i sincerely hope this will not be considered a "forbidden" topic, nor do i mean to offend anyone. as this subject has come up within the "traditionalist orthodox churches" section, that is where i am posting it.
perhaps also to see "traditionalist" reactions to my questions.
in the article, "can a leopard change his spots" by vladimir moss, the following statements were made:
"Metropolitan Yuvenaly is notorious in church circles for his nontraditional sexual orientation. A number of monasteries in the area around Moscow have already been turned into annexes of Sodom . . .
"Metropolitans Philaret of Minskand Vladimir of Kiev are both,
according to Bychkov, homosexuals who share one thing in common: under their administrations the largest monasteries--the Kiev caves lavra and the Zhirovitsy monastery--have become examples of Sodom and Gomorra. homosexual families coexist peacefully in them, concealed by monastic garments . . .
"on July 19, 1999, according to Bychkov, the Synod devoted much
time to the scandals involving the homosexual conduct of two bishops, Nikon Mironov of Ekaterinburg and Gury Shalimov of Korsun. The press devoted so much attention to poor Bishop Nikon that he is notorious throughout Russia. The behaviour of Bishop Gury was just as scandalous. The Holy Synod sent both into retirement, that is, it dismissed them, confirming thereby the justice of the journalistic accusations. But it dismissed them in conditions of strictest secrecy!"
i mentioned these references of vladimir moss in a post about some fo the reasons i was not comfortable with the rocor "uniting" with the mp. this was answered by "hoodpeters" (deacon john, who was ordained in the rocor and subsequently joined the mp). when deacon john mentioned homosexuality in the rocor, i stated something to the effect that the rocor seemingly did not have these problems on the scale mentioned by vladimir moss concerning the mp.
deacon john answered:
"Yes you have problems of the same scale. Why go into it. Look at your monasteries and ex-monasteries. The MP recently dealt with a case of homosexual marriage and with the ordination of a homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church. It quickly condemned them as sinful. "
In posting this topic, i would indeed like to go explore deacon john's question, "why go into it?" i will coment on his answer concerning the references of vladimir moss and his comments on thr rocor; comment on general perceptions; relate some personal history, and then invite comments, thoughts, etc., on this topic.
deacon john states that the rocor has "problems" with homosexuality "of the same scale" mentioned by vladimir moss in his article. i simply do not believe this; i have never heard of senior bishops of the rocor being actively homosexual, nor "sponsoring" homosexual activity in monasteries under thier control. i realize that there have been some "problems" in this area, but again, certainly not on that scale.
this topic is something i would "like to go into," and find out how others on the forum respond to it. i think it is important for a number of reasons, which i will attempt to enumerate.
first of all, how are such activities to be looked at? i would assume there are different "degrees." while we often hear the rejoinder, "hate the sin, love the sinner," personally, i will confess a weakness, and admit that i wouild find it quite difficult, if not bordering on impossibility, to "love" hierarchs who seemingly not only live as active homosexuals, but use the church as a cover for such activities, as well as permitting others to do so in monasteries under their control. such activities would cause me to question if these hierarchs even believe in God, or simply find the church a sort of convenient playground for their passions. in speaking of different degrees here, i suppose it can go from such egregious and terrible example such as those mentioned by vladimir moss in his article, all the way "down" to someone in a monastery who is lonely, depressed, and falls to temptation in order to "feel good," or something of that sort. obviously, a fall such as that would not merit the same reaction as those mentioned by vladimir moss.
i will also remark here that i fail to see even any remote connection between the mp "condemning as sinful" the appointment of an active homosexual as a bishop for the Episcopalians and the "homosexual wedding" conducted by the mp priest while senior hierarchs are apparently using monasteries as "homosexual communes." as these activities on the part of these hierarchs are obviously well known, the fact that they do indeed go on, while the mp "condemns" activities that i would view as small potatoes, indeed, in comparison, only shows hyprocrisy and double-mindedness on the part of the mp!
as i have written elsewhere on this forum, i am rather exhausted by the seemingly never ending "whining" of many orthodox people about thing that happen in heterodox religious organizations. what do we expect, anyway? also, while there is much in the mp to look askance at, the fact that a renegade priest performed a "homosexual" wedding, apparently for the money involved, can in no way be used to condemn or criticize the mp.
many orthodox, and perhaps those with a "conservative" political bent expecially, often pronounce on the "homosexual agenda" supposedly sweeping the land. i mention this becuase it implies, to me, a psychological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. which leads me to a question-if there is indeed a psychological difference, how does this relate to intances of homosexual acticities in the church, or, even, repentant non-practicing homosexuals in the church? would repentance and chastity cancel out psychological differences? or would such a psychological difference always be present? if so, how would it affect anything, and is this acceptable?
one of my best friends is a convert to orthodoxy from the roman catrholics. he attended a roman catholic seminary prior to converting to orthodoxy. he saw many instances of homosexual behavior in this seminary, quite flagrant, and saw the seminary administration defend homosexuals, to the point of insisting they had a right to act as cheerleaders for the basketball team ("everybody must be able to participate . . . ")! after his conversion to orthodoxy, he was briefly in a few monasteries, and attended an orthodox seminary, where he unfortunately "ran into" yet more homosexual activities. while he has told me these were not anywhere near the scale of what he witnessed in the roman catholic seminary, it has caused him to be very suspect and cynical. i told him once that when i met someone "with long hair, a beard, and a black robe" that i could not bring myself to question, "is this person a homosexual?" my friend related quite the opposite-he told me, "when i meet someone with long hair, a beard, and a black robe, they have to prove to me they are not a homosexual."
i realize that the rocor has had instances of this kind of thing. father konon lasky, a hiermonk of the saint seraphim skete in swartz creek, was accused of molesting boys at the monastery (this monastery supported itself by taking in boys as foster children through state agencies). father konon ran off, and was sheltered in a greek old calendarist monastery in the nyc area, finally was arrested, convicted, and spent time in prison.
i think everyone here knows the "blanco story." to be honest, i was extremely suspicious of blanco from the beginning, and found many aspects of their self-promotion both offensive as well as downright tacky. when they began advertising the fact that they were accepting (and seemed to be soliciting) young boys as monks, i was appalled. of course, the defenders of blanco insisted that this was perfectly okay, as "you know, actually, in russia in the 14th century there were often young boys of that age [11, 12] who became monks . . . " all i could think is, dude, this aint russia in the 14th century . . . this was a disaster just waiting to happen, and i coudl not believe it was allowed to go that far. then of course, accusations, arrests, convictions . . . a priest who i asked about this "affair," when blanco was told, basically, to "take a walk," rather vehemently explained to me that they WERE NOT ejected from the rocor "for molesting boys," but because they had "disobeyed the bishops" in not submitting to an investigation. i found this a rather odd way of addressing the situation, and thought if this priest explains this situation to prospective converts this way . . . well, i think you get the picture . . . another priest told me that his sons had visited blanco, and "they never saw or heard anything like that, and neither did i . . ."
a priest of the rocor and his wife adopted children from russia; then this priest decided to "come out of the closet," and left his wife with these adopted children . . .
all of the above-mentioned incidents were treated, in one way or the other, as sort of "hush hush" subjects. the father konon case was not a subject for discussion with the abbot of father konon's monastery; the blanco case i think was noted for those who would not believe it was even possible until the jury came back with the guilty verdict-"i never heard that before" seems to be a sort of usual answer; so-you know everything? the priest with the adopted children, also, was simply not to be talked about openly; of ocurse, there was a strong undercurrent and "private talks" that showed contempt and even hatred of principals of these sordid cases.
i have heard other accusations concerning various priests, but nothing in the way of proof. there were also accusations concerning bishop peter of cleveland. the "noteworthy" thing about these werew that they apparentlyu spurred a layman to voice "anaxios" loudly at his consecration, and that they were so widespread that one priest remarked that those clergy at the consecration were relieved that "only one" person voiced "anaxios," and that they expected maybe 20 or 30 to do so. also, there is the letter of father victor potapov outlining these accusations, and the fact that five bishops supposedly were vehemently opposed to his consecration. while these accusations were apparently believed by quite a large group of people, and supposedly there was a veritable parade or protesters through the synod prior to the consecration, after the consecration, the synod seemed to react by telling people not to talk about it as it would only "help our enemies," then kept silent and seemed to adopt the stance that "we can keep quiet about this longer than people can talk about it."
oddly enough, the reaction of many supporters of the consecration seemed to be "i know, but you cant prove it nyah nyah nyah!!!"
the monks of esphigmenou were accused of homosexuality several years back, but this was obviously a very transparent attempt by the ep to throw them out of the monastery because they refused to commemorate the ecumenical patriarch. so i do realize that all "accusations" are not "truth."
so-is this a "forbidden" subject? (i guess i will know that for sure if this topic and a discussion is not allowed on this forum!) is there a general support for deacon john's "why go into it?" it simply should not be talked about? ignored? are all -uh- "violations" of this nature to be looked at similarly? is conduct of this kind by "higher ups" more serious than that of the young lonely monk who succumbs to temptation? is this the same sort of sin as gluttony, drunkenness, lust (man & woman variety . . . ) etc? is there a psychological dimension that merits concern? does keeping it all hush-hush simply aggravate the problem? in the cases involving children, should the orthodox follow the "tried and true" method of the roman catholics, attempt to cover up, send these offenders on to do it again, then tell someone who finally sues the church that "it is a violation of the canons to sue the church?" will it be any consolation when someone finally does sue the church, and gets an award of several million dollars, that we know they were "wrong" to sue the church and it resulted in their excommunication? if the church allows or exacerbates problems such as these by silence or covering up or promoting such individuals-what is it that "helps our enemies"-talking about it, or the fact that the church allowed or exacerbated such problems in the first place? if the church indeed allows or exacerbates such problems, should ther ebe any accountability for these actions, or should we simply shutup, pay and pray?
i hope that this discussion will be allowed here, and am looking forward to see some opinions and thoughts on this issue.
mwoerl
No, this is exactly the same attitude that got rome in the mess its in. Condemn the sin at all costs and correct the sinner and get him out of a position of moral prominence, for he is an embarassment. Only sergianists wish to maintain such an odious status quo!