Culture Wars and Christian Disunity
In his address address to the Conference of European Churches, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople strongly criticises a “’new ecumenism” that champions “traditionalistic values.”
“Some American evangelical Christians, who had previously considered Catholic and Orthodox Christians as pagans worshipping idols, now appear willing to work with certain Catholic and Orthodox Christians in order to support these values, This ‘new ecumenism’ has even gone so far as to anoint President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation as its political champion, and Patriarch Kirill of the Orthodox Church of Russia as its spiritual leader.
“We see the consequences of this divisive and destructive mentality on full display in Russia’s current brutal attack against Ukraine as well as in its church’s justification for this war as the salvation of Ukraine from the alleged seduction of a godless, secular, and liberal West, Unfortunately, this ‘new ecumenism’ is essentially un-ecumenical, if not anti-ecumenical, insofar as it positions itself against other Christians who do not support its exclusive focus on such a set of values.
“Today, the rhetoric of the so-called ‘culture wars’ has grievously compromised any potential for dialogue, damaging the very core of ecumenism, as Orthodox are pitted against Orthodox, Catholics against Catholics, Protestants against Protestants - sometimes united only in their disagreement and denunciation, The globalisation and consecration of these ‘culture wars’ are arguably the new challenge of ecumenism, the new issue that divides us as Christians, the new barrier that prevents us from listening to and learning from one another.”
I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. Is he implying that Catholics and evangelical Protestants standing together with more conservative Orthodox -- mostly in the US -- against such things as trans ideology and abortion somehow are responsible for Putin's attack on Ukraine? If so, what's his logic? If there is no "potential for dialogue" in the Culture Wars, has he considered that maybe one side has strayed so far from foundational Christian assumptions that such dialogue is impossible? GK Chesterton would debate almost anyone. His techniques was to find a point of commonality with his opponent and build from there. The one and only person he ever refused to debate was a satanist, because there was simply no common ground to begin the process from. Perhaps the Patriarch might consider this in light of current events.
ReplyDeleteYou agree with those conservatives who support Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
DeleteNobody supports Putin's invasion. Some conservatives think, hey leave them to have at it, but that's not the same thing, and I'm not one of them anyway. Russia is an inherently paranoid and unstable society, and it always has been, even before communism. It was and remains a danger to the west, so let it smash its brains out on a strengthened Ukraine. In the meantime, I'm still at a loss to know what the patriarch is trying to say.
DeleteNobody supports Putin's invasion.
DeleteThat will come as news to people like Nick Fuentes.
In the meantime, I'm still at a loss to know what the patriarch is trying to say.
He's saying that Christians of all stripes are subjugating their Christian principles to their political ideologies (for a change!). Instead of worrying about the truth of the gospel, they're more concerned with uniting with other Christians who agree with their political views - i.e., they view Putin as some sort of right-wing messiah for his stance on homosexuality and transgenderism. Which is just misguided and worldly in-group behaviour.
@ Jack - what is the source of this article? Is there any more to it?
Have a read through 'Mundabor'.
Delete@ Lain - it's on Anglican Ink. There's a full transcript of his address there. There's nothing else been written or reported that HJ can find.
DeleteAnd the commenters there are merrily proving the EP's point!
DeleteThere's also this. A direct link to the transcript is here.
This is good:
As Christian communities, we must first adopt a sense of humility and accept that we are also to blame for this reduction in ecumenism. Instead of imitating Christ's example, we have too often expected to be served, rather than to serve; we have too often demanded privileges, rather than ministered to the underprivileged; we have too often associated with the elite and powerful, with nationalism and nation-states, rather than identifying with and ministering to the vulnerable and discriminated - to Christ Himself in the least of His and our brothers and sisters.
@lain,
DeleteYou're lumping me in with Nick Fuentes? Nice.
Have a read of this Remant article.
Delete"The war currently underway in Ukraine—which pits Ukraine as a proxy for the collective West against Russia—is primarily an ideological or religious one, with Russia representing what is left of Christian Europe, and “the West” representing a totalitarian ideology that abhors religion in general and Christianity in particular ... the collective West is now a totalitarian and aggressively anti-religious power-block that seeks to export its anti-Christian and anti-human ideology onto the rest of the world. And Russia is loathed by the West's ruling elite precisely because it has resisted this process and moreover has gone in the opposite direction ... "
@Bell - yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. You'll notice that I cleverly masked that fact by not saying anything of the sort and not, in fact, mentioning you at all. Good spot. 🙄
Delete@Jack - the West has always had a funny relationship with Russia. In his 1945 Notes on Nationalism, Orwell writes about the Russophilia of the disaffected leftist English intelligentsia, who were effectively hoping that Britain would lose the war. Now, it's the turn of the disaffected right to gush over Putin's policies.
On Anglican Unscripted, I heard that early this year, the Metropolitan Hilarion had been sent to Budapest (I almost found myself typing ‘Siberia”) for not supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine: even so, he has been sanctioned. There is an article on Orthodox Christian Laity:
ReplyDeleteMetropolitan Hilarion of Budapest sanctioned for 30 yearsMetropolitan Hilarion of Budapest sanctioned for 30 years
I am vexed by the ‘Putipots’ who flood The Conservative Woman with their uncritical support for Putin’s actions.
On particular annoyance has been one who goes along with VVP’s statement that “Ukrainain” is not a proper language, and when I asked him if he knew either Russian or Ukrainian (I know something of both) quoted a blog by the name of ‘Russians with Attitude’.
Alas, I do not know enough Old Church Slavonic to tell him to *** off in that language.
That comment above about Metropolitan Hilarion was from me, Neanderthal Èireannach. The system seems to have a mind of its own as to whether it recognizes me or not.
ReplyDeleteHere’s an example of the "culture war" at play from Church Militant (again)
ReplyDeleteHJ has been banned from the site but would direct you to the comment by 'Pilgrim' 😎.
More generally, the terms used to describe same sex attracted men are illustrative of the way language shapes the discussion and includes or excludes people - "sodomites", "homosexuals", "gay", "same sex attracted".
Some might argue that same sex attraction is, in and of itself, a "significant immaturity and personality deficit."
DeleteYes, clearly some do. The question is whether this is true and the cause of abuse of children and vulnerable adults.
DeleteThe proportion of homosexual abuse in the Church is higher than in general society, but is the proportion of homosexuals among the clergy is higher than in wider society? Predators are attracted to institutions where they have access to vulnerable targets: in a predominantly male institution, the predominance of male on male abuse is perhaps unsurprising. I wonder if some of these men also viewed ordination and a life of celibacy as a cure for their desires. One has to be wary of conflating correlation with causation.
Delete"[I]s the proportion of homosexuals among the clergy is higher than in wider society?"
DeleteOpinions vary.
Just how many men in the Catholic clergy are gay? Depends who you ask and who you read .... What can’t be measured is the exact number of gay priests, no matter how much activists on the Catholic left (and sometimes on the right) try to set the agenda on this polarizing issue.
Wikipedia summarises the ‘findings in the USA:
Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who have a homosexual orientation (either openly gay or closeted) in the United States.[19] Nevertheless, several studies suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population as a whole.[20][21]
This New York Times article asserts:
[G]ay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: “A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don’t know what the hell they are.”
In 2019, after four years of research, a book by French journalist and author Frédéric Martel, In the Closet of the Vatican, reported that 80% of priests working at the Vatican are gay, although not necessarily sexually active.
He conducted 1,500 interviews while researching the book, including with 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, 45 papal ambassadors or diplomatic officials, 11 Swiss guards and more than 200 priests and seminarians.
That will certainly skew the numbers! Are there any ideas why the proportion is potentially so high?
DeleteMany scholars have suggested that preventing priests from marrying is the principle cause because it provides cover for devout same sex attracted men. The priesthood attracts men who desire to forgo sex for the rest of their lives in an attempt to get closer to God.
DeleteSexual sublimation is the most common theory.
Which is not an ignoble aim in itself, but it clearly needs to be more sensitively handled. I think the Church is still too squeamish discussing the realities of sex and celibacy. A man who is willing to remain celibate to pursue a vocation to the priesthood is not the same as a man who pursues a vocation to the priesthood in order to remain celibate. This is true of both homosexual and heterosexual men.
DeleteA man who is willing to remain celibate to pursue a vocation to the priesthood is not the same as a man who pursues a vocation to the priesthood in order to remain celibate.
DeleteVery true - and possibly an underlying cause of the sex abuse scandal. Evidence indicates many homosexual priests have abandoned chastity and have engaged in sexual relationships.
In the book Light of the World Pope Benedict said:
"Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction which is not homosexual. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.
"The issue at stake here is the intrinsic truth of sexuality's significance in the constitution of man's being. If someone has deep-seated homosexual inclinations—and it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or they arise in early childhood—if, in any case, they have power over him this is a great trial for him, just as other trials conflict other people as well. But this does not mean that homosexuality thereby becomes morally right. Rather it remains contrary to the essence of what God originally willed.
"Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man or woman is somehow distorted, off-center, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.
"Well, that is just one of the miseries of the Church (homosexuality in the clergy). And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively, in order to remain true to the intrinsic mission of their office."
Is that last paragraph from the same text? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest.
DeleteHomosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway.
It's true that it's dangerous to use the priesthood in that way, but I think that there's also a danger of reducing the priesthood to celibacy, when it's more than that - celibacy is only a disciple, after all, it's not intrinsic to the nature of the priesthood.
The book is Pope Benedict's responses to questions posed by the author. The writer said that homosexuality exists in monasteries and among the clergy, even if not acted out, Benedict responded: “Well, that is just one of the miseries of the church. And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively.”
DeleteBenedict is saying that celibacy is a sacrifice - a giving of one's body and self to the church; and as homosexuality calls a Christian to chastity, then this has no real meaning to it if one was homosexual. He's also saying that the priesthood has spousal meaning and is also about paternity. A homosexual orientation estranges one from a proper sense of this. A priest must have the ability to give the gift of himself totally to the Church, as a married man does to his wife and family, .
That explains it. It seemed like a bit of a non sequitur.
DeleteBenedict is saying that celibacy is a sacrifice - a giving of one's body and self to the church; and as homosexuality calls a Christian to chastity, then this has no real meaning to it if one was homosexual.
All Christians are called to chastity, though, not just homosexual ones.
He's also saying that the priesthood has spousal meaning and is also about paternity. A homosexual orientation estranges one from a proper sense of this.
But a heterosexual man who isn't married can't understand being a spouse, either. And the spousal union between Christ and his Church isn't genitally sexual, so I'm unsure why one's sexual orientation would preclude one from undertaking this.
All Christians are called to chastity, though, not just homosexual ones.
DeleteThat's his point. For a heterosexual, sex within marriage is the only proper expression of it. Thus, celibacy is the sacrifice, For a homosexual chastity, is the default as so no sacrifice is involved
And the spousal union between Christ and his Church isn't genitally sexual, so I'm unsure why one's sexual orientation would preclude one from undertaking this.
It's get complicated here!
Benedict argues that the priesthood is not a denial of the spousal meaning of the body which underlies marriage. Since man is a composite of body and spirit, the body is the physical self by which the gift of the soul given in conjugal love. There's a giving and receiving of soul. This gift of self to another can also be realised by the gift of self to God, in the case of those called to religious life. Although celibacy is a discipline, it is also a fitting means for carrying out this spousal meaning of the body. As a result, a priest must have the same ability to give the gift of himself totally as a married man does; only his gift is to the whole Church.
For a homosexual chastity, is the default as so no sacrifice is involved
DeleteI think chastity and celibacy are being conflated here. Chastity is the default for all Christians, and it isn't the same thing as celibacy. Chastity is simply the virtue of sexual purity, the outworking of which takes a different form depending on one's station in life. For an unmarried Christian, whether heterosexual or homosexual, chastity requires abstinence. For a married Christian, chastity is having sexual relations only with one's spouse.
Celibacy, on the other hand, is to have intentionally 'renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven'. The argument, then, would be something like homosexuals cannot, by the strictly theological definition, be celibate at all, since celibacy requires renouncing marriage and they cannot marry (not in the way that the Church understands marriage).
This is true, but I think it overemphasises the role of celibacy in the priesthood (which is a discipline and could be scrapped without altering the ontological nature of priesthood). There are great saints who've struggled with chastity (e.g., St. Moses the Ethiopian and St. Mary of Egypt), but there are also heterosexual priests with very low sex drives who do not particularly struggle with the requirement of celibacy. They are also men who never have married anyway (I think that the Church sometimes forgets that single straight people exist!), so is it inappropriate for them to be priests?
There's a giving and receiving of soul. This gift of self to another can also be realised by the gift of self to God, in the case of those called to religious life.
Does this not rather undermine the argument, though? If it's a giving and receiving of soul, then sexual orientation seems irrelevant. If it's a gift of the self to God, which can be realised by religious, then the giver needn't be a man, let alone heterosexual.
As a result, a priest must have the same ability to give the gift of himself totally as a married man does; only his gift is to the whole Church.
But I, as a solitary, gift myself entirely to the Church and I'm not even male. Both the priesthood and religious life are acts of total commitment to God and the Church.
The argument, then, would be something like homosexuals cannot, by the strictly theological definition, be celibate at all, since celibacy requires renouncing marriage and they cannot marry (not in the way that the Church understands marriage).
DeleteThat's what Pope Benedict is saying.
Does this not rather undermine the argument, though? If it's a giving and receiving of soul, then sexual orientation seems irrelevant. If it's a gift of the self to God, which can be realised by religious, then the giver needn't be a man, let alone heterosexual.
Remember, Pope Benedict is speaking specifically about the male priesthood here, and not women in religious orders who take vows, and he prefaced his position with:
"Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction which is not homosexual. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age."
This is a full explanation of Pope Benedict's position that a homosexual person cannot be judged to have the requisite affective maturity demanded of the priestly vocation and cannot properly assume the role of father and spouse.
But I, as a solitary, gift myself entirely to the Church and I'm not even male. Both the priesthood and religious life are acts of total commitment to God and the Church.
God calls some to live more intensely and intentionally their faith without calling them to the priesthood. Some women, instead of having an earthly husband, devote themselves to loving and serving Jesus Christ, All of us are called to devote our lives to serving and loving God in our own way within our own vocations.
The Catholic Church sees women religious and nuns as "betrothed mystically to Christ" and dedicated to the service of the Church … "a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come” (see CCC #923).
I'm still not sure that this doesn't over-literalise the marriage metaphor and give celibacy excessive centrality to the priesthood, particularity when the Church could disregard it tomorrow. Orthodox monasticism regards celibacy as a distinctive characteristic of the monastic's rejection of the world, not simply the act of renouncing marriage per se, and this does not preclude homosexuals. Fr. Seraphim Rose, for example, was openly gay in college (in the 50s) but became one of the most revered ascetic priests of modern times and may well be canonised soon. His life and writings have brought many to the faith, especially those who struggle with same sex attraction themselves.
DeleteWhile it's true that homosexual cannot be celibate (technically understood), because there's no marriage to renounce, no heterosexual person is guaranteed or obligated to marry either; all that one is really renouncing is the theoretical possibility of marriage, unless one breaks off an engagement in order to become a priest. In the same way, I'm not sure that one can ever be 100% sure of one's orientation unless one has acted on it (especially if 'it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or they arise in early childhood'), which a good, unmarried Catholic shouldn't have done. And I've spoken to (presumably) heterosexual priests who've said that they'd felt their calling in school and never been interested in marriage (and I've know plenty of others who would make terrible fathers and spouses!).
I suppose it also raises the question that, if so many priests are gay and their orientation makes the intrinsically unable to fulfil their priestly role, then have none of them received a genuine calling? (They can't all be trying to sublimate their sexuality). Also, what is the state of their sacraments, if they're ontologically unable to fulfil their calling?
These are the opinions of Pope Benedict and they have merit. He's not saying homosexuals are ontologically unable to be priests, just that they're unsuited to the priesthood for the reasons he gave. Being ordained a priest effects an ontological change in a man which cannot be reversed. It doesn't mean the person can fulfil the role.
DeleteOf course, but then again nobody can fulfil the role - the priesthood (both of the Presbyteros and the laity) is primarily the offering of oneself and all things to God through Christ. This is impossible for humans and only made possible by participation in the grace of God - For all things come from You, And of Your own we have given You - and I don't see what would specifically exclude homosexuals, to a greater degree than other sinners, from receiving that grace. For all its early ordinances, surely the priesthood is ultimately the operation of God.
DeletePope Benedict gives two main reasons for excluding those with a "deep seated" homosexual orientation - affective immaturity and an inability to assume the role of father and spouse. Of course, the same would apply to a heterosexual man who has not mastered his sexual appetite.
Delete"For, in the end, their attitude toward man or woman is somehow distorted, off-center, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being."
Pope Benedict is referring to the psychological maturity necessary for generous love and self-restraint as the necessary background for being a husband and father in marriage and also necessary for those who pursue celibacy.
This seems to be the core of it:
"For both husbands and priests, the development of a generous love in which there is not a concentration on the genital aspects of sexuality is essential. For the priest this will depend on two factors. First, this generous love, as is the case in marriage must not repress the passions and feelings connected with sexuality as though they were evil in themselves nor give in to them in a self-centered and sinful way. Rather, these must be ennobled by self-restraining love. Through self-control one begins to understand that sexuality is primarily about spiritual communion and unselfish giving of the self to another. The more one denies using the other just to gratify pleasure, the more one concentrates on discovering the mystery of the personality of the other as a good which, if blessed by the marital commitment, would naturally result in confirming the communion of souls with the communion of bodies. The soul become one in love, and so the two become one flesh.
"Second, the formation experience of the priest or religious which is determined by the schedule, rules, professors, and staff at the seminary or novitiate must address these concerns in such a way that normal relationships to the same and opposite sexes are encouraged. In other words, one must not be forced to repress one's feelings simply from fear nor be allowed to indulge them through sexual acts, even acts of self-abuse. If the person undergoing this formation can develop the ability to deny his self-gratification for the sake of higher and deeper goods, his relationship with God and his service of the Church, then the celibate can develop the noble and generous interior life which alone can support the sacrifice of genital sexuality."
The implication is that some homosexual individuals (those with "deep-seated" tendencies) exhibit serious emotional, behavioural, and sexual problems and are incapable of the surrender of sensuality and egotism which is demanded in the priesthood.
Of course, the same considerations apply to sexually immature males entering the priesthood
The Russian Orthodox hierarchy seems to have only two concerns at the moment, and neither of them has more than a tenuous connection with the Christian faith. Both have to do with political power. For several years now, Patriarch Kirill — and possibly also Patriarch Alexei before him, though I’m not sure about that — has given his attention, above all else, to his aim of replacing the patriarch of Constantinople as the de facto supreme leader of Eastern Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Kirill is up against a more pressing political dilemma. The way things seem to be going, within the next week or so either Putin or Prigozhin will have been disgraced, booted out of his present position, and possibly assassinated. There doesn’t seem to be any way they can both survive their present duel unharmed. So whose side will Kirill take? That’s a tough decision for him to make. He needs to allow for the possibility that Prigozhin may emerge the winner and Putin the loser.
It's true that Russia seeks greater primacy within the Church, but the Ecumenical Patriarch is primus inter pares, not the supreme leader of Orthodoxy. We aren't that well organised!
DeleteConstantinople and Moscow are now in schism.
DeleteThey were already in schism. Oh, you mean with each other...
DeleteBell is such an apposite name for Pavlov's Poster...
Delete😲
DeleteJust tightening up Jack's grammar, Lain. No need see any Orthodox-bashing. I'd never do such a thing. You guys already have that covered internally.
Delete