While searching the Net for some information about Orthodox canons, this page came out in the results (given by www.dogpile.com):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
I was absolutely astonished 
:shock: at the article, and it left me wondering the source of such an absurd theory … judge by yourself and please, comment. 
Miguel, sinful and unworthy Reader
I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to be rude by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm failing to see what's wrong with the article.
It simply gives a balanced assessment on claims made by a certain historian about the rite of Adelphopoiia. Even the historian whose position is being assessed, John Boswell, appears not to be claiming that this rite was officially authorised as an equivalent to the Sacrament of Matrimony. He is simply saying that it is likely that, in some places, it may have been being used in this manner. I think from incidents in Russia, whence come stories that a church has had to be destroyed, are enough to tell us that there are people in the Church who will act according their own wishes. Sin is sin in any age, and if it can happen today, I see no reason why it isn't possible that some people used the Rite of Adelphopoiia in that way centuries ago. That doesn't make it right, of course, but something's being wrong doesn't negate the possibility that it may have happened.
As far as I can tell, the article doesn't support the misuse of the Rite in the way referred to in somebody else's work.
I'm just having a lot of difficulty getting worked up about this.
michigan wrote:Is there any "legitimate" way this rite could have been used? What is adelphopoiia?
Yes. It is a rite of the Holy Orthodox Church, often referred to as the Rite of Brotherhood, and was used for the binding together of men in a spiritual relationship, with the intention of offering support and mutual encouragement in the deepening of the working out of their salvation. I have read tales that they would often live together in community, pray almost in a coenobitic monastic manner, but would differ from a monastic life in that they would continue about their daily working lives as usual.
It may seem strange in modern Western culture where people are quick to assume that two men living together means something unseemly is going on, but I understand it was quite a common rite centuries ago, although it is rarely, if ever, used today.
It seems to me, from the article linked to in the opening post, that this John Boswell chap has suggested that it may have been used in some places by some priests as a means of blessing homosexual sexual relationships. This is not news and a number of people seem to suggest that this did indeed take place, albeit not with the blessing of the Church, I hasten to add.
The article that Miguel has drawn our attention to is simply giving an assessment of the points of view raised by John Boswell, and so that is why I don't understand what is actually wrong with it. It doesn't claim anything contrary to Orthodoxy, as far as I can see. It simply gives a balanced assessment of a viewpoint.
