verbal symbols of Orthodox Tradition. For example:

"... and He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father..."

Why not on the left?

Then, during our vesting, we first say "Thy right hand, O God, has been glorified in power, etc..." (from Isaiah) as we put on our right cuff, and only afterwards do we put on the left cuff. Why do we always order the right hand and the right side before the left, even when we make the sign of the cross upon ourselves, using our right hand and going to the right shoulder before the left?

The right hand bias is plain to see within our ancient Tradition, and universally. Even the Lord's disciples squabbled over which of them would sit at the right vs. the left hand of the Lord when He would come into power as the messiah. This bias is likely due to good ole fashioned, unconscious human intuition about certain things, as stated in the quoted paragraph. I listed only a few examples, but more could be found, to be sure.

I'm not posting in argument here: only to introduce an interesting side note, sparked by the comparison made earlier of the condition identified as same sex attraction with the condition of being left-handed. I especially wanted to point out the connection between the Italian word for left (sinistre) and its English derivative "sinister". This linguistic phenomena is no accident, but rather by design, no?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I might be wrong, but especially in the context it was mentioned, I took the comparison of same-sex-attraction with left-handedness to be a comment on the poster's opinion that it was an innate state, perhaps genetic. Not that there was an actual moral comparison being made to having (or more accurately, acting upon) sexual desire for the same sex and being left-handed.

I really think that's what the poster seemed to be saying, and the only reading that seems to make sense.

 

[prodromos]

We are truly blessed to have such a relic. None of us would claim that the left hand of sanctified people, or that left-handed sanctified people are evil. The point that is being made is that there is a very real bias in favor of the right, especially in the metaphorical physical and verbal symbols of Orthodox Tradition.

I know that. I only brought it up because only her left hand is incorrupt. The flesh on the rest of her body including her right hand, dissolved soon after her burial.
A fellow I knew from one of my jobs years ago, was left handed but went to a Catholic school where the nuns beat him every time he used his left hand. He was delighted to learn that St Mary's left hand was incorrupt, and not her right, and said how much he wished he had known this back in school so he could have used it to validate using his left.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I might be wrong, but especially in the context it was mentioned, I took the comparison of same-sex-attraction with left-handedness to be a comment on the poster's opinion that it was an innate state, perhaps genetic. Not that there was an actual moral comparison being made to having (or more accurately, acting upon) sexual desire for the same sex and being left-handed.

I really think that's what the poster seemed to be saying, and the only reading that seems to make sense.

if that's the case, that explains why the ROCOR synod said it is bad anthropology

 

[truefiction1]

I know that. I only brought it up because only her left hand is incorrupt. The flesh on the rest of her body including her right hand, dissolved soon after her burial.
A fellow I knew from one of my jobs years ago, was left handed but went to a Catholic school where the nuns beat him every time he used his left hand. He was delighted to learn that St Mary's left hand was incorrupt, and not her right, and said how much he wished he had known this back in school so he could have used it to validate using his left.

Interesting... thanks.

 

[gzt]

I might be wrong, but especially in the context it was mentioned, I took the comparison of same-sex-attraction with left-handedness to be a comment on the poster's opinion that it was an innate state, perhaps genetic. Not that there was an actual moral comparison being made to having (or more accurately, acting upon) sexual desire for the same sex and being left-handed.

I really think that's what the poster seemed to be saying, and the only reading that seems to make sense.

More that it is a variant that is not itself morally problematic and is no matter of choice. What one does with it, however, is where this is a field for moral activity, but, as I said, I withdraw the comparison, as there is nothing wrong with making use of your left-handedness while there is a moral problem with acting on your desire for intercourse with the same sex.