Denied Communion Because You're Gay? How About a Different Angle of Examination

There is no shortage, either in the news media or in blogosphere, of stories of someone (mainly a Roman Catholic) who is denied communion for certain reasons, mainly by holding or supporting politically contrary views to established Roman Catholic dogma with regards to e.g. gay marriage and gay rights, abortion.  Generally, this information comes out in the form of an editorial of some supposedly "devout, super-Catholic who has gone to mass an overwhelming 8 times" [/sarcasm] who openly disagrees with his/her Church's teachings but feels that because he/she is a "good person" the Eucharist should not be denied him. Well, this same phenomenon has now happened to the Orthodox Communion.

In an editorial printed by the Washington Post, Gregory Pappas, writes that he was denied communion because he was gay.  This, of course, naturally set off a whirlwind of comments, both on the WaPo site and also in the Orthodox blogosphere in general.  A rebuttal was posted by famed Orthodox columnist Rod Dreher which also inspired a whirlwind of comments, both in support of Mr. Pappas and in support of Mr. Dreher.

Enough has been said about whether homosexuality per se is sinful and whether that constitutes being barred from the Holy Mysteries or whether only the acting upon homosexual impulses is the criterion for barring someone.  Even more has been said about how the Church is supposedly hypocritical because it has changed on other issues, so why not this one?  (Small digression:  Mr. Pappas says that the Church never allowed divorce.  That is patently false.  Divorce and remarriage have been consistently allowed by the Church, but one can never marry more than three times in the Church and divorce is always, ALWAYS accompanied by a period of exclusion from the mysteries for repentance.  Don't believe me?  Read about the Moechian controversy in the eighth century[that's right, 1100 years ago] when the Eastern Roman Emperor, Constantine VI, demanded a fourth marriage!)

The issue that has not been examined or, rather, the person who has not been asked for his position is the priest of the church where Mr. Pappas was supposedly denied his communion.  Probably, he's not been asked because of his position and that would undermine the relationship between priest and pentient/layman.  Just as likely is that his priest has been asked because he would not want to do anything even hinting of a betrayal of the trust and confidentiality between priest and penitent. (Small digression #2:  Interesting how penitnet/layman side of that agreement is always greeted with praise when he breaks the seal, but if a priest does it, he's hounded [and should be, but really this standard needs to go both ways).

What many fail to understand is that it is the priest's job to faithfully distribute the Eucharist to the faithful.  That is an immense responsibility.  At a priest's ordination, the bishop, who celebrates the Liturgy, gives to the priest-to-be in his hand the entire lamb (i.e. that section of the prosphoron bread which is consecrated specifically for the Body of Christ) and he is told, in no uncertain terms, that he will be held responsible at the Last Judgment before Christ's Dread Throne for the faithful distribution of His Body and Blood.  My godfather, who is now a priest, told me about this.  He was shaking, literally just remembering that.  I'm made of weaker stuff and I know that once the bishop did that same thing for me, I'd give him back the Lamb and say "See ya!"  Whoever Mr. Pappas' priest may be and whatever church he serves is irrelevant.  Any priest of the Orthodox Church is entrusted with this awesome responsibility.  To give to anyone the Eucharist, where there is the slightest bit of doubt that it is given to an unrepentant person, is to blaspheme Christ.  Another thing that people who are unfamiliar with the Sacramental Nature of the Church is that the priest does not serve the Eucharist, but serves, in loco Christi, in the place of Christ.  Even though we may see a fellow human being in front of the altar, mystically, he becomes Christ, as we mystically become like the Cherubim (as we sing in the Cherubimic Hymn at every Divine Liturgy).  It is Christ who feeds us, not a human.

Why is no one talking about this angle?  The priest, and by extension, the whole Orthodox Church is made out to be the bad guy and  the bad guy cannot be allowed to have his say.  We cannot and should not ask the priest about this because that would break the priest and penitent bond of trust.  The problem is that many, both Catholics and Orthodox, view the Holy Mysteries (or Sacraments) as something you're entitled to because you're "in" just like you're "in" a country club or other organization.  We forget that this is Christ's Body and Blood, not yours, not the priests' and not the Church's (though the latter two are both responsible for safeguarding it undefiled).  Is there the possibility that this priest is abusing his responsibility?  Absolutely.  But, if this were the case, I'm sure there would be other reports.  Is there a possibility that the priest is not applying the canons equally?  Maybe.

One other thing that troubles me about this whole episode is that Mr. Pappas and his priest must have been in communication before this particular situation happened. It is rare, from my standpoint, that a priest does not give the Eucharist to someone who approaches, but there have been times where I was told by my priest (usually after a confession) to not receive the Eucharist for a period of time.  So, when the distribution to the faithful came, I did not even come forth.  I must ask whether Mr. Pappas knew about his not being able to receive in advance.  If he did, it was WRONG of him to present himself.  Of course, to the media and to nominal Christians, such an act would be applauded and encouraged, because there's no way Mr. Pappas could be in the wrong.

I will end by going off on one quote from his editorial:

I’m no activist. I don’t want to have a “big, fat, Greek gay wedding” in my church. I’m not going to march outside the Archdiocese headquarters. I love it the way it has always been—a place of love and compassion, a community of good, hard working people and an institution that realizes that we’re all broken in one way or another, and the church’s sacraments should be celebrated to heal us and make us whole. Because, while I may not be a biblical scholar, I believe I’m a good person; my Church taught me how to treat my fellow human, how to be compassionate and, more importantly, the difference between right and wrong.

So, he's not an activist and is not going to protest, but he's going to make sure everyone outside of the Church hears about it via the Washington Post?   Yeah, that's not activism at all.  I also love how he determines himself to be a "good person" and so therefore he should get whatever he thinks he deserves.  There's the crux of the issue.  His protest, his editorial, his anger is all rooted in himself, in what he thinks.  Even in the Orthodox Church, the rampant individualism courtesy of the Protestant Reformation, has crept in.  Everything should be in accordance to what I believe.  I am the final arbiter.  I get to decide.  No, you don't.  Christ through His Church does. 

Supreme Court Rulings on DOMA and California's Prop 8

There have been enough analyses of the decisions handed down yesterday and I would only be repeating what they have said.  However, there has been been scant commentary about how each of these decisions could affect Christian churches, particularly those which will not marry and/or bless same sex couples. 

The effects of yesterday's decisions do not give a universal right to gay marriage unlike what happened with Roe v. Wade in 1973 where the Supreme Court found (i.e. invented) a universal right to abortion.  There is speculation that this is merely an incremental step to a larger program of nationalizing gay marriage so as to avoid the controversy that occurred with Roe.  Marriage, gay or straight, still is the province of the states, as it should be and is a victory for federalism.  But, the majorities in both cases essentially hold that the only reason to rule against gay marriage is not because of any legal or constitutional argument, but is rooted strictly in animus or bigotry against gay people.  Here is part of the dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia:

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with. [emphasis mine]

So, where does this leave the churches?  President Obama, in his haste to congratulate the plaintiffs, promised that the churches who oppose gay marriage would be left alone.  He said:

 On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions.  Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that."

However, the Obama administration has demonstrated that freedom of religious expression should only be protected as long as that religious expression is an expressed endorsement of his statist goals.  One need only look at the administration's opposition to a Lutheran church in the Hosanna Tabor decision, where a unanimous supreme court said that the federal government had no business telling a church who it could ordain and who it couldn't.  And right now, there are many cases going on where businesses are fighting the HHS mandate that employers are required, under Obamacare, to provide abortifacients and  birth control to employees, regardless of whether they want them or not.  Some of these challenges are progressing favorably against the administration.  So, I take President Obama's statement cum grano salis.  We should not forget that the Supreme Court ruled that Bob Jones University did not qualify for tax exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating.  Well, if that form of bigotry is penalized by the state, is it unreasonable to ask how long before churches would be penalized in a similar way for not marrying same sex couples?

I don't care if two gay or lesbian people are together. That's their business and I have many other important things to worry about.  However, the insistence of the gay lobby that everyone else must accept and rejoice in what is their private business is offensive.  That's not tolerance; that's sanction. Tolerance is live and let live. Sanction means approval. And the two are not one and the same.  Justice Kennedy pretty much declared that those of us who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And if gay marriage ever becomes the law of the land (whether by judicial fiat, congressional action or if all states approve it), then those of opposed will be on the same level as racists and segregationists and members of the Ku Klux Klan.  If anyone thinks that if such a scenario ever occurred that churches would be exempted are wrong.  History is replete with examples.

In Italy, during the Mussolini reign, Catholic priests who actively preached against and condemned fascism were invited by the Fascist Leadership to have a couple of drinks.  One week, it would be one drink. If the behavior persisted, the next time would be two drinks and so on.  The drinks in question were castor oil, too much of which will be fatal and pretty gruesome. 

I certainly hope that the Orthodox Church is not forced into marrying gay couples.  The Orthodox Church has not had to deal with the issues that other Christian confessions are confronted with because of our own unique history and our relative immunity to the rampant secularism of Europe. 

At the same time, maybe a good persecution is what we need. (More on that later)

The fundamentalism of those who argue Argumentum Ex Silentio

The word fundamentalist has come to have only negative connotations.  It describes someone who is stubborn, unbending, arrogant, old-fashioned, etc..  When used to describe someone of Christian belief, that word will also include connotations of bigotry, chauvinism, racism, misogyny, etc..  The word fundamentalist will inevitably come up whenever Christians of different confessions, or even the same confession argue opposing sides with social issues, particularly gay marriage and abortion.  Those who argue against gay marriage and abortion are branded as fundamentalist because they may quote Scriptures, but I would argue that those who argue for supporting gay marriage and abortion on demand are just as fundamentalist as the people they decry.

I'm a teacher of all things ancient and one of the subjects I discuss at length with my classes is mythology.  Now when you consider that mythology is the realm of the fantastic, extraordinary and irrational, one might think students would gravitate instantly to that subject, but, alas such is not always the case.  For a generation which is hooked on YouTube videos, X-box games, virtual reality and such, which are fantastic and divorced from reality, I'm amazed how they try to rationalize the mythology of the Greeks and Romans.  "Well, why didn't x do y and avoid his fate?  Couldn't Achilles and Patroclus have been more than 'just friends'?"  The problems with such questions is that we are bound by the sources and what they tell us.  To make an argument and base it on what a source doesn't say, is an argument from silence or, in Latin, argumentum ex silentio.  This is a logical fallacy:  Assuming that since the text is silent on the subject, anything, whether plausible or possible, may have happened.  Qui tacet consentire--He who is silent consents.

Fundamentalists are accused of using the words of Scripture out of context and thus their arguments are false.   Yet at the same time, if stubbornness and arrogance characterize the fundamentalists, then it equally applies to those who argue ex silentio.  A typical argument will run like this:
"The Bible says homosexuality is sinful."
"But Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality."
"But Leviticus does."
"But Jesus didn't and his message of tolerance and forgiveness should apply even to them."
"Where does Jesus say that sinful behaviors are OK, that they should just be overlooked.  Doesn't he say to the adulterous woman: Go and sin NO MORE?"
"Jesus preached tolerance...for everyone."
"Where does Jesus preach tolerance."
"He just does"

Repeat ad nauseam.

Now, keep in mind that the Church has consistently held that homosexual relations are wrong, just as heterosexual relations are wrong outside of marriage.  Jesus said nothing about either in the Gospels, but the Church has still maintained both.  Jesus never said anything specifically about abortion either, nor did St. Paul in his writings, but the Church has consistently for 2000 years maintained that abortion is destruction of God's creation and gift.  But therein lies the problem.  Both sides essentially quote Scripture.  One quotes actual words; one quotes silence and paraphrased platitudes.  And both sides are left in exactly the same connundrum as when the argument began.

The Orthodox Church has never accepted that the Scriptures are the SOLE source of dogma and doctrine. That is why many of shake our heads whenever arguments of this sort take place when both sides make  appeals to Scripture and what Scripture says nothing about.  The Argumentum Ex Silentio fundamentalist is stubborn and unbending just as much as the Word fundamentalist is.   This is why the witness of the Church is invaluable and should not take second place to the Bible.  Keep in mind that even Scripture witnesses that the Church is the bulwark and pillar of truth, not the Bible.  And the doctrine of the Church, as St. Vincent of Lerins, rests in what was taught always, everywhere and for all time (i.e. Catholic), not based on what the Scripture says ONLY. 

The Argumentum Ex Silentio fundamentalist will never admit stubbornness, but that is exactly what he is.  He relies on what is not in the written word to justify any position he may take within Christianity, no matter how crazy and off the wall it is.  The Bible Fundamentalist will pound one phrase, one verse of Scripture and hook the word allein to it (German for alone, which is what Luther did with several of his translated passages of Romans to justify his sola gratia, sola fide heresies) as that is the end all, be all.  Both extremes leave out the Church entirely.  Both extremes leave out the Holy Spirit.  Both extremes rely on themselves as the sole authority.

I will grant that I have more sympathy for the Bible Fundamentalist with regards to the social issues specifically addressed here.  However, the Bible Fundamentalist does not have my support when he tries to excise the sacraments, the priesthood, prayers, the Divine Liturgy and offices because those aren't clearly addressed in Scripture. 

The Chick-Fil-A Controversy and How NOT to Approach It

To be honest, I'm tired of this Chick-Fil-A controversy.  What Chick-Fil-A's CEO said had NOTHING to do with gay marriage (if you doubt me, look up what he said.  There's not a word about gay marriage or homosexuality or anything like that.  Mr. Cathay did talk about "traditional marriage" but to imply that his words means he is anti-gay is argumentum ex silentio, which is no argument at all. He did, however, talk about being married to his first wife and that his staff were married to their first wives so if anyone should be calling for boycotts of Chick-Fil-A restaurants, the widowers, the widowed and the divorced should be screaming bloody murder about those remarks).  Unfortunately, like it or not, this has become the latest skirmish in the culture war about gay rights. And, naturally, Christian religion and beliefs come into this whole thing.

Throughout the debate, both sides, have claimed that the Bible is "on their side."  Opponents to gay marriage will routinely quote Leviticus and St. Paul while proponents say that since Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, that's more important than what is actually said in Scripture (again, another example of argumentum ex silentio).  What's more is that proponents will say that Jesus' overall messages of tolerance and compassion suggest that any "sinfulness" of gay people should be off the table.

I won't get into the merits of the debate (though I will admit, by praeteritio, I already have).  But as both sides claim the Bible supports their respective stances, I am amazed that when Orthodox Christians are drawn into this debate, they will frequently argue using the same tools as the Evangelicals and the Mainline Protestants--i.e. appeal to the authority of the Bible.

Too many Orthodox Christians in this country have been coopted by the Protestant "appeals to Scripture."  Though we Orthodox Christians revere Holy Writ, hence is why we kiss the Evangelion (Gospel Book) at Orthros following the reading of the Resurrectional Eothinon of the week, Scripture is NOT our authority.  Our authority is Christ, which is what St. Peter confessed when Christ asked him who Peter thought He was.  And that truth is the exclusive guardianship of the Church (see 1 Tim 3:15). Before there was a canon of the Prophets and the Gospels and the Epistles, there was the Church.  I think most Orthodox Christians know this, but are frequently forced into religious arguments framed by Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants.

The problem with appeal to Scriptures is that, without the church, one's interpretation becomes the guide by which everyone else should read passages.  Proof texts are fired back and forth in the hopes that one sentence can cancel out another sentence.  Scripture, for us, is not simply what is referred to as the Bible;  it is the collection of the canons, liturgies, prayers, offices, icons, symbols of the Orthodox Church.  When asked why Orthodox Christians do not condone gay marriage or gay actions, we shouldn't respond with the knee jerk "Because Scripture says so."  We should respond, more accurately, that the Church has never, ever, taught such a thing.  St. Vincent of Lerins said that the definition of Catholic is that which has always been believed at all places and at all times, never altered, never subtracted from, never added to.

Of course, many won't like that appeal either because we're just substituting Scriptural authority for Church authority.  But, at least we're being honest.  Those who appeal to Scripture justifying a pro homosexual interpretation are then put on the spot to defend that if Scripture agrees with them, why has the church never taught similarly?  The usual response will be that the Church is bigoted, but that's an ad hominem which simply cannot be substantiated honestly.  It puts them on the spot to justify how an interpretation only 20 minutes old can successfully stand up to more than 2000 years of unbroken tradition and teaching.

Another common response is that the Church was a slave to the cultural norms of the time.  And are you not also a slave to the cultural norms of this time?  Why is one to be condemned and the other praised?  Then that brings up an argument about superiority of cultures, which is very interesting as progressives advocate for multiculturalism which states that no one culture is superior to another (with certain exceptions--i.e. Christians).

The Church has not altered her teachings. The Church is the bulwark of the Truth.  The Bible can be twisted and turned to support any reading.  Every major heresy in the church appealed to the Biblical writers, though the fathers said they were wrong.  They combatted those heresies not by applying Biblical proof texts (such is a modern innovation), but by defending what the church has always believed from the Scriptures, from the canons, from the writings of the fathers, from the icons, from the liturgies, from the prayers, etc.

This post is not about gay marriage.  This is a post about how and why Orthodox are different about how they (should) argue about theological matters.  Frankly, I don't care what two adults do between themselves.  I have to worry about my own numerous sins first and repent of those.   I will admit that I fear that if gay marriage is enshrined as a civil liberty in the USA, how long will it be before the state comes knocking on the doors of my parish and compel them to marry same sex individuals against its will?  Proponents say that will never happen and I hope they are right, but, if we look at what has happened in this country lately with regards to religious freedom, I don't think I'm far off.