[IntinyBut]

There are many examples of the early Fathers fighting with the secular authorities in Constantinople. Example: St. Maximus the Confessor. Maximus opposed the doctrine of Monothelites in public debates, which he won handily. Still the emperor Constans II sided with the Monothelites and so did the Patriarch of Contantinople (many Patriarchs of Constantinople were heretics in the early unified Church, but there was never a heretic Bishop of Rome). In 653 the emperor ordered the arrest of both Maximus and the pope. Maximus was arrested and tortured. They cut his tongue. Maximus died from the effects of these tortures in 662

[limpoporanique]

Andreas Moran wrote:
But different, I submit, is the case where the Orthodox Christian is following some profession or business which involves the provision of some service (as registrar, bed and breakfast provider, printer) which, where that profession or business facilitates and promotes some activity - let us say homosexual activity - which is, by the Church's clear teaching sinful. Does this create a dilemma? If an Orthodox Christian provides a double bed for a homosexual couple or fulfills an order received for printing material which promotes homosexual behaviour in a way which contradicts the teaching of the Church, are these not ways of participating in the sins of others? Do practising Orthodox doctors provide abortions on demand? Do practising Orthodox operate casinos, or purvey pornography? I'm thinking of a lesser example; a friend of mine in Moscow worked for an American company translating Evangelical texts from English into Russian. His spiritual father ordered him to stop that employment. I think that situations may arise which would call for a straightforward answer. My starting point I suppose is that we are all contributing to the support of sin in ways that often we are not aware of. But my added point is that this does not mean that we withdraw from society or see it as entirely complicit and corrupt. Instead we choose what to engage in and what not and which can vary from person to person or situation to situation. Thus in Canada one possibly chooses to be a doctor, nurse, etc even though all hospitals offer abortion. However a line could well be crossed if one is personally called to participate in the actual performance of an abortion in a hospital. In any case though my point again is that there is a level of participation here from all of us even in the simple act of paying taxes, of not being a conscious rebel vs the state (and then of course receiving none of its benefits- which is a basic impossibility in our world since the state provides the most basic infrastructure).

By this again I do not mean that we are hopelessly compromised. Nor do I mean my point in a cynical way as if we should all run off to the bush. (and I'm not sure that this does not accuse us of contributing to the sin of society even more seriously than if we remain) There is a point here though that I am having trouble formulating. It has come up often enough during our 20thc and I suppose it will continue. It involves the fact that the state is now all encompassing, even the benign and 'tolerant' state. I think we see now that this involves all of us and compromises all of us in various ways; that it leaves none of us entirely innocent if that is what we suppose we can achieve.

However the question I have most trouble grappling with is precisely the acceptable level of involvement. Not because we have no real wiggle room to distance ourselves from what is done in the name of governance and society; and not even because in fact we are all tainted to some degree. But because human action allows something else besides a straight forward abetting or encouragement of others to sin. Here precisely is the space that I think that we can work within in terms of our society and its institutions, working in the best way that we can with what is available.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[hotelhyatt]

Our obligation to 'participate' in the activities of the state we live in has a clear scriptural foundation. Christ was born in Bethlehem precisely because His Mother and Joseph were obeying the state's requirement to register for taxation. Christ clearly says we should pay taxes (Matthew 22:21) and St Paul tells us to obey the state authorities and pay tax (Romans 13:1-7). That was all at a time of a pagan state (which was not always 'benign and tolerant') with a pagan ruler. (So all the more are such obligations on us since as far as Canada and the UK are concerned (not forgetting Australia!), we live in states a good deal more benign and tolerant than ancient Rome and we have a devout Christian queen). So, it cannot be said that we are participating in sin even if our respective governments pass legislation which, from our point of view, facilitates sin, but which from other points of view does not since the concept of forms of sins such as homosexual conduct has been largely lost. And after all, adultery is not unlawful in our states.

But let us apply what has been said to a specific situation which could easily arise. Let us say that my wife and I (practising Orthodox Christians)advertise bed and breakfast accommodation in our spare bedroom which has a double bed. We receive a booking from a couple: they are a homosexual couple. Should we refuse that booking? There has to be a 'yes or no' answer.

[limpoporanique]

Andreas Moran wrote:

let us apply what has been said to a specific situation which could easily arise. Let us say that my wife and I (practising Orthodox Christians)advertise bed and breakfast accommodation in our spare bedroom which has a double bed. We receive a booking from a couple: they are a homosexual couple. Should we refuse that booking? There has to be a 'yes or no' answer. If this situation is in the public sphere then you are legally obligated to allow the booking on this basis. If it is not legally obligated then that is different- but to my knowledge only religious groups have the legal right to differentiate on this basis (at least in Canada and the US; ie as a clergyman I have the legal right to refuse marriage & communion to those who infringe the moral discipline of our church body).

In other words if such a possibility as renting to a homosexual or unmarried couple is unacceptable to you and your wife- then you had better not enter this enterprise to begin with.

However I am still not so sure that on some level we are not all in fact 'aiding and abetting widespread sin'. This is part and parcel of living in and reaping the benefits of a world which operates on the principle of tolerance. But in any case the managers of a bed & breakfast may resist renting to a homosexual couple- but if they run a grocery store are they going to refuse service to such people? How about a gas station or airline booking agency? Or to back up from what is obviously absurd- what of Orthodox who want to teach in schools which force the principle of wide spread tolerance?; or who want to be doctors & nurses in a public health system legally obligated to offer abortion?

That's why I think that the actual point for most of us is more one of whether we are forced into direct participation with something that is reprehensible. We are not happy with our over all situation and how it continues to taint us. But there is no possibility of backing out of this situation completely. Therefore we work within the situation as we can and as it allows us moral room to move. However this still puts before us complex matters with little easy choice.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[hotelhyatt]

Fr Raphael Vereshack wrote: In other words if such a possibility as renting to a homosexual or unmarried couple is unacceptable to you and your wife- then you had better not enter this enterprise to begin with. The problem may be that the Christian may already be in some profession or business to which legislation of the kind in question subsequently applies (as in the case of the Christian registrar). It is also disturbing to think that in such societies as ours, Christians' employment choices might be so limited.

But in any case the managers of a bed & breakfast may resist renting to a homosexual couple- but if they run a grocery store are they going to refuse service to such people? How about a gas station or airline booking agency? Or to back up from what is obviously absurd- what of Orthodox who want to teach in schools which force the principle of wide spread tolerance?; or who want to be doctors & nurses in a public health system legally obligated to offer abortion? It might be said that the difference between providing bed & breakfast accommodation, and selling groceries, gas (petrol) or airline tickets is that the latter three do not involve facilitating homosexual conduct, i.e. 'direct participation' if - and this point has not been settled - such (providing B&B) amounts to the consent or silence which are said to be ways of participating in the sins of others.

But there is no possibility of backing out of this situation completely. Therefore we work within the situation as we can and as it allows us moral room to move. However this still puts before us complex matters with little easy choice. This question is not, of course, restricted to homosexuals; the same might apply to unmarried heterosexual couples or adulterous couples (were that known) - in which case, the bed & breakfast provider might find business very slack indeed! To be entirely consistent, the Orthodox B&B provider should only take bookings from couples who have been married in the Orthodox Church! So, yes, it can get silly, and a stance against only homosexuals in this context would look like discrimination.

[citicroego]

My starting point I suppose is that we are all contributing to the support of sin in ways that often we are not aware of....I think we see now that this involves all of us and compromises all of us in various ways; that it leaves none of us entirely innocent if that is what we suppose we can achieve. When I was in college we got involved in this move that attempted to boycot any company that actively supported abortion or other morally objectionable actions. Needless to say this did not last long as one quickly came to realize that you really would have to run off into the bush and not buy anything from anyone. I appreciate the reminder though that we can't just shrug the situation off and proclaim our own innocence due to the fact that our cooperation is passive. There does have to be a recognition of our own complicity and the taint therefrom.

But because human action allows something else besides a straight forward abetting or encouragement of others to sin. There seems to be two questions we are circling around here. One is the question of keeping ourselves morally pure while living in the world. The other related question regards our responsibility to our society as a Christian.

In thinking of the second question the thought that comes to my mind in this is when Jesus said that he comes to convict the world or sin and righteousness and judgement. There has to be some place where our Christian life becomes a public witness - not as some kind of self-willed show-offy thing wherein we are consciously attempting to change society, but rather in the fact that how we live our lives in righteousness really does strike the conscience of those watching. It is those issues where it does become a matter of personal conscience such as the doctor who is asked to perform an abortion, the employee who is asked to fudge records, etc. where God then calls us to live as "children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world," (Philip. 2:15)

I remember from account, I think of Polycarp's martydom, that there were those who consciously decided they wanted to be martyrs and drew attention to themselves so that they would be arrested. In the end these people recanted under pressure. However, we also see the accounts of those Christians who simply on virtue of circumstances did have to suffer for their faith. I suppose the example is still relevant in that we work within the circumstances God gives us.

[hotelhyatt]

There seems to be two questions we are circling around here. One is the question of keeping ourselves morally pure while living in the world. The other related question regards our responsibility to our society as a Christian.

I would put the first question differently: I think it is about the extent to which we may be participating in the sins of others, and I would like to know more about that at the level of Mrs Wilkinson (the lady involved in refusing to accommodate the homosexual couple).

Nothwithstanding what I said in my last post, I wonder if there is an argument that homosexual conduct is different from, say, the relations between an unmarried couple in so far as the Church considers the former to be unnatural and disordered while the latter, though fornication from the Church's point of view, is natural, and so not such a difficulty. (Mind you, it's not so very long ago that unmarried couples had to pose as 'Mr & Mrs Jones'!)

[MannoFr]

Andreas Moran wrote:



If this situation is in the public sphere then you are legally obligated to allow the booking on this basis. If it is not legally obligated then that is different- but to my knowledge only religious groups have the legal right to differentiate on this basis (at least in Canada and the US; ie as a clergyman I have the legal right to refuse marriage & communion to those who infringe the moral discipline of our church body).
....
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father, please correct me if this is incorrect, as I recall from being told my Protestant ministers during my years as a Protestant: no clergyman is required to perform a marriage - he is not a government employee, but rather is allowed by the government to officiate at weddings on the state's behalf. I do know of Protestant ministers who have refused to marry couples for various reasons - age, family situation, questions about divorce/previous marriage, etc. All of this was at a time before homosexual marriages were even thought of, but wouldn't the principle be the same?

An Orthodox wedding is a sacrament, a blessing, and I don't see how any government can require that any more that it can require that the Holy Mysteries be offered to anyone who requests them. The solution might be for Orthodox clergy to simply separate from civil legal requirements for all people who would then need a civil marriage for legal purposes, and perform the wedding for those who truly wish to receive the sacrament of marriage. This "two weddings" arrangement does happen elsewhere in the world.

[limpoporanique]

In reply to Andres' post #45:
I think you are getting close to my overall point now. 'Culture wars' are a popular theme in the past few decades. But I think they present things in a black & white way that does not reflect reality and which can lead to some perilous moral choices. Thus there are plenty of voices out there which promise to 'clean things up' and thus remove much of the moral ambiguity which we presently live amidst during our daily lives. But invariably the methods such promises follow are mean spirited. And if allowed to follow their own purported logic to the end they would destroy some pretty fundamental social values.

So that is why I think it better to look at the intent of the group or institution rather than only the specific questionable things they believe in. I disagree with the majority view that the latter negates the former. Anyway- unless such groups are totalitarian in outlook their own method of operation often allows room for alternative input or disagreement especially due to the prevailing belief in toleration.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[limpoporanique]

Jim McQuiggin wrote:
Father, please correct me if this is incorrect, as I recall from being told my Protestant ministers during my years as a Protestant: no clergyman is required to perform a marriage - he is not a government employee, but rather is allowed by the government to officiate at weddings on the state's behalf. I do know of Protestant ministers who have refused to marry couples for various reasons - age, family situation, questions about divorce/previous marriage, etc. All of this was at a time before homosexual marriages were even thought of, but wouldn't the principle be the same? Yes- I meant that in Canada at least, an accredited minister can perform weddings which are then considered legal marriages in the civil sphere. The couple shows up in the church at the time of the marriage with the marriage license form which has already been registered with the Dept of Vital Statistics. Immediately after the church wedding, the priest or officiant signs the marriage license form. The couple then takes this form to Vital Statistics and the marriage is considered a legal marriage.

Of course though nothing obligates the religious minister to perform this marriage- the couple must first conform to the required moral standards of the church where the marriage will take place. But my point was also that this legal allowance to the religious minister is different from that allowed to a justice of the peace (a marriage commissioner) who is legally obligated to perform a wedding to any couple, regardless of life style as long as they meet certain legal standards: http://vitalstats.gov.mb.ca/GettingMarried.html.

In Canada, registered clergy are protected by law when they enforce stricter standards than the civil law itself requires.

In Christ- Fr Raphael