Very well said Ken! What we see among many of the more theologically liberal and pastorally ‘lax’ Orthodox clergy is a real and willful abdication of their traditional (and fundamentally necessary) role in serving as authoritative moral voices to counsel parishioners on their sins and instruct them in the means to repentance. We see an abdication of true spiritual fatherhood, in the sense that some priests now fear offending or hurting the feelings of those who come to them in confession.

Well said, Ken! While many modern Orthodox theologians do offer significant expostulations on the wisdom passed down from earlier Fathers, it is important to remember that we are still digesting these later writings, that often the beliefs and views of many of these theologians change, in either small or significant ways.

The question of what beliefs and influences make up the modern Orthodox witness provided by many of our theologians is one which the hindsight eye of history has yet to fully discern. We can read the Fathers, and history’s witness tells us about which heresy or scandal each was writing. The wisdom of the Fathers, especially the antenicene and Desert Fathers, stand as pillars polished by the critical lens of history and the universal affirmation of the faithful. No modern theologian, however eminent, can be taken so seriously as the ancient theologians whose works the Church has affimed, for centuries, to have been divinely inspired.

I admire Fr. Thomas for many of his writings- his podcasts on AFR were a source of much of my ‘informal catechism’ before the period of my actual catechism- but he lost a lot of credibility in my eyes when he publicly referred to his then Primate, Metropolitan Jonah, as “gravely troubled”. This is unconscionable to me. Granted, I was raised Roman Catholic, but the notion of a protopresbyter presuming the right to so publicly question and judge the mental or psychological condition of his Primate horrifies me.

The reference to confusing the anal canal as a sexual organ only shows that nature conforms to the tradition and vice versa. Don’t read anything more into it than that.

Chastity (tselomudryie/sophrosyne), while addressing sexuality, means “wholemindedness” – referring to the “life” of purity, dedication of purpose, and the complete focus of holiness to which we are all called, without exception. It is unfortunate that we have limited our understand to matters of sexuality exclusively.

Abouna, I disagree with this repeated reference to anal intercourse – and it is a longstanding objection – as you and Dn. Mitchell seem to believe it the sine qua non of male same-gender sexual activity and a highly confrontational tactic. I suspect you will continue to do this until you encounter a sufficient number of individuals who confirm to you that, while they are homosexual, they do not engage in anal intercourse. After unpainting yourself from that corner, you may then address lesbians & heterosexual couples. Likewise, I fail to see the efficacy of repeatedly arguing the issue of the inability to procreate when, as best we can determine, the incidence of homosexuality in any protracted sense is constant & consistent – without the procreative contribution of homosexuals themselves (obviously with some exceptions). I have mentioned previously, at one time, Fr. Hopko “speculated” as to the appropriateness of continuing a sexual relationship in marriage beyond one’s childbearing years. I have not heard his opinion since his retirement.

Andriy Partykevich, it seems to me you are arguing the illusion of “normalcy” and appealing to “love” as a proxy. While this is obviously an emotionally appealing “resolution,” it remains an illusion. I am immediately reminded of the story of the young rich man as told in the Gospel of Mark 10:17ff. This is an unique presentation of the Synoptic story in that Mark specifically conveys the fact that Jesus hears the man’s plea, “What must I do” (10:17), but “seeing him” (10:21) – and the verb is ἐμβλέπω, to “see inside,” implying to “clearly see” – “he loved him.” In other words, Jesus heard his words, but really saw the truth of his heart; and seeing the truth of his heart, was moved to love him. And it is this Divine love that leads him to confront the truth in his heart: “Sell all that you have,” knowing the man could not, “and [the man] went away and grieved.” (10:22)

My point is that love is the antithesis of illusion. Jesus could have “negotiated” a settlement, could have forgiven him outright, could have accommodated him with a “reasonable solution” like he did with so many others. But he did not. And rather than believe that this led to a path of despair & destruction, I conclude it ultimately led to his salvation. Therefore, to ask if I know same-gender couples living in “stable relationships,” monogamous & loving, of course I do, but it is unavoidable that they are illusions of Christian marriage. An illusion of Eph. 5:22-33 – the Epistle read at an Orthodox wedding. You are appealing to emotion and a worldly sense of “justice,” and it is sorely inadequate. You must offer somewhere to begin.

Chastity and celibacy are two different things. Chastity means sexual purity and a virtue that must be exercised by both married and unmarried. The proper context for sexual activity is opposite-sex marriage. Desire for sexual relations with the same-sex is disordered and the person struggling with this passion would be counseled to remain celibate. That is the teaching of the Church and the one you would be expected to embrace if you are Orthodox, which you claim to be.

The points about sodomy, the anal canal, etc. don’t debase the discussion. They merely point out that even nature affirms the moral teaching of the Church. Forcing organs to do things they were not designed to do usually carries peculiar justifications for their abuse.

As for expressing their “God given nature,’ the only nature we possess is human nature. Sexual desire is part of human nature, but the object of one’s desire does not define personhood. There is not such thing as homosexual or heterosexual nature, IOW.

Everyone’s life has value Andriy. One does not have to be sinless before that value is imparted. The value is intrinsic, given by God and affirmed in that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners as St. Paul teaches.

The prohibition against sodomy does not deny anyone of their intrinsic value. Sodomy is considered a sin because engaging it is not in accord with a person’s created nature that finds its proper expression and fulfillment in communion with his Creator. In other words, the prohibition exists because man has value.

Your testimony then that your view is driven by your “God given conscience” is not in accord with Orthodox anthropology (you claim to be Orthodox). You seem to be confusing healthy same-sex friendships with the eroticizing of those friendships. Sodomy is forbidden, not the friendships.

The Church has listened but comes up with a different conclusion than you do. Are you sure it’s the Church that has to change?

Sir,

I understand your thesis. We are just working from opposite perspectives – but hopefully towards the same conclusion. Also, it is not my purpose to convince you or anyone for that matter, that my life has value and that my choices are driven by my God given conscience. I have thousands of responses – mostly from LGBTQ Orthodox faithful who understand what I write about because they have experienced the same. It is actually up to the Church to listen.

Andriy

Father,

Thank you for your response. You state “Chastity is the concept that needs to be explored with more care in this debate and it applies to all persons regardless of their attractions.” (emphasis mine) I have yet to meet the Orthodox bishop or priest that would suggest that chastity needs to be explored with heterosexuals unless they have a calling to the monastic state to which so few people are called. Why would it need to be explored with homosexuals? Concerning the passions – if you are a married man – do any of the passions prohibit you from remaining married to your wife? Are married men a slave to their passions because they love their wives? One can love God and their wife. Such would be the same for LGBT persons. Also, I have yet to meet the priest that discusses contraception, sodomy (which includes oral sex) and the like with his married congregants.

I am not going to debase this discussion by answering other questions about sodomy, the anal canal, polyamory , and bestiality which have nothing to do with two people of the same sex entering into a loving, caring, monogamous relationship that for them is natural. However, I do have a question for you if you would care to answer. Do you know any gay people who are in stable relationships? If so, can you not honestly see that their choice is natural, moral and Christ ordained? Do you honestly believe that such people are pursuing unnatural and immoral lives because they have chosen to listen to their God given nature and express that love in a life-creating relationship?

Andriy

Andriy, every passion (as defined in Orthodox anthropology) effects an orientation. This is not restricted to sexuality alone although sexual questions are more complex because of the dynamic nature of sexual energy. Depending on how one learns to master and channel sexual energy determines if the sexual drive becomes a unitive or centrifugal force.

We are more than our passions. Put another way, our passions don’t define who or what we are. Of course if any reference to the higher things are lost then the passions are all we have and we will eventually become slaves to them. Either we learn to master the passions or the passions will master us.

Our culture is already there. “I am what I feel” (“I feel, therefore I am”) is the creed of our time. But you, as a priest (correct?) and particularly as an Orthodox Christian (correct?), need to look beyond that creed and start asking yourself why the moral tradition teaches what it does.

Let me try this one more time: Same-sex couplings are biologically closed to the creation of new life. Male to male or female to female sexual couplings do not create new life. To insist that the couplings replicate male to female marriage as defined by nature and the moral tradition defies both nature and the tradition.

Again, you are confusing sterility and infertility. Same-sex couplings are sterile by nature, even if the partners are fertile. Opposite-sex marriage affirms the natural order even if children are not created.

This is a simple distinction rooted in nature and the moral tradition. If you want to ignore it however, then any kind of sexual coupling becomes licit. To put it another way, if same-sex couplings should be considered licit marriage, then to what authority can you point to deem polyamory or bestiality as illicit? Nature? You are already ignoring it. The moral tradition? You are already violating it.

As for my specific commentary on sexual practices, sodomy is sin. The moral tradition is clear on that and the prohibition against sodomy extends to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Why? Well one reason is that the anal canal is not a sexual organ. Why should pointing this out be offensive? For most people it is common sense.

Andriy Partykevich,

Yours is a most fascinating response, presumably made without reading my thesis, which seems endemic to my cause. My “work” in biogenitics & epigenetics is intended to speak to the reality of our fallen humanity – such as it is – and is every bit “pastoral” as my understanding of the term allows. It is and was not my intention to document and elucidate the detached biological analogy of, say, Drosophila melanogaster for the hell of it. I have attempted to address the faithful in a manner consistent with the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, Holy Tradition, and in the light of contemporaneous biogenetics compatible with our Orthodox anthropology. My friends have died needlessly ashamed, and I am motivated to change perception and attitude as I am able.

It appears to me, from what I have read on your site and from your comments here, that you would wish to – correct me if I am wrong – amend, or modify, or append the theology/anthropology/Tradition of the Church to reflect what we have now come to understand as “orientation & identity” as significantly more diverse than ever historically appreciated; and the Church, without acknowledging this emergent information, is “intransigent in the face of modern science.” While I certainly agree with aspects of this contention, and most importantly from a pastoral perspective, it is incumbent upon you – in a process of wisdom and discernment characteristic of the Fathers before us – to demonstrate the succinct nature of the error of Orthodox anthropology and Tradition as we understand and practice it. And I will state from the outset that “fairness and parity” are insufficient defense. At best, your current advice – celibacy or leave – is worse than shallow, as it is defiant without justification, mocking St. Paul, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40) I have read voluminous arguments and complaints from the LGBTQ Orthodox community that the Church is “not listening,” is rigid, stagnant, “frozen in time,” indifferent, and silent, but frankly I have read nothing of a compelling scholarly, historical, or spiritual nature that even begins to provide a meeting-place for dialog.

I, for one, am open to listening, to being convinced, to exploring the pastoral issues. But somehow, if you are unable to convince me, I wonder how you will ever presume to reach the others.

Thank you for your comments and your work in this area. My approach is more pastoral. Although I hope for dialogue in this area, I am troubled by numerous bishops, clerics and, learned laymen who simply continue to ignore the science that is known and emerging regarding sexual orientation and identity. Through the website, orthodoxandgay.com I hear from numerous LGBTQ Orthodox faithful and their families who are struggling with the issue of wanting to remain Orthodox and yet see a Church that is intransigent in the face of modern science. The hierarchy of the Church remains silent or offers only one of two options for its LGBT faithful: celibacy or the option of leaving the Church. How sad.

Father,
An older couple getting married also precludes the creation of new life and yet can be married in the Orthodox Church and their relationship usually is life-creating. There are couples where sterility is present and yet they are wed in the Church. Would you suggest that the priest request medical proof of the possibility of reproduction before marrying the couple? The same is true for same-sex couples. As far as your specific comments about sexual practices, does the conversation need to delve into these matters? Are you prepared to discuss the Orthodox view of prohibited and sanctioned sexual practices with your congregation? Is there such a list? Also, when you start discussing pedophilia, bestiality, and polyamorous relationships in the same conversation with adult same-sex relationships, you have lost me. It is offensive.

Andriy Partykevich,

I have devoted considerable time to research and investigation developing an exposition of same-sex attraction that I believe is consistent with Orthodox anthropology, the theology & Tradition of the Church, and emergent contemporaneous biogenetic & epigenetic information beginning here. Archbishop Lazar commented on my original version of this thesis that the science was significantly more thorough than his own, and I was encouraged to compliment this original series with further explorations into matters such as “orientation” as a biogenetically-influenced process, and a recent sixth additional chapter examining post-genetic, pre-natal processes (mainly hormonal) that affect both gender and orientation. I attempt to be scrupulous in documenting my citations. For more than a year, the argument on this site regarding same-sex attraction has been my insistence that we are short-sighted and foolish not to consider emerging scientific data – and I strongly suspect it is simple ignorance as to what I have presented & and the arrogance not to ask for an explanation that has resulted in conflict – but I would only ask you to judge for yourself. ‎

I’ll leave the good bishop alone for the time being with this caution: don’t put too much stock in his “research.”

Concerning your comment that the “eroticizing of same-sex friendship is not life creating” – that would depend upon your definition of “life-creating.” As a priest I celebrated more than a few weddings for people well past their fertile years. These couples would define “life-creating” differently than much younger couples.

I didn’t use the word “infertile.” I used the word “sterile.” Same-sex couplings are naturally sterile, biologically closed to new life. And the reason for that is simple: the anal canal is not a sexual organ. In fact, the same-sex partners might be at the peak of their fertility but the sterile nature of the relationship precludes the creation of new life.

Older heterosexual couples may indeed be infertile, but the opposite-sex relationship still affirms what is true in nature even if it is not realized.

Now if you want to define “life-creating” to mean something other than it does, the only conclusion we can draw is that you are using it as a euphemism. I’m with Orwell on that approach however — euphemisms are usually employed to obscure the truth.

If same-sex friendships can be, in your words “natural, needful and good”, then they can express erotic love that is natural and life-creating.

I “feel” therefore I am? What I feel is what I am? If all desire is “natural”, which is to say that experiencing desire is itself the justification for acting on it, what really prohibits pedophilia, polyamory or bestiality? Not much.

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Who are you a priest with?