Antiochian Orthodox Church Affirms Traditional Marriage

antiochian-logo-266x165 – A resolution affirming heterosexual marriage was passed unanimously at the Antiochian Convention in July of this year.

I was present when the resolution came to the floor and would have tweaked it a bit by using the term “sex” instead of “gender” (the collapse of sex — biological particularity — into gender is one of the great confusions of our age); establishing the moral ground of natural marriage more firmly (the natural is never separated from the sacramental thus the moral validity of heterosexual marriage precedes the sacramental expression of it); avoiding the term “orientation” (it clouds theological notions of ontology) and a few other items.

However, we were voting on a resolution, not a theological apologetic so I passed on the comments and voted yes.

Resolution to Oppose the Recent United States Supreme Court Decision That Held the “Defense of Marriage Act” Unconstitutional

Source: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013 the United States Supreme Court, in the case entitled “United States v. Windsor”, following much controversy, ruled that the law known as the “Defense of Marriage Act”, (“DOMA”) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case of Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which defines marriage in all federal statutes as the union of one man and one woman. By invalidating Section 3, of “DOMA” the Court in Windsor now permits all federal agencies to redefine marriage to include unions of two people of the same sex.

WHEREAS, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, under the direct leadership of his Eminence, Metropolitan PHILIP (Saliba), and the Archdiocesan Synod, continues to shepherd its faithful members throughout all of North America, and as such, are deeply concerned about the recent developments regarding “same sex marriage”.

WHEREAS, the Holy Orthodox Church recognizing marriage to be a Sacramental Union teaches that marriage and sexuality, which are firmly grounded in Holy Scripture; Two thousand years of church tradition; and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of a man and a woman and that authentic marriage is blessed by Almighty God as a Holy Sacrament of the Church.

WHEREAS, The Holy Scripture attests that God created man and woman in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:27-31), that those called to do so might enjoy a conjugal union that ideally leads to procreation. While not every marriage is blessed with the birth of children, every such union exists to create of a man and a woman a new reality of “one flesh” This can only be achieved in a relationship between individuals of opposite gender. “God made them male and female…So they are no longer two but one flesh” ( Mark 10:6-8).

WHEREAS, the Holy Orthodox Church also teaches that the union between a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Marriage reflects the union between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:21-33). As such, marriage is necessarily monogamous and heterosexual. Within this union, sexual relations between a husband and wife are to be cherished and protected as a sacred expression of their love that has been blessed by God. Such was God’s plan for His human creatures from the very beginning.

WHEREAS, the Holy Orthodox Church is cognizant that God’s divine purpose is increasingly questioned, challenged or denied by society, i.e. as secularism, relativism, social and political pressures work to normalize and legalize “same sex” unions.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this 51st Archdiocesan Convention, duly assembled at Houston, Texas, from July 21-28, 2013, resolves through the hierarchy, clergy and laity of the Antiochian Christian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America: that the Holy Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless “same sex” unions of any degree. It is further resolved that marriage between a man and a woman is a Sacramental Union ordained by God, homosexual unions are not. Like adultery and fornication, homosexual acts are condemned by Scripture (Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). However, this being said, we must stress that a person with a homosexual orientation is to be cared for with the same mercy and love that is bestowed by our Lord Jesus Christ upon all sinners. All persons are called by God to strive toward holiness.


  1. Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD says

    Thanks, Fr. Hans, for copying and commenting candidly on the recent resolution of the AOCNA on the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision (U.S. v. Windsor) invalidating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I, too, commend the Antiochians for taking on the Court and reaffirming Orthodox moral tradition on the issue.

    I see that the text as it appeared yesterday on the AOCNA website has been edited for spelling, but the grammar and rhetorical flow still require tweaking. For example, most of the “Whereas” paragraphs cram too many sentences into the text.

    The resolution does speak firmly and unequivocally to the Orthodox faithful, pledging to preserve the Orthodox marital tradition within our church communities whatever other agencies in American society might attempt to foist upon this nation. That models a spirit of resistance for the rest of us Orthodox in America as well.

    However, the AOCNA resolution, like the recent proclamation on U.S. v. Windsor by the OCA Synod of Bishops, does not address directly–or in any discernible way–the principalities and powers in the public square who are responsible for the latest assault on the venerable institution of marriage, much less summon the faithful to prophetic witness and action in that arena.

    Perhaps the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas will provide a more comprehensive moral theological reflection on the crisis.

  2. Fr. Ignatius Valentine says

    Fr. Hans,

    You wrote, “I was present when the resolution came to the floor and would have tweaked it a bit by using the term “sex” instead of “gender” (the collapse of sex — biological particularity — into gender is one of the great confusions of our age); establishing the moral ground of natural marriage more firmly (the natural is never separated from the sacramental thus the moral validity of heterosexual marriage precedes the sacramental expression of it); avoiding the term “orientation” (it clouds theological notions of ontology) and a few other items.”

    Would you please expand and explain these criticisms a little bit more so I can understand what you are getting at?

    Thank you.

    • Fr. Johannes Jacobse says

      Sure, Fr. Ignatius.

      Sex and Gender

      The term “sex” used to mean biological particularity — the biological differences between male and female. “Gender” referred to how that biological particularity was expressed within a culture. Different cultures have different expressions of course but they were grounded in the biological particularity.

      Increasing however the term “sex” has been dropped in favor of “gender” which results in the sense that biological particularity and the cultural expression of that particularity are one and the same. In other words, biological particularity is itself seen as fluid and the distinctions between male and female hold no permanent significance. This is idea informing radical feminism, transexualism, and so forth. (Check out the Urban Dictionary for a glimpse how this filters into popular culture.)

      Establishing the moral ground of natural marriage more firmly

      Paragraph 4 of the resolution (“. . .the Holy Scripture attests that God created man and woman in His own image and likeness. . . “) and paragraph 5 (“. . .the Holy Orthodox Church also teaches that the union between a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Marriage reflects the union between Christ and His Church. . .”) muddy the argument even though both points are true.

      It is true that the full expression of marriage is the sacramental expression. But this is a reality experienced in the Church, not apart from it and as such the authority of the statement is for those in the Church. Secularists understand this which is why they assert that the sacramental claim has no moral bearing on marriage within the broader culture.

      The other side of this argument is employed by Orthodox Progressives to argue that because marriage finds its complete expression as a sacramental reality, the Orthodox Church has nothing to say about marriage outside of the Church and thus has no opinion about sanctioning homosexual couplings as legal marriage. The most vocal proponent of this view is David Dunn who published “Civil Unions by Another Name: An Eastern Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage” in the Huffington Post a while back.

      Dunn’s error is that he separates the natural from the sacramental, as if the sacramental expression of natural things somehow negates their naturality. It doesn’t of course. The bread and wine when transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ don’t cease being bread and wine although they are certainly more than just that. The sacramental never negates the natural but elevates and completes it. I call this kind of theological confusion (shared by other Orthodox Progressives, BTW) the “Dunn Error.”

      I don’t think the sacramental dimension of marriage should be approached in a statement for the general public. Rather, the assertion should be grounded in natural law (one male and one female are required to create a child and thus constitute a family; same-sex couplings are naturally sterile) along with scripture. Paragraph 4 does this well. A good example of this approach is the Roman Catholic statement. (For the benefit of AOI readers, Dennis Prager’s essay “Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality” provides some historical context that strengthens the natural law case, IMO.)

      Avoid the term “orientation”

      The term “orientation” has increasingly assumed ontological importance and functions as a category of being. Homosexuality is posited alongside heterosexual desire in a kind of ontological parity (God created Adam and Eve but He should have created Adam and Steve alongside them).

      The problem of course is that the category of “orientation” can’t be restricted to homosexual desire alone. What about pedophiles or people attracted to animals? If the term “orientation” does indeed possess an ontological dimension then who is to say that pedophiles or even bestialists(?) should be accorded any less cultural sanction than what the homosexual lobby demands for itself? We will either have to assert that pedophiles and bestialists(?) have the same right of expression that homosexuals claim, or we will have to go back to defining homosexuality in terms of behavioral pathology over orientation.

      Homosexual “orientation” may indeed exist but not as a category of being (an ontological classification). Every passion has to power to shape habits of thought. An alcoholic has thinking shaped by his addiction (they call it “stinking thinking” in the 12 Step Program), just as the pedophile is oriented towards young boys, the bestialist(?) toward animals, the glutton towards food, and so forth. And every therapy deals with a change of mind and heart in order to master the desire and overcome the orientation.

      Heterosexual desire is not an “orientation” although behaviors like compulsive heterosexual fornication or viewing pornography might be (habits of mind fueled by submission to passion). Heterosexual desire is in accord with nature (God created Adam and Eve) although of course the proper expression of heterosexual relations is within marriage and all that implies.

      Put more simply, the term “orientation” carries such surplus baggage that it is probably best to avoid it altogether.

      Finally, just to reiterate, the statement is strong where it needs to be strong (the authors did a good job) which is why I did not comment on it at the time and voted yes.

      • M. Stankovich says

        It would appear that you have “evolved” no further than our last debate – most notably in your lack lack of convenient authority beyond yourself. Several and questions and perhaps we can reach some common ground.

        Gender derives from the ancient Greek γένος. It is used in the writings of Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Homer, Plato, Sophocles, blah, blah, blah to indicate species, a race of (people), a kind of…, a class of… (referring to animals), a house (referring to nobility), an age or generation (referring to time). it is used eleven times in the New Testament, generally in this manner: The apostles ask why they were unable to cast out the demon themselves and Jesus responds, “But this kind/type [γένος] does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” (Mat. 17:21). The Evangelist specifically notes that, “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by race-type [Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει] (Mk. 7:26). St. Paul, in detailing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, “To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues [ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν].” (1 Cor. 12:10). And he later notes among the trials he has suffered, “In journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by my own countrymen-kind-race [κινδύνοις ἐκ γένους].” (2 Cor. 11:26) Finally, the OED, notes the colloquial development of “gender” as a “a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes,” notably the modern Feminist Movement. Gender is most assuredly the proper term to be used in this context and you need to be more precise and careful in your use of terminology.

        If I am to understand this issue of “orientation,” it seems to me there needs to be a clear understanding of sexuality distinct from gender in the creation “as it was in the beginning,” and sexuality in the fallen humanity, expelled by God into this broken world of the consequence of our disobedience. Your use of these expressions like “Adam & Steve” are polemic and serve no purpose but to confuse the issue. Secondly, enough people have questioned your use of the term “human ontology” that I would suggest that unless you are able to provide some source other than yourself, it too does nothing but confuse the issue. While it would seem obvious to me, let me emphatically state that I do not accept homosexuality as a “category of being” intended, created, or any shape or fashion ascribable to God. It is categorically and unequivocally a consequence of our fallen humanity; symptomatic, par excellence, of the interaction of our fallen humanity and this broken world; and it cannot be redeemed, nor will it exist in the Kingdom which is to come.

        We are told that a group of Sadducees tempted Jesus with a question regarding a brother’s wife in the resurrection, and He responds, “Do you not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as/like the angels [ὡς ἄγγελοι] which are in heaven.” (Mk. 12:24-25) St. John of Damascus describes the angels “by nature” as “rational, and intelligent, and endowed with free-will, changeable in will, or fickle. For all that is created is changeable, and only that which is un-created is unchangeable. Also all that is rational is endowed with free-will. As it is, then, rational and intelligent, it is endowed with free-will: and as it is created, it is changeable, having power either to abide or progress in goodness, or to turn towards evil.” Further, they are “immortal, not by nature but by grace. For all that has had beginning comes also to its natural end, ” and importantly for this purpose, “they have no need of marriage for they are immortal.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, PG 96, Book II, Ch. 3). So, it is obvious we were created distinctly by gender:

        1) God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Gen. 1:27)

        3) He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man/Adam [τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Αδαμ] in the day when they were created. (Gen 5:2)

        4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall join to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? (Mat. 19:4)

        5) Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mk. 10:6)

        and 6) relying on the word of the Lord that in the Resurrection they “are as/like the angels [ὡς ἄγγελοι] which are in heaven,”

        when did they become sexual? Was the command “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen. 1:28) intended to be accomplished sexually and was sexual love an aspect pertaining to them – “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) – or was their sexuality reflective of a consequence of the expulsion: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16) And further, if you defend heterosexual desire as an unique ontological reality , when did they become heterosexual? It would seem to me that if you would argue against the notion of the ontological “parity” homosexuality, you would first need to establish heterosexuality as a element of the “image and likeness of God.” And did homosexuality suddenly “spring forth” at the abomination of Sodom, or is it equally and fundamentally characteristic and symptomatic of fallen humanity and our devistated world?

        Finally, you make significant error by not investigating the distinction between desire, addiction, orientation, paraphelia, sexual disorder, and sexual deviancy. You claim to be a champion of the power of words, and you are misusing and misappropriating terms for which there is a significant body of literature that could further this discussion. When someone explicitly seeks your clarification of the dynamics at issue here, it seems to me owe an honest rendition of more than your opinion – particularly when they are controversial, technical, and you claim this is the “cutting edge” of debate for the Church. And you can always ask for help.

        The Church is and has been clear and unwavering in its position regarding same-sex attraction for centuries. There simply is no question. But we are liars if we suggest that we are not riddled as a church with intolerance, disgust, fear, and outright hatred and rejection for even those who would seek the path of chastity to which we are all called. The shameless effort, decades-long and clinically unsuccessful, of the Christian Right to “re-orient” homosexuals is driven by hatred and disgust. We have no ministry, we have no outreach, we have no discussion, and we have no dialog. Those that would attempt to dialog are immediately suspect, and tire from the futile effort. I receive email at my site from individuals who live in chastity & their parents, guided by wise and merciful Orthodox priests, but live terrified of being “outed,” being “subtly” ostracized in their parish, withdrawn from situations where children are present, and so on, and we feel no shame.

        (And as a side note, when you have learning disabled commentators such as myself, cutting the post-editing time of posts from 60 minutes – which I grant is exorbitant – to 3 minutes is disrespectful. You should only see what written text looks like post-head trauma/dyslexia!)

        • Fr. Johannes Jacobse says

          Comment edit time is 60 minutes. Nothing has changed there.

          As for the rest, well, a whole lot of assertions there.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Fr. Hans, I too noticed that the comment time came up as 3 minutes on my last post. Might check into it.

            Came up as 60 minutes on this one.

            • M. Stankovich says

              For what it’s worth, on a Mac with OS X Lion and above (I can’t recall the Unix command for lower versions), flushing the DNS cache from the Terminal with this command apparently brought the editing time – at least on this post – back to 60 minutes for me:

              sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder

              Note: the “sudo” command will ask for an administrator’s password before continuing

            • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

              Well, since it is working now I will leave well enough alone. I know people really like that feature.

  3. Texas Alexis says

    Thank the Lord!! Finally someone is strapping on a pair and calling a “spade a spade” from the Orthodox Faith on the perversity renamed “diversity” in the form of homosexuality and same-sex unions and proclaiming righteousness in the American public square. I have been tired of the silence (a form of consent) – in the name of political correctness and money – for too long. This article has strengthened my faith, along with Dr. Ben Carson and his new book, “America The Beautiful.” Great article.

  4. Deacon Christopher says

    The Antiochian Archdiocese in NA the so-called, “contemporary, liberal” wing of Orthodoxy in NA is the only taking a principled stand on these issues.

    Ironic, no? 🙂

    • Michael Bauman says

      Deacon Christopher, I wish folks would make up their minds: are the Antiochians worldly or papal? The irony you mention is only irony because of the warped perception so many have about Antioch. Perhaps the stand is because we Antiochians have bishops who are men not afraid of offending people if they need to, bishops who lead, pastor and believe?

      But hey depending on the point of view: the Greeks are crazy, the Russians archaic, the Antiochians worldly and everybody else is “papal” because ‘everybody’ knows WE (whomever WE is) are the only real, authentic, genuine Apostolic Orthodox after all.

      • geo michalopulos says

        Indeed, Antioch is to be commended. They may yet replace the OCA as the authentic indigenous voice of Orthodoxy here in America.

        • Deacon Christopher says

          Michael, this dude abides.

          Geo – I think they already have.

        • I think that you wish that to occur, but it is hard for that to transpire in the face of the historical circumstances which state that that isn’t possible.

      • I think the level of political statements is declining rapidly. For the record, the OCA is the only local church on this territory and is commissioned by its Russian mother church to missionize North America. Unfortunately, due to the vicissitudes of history, we experienced myriad divisions over the last hundred years , amounting to an “Orthodox denominationalism” really instead of a “jurisdictionalism”. That is an abnormal Orthodox model of witness on a missionary territory, really constituting nothing more than a free for all.

        That being said, you can’t really function canonically on another local church’s territory indefinitely: eventually you become part of it or fade away or leave Orthodoxy altogether.

        There is a standard for Orthodox Faith, worship, discipline, and it is easily seen by simply LOOKING at other parts of the Orthodox world. When one does, one will see that Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Georgian, and even Antiochian Orthodoxy (in its homeland) conform to this standard and it more or less differs only locally. Thus, to say the Russians are “archaic” leaves one wondering whether or not one really wants Orthodoxy on its own terms or would prefer something which is distilled, watered down, etc. … heterodox.

        I often hear some voices talking about the “American context” to justify all manner of intentional deficiencies and innovations which are not known in the Orthodox world generally. It seems as if some wish to create a Protestant denomination instead of witnessing Orthodoxy in traditional Faith and worship. What they often espouse is a model which ends up being a lot like Vatican II papal Christianity. That isn’t Orthodoxy.

        Pastorship creating a congregation-friendly compromise in discipline with allowances for peoples’ spiritual growth is a good reason to have a more broad approach to Orthodox mission. Using it as an excuse to denature and deform authentic Faith and practice to the point where it forgets and turns its back on faithful and traditional observance and teaching, however, is infidelity, is setting a standard for Orthodoxy which is not worthy of it.

        In other words, broad approaches are meant to be used to help congregations grow into richer Faith, discipline, observance, what some may term “archaic” (but is really “mere Orthodoxy”) to prevent the nominalization of worship and the secularization of faith communities whose Faith and discipline becomes “schizophrenic” and “Christmas and Easter” Orthodoxy to quote Fr. Schmemann. Because it is observed not as a holistically Eucharistic ontology, but as a past time, as divorced from ones life in the culture, as lacking all witness to the world in which we live. Nominalist models fuel the fires of secularization, lapsing Orthodox Christians and atheism. They produce enemies of the Church because the Church being a hobby becomes irrelevant, banal, pointless to people who come to neither understand nor appreciate its richness and whole life in CHRIST. They come to react to models which never presented these options to them, never nurtured them in more mature Orthodoxy. If that is the standard for “Americanized” or “modern”, I will honestly say that it is a standard that will empty churches and breed impiety and collapse of the Orthodox mission, and that has been seen as the trend for the last thirty years.

        Broad church observance must exist to witness to people coming out of post Christian culture, yes, but its responsibility is to nurture souls to return witnesses of Orthodoxy to that culture to redeem it in CHRIST JESUS, that means maturing them in Faith, Piety and Traditional worship. Some churches do not offer or offer a more complete “broad” model. The fact that their witness is more complete and faithful to the Tradition is not in any way a deficiency, but, rather, an example of a greater standard of fidelity. In other words, they are consciously acting to meet a more faithful Orthodox standard. When you celebrate that your Orthodox observance is incomplete and that is “great and modern”, what you are in actuality celebrating is your brokenness, an Orthodox fragment.

        It is ironic sometimes to consider that papal Eastern Rite communities like the Melkite church can be much more traditional in worship and flourish, meeting the needs of their communities better than the Orthodox churches from which they have divided: that is a sorry standard and not one to emulate. I find it a sad commentary that one can learn more about the piety and orthopraxia of this group of Christians by reading the Uniate Bishop Raya than by reading its English language Orthodox literature. That isn’t an “archaic” standard (while it is only obliquely “papal”), it is a failing modern standard. A modern standard failing to meet the standard of Orthodoxy. If you don’t live up to who you are, you never become whole as who you are.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Rostislav, lighten up. My statement was a sarcastic summary of all of the pejorative comments I’ve heard about brother Orthodox from various folks talking about jurisdictions other than their own. I don’t agree with any of the statements. Each has a flavor of its own that is unique and quite tasty. We have an opportunity to craft something unseen before within the Church, IMO, with the grace of God: a truly pan-Orthodox family that is neither Greek, nor Russian, nor Arabic, nor American but partakes of all without confusion.

          I’ve heard Met. Philip referred to as ‘papal’; Pat. Kryll; Pat. Bartholomew and even Met. Jonah. I’ve been Orthodox for 26 years and since the day I was received in an Antiochian parish, I’ve been told to ignore Met. Philip because he’ll be dead soon. Obviously “soon” was meant eschatologically (another joke).

          I’ve come to accept such statements as childish sophistry whose only purpose is to help the speaker avoid real thought and real engagement with the faith in this time and in this place.

          BTW, I’ve also come to the conclusion that I have no control over what form the Church takes in this country even less what gets translated and by whom as those things are in God’s hands totally. If I dedicate myself to more prayer; fasting; almsgiving (both goods and mercy); worship and repentance/forgiveness learning to give God glory for all things, I’ll be doing quite a bit. I may even acquire the spirit of peace by God’s unwarranted grace.

          May His blessings be with you.

          • Well, let’s begin by saying that the latent russophobia, whether I misunderstood it or not, really left a lot to be desired.

            Secondly, I think we could take a few good steps forward by integrating into one American church which is necessarily a local church with a local form of Orthodoxy, not a moment of least common denominator “Americanization”. That Orthodoxy necessarily will have to be a whole Orthodoxy to be considered “mature” and not fragmentary and nominal, secularized. We could really progress if the Slavic jurisdictions were to join with the Antiochians and Romanians where we could invite the Antiochian Patriarch to take up an exiled residence here to take our Orthodox Church in America (OCA) into a more established future, where we will eventually have unity of all Orthodox under our own Patriarch. We could create a fusion of established customs and ontological Orthodox observances as well as integrating customs from the Orthodox West to create a living, native and observant Orthodoxy.

            Thirdly, if anyone is becoming Orthodox or is Orthodox to be an automaton and stick ones head in the sand because stewardship of the Church is “above their paygrade” (or whatever), one is burying ones talent to hand the MASTER no increase. Every chrismated Orthodox Christian has not only a say in right adherence and piety in their parishes and dioceses, in the local church, but an obligation and responsibility in maintaining full fidelity to Orthodoxy. No one will ever be perfect in their moral life in CHRIST, for theosis is eternal; however, Eucharistic ontology is an obligation of every baptized Orthodox Christian in the perfection in holiness of all of creation. Tuning out means someone else is tuning in and as we have seen in the last thirty years with the more “modern” model followed, the ones tuning have nigh brought us to shipwreck, where Orthodoxy in North America numbered 5,000,000 in 1980 and is now approximately 1,500,000. It might be a sign that obedience to this trend, this leadership, this nominalism is actually disobedience to CHRIST. So, yes, you can be active and Catholic, assuming your role in the Catholicity of the Church, and also pray, fast, be obedient to your pastors and archpastors. It is one of those things you were told to do in Chrismation. Not doing so means risking offering obedience to disobedience of CHRIST JESUS.

            Thank you for your time and consideration and sensitivity in addressing my concerns.

            • M. Stankovich says


              I am a first-generation American-born Orthodox Christian born of immigrant parents described exactly in Fr. Schmemann’s “Problems of Orthodoxy in America”: secularized persons in the secularized parish. How many of my generation sat through the liturgical cycle with a language that was not colloquial, let alone English – and by that I mean you might well have spoken Russian, Serbian, or Bulgarian at home, but you most certainly did not comprehend Church Slavonic. Every “community” event had a way of digressing into debate, discussion, shouting-match quality battles over jurisdiction, Communism, the Bishops (who were either “known” collaborators or covertly interested in “stealing” the church deed), the priest (who didn’t bother to defend himself), and parish “dues.” One memorable “coffee hour” fellowship found my gather, nose-to-nose with renowned Russian writer Dr. Nicholai Zernov, as my brother and I pulled at his pantleg, “Dad, can we go home now?” The calendar in Russian churches, for all intents and purposes, served a single day, “Russian Christmas” (January 7th), though everyone celebrated “new style” first.

              My peers and my generation is lost from the Church. Why? What they saw, what they experienced was Orthodoxy pro forma, empty, foolish, void of substance. “By God, you are [Russian, Greek, Serbian…]!” said the parents & grandparents, “And that means Orthodox!” What does that mean? Drop in for the “holidays,” get married, baptize your kids, bury your grandparent & parents. Your CAPSLOCK admonitions are meaningless and pointless to them. You preach as if Mr. Bauman is an ignorant man, and he is not. Where is there any vitality in the Orthodox of America? The converts, and more often then not, they gravitate to the Antiochian Archdiocese. Have you read Coming Home by Fr. Peter Gillquist of blessed memory? Read Fr. John Peck’s essay on the future of American Orthodoxy on this very site. There is so much work to do and so many of our own to reach first. Why put yourself, like Solzhenitsyn at the end of his life, yelling admonishments on a public-access television channel no one watches?

              • Let me make this frank and concise: for the last thirty years, people have had the colloquial, “reform minded” olympics that you seem to think is more “relevant”, and in that interim we have lost 2/3 of our presence in North America. That is the sorry rebuttal to the fads and follies your orientation exacted upon Orthodoxy in America. So, I don’t perceive ANY competence on your part here to either indict the past or project your model as success when it has so clearly FAILED. We most certainly need a more mature, balanced and traditional mode of witness. The specter haunting you and your orientation is lack of authenticity.

                It seems that Vatican II Least Common Dominator nominal Orthodoxy got its chance, ran the tables and here we are today left with the bill. Mind you, what you deride as the “bad old days” saw the growth of Orthodoxy as an institution and a way to assemble the people and have them build churches, seminaries, monasteries, etc. People were not ashamed to be who they were then and the mission had more cohesion (and more support).

                But we can’t relive the past. We have the here and now and its circumstances. We have to write our book on page 230, not go back to write page 35.

                I have found that, honestly, “vernacularization” found people not understanding the services almost as much as before when services “were in foreign languages in ghetto parishes”: the reason for that being is that people were still not provided with the religious education and formation to fully appreciate them (or inculation of a holistic Eucharist centered Orthodox way of life and spirituality). Because all that occurred was that Christmas and Easter Orthodoxy became “American” and became even more nominal with no or dwindling roots. The “schizophrenia” Fr. Schmemann condemned intensified in almost pathological degrees. Orthodoxy by osmosis does not create a Eucharistic ontology. It creates nominalism and confusion where people have no understanding of what’s going on or why. It does this in Church Slavonic, English, Greek or Klingon. People were more atomized as individuals and driven further away from personhood in CHRIST because the foreigness of what they were presented was not made native to them in anything but a very gimmicky, superficial and denatured format which more often than not denigrated the weight of Orthodoxy as “inessential” or “arcana” instead of integrating them into the LIFE IN CHRIST. That’s what they came to more acutely understand when things were presented them in English.

                I have no problem with use of the vernacular and see it as a necessity. But by the same token it never became a panacea. While under the mask of “Americanization”, it became a reason for people to loathe and become ignorant of their heritage, AND THAT IS UNHEALTHY, unworthy of the people who built the churches we pray in. Yes, I unapologetically pray in Slavonic from time to time and find its occasional use refreshing and nostalgic and a tribute to the sacrifice of our forebears who built the churches we pray in, not to mention the Mother Church.

                Moreover, it seems that in the OCA, our precipitous decline was because some people decided to impose a calendar change (among other things) which alienated a significant number of our core believers with something which was unnecessary at the time. If you celebrate Christmas on the New Calendar, that is fine, but you don’t have the right to force other people to adopt your sensibilities. The moment your “renewal” begins alienating your core, it means that you are effectually pushing people out of church. They take their children and families with them.

                Yes, we heard that we were doing it “for the young generation” to “keep them in church”, but all the nominalism and fads and follies did were to give that “young generation” the perception that “babushka’s church” was irrelevant, un-American, “old fashioned” and “weird”. That happened because they were presented with a fragment of Orthodoxy without any real formation in most instances. Thus, you promoted further nominalism and made the fires of secularization an inferno which we have as yet to even begin to put out today. Whereas, prior to all this, the fire was contained. Your proposed method became nothing more than trying to put out a blaze with gasoline.

                Could a more workable compromise have been achieved? Well, yes, it would have meant allowing parishes to offer Nativity services also on the 7, January for faithful Orthodox Christians to be able to celebrate Christmas with the MAJORITY of Orthodox Christians around the world. (That’s what still should be done). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this: it is pastorally appropriate to meet the needs of all parishoners and respect their sensibilities. The moment you allow thirteen days to push people away from the church is the moment you start closing the church’s doors: that goes both ways.

                And another thing, I have as yet to have any of the “New Calendar” commandos explain to me how they celebrate Pascha according to the Julian Paschalion without having a problem with the “dual celebrations” which go on in some quarters, and ESPECIALLY in New Calendar circles, but somehow people celebrating the CIVIL HOLIDAY of Christmas along with the Orthodox holiday of Nativity on two different dates is “hypocritical”?! We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be Americans and Orthodox Christians without compromise.

                Be that as it may, although people like myself have had to come to terms with the New Calendar (and it still is divisive and can easily be addressed in a satisfactory manner for all), I understand that at a late date such as this that considerations of calendar where we are struggling to witness to prospective converts and reverts is a distraction. Although I am resentful that I have to travel to a parish other than my own to celebrate Nativity with the majority of Orthodox Christians and the historical Church. That is a disgrace. That is a disgrace which did not have to be, does not have to be, and is so contemptuous it has spawned more jurisdictionalism, more disaffection and even schism. The calendar change as implemented became an engine of nominalism and secularization. That is not at all healthy church governance. It was a mistake.

                So, frankly, your own legacy speaks to you before I type a word, and it is a legacy of failure, of a model of infidelity and distraction of presenting a fragmented Orthodoxy whose missionary work is stillborn and causes lapses and disaffection because it neither reaches Orthodox maturity nor spiritually nurtures the faithful in an Orthodox local church model congruent to one pursued by every other Orthodox local church in the Orthodox world which has Orthodoxy as a or the major Faith. It is unserious. It is divisive and it lacks a balance and a treatment considerate of all orientations and points of view while being totally unconcerned with piety and orthopraxia. You as much as admit that yet expect people to say that your model is one of “relevance, maturity, and proper Americanization”. While all you offer is an obliquely Renovationist method which scoffs at people who don’t share your sensibilities and want more substance than you deem appropriate or necessary, people who seek an Orthodoxy which is maturing and traditional. You don’t grow a mission by pushing people away or keeping believers stagnant with an uncatechized faith tradition. It is about time people of your orientation, that of the FAILURES OF THE PAST, get that.

                Frankly, I have tried to make it a point not to address you or your posts directly because I really don’t see a point in promoting conflict or dealing with your ideas and presentation. You are entitled to it. It is not mine, and I can see not much merit to it. History bears me out. Likewise, I expect to be able to hold to my views and orientation without the inaccuracies and catcalls you offer. I don’t need to be lectured by you on books I have read or what I have learned. Your hubris is astoundingly rude and tactless. Frankly, your contemptuousness is appallingly boorish and more often than not WRONG. I have quite a good education, thank you, and I don’t need you in any way to either critique or augment it (In most cases, it transpired in full consideration of your orientation which was rejected as DEFICIENT and even offensive). I can ASSURE YOU my education is as good as, if not more balanced, than yours. Please find a way to respect other points of view. That way we both can contribute and act constructively.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  If you’re havin’ ego problems,
                  I feel bad for you son,
                  I got 99 problems,
                  and you ain’t one.

                  I spend my days among jaw-jacking felons who would disrespect me in order to scratch out a little “turf” for themselves. In the mix, they’ve said things like, “I’m gonna’ take your shoes,” “Ha, I’ll bite your nose off.” Can you imagine, Rostislav? It all works out, however, because, in the end, I go home and they do not. And think about this: if they cross they line, I can issue a violation, take them to a hearing, and give up to ninty-days more in prison for disrespect! ME! Jackass me! I’ve only done it once in ten years, but I have that power. But, you know what, brother Rostislav, they respect me. Murderers, rapists, serial child sexual predators, robbers, you name it, respect me. Why? Because I’ve earned it. Point of fact, my friend: you are a punk & poseur, emboldened only by the anonymity of the internet. You are not in the same league with me, and you most certainly will not speak to me as if you are. Let other people allow you to insult them and disrespect them as you will, and let Fr. Hans allow you to poison his site, it is none of my concern. But please, dear one, I would like you to lean over to the computer speaker. Please lean over to the computer. The next sound you will hear is me changing the channel from the “Solzhenitsyn Turned into a Ranting Lunatic Memorial” to something far more conducive to mature adults discussing The Orthodox Church. CLICK

                  • Hubris, transference, narcissism, hate, irrationality, offensiveness – and you confuse this with Orthodoxy?

                    Such profound emotional issues definitely have no peer in me. But I don’t believe we have to be an audience for this personal train wreck. Get some help.

                    I need to say no more. You have said it for me.

                  • Michael, I take it that you are a corrections officer. I fully understand what you say about the men who respect you. I have the same respect here in Baltimore and I had the same in Texas when I was a corrections officer. I am a volunteer at the Baltimore City Detention Center and I am also a volunteer Baltimore City Police Department chaplain. I would like to discuss some of these things with you off line. My e-mail address is PrisonMinistry [at] Michael [dash or hyphen, not underscore] Bishop [dot or period] com.

                    Deacon Michael

            • Michael Bauman says


              The stereotypical remarks about each major jurisdiction do reveal distaste for those particular people. Those who say that the Russians are “archaic” don’t seem to like Russian Orthodox spiritual tradition and that is a very sad thing. Their comments seem to come from a very modernist perspective. The same goes for those who dismiss the Greeks and the Arabs. The Russians, the Greeks and the Arabs each has a profound, deep and wonderful Orthodox tradition from which we can all learn and need to learn and need to draw on (not just the surface kitsch).

              The stereotypes are used to avoid respect and learning. However, there is also a stereotype of what it means to be “American” that is often used to avoid engaging the English Christian tradition and bringing it into the Church.

              The attitude goes something like this: “Americans are boorish heretics at best, all they are interested in is money so we might as well take what we can get from them ’cause they’ll never be real Orthodox anyway. They don’t deserve what we have.”

              There is a great reservoir of Christian faith, beauty, and struggle within the English culture. If the Church would address those things, as she has done so many times in the past, bring them into her and refine them, we would have something special. So far, I’ve seen no one articulate such a vision. Fortunately, I see my own bishop working to do it and it is exciting, but he is not a public leader who can enunciate a vision and call people to it. He is a man of the trenches grinding things out with will, tenacity and love (God grant him many, many years). I’ve also the great good fortune to know Fr. Moses Berry and experience his work of genuine reconciliation with the deepest wounds of our land. It is possible. It is necessary and we need to do more of it. The best I can do is struggle with my own history and do what I can to offer it all up to our Lord for blessing and transformation. If we each did that, each in the scope we are given, we would not have a whole lot of problems I don’t think.

              Many people saw Met. Jonah as a man of broad vision and public leadership. I’m not really sure since he was knee-capped and silenced.

              The calendar ought to be simple, never should have gone to the new calendar in the first place especially in the manner it was done. You’ll get no argument from me on that even though I’m in a new calendar parish. I find the violent objection by some new calendarists to be quite troubling.

              There is no old calendar parish closer to me than 4 or 5 hours away. My brother is a priest in an old calendar Patriarchal Bulgarian parish and I’ve got many friends who follow the old calendar. I have no doubt that using the Julian Calendar allows for a more complete and full expression of the Orthodox liturgical tradition within time but as the Julian Calendar gets further and further from the civil calendar it can create insuperable problems for some folks approaching the Church.

              Unfortunately, I’ve have seen the clash over the calendar within small parishes do great damage as it became a matter of will rather than of faith (both sides). To me it is much more important to share with my brothers and sisters who bear my daily burdens in Christ; Worshiping where Christ led me rather than going somewhere else to do it the ‘right’ way; praying that God will give the increase. Perhaps I’m wrong.

              BTW, I seem to hit spots in you that I have no intention of hitting. Please forgive me. I need to work on my skills to avoid such things.

              • No offense taken. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

                Yes, you are on to something when you write that certain people either deride a native or “American” local Orthodoxy or they often simply confuse it with their distilled and reactive (often unbalanced and Renovationist) versions of an ASSIMILATE Orthodoxy, which they term “American” (But is often really nothing more than dumbed down “ethnic” Orthodoxy in bad English). What they really have in mind is a concept of “Americanized” versus “American” or native. What that means is that they use nativism to promote a Reformation and denaturing of Orthodoxy, ie a Protestant denomination.

                I totally agree with your position that the tradition of English (British) Orthodoxy and Pre Reformational Christianity has much to offer the creation of our own local church. We should be venerating British Pre Schism Saints as our local Saints along with our American Saints (As well as all Orthodox Saints). We should be looking at English and French Romanesque architecture (Or stave churches) for a native model. While in my mind, a native liturgy would be the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with elements of a Pre Reformation Sarum ordo with vestments and chant, even a word or two of Latin.

                But, yes, all this would be pursued not as a reboot (as in Western Rite), but as a synthesis of the best elements of all the local church traditions present in North America, where a holistic and Eucharist centered North American model of Orthodox piety and ontology would blend together from living Tradition.

                Lastly, with the calendar: at this point, paving the bad road of how that was undertaken is too much of a waste of time and effort which really means a distraction from pressing issues of our day. Let a sane consultation of Orthodox local churches take that issue up on neutral territory, say – hosted by the Polish church – and restore the Julian observance for all or find a canonical transition for a calendar reform. But, the reality we all face is that in “diaspora”, there will be a need for a new calendar. As I have written above – thirteen days is not a reason to push anyone out of the Church (whether or not you take the Old or New Calendar position). It is my experience that if you allowed New Calendar parishes to have their Christmas celebrations on the 25, December but also blessed Nativity services for 7, January that most “Old Calendarists” would be satisfied. If you added the observance of the Monday Archangels fast as part of the New Calendar even more “Old Calendarists” would be less opposed. All of this would fight schism and unite Orthodox Christians. There are ways around this issue – but it really today has become a secondary issue (which should be equitably addressed so we can all move on).

                Thank you for your kind consideration and patience in clarifying your position.

  5. “that the Holy Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless “same sex” unions of any degree.”

    Has it happened that a state is trying to force or request the Church to bless “gay” marriages? Is this taking a stand against a possible, future conflict?
    I am not sure what this is really in response to.

  6. Michael Bauman says

    Max, is saying the Creed a needless PR move? The faith of the Church has to be publicly voiced and affirmed. Even if no one else hears it, it is important.

    • I guess I understand your point, but I think that is a rather faulty analogy

      The Creed is about the Persons of the Trinity, the Church, and the End, and is liturgical, essential and catholic.
      This statement is about behavior, and really, not of the Church but of the society in the U.S. apart from, and in part, in rejection of the Church.

      • M. Stankovich says

        You might listen to this 2003 NPR interview of the late Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan – a longtime friend of Fr. John Meyendorff – who was the Sterling Professor of History at Yale University from 1962 until his retirement in 1995. He converted to Orthodoxy late in life. He had a lifelong interest in religious “creeds,” and this interview by Krista Tippett was from the series “On Being,” and titled, “The Need for Creed. In the left column is a specific links to his comments on the Nicean Creed.

      • Personhood in CHRIST is about behavior… And? Or is it not the Church’s business to help people overcome sin and achieve holiness in the Body and Blood of CHRIST?

        In other words, the Church’s role within society is to promote Life, Life in CHRIST, and that isn’t limited to what goes on behind the church’s doors or with its faithful, but to the society and culture to which it belongs.

        Thus, a statement like this is a jurisdiction tossing the society in which we live a life saver and an admonition to do the right thing and leave the immoral order of things behind.

        It is right and appropriate and the Church’s role to do this. For the Church exists to witness CHRIST, the Love and salvation in HIM to the world to transfigure it in grace.

        The Church offers humanity personhood in CHRIST JESUS. It is right and proper for it to make that known especially when choices made in a society or by its ruling, (usurper) immoral regime push it further into sin and immorality.

  7. Michael Bauman says

    It is not about behavior. It is about marriage and the essential nature of man. You know that nature Christ took on when He “became man” and took with Him when “He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.”

    Questions to consider: Marriage is a sacrament because….? Sacraments are essential to the life of the world because….?

    But if you still think it is “just about behaviour” consider this:
    Oh, if somebody is about to walk off a cliff in a drunken stupor I suppose I should avoid the “self-satisfaction” of shouting at them to stop. After all “its just about behavior”

    If we were not called to be “in the world, but not of it”; not called to “dress and keep the earth be fruitful and multiply and exercise dominion”, call ourselves and the world to repentance, you might have a point.

    But then nothing much would matter: “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”. Have fun Max.

    • The difference there, in your example is personal encounter or relationship, which i agree is essential, versus a press release which is abstracted and necessarily impersonal.

      Although I know you were being snarky, this is fun, and I am grateful to you for kicking it around with me.

  8. M. Stankovich says

    Mr. Bauman,

    Fr. Georges Florovsky strongly believed that “from the very beginning Christianity was socially minded. The whole fabric of Christian existence is social and corporate,” and that “There is still, as it has been for centuries, a strong social instinct in the Eastern church in spite of all historical involvements and drawbacks. And possibly this is the main contribution which the Eastern church can make to the contemporary conversation on social issues.” You may or may not be surprised to know that, in a users group on Facebook, in a large collection of wonderful photographs of the timeline of his life (including the cover of Life Magazine), is his registration card as a member of the US Republican Party. He concludes an article contained in Vol,. II of his Collected Works, Christianity and Culture, “The Social Problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” by saying:

    The church is indeed “not of this world,” but it has nevertheless an obvious and important mission “in this world” precisely because it lies “in the evil… The church was, both in the East and in the West, a supreme teacher of all ethical values. All ethical values of our present civilization can be traced back to Christian sources, and above all back to the gospel of Christ… If the church, as an institution, cannot adopt the way of an open social action, Christians cannot dispense with their civic duties for theirs is an enormous contribution to make “in the material sphere,” exactly as Christians.

    In that both cases argued before the SCOTUS originated here in CA, I am particularly familiar with them from the day the “hellhounds” appeared in front of the grocery seeking signatures for the propositions to be placed on the ballot, six years later when the decisions were announced. Along the way, I reminded, chided, complained, re-reminded, and re-chided that the Orthodox were saying and doing nothing, while on the other hand, 1) our government openly indicated they had no intention of formulating a serious opposition, and 2) those who supported the defeat of DOMA & Prop 8 were open & transparent as to their strategy, their prominent supporters & amuci submitters, and their patience & persistence. You will admit, the Orthodox said nothing. On the actual days of the arguments, most prominent of the Orthodox were in Rome, celebrating the election of the new Pope. In the interim between the arguments and the announcements, it is fair to the say the Orthodox said nothing. Following the announcements, the “internet pundits” began the chant, “Why haven’t the respective Orthodox synods/hierarchs responded?” and when they did, in ride the white horses bearing critics to critique the foregone ineptitude of the responses. Mr. Percy – in my estimation, quite fairly inquires, “for whom is the response intended?” – and you, Mr. Bauman, seem surprised.

    I have noted to Frs. Hans & Alexander elsewhere that I find nothing intrinsically wrong with these unified statements upholding the solidarity and unity of the Church’s belief. From Chalcedon forward, the Fathers did so with this anything-but-formulaic statement, “Joining together with those Holy Fathers before us…” Nevertheless, the fear and danger should be that such statements become “satisfaction” in and of themselves, such that we have addressed the “issue.” Would it be too difficult to develop a statement on the Orthodox position on same-sex marriage to be include in any curriculum for couples preparing for marriage? Would it be too difficult to develop a statement on the Orthodox position on same-sex marriage to be inserted in service books distributed at Orthodox weddings? Would it be too difficult to include an instruction on the Orthodox position on same-sex marriage in the homily usually given at each and every Orthodox wedding? Would it be too difficult to include an instruction on the Orthodox position on same-sex marriage in the church school material for our children? Anyone is capable of hanging a sign indicating “immorality & abomination.” A moral voice explains God’s plan for salvation in a manner by which those with ears may actually hear it.

    While some believe there remains some hope yet for preventing ratification on a national level, I believe this is naive. In any case, a “call to action” is not action, and we need to act – as Orthodox in America – in a much precise and concerted manner.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Michael, I’m not sure exactly why you address your comment to me. I have never said anything against the Church having a social role. Quite the contrary. I just don’t see much good that comes from that social role being partisan politics.

      As to you oft cited request that sermons be preached on the subject, in my parish they are. Still the Bishops need to lead by “rightly dividing the truth” which, IMO, the Antiochian bishops did in this case and the convention followed their lead. It is indeed up to us, the faithful, to do more, to activate that truth and live it.

      I believe you are quite right in your observation that governmental action is a dead course. By the time the issue became one of law, fairness and civil rights, we had already lost that battle. That does not absolve us from the task of continuing to be active in the truth.

      From my perspective the social and corporate activating of the Church begins in the Liturgy, continues through the proclamation of the Gospel into the faithful living the life of the Church regardless of the way of the world. Giving alms (money, care and mercy) to those in need; adhering to the teachings of the Church on such matters as marriage, sexuality and abortion; pastoring appropriately to those who have violated Church teaching and practice in these areas so that each person has the best opportunity for healing and restoration. The statement of the Antiochian Convention is part of that process. At the very least it lets our people and the world know such blasphemy as ‘gay marriage’ will not be part of the Church.

      The pressure to accept such evil will not abate because of the statement, quite the contrary I suspect. For it to hold, we, the faithful, will have to uphold it in our hearts as well as in our actions. A sincere and deep devotion to the intercessions of the Theotokos is critical here, IMO.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Pardon me, Mr. Bauman for the lack of clarity. I was, in fact, agreeing with you!

      • Anyone who says that the Orthodox Church has no place in swaying the politics run amuck in the nation we live is a person who is advocating nominalism in the place of the presence of the Orthodox mission in North America and advancing that immorality become worse as public policy.

    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD says

      We can do without the cynical “white horses” metaphor.

      Dr. S, your contention (“In the interim between the arguments and the announcements, it is fair to the say the Orthodox said nothing.”) is demonstrably false. ROCOR’s Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America under Archbishop Alypy and Bishop Peter released a strong but compassionate statement on March 29, 2013, only two days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard the second of the two cases concerning homosexual “marriage.” (See Further, numerous Orthodox clergy and laity had been working “behind the scenes” before the SCOTUS decisions in June.

      On this blog and elsewhere I have described a number of public proclamations by Orthodox bishops and other Orthodox clergy in response to the extraordinary reach of the radical homosexualist movement into every venerable institution in America that was once a bastion of traditional morality: the workplace, the family, the churches, the armed forces, the Boy Scouts, and now even marriage. For example, my own guest editorial in the August 24, 2010, issue of Stars & Stripes, the popular military newspaper, highlighted Metropolitan Jonah’s powerful and prophetic missive to the Armed Forces Chaplains Board in July 2009, warning that, if repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law led to infringements on the liberty and conscience of Orthodox military chaplains, he would withdraw his official endorsement of the OCA chaplains, thereby removing them from military service. (See

      The greater issue here, as is too often the case, is whether the Orthodox faith community has a divine commission to witness both prophetically and pastorally from the perspective of Orthodox moral tradition to the wider American society, including our public officials and other public institutions. I have devoted some 35 years of my life as an Orthodox moral theologian to that mission. I suggest with considerable regret, however, that some, perhaps many Orthodox leaders in this country, both ordained and lay, have adopted a very different approach to the question, which militates against such a public moral witness.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Fr. Alexander,

        εὐλόγειte ὁ κύριος!

        [The seeming “immediacy” of responses comes from the tedium of analyzing statistical data on the computer and email messages – frequently “urgent”, at least to the sender – pop-up prominently!]

        As you well know, I am aware of your devoted mission and have nothing but respect for your public positions and you personally. Nevertheless, how in heaven’s name would I, a generally well-read Orthodox Christian – and as I have mentioned on many occasions – especially sensitive to the both legal arguments that would eventually wend their way to the SCOTUS because they sourced in CA, ever have known of your writings in Stars & Stripes had you not, several years later, made them know here? How would you know I went to the Gay Pride parade here in San Diego (“went” in the sense it was transpiring at the end of my block!) and ran into Gavin Newsome who, at the time, was running for Mayor of San Francisco and seemed to “aspire” to be governor (he is currently Lt. Governor). When he shook my hand I asked him if he was familiar with the moral teachings of the Orthodox Church regarding same-sex marriage. I was shouted down and his people moved him right along. I recall you noting that comments you received in regard to your messages in Stars & Stripes were unrepeatable, and I join you in the sentiment.

        My point is, we, you and I, can and must witness, and witness in a manner (you more than me!) “as the Master would do so himself,” which is the way of “economy,” dialoging and accepting individuals where they are, and proceeding from there, “for those who would have ears to hear.” Anyone can hang out the sign or wear the tee-shirt, “You are an abomination & what you are doing leads to damnation.” I was shocked at the outrageous comments on another site that Archbishop Benjamin of the OCA diocese of the West “had conversation with two transgendered women.” My thought was, “If not a bishop of the Church, then whom?” And likewise, it brings to mind the texts of the full Order of Confession, that instructs, “Christ stands here with us invisibly… withhold noting lest you leave the Physician unhealed.” Always, some will revolt & reject, but as the Apostles discovered, “πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπίστευσαν!” (“Many of them believed!” Acts 17:12)

        On the other hand, you and I, even in excersizing to the best of our abilities our mission, are not the moral authority of the Church. God has not set us aside for this purpose, nor have we been elected, consecrated, nor anointed. This is the role of the Bishops. And when I insist that the issuing of “statements,” encyclicals, and even “sorrowful epistles” is essential, it is insufficient, and I believe the “fruit” of this absence of a voice of moral authority is obvious. Each and every time a Bishop vests and the Dikiri & Trikiri are placed in his hands, the Deacon exclaims: “Let your light so shine [and the Greek λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς carries an “expectancy of brilliancy”] before men.” This is a major moral issue of our day, and it seems to me we cannot be satisfied simply with statements.

      • I think, Father, one of our more immediate concerns is that the Orthodox Church witness a moral message to the culture, for moral paths save souls, while immoral ones lead them to perdition. A moral life is requisite for personhood in CHRIST, for proper Eucharistic witness, while an immoral life or one which embraces homosexual relations as valid lifestyle choices precludes such a life a CHRIST. Thus, the Church has no choice but to engage the topic and the culture to witness CHRIST for the sake of the salvation of souls.

        As far as the Orthodox Church’s role in promoting morality is concerned, thus, it seems to be Orthodox witness and cultural presence and immediate action, which includes political action. For immorality and license condemns souls while it is the Church’s role to save them. If there ever were reasons for sermons and processions with the Cross, they are now.

        So there are some masking homosexual propaganda in the language of restraint and of “pieties and spiritualizations” they will call “obscurantism” in any other context. While I think it is clear that part of the point of spirituality is to intensify ones witness to a culture languishing in immorality.

        Any court or psychiatric inquisition of Orthodoxy or threat of it is just a rather banal and not so subtle threat of religious persecution. We need not be silenced or cowed in the slightest by the heterophobes. The Occupy Orthodox Net crowd has spoken up. Soon to be amplified on HuffPo, Koz, and G-I-G-O MSNBC…

  9. Ex-Lesbian Janet Boynes Tells Moving Story of Conversion

    By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

    July 16, 2010 ( – Former lesbian Janet Boynes says that her homosexuality began as it does for many women: as a response to sexual and psychological abuse she suffered as a child.

    She was raised by one of her mother’s boyfriends, an alcoholic who abused her mother, who in turn showed Boynes little affection. At 12 she was molested by a relative, then an altar boy at her church. She began to suffer an aversion to men, and found that her own sex was more appealing. She also began using drugs.

    “I was starting to become more attracted to women,” Boynes told CBN in a recent interview. “So many men had hurt me that these women, I thought, were a lot more like me.”

    Her pain was covered over by a false masculinity that made her into a school bully, she says, and already in school people began to ask her if she was a lesbian – an idea she avoided until her 20s, when her loneliness led her to her first sexual encounter with a woman.

    Although she had had a conversion to Christianity, Boynes says her lesbian experience led her to reject her faith and to enter into the homosexual lifestyle, with all of its turbulence and pain. She moved from one relationship to the next, became a cocaine addict, and developed bulimia, she says.

    “My life was miserable. It was starting to go literally down the tubes,” says Boynes. “But I was refusing to come back to God.”

    However, her life began to change when she was invited to a local church that she had often seen on her way to work.

    “And me, not thinking in my right mind, I said, ‘sure, I’ll go.’ and I came in with these sweat pants on, looking grubby, not knowing what to expect,” Boynes told CBN. “I’m in a room with nine other women, just beautiful women, feminine, and I thought, ‘what have I gotten myself into?’ so, I’m sitting there with my head down, feeling so ashamed, thinking these women are cruel, they’re going to chew me up and spit me out.”

    “Everyone introduced themselves, and when they got to me, they asked me my name, and I said, ‘my name is Janet.’ and I said, ‘I’m living a homosexual life. But if you help me, I will live my life for the Lord.'”

    Boynes says she was shown compassion and understanding, and given support by the church’s members in her struggle to free herself from her addictive lifestyle. Eventually, a couple offered to take her into their home, where she lived for a year and received the love she had never experienced as a child. She abandoned lesbianism permanently, and recovered her heterosexual identity.

    “I want everybody else that’s living the homosexual life who didn’t have a great mother or who didn’t have a great father to experience that God is a father to the fatherless or motherless,” says Boynes. “That what he’s done for me, he will do for them also.”

    Eleven years later, Boynes runs a ministry that offers help to those seeking to escape from the homosexual lifestyle. She also recently testified before the Minnesota Senate’s Judiciary Committee against the creation of homosexual “marriage.”

    Noting that she and one of her lesbian partners wanted to “marry” and adopt children, she told the committee: “I’m so thankful that we did not go through with the plan and perpetuate another dysfunctional family. Children need one mother, and one father.”

    She also noted that “by legalizing homosexual marriage you are supporting and encouraging behavior that scientific evidence shows makes people sick, often incurable and fatal. I saw this borne out in the lives of many of my friends while I was living a lesbian lifestyle.”

    Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

    Former Lesbian: I Craved Emotional Balance of Hetero Relationship

    From Lesbian Atheist to Stay-at-Home Mother of Six: Quebec Journalist Tells Her Story

  10. James Bradshaw says

    @Rostislav: This does seem to be the story more frequently with gay women than men. I’m not sure why.

    I was personally never molested. I had a strong yet attentive and caring father. My mother is a gem. Why I knew as early as the second grade that I was drawn towards other guys is anyone’s guess. Most of my gay male friends have the same story. I can assure you that I tried for years to become heterosexual (even though part of me really didn’t believe it was an issue). I tried prayer, daily Masses, confession, even self-cutting as a form of “aversion therapy” (and I still have the scars and burn marks on my arm as a reminder of that part of my life). It didn’t make it go away. In fact, it made it worse. I also became a very big liar to cover all of this up. It wasn’t hard as there’s nothing effeminate about me. I’m built like a college wrestler.

    So what do to with all of this? I don’t know. Life is hard enough without trying to make yourself into something you’re not. It doesn’t help to think that the only moral option for you as you age (and life becomes even harder) is to come home to an empty house (save for a pet cat and reruns of bad tv sitcoms to keep you company).

    So … I try for monogamous long-term relationships. It requires a great deal of patience and self-sacrifice yet gives you a certain sustenance to be able to deal with the trials of work, health, etc. Is it moral? I think so. I know what the Bible says, but the Bible says a lot of things most of us reject if we take it at face value. Do we really believe that abused women who divorce their husbands are sinning? I don’t, nor can I really force myself to believe it. There’s a lot the Bible does NOT say that it should have. Is it a sin for a 35-year-old male to marry a 12-year-old female? Who knows. It seems to be fundamentally wrong … why I can’t say. A passage on this would have been nice, no?

    Ultimately, my hope is that life is about sacrificing ourselves for others and that we leave things in a little better condition than they were when we came into the world. Anything else is beyond my capacity, either intellectually or humanly.

    God bless.

    • There are instances where homosexuality occurs as a hormonal imbalance due to stressors exacted upon the mother while gestating a fetus. That is the newest science to explain the minority of instances of homosexuality. GOD did not make you gay. In any event, sexuality itself is learned behavior and is under our control. Celibacy is an option, and is something the Church blesses.

      The sin of sodomy, however, is a great affliction which perverts human sexuality and depersonalizes eros to the condemnation of the sinner. For centuries sodomy has been understood by the Church, and by Christendom, as a “sin that cries to heaven”. There is no “monogamous”, homosexual alternative which can morally unite one with CHRIST. To argue so is to say that CHRIST blesses sodomy. HE does not. Reject anyone who would tell you otherwise. All such behavior leads to ones condemnation.

      In many cases, when altar boys and others have been molested by pedophiles, the male victims have developed homosexual tendencies, if not full blown homosexuality. In all instances, homosexuality is learned behavior. While in most, homosexual orientation is a matter of choice. It can be treated. It can be healed in CHRIST.

      As far as the “merits” of homosexuality over pedophilia. Seems like arguing the merits of schizophrenia versus theopathic psychosis. Pedophilia tends to be another type of homosexuality in most instances. Orthodox consideration of these afflictions, sins, is predicated on the moral aspects of personhood in exercising eros in healthy, marital sexual relationships, where eros in its appetitive love is transfigured by the married couple into hunger for CHRIST and holiness by a Eucharistic life in CHRIST in true personhood. Homosexual or pedophile sexual afflictions can not serve this role in CHRIST for they are repugnant to HIM and, thus, depersonalizing, demonic in effect and totally destructive of human identity.

      Thus, I can honestly advise you to ignore any resources representing a dishonest take on homosexuality while advocating the gay agenda, whether nominally terming themselves “Orthodox” or not.

      Yes, the moral thing to do is to love those who are afflicted, and offer them prayers and treatment, for ultimately, sin, and a grievous sin such as homosexuality, is a matter of salvation.

      The spiritual significance of what is moral is that which embodies a behavior which helps one become a person in CHRIST. That which is immoral estranges one from CHRIST and fragments ones personhood in sin and estrangement from life and love. Thus, the Church can only, if it is true to itself and the Gospel, witness to the world that which is moral. Such witness is a moral imperative, especially at a time such as this.

      I would refer you to the Life of St. Niphon, Patriarch of Constantinople, and urge you to adopt him as a patron to help you in understanding this affliction and how it can be overcome in an Orthodox context.

    • Fr. Johannes Jacobse says

      James, you are not a victim. You have a cross, but everyone has a cross and how we that carry that cross (or even whether we do) determines how the Lord can work in our lives, how the cross becomes the gateway to joy.

      At the most basic level the moral prohibitions exist to prevent our lives and the culture at large from becoming a train wreck. On a deeper level, they exist as the indicators of the path to deeper self-integration and wholeness that occurs in communion with God who made us and knows us. As we come to know Him self-knowledge begins and can deepen.

      The homosexual question has two dimensions, the personal and public. The personal struggle is one thing, the elevation of the personal into the political another. The conflation of the two creates a tremendous amount of confusion (homosexuals relegated to a class, same-sex desire is given ontological status, and so forth) that will not be untangled until the results of this grand experiment to normalize homosexual behavior becomes evident in the larger culture. My guess is that it will take four or five years before people see that the conflation was a grave mistake.

      Meanwhile, you have Christ and He will not leave you desolate. The appropriation of the salvation He offers however, requires a transformation of the mind (the nous in Greek) that begins with offering our bodies as a living sacrifice — conforming ourselves to the moral structures that life in Christ requires. St. Paul outlines this in Romans 12: 1-12.

      Struggling with sexual temptation can become a means of transformation and sanctification (holiness). This is true across the board, not just for men dealing with homosexual temptation. Pornography is another problem no one ever talks about, especially for young men. The disciplinary practices (fasting, prayer, and so forth) that helps one deal with temptation and arrive at deeper self-knowledge are the same, however.

  11. M. Stankovich says

    Mr. Bradshaw,

    I believe that if you look around this site, you can find my personal opinion as to what you write, & I leave it at that.

    My only advice is that this is the worst possible place to pursue answers. The Google School of Psychiatry is as foolish as it is dangerous. Contact Fr. Hans privately if you really seek direction. To be honest, Mr. Bradshaw, sometimes I wonder. In any case, I say a prayer for you.

  12. M. Stankovich says

    Fr. Hans,

    Where does your responsibility as a “webmaster of the public square” end and the duty of Orthodox pastor begin? I just celebrated the 40th day memorial of a most dear friend of mine, the son of a ROCOR priest, who died from complications of an accident, having been rendered virtually helpless by this phenomenon of “post-polio syndrome.” He and one other Russian child contracted polio in their community in NY because uneducated, ignorant, and arrogant advized them, as self-proclaimed “authorities,” not to vaccinate their children.

    Let me be on the record as saying that there are times to debate, to harangue, to even battle, but as someone trained as a physician, I am telling you that you are allowing a very dangerous precedent to be set. I’m no prophet, but when “bells ring,” I listen to them. And so should you and your Board of Directors. For as long as I live, I will never forget the two days I witnessed one of the best and most talented psychiatrist I know humiliated mercilessly by a plaintiff’s attorney, saved only by his meticulous documentation and copious notes. In other words, he did the right thing.

    • “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.” – Ezekiel 33:7-9.

  13. Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

    Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of “Gay-Straight Alliances” among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers–even in the youngest grades–to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to “gay” students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on “sexual orientation” usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.

    Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even “recruited” into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns–in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

    However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

    Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

    Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

    The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

    Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

    Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

    Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”
    Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

    The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
    Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
    An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:”It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!”[1]

    Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:”The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983).”[2]

    A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: “In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male.”[3]

    A study in the Journal of Sex Research states that “pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women.”[4]
    A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
    According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: “It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy.”[5] Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”[6]

    A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.”[7]
    Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
    The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study, which refers to the “under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys.”[8]

    Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: “The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves.”[9]

    The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: “Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims.”[10]

    The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds: “Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report.”[11]
    Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
    Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]

    A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in Family Planning Perspectives), found that “2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.[13]

    J. Gordon Muir, writing in The Wall Street Journal, discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]

    In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found “just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity.”[15] However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities.[16]
    Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
    Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”[17]

    In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

    Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

    The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”[18]

    The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: “152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only).”[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles–or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.

    Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:

    A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: “According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented.”[20]

    The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.”[21]

    A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]
    ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY ‘HOMOSEXUALS’? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
    Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a “Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse,” that states: “A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.”[24]

    The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
    ‘Homosexual Pedophiles’: A Clinical Term
    The fact is, however, that the terms “homosexual” and “pedophile” are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster’s Dictionary defines “homosexual” as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. “Pedophile” is defined as “an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.” The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.

    A male “homosexual pedophile,” then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female “homosexual pedophile” is sexually attracted to girls.[25]

    The term “homosexual pedophile” was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft -Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:

    A study of child molesters in Behavior Research and Therapy found that “a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders.”[28]

    The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed “the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia.”[29] The study commented on a study that found that “the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8.” Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, “this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners.”[30]

    In a review of studies on pedophilia, the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa concluded: “The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study.”[31] The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]

    A study of pedophiles in Behavior Research and Therapy concluded: “The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences.”[33]

    The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology refers to homosexual pedophiles as a “distinct group.” The victims of homosexual pedophiles “were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls” and that the “recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders.”[34]
    Homosexuals and Homosexual Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic Categories
    Despite this evidence, in their efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms “homosexual” and “pedophile” that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that pedophiles cannot be classified as “homosexual” if at any time they have had sexual relations with women.

    However, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior–often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology notes that “the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype.”[35]

    The data indicates that both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior:
    Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
    A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]

    In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.”[37]
    Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
    A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to “males of all ages.” Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed “greater arousal” to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: “As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages.”[38]

    A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]

    Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”[40]

    Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that “the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires boyishness in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness.”[41] However, the categories are not completely separate:

    While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another.[42]
    Many Pedophiles are Attracted to Women, Marry, and Have Children
    Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:

    A study in Child Abuse and Neglect found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]

    The Journal of Interpersonal Violence studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: “Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli.”[44]

    A study in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that “most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity.”[45] Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that “more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject.”[46]

    A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: “Preferential sex offenders may be ‘pillars of the community’ and are often described as ‘nice guys.’ They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)”[47]

    Thus, the evidence shows that homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.
    PEDOPHILIA IN GAY CULTURE The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement
    David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement.[48] He is a former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children.[49] Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

    Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: “Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture.”[50]

    The inaugural issue of the Gay Community News in 1979 published a “Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love,” which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that “the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all–not just equal rights for ‘lesbian and gay men,’ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.”

    In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing “so-called Man/Boy Lovers” of “attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children.” The coalition went on record as opposing “the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons.”[51]

    Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: “A point I’ve been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.”[52]

    In 1985 NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York’s council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association–now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990’s ILGA’s association with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups cost the organization it’s status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.

    ILGA’s renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization “did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA].” The Washington Times reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ILGA was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: “For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled.”[53]
    Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay Literature
    The late “beat” poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious “out” homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.

    Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg’s publications in both NAMBLA Bulletin and NAMBLA Journal. He discusses how Ginsberg’s biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:

    Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg’s initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg’s sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg’s two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged.[54]

    Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the Weekly Standard, documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode–with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]

    Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the Village Voice, which states that “Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of ‘intergenerational relationships,’ as such affairs are respectfully called these days.”[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:

    In the introduction of the “mainstream” homosexual anthology Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that “Another ‘forbidden’ topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys.” Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a “coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn.”[57]

    Several texts included in another anthology, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as “an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read.” The protagonist is “a pedophile’s dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy.”[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to “[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990’s gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?”[59]

    Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, published by Yale University Press, includes “a longish chapter on ‘Boys and Boyhood’ which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works.”[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of “whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level.”[61]

    A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men’s Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:

    Some Boys: described as a “memoir of a lover of boys” that “evokes the author’s young friends across four decades.”[62]

    For a Lost Soldier: the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II.[63]

    A Good Start, Considering: yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who “offers him love and affection”[64]

    Terre Haute: billed as “A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent’s journey from introspection to perilous desire.”

    Shiva and Arun: the story of two Indian adolescents who “discover early on the joys of sex.”

    Teardrops on My Drum: barefoot kids in 1920’s Liverpool search for “adventure, love and sex.”
    Pro-pedophilia Publications
    Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for “intergenerational intimacy.” The nation’s largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes Daddy’s Roommate and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:

    Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys.[65]

    The Age Taboo, another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: “Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”[66]
    The Journal of Homosexuality and Pedophilia
    The Journal of Homosexuality is viewed as the premier “mainstream” English-language publication of the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika. It is therefore not surprising to see pedophilia promoted on its pages.

    In 1990 the Journal of Homosexuality published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives, edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia: most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.

    In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an article on pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he claims: “Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life.” Graupner argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a “gay rights issue.”[67]

    The fascination with pedophilia continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade, states:

    [S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her ‘out.’ It’s not pedophilia, this thinking goes–pedophilia refers only to little kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to ‘Greek love’ of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]

    Martinac adds that “When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring ‘We’re not pedophiles,’ they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people.”[69]
    The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

    The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: “One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”[70]

    A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”[71]

    Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”[72]

    A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes'”[73]

    A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children.”[74]

    A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”[75]

    The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”[76]

    The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions–including those wrapped in scholastic garb–of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.

    1. Dawn Fisher, “Adult Sex Offenders: Who are They? Why and How Do They Do It?” in Tony Morrison, et al., eds., Sexual Offending Against Children (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 11.

    2. Kee MacFarlane, et al., Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment (New York: The Guilford Press, 1986), p. 9.

    3. John Briere, et al.,eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53.

    4. Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 198; See also Freund, K, and Watson, R. J., “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Paedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children: an Exploratory Study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34.

    5. Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.

    6. MacFarlane, p. 9.

    7. Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. “The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” See also, Kurt Freund, et al., “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” “Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies,” p. 107.

    8. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 315.

    9. Robert L. Johnson, “Long-term Effects of Sexual Abuse in Boys,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (September 1988): 38.

    10. “Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation,” (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997), p. 12.

    11. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 302.

    12. Dan Black, et al., “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography 37 (May 2000): 141.

    13. John O. G. Billy, et al., “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (March/April 1993): 58.

    14. J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the 10 percent Fallacy,” Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1993).

    15. Milton Diamond, “Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993):300.

    16. Ibid. Significantly, a number of studies that were surveyed, and which skewed the overall percentages of homosexuals upwards, included such vague definers as those having had “any homosexual body contact.” In contrast, one study that was limited to self-identifying homosexuals found that less than 2 percent of the male respondents considered their “sexual orientation” to be homosexual, p. 293.

    17. Freund, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited. . . . The Freund et al.(1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred . . . the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study . . . was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners”–in cluding those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.

    18. Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.

    19. Ibid., p. 471.

    20. John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.

    21. Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p. 197.

    22. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.

    23. The fact sheet discusses a study by Carole Jenny, et al., which claims that only 2 of 269 child molesters could be identified as gay or lesbian. Carole Jenny, et al., “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?” Pediatrics 94 (July 1994): 41-44. However, the Jenny study utilized an atypical research technique: the reported child molesters themselves were not interviewed. Instead, the researchers relied upon the subjective opinions of “informants” who accompanied the child victim to the medical clinic. The qualifications for such “informants” to determine the sexual behavior of the accused molester were not established. However, once it is “determined” beforehand that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered gay or homosexual if they have had sexual relations with women, it is a foregone conclusion that few if any of the pedophiles -who often have girlfriends, are married, and have children – will be labeled homosexual. The Jenny study used this narrow profile despite the fact that the study itself found that 22 percent of the perpetrators were of the same sex as the victim. In these cases the molesters clearly engaged in homosexual sexual molestation.

    24. “Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse,” Human Rights Campaign (2001):available at: The fact sheet discusses a study by Carole Jenny, et al., which claims that only 2 of 269 child molesters could be identified as gay or lesbian. Carole Jenny, et al., “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?” pp. 41-44. However, the Jenny study utilized an atypical research technique. The reported child molesters themselves were not interviewed; instead, the researchers relied upon the subjective opinions of “informants” who accompanied the child victim to the medical clinic.

    25. Note that the well-accepted definition of “child” as someone between infancy and the age of maturation is employed here.

    26. Bradford, p.218.

    27. “[Pedophiles] can be of either sex or any [sexual] orientation, i.e., homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.” Paedophilia:Some Questions and Answers (London: Paedophilic Informational Exchange, 1978); quoted in Seth L. Goldstein, “Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation:Law Enforcement’s Role,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 53 (January 1984): 23.

    28. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” Behavior Research and Therapy 26 (March 1988): 390.

    29. Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p.194.

    30. Ibid., p. 197.

    31. Bradford, et al., p. 217.

    32. Ibid., pp. 218, 219.

    33. Marshall, p. 390.

    34. James Bickley and Anthony R. Beech, “Classifying Child Abusers: Its Relevance to Theory and Clinical Practice,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (2001): 56.

    35. Krisin A. Danni, et al., “An Analysis of Predicators of Child Sex Offender Types Using Presentence Investigation Reports,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44 (2000): 491.

    36. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” p.73.

    37. Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275

    38. Marshall, “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” p. 383.

    39. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336.

    40. W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.

    41. John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S., The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care (San Francisco: Ignatius Press:1987): 221

    42. Ibid., p. 219.

    43. Elliott, p. 581.

    44. Marshall, “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” p. 383.

    45. Bradford, p. 219.

    46. Bradford, p. 224.

    47. “Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation,” p. 5.

    48. Thorstad is co�’author, with John Lauritsen, of The early homosexual rights movement (1864�’1935) (New York: Times Change Press, 1974).

    49. David Thorstad, “May/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement” Journal of Homosexuality 20 (1990): 252.

    50. Ibid., p. 253.

    51. Ibid., p. 258.

    52. Ibid., p. 266.

    53. George Archibald, “U.N. Group Keeps Ban on Gay Lobby,” Washington Times (May 1, 2002).

    54. Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Works of Allen Ginsberg,” Journal of Homosexuality 34 (1997): 109.

    55. Mary Eberstadt, “‘Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered” The Weekly Standard 6 (January 8, 2001).

    56. Ibid., p. 21.

    57. Ibid., p. 22.

    58. Ibid.

    59. Ibid.

    60. Ibid., p. 23.

    61. Ibid. Emphasis added by Eberstadt.

    62. Ibid., p. 23.

    63. Ibid.

    64. From the Gay Men’s Press website:

    65. Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Boston:Alyson Publications, 1982).

    66. Daniel Tsang, editor, The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power, and Consent (Boston: Alyson Publications ; London : Gay Men’s Press, 1981), p. 144.

    67. Helmut Graupner, “Love Versus Abuse: Crossgenerational Sexual Relations of Minors: A Gay Rights Issue?” Journal of Homosexuality 37 (1999): 23, 26.

    68. Paula Martinac, “Mixed Messages on Pedophilia Need to be Clarified, Unified,” Washington Blade (March 15, 2002).

    69. Ibid.

    70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

    71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

    72. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.

    73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

    74. Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

    75. Elliott, p. 582.

    76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

    See also:

    Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse?

Speak Your Mind