Edith, you raise several interesting points. I think in the main you are right in that even with those who struggle with same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD for purposes of our present discussion) are not as set in their ways as the present Pink Mafia/Brownshirts would have us believe. History is littered with the names of men who engaged in homoerotic liaisons but upon finding a women, lost these feelings and settled down into heterosexual monogamy. Lord Keynes, the famous historian was one such individual. I believe Oscar Wilde likewise, these are just the famous guys. And let’s not forget that in ancient Greece, ephebophilia (the love of male adolescents) was just one option open to any freeborn man (who was always expected to be the sodomist, not the sodomite).

So yes, I do believe that the tableaux of human sexuality runs the gamut, often within the same individual depending on the individual and the particular stage in his life. Going back to ancient Greece, the same freeborn man was expected to be the sodomite in the relationship while he was young but was to put aside this inclination when he attained his majority. (Those that maintained their effeminate posture were put out of polite society and relegated to the margins of the polis, never trusted with the profession of arms or with citizenship.)

Perhaps we can blame Freud who psychologized on this phenomenon and categorized SSAD as a psychological malady. Though Freud has been proven wrong on so many things –I believe psychoanalysis is pseudo-scientific at best–I think he was onto something here. I think that Fr Hans perhaps said it best that their is some type of psychic disorder that leads to the attraction in the first place and that we would do well to forgo the inclusion of such men into the priesthood regardless of whether they are chaste or not. To put not too fine of a point on it, 99% of all heterosexual males simply hold effeminate men in contempt. Oh sure, we’ll plunk down $100 for a ticket to see Elton John in concert, or listen to Johnny Mathis records, but we extend a certain latitude to men in show business which is full of corruption that we wouldn’t tolerate in our schools, families, businesses, etc. In other words, the real world.

Edith. A good bright week to you as well.

I agree with the thrust of your point that the term “homosexual” ought not to be a self-interpreting adjective. And yes, while the ascetic effort towards chastity requires the same discipline for both a person with same-sex desire and opposite-sex desire, it is important I think to include that even though both struggle, same-sex desire has a different psychological starting point than heterosexual desire.

I realize you are not making this point, but one of our problems is that we often overlook that spiritual fatherhood and motherhood requires that the person first be grounded in his masculinity or her femininity. That means the same-sex conflicts should be non-existent or resolved. A person with unresolved conflict, even if celibate, all too often does not possess the psychological maturity to lead in the manner required no matter how well-intentioned he or she may be.

George, this is a long time after the fact, but I wanted to comment on your post above regarding the phenomenon of homosexual clergy in the Orthodox Communion. It does no good for us to take on the perspective of the world and use the word “homosexual” as though it is fixed, self-interpreting adjective. Do we mean that a person has homo-erotic desires? That a person is engaging in homo-erotic activity? What precisely do we mean?

If the leaders to which you are referring are celibate, then it makes no difference what their temptations are. If they are sexually active, then that is a different matter! As it would be if single priests/ bishops/ were involved in a heterosexual affair.

I have decided myself, because of the way in which the term “homosexual” is used, and all the baggage that it carries today (predetermined by genetic makeup, influenced by culture, etc. etc.) not to use the term. I prefer to speak of “homoerotic activity” and “desires” so that those with whom I am speaking know precisely what I mean.

Best to you all this Bright Week!
Edith

Don’t know how that happened, sorry.
E.

Has a full transcript of Metropolitan Jonah’s address been published anywhere? I would help to have more of his comments available in writing.

If we cannot, or will not, treat each other with common decency and ordinary justice, our witness fails and we deliver a still born Christ.

Christ can’t be stillborn. It’s an ontological impossibility. Instead, I think the judgment is greater here, probably closer to the condemnation Christ gave to the Pharisees, or the warning James gave to the teachers. Our lack of common decency and respect drives others away from Christ and our temples become white-washed sepulchers. Our judgment is deserved.

You are right. The crisis in Western culture is primarily anthropological. The commandments compel behaviors that conform to the deep structure of our being, a structure that can’t be grasped apart from the knowledge that man is more than the passions (the drives) he feels. This begins of course in the Church. If a Church has men in positions of leadership that are homosexual however (such as the Episcopalian Church), the word that needs to be taught, the insights that need to be gleaned, the prophetic leadership that our time requires in order to bring healing into the world cannot happen. It will shipwreck the Church instead, just as we have seen with the mainstream Episcopalians.

Basically it’s this: his remarks about the “destructiveness” of homosexuality were not merely theological/legalistic, but anthropological/cultural. In other words, it “distorts normal masculinity” AND “normal femininity.” Why is this important from an anthropological standpoint? Because God ordered the human race into two mutually complementary sexes. Each brings its own gifts to the table. The present crisis of the West is a theological/anthropological crisis. Men have sex outside of marriage, women look to the state to help raise their children, men thus are cuckolded by the state, etc. Other women abort their children because of some felt “necessity.” Men increasingly look to other men for their satifaction which will reorder our cultures into hierarchical castes not unlike Classical Greece and Rome, which of course, fell because of rampant immorality. They stopped reproducing, thereby barbarians came in an overwhelmed them demographically (if not militarily).

None of this is good. For one thing, it flies in the face of traditional Christian teaching and the animating egalitarian principles of the American Republic. (Male homosexuality enforces a rigid caste system in all societies that practice it.) Moreover –and +Jonah said this–it makes it next to impossible for us to stand against an “ascetical Islam.” He’s right. Back to the fall of the Roman Empire.

So where am I going with this? Can any of you imagine anybody in the other jurisdictions preaching this same sermon? Until Nov 2008, no primate of the OCA could have as well. Why? Because it is widely believed that too many of our hierarchs in some of the ethnic jurisdictions, are themselves homosexual.

I know SCOBA released a statement in 2003 regarding the incompatibility of homosexual “marriage” with Orthodoxy. Good for them. I agree with these words completely. But let’s be honest, we seriously dodged a bullet because of our inconsequential numbers. (At least one of those signatories was homosexual.) I am convinced that because of +Jonah’s higher profile in America, gay groups will be gunning for us, looking to “out” certain bishops in order to compromise our moral witness.

Is it possible that in proclaiming the Gospel in its undiluted form, +Jonah was unwittingly laying down markers vis-a-vis other Orthodox bishops in America? I for one don’t believe he was playing games. I think he was openly and honestly –and completely without guile–reaching out to hurting Christians in this new Anglican province.

Nevertheless, it is possible that in preaching the Gospel, +Jonah’s words may have a salutary effect on us as well, causing us to get our own house in order.

One of the interesting things in his Beatitude’s presentation was he comment that there is a need for a change of heart on the part of the Orthodox as well. Not in terms of dogma but rather in terms of our willingness to learn from Christians in other traditions. The example he used was women’s ministries. While he clearly articulated the fact that ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate is contrary to the tradition of not only the Orthodox Church but also the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches he also said that the Orthodox could and should learn about women’s ministries from the Anglicans.

Without trying to speak for his Beatitude, I think in his public statements he has been clear that there is much that needs to change in the Orthodox Church. Again not dogmatically but psychologically and sociologically. While this is (at best) secondary in terms of a hierarchy of truths, we ought not to underestimate the importance of such a change and not only for our relationship outside the Church. More than one person has told me that s/he has seen how we mistreat each other and it has caused them to walk away from the Church. Some of these people have been inquirers, but other were converts, people baptized as infants and (in more cases then I care to recount) clergy. One clergyman told me directly, he had to leave because the anti-Western mindset he encountered day in and day out among Orthodox Christians was poisoning his soul and his family life.

If we cannot, or will not, treat each other with common decency and ordinary justice, our witness fails and we deliver a still born Christ.

In Christ,

+FrG

It is my belief that with monastic bishops (true monastics, like +Jonah) we can restore the proper relationship between bishops and priests, which will in turn encourage the laity to take up their royal priesthood office. There’s more than enough work in Christ’s Church for every member.

But, I also think George is correct, the Holy Spirit is nevertheless at work in the hearts of all and whatever might be the difficulties of corporate reconciliation, individual reconciliation (as Joe said) is ALWAYS possible. And I think his Beatitude did well by his willingness to lay out the difficulties rather than dance around the issues. Without bias to his brother bishops, the Metropolitan spoke, as Ilya said, as a true hiearch of the Orthodox Church and God has already brought good out of the speech.

Finally, and most encouraging of all, his Beatitude spoke not so much of conversion as he did of reconciliation. This seems to me to represent a significant, and much needed, shift in how the Orthodox Church engages Christians in other traditions. His Beatitude has emphasized this need for reconciliation not only ecumenically but also in the internal life of the Church here in America and on the universal level. And again, this represents a significant and much needed shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship with each other.

In Christ,

+FrG