As If the Archbishop Didn’t Have Enough Problems

Looks like the Rev Dn John Chryssavgis is surveying the damages and doing what he does best; making them worse.    

Seriously, somebody needs to tell the brainiacs who advise Archbishop Elpidophoros what the first rule of holes is:  if you’re in one, stop digging.  

You can read Chryssavgis’ not very well-reasoned defense of the Big Fat Greek Gay Baptism for yourself.  As for me, there were enough logical holes in it that I could have driven a tank through them.  https://religionnews.com/2022/07/25/a-tempest-over-a-baptism-in-greece-raises-questions-about-what-were-trying-to-protect/

Worse, even Chryssavgis admits that things weren’t completely done on the up-and-up.  Here’s one such admission:  “Are we afraid of opening Pandora’s box? Should the Metropolitan of Glyfada have been better informed about what was to happen in his diocese? Or is there another reason why he scrambled to wash his hands and cover his tracks? He admits he wouldn’t have had the courage to make such a decision.”

Now let’s parse this little chestnut, shall we?

First off, Chyrssavgis implies that the metropolitan was not operating with a full deck.  This is a cute little rhetorical trick, which suggests the metropolitan in question was informed and chose to look the other way.  It’s certainly possible. 

It’s equally possible (probable, even) that he wasn’t informed —at all–and the metropolitan took umbrage at being made to look like a fool. 

Chyrssavgis appears to be throwing him under the bus which is not a very gallant thing to do.  And given the accusatory letter the metropolitan wrote to Elpidophoros in the aftermath of this debacle, one can easily take the metropolitan’s word in the matter, even though we’re essentially left with a “he said/he said” situation. 

If Chryssavgis or Elpidophoros have documentary evidence that can shed some light on this, they should proffer it immediately.  

Next, Chryssavgis shows his ignorance of pastoral theology when he asks:  Should Archbishop Elpidophoros have “clarified in writing that the children baptized do not belong to what the metropolitan calls ‘a traditional family’? Do we expect the same for children of single parents? What happens in the case of atheist parents? What of parents who undergo civil marriage or who are not married at all?”

Let’s begin by finding out what the heck is wrong with a “traditional family.”  Shouldn’t the Church be encouraging such unions?  (Rhetorical question.) 

As for what happens in the case of “atheist parents,” that’s a ball that can be batted right out of the park:  why would atheists want their kids baptized in the Orthodox Church in the first place?  That makes no sense.  And if perchance an atheist couple comes up to the priest for baptism, that would indicate a need for evangelism as it indicates some questioning on the part of the parents, doesn’t it?  Otherwise, from the point of view of the atheists, the whole thing is a waste of time.

But let’s go one step further: what if a Jewish couple asks for the sacrament for their child?  Or a Muslim couple?  They want the baptism (perhaps for the sake of a grandparent) but have no intention of raising their child as a Christian. 

I realize that we are dealing with hypotheticals here but then again, so is Chryssavgis.  In other words, two can play this game.   Chryssavgis certainly has the right to pose these questions but, then, so do I.  

But let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?  What if a polyamorous family approaches the priest to ask for baptism?  Doesn’t that child deserve baptism, too, even if he is going to be raised in a house where orgies take place?  Doesn’t he deserve spiritual protection? 

Does any of this make sense?  

As for the single mother, uncomfortable questions need to be asked and answered, as well.  Are you a widow?  Did your husband desert you through no fault of your own?  Or was the child the result of an unplanned pregnancy?  And if so, are you going to change direction and raise your child according to the Church’s teaching or subject him to a constant parade of boyfriends?  I’m not being judgmental here.  The answer to these questions is important.

In other words, the Church needs to know if the parent(s) are able and willing to raise the child in a Christ-centered home.

And what about the example of St Porphyrius, who blessed the prostitutes in the Athenian brothel that Chyrssavgis mentions?  I think the saint in question was correct to do what he did. 

But the deacon here is comparing apples to oranges. 

No woman in her right mind wants to be a prostitute.  Those who engage in this practice generally do so when they run out of all other options.  Perhaps they’re living out the consequences of a lifetime of abuse.  It could be any number of things, but it matters.  

In blessing these unfortunate women, St Porphyrius was showing them that God doesn’t hate them and is encouraging them to pray for His guidance.  

As for the homosexual couple in question, they have no qualms about their lifestyle at all.  In fact, given their garish display, it was clear they were quite pleased with their life choices and the baptism was the cherry on top.

Will it result in substantial changes in their home life?  I doubt it.

There is also the fact that these children, through no fault of their own, were conceived via surrogacy?  I’m sorry, but I thought the entire women’s movement was designed to “empower” women and not turn their bodies into baby factories.  How can we criticize ancient pagans who practiced slavery, or who had concubines or were polygamists, but are A-OK with hiring third-world women from Guatemala to serve as a rent-a-uterus?  

Somebody owes the Founding Fathers a deep apology over the whole slavery issue right about now. 

Regarding surrogacy, is the deacon aware that implanting a fetus is not a “one-off”?  Usually, several fertilized eggs have to be implanted.  The one most likely to survive is chosen as “the one” that stays.  Know what happens to the rest?  It’s called selective abortion.  If you want to get technical about it, they are tossed down the drain.

I will leave the other tendentious arguments alone, simply because the saccharine sentimentality it would create would make me have to double up on my metformin. 

I’m sorry, but thanks to the forthrightness which came out of the OCA and Antioch last week, I believe we’ve finally arrived at the point where we can see that the Church of Christ is not Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood but a fortress, one that is manned by warriors, not wimps.  

I, for one, will never go back to the way things used to be.  How we stood it for so long is a complete and utter mystery.  If it’s Jesus “Nice” you want instead of Jesus Christ, you can go join one of the Protestant denominations, especially the ones that are OK with the cultural whims of the moment.  

 

Comments

  1. Chryssavgis, also affectionally known as the “Mouth of Sauron.”

  2. Illumined says

    I find it quite amazing how many liberal Orthodox online are still trying to defend this. Things like this incident demonstrate the extent to which modern liberalism is wholesale incompatible with Orthodoxy. At the end of the day one can’t have two masters, so I pray for their repentance.

    • Fr Chris Moody says

      But let’s dig a little deeper, shall we? What if a polyamorous family approaches the priest to ask for baptism? Doesn’t that child deserve baptism, too, even if he is going to be raised in a house where orgies take place? Doesn’t he deserve spiritual protection?

      That is the logical analogy and a good point of discussion. George, THAT is not hypothetical. In 10 years polyamory will be normalized. What will the church then say? It is appropriate the rebuttle the deacon’s misused analogy

      • George Michalopulos says

        Thank you Fr. I could have said something along these lines: “what guarantee do we have that the children of homosexual couples won’t in turn be sodomized by others?”

        That’s an uncomfortable question. One could say that it’s “homophobic.” But it needs to be asked. After all, there is a lot of heterosexual molestation (of young girls) that goes on in families where Mommy has a boyfriend.

        If it can happen in heterosexual couplings (whether remarried or just shacking up), it can certainly happen in homosexual ones as well. To believe otherwise is insane.

        • Dear George,

          Thank you very much for raising this issue.

          One of the couple is the father, the other is not the father. Think about things that you are OK with normal Dads doing to their kids that you are not OK with men who are not their fathers doing to them.

          One common problem in American society is that there is a common opinion in favor of spanking children. To be more specific, in one survey, over 70 percent of American men agree that “some kids need a hard spanking”; men hit their children harder, and the most common targets of hitting are statistically boys. I don’t think that most Americans realize what a disturbing experience this results in, especially for many boys. Some men, and even women, enjoy doing this to them while outwardly claiming that it’s good discipline and making little jokes about it.

          It’s not uncommon for Americans who grew up in the north or Midwest in the 1950’s-1960’s to say that only boys got beaten in their school. I don’t know if that was different in the South. Outwardly, the justifications were that boys deserve it, or need it, or that you shouldn’t hit a girl, as if it was a tough male practice. What doesn’t come up in the surveys was how many people actively sought out those teaching roles so that they could act out what they enjoyed. In some cases though, when a child spends a school year with a teacher he gets a much better sense of who the teacher is. Then when he grows into an adult and thinks back, he realizes what was happening underneath the jokes or the teacher’s lectures about “taking the book out of the pants.”

          So at the same time as many Americans (half?) treat homosexuality and gay marriage as normal, and it’s legalized, they also treat “hard spankings” as normal or good discipline. Nor does America draw a clear line where “reasonable” spanking ends and illegal abuse begins. Some states like Mississippi have “teacher protection” laws that protect teachers from lawsuits over severe beatings. Georgia’s law specifies that bruises are not enough to qualify as child abuse. It’s very disturbing and doesn’t have to be this way. Cyprus, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, and Ukraine have laws against spanking. In the US, probably the most likely place where a child could be protected legally from it would be where a parent tries to protect their child from a step-parent.

          So in conclusion, you, George, are hitting on an important issue. Child mistreatment is common in some forms. A normal natural parent is typically going to want to protect their children from someone else giving them “hard spankings”. But abuse in different forms is not extremely rare. It’s often perpetrated by authority figures, like Catholic clergy, boy scout leaders, teachers, foster parents, step parents, even law enforcement. Probably someone in your family or in your extended family has had it happen to them.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I don’t think it’s true that in American society there is a common opinion in favor of spanking children.

            Some 50% of parents reported spanking a child in 1993; By 2017 that number was down to 35%. While excellent news, that number is still too high by standards set by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018.” CNN https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/health/spanking-decline-us-wellness/index.html

            • Gail,
              I would prefer for you to be right on that. You can check more survey data on specifically adult men’s answers to that.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                Why would I do that?

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Hal, thank you for your insights. Let’s be honest and admit the elephant in the room: male homosexuals are 10 times more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men. Even though these stats come from the Guttmacher Institute (hardly a conservative institution), we are so crippled with fear that we can’t even mention it.

                  So why in God’s name are we allowing homosexual men to adopt (or procreate) males?

                  If I may, my dear mother thought that Dr Benjamin Spock was the False Prophet. (Something to do with not spanking children I think.) Although spanked at home and at school, I never received beatings.

                  • Let’s be honest and admit the elephant in the room: male homosexuals are 10 times more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men.

                    Yes, let’s have society admit it. Sandusky sexually abused a boy and then adopted him. How deep does the abyss reach? He patronized a collective of children called the “Second Mile”. One man who had been in the collective said that the Second Mile was a predators’ fishing ground for children.

                    I wanted to thank you for hitting on the point because being raised in a gay male family might very often not be all its proponents make it cracked up to be. Once when I was visiting an “open house” on the market owned by a lesbian couple, I noticed that their son’s bedroom had a bar lock on the outside.

                    You are a nice person, and I like you a lot, and I really wish that you hadn’t been “hard spanked” in school. I believe that it counts as beating because if an adult did that to a child outside of the school construct, it would be rightly recognized as battery. There is so much evidence that nonparents beating children is very wrong in multiple ways. But many children were raised to believe that it was normal, like how now more children are being raised to believe that gay male parenting of non-biological children is normal. This is obviously what Abp. Elpidophoros believes and is informally promoting for the Orthodox Church.

                    We don’t have to agree on everything, but I wish I could protect all the children in the world from such nasty things happening to them as we’ve talked about.

                    God Bless you.

                  • “…my dear mother thought that Dr Benjamin Spock was the False Prophet.”

                    When I was about 10, I saw a relative’s paperback educational book on raising children. It had only one illustration, about in the middle of the book, a full page drawing of a man on a chair spanking a boy with some “funny” caption about releasing anger. The drawing had no practical purpose for the whole book. I found the drawing disturbing even as a boy, and I still find it a little sick as an adult. Adults today would feel violated if they were put in the position of the boy in the “fun” drawing. What makes you think that none of the boys and teenagers felt that way decades ago? I have much worse stories than finding a miseducational child raising book.

                    Realistically, what kind of home life is Abp. Elpidophoros endorsing for children in practice? It’s one thing to take a group photo with everyone smiling in church and Abp. Elpidophoros in the middle. But real life can work out differently for those kids. And with a high profile family, how will you ever know what happens behind closed doors?

          • Johannes says

            “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

            After having irreparably (short of God’s mercy) wounded my daughter with a permissive and liberal upbringing, I believe that physical discipline of some kind, spanking or otherwise, dispassionately administered and with a loving reconnection with the child after their chastisement, is absolutely necessary for a proper upbringing of one’s children.

            The most important thing you are teaching them through this is that pain is a temporary and survivable condition and that doing right is more important than pain and pleasure. If you don’t want your kids to be wimps you have to toughen them up; if you don’t want them to be monsters you also have to give them love and understanding. It is not an either/or.

            • A lesson in discipline…

              Rowdy baby gorilla gets disciplined by dad
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFdlMlcjuzw

            • Johannes,

              Let’s not gloss “Old Testament-era” Proverbs to “miss the mark” on pervasive, sexual, painful mistreatment. Proverbs refers to a man’s “son.” Proverbs is not talking about boy scout leaders, male teachers, coaches, Catholic priests, or foster parents caning children. The child here is not the son of both of the gay Dundas-Bousis couple.

              Proverbs is not the Torah, and Proverbs and Torah have plenty of instructions and demands like this that we don’t follow, from flogging fools and wayward women to testing pregnant women with poison to see if she is an adulteress. There is an ikon of the Theotokos undergoing this Torah trial.

              Let’s consider the “New Testament’s” Golden Rule: How would you like to be raised by gay men giving you “physical discipline dispassionately administered and with a loving reconnection with the child after their chastisement”? How would you like to be raised into misbelieving that double gay male parent Old Testament staff “rodding” is New Testament “Orthodoxy”?

              There are so many proofs that even if raising children with “the rod” got instant results, its falsely-claimed “goodness” is a hurtful, counterproductive mirage. At some level deep in our psyche, we must understand this, because we don’t treat wives, convicts, dogs, employees, and other subordinates this way. Whipping children hardly teaches them that “doing right is more important than pain”, because it tries to use the tool of major pain to force them to do what is right.

              It is nice if you raised ydour daughter without “the rod.” If you wounded your daughter with a permissive upbringing, it was hardly a lack of whipping in particular that wounded her. When I was a young man at an EO summer camp, a clergy’s wife announced triumphantly, to my distress, that she had raised her daughter with spankings. One of the boys consoled me, confiding that her daughter had turned into a dancer.

              Be glad in your pondering old age if you didn’t beat someone, rather than the other way around.

              Peace.

            • Johannes,

              Let’s not gloss “Old Testament-era” Proverbs to “miss the mark” on pervasive, sexual, painful mistreatment. Proverbs refers to a man’s “son.” Proverbs is not talking about boy scout leaders, male teachers, coaches, Catholic priests, or foster parents caning children. The child here is not the son of both of the gay Dundas-Bousis couple.

              Proverbs is not the Torah, and Proverbs and Torah have plenty of instructions and demands like this that we don’t follow, from flogging fools and wayward women to testing pregnant women with poison to see if she is an adulteress. There is an ikon of the Theotokos undergoing this Torah trial.

              Let’s consider the “New Testament’s” Golden Rule: How would you like to be raised by gay men giving you “physical discipline dispassionately administered and with a loving reconnection with the child after their chastisement”? How would you like to be raised into misbelieving that double gay male parent Old Testament staff “rodding” is New Testament “Orthodoxy”?

              There are so many proofs that even if raising children with “the rod” got instant results, its falsely-claimed “goodness” is a hurtful, counterproductive mirage. At some level deep in our psyche, we must understand this, because we don’t treat wives, convicts, dogs, employees, and other subordinates this way. Whipping children hardly teaches them that “doing right is more important than pain”, because it tries to use the tool of major pain to force them to do what is right.

              It is nice if you raised ydour daughter without “the rod.” If you wounded your daughter with a permissive upbringing, it was hardly a lack of whipping in particular that wounded her. When I was a young man at an EO summer camp, a clergy’s wife announced triumphantly, to my distress, that she had raised her daughter with spankings. One of the boys consoled me, confiding that her daughter had turned into a dancer.

              Be glad in your pondering old age if you didn’t beat someone, rather than the other way around.

              Peace.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                I remember for a project in college, I wondered how different religions handled different things so I sent a list of 10 questions to the top Rabi, Mormon, Catholic, and Episcopal Bishops in our city of Phoenix. One of the questions I asked is if Proverbs 13:24 was true (“He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”)

                They all answered yes.

                I then asked them if one should spank a kid to teach him it isn’t right to hit another kid.

                You’d think I lit a match under them! They were all upset over that question. So upset, they organized a City (Phoenix) meeting to discuss the questions and reach a consensus.

                I should have been thrilled by the attention but back then I couldn’t take the scrutiny. I don’t even remember how it all ended.

                My mother never spanked me, as I recall. She was far more devious. She had what I later realized was a sorority paddle that she hung on the wall of my room. I was told if I did anything wrong she would beat me with it!

                She also told me she had a lie detector in her purse. She said it looked like an ordinary envelope to any normal person but because she was in the CIA, her’s was different. (Why she’d be telling me about the CIA is anyone’s guess.)

                She would fold it over my arm and ask me if I did something wrong. If I told her the truth, I would be punished but it wouldn’t be as bad if I lied. If I lied I was in “paddle” territory. Of course, I always told her the truth. I had nightmares about that paddle.

                I’m all kinds of screwed up over that paddle and she never laid her hand on me!!!

                • If you had lied, your punishment
                  might have been enlistment into the CIA…

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    This is the second time I’ve been told this. A Network Controller told me I break so many computers I should work for the CIA because all I’d have to do is walk by Iran’s nuclear plant and I’d bring it down. (He told me I’d rock the outfit, too.)

        • Antiochene Son says

          The Church simply needs to cease the liberal use of “economy” (St. Paul might call it “license to sin”) and start applying something closer to what the canons direct. If the Church’s rules were just enforced, clergy would suddenly find they don’t have as many complex decisions to make.

          In St. Constantine’s time, people would often delay baptism in order to not dirty it by a sinful life. Perhaps that was too far, but we have swung very far the other way, to where we throw baptism around like it’s nothing.

          If Baptism meant something—which was manifested by the grave way it is treated—then people like this would know never to even bother approaching to ask.

          I know priests who have refused baptism before, knowing that the children in question had no chance of being raised Orthodox. It’s unfortunate, but baptism is not a magic spell and shouldn’t be treated as such.

          Some would apparently argue that we should baptize everyone by force.

          • You are right and I’m glad you brought it up as it’s something really troubling to me, too. As I understand it, “economy” was never used historically to give permission to sin. Rather it had to do with whether to apply canonical penances for repentant sinners more strictly (acrivia) or more gently (oikonomia). It was originally written about and used in the case of repentant heretics who wanted to return to the Church, and debates about the length or shortness of penances they should be given. And it was solely applied in the context of Church customs and laws instituted by men that could be changed, not revealed dogmas, moral teachings and commandments given by God that are unchangeable.

            It was never used as a “license to sin” as it is today, I believe that is a serious heresy. If you say it’s too hard to stop sinning so people must be given permission to sin, you empty the Cross of its power and Christ died in vain. He did not die to give us permission to sin, He died to give us the power to stop sinning and attain theosis and union with God.

            And yes, it’s still hard to stop sinning, we all stumble and fall. That’s what repentance and confession are for. The spiritual life is hard, humbling and requires effort. If you say “Oh, it’s too hard for you, you can go ahead and keep doing this sin,” they will never grow spiritually, but will remain mired in sin and cut off from the grace of God that would otherwise free them through spiritual struggle.

            Even worse, giving permission to sin not only damages the person given such permission. It damages and weakens the whole Body, the whole Body gradually begins to be sick and weak as its members become sick and weak, by cutting off the flow of grace that is supposed move through each member to the whole Body, like clogged arteries in the body deprive other parts of the body of blood flow. That is why I am so concerned about the misuse of economy today. It is making the Church itself sick, and more kinds of sin more easily enter in. As we are witnessing now.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Truly an excellent response.

              • Thanks, Gail. I just wish it would make a difference. Sometimes I feel like I’m speaking into the wind. But we do need to keep speaking up.

      • Illumined says

        @Fr Chris:

        Hopefully in 10 years the attempt by the SJWs to seize control of and subvert the church will have failed and those who supported them will have either repented or fallen away. In which case the church has an easy answer: it will not modernize its doctrines to legitimize any kind of sexual deviancy. If they want rainbow theology there’s plenty flailing Protestants happy to take them in.

    • Honestly, western secular culture is wholesale incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.

      Those of us who live in the West do our best to navigate it every day. However, at the end of the day, either you choose Christ or the ways of the world. It’s fairly simple, honestly.

      The Eastern Christian world saturates the lived world with remembrances of God…. churches everywhere, icon stands on the sides of the road to remember God throughout the day, God is present in the public square, etc. etc. This is what Russia has been rebuilding for the past 30 years, apparently to much success.

      The Western secular world despises God in the public square (witness Fr Alexander Webster’s recent sermon, posted on these pages) and wants Him gone!

      To quote Fr Stephen Freeman, the secular world is best defined as a world where God knows His place and stays there! That’s what we live in today, and “God’s place” where He is supposed to stay grows smaller each day.

      To be charitable, I’d argue that to a HUGE degree this secular delusion is a western reaction against the angry, mean, Calvinist God-in-the-sky that most of the West grew up with. To quote the venerable Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas, I wouldn’t like that God either. But they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Rather than grasping that their Calvinism was a pseudo-Christianity — a gross distortion of who God is — they abandon Christ altogether. That’s where the West is today.

      What boggles my mind is the eagerness with which the Greek Orthodox world has latched on to this Western secular lunacy. Many of their leadership are probably corrupted in the slave-state of homosexual delusion, which makes them unable to see the reality of Christ and His Church. The degree with which they defend homosexual delusion shows how far gone they are.

      Best to cut off this fig tree that bears no fruit — cut out the malignancy before it infects the body. Chryssavgis is crazy, and the fact that he is loved by the homosexual-worshipping secularists tells you all that you need to know.

      We need to pay attention to which leaders we choose to follow. Many Orthodox Church leaders these days are deluded wolves in sheep clothing who may *think* that they are doing the right thing, but they are not.

      A simple litmus test — if there is no Cross involved, if there is no navigating to Christ through and despite our pain — then it is not Christianity. There is no Christianity for anyone without the Cross, as far as I understand.

      The West is full of “armchair, La-Z-Boy theologians.” Orthodox Christianity is not. The only way to approach God is through the Cross.

      • Φωνή βοώντος εν τη ερήμω says

        There is no such thing as Western Culture… disjoint from us. We are part of the Western Culture… so our culture is our business why should we allow others to define what OUR culture is?

        • Reporter: Mr Gandhi,
          what do you think of Western Civilisation?

          Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea…

      • I agree.

        BTW, most devout Muslims here in the west have no problems rejecting the world and standing up for their beliefs and making sure their religious needs get met so they can live their faith. The Amish and Mennonites have no problem rejecting the world and standing up for their beliefs and needs.

        There seems to be a sub group of milquetoast Orthodox who are not understanding let alone adhering to the true teachings of the faith. Because of this, they are not anchored and are succumbing to every cultural whim and trend.

    • Henry Bellman says

      Gotta remember. If you are a liberal Orthodox, you are always a liberal first and everything else afterwards. If the teachings of the Church conflict with the teachings of Neoliberal thought, the Church will always take a back seat with these people. They are Christians only when it is convenient for them to be so.

  3. Not once in my 56 years of attending a GOARCH Church did a priest or other teacher ever mention the sin of homosexual sex. I was part of youth groups etc… not once in any format was sexual sin ever mentioned…straight or homosexual.
    I left GOARCH about 8 months ago. The priest at the Orthodox Church I now attend (Romanian Orthodox), has already discussed the sin twice from the alter….leaving no doubt where the Church stands on homosexual sin.

    • I left the GOA two years ago due to the cult of Faucism that infected my parish.

      On very rare occasions the topic of LGBTQ issues may have come up at coffee hour with a few other fellow Christians of like minds but even then, it was kept on the downlow. I just assumed the lack of addressing the issue from the pulpit was due to the a priori nature of the subject as well as maybe trying to be a little “seeker sensitive” being that we are in a secular western cultural environment.

      That assumption changed when out of the blue I was told by a member of clergy to try and avoid any discussion about homosexuality if the subject came up in church school. I was rather taken back by this because this topic had not even been brought to the table by anyone in the class. I had a dumbfounded look on my face and told the clergyman that I was unaware of homosexuality being talked about. His countenance quickly changed, and he said to me that he was sure that what I believed about these social issues was completely in line with the teachings of the Church and not to worry about it. The only conclusion I could draw from that rather bizarre encounter is that he knew there were a number of us there that stood firm on the teachings of the Church but of course didn’t won’t to upset some of the more liberal members that were quite well off financially.

      • As a Sunday school teacher, I always made sure I taught my older students that sex out of marriage was a sin and I always made it clear that homosexual sex was a sin. I expected some parent to complain about it but they never did….at least to me.

        • Yes, I use to do church tours during our Greek festival’s and had a question or two as to where we stood on LGBTQ issues, and I basically gave the same answer. I told the people that marriage is between one and one woman and all sexual activity outside of marriage is against God’s commandments and is sinful on our behalf!

  4. Jason Tyler says

    Was there a statement from Antioch that I missed? Thanks.

  5. Chryssavgis mouths the usual liberal manifesto: You’re not really a Christian if you don’t follow us in turning the Church into a reflection of the World. The astonishing thing is that this Chryssavgis is a deacon. In a real Orthodox Church he would be defrocked and if he persisted, excommunicated. Decades of unwillingness to apply canonical church discipline has nurtured this hoard of termites infesting and undermining the congregations. I’m glad that some Bishops in America recently searched their cassocks and found enough fortitude to oppose the anti-Christ agenda. Chryssavgis’ angry posting shows they’ve poked the hornets nest, and I pray they will not lose heart but rather begin a long overdue clerical housecleaning.

  6. Austin Martin says

    Also from the original article:

    How would the metropolitan respond if asked whether there are gay bishops in the church?

    Innocent rhetorical question or planting seeds for people to be less scandalized when the truth is revealed?

    • Katherine says

      Gay bishops? After many decades of reflection I have come to the conclusion that there aren’t any “gay people” at all. There are those that are assailed with the temptation to homosexual sin, just as there are those that are assailed with the temptation to lie, steal, etc. Many Orthodox people have accepted that “homosexuals” exist. I, for one,(maybe the only one) do not. A man is a thief because he steals; he is not a thief by nature. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but it was the belief of The Church and greater society for a very long time.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        People should call it what it is: Having sex outside of marriage.

        • Sodomy is more than just sex outside of marriage. Fornication is a natural act made sinful by a lack of chastity, while sodomy is simply contrary to nature.

          • When it comes to sin (= missing the mark),
            adultery is hitting someone else’s mark;
            whereas sodomy is hitting the wrong kind of mark altogether.

          • Heather Georgiou says

            Sodomy is contrary to Gods order/nature. God also forbids it for our protection because He loves us. He wants to protect us from communing with demons, as sodomy opens the door for demonic entry/influence. Sodomy was/is used in pagan ritual. Pagan ritual is not of God, if its not of God, it is in the realm of the evil one.

  7. I’ve read that stupid can’t be fixed.

    • Wayne Matthew Syvinski says

      “Even duct tape can’t fix stupid…but it can muffle the sound.”

  8. Centurion says

    And here comes Dn Nicholas Denysenko, former director of pro-LGBT Huffington Ecumenical Institute at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in California (funded by the openly-bisexual and maker of movies promoting homosexuality to teens Michael Huffington), defending the heretical baptism ceremony of “married” homosexuals that Elpidophoros performed in Greece.

    Denysenko is a long time friend of infamous pro-homosexual activist Inga Leonova. Denysenko also supports other former gay Orthodox who abandoned the Church and encourages many homosexual propagandists who are fighting to normalize homosexuality and gay marriage within the Orthodox Church.

    TO BAPTIZE OR NOT: GOD’S LOVE AND IMAGE
    by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
    https://publicorthodoxy.org/2022/07/26/to-baptize-or-not/

    Are we beginning to see a pattern here folks? Or is it just me?

    • Centurion says

      Denysenko should serve as a cautionary example of what happens to weak men who seek the approval of the world and the pro-LGBTQ progressives, accept money from homosexual, pro-LGBTQ advocates (Michael Huffington) to maximize their income and enhance their “academic” credentials, seek the approval of pro-homosexual radical feminists (Inga Leonova, Joanne Thanasoulis Zbravos), and also befriend activist homosexuals who attack the right teaching of the Orthodox Church (Gregory Tucker, Stephen Montgomery, Lewis H. Whitaker) and fight to normalize homosexuality, gay “marriage”, and transgenderism, and demand that women must be priests and bishops.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Soy boy.

  9. George Michalopulos says

    Austin, your assessment of “99% of women” is totally unfair. It’s not only overbroad but inapt. Even if there are no virgins, the fact remains that if a woman chooses to sleep with a man that she finds attractive, she does so of her own (sinful) freewill. Immoral but not because of any economic necessity.

    The woman reduced to prostitution has no such luxury.

  10. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    You do know those babies were also chrismated and given holy communion. So the irregularities abound!

  11. Seems to me if 99% of women are prostitutes then 99% of men are also. It takes two to tango. And if men are supposed to be the patriarchs of society, why are they leading women astray?

    Why does the occupation of prostitution even exist?

    And if a woman is called a prostitute what is the name of the man who uses her?

    • Lina

      The scriptures refer to such men as whoremongers – whose fate is far worse than the women they use..

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Lina,

      I apologize. I didn’t read it all the way through. I shouldn’t have posted it. –

  12. Seems Elpidophoros and the EP have been lambasted from criticisms from all over, including Athos:

    https://orthochristian.com/147460.html

    https://orthochristian.com/147458.html

  13. Stratos Fotopoulos says

    We should thank the Patriarch in Istanbul and the GOA Archbishop for bringing about Orthodox unity and a new wave of moral clarity. Mount Athos has spoken! In unison!
    https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/51378-to-agion-oros-gia-tin-vaptisi-apo-omofylo-zeygos

    Received translation: https://user.fm/files/v2-bc807bbfedd99c838bafa8e91f4914cc/Communication of Mt Athos.pdf

    • George Michalopulos says

      A silver lining perhaps. According to Orthochristian the other bishops of Bartholomew’s synod let him have an earful. It seems that even toadies and sycophants have only so much endurance.

      It remains to be seen what will be the ultimate fall-out. I’m thinking the LP will be sent off to Berkeley. Maybe (dare we hope?) that Bart will take this as a cue to retire and go to Athos to live out the rest of his days in repentance.

      What the abbots of Mt Athos did was nothing short of rebellious. AXIOI!!!

      I mean, seriously: if you lose Mt Athos –especially when you’re the grand poobah of that monastic republic–then you’re pretty much done.

  14. Get rid of artificial birth control, far too many Orthodox accept it and that’s where all this rot started. First in the Anglican world, and look where they are now. Natural family planning and chaste continence are the only God-given options, we need to get back to that.

  15. Owen Jones says

    Great commentary, George. Much appreciated clarity. Classical British liberalism going back to Locke is antithetical to Christianity. Locke needed to come up with a justification for political rebellion. In so doing he redefined human nature and Christianity. The person is a tabula rasa, to be shaped and formed by environment, i.e. propaganda. Every person is or should be autonomous and in control of his own destiny. Leftism developed out of that, only arguing that our destiny cannot be achieved apart from a collective will. Liberalism is the basis of totalitarianism.
    All of this is completely foreign to Christianity. And yet our Archbishop says that we have to defend individual autonomy, no matter the moral consequences, or how much it damages our souls. That is not even a part of his calculus.

  16. So, in Greece, I have been told that all applications for Baptism include the requirement that you list the MOTHER’s and FATHER’s name, in specific, labeled fields. This raises 2 questions:
    1) What was listed as the Mother’s name on this particular application?
    2) How then, by extension, did the Metropolitan of Glyfada claim that he was not aware of the resultant situation (or at least his own parish priest that dealt with the documentation)?