Sunday, March 4, 2012

The Hardest Pill To Swallow

In coming to the Church, there are some things that a person must “lay aside”. That is, when one concludes that the Orthodox Church is correct, we converts are faced with the prospect that we are not the highest authority of our belief. For those of us that formerly felt that we can only trust the “Word as we understand it”, must come to grips with the “Word as it has always been understood”. Perhaps some of us hang on to our own little “heresies”. We cling to the Church because she is “correct in most things”, but secretly think that she poorly understands others. The caveat in which we may hide is that many, many things have not been officially addressed by the Church.

Some of the more common “pills that must be swallowed” are prayers to the Theotokos and the Saints, Confession, repetitious prayers, and icons. This blog post is not concerned with those subjects, although a fully orthodox understanding of them is a very worthwhile investment in one's salvation. I came to Orthodoxy an atheist. I came to see and fell in love with Christ. As I suspected, I never proved the existence of God. I only succeeded in proving to myself that I needed Him to be there. This is the weak and insufficient condition of my own faith. The benefit of this is that I am a blank slate, allowing Orthodoxy to teach me theology, rather than having to consolidate it with my own.

The hardest pill for me to swallow is that a lifelong union between two consenting adults is sinful. I am, of course, speaking of a homosexual union. The whole thing feels so backwards to me. I can participate in long discussions on the merits of celibacy, asceticism, mysticism, passions, Christology, and even, on really good days, Young Earth Creationism. But the minute someone brings up the sinfulness of homosexual relationships, I can't comprehend what is being discussed.

First, there is the fact that such people do not have a choice in their orientation. This is well documented and understood in Psychology and even more evident in the number of suicides committed by homosexual teenagers each year. One testimony to the truth of Christianity is that people gave their lives rather than abandon it. The “non-choice” of homosexuality is evident in the deaths of those who could not escape it. As a high school friend of mine who happens to be homosexual has pointed out, if it were a choice, he would un-choose it. It is a difficult life, especially in the South.

Second, even as a heterosexual, I face the power of lust. Yet the plight of the homosexual is such that they receive added baggage. More than anything, I think it is the “and” factor that bothers me. There is the power of lust “and” it's homosexual nature. Where my own lust-fulness was directed at and ultimately consummated in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, the homosexual has no such outlet. There is no hope of ultimate release in this life. In essence, the shelter I have in my marital bed is not obtainable.

Third, we most thoroughly understand Sin, not as a specific act, but as a condition that infects us and, through our actions, does the damage. Lust can overwhelm a man and, through selfishness, cause him to violate a woman. Greed can infect our minds and cause us to steal. Homosexuality is different in that the only evident harm in a consensual lifelong relationship between two persons of the same sex is that other people don't like it. Meaning, the root ethical problem of a homosexual relationship is that it causes everyone else to sin. Maybe it is a hold over from my Protestant days but, whenever I read the Law, I saw the practical nature of the Decalog, the symbolism and holiness of the dietary and cleanliness laws, and the health and social wisdom of the laws concerning sexual morality. But the law demanding that two persons of the same sex cannot enter into a consensual lifelong union is an enigma except to see it as something God arbitrarily doesn't like(does God do anything arbitrary) or that it provokes other people to sin.

And that is probably the most troublesome idea that I can imagine. Could it be that the homosexual is required to choose celibacy for our sakes? Do they have to bear an extra cross so that we do not “hate our brother”? It is a difficult problem to address and one that I often have to abandon almost as soon as I pick it up. Perhaps my greatest flaw of reasoning is expecting this fallen world to show some level of fairness. Apparently, we are not all on a level playing field. Perhaps the axiom that I should abandon is that we are “all created equal” in our burden of Sin. Is there any Patristic teaching on this? Is there some guidance available to me?

So, I must swallow the pill. I must accept that Orthodoxy is correct, and I am wrong. My judgment is weak and ill advised, and the Church overwhelmingly opines that such relationships can never be sanctified. If asked of the relationship of homosexuality and Orthodoxy, I must state that Orthodoxy is in agreement that homosexual relationships are sinful and have no place in the body of Christ, and lament that my own lust can be controlled in my marriage bed and the inquisitor must suffer more than I or walk away from Orthodoxy altogether. My burden is so light and their burden is so very heavy. My heart breaks for them and I'm not sure if I should become callous to their feelings or heretical in my position. More than any other subject, I have to stand on a knifes edge, fearful of either side.

2 comments:

  1. Ronald,
    I think you've stated legitimate concerns that would be echoed by many. I have a few thoughts that might be of use.
    First, though the marriage bed provides some hedge against lust, it is simply ineffective over a life-time. There's sort of a Freudian assumption that we have all this sexual energy that must find release somewhere. While it is true that we have such energy, it is not true that finding a particular "outlet" is the purpose of marriage or that it actually lessens the problem of lust. Chastity and celibacy lessen lust, but sexual gratification does not (whether legitimate or otherwise). It is only the transformation of that energy, which is a slow ascetic exercise, that battles lust. I have been married for over 36 years. I see the truth of this now in a way I could not have seen as a young man.
    The reaction within our culture (or some segments of it) to homosexual activity is often unhelpful or worse for those who struggle with those temptations. I do not see a great deal of difference between one temptation and another.
    My own thoughts are that "choice" is only of relative importance in the expression of human sexual desire. Some element may very well have a genetic component - though most science on genetic things says that genetics is not as hard-wired as we think. It's more a nature-nuture synergy. Whether a genetic predisposition becomes expressed is often triggered by other things - and things early enough that one cannot recall them very well in later life. I would say this is also true of heterosexual experience. The inner life of human sexuality is not either/or. We are all pretty wounded, particularly in our sexual lives. The rampant addiction to pornography is a good indicator of just how disordered this part of our lives (all of us) is. Thus, asceticism (self-examination, confession, fasting, etc.) is required of all who would be changed from glory to glory into the image of Christ.
    It is true that the cross born by a homosexual will be heavier in some aspects than those of others - but (unless we give the farm away to Freud) it is not unbearable. The Church asks us to struggle. It does not expect perfection. But it cannot bless what God has not given us to bless. Tradition consistently proves to be wiser than cultures in such matters. Like you, I'll swallow the pill.
    Your caring for others is godly, and Christ-like. You should not apologize for truly having a kind heart and sympathy in this matter. May God give us all grace to take up the difficult Crosses given to us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Father,

    Thank you for your comments. From what I remember of Psych class, Freud and others who formed the movement that would become modern psychology used introspection to come to many different answers to the same question. I think modern Psychology calls this "Projecting". Freud, Jung, and others saw themselves in the human condition. It is intriguing how his theories still have such an impact on modern thought, even though they have been largely abandoned in his own field.
    I believe I understand what your saying. I did two six month deployments with the Navy. Out to sea, gratification just wasn't important. Energy was spent elsewhere. Six months isn't quite a lifetime, but I think I see the value of redirection and transformation in a sense.
    Again, thank you for your comments and insight.

    ReplyDelete