THIS is the kind of amoral slimers that JP and the konvertsy want to ally the Church with… if you want to know what the Church REALLY teaches on social issues, read what His Nibs and Vsevolod Anatolyevich say. It’s 180 degrees removed from the so-called “Manhattan Declaration”… in any case, the Sectarian scummers attack the Church incessantly and proselytise amongst us… why give them the time of day?
One of the things that excite konvertsy to no end is their infatuation with the “culture wars” and their embrace of Sectarian nostrums for society. As I wrote earlier:
Do you know what’s ironic? These konvertsy scream about morality, and they unhesitatingly and without stint support known and closeted homos and pervs (not to mention their rabid defence of Radical Renovationism, as well). Their juvenile maunderings about “tradition” and “conservatism” are nothing but empty verbiage and vacuous posturing. Reardon agonised over Rowan Williams… who’s not a faygeler (enabling and cosseting gays is NOT the same as being one)… but he was and is silent concerning the antics and proclivities of such swishers as Feodosy Lazor, Nikolai Soraich, Benjamin Peterson, Pierre l’Huillier, and Isidore Brittain, amongst others (I fear that list given isn’t exhaustive). Reardon bloviated about an Anglican who’s not gay, but he’s silent about the Gay Blade cabal running the OCA (to tell the truth, I’d rather have an open and honest gay bishop such as V. Gene Robinson over such posturing closeted filth). God DO save us from such.
Let’s be clear… the Church considers homosexuality a sin… but it also considers greed, simony, adultery, and abortion sins (perhaps, even worse than homosexuality is), but the Church does NOT exclude swaggering Church apparatchiki, lupine real estate/used car salesmen, slinking divorcees, and desolate women who’ve undergone abortions from its Mysteries (in fact, we have a prayer for a woman who’ve undergone an abortion… we don’t excuse the action, but we certainly forgive the actor, if you catch my drift). In like manner, it doesn’t exclude lay homosexuals… it’s a matter left up to the priest involved, who knows the people involved, the situation around them, and if the larger community is scandalised (that is, the larger secular community has to know of it and be shocked, not just one or two busy-body parish gossips). That’s why the people who “outed” Mark Stokoe publicly were outrageously nasty and disgusting… that was a private matter concerning Mr Stokoe and Fr Ted Bobosh… if they had any complaints, they should’ve taken them directly to the bishop involved. Mark’s homosexuality was a matter of common and wide knowledge. It’s why he can never be ordained to the clergy. That being said, the worst thing is when closeted gays become clergy… should I mention Feodosy Lazor and the Neon Chicken, for one? A friend of mine wrote this:
I believe that we have much more serious problems in the patterns of behaviour that arise out of the disconnect between such proclivities and the stated Church policy against them… hypocrisy, disingenuousness, cover-ups, clannish mutual protection tactics, a circle-the-wagons approach to criticism, and so on. Personally, I’d rather have the sort of situation that one finds in the TEC, where gay hierarchs are honest about how they live their lives, rather than this dark and sordid mess. At least, then, one could have an actual discussion about whether sexual orientation should disqualify one from holding ecclesial office… as it is, because there’s no acknowledgment, there can’t be a discussion, only ugly rumours and non-denial-denials, ad nauseum. Reminds me of the closeted gay-bashers that have been elected to public office… give me Barney Frank, any day.
What do I say to the above? Nothing but, “Hear, hear!” If you look at the quote from earlier post, it’s almost exactly what I wrote, in some cases almost word-for-word. The Church’s stance is clear… homosexuality is an impediment barring ordination to the clergy or accession to the monastic state. To be blunt, one doesn’t have to be a clergyman or a monastic to win one’s salvation or attain holiness. In other words, the Church tolerates lay homosexuals (it doesn’t approve of homosexuality, it extends its hand to Christians dealing with it)… it doesn’t bar them from the Mysteries. I support this wholeheartedly, for the Church is the Big Tent, it isn’t a “Little Flock” of self-centred and self-approving Sectarians, who reject everyone not precisely like them. One of the main tasks of the bishop is to throw the Church’s mantle of protection over those pursued by ignorant and seething Yahoo enthusiasts. It does NOT approve or condone the action… it DOES mean that the Real Church rejects “culture war” tomfoolery and all those who advocate it (such as JP, Potapov, Whiteford, Reardon, and Mattingly). Of course, it’s unwise in the extreme for Mark Stokoe to be part of the so-called Metropolitan Council, as his homosexuality raises too much controversy… that’s not only true of him, it’s true for all of us… if we’ve got something in our pasts (beyond the usual skeletons), it’s our duty to step aside from public office in the Church. That’s only good sense…
I hope that this answers Sunny Jim’s questions… I think that it shall, indeed. I’ll say to him, “Thank you! You gave a top idea for a post”. That proves, yet again, that the best ideas that come to me only come from others, not from my own brain. God has HIS ways of teaching humility, does he not?
Friday 1 July 2011