Homosexuality And The Church_H.H Pope Shenouda

edited December 1969 in Youth Corner
[glow=red,2,300][center]Homosexuality And The Church[/center][/glow]



[center]H.H Pope Shenouda[/center]

Let me remind you of some verses from the eight chapter of the epistle to the Romans about the body and the spirit. The holy Apostle says, ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.’ And again, ‘For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.’ Then he says, ‘if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.’ ‘Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.’ St. Paul mentions here that the sons of God are those persons who are led by the Spirit of God."

"I am sorry to have to speak about an issue that has become a topic of popular discussion in the church of late. This subject is homosexuality, and it ought not to be a matter of discussion."

"First of all, homosexuality is against nature. Sexual expression is permitted only within marriage, between man and woman, male and female. Anything else is an abnormality and is against nature. When our Lord Jesus Christ discussed this matter with the scribes and pharisees in St. Matthew chapter nineteen and St. Mark chapter ten, He said ‘From the beginning, God made them male and female,’ man and woman. This is the will of our God from the beginning of creation. When people walked according to the lust of the flesh in the Old Testament, they received severe punishment from God. At the time of the Flood, only the pure, only eight persons in the Ark of Noah were saved. All the people who were not clean, who walked according to the flesh, perished. Also, the people of Sodom, who were not clean, were burned with fire. They walked according to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the body; they were not clean in their spirit."


"Carnal persons cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. They cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We read this in the book of Revelation chapter twenty-one. It speaks about the heavenly Jerusalem saying, ‘But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination.’ Those who defile themselves with abominable acts cannot enter the city of God. In the Old ffb Testament homosexuality is described as an abomination worthy of the punishment of death. For example, Leviticus chapter eighteen, verse twenty-two reads, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.’ In chapter twenty, verse thirteen, ‘If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them’."

"Of course, the New Testament is not less pure than the Old Testament, and we find a proscription of homosexual acts there as well. In Romans chapter one it is written, ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.’ How? Verse twenty-four teaches, ‘Therefor God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.’ ‘Gave them up’ means that the grace of God left them, abandoned them and left them to their uncleanness to dishonor their bodies. In such abnormality, they dishonor their bodies. The honor of the body is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. But if it is abused then it is a dishonor to the body. ‘For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust for one another, man with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due’."

"St. Paul spoke about the debased mind of the homosexual using the phrase ‘exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.’ We take this to clearly mean that homosexuality is clearly against nature. This he avers is uncleanness and dishonor of the body, also receiving penalty. Again, ‘Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use’ means that this is abnormal and against nature, ‘committing what is shameful.’ What I would like to ask is how such a matter which is so shameful and against nature have become such an important matter of discussion in the Church? If there were an attempt to make such acts lawful, it would be a disaster. If we change something shameful and worthy of penalty, something clearly against nature, to a thing accepted and lawful, we deserve the punishment of God both on earth and in the world to come."

"In the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter six, the Apostle says, ‘Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.’ None of these will inherit the kingdom of God. How is it then that some employ unimaginable devices in an attempt to circumvent a Biblical text so clearly written? Have we come so far as to challenge the Apostle of God who writes, ‘do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?’ Your body is not your own; your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The homosexual is sinning against the temple of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul writes, ‘Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.’ When a person sins against the Holy Spirit, that means he is separating himself from the Holy Spirit. Light and darkness cannot exist together in one place. From the beginning God separated light from darkness. The Holy Spirit cannot abide in such a case.’

"The apostle exhorts, ‘glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God’s,’ because the body is for God and the spirit is for God. In chapter three of his epistle to first Corinthians he adds, ‘Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.’ Further along in chapter six St. Paul writes, ‘Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!’ These are the members of Christ because we are His body and His bones. ‘It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.’ If Christ then lives in me, how can we abuse the body or the members of Christ or the temple of the Holy Spirit? How can we abuse or dishonor the image of God and lose our holy image and live in the lust of the flesh? This is against a holy life and against chastity."


"In his epistle, St. Jude writes, ‘as Sodom and Gomarrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.’ And in his first epistle to St. Timothy, St. Paul reminds, ‘knowing this: that the law is not make for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites.’ St. Paul includes this word ‘sodomites’ or homosexuals among the murderers, among the lawless, among the ungodly. This sin then was condemned in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So can we disobey God in order to please some sinful persons? Is it not better to correct them?"

"In our present day I believe that our Lord has given all of us something quite remarkable to consider. AIDS has come to many that persist in a lifestyle that places them in both temporal and eternal risk. Death, as a predictable consequence of infection, usually comes slowly. It is possible that those who have been infected may reflect upon what God has willed for them, rather than what they have willed for themselves. I do not mean the disease itself, but rather the holy life to which they have been called. Unfortunately, many do not even fear such a warning, even though they suffer a defilement of the body."


"What may be said of Christianity in its supreme ideology?

Christianity teaches the sublime ideas of spirituality. How can other religions have any idea about this spiritual life if they know that there is homosexuality in the Church and that the Church is discussing whether it is wrong or right? The life of the Church should be a life of holiness. A holy person is a member of the Church, but the unholy one is not considered a member of the Church at all. In Acts chapter two it is mentioned that ‘the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.’ To add to the Church those who were being saved, means exclusion from impure forms of living for the Church is a group of saints. Homosexuality is against the good name of Christianity."

"I believe that homosexuality is against the Mysteries of the Church. What can we say about the renewal of life, the transfigured life in Christianity if such defilement exists within the Church? How can we claim to have been received into a new life in Christ, clothin ffb g ourselves in Christ from the baptismal font, and carrying the stain of a defiled, fallen life? If the new birth that we have received includes defilement amongst its members, what can be said of salvation itself? Baptism is called into question. Chrismation is called into question. Marriage is called into question. And further as we will see, Holy Orders is called into question. Persons who suffer from a homosexual orientation should be ashamed. If they truly know the meaning of spiritual life, they cannot confess or otherwise advocate a deviant lifestyle."

"What rights are there for homosexuals?

The only right is to be led to repentance. To live in such defilement of the body, in such dishonor, in such abomination, while all the time asking for liberties the Church cannot grant , is unbelievable. But what is even more unbelievable is that these purported rights are being encouraged by misguided members of the Church. For their part, and emboldened by such misplaced demonstrations of allegiance, homosexual rights advocates have even called for ordination to the priesthood."

"The nature and character of a homosexual priesthood as icon is against everything that holy Tradition has handed down to us as Orthodox. Members of this Tradition, the laity, charged with the responsibility of confessing the worthiness of the candidate for ordination by replying Axios, Axios, Axios, could hardly preserve the centuries entrusted them by admitting such a one. How could an individual incapable of repentance himself, lead another to repentance? If he cannot control himself, how can he guide others to such control? If he finds no peace or beauty in the holy life, how can he speak with confidence to others about the holy life? Will he rely upon the experience of others, speak of it as theory, or what’s even worse, as fantasy, a thing for the childish? If he is carnal, how will he guide others to the spiritual? Moreover, what will people say about Christianity if such abomination happens in the Church?"

"It is claimed that homosexuality is a kind of love between man and man. No, my brothers. Love should be spiritual; love should be pure. We love others in purity. We love others in the Spirit. And loving others should not be against our love of God, because our Lord Jesus Christ has said, ‘He who loves father, son, wife, sister, or brother, more than Me, is not worthy of Me, is not worthy to be My disciple.’ We cannot love any other person more than our Lord Jesus Christ. Every love which we have, should be love in the Lord. We love in the Lord, not against. The homosexual love is not love, but lust, and there is a great difference between love and lust, lust of the flesh. The word love is not suitable for such a relation, because in the Gospel we say, ‘God is love.’ How can we say, ‘Homosexuality is love?’ It is not love; it is a bodily lust, a deviated lust of the flesh, a lust that should be corrected. If a man loves another man, can he abuse the man whom he loves? Is this love or destruction? If a person loves a man, can he lead this man to lose his eternity and be punished in the next life? Is this a kind of love, to lose ones image, the image of God?"

"Some people try to provide an excuse for the homosexual saying that he was born in this manner, that there was no express choice, and so unfairly burdened, he should not be held accountable. I tell you that if he was born in the manner described, we need to heal him, to pu ffb rge him, to correct him, to pray for him, to guide him to repentance, to treat him medically and spiritually. But we may not say to him, all right, we accept you as a member of the Church and give you the Body and Blood of our Lord. While he remains in such a state, he is an abomination. I personally do not believe that one is homosexual by nature, certainly not in the way that is claimed by social theorists. We have had too many saints throughout the history of the Church who were fornicators before repentance, and they were corrected. They may not have been homosexuals, but they were fornicators, essentially the same sin, but without the deviation. St. Augustine is a good example, St. Moses the black another, and St. Pelagia still another. Through the grace of God, through the work of pastoral care, they were corrected. But we cannot say to the homosexual, your case is exceptional, your case is lawful. This cannot be accepted at all. Because if we give him this lawful status, that means we permit him to remain in sin and not to repent."

More

more Articles

«1

Comments

  • that is one long esay!!!!!!!!!!!1
    :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
    :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
  • lol josephgabriel

    it really is, but its so nice.
    thanks taghapy and nice username thing
  • I am sorry to whoever wrote this......but God is simple and love.....this is too much to read

    However...i read the first paragraph and most of it and i do like your point ...forgive me if i didnot read all of it
  • [quote author=A lost sOul link=board=13;threadid=3269;start=0#msg49627 date=1141969851]
    I am sorry to whoever wrote this......but God is simple and love.....this is too much to read

    However...i read the first paragraph and most of it and i do like your point ...forgive me if i didnot read all of it


    H. H. Pope Shenouda III wrote this A lost sOul! There is a huge book by H. H. Pope Shenouda III about Homosexuality by itself it explains everything in depth, I'm thinking about reading it sometime!

    Forever,
    Coptic Servent
  • o sorry about that then ...it is just i am not the type who reads alot ....i rather listen to a sermon about it then read it because i am the type who like gets lost when reading a large passage . sorry again
  • [quote author=A lost sOul link=board=13;threadid=3269;start=0#msg49667 date=1142051632]
    o sorry about that then ...it is just i am not the type who reads alot ....i rather listen to a sermon about it then read it because i am the type who like gets lost when reading a large passage . sorry again


    No no, it's alright, I just thought you would like to know who the author was!

    Forever,
    Coptic Servent
  • Pope Shenouda's Prophecy:

     at 20:48
    http://orthodoxsermons.org/sermons/coptic-orthodox-view-homosexuality

    "If there were an attempt to make such acts lawful, it would be a
    disaster. If we change something shameful and worthy of penalty,
    something clearly against nature, to a thing accepted and lawful, we
    deserve the punishment of God both on earth and in the world to come."

  • Worst treatise on homosexuality ever. 
  • Worst treatise on homosexuality ever. 

    I've gotta agree.
  • Let's not just through out general judgmental words...be specific in what you think is wrong with the text.
  • Because he only focused on the biblical aspect? Yea I'm with mina, you have to be more specific. I think it was his job as a leader to take a biblical approach to it to firmly show our stance. 
    Also, "WORST?" 

  • Also, "WORST?" 


    Obviously hyperbole.
  • edited June 2015
    I think I can understand what the issue is.  The argument from "nature" is a bit weak, since in nature, there are plenty of examples of homosexuality.  There is also a genetic predisposition to it.  What we need is an argument made for those who live in liberal countries.  HH Pope Shenouda presents an argument that all Arabs agree with, since both Muslims and Christians take very strong views against homosexuality and do not even see a problem with criminalizing it.  In the West it's different.  Many of the new generation of Orthodox Christians, who like previous generations disagree with LGBT morals (and therefore agree that homosexual actions are sins as always is the case with Orthodoxy) nevertheless do not agree in criminalizing or ostracizing gay people, and we need a more complete approach in trying to address the sensibility of the culture we are in and update our arguments as well.

    For instance, yes, homosexuality can occur in nature.  Nevertheless, we are created theomorphically, in the image of God, and God develops a relationship with humanity as a husband with a wife, and this imagery continues in Christ and the Church.  This is why marriage is blessed as such and why homosexuality is rejected.  We should acknowledge that there can be genetic predispositions to homosexual attraction and behavior, and can feel "natural", but we in the light of Christ must strive to fight against the flesh, like any other sin that we have in us.

    Homosexual people bear a unique cross that demands of them to consider (most of the time) celibacy.  In this sense, we also need to reevaluate our theology of sexuality in general and put into place a theology that would elevate the goal of all humanity to celibacy eventually.  In our hyper-sexualized culture, we seem to have lost this important Christian virtue.  Protestants do not even have such a concept, and heightens the importance of marriage.  Therefore, they made these damaging psychological "treatments" to change one's sexual orientation.  I understand Muslim psychologists are encouraging this same idea.  However, we have to be realistic.  To tell a homosexual person they can change their orientation is like telling St. Paul that we can medically treat his "thorn in the flesh".  A person is not promised freedom from temptation, but a co-lifting of the burdens in one's flesh, for the weaknesses of a person will become strength in the soul, and the burdens will become the Cross to carry, and that was St. Paul's point in keeping the "thorn in the flesh" whatever it was (it may very well be something we can medically treat today, but it seems it can also point to some weakness in the soul).  We also have genetic predispositions of eating habits, anger, depression, hypersexual behavior, etc.  And so we need to treat these huge burdens with our utmost compassion and love, no different than homosexuality.

    In addition, while in Egyptian society, homosexuality "ought not to be a matter of discussion", we can say that about anything in the world.  We have a lot more compassion discussing the confusing Islamic theology and attacks against our Christianity, and these objections, if we are truly in a high spiritual state, "ought not to be a matter of discussion" either.  But we need to cater to the culture we are in, and HH Pope Shenouda seems to have been divorced from that culture completely, not able to give it a more complete and gentle thought and discussion.

    Therefore, we need to remove from our own hearts this idea that we are disgusted by a homosexual person.  We need to increase our compassion and consider our own disgusts of our own sins before their's.  This does not change our moral theology, but our attitudes.  It's not enough that we say "hate the sin, love the sinner".  Homosexuality is one sin where our Egyptian community has not lived up to the ideal standard of truly loving the sinner.
  • edited June 2015
    You are right in that to approach this we must put in front of us the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." I couldn't agree more.

    You are also right in saying that the argument of "against nature" may be weak, however, it goes both ways. We have to make it absolutely clear that there is no such thing as a DETERMINISTIC gene for homosexuality. Several studies have tried to find it, many who claim to have found it have not been replicated, and even others, have been questioned in authenticity. Indeed, science has abandoned genetics when trying to explain homosexuality, and has moved on to epigenetics to explain it (using things like finger length and the "environment" in the womb to explain a scientific purpose.) Now, I am not saying nothing in our biology exists to make someone have a PROCLIVITY to being homosexual, but there is absolutely nothing in science to show that there is a deterministic cause. Science may have shown that there is a proclivity to being homosexual, especially through studies of monozygotic twins in comparison with dizygotic twins (you'd think that if you were of a monozygotic twin pair and your brother is homosexual that you would have a 100% chance of also being homosexual but it is actually far from the case). 

    Continuing with the nature argument. This path is ugly. Very ugly. In nature many things occur that we do not want in our society...yet. For instance, when a male lion attempts to take over a pride, he must kill any dominant male in order to claim the pride. He then goes on to kill any of the cubs of the pride, after which he claims the right to mate with the lionesses of the pride. If what occurred in nature could be used to show that it is ok for humans to do it, we are in trouble. Indeed there are even worse cases in nature such as the male sea otters that rape infant otters. One can probably make the case for pedophilia pretty easily now. I wonder what would happen if we begin to open the door for getting rid of the age of a minor. Now that homosexuality is "ok" to society, what would it mean when they use the same arguments to get rid of the age of a minor? 

    Also in nature is the "genetic predisposition" for many psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, eating habits, anger, depression, hypersexual behavior, etc. I must say that i disagree with you concerning the statement that psychiatric help will not work. The current ones may be "damaging" as you say, but given the history of how the American Psychiatric Association abandoned "The Leona Tyler Principle" and started to admittedly cherry pick poor data, we are in our infancy when it comes to fully understanding the science and psychology of homosexuality. Any healthcare worker in psychiatry would probably also admit that we still have a long way to go in the field of psychiatry in general given the incurability and readmission rates of many "behavioral disorders." Just because we may have a long way to go in the psychiatric counseling of a disorder doesn't mean we should abandon it. 

    I agree that criminalizing it may be wrong. After all, we have not criminalized pornography, gambling, going to strip clubs, and many other "lusts of the flesh" that are clearly agains biblical teaching. But any step in the wrong direction warrants a proper stance.

    Edit: Just for your information I want to add that all the studies i mentioned (the monozygotic, finger length, womb environment studies) have not been replicated (or replicated to a mush weaker causality), and some have tried to replicate them on bigger scales and have actually failed. Unfortunately, the media continues to use these studies despite the presence of bias as well (several of the primary authors were admittedly gay, even one has been put on academic punishment for being found to fabricate data to skew results).
  • edited June 2015
    Yes, psychology is still in its infancy in pretty much a lot of the psychiatric disorders we study.  Nevertheless, my main issue is the "conversion" therapies that have been going on.  What I have seen that is most successful is that one accepts the burden of this proclivity throughout their lives as a form of spiritual strength in Christ, and more often than not, celibacy would be the most important path for these folks.

    Everything else you outlined pretty well is what was missing from HH Pope Shenouda.  We need more informed writings like your's to help further our understanding without compromising our moral theology.
  • Ok I understand where you are coming from. I see now that you are pointing out that other aspects outside of the bible were neglected in his speech. Although his lecture simply stated our biblical stance, I believe that we can use it to build upon arguments that may be more sociologic or scientific. 

    Without the word of God, we have no moral compass other than the desires of mankind.
  • We also need not just the sociological and scientific, but the theological aspect of it, making sense of the Biblical and Apostolic tradition we have.
  • What would be the problem with you guys reaching out to some priest or even some bishops in the US concerning doing a combined work for this topic??? I don't think they'll ever be a better time for it...
  • Well, I'd like to do more research, but I already have my hands tied.  At the moment, I have been dialoguing with those struggling with the moral issue behind it, and those who are struggling with the very proclivity itself.  That's how I learn more and get forced to do a little bit of research as I go.
  • I recommend looking at the big picture and reaching to those of authority that can establish change in morale. Of the current morale is affecting a big number of people, why deal with each separately?! 
  • I recommend looking at the big picture and reaching to those of authority that can establish change in morale. Of the current morale is affecting a big number of people, why deal with each separately?! 

    Sometimes, they choose not to.  If they could, I would direct them to my priest.  Sometimes, they're online.  So, I make myself available to explain the Hope who is in me.
  • I recommend looking at the big picture and reaching to those of authority that can establish change in morale. Of the current morale is affecting a big number of people, why deal with each separately?! 

    Sometimes, they choose not to.  If they could, I would direct them to my priest.  Sometimes, they're online.  So, I make myself available to explain the Hope who is in me.
    I am sorry, i might be a little lost....who are "they"??? and what "Hope" are you talking about?
  • edited June 2015

    I recommend looking at the big picture and reaching to those of authority that can establish change in morale. Of the current morale is affecting a big number of people, why deal with each separately?! 

    Sometimes, they choose not to.  If they could, I would direct them to my priest.  Sometimes, they're online.  So, I make myself available to explain the Hope who is in me.
    I am sorry, i might be a little lost....who are "they"??? and what "Hope" are you talking about?'
    'They' are gay people.  "Hope" is Christ.  I think minasoliman misunderstood your question.
  • edited June 2015
    I'm sorry.  I'm speaking of people I talk to at work or online, most of whom are not of the Church.  And I am alluding to 1 Peter 3:15 when I talk to people who seem to not understand why I stand by the Orthodox church's teachings.  I'm not sure it's practical for me to tell them, "wait right there when I get someone of authority to establish change in morale".  I thought you understood clearly when I said "I have been dialoguing with those struggling with the moral issue behind it, and those who are struggling with the very proclivity itself".  Most of them are not Orthodox Christians for me to bring them to authority.  So the next best thing is to plant a seed if I can.
  • I think you were the one who didn't understand me...I can propose to a bishop or a priest the idea to establish a church view and the best way to deal with homosexuality. I am meant to say that this idea will be much more effective than simply answering people's questions.....there is nothing wrong with planting a seed into people's minds, but it is much better to grow that seed into a tree yourself and bring that to people.
  • You're right.  I don't disagree.

    At the same time, I have so many things that I have prioritized discussing with the clergy other than this issue.  Maybe someone else might.  At the moment now, we can still have this particular discussion informally.

    I have read an article which used to be in coptichymns.net by members then who are now priests.  I forget either Fr. Kyrillos Ibrahim or Fr. Antony Paul wrote the article about homosexuality before they were ordained, and I thought it was an excellent article and a start.
  • For those of you who are trying to learn more about the science behind homosexuality, here is a nice video that outlines it well. I still recommend doing your own research.


  • This may be a good video, I don't know, but the youtube channel itself I do not like.  You couldn't find a source that is solely scientific and we can draw our own non-Protestant conclusions?
  • haha i know sorry. Focus on the first part lol. 
Sign In or Register to comment.