Do These People Count as “Sexual Minorities”?

If not, why not? I’ll tell you why. Because the issue was never one of “sexual minorities” –which the people described in this article most definitely are. Its because homosexuality is the only sexual juggernaut capable of paganizing the Church.

I draw the term “sexual minorities” from Fr. John Jillions, the OCA Chancellor who uses it (promiscuously as it turns out) as a euphemism for the normalization of homosexual activity within the Church without explicitly saying so. The term is irresponsibly broad however and supports all manner of relationships as morally legitimate as the article below explains. Fr. Jillions needs to explain himself and come clean on where he stands and what he teaches.

Legalize Polygamy!

No. I am not kidding.

Source: Slate | Jillian Keenan


Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints  polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.

Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motivated by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. “They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say. “They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.


  1. No Suprise says

    I suggest that we be aware of the world view of Rev. Jim Wallis. He is a spiritual advisor to President Obama and he obtained money from George Soros. He is one who thinks that America needs to amend for it’s many faults and does not think that America is exceptional. I heard him debate Dinesh D’Souza on these issues. Did social justice equate with Liberation Theology at this meeting? The meeting fits my perception of Fr. Jillions. Does Metropolitan Tikon agree with him?

    • Michael Kinsey says

      My Indian name is ” Saves the Children”

    • Michael Kinsey says

      I noticed my posting of Fr. Jillion’ s very flawed method of Christian reconciliation is on the bottom of the page.An issue that does prove his ecumenist approach to the secular value system. I doubt Obama would like it, if the Church actually took an effect action to defend our children and ourselves from this demonic attack from the gay agenda. Sodom alone, was not destroyed,the Gommorahites were blow to hell with them. The distinction being homosexual and heterosexual. Perhaps, you think the Only Holy One should have minded His manners. I suspect He was quite wrathful, and I agree with Him.

  2. Carl Kraeff says

    The article you posted is not consistent with the following accusation against Father Jillions. This accusation is not made with any backup or argumentation–it is just a bold assertion that is as serious as one can make against an Orthodox priest. What gives?

    “I draw the term “sexual minorities” from Fr. John Jillions, the OCA Chancellor who uses it (promiscuously as it turns out) as a euphemism for the normalization of homosexual activity within the Church without explicitly saying so. The term is irresponsibly broad however and supports all manner of relationships as morally legitimate as the article below explains. Fr. Jillions needs to explain himself and come clean on where he stands and what he teaches.”

  3. Michael James Kinsey says

    Know the Truth and it shall set you free.We all already have freedom to choose sin or morality.A government wishing to employ the Judeo Christian value system will enact laws, and Christian people will support these laws within the confines of thier churches and also in the whole culture. A government must empoy a value system, of necessity, in order to arrive at it’s concepts of justice.
    The secular-humanist value system is a system that seeks to allow any free willed activity to be done with impunity, with no reprecussions by legal authority.It does not address any spiritual concerns.With abortion, clearly the soul of an innocent unborn child is of no value, and if viewed as in impediment to the quality of life of a female individual, she is allow to destroy it with impunity.
    The author speaks of this freedom in her essay, it is not the freedom bestowed by the Truth of the Word of God.
    A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one.( flesh).The equal numerical commitment, one on one, in a marrige, if blessed in the Holy Sacrament creates a wholeness, Holyness, that has placed God as central within the marriage.Here, love God and serve Him alone, as the Christ chose to do, is also chosen by the couple.This is the best mankind can do, and is worthy of being retained as a legal standard in the greater culture. This is the Truth that sets you free, and those that do this, pleased God.The human soul and eternal life are bound in this obedience, and spiritual life is maintained in harmony and balance in both man and female.

  4. Lots of drivel in this article about the woman’s rights. The children’s rights in such unions? Not so much.

    And these people in polygamous relationships never end up on welfare, oh no!

    We are losing our minds as a culture. It seems apparent that Jillian Keenan never had a mind to begin with.

    • geo michalopulos says

      Did you notice that one of the talking points the writer mentions is that legalizing polygamy would “bring people out of the shadows”?

      Where have we heard this one before? I’ll tell you where, when it comes to granting amnesty to the 11 million illegal aliens living here.

      • Out of the Shadows & Into the Jury says

        California Assembly approves bill allowing noncitizens to serve on juries
        By Melody Gutierrez

        Published: Friday, Apr. 26, 2013 – Sacramento Bee| Page 3A

        Noncitizen immigrants lawfully residing in California would be eligible for jury duty under a bill that cleared the Assembly on Thursday.

        “You are not required to be a citizen to participate in the judicial process as a party, as a witness, to work for the courts or even be a judge,” said another author, Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville. “It’s only a requirement to be a juror. It’s not a requirement to be a citizen to serve in the military, either.”

        Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, argued against the bill, saying jury duty is a privilege that should only be afforded to citizens.

        “We can’t completely erase the distinction between being a citizen and not,” Donnelly said. “There are certain requirements and responsibilities of being a citizen, and jury duty is one of those. … This effort is misguided, premature and ultimately would not essentially benefit anyone.”

        Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said AB 1401 is in the best interest of all citizens and criticized Republicans who spoke in opposition.

        “What I think is problematic is that some people hear about something new for a group of immigrants and immediately think there must be something wrong,” Pérez said.

        He likened the issue to the prior exclusion of women and minority groups from jury pools.

        “It’s about upholding the standards of our justice system to ensure that everyone is truly afforded a jury of their peers,” he said.

  5. nit picker says

    Fr. Jillions needs to explain himself and come clean on where he stands and what he teaches.

    A suggestion George (consult with your lawyers first, ofc): IMO, Fr. Jillions is not going to give a response to your very precise question above. Certainly, Fr. Jillions might even claim that he never even saw it. I recommend that you sight examples of where he sights the terms you mention, ask him for a clarification and his stance and send it to him by registered mail. Make sure that you send it to him by registered mail and make it clear that you are waiting for his response.

    Concerning the article: I agree with sue. But why stop with polygamy? How about legalizing other types of marriage? A problem which is rampant (but culturally normal in developing countries) are child brides. Many of these populations (Ethiopians, Pakistanis, Kurds, Somalian, Syrian, Afghan etc) in an attempt to escape poverty, war and hunger have migrated to various parts of the world the way Greeks and Russians did following various Wars and catastrophes during the 20th c. setting up ethnic enclaves in cities across Europe, Russia, Asia and the Americas and clinging fiercely to their culture and belief systems.

    It is a “normal” cultural practice within these groups that young females (most of whom haven’t even entered puberty yet) in order to satisfy a family debt or because the family can not afford to keep them are sold to pay off the family debt to much older men. Their education is stopped. They remain illiterate. They become socially isolated. These are females with the bodies of children who understand nothing of sexual relations. They are being forced into sex before their bodies are ready for it.

    What is to stop someone, anyone, from arguing discrimination under the law for not being allowed what is actually a “normal” cultural practice in their society? Mind you, most Ethiopians are Orthodox and they also have this practice. How’s that for a dilemma?

    Here is a very well made (but heart breaking video):

    and an equally interesting and heartbreaking article:–6–rescued-from-child-bride-fate–many-others-not-so-lucky-181725317.html

    • nit picker says

      woah…I just realized how sleep deprived I was when I made the above post. Apologies for all the errors. I hope that everyone can sift through the many mistakes and piece together what I am trying to communicate.

      • For nit picker says

        Legal marriage age in Ethiopia is 18. In the 19th c. in many Orthodox and related countries, arranged marriages with the intended bride living in the future home before marriage without sex until marriage in the late teens. This has ended for the most part, with a few pockets of resistance. These are almost always in contravention of law.

        If we were to concentrate on one issue that has dire consequences for our Orthodox future, it would be to put efforts toward the ending of white slavery in countries with large Orthodox populations, with an emphasis on incarceration of and re-education programs for men associated with any part of the trade in women, programs for self sufficiency of women and children, and a loving and proactive program within the church for healing from the horrors inflicted on women and children because of these acts.

        • nit picker says

          @ For nit picker

          Thank you for your comment. It is well thought out and you are quite correct to mention the concept of “white slavery.”

          I’ve noticed in recent years an increase in what could appear to be white slavery of not only females but also males in countries such as Greece, Albania, Romania, but not only. Young people from traditionally Orthodox populations have been lured to places such as Monte Carlo, the Riviera, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany (to name a few locations) under the promise of escaping poverty, making easy money and adventure and performing honorable and respectable jobs (being nannies, house keepers, bus boys, hotel clerks, waiters etc.). When they arrive their passports are confiscated from them under the guise of arranging their visas (so they can’t escape or travel at will), they find that they are underpaid if they are paid at all, and that part of what is demanded of them is that they also offer services as prostitutes. This, of course leads to a down ward spiral in health and eventually leads to drug usage and all the other problems that are part and parcel of these situations.

          Part of the problem is getting the people who are being held captive as slaves to identify themselves so that you can offer them help and get the authorities involved. We call their respective embassies on their behalf. Their passports are the property of the country that issued the passport not the individual. Somebody that steals somebody’s passport is actually committing an offense against a country, a scary proposition that most amateur white slaver’s just don’t want to deal with. Then once the person is finally free it’s about helping them heal and move on with their life. We let the authorities deal with the slavers. It’s difficult to prove a case and a little too time/expense consuming and messy.

    • Ladder of Divine Ascent says

      “Mind you, most Ethiopians are Orthodox and they also have this practice. How’s that for a dilemma?”

      Most Ethiopians are Monophysites, when Monophysites are sold to us as Orthodox then there goes all the Ecumenical Councils after the 3rd, including the crucial 5th Council where the doctrine of Hell and eternal damnation was upheld. So it follows Monophysites are Orthodox, then there is no One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and lets all join the Pope in worshipping with Muslims and pagans, all religions lead to the same place. This is a “win” of sorts for Roman Catholicism, in that their Pope ends up as the center of it of all, an infallible heretic leading the religious people of the world into greater and greater unity and “truth” far surpassing that of the original Apostolic deposit.

      Which is why “Orthodox” sites like the one Carl Kraeff moderates on are so dangerous, the Monophysites are already classified as Orthodox and to even join a forum with such a premise is a sin.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        A few corrections for the record.

        1. Orthodox Christianity.Net is owned by Anastasios Hudson, whose diocesan bishop is Metropolitan Pavlos of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of America, an autonomous eparchy of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. These people can hardly be considered liberal or moderate.

        2. Orthodox Christianity.Net is administered by Father George Callos, who is the Chancellor of the Metropolis of Pittsburgh, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. I think that Father George is as mainline as one can get. I would classify him properly as a conservative Orthodox Christian priest.

        3. I am but one of many moderators on Orthodox Christianity.Net. My section is Free For All-Religious Topics. The moderators include clergy and laity from a variety of Orthodox jurisdictions: GOAA, OCA, AOCA, Ukrainian, Polish, as well as one from the Armenian Church. In addition to those jurisdictions, our Forum members come from ROCOR/ROC, the churches of Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Constantinople, Poland, as well as from Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic Church, etc. We do have posters who are atheistic, agnostic, searching, inquiring, helpful, as well as those who have chips on their shoulders and make life difficult for the moderators.

        4. The position of the OrthodoxChristianity.Net on the Oriental Orthodox is expressed in two sections of the Rules Page:

        “EO/OO/RC Pejoratives — Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: please use Eastern Catholic. Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian. Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum.”

        “Forum Purpose & Place of the Non-Orthodox

        To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith. In practicality, this means that there is a broad approach to allowing people from the Eastern Orthodox “Majority”, the Eastern Orthodox “Traditionalists”, and the Oriental Orthodox “Non-Chalcedonians” to post on topics relating to Orthodoxy. It should be emphasized that it is the policy of this site that no one is required to affirm that any of the other groups are canonical or Orthodox, but rather the purpose of the broad approach is to allow broad discussion on topics that in academic discourse are labeled “Orthodox studies.”

        People who do not fit this broad, academic definition of Orthodox, such as Roman Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, and others, are permitted to post here and to offer positive contributions to the site and corrections when their faith traditions are misrepresented. They are not, however, permitted to attempt to bring people to other faiths.”

        5. The issue of whether the Oriental Orthodox (OO) are monophysites is one that is in transition. Certainly the OO are non-Chalcedonian, but a Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches has been working on the issues separating our two communions. On our side, this commission has included representatives from Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece, among others. See

        It appears that perhaps a better term is “Miaphysite.” Now, it is equally true that the hyper-conservative Orthodox folks of the Orthodox Christians Information Center are up in arms. See

        6. I consider myself to be a conservative in politics as well as religion. Said another way, if I am a moderate as claimed by Ladder, then he must be so far to the right of me that it would be hard for me to place him in any recognizable Orthodox faction.

      • Isaac Crabtree says

        Dear Ladder, I once held very extreme views on this as well– after all, we confess canonical Orthodoxy to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nevertheless, a few points to consider, that made me less militant:

        1) The Church will never give up Her ecumenical councils. She just won’t. No matter who says what about anything, Chalcedon happened, it was accepted by the Church (even though there was confusion– Georgia was out of communion for 100 years and received back by simple ratification of the Council, and many saints were at first not certain like St. Gerasimos). St. Euphemia vindicated the Orthodox position miraculously, that happened, it’s in our hymns, and it’s not going away.

        2) The Church treats heretics and the victims of heresy differently. Kiev Caves lavra would commune Uniates that came to them, for example, teaching them Orthodoxy and having them not commune from the Unia churches anymore.

        3) The Monophysite/Non-Chalcedonian groups seem for the most part to have backed away from their original positions of a fundamentalism based upon one christological formula used by St. Cyril. In fact, they had been all but reconciled to the Church by the Church of Russia before the Revolution.

        4) Archbishop Averky in Jordanville even had the Copts come and celebrate a Divine Liturgy in Holy Trinity’s lower chapel. Monks and seminarians both participated. After the scandal erupted, Abp. Averky apologized for offending anyone, but in the words of an eye-witness, did not admit that what he’d done was wrong. He explained that they had been basically reconciled with Moscow before the revolution and that they shared the same faith. If someone like Archbishop Averky could have said that, to me that makes it less of a “liberal versus traditional” issue in Orthodoxy.

        5) The Copts almost put up a monastery on Mt. Athos with everyone’s blessing awhile back. Let that sink in.

        6) Even the canons of the Quinisext Council admitted them to Orthodox communion after writing libelli renouncing their schism and errors.

        7) The best approach is one a priest in Riverside told me about. His parish has some Eritreans and his bishop blessed him to have a reception of them through confession and reading St. John Damascene’s On the Errors of the Egyptians, and subscribing to it and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. They also have to understand that they can’t go back to their home countries and take communion there. He says they’re among the best parishioners that he has.

        • M. Stankovich says

          The Acts Of The Council Of Chalcedon: Conclusion of the 5th Session

          After they had discussed the holy faith and all of them had come out and taken their seats, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘May the holy council, in its upholding of the faith, deign to listen in silence to what has been defined in our presence by the holy fathers who have met together and expounded the definition of faith.

          Aetius archdeacon of the most holy church of Constantinople read:

          “Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and the same truly man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin, begotten from the Father before the ages in respect of the Godhead, and the same in the last days for us and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary the Theotokos in respect of the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from of old and Jesus Christ himself taught us about him and the symbol of the fathers has handed down to us.”

          “Now that these matters have been formulated by us with all possible care and precision, the holy and ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct another creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who presume either to construct another creed or to publish or teach or deliver another symbol to those wishing to convert to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, the council decrees that, if they are bishops or clerics, they are to be deposed, bishops from the episcopate and clerics from the clerical state, while, if they are monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized.”

          After the reading of the definition all the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the fathers. Let the metropolitans sign at once. Let them sign at once in the presence of the officials. Let this splendid definition suffer no delay. This is the faith of the apostles. To this we all assent. We all believe accordingly.

          While you consider the above points, you might well consider Fr. John Meyendorff’s position that there were two heresies to be addressed, that of Nestorius & Eutyches. Neither Blessed Cyril of Alexandria (“μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη”) & The Council of Ephesus nor Chalcedon alone sufficiently addressed the issue(s), but Chalcedon plus Cyril finally resolved all at the 2nd Council of Constantinople. (I would point out quite a lively discussion in Chalcedon in Context, but, honestly, who cares…)

          I offer this lively “dangerous” academic denoument created by Ladder of Divine Ascent as a challenge: take this phrase, “very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one-essence with the Father [θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί] and do an impromptu survey as to its meaning after liturgy Sunday at your home parish. As I have quoted Fr. Florovsky somewhere in this thread, there are infinitely more “heretic Orthodox” than there are “Orthodox.” Then again, this would explain why we trust God will bless the imbicile Three Hermits as he will, and why the “Non-Chalcedonian” faithful will enter the Kingdom before us. These points have made me less militant.

          • nit picking says


            Christ is Risen!

            The “Three Hermits”. I haven’t read that one in ages. It’s one of my favorites. Thank you. 🙂

  6. M. Stankovich says

    Mr. Michalopulos,

    Fr. John Jillions is Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America and is necessarily due that respect. If you have reason – other than your customary bucket of unsubstantiated, unsupported, and unproven conjecture, gossip, and gripes – to suspect he believes, teaches, or preaches anything contrary to the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, or the Tradition of the Church, you need to be forthright.

    You state that by employing the term sexual minorities, he is, in fact employing “a euphemism for the normalization of homosexual activity within the Church.” If this is true, he should be suspended immediately until such a time as he can be called to defend himself before the appropriate juridical body of the Church. And if this is what he believes and what he teaches, I am the first to condemn him and the first to join you, Mr. Michalopulos, in your petition to the Holy Synod.

    But if this is simply more of your grandstanding bravado, days before the holiest days of the Church, first placing words in a man’s mouth that he never intended and then brazenly, pridefully, and arrogantly demanding that he “needs to explain himself and come clean on where he stands and what he teaches,” I am the first to demand you retract this and openly apologize to the Chancellor. Not that you can’t prove me wrong, but this about as cheap as it gets.

    • Defend the Faith says

      Mr. Stankovich,

      Since you were the webmaster of, which any reference to it has been effectively scrubbed from the Internet, the presence and contributions by Fr. John Jillions also have been effectively scrubbed. However his interest in the position of “sexual minorities’ was stated on that website and his interest in said topic on his C.V. from the Uniate seminary he teaches at in Ottawa (also now edited out).

      Even a cursory look by googling “sexual minorities” and “Fr John Jillions” reveal that it is a topic he is still interested in, thus one can conclude that the OCA Chancellor owes a complete and detailed explanation of exactly what he means by this beyond the lip service he gives that the teachings of the Church must be followed……however……. I can certainly appreciate his “tip-toeing” around the subject at the Seattle AAC, but that did little to put the subject to rest.

      I believe that they are appropriate questions not just because people are asking but because Fr. Jillions himself publicly offered his personal interest in the topic in the first place.

      Since you apparently have a close relationship with him, maybe you can suggest to him that it would be good for him to fully explain what he personally believes on the subject of sexual minorities and their place in the Church? Given that one of the people Fr. Jillions points to as an important mentor in his priestly vocation…a divorced priest (now retired) and one who lived in an openly homosexual relationship with his partner…who I met at [his] house, I am left to wonder exactly how Fr. John is following the teachings of the Church when it comes to this issue? Are we to conclude that there is a double-standard, one for clergy (which is obvious) but not being enforced, and another for laity, (which is not being enforced in the DC Cathedral and other places) when it comes to communing members of a sexual minority?

      The matter, as you can hopefully appreciate, becomes confusing to people, which does little to foster a greater sense of OCA credibility, (a main focus that Fr. Jillions pointed to in his eloquent letter of application for the OCA Chancellor position and since Fr. Jillions is now the Chancellor, he can, and I believe should, shed light on the subject in a true spirit of transparency and accountability.

      In closing, Fr. Jillions in his “Chancellor’s Diary” for April 26, offers the following I am sure in a genuine spirit of personal humility:

      “If you haven’t listened to Father Thomas Hopko’s podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, now is a good time to start, with his talks on the first three days of Holy Week. I haven’t finished yet, but I especially like the quote from his mother about clergy who teach the Orthodox faith but aren’t always good examples (that’s me, and probably most of us): “If the water is pure it doesn’t matter who is cranking the well.””

      Of course no clergy or laity for that matter is a perfect example of the Faith, we are all broken and in need of a Saviour, but does his comment mean that even if it is known that a priest is living a life in opposition to the teachings of the Church that we are to ignore who is “cranking the well?”

      Thank you.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Defend the Faith,

        For the record, with the exception of a single re-post of a commentary by Fr. Robert Arida regarding Fr. Schmemann’s The Problem with Orthodoxy in America, everything contained on the site We Are Their Legacy was written by me. Nothing has been scrubbed from the internet, and is available in total on my personal site. Everything.

        Factually, Fr. John Jillions recused himself from participation before the site progressed beyond a single post explaining the purpose of the site. The sum total of his “presence” was his photo and a statement on a “contact” page indicating his parish affiliation in Toronto. No biography, no statements, no CV, and no links. Period. He informed me that upon his acceptance of the position of Chancellor of the OCA, it would be necessary for him to withdraw from private projects. If you are under any allusion that aggravating information regarding Fr. John have been “cleansed” you are sorely mistaken and seemed to have slept through the scrutiny of the Pharisaic lawyers, which is why I let the site expire. “Gay” icons, imagine!

        The hypocrisy of the matter rests in the fact that I have known and loved Fr. John as my brother for nearly forty years, knowing his heart & his spirit, yet any cowardly jackasses who would not dare approach him personally, or speak to him directly as a human being, takes two words from his mouth and has standing to demonize him. Mr. Michalopulos has fabricated statements as to Fr. John’s beliefs and intentions in utilizing a benign statement and in his arrogance demands he answer for fabrication. Not only are these personally offensive to the character of the Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America, they are purposefully divisive and unfounded. He needs to apologize.

        Do not pose your ridiculous and ludicrous questions to me. Use your real name, face the Chancellor as a man, and ask him yourself.

        • Defend the Faith says

          Mr. Stankovich,

          Thank you for your, albeit, aggressive reply, but for linking the information on your “legacy” website and for the information about the recusal of Fr. Jillions from any input to your website (which is now defunct).

          I can appreciate your defence of your friend, he is your friend, and we all have people who we will defend, even with our life because of the bond of love. However, your defence does little to answer the underlying question as to the position, in precision, of the OCA Chancellor’s views on sexual minorities and his, at the least, academic interest in the subject. Nor does it satisfy me how he can look to an Orthodox priest who has lived an honorable life as a priest as one of his mentors.

          However, I am now satisfied that you will shed any light on the subject. Rather you continue to belittle anyone who asks questions you deem to be unworthy of consideration. It is a shame that you who wrap yourself in academic pursuits assume that anyone who disagrees of you as some sort of dolt. It is a pity that your respond in such a manner, but I suppose that is a cross you bear and I will continue to pray for you.

    • Knows the Score says

      No “bucket of customary blah blah blah” here Stankovich. Nice try at purloining the point though.

      It’s because Fr. Jillions is “Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America” that he owes his readers an explanation. “Sexual minorities” is a demographic category based on behavioral characteristics he created out of thin air. What can it possibly mean except to what it alludes: homosexual behavior deserves its own theological placement.

      You don’t speak for him no matter how loud you roar. Let him answer the question himself.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘sexual minority’ I mean what could he possibly have to explain.

      Male and Female are the sexes; sex intercourse or erotic play outside of marriage is a sin; chastity and celebacy before marriage; chastity in marriage; divorce with shame and repentance (no remarriage if at all possible returning to a state of celebacy and chastity) by both parties with no effort by one party to impoverish the other or run away from parental responsibilities or spousal support..

      There should be zero debate about this in the Church. There should be clear and simple teaching without rancor or defensiveness in the Church–calling on all who digress from the Chrisitan way to repent.
      Any who refuse to repent should not be allowed to partake of the Holy Euchrist until they do.

      For those who are sincere Orthodox Christians or seeking to enter the Church yet struggle with sexual passions, compassionate spritual direction in the path of repentance and healing is essential (including competent psychological help as needed).

      Anything other than this is merely an attempt to rationalize sinful behavior.

      In case anybody doesn’t know, marriage is procreative in the broadest possible terms; slavific when done in conjuction with love of God and of the Church and an icon of the interrelationship between Jesus Christ and the Church as St. Paul describes. Only the spiritual/physical union of one man and one woman qualifies as marriage. Anything else is fornication.

      To posit any other paradigm for marriage is sacrilgious at best and partakes of an anthropolgy that clearly has no basis in any teaching of the Church with which I am familiar.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        Dear Michael, Christ is risen!

        While I agree with you that the notion of a sexual minority should not exist, the term itself does in fact exist, most importantly by those who believe themselves to be part of a sexual minority. It would be hard to talk to them productively if we are to confront them with a crude rejection of their identity. It seems to me that an element of civilized discourse is not to offend unnecessarily. That does not mean that we need to give up our convictions; it means that we should value saving souls more than we value not being squishy. Frankly, I am surprised with the hyper-Orthodox attitudes about the stance that our church officials must take regarding homosexuality. At one time I had believed that it was a smokescreen to defend +Jonah. I am coming to believe that some folks are truly terrified by the prospect that our Holy Orthodox Church will go squishy on this issue and become another ECUSA. Either way, they react way too strongly to any indication that this may be happening. Father Jillions’ case is a good example. Folks are ready to tar and feather the man based on the fact that one his academic interests when he was employed as a professor was “sexual minorities.” I am not going to go into what makes a good strong indicator, but I will say that it is a very flimsy one, even for a man whose attitude is “the glass is half full.”

        • Michael Bauman says

          Carl, Carl, Carl…..Christ IS Risen. Why do you want to keep Him in the tomb?

          There are many times when people coming to the Church are confronted with what they think is their identity and asked to change, confronted with their sin and asked to repent. I was. My wife was. Happens all the time. It is absolutely necessary for life in the Church.

          The Forerunner and Jesus Christ Himself proclaimed: “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. Are we to do less? Apparently if the sin is deviant sexuality. Sometimes it takes a pole-ax to the head to get people’s attention, Sometimes a less blunt approach is more appropriate. That is a pastoral decision. In either case lies are not the answer.

          Ultimately what needs to happen is that folks are recognized for their humanity (a common ontological reality);

          taught what a human being is according to Church Tradition;

          led to repentance of whatever sins they have committed;

          allowed to make the decision as to whether or not they wish to enter the Church by renouncing satan and all his works AND uniting themselves to Christ intent on living a life of repentance.

          That was what happened to me and every convert to the Church I know as well as those ‘born’ into the Church. Anything else is false pretenses, i.e, a lie, and merely condemns the person to a false life and spiritual death.

          Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Or is it that you feel if you give them a pass, you get one too. Sorry, it dosen’t work that way.

          Active homosexuality or the temptation of same sex attraction is NOT, I say NOT, NOT, NOT an idenity. It is a SIN or temptation to sin. It is near blasphemous, IMO, to proclaim that anything other than the image and likeness (albeit twisted by sin) is anyone’s “identity”. It creates a sub-species of human beings who are suddenly outside of salvation and denies the Incarnation.

          What is so bloody difficult about that concept that it has to be parsed and extruded and manipulated into obscene obsequiousness to a particular brand of sinner?

          There is none good but God. The sooner we learn that, the better off we will be. If there were any goodness in man other than what God has placed there we would not go through Great Lent, try our best to get to the foot of the Cross, be crucified in rerpentance and joyously proclaim Christ is Risen!

          The wages of sin are death. There is no compassion, no love, no reason to leave anyone in death especially just to be polite.

          Let me repeat, such attempts are nothing but lies and damned lies at that.

          Here’s the straight, simple truth concerning sexuality: All Christians are called to celibacy and chastity before marriage, chastity and monogomy after marriage. (I gag even feeling i have to say this): Marriage is a sacrament of love and a union between one man and one woman which is an icon of the Church and a blessing for the community as it allows constructive procreation and a healing of some of the effects of the fall.

          There is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ only virtuous action and thought or repentance. Accepting that term even in an academic sense is a propagation of the lie.

          Any deviation from virtue requires repentance both before coming into the Church and after coming into the Church if the sin occurs then.

          If the person is unwilling to accept that teaching when approaching the Church then its “God Bless you. You will always be welcome to come back if you change your mind.”

          If they need time and direction to come to that understanding, great, that should be given, but for God’s sake don’t lie. The world already does that and the devastation of that lie is all around us and makes me weep.

          • Carl Kraeff says

            This is truly a strange conversation.

            You say: Sexual minority does not exist
            I say: I agree with you that the notion of sexual minority should not exist
            You say (in effect): Why don’t you agree with me?

            You and I agree. Period.

            Any difference between us is about the approach.

            • lexcaritas says

              Doesn’t seem to me as if you and Michael agree, Carl. You say the term “sexual minority” exists and so it is all right, maybe even useful or necessary to use it. Michael seems to me to be saying the term itself is a lie and must be avoided. Even to use it creates a mental category that legitimates a delusion. I think he’s saying that in this case the approach is crucial and critical and, therefore, despite your protestation ot the contrary there is an essential difference.

              In any event, the history of ideas and argument tends to show that the terms of any debate predetermine its outcome. Once you adopt these kinds of terms and euphemistic falsehoods you have already implicitly conceded the case and it is only a matter of time before the result will be actualized and undeniable.

              By the way, the fact that many of us fear that what has happened in the PECUSA could happen in and to the OCA is somthing we’ve been trying to tell you for two years now. It isn’t and never has been a smokescreen to defend +JONAH. The threast is as real as the Evil One who roams the world seekign the ruin of souls and who would like nothign better that to take over various ecclesial organs and deceive if possible the very elect–as our Lord predicted he would.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Yet, Carl you defended the use of the term “sexual minorities” because other people use it. I don’t agree with that. The nonsensical, obtuse and intentionally vague term should never be used except to say it is untrue and without basis so it should not even be considered.

              You also said:

              It would be hard to talk to them productively if we are to confront them with a crude rejection of their identity. It seems to me that an element of civilized discourse is not to offend unnecessarily.

              Who said anything about crudeness BTW, I did not. That is your false assumption to deflect genuinely addressing the problem, IMO. Crude, rude and demonic is the Phelps clan. See anything in what I have written that smacks of that?

              If you believe that a person’s identity is determined by what excite’s them sexually, we are far from agreement.

              If you believe that homosexual activists have any interest in ‘civilized discourse’ your are mistaken and we don’t agree.

              If you believe that it is some how possible, even with incredible gentleness and wisdom, not to offend folks who are wedded to their sin to the extent that they believe it is their identity, we don’t agree

              If you believe that is possible to talk ‘productively’ to someone about the truth and not address untruth and sin, we don’t agree.

              If God is moving them to approach the Church, they will expect that. If they are asking in good faith what the Church believes, they should not be offended by a simple statement. If God is not moving them to approach the Church in good faith, or they have a destructive agenda (as many do) nothing you can say will be ‘productive’ or considered civil except to give into their unholy and destructive demands.

              The most germane example from my own life that I can give is the time a young man on the bus with me asked me what my belief regarding homosexuality was (he saw me reading my Bible). He let me know he was from a homosexual friendly ‘church’ in town. I simply told him: “Homosexuality is a sin.” You know what? He was not offended in the least. He didn’t get up and stomp off to another seat. He didn’t attack me or even frown. We proceeded to have a polite, civil discussion that began with a simple statement of the truth and included the fact that Jesus Christ heals all sin through repentance. I just don’t see what is so difficult about doing that. Unless you are embarssed by the truth in some way.

              On another topic, my boss, a devout Catholic, once asked me what the Orthodox thought of the Pope. I replied directly: “We believe the office of the papacy as currently expressed is heretical” You know what, he didn’t fire me, throw me out of his office, or dock my pay. We continue to share things about faith and politics quite openly even when we don’t agree.

              BTW: Christianity is inherently offensive. Jesus promised us that we would be hated as He is hated. We can’t avoid that fact if we wanted to and remain Christian. If you think we can avoid offense and remain Christian, we don’t agree.

              Lord have mercy, why do these things even come up to be considered ‘seriously’ by ‘people who ‘matter’, with ‘words that must be said’. “Deep Thoughts” “Relevant Thoughts” “high Thougts” “interesting Thoughts” I can see why many of the Fathers said the imagination was easily co-opted by the devil.

              It is all ego nonsense.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Michael, you and Lex hit the nail right on the head. The very term “sexual minorities” is not only offensive but gives the game away. We lost in the whole “gay marriage” debate when we adopted the locution “gay marriage.” Then it was only a matter of time, because who after all is against “marriage”?

                • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD says

                  And even more diabolically brilliant is the latest slogan, “marriage equality,” as a euphemism for civilly sanctioned and protected (and possibly ecclesially sanctioned and blessed) sexual deviancy and perversion–which surpasses in political savvy and gamesmanship the long-standing term of choice among American social and cultural elites for the abomination of abortion, namely “pro choice.” Why, who in America can be against “equality” and “liberty”?

          • Carl Kraeff says

            I have no fondness whatsoever for some of the ancient practices where adulterers, murderers, thieves, and sodomites were made to stand outside the doors for certain amount of time, then permitted into the narthex for another period of time, etc… I prefer a kinder and gentler approach, where sinners are met where they are (a counseling term/tactic that actually works) instead of met by the back of one’s hand. I have the feeling that some folks who advocate the stricter approach are doing so for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the sinners. I am not going to go chapter and verse about the plank in one’s eye, the publican and the pharisee, the woman being stoned, etc. for you know them all. I am happy for my priest to handle sinners of whom I am first.

            • Michael Bauman says

              I have plenty of planks Carl but I much prefer a straight forward approach that let’s me know with clarity where I am and where I need to go and how to get there. Subtle squishy eishy kumbya stuff leaves me cold. Frankly, the “ancient practice” has a lot to recommend it.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Carl, no one I know wants to return to the ancient practice of near-lifetime excommunication and/or exile to the Narthex for sexual sinners. That is a red herring. Truth be told, I very much doubt that the vast majority of people who are up in arms about these social issues (and by this I mean Conservatives and Traditionalists) want to fight this weary battle. We’d rather not. Unfortunately we’re forced into this because the Liberals and Sexual Liberationists are forcing this battle, it is they who are bringing it into the Church, pace Fr Jillions, Arida, and the rest of the East Coast academic and intellectual elite.

              You are providing aid and comfort to this sordid enterprise in an unwitting fashion. Eventually I think you’ll get it but by then it will be too late. Remember: the old-line Episcopalians were civil to a fault and because of their devotion to the cult of WASP uber-politeness, they lost their Church.

            • Clarity-boy do we need clarity . . .
              Anyway–that’s because those sins were/are public and the Church treated them as they were. Everybody knew that persons sin. So when they worked through their sins (visibly and spiritually) the whole Church could acknowledge and rejoice with them– accepted them back into the fold knowing they were working to be honest, worthy and transformed people. It’s honorable really. They did this as a whole community. It takes a lot of faith and trust to do this and it created a stronger community within the Church.
              I would say we are week and mistrustful-we have thin skin these days and don’t really want to acknowledge our short comings, personally, publicly or otherwise. We hide behind “privacy”. As if it is just too hard to be vulnerable, to be honest-to say be who we really are- warts and all. . . . .
              We are not that Church that had those practices, but that is a sad thing because we’ve lost the whole understanding and reality around it. . .

          • M. Stankovich says

            Mr. Bauman,

            Apparently my original response to you was not deemed “fit” for consumption, so let me attempt to address you again.

            For reasons known only to yourself, you deem yourself qualified to label Chancellor Jillion’s statements as “academic socio-babble to open the way for modern egalitarian, nihilist denial,” when they nearly verbatim reflect the fathers & teachers of our generation, praised for their “wisdom & insight,” as I have quoted them directly. And now, you unleash this wrathful, angry tirade at Mr. Kraeff without a single authority to support your intolerant concrete manner of thinking.

            Please, Mr. Bauman, cite one single Patristic or Canonical Father (or Mother, for that matter) who indicates that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is sinful. Please, Mr. Bauman, scour and examine everything I have personally written and every single citation I have provided regarding sexual orientation and find one single reference to “identity.” And while the lack of authority does not seem to hinder you in the least, I note that I have diligently searched Migne’s Patrologia Graeca for the writings of the most know Fathers and find no support for your contention, and you clearly do not understand the difference between orientation and identity. I would suggest to you that for one who would speak with such authority, you certainly should be capable of making such distinctions.

            As to the matter of “sexual minorities,” of course they exist. Where? In the US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Bureau of the Census, US Congress, and any academic institution involved in epidemiology, demographics, population & biostatistics, and so on. In these context, the terms “sexual minorities” is totally benign and without ontological, philosophical, or theological connotation. Period. Likewise, in these contexts, there is no “confusion” as what the term “means.” This, in fact, speaks to the darkness of this thread: a benign term is transformed into “psychobabble & nihilism.”

            • Michael Bauman says

              Michael S. You may not have noticed the change but I no longer believe or say that same sex attraction is a sin. I listened to you and others. Got it. It is, however, for many a temptation to sin just as looking lustfully at a woman is a temptation to sin for me. I haven’t addressed your statements at all in awhile, however. Miss me?

              “Sexual minorities” is not a benign term at all. It is a corruption of the language and of true anthropology that is fundamentally a lie.

              I am qualified because my academic discipline, manner of thought and life experiences have all prepared me to separate genuine thought from bullemic academic nonsense. It would be funny if it were not so important. The thread is dark because the efforts of many to homosexualize the Church are dark and they need to be exposed.

              Our friends at Salvo even have a fake add for the software used to produce such jibberish:


              • M. Stankovich says

                Orthodox Dogmatic Theology
                Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

                Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

                So as to guard the right path of faith, the Church has had to forge strict forms for the expression of the truths of faith: it has had to build up the fortresses of truth for the repulsion of influences foreign to the Church. The definitions of truth declared by the Church have been called, since the days of the Apostles, dogmas… On what are dogmas founded? It is clear that dogmas are not founded on the rational conceptions of separate individuals, even though these might be Fathers and Teachers of the Church, but, rather, on the teaching of Sacred Scripture and on the Apostolic Sacred Tradition. The truths of faith which are contained in the Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Sacred Tradition give the fullness of the teaching of faith which was called by the ancient Fathers of the Church the “catholic faith,” the “catholic teaching” of the Church.

                In ecclesiastical terminology dogmas are the truths of Christian teaching, the truths of faith, and canons are the prescriptions: relating to church order, church government, the obliga​tions of the church hierarchy and clergy and of every Christian, which flow from the moral foundations of the evangelical and Apostolic teaching. Canon is a Greek word which literally means “a straight rod, a measure of precise direction.”

                For guidance in questions of faith, for the correct under​standing of Sacred Scripture, and in order to distinguish the authentic Tradition of the Church from false teachings, we appeal to the works of the holy Fathers of the Church, acknowl​edging that the unanimous agreement of all of
                the Fathers and teachers of the Church in teaching of the Faith is an undoubted sign of truth.

                The catholic consciousness of the Church, where it concerns the teaching of faith, is also expressed in the Orthodox Divine Services which have been handed down to us by the Ecumenical Church. By entering deeply into the content of the Divine service books we make ourselves firmer in the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church. The content of the Orthodox Divine services is the culminating expression of the teaching of the holy Apostles and Fathers of the Church, both in the sphere of dogma and of morals. This is splendidly expressed in the hymn (the kontakion) which is sung on the day of the commemoration of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils: “The preaching of the Apostles and the dogmas of the Fathers have imprinted upon the Church a single faith which, bearing the garment of truth woven of the theology from above, rightly dispensing and glorifing the great mystery of piety.”

                It seems to me, Mr. Bauman, self-explanatory why the Fathers uniformly and consistently “joined” with the “Holy Fathers before us,” quoting them, citing them, honoring them, and in fidelity with them. If you would so emphatically teach and correct, you should be honored to direct us to the source and “prescriptions” of canon and Truth so that there be no question it is the “definition of truth declared by the Church.” As Fr. Pomazansky notes, it is the manner by which the Church “guards the right path of faith,” it is the Patristics way, and it is the catholic way.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Are you saying that unless one can line up a series of quotes from the Fathers to defend a statement, the statement is invalid?

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    I suggest before you mock the Holy Tradition and the Patristic way you humble yourself and read the transcriptions of the Ecumenical Councils to see how the Fathers defended the “validity” of Truth. As Frs. Florovsky & Pomaznsky both note, the phrase “joing with the Holy Fathers before us” was not a matter of “lining up quotes” or “proof texts,” but exercising “strict forms for the expression of the truths of faith: [utilizing] the fortresses of truth for the repulsion of influences foreign to the Church.”

                    When I say “you obviously have no clue of the enormity of what you suggest,” I refer to, for example, your statement, “I no longer believe or say that same sex attraction is a sin.” I would remind you, Mr. Bauman, that this is a concept for which over a year you referred to me as a heretic, separated from from the saving Grace of the Church, “in the fast lane to hell,” and as an “underminer of the morality of the Church,” on this site and elsewhere. Did I not ask you continuously for Scriptural & Patristic authority for my heresy? And now you have changed and I am no longer in heresy. May I have my integrity back as well?

                    Yes, Mr. Bauman, the one who would correct & admonish, and go so far as to label the “heretics” must be prepared to defend their statements by the Holy Scriptures, Tradition, The Fathers, and the Liturgy. They must. And you are not prepared.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      Michael I called egalitarianism heretical in nature and it is because all good gifts come down from above and Christ was lifted up upon the Cross. There are some slave some free some sanctified some not yet we all have bishops and elders and rulers we must obey. Mostly there is the uncreated and the created. Eqalitarianism mocks the entire created order and its source in divine love. It is so obviously at odds with the Christian faith that it is intuitively obvious to the mist casual observer. That needs no Father of the Church to see.

                      Romans chapter one is all I really need (all though there are abundant others) to know that the promotion of or aquiesece of any sexual sin is not to be tolerated. However, I would be perfectly happy to leave those who are unrepentant to themselves if they would just shut up.

                      Genesis: male and female He created them and told us to be fruitful and multiply and Jesus reminded us that men and women should be united in one flesh and St Paul that the union of a man and a woman is like the union between Christ and His Church. St Gregory of Nyssa spoke about the unitive power of congugal love.

                      The term sexual minorities mocks the entire testimony of Holy Scripture and trivializes the high calling of marriage.

                      But once again you use an ad hominem attack to avoid answering a direct question. Is there one patristic source that speaks in any way in favor of a life that is not chaste and celibate before marriage and monogomous and chaste after marriage or allows for any sexual expression outside marriage?

                      If there is I’d like to know who?

            • Michael Bauman says

              I asked my wife what the term “sexual minorities” connotated to her. She immediately responded with her usual lack of guile: people who are chaste.

              Now if the good Chancellor was talking about chastity–more power to him.

              However I doubt it. The real problem is egalitarianism. An ideology which is heretical in quality and demands the philosophical and political irradication of all difference all discernment and all virtue.

              And the fact that the term is used as a category by government, etc merely makes it more sinister and unfit to use when talking about the salvation of human souls.

              And perhaps you would be so good MS to cite any patristic source that makes mention of sexual minorities.

              • nit picker says

                I asked my wife what the term “sexual minorities” connotated to her. She immediately responded with her usual lack of guile: people who are chaste.

                Mr. Bauman, I hope you won’t become paranoid when I write that I earnestly desire to meet your wife. She sounds remarkable.

                • Michael Bauman says


                  Since my wife is a former state champion black powder rifle champion, has self defense training from a 6th degree black belt, grew up training and breaking horses and knows that the way to a man’s heart is between the 2nd & 3rd rib, up and to the left — I’m not paranoid at all.

                  • nit picker says

                    Since my wife ….knows that the way to a man’s heart is between the 2nd & 3rd rib, up and to the left…

                    I am definitely not deterred. The two of you sound like great fun. I would love to meet you both sometime when I’m in town.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      not picker, we will be glad to pick some nits with you any time, but most of fun comes from my wife.

              • M. Stankovich says

                This, Mr. Bauman, is exactly why nine judges are deciding the “morality” of same-sex marriage in this country, just as they did for abortion, because we have no voice of moral authority as an Orthodox presence in this country. Where is our voice? Where is the “faith as small as a mustard seed, [by which] you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matt. 17:20) Apparently more concerned with sitting in a sandbox parsing “sinister” words for which no one literally cares.

                Do you get it, Mr. Bauman? Nobody cares about a tokenistic, benign phrase that, while Solzhenitsyn may have emphasized that “words have power,” you, Mr. Bauman, are the bestower of the power! You have, post after post, contrived, defined & delineated its every dimension. Wasted energy, wasted time, wasted effort. And to this very moment you lack the fundamental respect and courage to ask the Chancellor directly his intention by the use of this phrase, yet you are bold enough to presume his “heretical ideology.” I would suggest a Big Book describing you as “ego run rampant” and you obviously have no clue of the enormity of what you suggest.

                On the day I am informed you are considered a “Father” or “Defender of Orthodoxy” is the day my expectation of your demonstration of fidelity to the Scripture, the Tradition, to the Canons, and to the Fathers will cease.

            • Kentigern Siewers says

              Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

              Well, having come back from a trip to a conference with plenty of patristics, I am now surprised to find that the Online Church in America’s most high-profile public defender of our Chancellor is not only an expert on secular psychology, on which he has lectured us in past (including the virtue of the management of St. Luke’s Catholic rehab institute, sadly now clouded by scandal), but also on the Church Fathers. A Renaissance man in a tradition without a Renaissance, indeed!

              Yet our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount observes that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This does not specify that it need be a man. Same-sex attraction, as well as opposite-sex attraction outside of marriage, would seem to be called into question, as objectifying or essentializing (or impersonalizing) another person.

              Confusion here about “sexual orientation,” “sexual identity,” “sexual minorities,” and “sexuality,” stems from using modern secular terminology without qualification in an Orthodox context.

              How does one in secular rhetoric distinguish effectively between sexual orientation and sexual identity, when the former is used as a reason for claiming civil rights for categories of identity as sexual minorities? And the Church fathers don’t use any of these terms or concepts.

              The whole nature vs. nurture debate becomes hopelessly tangled in this secularly framed discussion, as well. We cannot think of sexual identity or orientation as essential. If so, a social construction of heterosexuality could be considered the majority essential norm. But at the same time, if we think of sexual identity or orientation as an individualized construction, then what is the basis for it as a minority civil right, which implies a category of identity as a sexual minority?

              Discussion at the conference also noted the current secular philosophical trend of questioning the ontology and epistemology of “identity politics” as too essentialist. Thus the claim of being a heterosexual or being homosexual or being essentially any variety of identities stemming from a primary sexual orientation (as in a sexual minority) can become questioned as an essentialism not provable by science, along with the value of individual civil rights arising from such categories.

              So we may be locked into a discussion here that’s maybe about 10 years out of date in secular discourse (not unusual, since that reflects when many of us were in grad school or getting up to speed on issues). It indicates the problem with trying to sound au courant as Orthodox Christians who in a centuries-old living, experiential tradition).

              Meanwhile some in the secular humanities embrace “queer theory” or “speculative realism” in a more fluid view of identity. This can serve as a reminder of how patristic writings themselves include no mention of sexual orientation or sexual identity or sexual minorities as such. Indeed, Orthodox tradition would have been classified by Foucault as pre-modern or non-modern, in not culturally shaping categories of identity based on sexual preference and behavior.

              Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, for example, noted in “Philosophy of Economy” how an Orthodox view of society involves a household model, not a capitalist marketplace or technocratic-bureaucratic model, and emphasizes human dignity more than any atomized sense of individual rights (a concept also currently under critique in secular academia).

              So for an Orthodox leader to use “sexual minorities” as a term without qualification is fair game for criticism as both being non-patristic and a bit outmoded in secular terms anyway.

              Without qualification, such the assumptions behind such terminology can be adapted mistakenly into the pastoral emphasis of many in the OCA in dealing with what the Russian Synod (together with Herman Engelhardt) classifies rather as essentially as an issue of Christian bioethics, not a civil rights issue.

              In the non-Orthodox secular world, Emily Witt in N-plus-one magazine just reported on the growth of customized and individualized sexual preferences in secular upscale America, in an essay entitled “What Do You Desire?” (I’ll leave those interested and armored to google it, rather than offer a link, because it’s quite explicit, although insightful as to problems in our secular culture.)

              Witt writes: “They sought to unlink the family from a sexual foundation of two people. They believed in intentional communities that could successfully disrupt the monogamous heterosexual norm. They gave their choices names and they conceived of their actions as social movements.”

              Her writing suggests what happens when the concept of “sexual minorities” goes mainstream and begins fragmenting as endlessly as American Protestantism. This process involves both a different epistemology and ontology from Orthodoxy, in which monasticism, contemplative prayer, loving our neighbor in charitable deeds, and liturgical participation, all form a catholic movement that subverts conventional self-centered desires, including both “sexual minorities” and “sexual majorities.”

              And for the most vociferous public supporter of the Chancellor to mock a project of the Holy Synod also related to Christian bioethics (namely the March for Life and Sanctity of Life Sunday) is as unfortunate as the confusing terminology, and hopefully not an omen of more confusion to come. Cyril, while I understand your frustration, I think this, too, is an issue where to be consistent I would expect you to weigh in against your past ally’s sarcasm against a Synodal project (the March for Life) in which our hierarchs participated in the lead-up to Metropolitan Tikhon’s installation in DC.

              As always, please pray for me a sinner,


              • M. Stankovich says

                Prof. Siewers,

                So when when Met. Anthony (Bloom) quotes St. Methodius of Olympus

                when man and woman looked at one another they did not see two persons as it were, they did not speak in terms of `I’ and `the other’, but each of them, seeing whom he could call the other, said: this is `alter ego’, `the other myself’, `the second myself’, and in that respect, the promise of God and the longing of man was fulfilled. `Helpmeet’ is an approximate translation of something which means one that will stand face to face with him, one who is an equal and more than an equal, not an equal in the sense of being equal but alien, but one who is him and therefore equal to him and who is so much him that it is a revelation of him to himself. It was he and she, it was man and woman, and each of them was a revelation of fulfillment for the one who gazed at his other self. ‘And they were both naked, the man and his wife and they were not ashamed’ is a full, a complete assertion of this identity of man, of one unique personality in two persons because as he says, one can be ashamed only of the other and there was no other at that moment because again, as for us Adam and Eve, man and woman, he and she are two, for both of them, they were one. `This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ does not mean `This originates in me’; it means, `I recognize myself, it is I’. And the other – whom we would call the other – says the same thing. It is only when the tragedy of the fall broke the oneness that the [realization of] nakedness appeared.

                what do you imagine he is saying about sexual orientation and sexual identity? My thought? Nothing.

                Will not the end reflect “as it was in the beginning?” “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Mat. 22:30) In fact, as it was in the beginning, in the Resurrection there will be no heterosexuality, no homosexuality, no sexual minorities, no Witt , no Bulgakov, No Foucault, no queer theory, no feminist theory, no Englehardt, and no California Prop 8. And as Fr. Alexander Schmemann noted, “the voice of this world is endless discussion, debate, argument, dissertation, presentation, and reports.” But, Prof. Siewers, in the Resurrection, “the voice of the Kingdom will be blessed silence.”

          • lexcaritas says

            Thank you, Michael. So well said. One day when I’m up to Wichita to St. George’s or St. Mary’s or Eighth Day Books, I hope we’ll meet.


            • Michael Bauman says

              lex, you are always welcome. If you come to St. George some Sunday for worship, my wife and I will be happy to take you to lunch afterward. You too, Michael S. you’d at least meeting my wife. She is good at charming people’s socks off (not literally of course). A remarkably kind, loving and giving lady.

    • If you have reason –….– to suspect he believes, teaches, or preaches anything contrary to the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, or the Tradition of the Church,…

      For starters you can read Priest Jillions glowing endorsement of Priest Dr. Symeon Rodger’s book The 5 Pillars of Life: Reclaiming Ownership of Your Mind, Body and Future—How Ancient Traditions Can Give You Back Tranquility, Control, Health, Love and Security, found here:

      Priest Symeon Rodger is an Orthodox priest in Ottawa. He wrote this book without the blessing of his spiritual father or his hierarch, Abp. Seraphim. It is my understanding that Fr. Thomas Hopko refuted the book as heretical.

      He and Priest Jillions are friends and served at the Cathedral together.

      Info about Priest Rodger can be found here: In addition, an interview done by Brian Vaszily of Intense Experiences ( with Priest Rodger can be found here:

    • lexcaritas says


      Where exactly and in what context did the Chancellor use the term you quote “sexual minorities”? It would to know so we could read it in context.


      • George Michalopulos says

        I first saw it on the “We Are Their Legacy” website. It has since been scrubbed clean.

        • M. Stankovich says

          Mr. Michalopulos,

          “A man in his error digs a hole and shovels it out, and falls into it himself.” (Ps. 7:15) You read no such thing on We are Their Legacy and you know it.

          You have made a brazenly serious accusation against the Chancellor of the OCA for advocating the “normalization of homosexual activity within the Church.” Obviously, knowing the Chancellor as I do, I cannot and will not accept this as the truth without substantiation as to his belief and intention in employing this phrase, “sexual minority” as other than benign. If, however, this is a demonstration of hyperbole, exaggeration, or your arrogance & ill-will, I believe you need to withdraw this comment and extend an apology to the Chancellor. This is tantamount to the “slander” and “persecution” you so vehemently deplore in others, and again lowers the threshold for truth to scurrilous gossip and fabrication.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Actually Dr Stankovich, I have read your website on occasion. It’s very well executed what with the graphics and all. It’s just that I don’t agree with many of your basic premises, nor can I countenance the pastoral confusion exhibited by the likes of Fr Robert Arida. The fact that such confusion obtains on your blog leads me and others to suspect that the net effect of such confusion is to muddy the waters enough within Orthodoxy so that “dialogue” has a safe haven. The object of course is that once orthodoxy becomes optional, then it will become irrelevant as has happened in many of the mainline Protestant denominations. This may not be your intent but to those who have been wounded by the culture wars in the other Christian confessions the pattern is all=too-familiar.

            As for a “man in error [digging’ a hole…and [falling] into it himself”, I am somewhat taken aback by your laudatory language regarding “The Chancellor of the OCA.” This is startling on many fronts. The first objection of course is did this same Chancellor exhibit the same amount of respect for The Primate of the OCA? Secondly, did his accusations against said Primate not involve “scurrilous gossip and fabrication”? Third, such language confirms my suspicions that the OCA has now returned to the bad old days of Strong Chancellor/Weak Diocesan model of governance in which Syosset is the (admittedly Poor Man’s) Vatican City.

            As we head into Holy Week, may I suggest a truce of sorts? I will do the necessary diligence, including asking The Chancellor himself if he believes in the concept of “sexual minorities” if you or others on your website will exert the same diligence to investigate charges against His Beatitude.

            • M. Stankovich says

              Mr. Michalopulos,

              I have no intention of following this distraction of We Are Their Legacy, as i t is a cheap convention and slight of hand. Who doesn’t recall Hamlet at a time like this, “Words, words, words…” Everything is on my current site and anyone is free to evaluate for themselves. You know perfectly well that I am the only writer and I stand by every single word written.

              I am happy to join your “truce” of any sort. I have made my point and I leave you standing in the corner you into which you have painted yourself, too proud to admit that your comment was rash, unfounded, undignified, and unworthy of your position as webmaster and host of this site. As it appears you have no intention of apologizing for this poor choice, perhaps you will exercise more discretion in the future. I will not revisit the topic.

              • M. Stankovich says

                Mr. Miichalopulos,

                I would simply call your attention to the process for which I hold you responsible: rather than addressing my original objection directly, seriously, and respectfully, you chose to distract and de-focus onto me, personally, my former website, my integrity in reporting its historical content, and so on. Cheap, cheap, cheap fodder. Likewise, you have remained quiet while others make claims that you know not to be true: you did not read the phrase “sexual minorities” on We are Their Legacy because it did not exist. And I might add, you have derived plenty of mileage from my amicable service as foil to your rationalizations and information cascades. Again, Mr. Michalopulos, I am not the issue here, my friends are not the issue here, and a former website is not the issue here. You made the accusation and the onus of responsibility is yours alone to remedy.

          • Michael, you are either forgetful or flat-out lying when you accuse George like this: “You read no such thing on We are Their Legacy and you know it.” Fr. John Jillions did in fact have a page on We Are Their Legacy describing himself, and there included “sexual minorities” among his interests.

            • M. Stankovich says

              The original backup of the sql-database of the We Are Their Legacy site (which you are welcome to search yourself for a minimal administrative fee), contains:

              [/wptabcontent]\n\n[wptabtitle]Fr. John Jillions[/wptabtitle]\n[wptabcontent]\n\nFr. John Jillions is a Graduate of St. Vladimir\’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and is attached to the Annunciation Cathedral in Ottawa, Ontario, CA.\n\n[contact-form-7 id=\”231\” title=\”Contact form Jillions\”]\n[/wptabcontent]\n\n

              Nothing more, nothing less. No biography, no statements, no CV, and no links, no “sexual minorities.” Period. This would seem to indicate I am flat-out correct.

              • Michael, we commented on the issue even back when the site was active. Fr. Jillions did indeed list “sexual minorities” among his interests on the “We Are Their Legacy” website. Do you think this is some sort of mass hallucination? I know what I saw, Michael, and so does everyone else who remembers.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Helga, yes we did, I too remember.

                  • Ilya Zhitomirskiy says

                    There it is. We have the three witnesses necessary to back up George Michalopoulos in a potential case against Fr. John Jillions. It’s a wonder that this was not censored, but then the OCA did not censor Fr. Robert Arida’s “An Answer to Myself”, which also contained pro-gay content. Anyway, if John Jillions and Robert Arida actually made the statements above, then they would have preached heresy, and heresy is a crime punishable by suspension, if not deposition and anathema.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Mr. Zhitomirskiy,

                      “Пилат сказал Ему: что есть истина?” (Иоанна 18:38)

                      What we have is a classic information cascade: Mr. Michalopulos made a statement he knows is untrue and others now “confirm” his untruth and accuse me of “scrubbing the site” and falsifying. And you, Pharisaic high-priest, cry out, “they have blasphemed,” having seen & heard nothing. I hereby christen you the worlds dumbest prosecutor.

                      Now, it seems to me your choices are obvious: read the post below where, with emphasis I indicate the truth of what was contained on the site in question; or you can trust the lyin’ eyes of your witnesses, whom I’m thinking are perhaps a bit less likely at this point to take an “oath” as to what they saw.

                      Oh, and the Charlton-Heston-parting-the-Red-Sea imitation – “suspension, if not deposition and anathema!” – more than three times a year is really overbearing. I recommend decaf, dude.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Well, assume that it is possible for several people to experience the same hallucination (which you of all people should know better). It follows therefore that you not only did not “scrub” your site –since you had no need to–but you and your friends, acquaintances and partisans, do not champion the cause of “sexual minorities.” In other words, you do not believe in the concept of “sexual minorities” or in the need for the Church of Christ to be “inclusive”? Would that be a fair assumption?

                • M. Stankovich says

                  I will say this one more time with emphasis: I personally designed the site; I personally designed the graphics; I personally wrote the PHP, mySQL, HTML, & CSS to lay out the site; there were exactly two jQuery plug-ins driving the slideshow of authors and the Ajax contact system that I did not author; there were exactly two Google web fonts accessed through the web fonts API; there was a translation option through the Google Translate API; and I personally owned & maintained the site registered in my name. By clicking on “Contact Us” or on Fr. John’s picture, you were taken to a contact form that included Fr. John’s photo from the clergy directory and the statement:

                  Fr. John Jillions is a Graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and is attached to the Annunciation Cathedral in Ottawa, Ontario, CA.

                  No biography, no statements, no CV, and no links, no “sexual minorities.” Period. Nearly identical statements existed for Frs. Arida & Vinogradov, Protodeacon Wheeler, and myself.

                  There are many causes of hallucination, including neurological, psychiatric, substance & medication, and religious. I cannot account for what you “thought” you saw. I would suggest you carefully examine the post of Defend the Faith below. My understanding is that the information was posted on Voices from Russia, but a man of your integrity wouldn’t read there…


                    The official minutes of the OCA’s 16th All-American Council discusses Chancellor Jillions’ use of “sexual minorities” on the website, so apparently it existed.

                    From page 25 of the link above, portion quoted below:

                    Question by Priest John Parker, Holy Ascension Mission, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (Diocese of the South):

                    In light of what cannot be denied as public discussion in our church on public sexual matters, namely homosexuality, on your website, Fr. John [Jillions], you indicate “the experience of sexual minority groups in the Orthodox Church.” What does that mean? Please elaborate.

                    Answer (Fr. John Jillions): Matters of policy, theology and moral teaching belong to the Holy Synod. However, many matters require pastoral discussion. All need to be ministered to regardless of “orientation”.

                    • Heracleides says

                      Liberal clerical code phrase:

                      “ministered to…” = accommodate

                      Definition of ACCOMMODATE

                      transitive verb:
                      1. To make fit, suitable, or congruous
                      2. To bring into agreement or concord; reconcile
                      3. To provide with something desired, needed, or suited
                      4. To make room for; to hold without crowding or inconvenience
                      5. To give consideration to; allow for (the special interests of various groups)

                      intransitive verb:
                      1. To adapt oneself

                      Examples of accommodation “regardless of ‘orientation’ “ within the OCA: Mrs. Stokoe-Brown, Inga Leonova & Coven and – yes – many/most members of the Unholy Synod.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      St. Chrysostom, in his commentary on Matt. 11:28, raises an essential point regarding “ministering” & even “accommodating” sinners:

                      Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

                      Not this or that person, but all that are in anxiety, in sorrows, in sins. Come, not that I may call you to account, but that I may do away your sins; come, not that I want your honor, but that I want your salvation. “For I,” says He, “will give you rest.” He said not, “I will save you,” only; but what was much more, “I will place you in all security.”

                      For nothing so weighs upon the soul, and presses it down, as consciousness of sin; nothing so much gives it wings, and raises it on high, as the attainment of righteousness and virtue… or would you see the souls of the revilers, and of the passionate? Why, what is worse than this torture? What, than the wounds they have within? What, than the furnace that is continually burning, and the flame that is never quenched?

                      Or of the sensual, and of such as cleave unto this present life? Why, what more grievous than this bondage? They live the life of Cain, dwelling in continual trembling and fear at every death that happens; the kinsmen of the dead mourn not so much, as these do for their own end.

                      Commentary on Matthew, Homily 38

                      If the suffering of those “souls of the revilers, and of the passionate” cannot be turned to the Church, to “dialog” and initiate the path to chastity, obedience, and singlemindedness to which we are all called, then to whom shall they turn?

                      Truth is eternal, uncompromised & uncompromising, and as Fr. Florovsky wrote, “its fulness is unexhausted and inexhaustible and we are summoned to testify about this and in this the vocation of man.” And as he likewise notes, “There are probably more “heretics” than “Orthodox believers” in the actual world and it can turn out that “heretics” are “everywhere” — ubique — and the true Church is pushed into the background of history, into the “desert.” This was often the case and it may happen again. ​​I maintain that each person can realize the katholikos (καθολικος), of kath olu (καθ ολου), standard in himself. I do not say that each person does realize it. That depends upon the measure of one’s spiritual maturity. Each person is, however, called. And those who realize it we call Fathers and Teachers of the Church, for we hear from them not simply their personal opinions but the very witness of the Church — because they speak out of the Catholic fulness.”

                      It would appear that the prophets here outnumber the “usual suspects,” and that too many talk and too few listen.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      Whoever said anything about not ministering to homosexuals? All need to be properly guided in a life of repentance. That is true ministry and it is open to anyone who is willing to reject Satan and all his works and unite themselves to Christ. Anyone who is in the Church for any other reason(s) is in the wrong place. Especially if one’s mindset is to reject the revealed truth of the Church and substitute their own. That’s not pastoring. That’s apostasy.

                    • The Chancellor of the OCA links sexual minorities with sexual “orientation”.

                      Orthodoxy repudiates the very notion of sexual orientation.

                      Is the Chancellor giving credence to lesbianism, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, transsexualism, pederasty, bestiality, etc., as “sexual minorities” because they are of a different “orientation”?

                      Any sexual act outside the union of a man and woman who are bound to each other in the sacrament of marriage is anathema to the Holy Church!

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Nate B,

                      Any simpleton who can sound out the 2nd & 3rd chapters of the Book of Genesis can figure out that divergence of sexual orientation is not “natural” to our created humanity as it was “in the beginning.” Nor could one attribute such divergence to God. At the same time, should the Chancellor of the OCA acknowledge “genetically defective minorities” – Fragile-X Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Colon Cancer, Tay-Sachs Disease – is he not likewise lending “credence” to what is “unnatural,” abominable, and an indictment before the eyes of God? You are confusing the issue into nonsense.

                      The issue at hand is not the humanity of the Creation “as it was in the beginning,” in the image and likeness of the Creator, and to which we will be restored – as was the Lord in His humanity in the Resurrection. We are referring to the rebellious, destructive, defiant fallen humanity that exists within this broken and fallen world. Is this not obvious? In this fallen world Tay-Sachs destroys the nervous system, FAP causes colon cancer in 90% of the individuals with the genetic defect before age 45, and some individuals are at risk for divergent sexual orientation. It is consequential to the fall, in and of itself, and it is a consequence of our interaction with fallen humanity and this broken world.

                      If when you say, “Orthodoxy repudiates the very notion of sexual orientation” you are referring to our humanity “in the image & likeness” of and by the Creator, I agree with you completely. But if the suggestion is that this is true of our fallen humanity, it lacks foresight and common sense. And worse, it is an ignorance that contributes to our loss of moral authority. It is incumbent upon us to speak the Truth, to elucidate, to articulate, to re-articulate, to re-explain, and to continue to speak until we are heard. This is the way of the Fathers. And when we do not – when we insist, “Truth speaks for itself” – the moral questions of our society will be decided by lawyers & courts. So, we’ll add a “Sovereignty of Marriage” march to the list with the “Sanctity of Life” march and , as Fr. Schemann mocked, “be home promptly by 4:30 for wine & cheese.” This is what should trouble you, not psychodynamic babble you are attempting to ascribe to a man without knowing his intent.

                    • 4:30 is a bit early for wine and cheese.

                    • Kentigern Siewers says

                      Christ is Risen! Truly He is risen!

                      Happy Bright Week to all!

                      A prolific writer here in our exile in Cyberia writes in part:

                      “In this fallen world… some individuals are at risk for divergent sexual orientation. It is consequential to the fall, in and of itself, and it is a consequence of our interaction with fallen humanity and this broken world… It is incumbent upon us to speak the Truth, to elucidate, to articulate, to re-articulate, to re-explain, and to continue to speak until we are heard. This is the way of the Fathers. And when we do not – when we insist, ‘Truth speaks for itself’ – the moral questions of our society will be decided by lawyers & courts. So, we’ll add a ‘Sovereignty of Marriage’ march to the list with the ‘Sanctity of Life’ march and , as Fr. Schemann mocked, ‘be home promptly by 4:30 for wine & cheese.’ This is what should trouble you.”

                      First, Cyril should take note that there seems to be a schismatic aspect to this note from the friend of the Chancellor, given that it easily can be read as mocking our Holy Synod for participating in and promoting the March for Life this year. But please try not to react! 🙂

                      Second, there indeed was a national March for Marriage (though not for “Sovereignty of Marriage”) earlier this year. In fact, our OCA parish newsletter just carried the following report on it, which does not mention wine or cheese, any criticism of the Chancellor, or disagreement with the legacy of anyone’s teachers of blessed memory :):

                      “I was glad and humbled to participate in the March for Marriage in Washington DC last month, with a small group of Orthodox Christians from around the country. The march, which was organized on relative short notice to coincide with the hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, was much smaller than the more established March for Life. However, organizers said that it too could become an annual event.We marched past the Supreme Court where a large contingent of proponents of same-sex marriage were gathered and were chanting loudly as we passed. The small Orthodox group offered a silent witness; I for example was holding an icon of the Ancestors of God with the young Theotokos while marching. A counter-protestor made fun of the icon, calling us “haters.” I replied we were witnessing to our beliefs, not hating or ridiculing. It was a worthwhile experience to offer a presence for our Tradition and cultural rights in the public square, but also to get a sense of the need for more effective ways to articulate caring messages about traditional marriage and Christian views of sex. Participating with other members…in the recent March for Life provided an example to me of how, over the years, the pro-life message has become increasingly appealing to and tolerated by young people, who formed the majority of marchers in that very large event. God willing, the same hopefully can be done with the message for traditional marriage in our society in future.”

                      This reminded me of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s statement that Orthodoxy struggles “to baptize not human individuals only but the whole spirit and organization of society.” Thus we’re not, in our tradition, social separatists, like Pietists such as the Amish, nor are we atomizers like many Americans who would cocoon in family TV rooms and leave neighbors in the larger culture to their own devices.

                      But this relates to the deeper issue, too, in which Orthodox anthropology (unlike often Scholastic Catholicism) does not distinguish strongly between “nature” and “grace.” Those arguing for essentialist categories of sexual orientation in our “fallen nature,” whether heterosexual, homosexual, or other categories, ironically extend Catholic natural law arguments often used against homosexuality from the standpoint of essentialist definitions of identity. Orthodoxy provides a deep and transformative view. The Blessed Martyr Pavel Florensky notes at length in his “The Pillar and the Ground of Truth” how authentic human identity is formed in transformative relationship rather than essentialized self-objectification. This he represented by the expression I-Not-I, as opposed to I=I.

                      In the proliferation of essential identities of sexual orientation (ambiguously blurring biological sex and socially constructed gender) we often seem to see merely a proliferation of essentialist categories of sexuality that Michel Foucault argued were cultural, emerging from the Enlightenment West. This proliferation to some extent also culturally fulfills the teleology of modern consumerism. A colleague who is a psychologist and lab researcher on human behavior and the mind (and neither Christian nor a conservative) recently discussed with me how behavior seems to alter the brain and in turn even DNA structure, epigenetically. This is not a simple argument for “mind over matter.” However it indicates how Orthodoxy can contribute a transformative experience of identity rather than a self-essentializing one.

                      This book linked here offers helpful insight into such a transformative view, from the experience of someone who left a secular sense of sexual identity in converting to Catholicism:

                      But for a deeply Orthodox discussion of these issues, I’d recommend the section on marriage and sex in “Foundations of Christian Bioethics” by the eminent Orthodox bioethicist scholar Herman Engelhardt:


                      Interestingly, bioethics (and not psychology) was also the umbrella for discussion of sexual identity in the Russian Orthodox Synod’s Jubilee Statement on these issues:


                      Yours unworthily in Christ,


                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      Dear Professor, Christ is risen!

                      In the off chance that “Cyrill” above refers to me (for you know that my baptismal name is indeed Kyrill), I must say that I derive a certain guilty pleasure of being alluded to as the Grand Inquisitor for Schismatic Activities and Statements. Besides, I have no doubt whatsoever that all Orthodox Churches, to include the Orthodox Church in America, have a common position on homosexuality, which boils down to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” In addition, I am not bothered by anybody misinterpreting Mr. Stankovich’s sarcastically on point remark. That is, I do acknowledge that some will inevitably misinterpret Mr. Stankovich even if he were an angel sent to us by the Lord Himself. Indeed, there are some here who would disagree and criticise the Lord Himself if He did not agree with their narrow POV and agenda. 😉

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Prof. Siewers,

                      Χριστὸς Aνέστη!

                      Apparently it is more appropriate to refer to you as the exile, hopefully for a cause worthy of a blessing, and I greet you in the Feast: “Let us embrace each other joyously!”

                      I am not one for innuendo, passive-aggression, and the like, so if you were, in fact, sending me a “message,” it was over my head. I have read both Englehardt & Florensky, and have learned from both. I am certainly not a competitor nor – as I have consistently maintained – an “original thinker” as these scholars. The very notion is ludicrous. Nevertheless, I am always reminded of St. Chrysostom’s comment in his Paschal Address, that the Lord “both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honours the acts and praises the offering.” I offer only what I am able.

                      Finally, Prof. Siewers, you are returning to this “friend-of the Chancellor” cum “incriminating,” pejorative insinuation of “dirty tricks” and “insider dealings” in our relationship. It is not the least bit disturbing to me, personally, but rather it disturbs me that the implication reflects upon the Chancellor by association. I am an ethical friend, and I try to be a good friend. You apologized for this on another forum, and I see no purpose in your intrusion into my personal relationships here.

                      Αληθώς Ανέστη!

                    • colette says

                      M. Stankovich,

                      You need to answer this–

                      Nate B says:
                      April 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm

                      The official minutes of the OCA’s 16th All-American Council discusses Chancellor Jillions’ use of “sexual minorities” on the website, so apparently it existed.

                    • M. Stankovich says


                      No, I do not “need” to do anything of the sort. As I was the only person to design and administrate We are Their Legacy – and I maintain a backup of that site and everything it contained – I have emphatically stated what it did and did not contain. This has become a waste of time & a personal insult and I am finished “answering” foolishness. Believe as you wish.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Dear M.S. however it was accessed, the reference to ‘sexual minorities’ was noted here with a reference to your web-site. I went to your site and found the reference to which George was alluding at that time. It may have been a link of some kind, but I got to it through your site at the least even though it was first brought to my attention here. In any case, the how is not that important, what is important is whether or not Fr. Jillions believes in the existence of ‘sexual minorities’ and if so how that impacts the teaching and the practice of the Church in his mind.

                    Would you agree?


                    Would you agree that after the fall, all of our natural proclivities are distorted and that because of that ascesis and repentance are applied as medicine for the soul and necessary for our salvation? (Obviously this includes but is not limited to our sexuality).

                    Or do you take the position that some things are so physically a part of us that neither repentance nor ascesis can be properly or benefically applied?

                    Some place in between or something entirely different?


                    What I have been taught, what I have read, what I have experienced both inside and outside the Church leads me to the truth of the first proposition. Sexuality is distorted in all of us, the more deeply the distortion goes and the more off target that it is, the more ascesis and repentance is required. In any case, all of us need to enter into the same general process for our own salvation–no one is exempt and all will fall short (with the possible exception of the few great saints). There is no exemption from sins that seem to be rooted in the body such as the tendancy for alcoholism suffered by Native Americans. The temptation may be greater, but that only means that more, not less, asecsis is necessary and (quite possibly) more repentance. Unfortunately, it seems that it is often allowed to slide because it appears so difficult. The destruction is horrible.

                    Further one does not need to repent of disease brought about by external pathogens even though they exist and are injurious to us because of the sinful state of humanity.

                    The two different process, external and physical, should not be conflated or confused.

              • Heracleides says

                For a free (who sells garbage anyway?) gander at Mr. Stankovich’s former Sodomite Advocacy website, the Wayback Machine has a snapshot of a portion of it available here. It includes such masterpieces as ‘The Science of Same Sex Attraction – Part V’ and ‘When Real Men Turn Sensitive.’ While this particular snapshot does not mention Fr. Jilly, it does list (with links) other clerical members of the OCA Lavender Mafia who were parties to the propaganda effort.

              • Defend the Faith says

                Mr. Stankovich,

                Fr Jillions interest in sexual minorities was part of his CV posted on the uniate seminary website where he teaches (does anyone else find it troubling that he teaches at a uniate seminary). That reference to said interest was removed from his CV after he became chancellor.

                So, I still contend that Fr. Jillions needs to explain what he means and what role one of his homosexual mentor priests played in his priestly formation!

                • Stan Poulos says

                  Dear Defend the Faith,

                  It is important for any Orthodox leader to address the issues effecting society. Homosexuality is one of these issues. In fact, Fr. Thomas Hopko has written and addressed this topic extensively. Priests and parishes need to know how to handle these issues and therefore, it is only proper and fitting for the Chancellor of the OCA to address this issue. “Homosexual mentor priest?” Who exactly are you accusing? As far as teaching at a Uniate or RC seminary or school, I know of maybe 10-15 “GOOD” Orthodox priests who currently or in the past have done the same. Why? Because they pay for good teachers. For ANY Orthodox to bring their perspective to the RC’s is very positive in deed. Besides this, extra income for Orthodox priests many times is the difference between living in poverty and living just above the poverty line.

                  • colette says

                    Unfortunately Stan this topic is not being addressed in the OCA. One book, even 2 books does not equal an address, but a small beginning. When we address this the last thing we should want is to address it in a way that leads to more confusion and leaves people with the wrong teaching. Unfortunately that is what we have been seeing and it is cause for alarm. That’s not to say some priests aren’t addressing it correctly, but if the bishops and chancellor of a faith cannot adequately teach the faith, that faith is in real trouble.

                • Clawdia Chauchat says

                  What is happening at the St. Nicholas Church in DC now? Anyone know?

              • truth in advertising says

                The truth is now “cagey?”

                That belongs on the masthead, so that people know what they’re consuming here.

      • The usage of the word “sexual minorities” is on the OCA website in Chancellor Jillion’s text of the presentation that he was going to give in Birmingham, but missed:

        • Michael Kinsey says

          B Nate, In fairness, in the Burminingham text, which I just read. He lists many political minorities, neither advocating or rebulking any of them. He is stating that they do exist, no more. He is saying he is recognizing the fact that there is a homosexual agenda. I require a text that proves him advocating favor towards thier agenda.They may ,indeed exist, but I have not seen them.My reference to a limp wristed approach concerns simply forbidding repentent gays any honor above the laity,It is good enough for the laity, it is good enough for them. It will require genuine humility on their part. A contrite and humble heart God will not dispise. It also protects the young from unwarrented influence by fuzzy repentants.No tonsure or ordination will keep the homosexual aganda at bay within the OCA.

        • lexcaritas says

          Thanks again, Nate. I read the Birmingham address and don’t find the use of the term “sexual minorities” in the context of a series of questions problematic. Far more troubling is the exaggerated praise for Jim Wallis and Congressman John Lewis in the introduction in the Chancellor’s Diary. Mr. Wallis is a Marxist, isn’t he? And Marxism and Orthodoxy are hardly compatible. Mr. Lewis is, I see, far , far left on the spectrum meaning that he tends to see big, secular, godless government as the solution to all ills. Again, something that is not compatible with Orthodoxy.

          I appreciated reading Fr. Jillions dissertation on the human tendency to demonize our adversaries and even agreed with him (Gillet, Bulgakov and others he mentions near the end) that this strategy of self-justification and defensiveness has, in some ways, hampered our understanding of and, might we say, conversion of Catholics, Jews and Muslims–and sometimes even ourselves when repentance and humility are called for.


  7. What does "sexual minorities" mean? says

    To better understand Chancellor Jillions’ use of the inclusional term “sexual minorities”, I highly recommend perusing his 2005 dissertation from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary:
    (Copyright “honored” due to “personal use” clause.)

    His thesis is summarized on the following pages (page numbers referring to numbers at the bottom of each printed page of his document): pages 52-57, pages 62-67, pages 71-72, and the final summary on pages 80-88.

    • Michael Kinsey says

      Rapist/captor/abuser/torturer is strangely applied to Christians responding to threats from genuine enemies of Christianity, by Fr. Jillians in the 80-88 pages.It is true as I heard from the Greek elder, that this is a demonic technique to get Christians to respond in this manner. Also, in every experience I ever had dealing with a homosexual, they won’t let up until they get you away from being kind ,charitable and self controled, and respond with (for my part) the lesser of the evils they were presenting. As a young man, I was targeted many times as a prime homosexual target. I consider killing one of them, the lesser evil than going along with the gay sex act as demanded by them. St John Chrysostomon says they are worst than murders.
      I do not see Fr. Jillian’s approach as a sane or reasonable solution within the confines of a congregation. We are not required to beleive all gay people who say they have repented. We are required to protect and defend the young against this vile unnatrual practice.
      It is obvious, worldwide they have invaded the Christian churches, seeking positions of influence and authority. Then producing scandals and victims en mass, some with impunity. This is an organized attack, with an agenda. Stop it cold, don’t tonsue them, or ordain them, the laity will, indeed, take care of itself protecting thier children, with priests who will back the laity not the rapist/captor/abuser/torturer.

      • Michael Bauman says

        Every experience I have had with homosexuals, I have seen their deep pain. Outside the Church I can empathize with their quest for identity to heal the pain and the seduction of the wrong answers.

        Repentance requires strength, humility and persistence. Much like Winston Churchill all we have to offer any one, before the joy, is blood, sweat, toil and tears. But we do everyone a disservice if we don’t stand on that truth by rationalizing sin away by mealy-mouthed acedemic pschyco-babble. For leaders in the Church to do it is to throw away the keys to the Kingdom.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Well, Saunca since I limited my observation to those homosexuals I have personally met, and am speaking of my own experience, I can make the statement and you have no basis to agree or disagree with that portion of my statement as itis purely subjective.

          I’m not certain what I’d do if I met aggressively predatory homosexuals as were in Sodom or the ones MK met. I might have to use deadly force to protect myself and be suspended from partaking of the Holy Eucharist until I was healed through repentance. Not something I would wish.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Saunca, forgive me I got snarky. However if I were to kill another human being even in self defense the healing would require a time away from the cup. That is not punishment but a time that allows peace and equillibrium to be restored through confession and attendance on the other sacraments.

            One can enter into the worship of the Eucharist without partaking of the body and blood. Sometimes under direction that is needful. It is just for a time..

            • Michael Bauman says

              Saunca, thank you. Christ is risen!

              Any time away from the Cup should always be under the direction of one’s confessor and bishop. It is a covering blessing very much like when the priest places his stole around your shoulders when you come for confession. Self-excommunication is very dangerous.

      • Michael Kinsey says

        What is your solution? Give in to the abomination? Accord them the uttermost regard and respect while they try to coherse you into soul destroying sin? When they get right in your face and tell you. ” Your going to turn a trick”. Do you smile pleasantly, and thank them for the offer? As to those gays which are not so aggressive, apparently, sympathy, compassion, understanding are their perogatives as to how they want to be treated and respect for thier vile obsessions. Gay pride parades, should be respected, even honored, if one does not want to be considered the most evil of all humanity, homophobes, according to thier values. They are accorded common courtesy and a genuine attempt to fullfil the Royal Law towards them, but, this is done in obedience to the the Only Holy One, not because they demand it. Try to force me to have gay sex < Senica, and you better be afraid. Lot and the angels had the same experience, the gays weren't taking no for an answer.I an certain the less agressive will always side with the criminally aggressive being successful. I offer them no quarter or opportunity, stop tonsuring and ordaining repentant homosexuals. The one out of 10, like Fr, Seraphim Rose, would require the wisdom of St John of San Francisco which obviously most do not have. Then the 9 who don't really repent get to wear sheeps clothing, lording it over the laiety and get a privildeged position shot at our children, it keeps happening all over the world.Stop it cold.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Mr. Kinsey, my solution is the salvific method of the Church. For most, I would agree, that means no pastoral duties in the ordained priesthood. There are some sins that go so deeply that, for the person’s own salvation, they should not be given the extra burden of the priesthood or beyond. If I knew someones past history, it would be quite difficult to say Axios.

          Certainly no one who is unrepentant should be allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries, but neither should known hetrosexual fornicators, adulterers, pornographers or those divorced with out proper canonical repentance.

          While genuine economia can be applied in some instances, it should be the exception and not become acquiesence to licentiousness.

          We should seek chastity in all things: sexual, emotional(anger, pride, etc), physcial and spiritual lest we fall into delusion. Sometimes in order to be chaste, we must abstain entirely. Sex outside of marriage is one of those times.

          The advice and direction of a good and competent spiritual father/confessor is required.

        • Ladder of Divine Ascent says

          Saunca says:

          “Try to force me to have gay sex < Saunca, you better be afraid"

          3. Beware, Michael K, of the threats you make online. ie. "You better be afraid"
          Postings can be traced, emails discovered, lawsuits filed….


          Your response is more a threat than his statement that if someone tries to homosexually rape him then that person should be afraid (because he reserves the right to defend himself). This could only be threatening if someone did have such intentions. But, with the way things are going, the day may indeed come where it is a crime to not to accept homosexual advances, if not for us adults then for our children in "Sex Education" or "Anti-Bullying" classes (since we the government declare that sodomy is normal, we demand you partake in homosexuality to insure you have experienced it and have no abnormal revulsion to it), they certainly felt that way at Sodom when they tried to rape the two angels sent to Lot before God destroyed the city.

        • Michael Kinsey says

          I have actually fought off gay men trying to force me to engage with them is thier perversion. Sue me. Or do only gays have the right to self defense. Or as a women, would you consider fending off a rapist a crime, comitted against the rapist. This is absurd on it’s face. They better be afraid, as I have a right to self defense. I will and did defend myself, they can file all the lawsuits they want, or send emails, and trace, whatever.Or do you insist on a double standard, which insists on unequal justice under the law. You can be certain secular-humanist legislation does exactly that.We already have the law inacted that give SPECAIL protection against assaults by heterosexuals against homosexual stemming for the Matt ??? case in Wyoming. It was a mugging turned into a pretext to create a privlidged minority.Statictics prove gay on gay murder is more abunbant then straight on gay murder, why the special extra extreme punishments directed at only straight guys with a continued touchy feely approach to gay murders? This is reality. It is sordid.

          • Dear Michael,

            I lived in Berkeley and San Francisco in the 1970s (when Harvey Milk was first elected, the pre-AIDS era of bathhouses and other such dens of iniquity) and have worked in the entertainment industry my entire career. I’ve worked in offices in West Hollywood on-and-off since 1977, and as recently as 6 months ago, and so I’ve frequented the restaurants, bars and nightclubs there. I know dozens of dozens of gay men and women, and have countless hundreds of colleagues who died of AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s, and even this year.

            To be honest, the only thing I ever experienced that comes close to what you report are the two times in my entire life I was grabbed by someone, one was a Roman Catholic priest (1976, inside a rectory) and the other was an Orthodox monk (1990, at a church). In neither instance did I need to resort to violence to bring those tortured souls to their senses.

            I’m the most average person you’ve ever met, and your experience is so foreign to mine that I find myself wondering “Where does this guy live? Where on earth are gay men so aggressive?”

            • ““Where does this guy live? Where on earth are gay men so aggressive?”
              Well, Sodom comes to mind.
              No, seriously, rape of heterosexuals by homosexuals is probably under reported for obvious reasons. I would never attribute a propenisty to such violent sexual aggression to any and every homosexual, but I’m sure it happens more often than we might suppose – what is known about rape within the homosexual “community” points us to this as a very likely possibility. CQ, in your two accounts the men were evidently only dissuaded by an appeal to conscience – what if the perpetrator doesn’t have a conscience or is not “in their right mind” because they have given themselves over completely to this unnatural lust? We should not be so dismissive of Michael Kinsey’s claim.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Basil’s onto something here. Homosexual assault is very much underreported for a variety of reasons (just as is heterosexual assault). It might be pointed out that that famous Greek-Samoan diver who came out in the 90s (Peter Somethingorother, I can’t remember his name) wrote in his autobiography that his first sexual experience as a teenager was a homosexual assault in which the assailant brandished a knife.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  George, are you thinking of Greg Loughanis? He retired from diving when he found out he was HIV positive.

                • I don’t know if you get much UK news in the US, but a Conservative MP has just been arrested on two charges of rape. The alleged crimes were committed against two men in their 20s.

              • Nate Trost says

                We should not be so dismissive of Michael Kinsey’s claim.

                A reason to be dismissive of Michael Kinsey’s claim is his frequent posts involving paranoid conspiracies, 9/11 trutherism, and language and sentence structure in his postings that suggest untreated mental disorders. 99% of the posters on this site are indeed in their right mind, even if I strenuously disagree with many of them. Mr. Kinsey and one or two others are very clear exceptions, and I try not to engage with them for that reason.

                Homosexual assault is very much underreported for a variety of reasons

                This can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It wasn’t that long ago that if I saw two men walking by holding hands, I could have beaten them senseless, and as long as I didn’t actually kill one of them, I wouldn’t have had a care of being booked for assault. If the two had had the audacity to go to the police they would have been laughed out of the station, and if they were unlucky might have gotten an additional tune up from the cops for good measure.

                • Michael Kinsey says

                  Touche, mon ami. Perhaps, the writing of Barbara -Marie D suit you fancy. This is a male in a man made female body who is really an avid advocate of the anti-gay agenda . Most of her posts are in line with genuine Orthodox teaching that address how to deal in a right minded Christian manner with homosexuals. Must this homosexual be the only voice pronounced sane in addressing the Orthodox. We are not in the habit of taking our teaching from tranvestites. I am a normal straight guy, but I must have a mental disorder.Typical character assination, which is done because you cannot defeat my arguement. I do not advocate gay bashing, my post always concerned being kind ,charitable and self controled.You mention gay bashing and apparently intend to apprioate it to me.
                  I was homeless, and found a place to sleep in trees where I could not be seen. Apparently the gays used it as a meeting ground. I heard a voice while in my sleeping bag. Can I suck your ( not needful). I rudely answered ,No! 10 minutes latter the creep was back with the same question. the same answer ,NO!!!. 15 minutes later, all inside my sleeping bag, I get kicked in the head, and the same question. Bruce Lee would have been impressed at how fast I jumped up and grabbed a broken limb. I chased this creepshow and could have hit him. I struggled with my anger, intensely, and I did not strike. This is one example of how I always dealt with gays. An unstable man would have bashed his head in. You assertion rings hollow. I do not regret not hitting him, but I still feel a twinge of anger when I think about that night.

                • Mr Trost,

                  It would never occur to me that because someone had mental issues I should doubt every claim they make. In fact, it’s fairly well known that such people are more likely to be targets of sexual predators than people in good mental health.

                  I’m struggling to see how your reference to assaults on homosexuals, which I do not condone, is relevant.

              • I dismissed no claim, Basil, but rather noted that it lies outside of my experience as a straight man in the “Sodoms” of Berkeley in the 1970s, San Francisco in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, and in West Hollywood in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and now the 10s.

                We’ve long known that rapes are underreported without regard to the sexual orientation of either perpetrator or victim. Nothing new here, nor is the understanding that the vast majority of rapists are male, or that that rape is a crime of a male violently dominating another human being. (And if you wish to know what form of rape is totally underreported, check out the stories of women in the military.)

                My two encounters were with closeted men who, for whatever reason, thought I’d be interested in playing with them. They were not “rapists,” seeking domination so much as closeted and therefore inept homosexuals desiring a hookup, after which they would no doubt have been ashamed of themselves and etc.

                Which brings me back to the point of my post. I raised the question in the light of my experience because what is being reported lies outside my experience. I’ve seen no evidence of it, heard no stories like that (and I’ve seen and heard things I would have preferred I’d never seen or heard) and therefore wonder about what Michael is reporting.

                I mean my question as a question, not a dismissal.

                One of the striking things about the Gospel accounts of last night is the need to humiliate a man who is entirely under the control of a powerful group of men. The mockings, scourgings, the crown of thorns, etc. They know they’re going to kill him, but they have to toy with him first, to prove their domination by humiliating him.

                This is what lies behind the crime of rape, the need to dominate and humiliate, and is why I’m interested in where and under what situations Michael is having his repeated experiences.

                • CQ,

                  Thanks for that clarification. I was concerned that Michael Kinsey should get a fair hearing. Everyone deserves a fair hearing, do they not? Just because something is beyond my experience doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Most of us who lead “normal” lives are probably oblivious to the depths that human depravity can plumb.

                  On the matter of rape as a crime of violent domination rather than a sex crime I’ve never been completely convinced of that, especially as the radical feminists use it to further their anti-male agenda. If it were the case, rapists would not be classed as sexual offenders by the justice system. I would rather see rapists are sexual deviants with a propensity to violent domination of others in the pursuit of their own sexual gratification.

              • M. Stankovich says

                A cursory scan of the postings of Mr. Kinsey would suggest to me that he is a poor historian – and thank you Mr. Trost – an unreliable source for accurate information.

                I spent nearly three years in an in inner-city psychiatry clinic for the persistently mentally ill & homeless, and there is a sub-set of the chronically homeless men that are mentally ill, fragile, vulnerable, and are frequently victimized by for their possessions, their “home” (e.g. a covered doorway in the rain, a cardboard “bed”), and so on by the more aggressive. Yet, I was never once told of sexual intimidation, assault, or rape. When I did hear of sexual violence, it was in a significantly different group: young, male, homosexual, chemically dependent, prostituting for money for drugs. The violence against them, however, was more likely as described by Mr. Trost than Mr. Kinsey, unless it was “business-related,” no pejorative intended. The street is, in fact, unforgiving.

                My observations and experiences are, of course, anecdote, but in fact reflect what can be easily found in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which is where most of you should have started before speculating. One man’s suspect view, in my estimation, is hardly the framework for an accurate view of a highly complex phenomenon.

                • Michael Kinsey says

                  The point of contention is an effective address of the predation within the churches, and has little to do with the greater secular culture, other than provide an effective temp-let for the protection. My honesty is geniune, as I would not lie about my punitive discharge for refusing to fight in the Vietman war.This indeed, had a sever effect on getting a good job.I have carried this cross my whole adult life. I never used drugs, or had any addictions, except cigarettes and coffee.I do not fit the sterotype of homeless people.How many homeless people were included in the leadership of Operation Rescue?I attended as many HOOM free classes as I could, which were usually on bible study. They rarely presented thier wild stuff in public sessions.I have enough classes for degree.I was certainly not good enough for Podomoshensky, or Eliel.But, Met Pangratious was.And not doubt, I am not good enough for professional cleric’s.I was good enough for the couragous, self sacrificing pro-life activist community.If you wish to experience authentic Christian brotherhood, it was certainly among these eagles gathered together.A band of brothers, and this fellowship wasn’t killing anybody, rather the opposite, saving the lives of little children, and some souls who repented at our intersession. I don’t need any approval from the church. The whole Orthodox Church should require that any repentant gay who wishes to be ordained or tonsured have the blessing of an authentic Elder before he or she is accepted. I know what real Christian spiritual moral authority feels like. This is a Christian solution, addressing both authentic and fuzzy repentance, and saves the children, which is my forte.

                • Michael Kinsey says

                  I posted a reply to Mr.Stankovitch, it has not appeared yet. I will post another, if it does not appear. My point, is save the children, and, allow for authentic repentance.Require all repentant gays to obtain a BLESSING FROM AN AUTHENTIC ORTHODOX ELDER, BY EVERY ORTHODOX CHURCH BEFORE ORDAINING OR TONSURING ANY REPENTANT GAY.A difficult requirement, but is does seperate the wheat from the chaff. This will effectively wipe out homosexual predation within the Orthodox Church.Do it or wallow in the mire.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Yes, Michael, thank you. It was Greg Louganis.

            • Michael Kinsey says

              I was homeless, which is the difference. Homeless people are seen as the lawful prey of homosexuals. This shows me what they will do if they think they can get away with it.The two clerics only affirm my claim, as they thought they we safe hiding behind thier sheeps clothing. In business, there are sexual harrassment laws.The gays consider straights they can buy beneath them in status. They get quite upset when they are turned down. Guess they think the homeless guy is just being uppity. These swine, ravenious wolves, dogs, vipers are of spiritual Sodom and Gommorah, dead in human spirituality. They are vile, and decietful enough to keep it hidden until the last minute, a favorite gay technique. In Denver a creepshow came into the day labor office and asked if anyone was interested in painting a room for him, not using the labor office. It was just a fag, who insisted I take my shoes off, who did not have any work for me.I lost a days work.I could go on, with story after story. I know what they are capable of.

              • Michael,

                Thanks for that background. Yes, being homeless makes quite a difference in all things. Homeless people are far more frequently the victims of every form of crime, from theft to every manner of assault. The homeless population also rarely reports crimes committed upon it, as it tends (with reason) to view law enforcement with great suspicion.

                Your post also confirms that this is generally a crime of domination, “The gays consider straights they can buy beneath them in status. They get quite upset when they are turned down. Guess they think the homeless guy is just being uppity.”

                And so thanks for that answer, it provides very helpful context to understanding your posts. I’m happy your homeless days are behind you, and wish you a blessed Pascha.

              • Michael Kinsey says

                Homosexuality is the abomination, heterosexuality is natural. Gay are not the salt of the earth. They are in the wrong and I am not. I don’t need help, homophobia is just an merchanding marketing campaign against the Truth of Chtistianity, by the gay agenda. I don’t but it. Either, there is something wrong wth me or there is somethng wrong with them. There is no way to reconcile this, Homosexuality is the evil doing or the Christians who condem the act are the evil doers, and perscuters. It is obvious you favor the gays and thier agenda. We love our children and you will get your fight, we will wage against your agenda.

              • Michael Kinsey says

                I suggest you get some help, Saunica, There, I have departed from kindness, chariity and self control, not really. Now, take the hint.You and your gay friends can flock together all you want. I have no gay friends, nor will I ever.

          • Monk James says

            Perhaps Michael Kinsey would tell us what he’s been doing to attract such aggressive homosexual advances, so we could avoid them ourselves, as I hope he has learned to do?

            • Michael Kinsey says

              I was young, quite handsome, full of life and health, high spirited and quite Christian, with manner and tone that was an easy politeness. I also have never felt any attraction to men, and do experience revulsion when in the company of gays.I do not consider this revulsion a sin, it is natural like not wanting to eat spoiled food. Apparently, these type of young men are found to be disireable to gays.They have the effect of cardboard, when one is hungry for real food. I have no experience of what thier motivation is, only that it is connected to being domineering, demanding submission from the victim. They have no idea of what Christian brotherhood is.

        • We forget that there are martyrs in Orthodoxy who proactively ended their own lives in order to keep from being sexually defiled. With women being raped, one virgin comes to mind who threw herself from the roof before they could do that to her body, God’s temple. A male martyr being physically aroused bit off his own tongue and spat it and all that blood in the female’s face.

          The carnal and natural man would say, what’s the problem since you’re not choosing to do this? Why “waste” your life? Such ones would also have invariably said, what’s the problem with throwing a little incense down in front of a lifeless statue, and then going home to privately worship Christ? They would not have understood St. Babylas who let the charcoal burn down to the bones in his hand, lest by dropping it he would be perceived to be worshipping the idols. They would not have understood the holy 10 martyrs who fought to the death to preserve some of the holy icons from being publicly destroyed at the hands of the emperor. But what is more illogical, to obey God and gain the joys of Paradise, or to bow to the devil just once because after all God is forgiving and we have to live our lives?

      • Michael Kinsey says

        You will pardon me, if I use my commonsense.A tip for you, 1 in 10 odds is a bad bet. They would love you in Las Vegas.

        • Michael Bauman says

          “in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation, so I beg you…have mercy”

          All sin and fall short of the glory of God, worshiping the created thing more than the created.

          No human being is a ‘good bet’, but Jesus Christ not only took the bet but continues to double down on it for some odd reason………..oh, He created us out of love and sustains us for the same reason, salvaging what He can because of an incomprehensible, divine and ineffable love that none of us deserve.

          “I behold the Bridal chamber, richly adorned, oh my savior, but I have no wedding garment to worthily enter. Make radiant the garment of my soul oh giver of Light and save me.”

      • lexcaritas says

        Saunca, Michael did not say he “considered” killing anyone. I think by his hyperbole he meant to illustrate how grave the sin of homosexuality is and shock us into seeing how accustomed we have become to accepting it as just part of our fallen humanity, for he seemed to intend to say that willing participation in this kind of perversion of marriage is every bit as bad a homicide–which is something, I suspect, most of us moderns find hard to accept. Each, however, is a violation of one of the 10 Words entrusted to Moses by Christ for our instruction and benefit at Mt. Sinai and intensified by our Lord Himself on the Mt. beside the Sea of Galilee. But as we have adulterated marriage since at least the 1920s first by accepting no fault divorce and remarriage and then by what Chesterton called “companionate marriage” and unbridled artificial contraception, widespread single mothers, cohabitation and now same-sex “marriage”, transgenderism and polyamorous living arrangements, so the next step is the adulteration of the 5th Commandment by the acceptance of the killing of babies in the womb, the killing of the old, assisted suicide and next to come the killing of newborns in the first month of life. Where will it stop in a God-rejecting world in which the voice of the Church is muted, lame, timid and divided?

        No doubt Christ came not for the righteous but to call sinners to repentance. By this statement He made it clear that the fear of His accusers that He ate and drank with publicans and sinners to affirm their lifestyle was unfounded; rather He stated that it was for one purpose: to call them to repentance and to heal them. His mission was clear; the way it is carried out by many of our more sophisticated clergy is not. He had no place to lay His head and His teaching was with power and authority. Many of us live relatively comfortable lives in reasonably comfortable homes, and our teaching sounds nice but is not confirmed with signs following. It is almost as if too many people got well to quickly we would find ourselves out of a job, so we need the illness to continue.


        • Michael Kinsey says

          You have correctly descerned my intent. Lexcaritas. In honesty, I have always striven to be harmless, not at all liking to hurt people. I only did what was sufficiently effect to defend my self. I have spent many years homeless, and the encounters there are of an extreme sort of temptations. It is very easy to be honest, when you can buy what you need. It is a very different thing to be starving. The 2 misdemeanors in my lifetime both concerned needing food. I considered 2 illegal, but physically harmless actions, rather than starve to death, the greater evil. I shoplifted 1 box of chocolate cherrys, in my whole adult lifetime.This kind of testing of the love of being honest, which I do love, because it is most genuinely spiritually satisfying.

        • Michael Bauman says

          lexicaritas: As I mentioned in a subsequent post, I’d probably do more than think about killing an agressively predatory homosexual intent on rape. Fortunately, I haven’t ever encountered one.

          It is important not to conflate those who seek healing in the Church with those who do not. Two very different groups.

          We must accept and work with those who genuinely seek healing, report the predators to the police immediately, reject those who are non-repentant and do not give in to their unrighteous demands.

      • Michael Kinsey says

        I am not against authentic repentance, God forbid! And it appears you agree with the idea of a genuine Elder’s intersession concerning tonsure and ordination. I do not wish to hinder the one lost sheep, the Christ will seek out in all cases. Perhaps, the extreme of test of a spiritual elder’s blessing be required by the whole church as I stated in the case of Father Seraphim Rose fot tonure or ordination. This allows for effective protection from the other 9 of the 10 who are still in recidivism. The medical, clinical statistic on this is 90%. You speak of the suffering of the homosexual, and I speak of the suffering they inflict upon those they prey upon.It is intolerable that this can be accomplish within the confines of the Church. It is very rude of them, and does cause anger, when it occurs. But, for my part, it is controlled anger.
        AS for Senica, a silly mistake, it is really a goofy one. The woman has nothing to fear from me. I am an old man, having lost any beauty and am gracefully reconciled to the effects of aging. Her rejection has no sting.

    • First of all, “sexual minorities” covers up abuse, molestation and addiction, which so many people would rather deny than face. I’ve met too many people with too many stories to pretend this isn’t true.

      As for Fr. John Jillions, he sure is toying with a concept there in his dissertation. Flirting even. He polishes the ice to make the slope even more slippery than it already is.

      It seems he forgets, or never knew, that while Jesus may have spoken with “sinners” rather than “religious leaders”, Jesus didn’t ignore that fact that sinners were indeed sinners and needed to be forgiven, and were forgiven, by their faith. What’s the point of the stories of forgiveness, of washing His feet with tears and hair, if it wasn’t about sins being forgiven? We don’t forgive things that were justified all along.

      We will remember today, the words “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.” WORDS FOR ETERNITY. We don’t know what we’re doing, Fr. John doesn’t know what he’s doing, and neither do people who contemplate “sexual minorities”. We’re all clueless and bumbling, hence the reason we have Lent, Holy Week and Pascha, to REMIND us that we don’t know much at all, and God has to sort it all out, by DEATH and RESURRECTION. Hello? If everyone is “OK”, then is Death and Resurrection just for murderers and mean people?

      If everyone is “ok” and otherwise “dehumanized” if not “accepted as they are”, then either Jesus “dehumanized” everyone by His death and resurrection, or He was a fool.

      I’d rather be “dehumanized” and then “deified” than to think I know everything better than the Church ever did, and go make everything “ok” even when history and anatomy say otherwise.

      I recall a gay man telling me the Church and society were always wrong about homosexuality because the Church and society didn’t understand what *true* homosexuality was. REALLY? The Holy Spirit has been wrong lo these 2000 years?

      I don’t think so.


  8. I found this very interesting article on a friend’s FB timeline. Archbishop prays while topless gay activists shout curses and douse him with water (link: May God protect this Archbishop as he stands for what is right.

  9. I, too, was curious about the Chancellor’s meaning of his term “sexual minorities” and what he meant by that in terms of the Orthodox Faith. Then I read his 2005 dissertation and believe he is coming from a place of “inclusion”.
    (Copyright protection is “honored” due to “personal usage” clause as stated on the site.)

    You can find his summation of this on pages 80-86 of his “Language of Enemies” (I’m referring to his page numbers printed on the bottom of his pages). If you have time for further reading, you might also find interesting pages 52-57.

    • Carl Kraeff says

      I just scanned it and thus may not be doing it justice, but the dissertation appears to be largely about theological heresies and ecumenism. I did run a search on “homosexual” and “sexual minorities” and I got 0 (zero) return.

      The question remains: the author of this serious accusation against this priest must back it up or apologize.

      • Michael Kinsey says

        He does not mention any particilar heresies, nor does he exclude any. I just applied the method he stated to the heresey of the gay agenda, seeing no just reason to exclude it.There is no reason to apologize. I took his words at face value.I suggest you hold your breath waiting for an apology. That why I called him slick, sticking abuser/captor/ect ,which would be applied to Christians in an equal manner to any just claim by Christian of evil doing by gays. Authentic Christianity would see them all repent and inherit the kingdom of heaven, saying the abomination they do is perfectly alright,is not in thier best interest. I won’t lie to them.

      • Michael Kinsey says

        Largely, perhaps, but exclusively, no. He mentions conflicts, any conflicts are fair game, as he is not specific. I don’t even agree with his method with just heresies.I have intention of apologing, how arrogant to demand it. Lets us become better strangers. Will see what turns up on judgement day, I can wait.

    • Jesse Cone says

      Thanks for the link Nate B.

      While it certainly is helpful to see what and how the Chancellor is thinking, it also doesn’t answer the question at hand since the phrase “sexual minorities” does not appear in the paper. The topic of “ecumenism” is at the heart of this work, not the Church’s relationship with those whose sexual behavior defies the norm.

      It seems to some that the loudest ecumenical voices are also those pushing the Lavender agenda. Is this a fair conflation?

      • Chancellor Jillions just about ten days ago mentioned “sexual minorities” in the text of the speech he was to give in Birmingham, Alabama, regarding civil rights in America. ( I know his dissertation doesn’t mention a single word regarding “sexual minorities” but I did think his take on things to be very interesting. I have read his dissertation and really appreciated the first part in which he examined the word ‘enemy’ in the Bible and in Orthodox Liturgy and traditional thinking. But the second half was a bit sketchy for me.

        • Carl Kraeff says

          What you say is true but his use of the term is completely unrelated to our esteemed host’s libelous accusation. I myself have used, indeed signed, a statement that talked about abortion and same-sex marriage. That does not make me pro abortion or pro same-sex marriage (surely a cause of sexual minorities); indeed, the statement I am referring to is the Manhattan Declaration. I am not saying that Father Jillions’ Birmingham statement expressed opposition to the causes of sexual minorities. However, it did not express any support for sexual minorities/homosexuals whatsoever. Here it is in context:

          “Today there are a number of causes and groups competing to inherit the mantle of that movement. Is it still blacks? Or is it Latinos? Immigrants? The poor? Sexual minorities? Women seeking abortions? The unborn? Or should we be looking outside the US to the rest of the world and focusing on relieving suffering and promoting basic human rights in much worse conditions elsewhere? As people of faith should we be especially concerned about the rights of religious minorities around the world?”

          Note: Father Jillions went on without mentioning the term again, nor expressing any thoughts that may be supportive of them. The question remains: When will the slanderers of this Orthodox priest apologize for their great sin?

          • George Michalopulos says

            Carl, I’m glad you agree with me that libel is a terrible thing. I’m sure that His Beatitude will be glad to know that you have finally seen the light.

            • Carl Kraeff says

              I will respond next week. In the meantime, please repent before this thing eats your soul. Please.

          • Did some google work myself and came up with:

            “A sexual minority is a group whose sexual identity, orientation or practices differ from the majority of the surrounding society. The term was coined most likely in the late 1960s under the influence of Lars Ullerstam’s ground breaking book “The Erotic Minorities: A Swedish View” (Grove, 1966) which came strongly in favor of tolerance and empathy to uncommon varieties of sexuality. The term was used as analogous to ethnic minority.
            Initially the term referred primarily to lesbians and gays, bisexuals and transgender people. These four categories (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) are often grouped together under the rubric.”

            “Some LGBT people object to using the term sexual minorities in relation to them, and prefer the term LGBT. Reasons for these objections may vary. For example, some LGBT people feel that the term sexual minority needlessly reminds them about discrimination and about being a minority. They want to be not a distinct minority but an integral and respectable part of the society. Some other LGBT people dislike the term for being too inclusive, including swingers, polyamorists, BDSM people and other perceived “sexual strangers”. These LGBT people want to make a larger distance between these sexual practices and bisexuality/homosexuality/transgender.

            Some transsexual or transgender people dislike the term sexual minority for yet another reason. They argue that the phenomenon of transsexuality or transgender has nothing to do with sex, sexual practices or sexual orientation, but it relates to the gender, gender dysphoria and gender-variant behavior or feelings. Thus, they feel it is incorrect to classify them as “sexual minority”, when, in fact, they are gender-variant minority.
            Some conservative groups oppose the use of the term sexual minority for completely different reasons. They think or feel that the term inherently implies some degree of legalisation or protection for those engaged in such sexual practices, much like ethnic minorities are protected from being discriminated or persecuted in modern democratic countries. These groups prefer to call people who claim to belong to sexual minorities, deviant or pervert.

            Some people dislike the term because it includes minority, when the fact is that not all these categories are really about minorities but actually about minorised groups.

            Others referred to as “sexual minorities” include fetishists and practitioners in of bondage and discipline, domination & submission, and/or sadomasochism (collectively referred to as BDSM). The term may also include asexuals and people who may be strictly heterosexual and whose choice of actual sex acts may be vanilla, but whose choice of partner or partners is unusual, such as swingers, polyamorists or people in other nonmonogamous relationships, people who strongly prefer sex partners of a disparate age or people who engage in mixed race relationships.

            Usually, the term sexual minority is applied only to groups who practice consensual sex: for example, it would be unusual to refer to rapists as a sexual minority, but the term would generally include someone whose sexuality gave a major, fetishized role to consensual playing out of a rape fantasy. Also, someone who very occasionally incorporates of kink or same-sex activity into a largely vanilla, heterosexual sex life would not usually be described as a sexual minority.

            Ullerstam was a propagator in those times for sexual relationships between children and adults, between parents and their own children. He stated that it also was very common among his friends.[1] Lars Ullerstam was a medical doctor and psychiatrist in Stockholm, capital of Sweden.”

            Check out this Roman Catholic website to see what is going on there among some of them:

            Then check out this news article to see what is going on with others:

    • Michael Bauman says

      It is not so much that Fr. Jillions is spectacularly wrong in his interpretation, he is that, it is that his wrongness stems from a mindset that is not Orthodox. The excess academic analytics leads one away from the simple Christian notion of Christ’s fundamental call: “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand”. Father Jillions seems to make being a member of the Church contractual and relative to human understanding in content rather than personal, ontological, penitential, euchristic and revelatory.

      To be in communion entails agreement. It is simply imposible to commune with someone to the extent you disagree with them. Thus the Incarnation had to occur (with or without the disruption of the Fall). To enter into communion there must be a basic understanding of the person/persons with whom one is communing, a basic respect and a basic agreement. That is what confessions are for, to help folks decide if they want to be in communion with Jesus Christ as revealed in the Church or not.

      To unite oneself with Christ, one has to have somewhat of an idea who Christ is and with whom one is uniting. While, ultimately, such understanding is revealed both experientially and existentially within the worshipping community, it begins with a submission in love to the Holy Trinity described in the Creed and the writings of the Fathers and the lives of the saints. Obedience is always required for communion.

      The Church is always open to everyone. The only ‘outside’ is the barrier of sin. It is an ontological barrier not solely one of belief. As Saunca has noted in another thread there is an over abundance of those who ‘believe’ but serve sin instead of God. That sin takes us ‘outside’ the Church no matter what we profess.

      The only way to remove the barrier without acknowledging one’s sin and the need to repent–which it seems that Fr. Jillions is proposing, is to remove categories of sin and re-define them as not sin.

      That is exactly the course that homosexual normalizers take.

      God forgive them, they really don’t know what they are doing.

      An excerpt from Fr. Stephen Freeman’s latest post :

      The evolution of marriage in our present culture is only possible in a forensic culture (it may indeed have been inevitable). If relationships are essentially contractual (and not ontological), then relationships are only definitions. There is nothing inherent to a relationship that cannot be negotiated (if everyone involved agrees). Forensic Christians have been at a deep loss to explain why marriage cannot be extended beyond traditional gender bounds

      Read the rest here:

    • M. Stankovich says

      Nate B.,

      If these six pages of text constitute the means by which you reached your “conclusion of inclusion” in regard to homosexuality, might I familiarize you with the Adler & Van Doren’s How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (1940). Because you reached this conclusion, you necessarily must conclude the same of Met. Anthony (Bloom), Met. Kallistos (Ware), Bishop Basil (Rodzianko), Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, and Professor SS Verhovskoy as they profess nearly the identical concepts – verbatim – as Fr. Chancellor Jillions does on pp. 80-86 & 52-57 his 2005 dissertation. And being the scholar that you are, friend, I will forgo my customary urge to serve as research assistant for you, as this “validation” should be a walk in the park.

      The fact is that Fr. John, speaking before a “mixed audience,” used a secular term that is common to demographics and epidemiology and utilized it in a totally benign manner. Mr. Michalopulos, on the other hand, who is so busy not being bitter & hostile, fabricated a narcotizing “psychodynamic” on the Eve of the Raising of Lazarus for what? Thought it might be a nice idea to begin Holy Week by muddying-up the Chancellor’s character again? And you would wish to “pile on” with an ignorant misinterpretation of what the fathers of our generation wrote 25-30 years before Fr. Jillions and we have referred to as wisdom. Nice touch. Indeed. Kudos all around.

      • The Black Dickens says

        My Dearest Mr. Stankovich,

        I wanted to inform you that there are indeed those of us who deeply appreciate your spirited defences of the legacy of Frs. Schmemann, Meyendorff, and, of course, “Prof” Verhovskoy. Bravo, sir!

        Still eluding you after all these years,
        Your Nemesis,

      • Quotes from Chancellor Jillions, “The Language of Enemies”

        “The Orthodox Church acts as an ‘identity group’ but it functions differently in each case. An identity group ‘is any group with a capacity to impart a sense of identity to its members, even though not all members of the group relate to it in a primary way.’ This could become a problem for group cohesion. Indeed, such diversity can threaten a group’s uniqueness and ultimately its survival. For this reason, ‘identity groups struggle over who is in the group and who is not.’ Should those who don’t identify enough with the group be given less of a role? Should they be not allowed to receive communion? Should they not be allowed to vote at meetings? Should they be barred from leadership positions? If they are clergy, should they be given a leave-of-absence, suspended or deposed?”

        “The Orthodox churches have also been affected by these developments but on the whole it seems to me that fidelity to the past and its culture of enemies and anathemas continues to make it difficult for the Orthodox to be open to the ‘new ways of looking at and even formulating, creeds and confessions’ that Pelikan is hoping for. Can the Orthodox churches begin to see others, and especially other Christians, no longer as enemies, or as mere recipients of our true witness, but as those in whom the Holy Spirit is indeed active and from whom we have something to learn, without feeling that this is a threat to Orthodoxy?”

        “If Pelikan is right about the force of popular faith in shaping Christian history then we can be optimistic about the emergence of a generous Orthodoxy that remains faithful to itself, but is less fearful and more open to all that is good, beautiful and true.”

        “The sense of being ‘tainted’ by association with non-Orthodox is found sometimes among Orthodox who participate in ecumenical conversations. Even in the most progressive official church pronouncements on ecumenism such as the OCA’s Encyclical on Christian Unity and Ecumenism (1973), it is impossible to find any reference to listening to others, to learning from others, to considering alternative points of view or looking for approaches to new common issues that we face. Nor does it raise the possibility that the Spirit of God may be moving in unexpected ways outside the familiar precedents of Orthodox Tradition. In this document, any positive regard for the other is based entirely upon what remnants in others can still be recognized as Orthodox. There is no positive evaluation of the non-Orthodox tradition on its own or any acknowledgement that–regardless of the origins of the group–the Spirit of God may be working in it as part of the divine plan of a God who is accustomed to bringing light out of darkness. The emphasis throughout is that Orthodox participation with non-Orthodox in ecumenical settings is for the sole purpose of making an effective witness that could eventually lead to the incorporation of the other into the Orthodox Church.”

        “A key desire of any person or group is to preserve their unique identity, as noted earlier. ‘No culture exists within which everyone does not feel different from others and does not consider such differences legitimate and necessary.’ To question this uniqueness is to threaten a core aspect of identity, and this can provoke not only deep conflict, but scapegoating, since ‘victims are chosen because they call into question a group’s sense of distinctiveness.’ At other times scapegoats are people who excel and are stigmatized as thinking they are better than others. By expelling the scapegoat, the one they believe is the cause of the disruption, the group can preserve its identity and restore the peace it had before the identity was questioned.”

        “This ‘being as communion’ as Metropolitan John Zizioulas has expressed it, is the discovery of personhood through mutual submission in a communion of love where each allows the other to be himself or herself.” … If this is what God desires for each of us, then this is precisely what we are called to give in turn to the other, including the enemy, the one who is different.”

        “Redekop’s framework helps us to conceptualize the role of enemies and boundaries in the Orthodox tradition and to see how deeply tied these are to identity. the inherited tradition of demonizing enemies through ‘structures of violence’ has played a major role in how Orthodox relate to those who are outside the boundaries or threaten the boundaries. Is it possible for us to transcend this history and create ‘structures of blessing’ for others and ourselves, without losing our own identity? Redekop’s language may require some “translation” for Orthodox to accept, but I believe the processes he outlines are accurate descriptions of experience, both personal and ecclesial. We, as Orthodox, have become stuck in a ‘closed system’ that makes us prone to stereotype, dehumanize, and demonize the other. Against its instincts for Catholicity, Orthodoxy has become, whether we like it or not, one confession among many, and this has only reinforced its sense of isolation, embattlement and exclusivity as its tries to reassure itself of its own uniqueness.”

        • Michael Bauman says

          Emptiness masquerading as profundity. Academic socio-babble to open the way for modern egalitarian, nihilist denial.

        • M. Stankovich says

          Theological learning itself is subject to development. Dogmatic theology can use various methods; it can be supplemented by material for further study; it can make a greater or lesser use of the facts of exegesis (the interpretation of the text of Sacred Scripture), of Biblical philology, of Church history, of Patristic writings, and likewise of rational concepts; it can respond more fully or more timidly to heresies, false teachings and various currents of contemporary religious thought. But theological learning (as opposed to theology proper) is an outward subject in relation to the spiritual life of the Church. It only studies the work of the Church and its dogmatic and other decrees. Dogmatic theology as a branch of learning can develop, but it cannot develop and perfect the teaching of the Church. (One may see an approximate analogy of this in the study of any writer: Pushkinology, for example, can grow, but from this the sum of the thoughts and images placed into his work by the poet himself is not increased.) The flowering or decline of theological learning can coincide or fail to coincide with the general level, with the rise or decline of spiritual life in the Church at one or another historical period. The development of theological learning can be impeded without loss to the essence of spiritual life. Theological learning is not called to guide the Church in its entirety; it is proper for it to seek out and to keep strictly to the guidance of the Church’s consciousness.

          Dogmas & Opinions Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

          The main distinctive mark of Patristic theology was its “existential” character, if we may use this current neologism. The Fathers theologized, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus put it, “in the manner of the Apostles, not in that of Aristotle” (Hom. 23. 12). Apart from life in Christ, theology carries no conviction and, if separated from the life of faith, theology may degenerate into empty dialectics, a vain polylogia, without any spiritual consequence. Patristic theology was existentially rooted in the decisive commitment of faith. “Theology” is not an end in itself. It is always but a way. Theology, and even the “dogmas,” present no more than an “intellectual contour” of the revealed truth, and a “noetic” testimony to it. Only in the act of faith is this “contour” filled with content. It is a dangerous habit “to quote” the Fathers, that is, their isolated sayings and phrases, outside of that concrete setting in which only they have their full and proper meaning and are truly alive. “To follow” the Fathers does not mean just “to quote” them. “To follow” the Fathers means to acquire their “mind,” their phronema. Now, we have reached the crucial point. The name of “Church Fathers” is usually restricted to the teachers of the Ancient Church. And it is currently assumed that their authority depends upon their “antiquity,” upon their comparative nearness to the “Primitive Church,” to the initial “Age” of the Church. As an admission of our own failure and inadequacy, as an act of humble self-criticism, such an assumption is sound and helpful. But it is dangerous to make of it the starting point or basis of our “theology of Church history,” or even of our theology of the Church. Indeed, the Age of the Apostles should retain its unique position. Yet, it was just a beginning. It is widely assumed that the “Age of the Fathers” has also ended, and accordingly it is regarded just as an ancient formation, “antiquated” in a sense and “archaic.”

          Our theological thinking has been dangerously affected by the pattern of decay, adopted for the interpretation of Christian history in the West since the Reformation. The fullness of the Church was then interpreted in a static manner, and the attitude to Antiquity has been accordingly distorted and misconstrued. After all, it does not make much difference, whether we restrict the normative authority of the Church to one century, or to five, or to eight. There should he no restriction at all. Consequently, there is no room for any “theology of repetition.” The Church is still fully authoritative as she has been in the ages past, since the Spirit of Truth quickens her now no less effectively as in the ancient times. Should we not stand, conscientiously and avowedly, in the same tradition also as “theologians,” as witnesses and teachers of Orthodoxy? Can we retain our integrity in any other way?

          St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers Fr. Georges Florovsky

          I defined the second task of our theology as missionary. To keep with the spirit of the time, I should have probably called it “ecumenical.” But the word ecumenical has of late become so general and so ambiguous that it itself needs to be investigated and redefined. I prefer the slightly outmoded term “missionary” for several reasons. It indicates that Orthodox theology has a mission in the West. It has always been the consensus of Orthodox theologians that their participation in the Ecumenical Movement has as its goal to bring an Orthodox witness to the non-Orthodox, and there is no reason to deny that this implies the idea of conversion to Orthodoxy. I know very well that in current ecumenical thinking the term “conversion” has a bad reputation. But the Orthodox would simply betray both their Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement if now, under the impact of a superficial ecumenical euphoria, they concealed the fact that in their approach conversion is one of the basic components of genuine ecumenical perspective. More than ever, and precisely for deep ecumenical reasons, we must uphold our conviction that only a deep and genuinely Christian idea of conversion, i.e. of a decisive crisis, choice, and commitment to Truth, can give meaning and ultimate seriousness to all “dialogues,” “rapprochements,” and “convergences.” That this term and the reality behind it are regarded today by many as “un-ecumenical” reveals, in fact, an alarming trend; a shift of the ecumenical movement from its original goal — to organic unity in Christ, to a different one — the smooth functioning of pluralistic society; excellent and useful as it may be, this second goal has very little to do with the fundamental Christian values of unity, faith, and truth. Our “mission” then remains the same: to make Orthodoxy known, understood, and, with God’s help, accepted in the West. This mission stems naturally and, so to speak, inescapably from our truly awesome claim that we are Orthodox and that ours is the true Church. This claim is incompatible with any provincialism of thought and vision, ethnic self-consciousness, and self-centeredness.

          For several decades the “ecumenical mission” has been, in fact, a monopoly of a small group of theologians, and it remained virtually unknown to and ignored by the Orthodox Church at large. I think that the time has come to put an end to this rather abnormal situation which, in addition to many other dangers, simply misleads the non-Orthodox by giving them the impression of an “ecumenical” Orthodoxy that does not exist in reality. A missionary orientation must be added to the whole theological structure of the Church and become an organic part of our theological “curriculum.” This brings me to the second meaning of the term missionary, to the “modality” of our approach to the West.

          “Mission” has always meant, at least in the Christian connotations of that term, not only the effort to convert someone to true faith, but also the spiritual disposition of the missionary: his active charity and his self-giving to the “object” of his missionary task. From St. Paul to Bishop Nicholas of Japan there has been no mission without self-identification of the missionary with those to whom God has sent him, without a sacrifice of his personal attachments and his natural values. Mutatis mutandis the same must be said, it seems to me, about the Orthodox mission in the West, and more particularly, about the mission of Orthodox theology. This mission is impossible without some degree of love for the West and for the many authentically Christian values of its culture. Yet, we very often confuse the Universal Truth of the Church with a naive “superiority complex,” with arrogance and self-righteousness, with a childish certitude that everyone ought to share our own enthusiasm about the “splendors of Byzantium,” our “ancient and colorful rites,” and the forms of our Church architecture. It is sad and shocking to hear the West globally condemned and to see a condescending attitude towards the “poor Westerners” on the part of young people who, more often than not, have not read Shakespeare and Cervantes, have never heard about St. Francis of Assisi or listened to Bach. It is sad to realize that there is no greater obstacle to the understanding and acceptance of Orthodoxy than the provincialism, the human pride and the self-righteousness of the Orthodox themselves, their almost complete lack of humility and self-criticism. Yet, Truth always makes humble, and pride in all its forms and expressions is always alien to Truth and is always a sin. It is obviously inconceivable to say that we are “proud of Christ,” but we constantly preach and teach “pride of Orthodoxy.” It is time to understand that if the Orthodox mission is to progress, we must not only transcend and overcome this spirit of self-righteousness, but we must, without denying any genuine value of our Eastern cultural and spiritual heritage, open ourselves towards Western culture and make our own whatever in it “is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious” (Philip. 4:8).

          The missionary task of Orthodox theology must be thus guided by two equally important and interdependent imperatives: the emphasis on Truth as the only genuine ground of all “ecumenical” concern and a real openness to the Western Christian values. At a time when a serious temptation appears to sacrifice Truth for a very sophisticated, very qualified and, because of this, only more dangerous relativism, to replace the search for unity with a search for a religious “peaceful coexistence,” when the very possibility of error and heresy is virtually ruled out by a pseudo-ecumenical doctrine of “convergence,” the Orthodox theologian must stand, alone if necessary, in defense of the very concept of Truth, without which Christianity, for all its “relevance,” denies in fact its own absolute claim. To do this, however, he must himself be open and obedient to all Truth, wherever he finds it.

          The Task of Orthodox Theology in America Today Fr. Alexander Schmemann

          • Ladder of Divine Ascent says

            Stankovich, you should know better than to quote Fr. Pomazansky and Fr. Florovsky along with Fr. Schmemann (in fact parts of that excerpt may have been aimed at Fr. Florovsky). Fr. Pomazansky wrote against Fr. Schmemann’s “already Protestant views,” and Fr. Florovsky was ousted for being too Orthodox from SVS and also had very negative views on Fr. Schmemann, Fr. Meyendorff, and SVS. Fr. Florovsky would actually present Orthodoxy at “Ecumenical Meetings,” we’re the Church, you’re not, and so out goes Fr. Florovsky which ensured no rival for Fr. Schmemann and his modernist “Ecumenism.”

            “It is sad and shocking to hear the West globally condemned and to see a condescending attitude towards the ‘poor Westerners’ on the part of young people who, more often than not, have not read Shakespeare and Cervantes, have never heard about St. Francis of Assisi or listened to Bach.”

            Of course Fr. Schmemann is himself so ignorant of Orthodoxy that he seems unaware that Francis of Assisi is considered a textbook case of prelest by our saints, or he simply willfully ignores that fact, either way showing himself not be fully and purely in the Orthodox tradition.

            • Ilya Zhitomirskiy says

              What does “too Orthodox” even mean? Pomazansky and Florovsky are both traditional Orthodox theologians, who have a proper understanding of the Fathers and their role in the church. About Francis possibly being delusional, it is possible, but I do not know for sure. Stigmata are not necessarily correlated with sanctity. It would take an Eighth and even a Ninth Ecumenical Council to determine if we accept the western saints as part of our diptychs. Ecumenism, at least in the modern sense, is based on a false understanding that there is no absolute source of truth. If we approached ecumenism with the belief that our theology was true, and that there were certain questions that Rome was deviant from us about, then we could resolve our problems, but not if we do it in the current way that implies that there is no absolute truth.

            • M. Stankovich says

              Ladder of Divine Ascent,

              Did you actually read the content of the quotations I provided? There seems to be a significant consensus among the three that those who would imagine 1) everything that needs to be said has already been said are fools; and 2) that those who challenge, for example, St. Gregory Palamas who had no tolerance – in fact scorned – “thinkers” who would attempt to “contain” the inexhaustible energy of the Father or attempt to limit the operation of the Holy Spirit (“Who goes wherever He Wishes”) are simply ignorant.

              You, on the other hand, have managed to trivialize the “message” down to some cheap theatrics of Orthodox gossip and misinterpretation regarding strong personalities; three extraordinarily gifted theologians who, in the end, made their peace with one another. What, exactly is your point? If there is inaccuracy, by all means point it out, but I suspect that this is another example of your People Magazine appreciation for the fathers of our generation.

    • lexcaritas says

      Thank you, Nate, for the link. The term “sexual minorities” is problematic, isn’t it? There are two sexes, male and female. There are men and women. They are naturally in approximate balance by number, though typically there are slighlty more girls born than boys, if I’m not mistaken. In addition, men typically predecease women, so I suppose, technically, men are the minority.

      There aren’t other sexual minorities. So, something else is obviously hinted at by the terminology and it must be the sexual orientation thing, suggesting that it is normal for men to be sexually attracted to men or men and women and for women to be sexually attracted to women or to women and to men.

      This whole way of thinking is to debase holy matrimony. It is clear that sexuality is ordered to the making of new offspring. Among human beings, it retains this purpose and is also sanctified through the mystery of matrimony as a way of the commonion and self-donation of persons and the procreation through their union of other new persons.

      But wait, the Chancellor himself told us at the Diocese of the South assembly last summer that there was no culture war going on. That, unfortunately, is the progressivist line, isn’t it? It is intended to discourage and disarm dissent–and it has been working for a generation or more in this country before our very eyes.


  10. Sean Richardson says

    The problem with any classification of people is that it is a political statement, not an accurate one. Women are often classified as a minority, but they are the majority; I know an African-American who is blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned (she was born in Africa, moved to the USA and became a citizen … how much more of an African, American can one be?); Hispanics should be classified as ‘white’; very few Caucasians come from central Russia; the new term is Asian (it used to be Oriental) but does that mean people from India and Palestinians are really Asians, since they come from Asia; and Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples are neither (their ancestors have just been here longer than the rest of ours have).

    Once the spiritual element has been removed from marriage, then marriage becomes only a contract between people. If all marriage is, is a contract, then there is no reasonable reason why more than two consenting adults cannot enter into that contract. I hate the idea, on a lot of levels, but it’s the direction our society and government have decided to go … but not all of us agree with the road we are traveling.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Sean, All the more reason that the Church should not recognize and ‘state’ marriage or marriage from a supposedly Chrisitian confession that acceeds to the public demands, until it has been blessed by the Church.


    • See Fr. Stephen Freeman on the blog Glory to God for all Things for more of a discussion on this.

  11. video update says
  12. If you have reason –….– to suspect he believes, teaches, or preaches anything contrary to the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, or the Tradition of the Church,…

    For starters you can read Priest Jillions glowing endorsement of Priest Dr. Symeon Rodger’s book The 5 Pillars of Life: Reclaiming Ownership of Your Mind, Body and Future—How Ancient Traditions Can Give You Back Tranquility, Control, Health, Love and Security, found here:

    Priest Symeon Rodger is an Orthodox priest in Ottawa. He wrote this book without the blessing of his spiritual father or his hierarch, Abp. Seraphim. It is my understanding that Fr. Thomas Hopko refuted the book as heretical.

    He and Priest Jillions are friends and served at the Cathedral together.

    Info about Priest Rodger can be found here: In addition, an interview done by Brian Vaszily of Intense Experiences ( with Priest Rodger can be found here:

  13. cynthia curran says

    The problem with any classification of people is that it is a political statement, not an accurate one. Women are often classified as a minority, but they are the majority; I know an African-American who is blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned (she was born in Africa, moved to the USA and became a citizen … how much more of an African, American can one be?); Hispanics should be classified as ‘white’; very few Caucasians come from central Russia; the new term is Asian (it used to be Oriental) but does that mean people from India and Palestinians are really Asians, since they come from Asia; and Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples are neither (their ancestors have just been here longer than the rest of ours have).
    Genes from the Vandals maybe, but most were killed off by the Justinianian reconquest of Carthage and other parts of north Africa.

    • nit picker says

      Cynthia you bring up an interesting point and what I believe is part of George Michalopulos’ running motif throughout a great many of his posts.

      The problem with any classification of people is that it is a political statement

      Very true. Then you mention the example about women as a “minority” even though logistically, they are a majority. Minority then in what sense (politically speaking). Then it is a question of how the political system views the populace, isn’t it? There was a time when women could not vote, seek education, own property, testify in court. Women, in terms of contributing to the larger society were indeed a “minority.” The “rights” of women as legal citizens were non existent, in this way, yes, they were a minority. They received some rights, but still, they were still a minority, not receiving equal compensation for the same amount of work etc.

      Minority has come to mean someone who is viewed as “oppressed.” Oppression has come to be viewed as having behavior inhibited which a person should otherwise be free to exercise under the law of a country or state where they reside (it’s obvious how this thinking is problematic, isn’t it?). This is where it starts to get messy. What if same sex unions aren’t clearly defined? “But, but, I’m a minority!! I’m oppressed!!” Cry Adam and Steve. “You need to honor our uniqueness, love and suffering!” Let the court cases roll….

      This is the problem with the classification of individuals as minorities. They are given rights and “entitlements” they would not otherwise receive because they are viewed as historically oppressed. It is a way of leveling out the playing field against the evil, white, Anglo-Saxon male who is universally assumed to be the oppressor and must continually apologize for being born into society that way. It’s manipulation of the law and freedom in the worst possible way. :p

  14. M. Stankovich wrote: you have reason –….– to suspect he believes, teaches, or preaches anything contrary to the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, or the Tradition of the Church,…

    For starters you can read Priest Jillions glowing endorsement of Priest Dr. Symeon Rodger’s book The 5 Pillars of Life: Reclaiming Ownership of Your Mind, Body and Future—How Ancient Traditions Can Give You Back Tranquility, Control, Health, Love and Security, found here:

    Priest Symeon Rodger is an Orthodox priest in Ottawa. He wrote this book without the blessing of his spiritual father or his hierarch, Abp. Seraphim. It is my understanding that Fr. Thomas Hopko refuted the book as heretical.

    He and Priest Jillions are friends and served at the Cathedral together.

    Info about Priest Rodger can be found here: In addition, an interview done by Brian Vaszily of Intense Experiences ( with Priest Rodger can be found here:

  15. M. Stankovich wrote : If you have reason –….– to suspect he believes, teaches, or preaches anything contrary to the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, or the Tradition of the Church,…

    For starters you can read Priest Jillions glowing endorsement of Priest Dr. Symeon Rodger’s book The 5 Pillars of Life: Reclaiming Ownership of Your Mind, Body and Future—How Ancient Traditions Can Give You Back Tranquility, Control, Health, Love and Security, found here: Priest Symeon Rodger is an Orthodox priest in Ottawa. He wrote this book without the blessing of his spiritual father or his hierarch, Abp. Seraphim. It is my understanding that Fr. Thomas Hopko refuted the book as heretical. He and Priest Jillions are friends and served at the Cathedral together.

    • Carl Kraeff says

      It is far from a “glowing” endorsement. Why don’t you read one more time?

  16. Additionally, Info about Priest Rodger can be found here: In addition, an interview done by Brian Vaszily of Intense Experiences ( with Priest Rodger can be found here:

  17. Additionally,
    Info about Priest Rodger can be found here: An interview done by Brian Vaszily of Intense Experiences ( with Priest Rodger can be found on YouTube. (

  18. cyntha curran says

    I’ve noticed in recent years an increase in what could appear to be white slavery of not only females but also males in countries such as Greece, Albania, Romania, but not only. Young people from traditionally Orthodox populations have been lured to places such as Monte Carlo, the Riviera, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany (to name a few locations) under the promise of escaping poverty, making easy money and adventure and performing honorable and respectable jobs (being nannies, house keepers, bus boys, hotel clerks, waiters etc.). When they arrive their passports are confiscated from them under the guise of arranging their visas (so they can’t escape or travel at will), they find that they are underpaid if they are paid at all, and that part of what is demanded of them is that they also offer services as prostitutes. This, of course leads to a down ward spiral in health and eventually leads to drug usage and all the other problems that are part and parcel of these situations. This is true and it was going on in the age of Justinian too were a lot of girls in the country side sold their daughters because they thought they would get a better life in the big city of Constantinople and the Justinian Code punished pimps and Theodora and Justinian had a convent for the escape of some of these girls.

  19. cyntha curran says

    As Thomas Sowell once said the real white people of the Roman Empire the Germans who moved into to served in the Roman Army were considered the Third World people of there time. Romans actually were involved in selling the Germans children into slavery so the Germans could eat dog meat. Some Germans were allowed to settled in the Roman Empire as Federate because of military service. So, minority of modern times is different from Roman Times.

  20. Michael Kinsey says

    I read pages 80-88. I refered to the words in the pages Fr. Jillions wrote in his thesis twice. Captor/abuser/rapist/torturer. Page 82, Structure of Blessings. He mentions reconciling, and a method to do it, apparently between Christians and the gay agenda among other conflicts. It is uttermost absurdity to attempt to use this methodlogy.He starts both sides on an equal plain of evil doing to each other, requiring recompense and legal liability by both sides. The homosexual agenda has no valid claim of evil doing by Christians. Homophobia is a secularist invention, that cannot be appied in a judeo-christian value system, as is declaring gay marriage an abomination.Applying the Fr.Jillions method requires abandoning the judeo-christuan value system or at least, considering the secularist system equal to it. It is not equal, as a lie is not equal to the Truth.I had an earlier post that has not appeared ,yet.His method requires Christians start his process by believing a lie. This guy is really a slick, slimey, ( ) and uppity kinda fits too. He has no tolerance for commonsense.

    • Michael Kinsey says

      Declaring gay marriage an abomination is the opposite, it applies the secular system, and condems Christians. Which would require compromise of the Truth, on our part, in order to reconcile. If this is what Fr. Jillions intended to do, the OCA will end up like the Episcipkees.

  21. Michael Bauman says

    For any one who doubts the attitude and approach we should take toward those broken by sin, we should heed the words and the spirit of the Unction service tonight, especially Gal 6: 1-10.

  22. Michael Kinsey says

    Another feeble attempt to transform an incident that happen 25 years ago, in a permenent state of rage for 25 years.This is an attempt to demonize me. Your really typical of the the pro-homosexual agenda mindset. Swallowing the camel and straining out the knat. You have not got my goat, my dear, but your trying to. After all according the the gays there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. B–ch and b–tches.I still retain an easy politeness I had as a young man and employ it daily.The camel is gay predation within the church, and the knat is a twinge of anger, I feel when I remember it, which is seldom.Do not tonsure or ordain repentant gays unless they have the blessing of an authentic Orthodox elder, like Fr. Seraphim did. The elders will not send preditors to guide and lead the flock, thier good shepards.

  23. Carl Kraeff says:
    Carl Kraeff wrote:

    May 6, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    Dear Professor, Christ is risen!

    In the off chance that “Cyrill” above refers to me (for you know that my baptismal name is indeed Kyrill), I must say that I derive a certain guilty pleasure of being alluded to as the Grand Inquisitor for Schismatic Activities and Statements. Besides, I have no doubt whatsoever that all Orthodox Churches, to include the Orthodox Church in America, have a common position on homosexuality, which boils down to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” In addition, I am not bothered by anybody misinterpreting Mr. Stankovich’s sarcastically on point remark. That is, I do acknowledge that some will inevitably misinterpret Mr. Stankovich even if he were an angel sent to us by the Lord Himself. Indeed, there are some here who would disagree and criticise the Lord Himself if He did not agree with their narrow POV and agenda.


    You are correct that we are called to hate the sin but not the sinner. However what if the sinner does not think that his homosexuality is a sin?

    Do you think it is appropriate for a homosexual who does not consider his lifestyle a sin to hold the Holy Gospel during the Paschal procession at Pascha, and from his unrepentant hands present the Gospel for the Priest to read? Do you think that is ok? Do you think that such “inclusion” is appropriate?

    • Carl Kraeff says

      Dear Albert–I have two answers for you.

      First, as a general proposition, we have a huge problem in the West with defining deviancy down. On another occasion I said this “Defining down deviancy is a huge problem indeed and goes hand in hand with defining down the human potential of sanctification. Thus, the focus to feeling good, to getting along, to eschew criticism, to become warm, instead of hot, Christians. I believe the Lord had the last say on this. So, the problem with most “liberal” or “enlightened” Christians is the Lord’s promise that He will spit them out. They live in delusion indeed.” So, it is incumbent on the Orthodox Church to continue to maintain that homosexual conduct is a sin, as are a number of other sexual sins, such as adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy. It is the job of the Church to proclaim the truth and the job of each one of us to accept this truth. Such acceptance does not guarantee that one does not sin, of course. But, I would think that any serious Orthodox would at least have to start from such basic premises. If an Orthodox person continues not to believe such premises, then they have separated themselves from the Body.

      The second answer is more nuanced. The example you gave is obviously one from experience and not a figment of your imagination. Thus, anything that I say in relation to what happened at the Paschal procession would be judging real persons; the person carrying the Holy Bible and the person in authority (priest or bishop) who allowed it to happen. Since I am not in a position to judge, my answer to you is to present your case to the person immediately above whoever made this decision. If your case was hypothetical, however, I would agree with you that it was not right. And, I would repeat my argument against defining deviancy down.

      • Cyril,

        Thank you for your answer that in a hypothetical situation it would be wrong for a gay man who does not believe his lifestyle is sinful, should not hold the Holy Gospel on the most holy night in the life of the Church, on the Pascha of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

        You suggest in your more “nuanced” answer that if the situation is true that somehow we must be more careful as to how we respond seems guarded, but maybe you need more information.

        The situation I referred to is not hypothetical, it is real and it happened on Saturday night last. Not only did it happen but it happened in a highly profiled and featured photo report on the OCA website. It took place not at any parish but at the parish that His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon is responsible to shepherd, his own altar at St. Sergius Chapel in Oyster Bay Cove, NY, the headquarters of the Orthodox Church in America where Chancellor John Jillions was the main celebrant, responsible for this most festive night!

        The lifestyle of the person in question is known to those who permitted him to hold the Gospel in the Paschal procession. The person in question is the brother of a protodeacon who serves and attends the Chapel and the brother-in-law of Chancellor Jillions. The Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America is well aware of this person’s lifestyle since he is a relative of his family and this person has been “out” for decades. Thus the question becomes, why would the leadership of the Orthodox Church in America do such a thing?

        The question has several possible answers.

        1. They did not think about the possible ramifications of such an action. In other words, an innocent act.
        2. They knew of his lifestyle and did not think it was an issue – which presents a bevy of other questions.
        3. They knew of his lifestyle and felt it was not an impediment to him holding the Holy Gospel, this giving tacit consent to his lifestyle.
        4. They knew of his lifestyle and wished to make a statement of “inclusion” that the Orthodox Church in America needs to do more to include such people in their parishes.
        5. They knew of his lifestyle and believe that the Church is wrong and should allow openly gay people to have high public positions in the Church.

        6. I am sure that there are other answers to the question, but another that comes to mind is did they receive a blessing from Metropolitan Tikhon for their action, or did they take it upon themselves (because they know better?) to allow this to happen?

        The family in question has made their peace with the fact that a family member is gay. They also do not think that it is wrong nor worse think it is a sin. I don’t question that the person in question is a successful doctor, nor that he is a nice person, albeit not much of a churchgoer, but nonetheless a nice guy, however, Cyril has you stated, it is wrong in the hypothetical.

        Thus, my question to you is, is such a real situation any less wrong since it is not in the hypothetical?

        I have to conclude that those who are being paid by us as members of the Orthodox Church in America did us a disservice, at the very least shallow thinking as to the consequences of their actions in presenting this man with the Holy Gospel at Pascha, or are we dealing with a more arrogant display that they know better on this issue and the rest of us should just “get educated” as to gays in the Church?

        In any event, if they thought this display of “inclusion” would go unnoticed, they were wrong, and worse, if they were sending us a signal, then the problems in the OCA run much deeper than we might wish to face and apparently they start at the top with the OCA Chancellor and his family.

        • Carl Kraeff says

          Dear Albert–Here is what I would have done:

          Not being a fly-on-the-wall during this man’s confessions, I would not have assumed that he is an unrepentant, public sinner. Thus, I would not have assumed, as you have done, that his active homosexual lifestyle has been condoned by Fr Jillions or Metropolitan Tikhon. I certainly would not have concluded that these two OCA leaders’ position on homosexuality has softened. Finally, I would not have brought this up into the public square until I exhausted the steps spelled out in the Holy Bible.

          (1) I would have asked this man is he is an unrepentant active homosexual.

          (2) if the answer were in the affirmative, I would have taken this matter with Fr. Jillions and given him sufficient time to do his thing.

          (3) If Fr Jillions did nothing after a while, say three months, I would have written my complaint to Metropolitan Tikhon.

          (4) If the Metropolitan did not do anything after a while, say 12 months, then I would bring it up to the entire church, to include what you have done on Monomakhos after less than a handful of days since this event.

          • Cyril,

            What a beautiful non-answer based on your assumption that I have assumed anything. I guess your answer proves one point, these guys in Syosset can get away with just about anything and someone like you who has invested so much in them can’t bring yourself to admit that what they did was wrong. Now that it is in the public square let’s just see if they do anything about it.

            I doubt it. Why, because folks like you are willing to give them pass after pass after pass. And in that, you become part of the problem and not part of the solution and the OCA slips a little bit more under the waves.

            • Carl Kraeff says

              Dear Albert–It is precisely because I have no knowledge about what steps you took before posting your accusation that I posted what actions I would have taken IAW Biblical principles. You have obviously concluded that it is right for you to go to “entire church.” I am not going to judge you. I also refuse to judge Father Jillions, the man in question (whom I do not know), or Metropolitan Tikhon, not only because I do not have direct knowledge of the situation and have not proceeded through the steps that are required, but also because it is not my place to do so. The only thing that I can do is to affirm the traditional Orthodox position on homosexuality. I have done so repeatedly and publicly in more than one forum. I have also talked in private with folks about this issue but those conversations are none of anyone’s business.

              • Carl,

                Thank you for your reply, however I find it curious that you expounded at length about Met. Jonah, someone you did not know personally, yet you had much to say about him. At this point, you have been given information, if you wish to pursue it, you are free to ask questions and draw conclusions like you did with Jonah. Seems like you choose not to find out more on this issue. I guess you can avert your eyes, but I won’t.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  Dear Albert–I was initially going to agree with you that I have been inconsistent. OTOH, one individual was the Metropolitan of my church and the other is a person whom I do not know. In the case of +Jonah, I was affected by my feelings for him, turning from adoration and respect to bitter disappointment. I was also affected by the vicious, evil and unconscionable attacks by his supporters against, what seemed to had been, the rest of the church. Nonetheless, I see that I was indeed judgmental in the former case, for which I am indeed sorry but, as my remark above about his supporters shows, I am unable to shed completely. I clearly have work to do. In Christ, Kyrill

            • M. Stankovich says


              Quite apart from any legitimate “question” you might have – and I do believe your original question is legitimate – I find it despicable that you hide your own identity, yet find it appropriate to “out” someone who is neither a public figure, who is not answerable to you or anyone, nor subject to any terms of “transparency & accountability.” And regardless of the fact that they might “live the lifestyle” openly, who are you to post their information on the internet? Please, distinguish for me the difference between your placing this “in the public square” and what the Fathers refer to as “murderous gossip?

              Are you aware of any spiritual relationship this person may have with a priest or confessor, or are you simply presuming because he is “not much of a churchgoer?” Perhaps he confessed? Perhaps he is being counseled? Perhaps every aspect of his “lifestyle” is not known to you? Perhaps you never wanted “answers” to your disingenuous questions to begin with as you came prepared with six “possible answers?” Were you even there or did you just hear gossip?

              The only conclusion is that you are the problem and will never be a part of the solution. Rather than address a legitimate question as a responsible individual, you chose to come here as a Pharisaic lawyer. Dumb move. Now you will be seen as a crank and ignored when you had a right to a legitimate answer. In my estimation, you deserve it.

              • Michael,

                It was wrong for this man to hold the Gospel. It was not thought out, it was just done as a “nice gesture.” The man has no relationship with the Orthodox Church except showing up at Easter and maybe Christmas. He is not a bad person, but he is an unrepentant sinner and his own family has no problem with his lifestyle.

                As for your judgement of me, I do not live to please you. But it is clear that you will ignore this issue because it might force you to admit that my original question was not only legitimate but serious and it should be addressed by OCA discipline. But, fat chance of that, so at least I can confess that I did not avert my eyes from a blatant wrong committed at the very heart of the OCA.

                • M. Stankovich says


                  You seem to have missed me saying “I do believe your original question is legitimate,” so the only thing I am “forced” to admit is that you managed to avoid all the questions I posed entirely, which I must admit does not please me. While your question is, indeed, legitimate, the answer(s) to my questions may mitigate “a blatant wrong committed at the very heart of the OCA.” I suggest it is you who are judgmental here, not me, because if you actually knew the answers to my questions I would bet real money you’d have been in my face with the answers.

                  Mr. Kraeff picked you out immediately from your first Pharisaic question as a disingenuous, self-righteous creep who heard gossip, cannot answer my questions as to the “spiritual life” of the person in question, yet would anonymously throw stones at the Chancellor and Metropolitan claiming a “moral high-ground.” No one needs to judge you, Albert. You are transparent & accountable.

              • The man is in the public arena and if he is living a certain lifestyle openly, then this is public knowledge to be observed by all and confusing to many.
                Secondly I don’t know who he is talking about so he’s not telling anyone anything they don’t already know . . .

      • Tell It to the Church says

        “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.
        If they listen to you, you have won them over.

        But if they will not listen, take one or two others along,
        so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

        If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church;
        and if they refuse to listen even to the church,
        treat them as you would a heretic or a tax collector.”

        –Matthew 18:15-17