Answer Regarding Homosexuality

[Christopher]

As for kissing, it is very difficult to apply the canons WITH WISDOM in today's situations. Nearly all marriages in the patristic period were arranged and often the spouses to be never met one another prior to the wedding ceremony itself. Furthermore, as an additional safeguard against sexual sin, St. John Chrysostom advocated the finding of a spouse as soon as a young man was old enough to start having a sexual drive.

From a practical viewpoint, I know of no instances in America other than those in strict protestant circles where one could realistically expect to find a spouse without some sort of premarital physical intimacy-- i.e. kissing. Combine this with the American expectations of putting off marriage for later and later and you have a recipe for disaster.

As for homosexuality, let me disspell a misconception right now. Homosexuality is not a "personality trait" nor a "part of personhood"-- it is a BEHAVIOR. People CHOOSE their BEHAVIORS. Temptation may lead to a specific behavior but we don't choose our temptations-- only how we react to them. The key is to create a distance between stimulus and response. Modern homosexual theorists want to close this distance thereby implying an unavoidable causality.

As for the debate of whether homosexuality has organic or psychological causes, let me state that all of the research points to only only two very strong correlates to homosexual behavior-- (1) a weak / non-existent male father figure and (2) a strong domineering female mother figure. Other strong correlates, though not as strong are sexual abuse and although too early to study at this time in society, I'm sure that we'll see homosexual parenting contributing to homosexual behavior. Nearly all counselors that specialize in "sexual re-orientation" ("curing" a homosexual) say that it is plausible, workable, and nowhere near impossible.

An interesting note is that Christian authors in the times from the 1950's to the mid 1970's often quote parenting involving unclear gender roles as a notable causal factor in homosexuality. You will not find books published any longer with those views. Interestingly enough, the American Psychiatric Association used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness until a very persuasive homosexual lobby persuaded them to change this.

An excellent source of information is an article by Earle Fox on homosexuality. Here is the link:

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/0 ... mphlet.htm

--Chris

[/\RT3|\/|0|\|]

First to Raphael Orthodox are not supposed to kiss on the lips even in a friendly way because it will lead to the demons to give you thoughts it might not be immediatly but eventually it will so the Church says no to this either 2.Salsero Orthodox are not supposed to listen to what Gentiles (non Orthodox) have to say about homosexuality, even if thier speaking against it, if you might ask why? because the Church has spoken against it already long ago I( don't think we have to debate this now do we? )it is called a demonic temptation and if one engaes in it it's now a passion, and the person will have to struggle against it, so there's no point to read that site from that Gentile you put up. Preist should tell young people no don't kiss until your married and if he didn't he has SINNED! please also show me where St.John faster specificaly uses the word " sexual drive" I extreamly doubt he used that word, and tell me the name of the book and what page I'll ask my Spiritual Father who knows ANCIENT GREEK to find that book and see if St.John the faster used THAT word, and finaly don't think I'm trying to be smart the way I'm writting, finaly about America as an Orthodox Christian we are supposed to have the same attitude for America that the early Christians had for the PAGAN Roman Empire 1. Fallow all the laws and do what the State asks us unless what thier asking for is something the Church teaches "AGAINST"

[Chris]

ΑΓΙΟΥ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΝΗΣΤΕΥΤΟΥ ΚΑΝΩΝ ΙΑ'

"Αλλά καί τών γυναικών η εις ασπασμούς ανδρός ελθούσα ΚΑΙ επαφάς , μή μέντοι διαφθαρείσα, τό τής μαλακίας επιτίμιον δέχεται"

CANON 11 OF ST JOHN THE FASTER(not Chrysostom)

"But also, the woman that kisses AND touches a man, without being corrupted, must do the penance which is done for masturbation"

See Artemon? It's sinful for an unmarried couple to kiss if they touch each other's genitals. This means that it's sinful for a couple to kiss in a dirty way...

[/\RT3|\/|0|\|]

Forgive Me I misread I thought he said St.John CHRYSOSTOM not St.John the Faster, I never said that unmarried couples CAN kiss, so I don't understand what your tring to say????

[Christopher]

Hi Artemon:

I'm glad to see that you have such zeal in defending Orthodoxy. I saw in another post that you are a convert. How long ago did you convert? I'm a convert too.

As per your response on my comments earlier, I have a few cautions. First, the difference between a gentile and a non-gentile is not necessarily the same as the difference between an orthodox and a non-orthodox. A gentile is someone who does not follow Torah (Old Testament Law). Unless you were a jew prior to conversion, you're in the same category as I am.

As for listening to the church's advice before any other, I completely agree with you. The church's condemnation of homosexuality need not be explained to be accepted. However, the discussion earlier revolved around whether homosexuality had organic or psychological causes and several modern studies have lent evidence in a particular direction and this might be of interest to other readers on the post.

As per listening to "gentiles" (I'll assume you mean "non-orthodox"), be very careful about an outright condemnation of everything they have to say-- especially if it is in line with what the church says. Yes, turn your theological filter on high so you don't get polluted by heresy, but do learn all that you can. Much of my engineering education has little to do with orthodoxy but it will allow me to provide for a wife in a very orthodox manner. Also, many of those outside the church will not see the canons as authoritative so other arguments might be more effective. St. John Chrysostom says in "on marriage and family life" that certain arguments are for the more spiritually minded and others are for the more earthly minded. I suppose that you could say that I'm still in the more earthly phase.

As for kissing, I have to agree with you. However, I have not met many virtuous women-- inside or outside the church who would keep a romantic relationship going long term without some sort of physical intimacy. If you know of any single women who would wait until marriage for any sort of physical intimacy, please introduce me to them. I'm still looking for a wife.

As for St. John Chrysostom's quote, here is the actual text from the website that I got it from. It is called "love, sex, and orthodoxy"-- great source of info. You could probably find it on any search engine.

---

Marriage is all the more valuable in taming the passions because the sexual impulse is indeed so strong. Chrysostom understands well the tremendous power of sexual desire; in On Vainglory and the Upbringing of Children, he urges that teenaged sons be shielded from women so that "the flame of desire is not kindled (mede hypekkaiestho to pyr)."[On Vainglory and the Upbringing of Children.53, SC 188, p. 152 (Laistner, pp. 109-110).] This does not mean that sexual desire is sinful-just that it needs to be channeled properly. So that young people will not have to endure many years of wrestling to keep their passions under control, Chrysostom strongly counsels parents to arrange marriages for their children (the normal custom of his day) as soon as possible after puberty: ìSo, far from neglecting young people, let us detect the fire's flame before they are engulfed in vice, and make every effort to have them linked in marriage according to God's law so that they may both observe the practice of self-control in themselves and sustain no harm from incontinence, enjoying sufficient consolation from this." [Homily 59 on Genesis. 14, FC 87, p. 173. See also Homily V on I Thessalonians, NPNF 1, XIII, pp. 346-347]

Artemon, as someone who converted about 10 years ago and went through a phase of "zeal without knowledge," (I believe this is spoken of in the epistles), let me say that I agree with your intent and applaud your zeal and deference to your spiritual father. However the tone of your writing on several posts comes off as very critical and offensive. Remember that when trying to convey a message or persuade someone, that how you say something is often much more important than what you say. It took me several years of very embarrassing mistakes to understand this. Remember, you are orthodox, and the folks on this forum are on your side-- no matter how much theology anyone knows. Once you realize this when trying to change someone's mind, you will do it with gentleness and mercy like the gerondes/staretz who edify all who come to see them.

In Christ,
Chris

[Etienne]

Reading the preceding posts, and particularly the last two something struck me.

A senior priestmonk who used to confess me would surprise me from time to time in the following manner. Some minor infraction would draw a stern response, but a 'major' transgression would be firmly outlined as such but their was also a gentleness which seemed always equal to the gravity of the sin.

I contrast this with a growing tendency outside Orthodoxy to do anything to not make anyone feel uncomfortable in their sin. This includes a new version of the Bible, welcomed by no less than Dr Rowan Williams, the C of E Primate. If Saint Paul, or Paul as some would disrespectful call him, says something which does not fit in you simply alter his teaching. Anyone queries this you refer them back to the "new bible'. You lower the standard rather than set a bench mark against which we can all measure our own 'falling short'.

Yes, we need be careful of heterodox material but anything which is not according to the 'mind' of the teaching of the Church also needs caution too, regardless of the author's standing, ecclessiastical rank or the precedence of their local church.

Dating and all that goes with it is not according to the Orthodox 'mind' and is historically a fairly recent phenomena. A widespread response seems to stem from two concepts; first, do not judge - i.e. say nothing or even legitimise behaviour previously recognised as falling short, and, two, to speak out might further jeopardise already falling church attendance. But our foolishness is not to be that of the world, surely?

I agree that care is needed in how we speak out, otherwise we will sound more like the Calvinistic Dr Ian Paisley than Orthodox believers. My biggest struggle is with my own sinfulness, rather than that of others.

[romiosini]

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/0 ... mphlet.htm

Holy Jesus! I never saw such of a foul page that much ever! I got sick to the bone when I started reading the percontages of homosexual actions.

Lord have mercy