Month: August 2011

Shifts in Paradigms. An Orthodox Psychiatrist on Homosexuality


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Dr. Lynne (Magdalene) Pappas

Source: pravoslavie.ru

Dr. Lynne Pappas, in Orthodox baptism, Magdalene, is a highly respected psychiatrist, board certified in child, adolescent, and adult psychiatry, practicing in Butte county and the Chico area of northern California. She has been practicing psychiatric medicine for over twenty-two years. She is also the president of the parish council of the Church of St. Andrew the Fool-for-Christ in Redding, California, a parish of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Dr. Pappas has agreed to share her professional knowledge with us on one “evil of the day.” Dr. Pappas is interviewed by Nun Cornelia (Rees).

Nun Cornelia (Rees): The subject of our conversation today is something that has been troubling many Christians in recent yearsthe general rise in the acceptance of homosexuality as a norm in many historically Christian countries. Legislature in the U.S. and other countries has dictated that homosexuality is not a psychiatric illness; and although most studies have shown that homosexuality is not genetically inherited, homosexuals are increasingly being treated as a minority group, which requires the protection of human rights legislation and tolerance education. One concern is not only how this affects the Church or society in general, but also how it affects those individuals who are experiencing homosexual inclinations but do not want to consign themselves to a homosexual lifestyle, and are seeking help. As a practicing psychiatrist, you have undoubtedly seen this conflict. What do these people do if they are told that they need to be accepted, rather than healed? What can you tell us about this?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: First, I will speak to what you said in terms of the change in what we will call a paradigm. All of us look to markers in our environment and our worldand we are spiritually affected by them as wellof what is truth, what guides us in how to function in life, what is reality. So, we now have a situation where the world tells us that what was once held as abnormal, not of God, not a healthy lifestyle or choice of relationship, is now normal. We now have a shift in paradigm, the rules are all changed, and people are being told that the prior view was false and that we have a new reality. That reality then says, “Anything that I feel is good for me,” whether it be men with men, men with boys, women with young girls, or people with animals (people don’t stop with one thing). Now they are saying that all of these things are just alternatives, and this diversity is “normal”. Every individual has an inherent seed within him of the truth of God, and knows somewhere in his heart and soul that these things are wrongbecause we do feel that. Yet they are being met with an external environmental world that says, “That which is guiding you inside is not right.” It is a pressure that unsettles everything. Thus, people no longer have any boundaries, any anchor, or marker of what truth is. This is very important to remember in looking at this whole issue, because it has taken everything and turned it upside down, so that people do not know where to go.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Living in California, an especially near San Franciscothe gay “Mecca”, do you notice a trend that goes beyond acceptance to outright encouragement of homosexuality?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Very much so. Furthermore, it is encouraged with an undercurrent of anger, which you can sense when you come into contact with this life and this worldthere is actually a very powerful undercurrent, which is in fact the power of evil. There are many different reasons for this anger (and this anger is filled with pride), this power, this dominance, this exertion of an individual right to take care of oneself, and have something be whatever “I want it to be.” It is a very powerful thing. So people, especially in California, are coming out and voting to have gay marriages legalized. This has already happened in some other states. But it is not that people are just standing back meekly, saying, “I want to be with my partner.” It is actually a campaign, a fervency to force themselves and you to accept their ideology.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): How has this progressed from the gay individual’s desire to not be discriminated against, or perhaps just not beaten up, to a planned, financed, aggressive program aimed at all aspects of societythe judiciary, the media, and even the educational system, all the way down to elementary school? From the psychiatric point of view, what is going on in their minds and their hearts that pressures them to try to forge a new society, if you will, in their image? Is it a simply a matter of pride? Of raising their own self-esteem by reforming the attitude of everyone around them?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: I don’t know if I can answer that question for you fully. The people who come to me are not often so militant in their desire to change society. Some want that as wellalmost, again, as a validation of their choices, a validation of how they have covered up their own wounds. Because, at the heart of this whole struggle is people’s desire to be loved, to find a place where they feel that they are cared for, that they belong, are nurtured, accepted. There is a whole host of things that lead people to this place in their lives. So, the militant aspect of it is an extension of that undercurrent. When somebody is hurt or angry, he can have an initial reaction of being defensive, being meek, or beaten down; but then you often find at the other end of the spectrum that those emotions then continue to grow into rage. So, this militant rage is on this continuum of a rage that is present, but not all people exert it to that degree. When we are not living with God, truthfully and at peace, then there is rage, anger. Often that rage is very hidden, tucked away; our defenses are so good that it does not come out for other people to see. At other times that rage is unleashed, and it is not so well hiddenand that is when you find the militant aspect, when people are wanting to push their agendas to “get back”, as I think, at God, not just at people. It is a way of lashing out at all the things inside that are so messed up. It is just an externalization, a representation, a symbol, which has nothing to do with what is really going on in their heartsbut they think it is.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Your explanation makes sense, but this brings us back to the fact that until rather recently homosexuality was legally regarded as a problem requiring psychiatric treatment. Further back in time it was not viewed as a psychological problem, but it was considered a grave sin, even a crime, and still is in some parts of the world. People were punished for it, so that it would not spread out to the rest of society. All Christians considered it a sin and Orthodox Christians still do. In the U.S., the laws have changed, so that it is no longer viewed as a psychiatric illness, and people no longer “need psychiatric treatment” for homosexuality. Nevertheless, I think that some people do seek treatment for the problems underlying their homosexuality. In your experience, are people seeking psychiatric help for their underlying problems, or specifically for their homosexuality? Are healthy people who engage in homosexual behavior developing psychiatric problems?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: No one who engages in homosexual activity is psychologically healthy. It is, again, an action and a manifestation of a distorted perceptions of pain, feelings of rejection, abandonment, loss, and a desire to be free of our separation from God. It is one other manifestation of how we seek fulfillment in an aberrant way. It is never something that is being led by health of the soul, or heart, or person.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): In the media, we now see a trend of trying to show that homosexuals are mostly psychologically adequate people who have simply taken up this orientation (although as I have read, analytical statistics show otherwise). Therefore, they are perceived as adequate to, say, adopt a child, or lead Boy Scout troops. Of course, the assumption in the child adoption system is that only a mentally stable person should be allowed to adopt a child. If psychiatric practice is showing that homosexuals are not stable, how could they be allowed such control over vulnerable children?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: What you are saying presupposes that psychiatry and the systems have a real notion of what normalcy is. Outside of God, and we live in a godless society, no one really has a sense of what is normal, and so they make it up, they make it fit what they want it to be. That is why we have what we have. They have made a new definition of what normalcy is, and tomorrow they will make another one, based upon whatever urge they have at that point in time. And God is nowhere in the picture. It all comes back to that, and so we have redefined what a family is. We no longer look at what God created and said is a family, what God created and said is the “order of things”. We have thrown Him away, because we don’t need that, we don’t even know that He exists, and we are determining our values according to what “feels” good. Then, the passions drive thingsmomentary passions. So, the momentary passions and lusts are now what defines normalcy.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): You have run up against this redefined normalcy first hand in the legal system. Can you tell us about this?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Well, I had a patient who, let’s say, struggled with his life of homosexual activity. He was very tormented, and came to see me, to engage in therapy. He was extremely depressed, and struggled with suicidal thoughts and attempts. He was encumbered by drug addiction, cocaine addiction, and he had engaged in perverse practices. You see, the homosexual lifestyle can be extremely perverse; it is perverse by definition. But the perversity can go on a continuum as does all evil; it can continue to get more and more severe. And so he had engaged in significant activities that, again, are quite demonic, in the sense of the torture, tormentthe things that people do to one another. He was haunted by all of this. He had been molested as a young male by a male teacher and had never dealt with that trauma, and had accepted from his early years that this situation had occurred because of what he is. He accepted a belief that he would never have had that molestation, that it would never have occurred, if this was not his life. He accepted this external circumstance as an indicator that he was homosexual; because otherwise, he thought, why would a man engage in such practices with him? Well, from that point on, his development as a young boy was very distorted, very traumatized, and every time he would look around him he would find things that he would put into this growing paradigm about himself, things that he would pull in to support the fact that he was gaythings from the media, from other people, the ideology or the feeling that this was something that he was genetically born with. So, he began to incorporate that. How do we begin to incorporate delusion and lie? It just continues to feed, and it feeds. So, before long, by the time he had hit his late teens and early twenties, he had constructed an entire world as if he were a playwright, the world and everyone else were adding in pieces of his character formation, and now his character was being formed by all of this input. This is what happens with society, with the media, with the worldit forms us, and we accept pieces of it, if we have nothing else that forms us, if we do not have God, and there is no one to help us. If we have no sense of what is true and what is not.

So, when he came to me he was very traumatized, but his initial desire to look at his sexuality was not what he came for. He came to look at his depression. Well, with time, how can one look at one’s depression without looking at what led up to his being depressed? He was looking at his life, his upbringing as a child, his relationships with his mother and father, the aspects of nurturance, non-nurturance, and his question of whether he ever fit in, was ever accepted or loved. It became clear over time that he was accepted and loved by this man. Here was someone who showed him incredible attentionphysical attention, comments about him, etc. That then became his accepted way of life. All of this began to uncover for him, and he began to question his previous assumption that he was born gay. He then started looking at issues of his life, and chinks started happening in that armor, that paradigm. All of a sudden, pieces of light started coming through, and he was somewhat unsettled by that.

Well, I have never hidden my Orthodoxy during my practice; I never hid who I am and where I come from. You know, I had a professor at the child psychiatry department where I trained who once said to me, seeing that I wear a cross, “You need to take that off.” I said, “Why is that?” He said, “Because you are supposed to be a blank slate for people as a psychiatrist, and you are influencing somebody by wearing that cross. Your cross influences their thinking, whereas they are supposed to come up with things on their own. You are being a paradigm.” I looked at him and said, “Well, frankly I think that I am at least honest. At least my belief is on the outside, so that people know who I am in my paradigm. I could go to someone else, a Buddhist or a Hindu, and his or her paradigm is still going to come through in everything he or she says to me, but I won’t know it. To me, that is deceptive. “

Thus, the patient could see that I wore a cross, and he began asking questions about God. Over the next couple of years he began moving to a place of not believing that he was born gay; he started working through his history, even became involved with a woman, and was in love with her. She became pregnant but terminated the pregnancy, and he was devastated. In his devastation, he had a relapse of his drug addiction and everything fell apart, and he blamed Godand me. So, ultimately, he sued me for what had become an unethical thing with the psychiatric association, because in essence, homosexuality is no longer considered pathological, and therefore my Christianity was cited as being an improper “imbalance of power”. By having a cross around my neck, an icon on my wall, and a Bible on my desk, I was accused of unduly influencing this man, whovoluntarilycame to me. That he came voluntarily and stayed for three years was irrelevant to them. It was the mere fact that God was present, and that I had “forced” him to listen to this.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): This is a case in point. Obviously, he sued you because he was not balanced, but the state did not take that into consideration?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Because the state says that he is. Because the laws and what has been determined as normalcy by the world say he is “okay”.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Was he successful in this lawsuit?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: I settled the lawsuit. We went as far as a deposition, and I settled the lawsuit without going to trial.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): So, to a certain extent, it could be said that he “won” because he received a settlement. Now, could this have a cooling effect upon other psychiatrists who are of the mind that their patient’s homosexuality is part of the whole problem that is making them depressed?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: I will say to you that homosexuality is a causative factor in depression. There is not a “maybe.” It is not the only thing, but unequivocally, it is an issue. Now, will you find other psychiatrists that are willing to say that? Maybe a few. But again, you are going to find that, even among Christiansand I am speaking of the denominational, versus the Orthodox world you’ll see it is as with heresy in Christianity: before long, anything is acceptable. So, you will find many people who consider it just fine, and they will not make a statement, as I have.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Where does that leave people who really need healinghealing of their homosexuality? Does that mean that they are more and more just out of luck, with no one to go to? Will they find that there are fewer and fewer psychiatrists willing to talk about it?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Not necessarily. If a person comes to a psychiatrist or psychologist ready to make that statement, they will find someone to help them. I think that the question you are posing is: what about all the people who don’t realize that it is a major part of their struggle, their pain, their continued disease? It is interesting that when we talk of disease, we think automatically of a pathogen or bug growing in us, or an infection caused by bacteria or virus, as opposed to something that is caused by an infection of the soul. That is what this is. As with so many things in our society today, it is getting harder and harder for people to see what the infection is, because we have “normalized” so much, in terms of the parts of our soul that are becoming devoured by sin that we have now declared “normal.”

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Like declaring, on the physical level, that cancer is normal?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Absolutely. It is eating you away inside, and you keep covering things up, and acting as if that is how it should be. This is how it is with a life of homosexuality. You think, on the surface, that you are okay, you are happy, but in reality, inside, you are not. You keep playing at it, and playing at it. I know people that have been in homosexual relationships for fifty years, and they would say to me, “See, this is perfectly fine.” I would say back, “It is wonderful that you have a caring for one another, but you are still not able to see that which is separating you from God.” And that is the crux of it. They are willing to settle for that momentary feeling of comfort by holding on to someone in the world, because they don’t know that what they are really looking for is God.

I suppose I keep coming back to that, because you can’t examine this problem outside of God. And in the world today, where you don’t examine it with God, it is going to be what it is. So if people who are struggling don’t know that they are missing God, then they are not going to arrive at seeing that this is what it is all about.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): One holy father said that every human being possesses an unquenchable thirst for God, but it is a satisfying thirst, even in its unquenchability. If people are not seeking God, that thirst is not being filled, and so they try to satisfy it through insatiable passions.

Dr. Lynne Pappas: That is what happened with this young man. I have tried to help other people with whom I have worked to come to an understanding that this thirst that they have is really a thirst for God. They didn’t know it because they grew up without God in their lives. They were not raised in a Church, or with any understanding of God, and so all they understood is that they had an unquenchable desire and thirst for something, and the only markers that the world has around us are the passions. There is no other explanation for this longing offered; thus, only when you begin to say that that is what it is, that God is what they really want does a window open, and they can start seeing that God is what they crave. That is why people in these fifty-year relationships will, on the surface, defend to the hilt their belief that everything is just fine. But if you look in their hearts, you will see their emptiness, and how it all falls short. It is the falling short of what they are looking for that is so evident to me in my work with these people. Because it is not of God.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): So, the rest of the world, through the media, is also being convinced that these people are all just fine.

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Again, they are convincing themselves. We lie to ourselves, over and over again, and we don’t know how to listen to that voice in our heart. That voice in our heart talks, but people are used to drowning it out.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): This tragedy on an individual level is unfortunately developing into a problem that affects whole Churches, denominationsthe idea that you can have a pastor, even a bishop, ministering to families, who is openly gay. Of course, the issue is still clear in the Orthodox Church. But what would you say to people who are Orthodox, but suffer from this weakness? Should the Church be tough on these people? Should they be summarily brought out into the open? Or should they be dealt with quietly, individually? How can we avoid the catastrophe that the Catholic Church is now experiencing?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: I do not want to even pretend to think that I know how things should be done, but I would hope that it be dealt with on an individual basis. My prayer for all people is that in the Churchthe True Chruchwe would have people bold enough to come alongside brothers and sisters who are struggling in sin, in some way, with a desire to help them see their failing. Again, as with anything to which we are blind, we are defensive, we are prideful, we are very fallen, and we don’t want to see that which is painful for us to see. But how else can you deal with this but by individually coming alongside someone in love, and having ways to minister to people, to help them gain sight? That is what this is about. We have the fathers, we have the Word, we have so many things that are there, what God gave us as our truth, and we have love. That is what we have to give people in order to open a door for them to begin to see what wounded them, and what their hearts have done to try to take care of themselves. Because that is what this is: a method of trying to take care of our own heart when we have been so hurtwhen we felt abandoned, rejected, when we felt that God is not there for us, that we have to do something on our own to make it okay.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Backtracking a bit, could a large portion of homosexuals reveal an incident in their past similar to the one experienced by the patient you described? Could this be called an epidemic, spread by people who need to be stopped? In other words, were former societies justified in putting these people in prison?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: No. (Unless, of course, they do commit a sexual crime such as rape or child molestation.) It is a reflection of how we as human beings deal with things that frighten us, with things that we don’t understand, and that make us uncomfortable and threaten us. We are filled with rage, we become dominant, powerful, and hurtful, and try to destroy them. In essence, our hearts are just as sinful, but it is coming out in a different venue.

People come to a life of homosexuality, or experiences of homosexuality, from different causes. There are people who have had molestations, and then began to be afraid of the opposite sex, but still want nurturance. You have other people who as children were not nurtured, who were not fed, cared for, loved, or stroked, and they seek nurturance. It gets misplaced. They start looking for a mother, as are many women living a lesbian life, or a father, in the case of male homosexuals, and it all becomes so distorted. They don’t see it on the surface, but what is driving them is a desire to connect, and not necessarily in a sexual or erotic waybut that is the only way our fallen world knows how to do it. Everything is sexualized. So people automatically jump from a heart that needs to be nurtured and stroked to something erotic, because that is where the world has told them to go. Yet, everyone who has struggled with this desire to be loved in a homosexual way is searching for the purity that I am talking about. It does not have to be the outcome of trauma or abusethey can just start exhibiting this activity as children. Does that mean they should be locked away? No. Should they be criminalized? No. They should be offered an understanding of love, and know what is in side of us, what they are searching for.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Have you known people who were able to work their way through this struggle by the Sacrament of confession?

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Yes.

You work around, you work underneath, you work on what is occurring with them, because the defenses are so great on the surface.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): So, this is not a job for just anyone who comes along.

Dr. Lynne Pappas: No. But I think that there are people who are able to do this kind of work, and understand how to approach these things, unlike the medieval world where you just put them all in prison. There are people who are designed, trained, or brought up by God to find a way into someone’s heart, around their defenses.

Nun Cornelia (Rees): Of course, we know that this has always existed, and we find mention of it even in patristic literature. We also all have our free will.

Dr. Lynne Pappas: If I want my child to go do something he does not want to do, I will not necessarily say, “I want you to go do this,” but will phrase it and work with him in a way that will not excite his defenses, which are geared to opposition. Rather than saying, “go make your bed,” I will try to say something to engage another part of his heart, so that he will want to do it himself. Then he will go make his bed, and we don’t have a war. This is knowing the heart of my child, and it is knowing the heart of our brothers and sisters. It is coming to someone in love, realizing that a matter of the heart is at stake. We ask, how does God direct us to deal with that person?

Nun Cornelia (Rees): And of course, we pray for them.

Dr. Lynne Pappas: Absolutely. That is where we must always begin.

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble: A Christian Response to the Ongoing Enslavement of America’s Poor


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: Huffington Post | Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

Yesterday, President Obama signed a law that will raise the debt ceiling and continue to enslave the American people for another three or four years. It has reduced the national debit some but it seems to me at least that it has not gone far enough. Just so you know, your share of the national debit is about $42,500. It seems to me that the era of Big Government needs to end.

I am what one would call a “classical liberal.” Now, before you go crazy because I use the word liberal, please read on. I think you will be surprised.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th Century in Western Europe and the Americas and is a political philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and free markets. The sovereignty of individual private property rights is essential to individual freedom. The philosophy believes in an unfettered market with a very minimal role of government. In other words, small federal government, small state government, with decisions being made at the local level where the people have a direct voice in determining what is best for their community.

The 18th Century Scottish Philosopher Adam Smith believed that government (and by this I think he meant federal or national government) has only three functions:

  1. Protection of the population from foreign invaders
  2. Protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens
  3. Building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide (roads, bridges, harbors, canals, railways, postal and other communication services)

Classical liberalism places emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual again with private property rights being essential to individual freedom. Classical liberals believe that individual rights are natural, inherent, inalienable and exist independently of the government. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.” They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law” (Alan Ryan, “Liberalism,” in “A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy”). Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.

I have written before that I believe the church is the social institution that should deal with the social ills of society. In the time of St. Basil the Great the Church was responsible for education and health care. The church has a long history of providing for those in need. When Jesus fed the 5,000, he did not turn to Caesar and say, “Hey, give me a grant so I can feed these people.” No, He just made it happen. In the Books of Acts, when the widows were being neglected, the church ordained deacons to care for them and they took up collections to support the work, not from the Roman government but from believers.

During the debate on the debt ceiling a group of very well meaning Christian leaders from across the religious spectrum, led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, lobbied the President and leaders in Congress to pass a law that would protect the welfare state. They posit that there is biblical evidence that the government needs to care for the poor no matter what the consequences. As a classical liberal (and yes, as a Christian), I disagree whole heartedly with the aims of this group and I would submit that they do not speak for the majority of Christians in this country.

Recently, thanks to my friend Fr. Hans Jacobse, I have come to learn of another group of Christians that have come together to counter that argument of these so called “progressive Christians.” The group is called, “Christians for a Sustainable Economy,” and in their letter to President Obama they have this to say:

We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come. All Americans — especially the poor — are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.

I submit that the present government programs do nothing but enslave the poor of this country to the programs and do nothing to break the cycle of poverty in this country. There is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots, and economic freedom is out of the reach of many, many people. I am not saying that we need to end all social programs. That would be cruel and unfair to those who really do need the social safety net. But we need to plan for the end game. It seems to me that the government is very good at starting things — welfare, unemployment, wars — but is not very good at ending them. Yes, we need a social safety net, but it needs to be just that — a safety net and not a lifestyle.

There is ample biblical evidence for the church aiding the poor. In fact, it is one of the mandates that Jesus left us to love our neighbor. And there is ample biblical evidence of the church “teaching a man to fish.” It is time that the church and her people get off the sidelines and get into the game.

Please consider reading the articles on the website of Christians for a Sustainable Economy and if so moved add your signature to the letter to the President. I was honored to add my name to the list of American Christians that care about the poor and care about our country. Won’t you too be one of them?

Fr. Alexander Webster: Open Letter to the Ethics Committee of the Metropolitan Council, Orthodox Church in America


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Fr. Alexander Webster

Archpriest Alexander Webster Ph.D. of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) recently filed an ethics complaint against Mark Stokoe, the editor of OCANews.org and member of the OCA Metropolitan Council, a governing body of the OCA.

The complaint concerns the publication of private documents including stolen emails from former OCA priest Fr. Joseph Fester, the confidential correspondence of Met. Jonah, and the private correspondence of retired Bishop Nikolai (Soraich) by Mr. Stokoe on his blog. Fr. Webster argues that Mr. Stokoe’s actions violate the OCA Best Practice Principles that require “the highest standards of honesty and integrity…in the conduct of their duties.”

The Ethics Committee refused to act on his complaint. Fr. Webster responds below.

The timeline of the complaint process with supporting documents:

1. May 15, 2011, First Letter to the Ethics Committee (pdf here).
2. May 23, 2011, Second Letter to the Ethics Committee (pdf here).
3. June 9, 2011, Confidential Reply by the Ethics Committee – no signatures (pdf here).
4. August 3, 2001, Open Letter to the Ethics Committee (copied below, pdf here).

Fr. Webster is an adviser to the American Orthodox Institute.

An Open Letter to the Ethics Committee of the Metropolitan Council,

Orthodox Church in America

August 3, 2011
Holy Protomartyr Razhden of Georgia
(+ AD 457)

Dear Members of the Ethics Committee:

Christ is in our midst!

The troika of contemporary principles—transparency, accountability, and collegiality—that ostensibly undergirds the organizations and operations of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) is not, unfortunately, evident in the way the Ethics Committee (EC) of the OCA’s Metropolitan Council (MC) has addressed my two letters of petition regarding Mr. Mark Stokoe’s position on the MC. To be sure, your official reply is courteous, empathetic, and collegial. I am grateful for that. Please forgive me if, despite my intentions, I fail to display a similar spirit and tone in this public missive. I have chosen this course because the issue has already dragged on for months with no just resolution in sight, and I believe it is time for the entire OCA to know the depths of the problem.

The following chronology of events should demonstrate that I have proceeded in the present task quietly behind the scenes, as it were, through the proper channels, methodically, and with all due respect and patience.

  • After Mr. Stokoe published excerpts of private, confidential e-mail correspondence between Fr. Joseph Fester and retired Bishop Nikolai (Soraich) on his “OCANews” website on May 1, 2011, under the sinister headline, “The Forces Behind +Jonah,” I began immediately to consult with fellow archpriests, other clergy, and laity whose insights and wisdom I have respected for years. When I heard many downplay or even justify Mr. Stokoe’s actions in the name of expediency or the very unOrthodox faux morality of the “lesser evil,” I took the initiative to call Fr. Ted Bobosh, chairman of the MC’s EC, to learn how to file an ethics complaint against Mr. Stokoe. The process was simple—a formal letter—but the criteria quite narrow. An ethics complaint against a sitting member of the MC has to be grounded explicitly in the MC’s own internal documents: the OCA Best Practice Principles and Policies for Financial Accountability (December 31, 2008) and the OCA MC Council Member’s Handbook (December 2009). Neither provides much more than universal ethical standards such as the classic virtues of “honesty” and “integrity,” a general invocation of living one’s life “in accordance with the Gospel,” and a more modern emphasis on “openness,” which is, I suppose, a synonym for the even more contemporary concept of “transparency.” Nothing in either document approaches the more exacting requirements for holding office on the parish council in what I gather is the typical OCA parish. That rather thin fare notwithstanding, I submitted my first letter to the EC via e-mail attachment on May 15, 2011, requesting that the EC “recommend that His Grace Bishop Matthias remove for cause Mr. Mark Stokoe as the lay representative of the Midwest Diocese” to the OCA’s MC. [See the full text of that document here.].
  • When Mr. Stokoe decided on May 20, 2011, to up the ante on “OCANews” by publishing under the title, “Jonah in His Own Words,” Metropolitan Jonah’s “draft agenda and opening talk” for the special meeting of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the OCA scheduled in February in Santa Fe, New Mexico—a document that Mr. Stokoe admitted on his website was “shared . . . with his small circle of intimates” on the eve of the meeting—I concluded that Mr. Stokoe would stop at nothing if he could so brazenly publicize a confidential communication from the Metropolitan himself that obviously was not intended for public display. Accordingly, I sent a second letter of complaint to the EC on May 23, 2011, urging you “to act quickly and decisively before Mr. Stokoe publishes additional purloined communications with the patina of respectability that membership on the Metropolitan Council affords.” The crux of the moral argument was this: “Whether or not Mr. Stokoe’s motives or intentions are honorable, the means he has chosen to accomplish those ends are, by any Orthodox teleological assessment, needlessly harmful to the privacy and personal dignity of the targets of his hostility and beneath the dignity of a member of the Metropolitan Council.” [See the full text of that document here.]
  • On June 20, 2011, fully five weeks after my initial letter, I finally received the written reply of the EC (dated June 9, 2011) via confidential e-mail attachment. [See the full text of that document here, which Archpriest David Mahaffey, who chaired the EC’s deliberations concerning my letters of complaint, has, after conferring with the rest of the EC, granted permission for me, the only intended recipient, to make available on the present occasion.] Taking one of your suggestions to heart (“We implore you to offer your most excellent assessment to His Grace, Bishop Mathias, as he is better equipped to answer your complaint.”), I immediately, on June 20, 2011, forwarded my two letters of complaint as attachments to an e-mail to His Grace Bishop Matthias, hierarch of the OCA’s Diocese of the Midwest, with a cc. to his diocesan chancellor, Archpriest John Zdinak. To date I have received only one e-mail from Fr. John in response, with no indication of when or how Bishop Matthias will render a decision.
  • In a last-ditch effort to avert a public controversy, I personally implored Mr. Stokoe in a telephone conversation on July 22 to resign quietly from the MC. He adamantly refused to take that noble path and do the right thing. Instead he mockingly asked whether I knew with certainty that neither Metropolitan Jonah nor Fr. Joseph Fester nor retired Bishop Nikolai had forwarded his private, confidential e-mails directly to Mr. Stokoe. There is no hope from that quarter.

The timeline for a decision is crucial with the next semi-annual meeting of the MC scheduled to begin on September 20, 2011. It would be a travesty if Mr. Stokoe were to participate yet again as an honored member of the OCA’s most esteemed clergy-laity body.

With that unhappy prospect looming and to present anew and in more detail the ethical case against Mr. Stokoe’s continued place among those clergy and laymen on whom the Church has vested “honor” and “trust” as “worthy” of the “privilege” of “an invitation to serve” on the MC, I wish to rebut in sequence the seven reasons that the EC presents for rejecting my request and declining to recommend any action concerning Mr. Stokoe.

  1. Though grateful that the EC displayed a generosity of spirit by accepting and investigating my complaint despite your contention in section 1 of your decision that I “do not fall under the category of a qualified respondent,” I am chagrined that you view your mandate as unnecessarily and dangerously circumscribed. If the reference in the OCA’s Best Practice Principles to “employees, supervisors and managers” of the OCA is construed to include only members of the MC, Central Administration (CA), “or others deemed involved with the CA,” then the so-called best practices are hardly worthy of the name. Where is the vaunted transparency and accountability of those Olympian entities within the OCA? Does no other priest, deacon, or layman of the OCA, many of whom may also fit the imported corporate language of employee, supervisor, or manager, have the standing to lodge a complaint, based exclusively on moral or ethical considerations, about a member of the MC who has either been elected by an All-American Council of the OCA or chosen by an OCA diocese specifically to represent the entire OCA or that diocese? If a senior archpriest such as yours truly is not “qualified” by right of ordination or office to question the behavior of anyone on the MC or CA, and, conversely, only those entities may police themselves, then I submit that the OCA has established a dual or even triple administrative “magisterium” where only one, the Holy Synod of Bishops led by the Metropolitan, can claim that prerogative.
  2. The ethical argument in section 1.1 of your decision (reiterated in section 2) is, in a word, surreal. Hastily dismissing any culpability on Mr. Stokoe’s part as the recipient of private, confidential e-mails on a “cloud” account (in this case, Gmail) accessed and forwarded without the knowledge or consent of the principals (namely, Fr. Joseph Fester, retired Bishop Nikolai, and Metropolitan Jonah), the EC decision rests on this astonishing conclusion: “It seems to us that the ethical violation occurred at their transfer, not their destination, and thus the guilty party would be one who accessed them in the first place, without the consent of the authors.” Brothers and sister, why do you feel compelled to choose between guilty parties when both are morally culpable? In American jurisprudence someone who, knowingly and freely, receives and benefits from goods stolen or obtained otherwise illegally may be prosecuted for reception or possession of such goods. Similarly, laws concerning the invasion of privacy protect each American citizen from others who would intrude into his private affairs, publicly disclose embarrassing personal information, or create false adverse publicity about that citizen. I know with certainty neither which third party accessed the private, confidential e-mails in question nor how he or she did so, nor am I competent to speculate about the possible legal ramifications of that action. But I am reasonably certain that none of the three principals identified earlier shared his private, confidential e-mails with Mr. Stokoe. Therefore, Mr. Stokoe obtained those e-mails without the knowledge or consent of the principals. The legal standard is, in any case, lower than the ethical one and tangential, at best, to an ethical argument based on Orthodox moral tradition. Mr. Stokoe’s decision to receive and publish private, confidential e-mails on a cloud account without the knowledge or consent of the principals was an unethical invasion of privacy, a violation of personal decency, and a betrayal of the persons of the principals themselves—in traditional Orthodox moral terms, an intrinsic evil. His motives or ends were irrelevant; the consequences of his action, whether one deems them salutary or unsavory, were irrelevant; the particular circumstances that may have driven him to such a radical action were irrelevant. It is sufficient for a negative moral judgment that the act of publishing the e-mails in question, Mr. Stokoe’s chosen means to his desired end, was, ipso facto, wrong, unjust, unfair, indecent, and immoral—and, therefore, intolerable behavior by any Orthodox Christian, much less those from whom, as the OCA’s own Best Practice Principles insist, “the highest standards of honesty and integrity” are expected “in the conduct of their duties.”
  3. That leads to the third argument in section 1.2 of your decision. The first part of that section is, to put it kindly, disingenuous. Your caveat concerning Bishop Matthias’ sole right to decide the issue is misplaced, an unnecessary deflection from the real issue—namely, whether the EC would fulfill what I thought was your duty to provide an initial assessment of unethical behavior by a member of the MC and make a recommendation to the ultimate decision-making authority. From the outset of my petition process to the EC, I have simply requested that you recommend to Bishop Matthias that he remove Mr. Stokoe from the MC for cause, the sooner the better under the circumstances. What is substantively objectionable, however, is the high wall of separation that your argument attempts to construct between Mr. Mark Stokoe, member of the MC, and Mr. Mark Stokoe, editor of OCANews. Even in less troubled times, Mr. Stokoe’s dual roles since his election to the MC a few years ago would raise the ethical question of a conflict of interest. How can the same person, on the one hand, participate actively in a body empowered by the OCA Statute to make important recommendations and perhaps some decisions in its own right (subject, of course, to ratification by the Holy Synod of Bishops) and, on the other hand, serve as a self-appointed ombudsman for that body, as well as the OCA’s Central Administration and, as we have seen all too painfully vis-à-vis Metropolitan Jonah, the Holy Synod of Bishops and its titular head, the Metropolitan of All America and Canada? In light of the rampant editorializing and ad hominem attacks on certain favorite targets of Mr. Stokoe on his website, I am, to be sure, discounting Mr. Stokoe’s pretense as a “journalist” who merely “reports” the “news” on OCA“News.” The unavoidable, unpleasant reality of that duality is that Mr. Stokoe exploits his exalted role in the OCA as a member of MC to gain credibility for his website, particularly when he claims coyly that he is, through his active participation on the MC, privy to confidential or classified information that he can not disclose, but which he insists, nonetheless, supports his accusations, claims, and other musings. Conversely, Mr. Stokoe frequently dives into the deep end of the OCA pool in a meddlesome way when he pontificates on his website on all manner of issues, practices, organizations, and persons pertaining to the OCA, including the MC and the Holy Synod of Bishops themselves. That bizarre symbiotic commingling of roles and activities becomes especially egregious when he publishes private, confidential e-mails, as he did through the actions that precipitated my letters of complaint, in an obvious attempt to influence the policy, practices, and leadership of the OCA’s highest decision-making bodies, including the MC. With all due respect, I submit that your strict separation of Mr. Stokoe’s dual roles simply crumbles before the evidence.
  4. In section 1.3 of the EC’s decision, you chastise me for not highlighting in boldface in my first letter of complaint the section in the OCA’s Best Practices Principles that reads “in all their dealings with the representatives of the OCA” immediately following “honesty, integrity and openness.” However, while echoing the strained dichotomy between Mr. Stokoe, member of the MC, and Mr. Stokoe, editor of OCANews, you actually undermine your own point. As I argue above, Mr. Stokoe’s moral offense consists precisely in his website’s ill treatment of “representatives of the OCA” in the persons of one senior archpriest and, at the time, dean of the OCA’s St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, D.C.; one retired OCA bishop; and the Metropolitan of the OCA. Does public exploitation of a private, confidential document composed by the Metropolitan himself, to cite the most obvious example, not count as personal abuse of a “representative of the OCA”? It is neither prudent nor ethical for the EC to attempt to navigate so deftly between the Scylla and Charybdis of Mr. Stokoe’s symbiotic dual roles. Moreover, the absence of complaints from “any member of the MC, Central Administration or related entities” is irrelevant to my petition, which stands on its own merits. Why would the EC decide “to accept and investigate” my complaint in the first place if you had already dismissed it for lack of corroboration by members of the “entities” enumerated above?
  5. The main point in section 1.4 of the EC’s decision suggests to me that you misconstrued my quotation of the expectation, according to the MC’s Council Member’s Handbook , that MC members should “live in accordance with the Gospel.” With all due respect, members of the EC are, individually or collectively, free to infer something about Mr. Stokoe’s personal behavior that ought, perhaps, to be under the purview of his confessor or bishop alone. However, I pointed specifically to the evangelical norm cited, happily, in the Handbook as additional grounding for the following contention in the penultimate paragraph of my first letter of complaint: “Mr. Stokoe’s public action was gratuitous, mean-spirited, unfair, indecent, unethical, lacking moral integrity, and directly opposed to the ethos of the Gospel—a clear abuse of the ‘trust’ placed in him and a flagrant disregard for the ‘highest standards’ of service on the Metropolitan Council.” The “public action” to which I refer in that sentence was Mr. Stokoe’s publication of the private, confidential e-mail correspondence in question. If the EC wishes to tilt at windmills of your own devising, I shall not stand in your way.
  6. Yet another artificial, forced dichotomy appears in the penultimate paragraph of the EC’s decision: “Best Practices” as a “duty-based guide for ethical behavior” versus “virtue-based ethics, which lies more in the control of the hierarchs than with us.” As an Orthodox moral theologian who consistently seeks to apply to contemporary ethical questions, both personal and communal, the Orthodox moral tradition in all its majesty and richness—including the fundamental teleological method of aligning virtuous means to virtuous ends—I would never eschew “virtue-based ethics” as the sole domain of the hierarchs. As our apostolic archpastors, the bishops are invested with the primary teaching and preaching ministry of the Church. But is it not incumbent also upon us lower clergy and laity to seek to maximize virtue and minimize the passions, vice, and sin in our lives and our societies? Moreover, the very phrasing of the passages that I quote from the OCA’s Best Practice Principles in my letters of complaint is redolent of “virtue-based ethics”—namely, virtues such as “honesty” and “integrity” that are expected to govern MC members’ “conduct of their duties.” Why would you attempt to separate what even the key “best practices” document of the MC obviously does not?
  7. Finally, the EC’s decision concludes on what I presume is an unintended sour note. I could say that it includes a gratuitous parting shot about “free speech,” but I shall instead submit that you construct another irrelevant straw-man argument that fails to address my own case against Mr. Stokoe’s continued participation on the MC. In neither of my letters of complaint nor any conversation in which I have engaged with any member of the EC, MC, CA, or Holy Synod of Bishops have I advanced the notion that OCANews ought to be censored or shut-down by anyone. I have, on the contrary, throughout my entire adult life extolled freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience as hallmarks of Western Civilization and the American experience in particular. Mr. Stokoe is, accordingly, like any other American who seeks to influence others, free legally to publish whatever he wishes on OCANews or any other venue as long as he does not transgress the laws pertaining to libel, theft, or invasion of privacy. Whether Mr. Stokoe has acted illegally in the present matter is not for me to determine. However, what ought to be self-evident by now is that he cannot, while serving as a member of the OCA’s MC, use his website with impunity to abuse the personal dignity and privacy rights of anyone in the OCA, much less high-level OCA leaders such as Metropolitan Jonah, retired Bishop Nikolai, or Archpriest Joseph Fester. Mr. Stokoe cannot have his website and his seat on the MC, too.

Of course, the ultimate decision in this matter rests with Mr. Stokoe’s bishop. If there is one thing on which the EC and I can agree wholeheartedly, it is our mutual hope and prayer that Bishop Matthias will render a just and swift decision.

Yours in Christ,

Fr. Alexander F. C. Webster

V. Rev. Fr. Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD
Chaplain (Colonel), U.S. Army Reserve (Retired)

OCA Bishop Matthias Reaffirms Orthodox Teaching on Homosexuality


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Editor’s commentary:

When the light shines, the darkness is made manifest scripture tells us and nowhere is this clearer than in the debate about the morality of homosexuality in the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Most readers know that this debate is heating up, driven in large part by the Facebook group Listening: Breaking the Silence on Sexuality within the Orthodox Church.

True to its tendentious name (there is no “silence” that needs “breaking”), the group follows the playbook of homosexual activism that crippled the Episcopalian Church: Accept the premise that the prohibitions against homosexuality need to be “revisted” (a favorite phrase) and thereby undermine the authority of the moral tradition. Refuse and you will castigated as unloving, uncharitable, closed-minded, ignorant, homophobic, responsible for teen suicides — all the usual pejoratives that are foisted on those who disagree. It’s all done with a smile of course. Call it intimidation through church-speak.

The OCA is hampered with the problem of homosexuality because past leaders were active homosexuals. These leaders did not champion the homosexual agenda, but because they were morally compromised the homosexual behavior in some ranks of Church leadership went unchallenged.

Met. Jonah, a moral traditionalist, recognizes the institution corruption that the tacit acceptance of homosexual behavior can cause and does not tolerate it as past leaders have. This was one reason why detractors rose up and attempted to remove him. Other bishops have since come to recognize that the attempt to create moral parity between homosexual and heterosexual behavior has institutional as well as personal ramifications. They are joining with Met. Jonah in the clarification of the moral tradition not only in teaching, but in practice.

It is very important that Bishops speak out. The Episcopalian Church fell because its bishops gave in to homosexual ideology. Had the Bishops resisted, and had they developed a deeper anthropological understanding of the human person (knowledge that the Orthodox already possess but must uncover, examine and explain in greater detail), their collapse may have been avoided.

We are foolish to think that collapse cannot happen in the Orthodox Church. True, the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, but only God determines where those gates are located. And Bishops, as Orthodox ecclesiology teaches, are first the guardians of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the tradition that flows from it. If they fail, the Church fails.

There is no need for “dialogue” with homosexual activists. The moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior is a closed question. It would be better if the Facebook group and their fellow-travelers used the moral tradition as their baseline rather than attempt to Episcopalianize the Orthodox Church. They are dragging the culture wars into the Church and won’t rest until it contravenes the moral tradition regarding homosexual behavior just as the Episcopalians have. My question to them: If you feel that strongly, why not join the Episcopalian Church?

A personal note. Every time I write about homosexuality, I get letters from men dealing with same-sex attraction urging me to keep the teachings of the moral tradition crystal clear. They write that many men are seeking a way out of the homosexual lifestyle because it imposes a severe psychic and emotional penalty. This drives some to Christ where they discover that life in Christ and an active homosexuality are simply not compatible. One or the other has to give and if they accept their attraction as a cross, salvation begins.

I even received a letter from a man who transgendered to a woman, found Christ, and made the switch back again. I’m not sure how that works mechanically but his story is a moving and powerful tribute to the love and mercy of God. He too urged moral clarity saying that if we compromise on the tradition, we steal the hope of finding Christ from those caught up in the homosexual lifestyle who are trying to find Him.

AXIOS to Bp. Nathaniel, Bp. Michael, and Met. Jonah who have taken on this difficult issue in these confused times with pastoral sensitivity and faithfulness to the moral tradition. Bp. Matthias’ encyclical follows.

Source: The Diocese in the Midwest – Orthodox Church in America

Archpastoral Message of His Grace, Bishop Matthias

Beloved Clergy and Faithful of the Diocese of the Midwest,

Christ is in our midst!

Bp. Matthias (OCA)

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:24-27)

In light of the ongoing discussions and debates about “same sex marriage”, I felt the need to address our faithful concerning this issue. Although it would appear to me that the Church doctrine and Scripture has been clear about this issue, there are those who “twist” the Scriptures and the Canons of the Church to fit their own needs. We have always believed that the interpretation of Scripture lies within the framework of “Holy Tradition” and the experience and interpretation of the Holy Fathers before us. Who are we to interpret the Scripture outside of this Sacred Tradition? Only those, who do not have the light of Christ, will interpret Scripture to their own ends.

In the above passage from Romans, St. Paul writes that because of the “lusts of their hearts,” they exchanged the truth of God for the lie. Society and our culture is trying to sell us the “lie,” that “gay marriage” is a right and that it is a natural thing. This could not be further from the truth! An error is a delusion. The delusion that St. Paul refers to is the belief that homosexuality or an “alternative life-style” is acceptable. It is unnatural and unacceptable to God! As with all sins, Christ forgives the sinner who repents. If there is no repentance though, or admittance of sin, there can be no forgiveness. The words of the Prophet Isaiah apply here, “The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe is them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.” (Isaiah 3:9)

Our society challenges the beliefs of Christ and the Church. They not only justify the sin, but they expect that this sin become acceptable. It is not! His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, shared in his pastoral letter concerning this issue the affirmations, principles and guidelines that the Orthodox Church in America proclaimed nearly twenty years ago. They are as follow:

  • God wills that men and women marry, becoming husbands and wives. He commands them to increase and multiply in the procreation of children, being joined into “one flesh” by His divine grace and love. He wills that human beings live within families (Genesis 1:27; 2:21-24; Orthodox Marriage Service).
  • The Lord went even further to declare that people who look at others in order to lust after them in their hearts have “committed adultery” (cf. Matthew 5:27-30).
  • Christ’s apostles repeat the teachings of their Master, likening the unique marriage between one man and one woman to the union between Christ and His Church which they experience as the Lord’s very body and His Bride (Ephesians 5:21-33; 2 Corinthians 11:2).
  • Marriage and family life are to be defended and protected against every open and subtle attack and ridicule.
  • Sexual intercourse is to be protected as a sacred expression of love within the community of heterosexual monogamous marriage in which alone it can be that for which God has given it to human beings for their sanctification.
  • Homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God, and so against its own nature and well-being. It is not to be taken as a way of living and acting for men and women made in God’s image and likeness.
  • Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.
  • People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.
  • Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counseled (sic) in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.

On the second day of August, we commemorate Saint Basil the Blessed, fool for Christ’s sake and wonderworker of Moscow. At Great Vespers we sing, “ …and that He (Christ) may grant to our hierarchs victory over heresies, unity in the Church, order to the world, and great mercy to our souls.” Still, to this day, we must face modern heresies, which are really old heresies “repackaged.” I pray that the Orthodox Church and its hierarchs can remain united in standing for Jesus Christ, Who is, The Truth!

Your Shepherd in Christ,

+MATTHIAS

+MATTHIAS
Bishop of Chicago
and the Midwest

The Orthodox Church of Tomorrow Revisted


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Fr. John Peck

Back in 2008, Fr. John Peck penned the essay “The Orthodox Church of Tomorrow,” a bold and somewhat audacious prediction of the future of the American Orthodox Church in the next decade and beyond. Response was swift ranging from praise to reproof to outright condemnation. Clearly Fr. John had struck a nerve.

Three years later it’s worth taking a second look to see if Fr. Peck was correct. Some of his predictions were:

  • Vastly diminished parishes, both in size and number. There will be a few exceptions, (and they will be exceptional!) but for the most part, most current Orthodox parishioners will age and die, and have no one to replace them. Why? Because as they have taught the context of their culture, instead teaching the context of their faith…
  • Publicly renowned Orthodox media and apologetic ministries. These ministries are the ones providing a living and powerful apologetic for the Orthodox faith in our culture (that is, our 21st Century life in the United States), and actually providing the Gospel in its proper context – engaged in society and the public arena…
  • More (and younger) bishops. If our current slate of bishops has been mostly a disappointment, reducing their number will only tighten this closed circle, making the hierarchy less and less accessible, and more and more immune to things like, oh, the needs and concerns of their flock. The process of selection for the episcopacy will contain a far more thorough investigation, and men with active homosexual tendencies, psychological problems, insecurities, or addictions will simply not make the cut…
  • A very different demographic of clergy. Our priests will be composed of converts, reverts, and the sons and grandsons of venerable, long-suffering clergy. These men all know the score. They won’t tolerate nonsense like homosexual clergy (especially bishops), women’s ordination, or financial corruption…
  • Orthodox Biblical Studies. Orthodox Biblical scholarship will flourish, and will actually advance Biblical Studies, rather than tag along for the latest trends, staying a minimum safe distance back in case the latest theory tanks unexpectedly. Septuagint studies are already on the rise and Orthodox scholars will usurp the lead in this arena, establishing a powerful and lasting influence in Biblical Studies for decades to come…
  • Vocations will explode. As a result of the elevated ethical standard publicly expected from the clergy, candidates in far greater numbers will flock to the priesthood. There will be very full classes, distance education, self-study and continuing education going on in every location…
  • Philanthropy will flow like the floodgates of heaven. Finally, the many Orthodox Christian philanthropists who annually give millions of dollars to secular institutions will finally find their own Church completely transparent, completely accountable, and worthy of their faith-building support…

  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58