Fr Alexander F C Webster: Transfigure or Die Trying

Source: AOI

American Orthodoxy in the Public Square

Fr. Alexander F.C. Webster

Fr. Alexander F.C. Webster

In the next issue of Touchstone Magazine, Fr. Alexander Webster offers a stinging but thoughtful critique of the decline of American culture to describe how the “sacrificial ethos of the eucharist” can transfigure personal life in ways that can restore and strengthen it.

Fr. Webster writes:

The prevailing political and cultural elites in America are succeeding, steadily and surely, in plunging our society into a post- Christian vortex that bears a striking resemblance in many ways to the formative centuries of the ancient Church. Faithful early Christians had to endure an inhospitable culture and a decadent ethos, as well as a hostile state.

America is arguably at the mercy of militant secular progressives hell- bent on subverting the cherished moral virtues of life, family, chastity, work, responsibility, and piety. Reaping an unprecedented harvest of more than 55 million legally aborted babies since 1973, our society is drowning in a sea of idolatrous self-worship, pursuing its own modern version of “bread and circuses” through increasingly violent and vulgar forms of entertainment and self- expression, a permanent welfare state from cradle to grave, unrestricted sex, artificially constructed sexual identities, and a push for publicly sanctioned “marriages” between persons of the same sex—a contra naturam abomination that even ancient Rome at its worst moments never imagined.

It’s a penetrating essay that reflects the seriousness with which prominent Orthodox thinkers and commentators are addressing our cultural decline. The drink deeply from the well of the Orthodox Tradition, particularly anthropology. Many of the cultural conflicts — feminism, confusion about the value of unborn life, sexual-identity construction, homosexuality — are anthropological in character. All these movements, debates, and conflicts ask a single question: What does is mean to be human; what is male and what is female?

These conflicts call for what Fr. Webster defines as a “transfigurative moral witness.” We need “bishops with muscle” and men not afraid to speak the truth.

Unfortunately we cannot reproduce the entire article except for the first two paragraphs although they are compelling and should encourage you to subscribe to Touchstone Magazine so you can read the entire essay. The only other option is to wait until after June, 2015 when the essay will be archived and open to the public.

Subscribe here:

Subscribe to Touchstone Magazine

Subscribe to Touchstone Magazine

Comments

  1. Fr. Alexander:

    The prevailing political and cultural elites in America are succeeding, steadily and surely, in plunging our society into a post- Christian vortex that bears a striking resemblance in many ways to the formative centuries of the ancient Church. Faithful early Christians had to endure an inhospitable culture and a decadent ethos, as well as a hostile state.

    Why can’t you people offer something positive and constructive for once? Why must you always play the victim of the larger culture? Stop nursing your sense of grievance and change the world for the better. Then, maybe people would pay attention….

    • lexcaritas says

      No disagreement about offering something positive, OOM. Would you like to start us in that direction?

      lxc

      • lexcaritas:

        No disagreement about offering something positive, OOM. Would you like to start us in that direction?

        I don’t consider myself a leader. I am, however, looking for leadership. What seems on offer here is nothing new and nothing inspiring. It’s just a rehash of the same old complaints about the degeneration of the culture. Fr. Alexander is peddling shopworn ideas, and he’s peddling his version of Christ. Not too many people are buying.

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          OOM declares, Fr. Alexander is peddling shopworn ideas.

          I read the piece again, to see if I could spot the “shopworn ideas” OOM had in mind.

          It wasn’t hard. Evidently OOM was referring to:

          “Faithful early Christians had to endure an inhospitable culture and a decadent ethos, as well as a hostile state. . . . Orthodox thinkers and commentators are addressing our cultural decline. They drink deeply from the well of the Orthodox Tradition, particularly anthropology. . . . These conflicts call for what Fr. Webster defines as a ‘transfigurative moral witness.’”

          Or perhaps OOM takes offense at Webster’s reference to ““sacrificial ethos of the eucharist.”

          • Patrick:

            Or perhaps OOM takes offense at Webster’s reference to ““sacrificial ethos of the eucharist.”

            I take offense at phony pompous diction like ‘sacrificial ethos of the Eucharist’ and ‘transfiguratIve moral witness.’ In my experience the more tortured the syntax, the more vacuous the idea.

            • Patrick Henry Reardon says

              OOM declares, I take offense at phony pompous diction like ‘sacrificial ethos of the Eucharist’ and ‘transfiguratIve moral witness.’

              Yes, that’s what I thought you meant by “shopworn ideas.”\

              In my experience the more tortured the syntax, the more vacuous the idea.

              Syntax pertains to sentences, OOM. The quoted expressions, to which you object, are not sentences.

              • Syntax also pertains to syntactic constituents including PHRASES.

                • What’s the difference between a syntax and syntactic constituents? Oh, and what’s the difference between the Church and the State? Maybe the two should merge and then we could call it The ChurchState? This might be a good compromise.

                  BTW I am an “out” homosexual Orthodox man. (My boyfriend is Jewish.) My priest is fully supportive of me and my homosexual lifestyle. I am served the Eucharist regularly.

                  • Jerry, I am a homosexual Orthodox too! My husband and I are mostly “in the closest” at Church, but our priest and a small handful of parishoners are in the know. We see how the Orthodox Church is evolving, and know that someday soon, with prayer and fasting, we truly will all be One in Christ. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

                  • Patrick Henry Reardon says

                    Jerry announces, “I am an ‘out’ homosexual Orthodox man. (My boyfriend is Jewish.) My priest is fully supportive of me and my homosexual lifestyle. I am served the Eucharist regularly.”

                    This was all prophesied: 2 Timothy 4:3.

                    • Charles P. says

                      Father Patrick, Jerry and Richard and I (and our priests) will pray for you! Many Orthodox priests and parishioners are homosexual. (We have our own special “club”.) It is only a matter of time before we are able to emerge into the public eye. We are waiting (and praying!) patiently. We love you and all Orthodox Christians. Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Christ is risen!

                    • homosexualorthodox says

                      My Homosexual Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I’m glad to see we’re starting to come out of the closet. I am a homosexual Orthodox man in a Midwestern Antiochian parish. My priest is supportive of my lifestyle. I receive the Eucharist almost weekly. Fellow Orthodox Homosexuals, please know you are not alone. There is acceptance in the Church. Christ is Risen!

                    • Daniel E Fall says

                      I say Jerry is really Betty Bowers.

                    • Well, that does confirm what many have been saying here (and elsewhere) for some time.

                      I will pray that God enlightens these two. If that happens-and I would say it’s going in the opposite direction- but if . . . it would only invalidate the faith for them. The church will split in two. You simply cannot just throw away scripture, the Fathers and Tradition or you throw away the Church. It’s that simple. You submit to God and His ways or you submit to yourself and your own ideas because you know better than God. . . . .

                  • Estonian Slovak says

                    To Jerry,
                    If what you say is true, your priest is sick, sad, and out of his damn mind.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    Ah, the signs of summer: school’s out and the trolls are fishing! Don’t bite kids!

                  • We can only hope you aren’t receiving it into condemnation. Your priest is not the Church, and by virtue of your announcement, you know he’s out of step with the Church.

                    • Estonian Slovak says

                      I apologize for the immoderate language above. I certainly don’t enjoy trashing a priest, especially not with my own sins. But this does raise the question, what motivates a priest to give communion and thereby his blessing, to someone living a lifestyle which the church has never accepted?
                      I know some priests have made their peace with the Masons; I suspect often the priest doesn’t want to lose the money such people provide. Or maybe, they, like most of us, don’t really want to tangle with the world around us.
                      Since so much has been written here about all this gay stuff, let me point out that the devil is fighting us on many fronts. I have a married son who happens to work with me. A female co-worker openly said she wants to sleep with my son. Not only is my son married, but she is as well! To add insult to injury, this woman is Orthodox and she knows I am also!
                      She not only converted to her husband’s church, but even learned the language of his ethnicity! So you see what we’re up against.
                      Let me add that I certainly would not support my son if he did cheat on his wife. However, we are dealing with a world which gives it’s approval to any type of relationship. When one reduces sex to recreation, is it any surprise? When priests and evidently some bishops turn their backs on what the church has taught for 2000 years, when we can squander all we have received just to accommodate a hostile world, can the end really be that far away?
                      There is a funny twist to all this. While we Christians are duking it out over these issues, the Moslem population grows. We will see sharia law here, maybe not in my lifetime, but by the time my grandchildren reach adulthood. Then I suspect that all the libs, gay and otherwise, will call on us for help, but we will all be dead or imprisoned.

                  • Jerry:

                    BTW I am an “out” homosexual Orthodox man. (My boyfriend is Jewish.) My priest is fully supportive of me and my homosexual lifestyle. I am served the Eucharist regularly.

                    Ooh! And with a Jew! CRUCIFY THEM! CRUCIFY THEM!

                  • Daniel E Fall says

                    Jerry-about that sign in the yard…I’d say you are on full discount with sin. Fr Hans is pretty gentle, too.

                    Gross. Just gross.

        • Will Harrington says

          What is this with people equating the gospel with sales? We are called to evangelize, not compromise. If people don’t “buy it” that is no reason to change it. You want the gospel, here it is. Repent, for the kingdom of God is nigh. That’s it, how do you think a call to repentance can, or should be, repackaged? If you are a Christian, you already have a leader. Go and do something visionary and radical. Follow Him. Go to church. Pray, fast, and give alms. Nothing has changed, except the world will be a bit more open about hating you. Quit worrying about, to use your words, “you people”. They are just trying to work out their own repentance. It’s like looking at other people’s plates during Lent. The question isn’t “Why can’t you people offer something positive and constructive for once?” it is what are you doing now, where you are? You have a leader, follow Him.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            WILL!!!!!!! Nonononononononono!You are in error when you say the Gospel is, “Repent for the kingdom of is nigh!” That’s what the Forerunner preached, THE GOSPEL is that the Kingdom is not just “nigh”, but HERE! THAT is what our Lord revealed. If YOU intend to evangelize, get it right, man!

          • Will:

            What is this with people equating the gospel with sales?

            M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R, Will. Look it up. Much of the scriptures are comprised of it, regardless of what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think. Jesus used it. Even the theology about what Jesus accomplished (“redemption,” etc.) uses it.

        • Michael Bauman says

          OOM: Ever consider that Fr. Alexander is not “peddling ideas” at all, but asking people to come to Jesus Christ, a person? That he is trying to introduce others to the Christ he knows?

          Do you not think that the culture is degenerating?

          Putting aside all of the ideological debates, culture wars, etc. Do you not think that the level and extent of violence and rage is horrible and getting worse, here and around the world?

          I am not being sarcastic or trying to make a point. I would like to know.

          • Michael, it’s always been as you describe, the violence, etc. Pointing out that we all live after the fall is not prophetic. We DO need a way forward. Nothing I’ve seen from Fr. Alexander points us in the right direction.

            • Fr. Philip (Speranza) says

              “Pointing out that we live after the fall is not prophetic.”

              Ah, but it is! Biblically, the primary use of the word “prophesy” is less a fore-telling than a forth-telling of God’s word to His people at a given point in their history. And given the virulent and ferocious denial by our world that we are indeed fallen creatures and that life as we experience apart from Christ is distorted, bent out of its original and God-intended shape, to forth-tell the reality of our fallenness is, at one level, our starting point. Our whole society and culture really need a loving intervention to get back in touch with reality.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I have something to offer. Sign onto “White Helmets” and support them:

      https://www.whitehelmets.org/

      Would like to invite ALL of those who supported Metropolitan Philip to do something constructive in his honor.

      • Michael Bauman says

        Although I doubt the UN Security Council will or can do anything, it is not a bad suggestion.

      • StephenD says

        Jeepers Gail…How soon you forget…Didn’t you have some scary people watching you when you dared to question Metropolitan Phillip…I think I can find the remarks you made in the Yahoo Orthodox group..

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Yes, Stephen. I had scary people watching me when I questioned Metropolitan Philip. It scarred me in ways I cannot begin to explain.

          But he was charitable. I cannot take that away from him. He loved the Syrian people and so do I. We have that in common.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        So do 3 of you dislike Metropolitan Philip and Syria?

        Or is it just me you don’t like? – Cause I’m good with that!

        Have a safe and reverent Memorial weekend, everyone. 🙂

    • Leftwinger says

      I saw a great bumpersticker recently. It read: BE the change you want to see in the world. Another good one: Life begins BEFORE conception.

  2. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    encourage you to subscribe to Touchstone Magazine

    Here is a a link to a special subscription rate to Touchstone for the friends of George Michalopulos:

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/history

    • Philippa.alan says

      Done! Thank you Fr. Patrick!

    • Links are your friend! It is a great magazine.

    • Pelagia Hoffman says

      Touchstone magazine is way over my head. It caters to the intellectual and cultural elites within the Church.

      • There is nothing elite about Touchstone. The editors seem to aim for what should be the middle — for readers who have what in the 1950s would have been considered a good high school education. The quality of writing and thought is sometimes more uneven than I would like, but not because editor Jim Kirschner doesn’t work indefatigably to make it so… Give it more of a chance. Ideas, as was once famously said, have consequences… And they affect us non-elites most of all.

      • John Pappas says

        Pelagia dear, just because something is over your head does not mean that everyone who knows more than you is an intellectual or cultural elitist.

    • I love Touchstone! It’s so cutting-edge and really speaks to my heart. Thank you Father Pat!

      • Charles P. says

        Yes. At first I found Touchstone a bit homophobic but then I realized I was being judgemental. As an Orthodox homosexual, I always try to embrace everything with an open mind. I especially love the New Anthropology writings. So clear and poignant! Thank you editor Jim K! God bless you and everyone at Touchstone!

  3. Michael James Kinsey says

    He touched upon the touchstone. The authentic transfiguration of the bread and wine , to the Holy Eucharist. If our cleric’s cannot do this, they are useless, and don’t deserve their pay. Unless, you eat of my Body and drink of my Blood, ye have no Life within you. He came, that they may have Life, and Life abundantly. May the Holy Lord bless us with authentic cleric’s and Sacraments.> I write this because some only perform useless empty ritual, being evil trees which bear only evil fruit,, incapable of the Holy Miracles. Gay,s, of course are among the evil trees, shutting up heaven against men, faking being real priests., while the congregation is told , the Holy Sacrament is received, even from the hand of evil trees. The children all say, I don’t feel nothing. when there is nothing spiritual there.

    • Monk James says

      Christ is risen, truly risen!

      The notion that the sinfulness of the clergy makes their ministrations ineffective is a serious theological error known as donatism, a mistaken concept rejected by The Church and corrected once and for all about seventeen centuries ago. I urge our correspondent to research the term and learn how his thinking has run off the rails of the Tradition.

      Clearly, nobody approves of faithless or immoral clergymen, but their failings do not ipso facto disable them from ministry.

      • Christopher says

        Clearly, nobody approves of faithless or immoral clergymen, but their failings do not ipso facto disable them from ministry

        Can not this fact, the fact that we are not “donatists”, be used as a kind of crutch or excuse? I mean, if clergy/bishops are truly preaching another Jesus, does this not mean we the Faithful have to remove them? Yes, the sacraments they perform are still efficacious, but does this mean we simply throw up our hands.

        As I understand it, the donatist “heresy” focuses on the sacraments, not on the clergy themselves (they still have to repent, etc.). In that sense, can we not say that being “faithless” (I don’t include “immoral” as we are all “immoral” under the Law) does in fact “disable” them from the ministry? The sacraments are not “magic”, they can only be done in the Church – and if someone is outside the Church and “performing the sacraments” is it not just that – a performance and not the actual thing? Now of course, the Spirit makes up for our weakness, and it may take time and effort to discover and perform the necessary ecclesiastical actions to remove a faithless priest/bishop – but then, we still do it…

        • I would draw a distinction between the sacraments and preaching.

          A bishop or priest may offer true sacraments while also leading his flock astray by his preaching. So we cannot throw up our hands if heresy is preached, or hide behind donatism. But we can’t conflate the two either.

        • Monk James says

          As a formal category of theology, ‘heresy’ is narrowly defined as an error in Christology and then inferentially as an error in Mariology. These are ways of understanding Jesus and His mother and their roles in our salvation.

          These two bodies of thought concern themselves with two other areas: Triadology and theological anthropology. Here, we’re attempting to appreciate Jesus’s relationship with the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity, and His relationship with us human beings, with and through His holy mother.

          Donatism doesn’t rise to this level of theological thought. It’s an error in ecclesiology, but not a heresy, as classically defined in The Tradition.

          Still, it’s a serious and corrosive error and easily leads people astray, and engenders a myriad of dependent errors. So it’s best to stop it at its source whenever it arises, and so put the minds of the faithful at ease, trusting in Christ and not in weak humanity.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Father James remarks, “Donatism doesn’t rise to this level of theological thought. It’s an error in ecclesiology, but not a heresy, as classically defined in The Tradition.”

            Thank you for this reminder; we tend to blurt out words like “heresy” a bit too freely.

            • Christopher says

              Fr. Patrick/Monk James,

              I thought that “heresy” is technical in the sense that any “heresy” has to be formally defined by an ecumenical council. In that sense, heresy has an almost “historical” character today because there has not been a council for 1300 years and that any modern “heresy” is obviously not formalized.

              Monk James however limits the term quite a bit, to certain kinds of “theological errors” (namely Christological/Trinitarian ones), to the point that whole categories of “theological error” are excluded from the term.

              Is this correct? Can anyone point me to a source?

              • M. Stankovich says

                Christopher,

                You will wait until your teeth fall out for the Monk James to provide you with a source for his epic, self-created “definitions.” He makes them up. Go to Lossky or Meyendorff if you are looking for “technical” explanations of heresy. In the mean time, the works of St. Optatus, whom I originally quoted as the “definer” of the heresy of the Donatists – quite apart from any Ecumenical Council, but nevertheless never disputed – simply defined heresy as “falsification”: “It is far worse than the surrender of the truth. It is the substitution of false teaching for the truth. And so it has been with heretics in every age.” And Blessed Augustine argued Optatus’ case that, “An erroneous doctrine constitutes heresy; schism is separation from the Church.”

                Finally, all of us, as a matter of Tradition, proclaim at the Vespers of the Sunday of the Orthodoxy the following:

                To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so‑called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA.

                At which Ecumenical Council was such a “theological error” determined? Or perhaps we may argue it is not a theological error?

              • Monk James says

                Christopher (May 27, 2015 at 4:24 pm) says:

                Fr. Patrick/Monk James,

                I thought that “heresy” is technical in the sense that any “heresy” has to be formally defined by an ecumenical council. In that sense, heresy has an almost “historical” character today because there has not been a council for 1300 years and that any modern “heresy” is obviously not formalized.

                Monk James however limits the term quite a bit, to certain kinds of “theological errors” (namely Christological/Trinitarian ones), to the point that whole categories of “theological error” are excluded from the term.

                Is this correct? Can anyone point me to a source?

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                There are no new heresies. Even the more bizarre pseudochristian ideas of the 19th century (Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) are merely warmed-over servings of errors in Christology, errors which were identified, rejected, and corrected by the ecumenical synods centuries ago. No completely original heresies have emerged since the 7th synod, but if one truly did appear, we would have to come together as The Church once more to refute it and clarify an expression of our authentically orthodox catholic christian faith in distinction from it.

                Here’s a quotation which I hope ‘Christopher’ and everyone else will find helpful. It follows a concise explanation of salvation and theosis in the context of the ecumenical synods. I am emphasizing the second sentence here in support of my earlier statement here (which I reassert) that all heresies properly so called are errors in Christology/Mariology and/or Triadology. Other theological errors, bad as they are, do not attempt to distort these foundational and essential truths of the Tradition.

                BEGIN QUOTE
                ‘Christ must be fully God and fully human. Each heresy in turn undermined some part of this vital affirmation. Either Christ was made less than God (Arianism); or His humanity was so divided from His Godhead that He became two persons instead of one (Nestorianism); or He was presented as only human (Monophysitism, Monothelitism). Each council defended this affirmation. The first two, held in the fourth century, concentrated upon the earlier part (that Christ must be fully God) and formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. The next four, during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, turned to the second part (the fullness of Christ’s humanity) and also sought to explain how humanity and Godhead could be united in a single person. The seventh council, in defence of the Holy Icons, seems at first to stand somewhat apart, but like the first six it was ultimately concerned with the Incarnation and with human salvation.’
                END QUOTE

                — Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books (New York and elsewhere) 1997. Pages 21-22.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  I have not suggested that Donatism is a “new” heresy, but rather have taken exception to your claim that

                  Donatism doesn’t rise to this level of theological thought. It’s an error in ecclesiology, but not a heresy, as classically defined in The Tradition.

                  If that is, indeed true, than all you must do is explain, 1) why Sts. Optatus & Augustine specifically refer to the Donatists as “heretics,” and 2) explain the need for arguments refuting that “the sacrifice of a sinner is polluted,” and defending “the validity of baptism even when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only,” and 3) defend that “the grace of the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum [effectual operation] of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister.” Then, as long as you’re reading Met. Kallistos, you might as well explain how Barlaam, of the Akataleptos Monastery on Mt. Athos, was declared a heretic by a local Council in Constantinople in 1351 for his anti-hesychast arguments with St. Gregory Palamas, and his writings ordered burned (that would be 564 years after Nicea II). Hint: it wasn’t a “new” heresy, and it did not take an Ecumenical Council to declare it heresy.

                  I have read comments here suggesting this question of the modern presence of ancient heresies is silly bantering, and OOM’s comment regarding the practice of re-baptism in our own recent history went without appreciation or comment. The fact is, the Donatists came about because under the persecution of the Emperor Diocletian, some clergy compromised their faith in order to save their lives, and perhaps the lives of others. Following the persecution, even in repentance, the Donatists believed these clergy were “compromised” and incapable of “delivering” the fullness of the Sacraments. Thus, the need to re-baptize anyone baptized by them. I believe OOM’s comment captures the essence of the parallel accurately.

            • Father Patrick, Is Catholicism a heresy? Is Protestantism a heresy? (Please don’t go soft on us. A yes or no answer will do.)

          • M. Stankovich says

            Actually, St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis wrote a seven volume treatise on the heresy of the Donatist, The Schismatic Donatists, in 364:

            In the first book he describes the origin and growth of the schism; in the second he shows the notes of the true Church; in the third he defends the charge of persecuting, with especial reference to the days of Macarius. In the fourth book he refutes Parmenianus’s proofs from Scripture that the sacrifice of a sinner is polluted. In the fifth book he shows the validity of baptism even when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only. This is the first important statement of the doctrine that the grace of the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister. In the sixth book he describes the violence of the Donatists and the sacrilegious way in which they had treated Orthodox altars. In the seventh book he treats chiefly of unity and of reunion, and returns to the subject of Macarius.

            His classic work was the basis of St. Augustine’s theological refutation of the Donatists at the Council held in Carthage in 411. To suggest that Sts. Optatus and Augustine’s refutation of the Donatists “doesn’t rise to this level of theological thought. It’s an error in ecclesiology, but not a heresy, as classically defined in The Tradition.” is a serious lack of knowledge of our theology and our Tradition.

      • Michael James Kinsey says

        Homosexuality and Donatism, indeed. A good tree, bears good fruit, an evil tree bears evil fruit. Those who serve God and themselves, entering into the great whore, may well be under this Donatism. Let the them grow together , the wheat and the chaff, But it cannot apply to a field of all chaff. The homosexual agenda is all chaff. And so is any priest or laity who supports it. I will research the Donatism, needing to see this early church writing.Seeing wither it, itself has been revised out of context.

    • Pere LaChaise says

      Kinsey,
      You are a donatist heretic.

      • Monk James:

        The notion that the sinfulness of the clergy makes their ministrations ineffective is a serious theological error known as donatism, a mistaken concept rejected by The Church and corrected once and for all about seventeen centuries ago

        Pere:

        You are a donatist heretic.

        Lest we forget, the donatists also re-baptized, and that practice was also rejected by the Orthodox/Catholic church. Take that ROCOR!

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          Well, as far as “ministrations” are concerned, I think it might make their preaching ineffective. And, also, their example.

          Is that “donatism”?

          I do not think that Donatism is one of the dangers that threatens us.

  4. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Mr. Kinsey, your intemperate rant is a restatement of the heresy that the Holy Mysteries depend on worthy clergy! Take a break and look up Donatism, which teaches precisely that.

    And a grammatical note: if you “don’t feel nothing,” does that mean you do feel something?

    • Will Harrington says

      Good Bishop, on the grammatical note. This is an error caused by early English Grammarians insisting that Latin grammar should be the model for English. In actual practice, aint is a word and a double negative in English has always been an emphatic negative. The best efforts of generations of Grammarians and English teachers (of which I am one) have not been able to alter this usage. It is bad Latin, but good English grammar, though I do tell my rural students that the way they speak and write will cause others to judge them and the fact that their usage is actually correct will not change those judgements.

      • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

        English Grammarians didn’t insist on Latin grammar for no reason, and in actual practice a double negative does often indicate a positive, as in the previous clause.

        As for aint, the word was a regionalism commonly used by educated Victorians but later driven out of educated use by the still-existing consensus favoring other regionalisms for the sake of standardization.

        We needn’t be pedants about such rules, but rules do matter. Between prescriptivists and descriptivists, the former are more respectful of logic, tradition, orderliness, and the need to actually communicate. The latter care more for cultural diversity, personal authenticity, individualized expression, and freedom from rules, which is why descriptivists now dominate linguistic scholarship.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        Why.Will, you sound like someone who has just discovered linguistic science in and of the immediate post-war era—you know, “Benjamin Whorf and all that. You’re quite right that “ain’T was once acceptable, even upper-class usage. This is not any kind of revelation. You must know that “don’t know nothing” as used by Mr Kinsey today has nothing “naturally English” about it.

        Who are “early English Grammarians” and are they different from LATE nineteenth century spinsterish graduates of “Normal” colleges? Or maybe Grammarian, as capitalized by a wise and completely erudite professor of English means there was a society (secret) called “The Grammarians?”

        I wish Professor Josselson had not already fallen asleep–I would have enjoyed sharing a chuckle with him over your rhapsodic fragment: “On the Grammatical Note.”

      • Monk James says

        Ah, yes! Latin — the algebraic language — almost alone among its indo-european relatives in expecting that two negatives equal a positive!

        Let’s think of Russian ya nichevo ne znayu (literally,’I don’t know nothing’). But this actually means — in modernly latinized English — ‘I know nothing.’ The double negative is just under the surface of our contemporary usage, struggling to get out and succeeding only in what is generally regarded now as ‘low speech’. Interested parties should also learn that the KJ Bible is replete with archaisms now found only in ‘low speech’.

        In another curious phrase, Russian (among other slavic languages) can say something like dondezhe on ne priidyot — ‘for as long as he doesn’t come’, actually meaning ‘until he comes’.

        Translators of our sacred texts often miss these nuances, and more’s the pity.

  5. Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

    Here’s another recent article in Touchstone, which George somehow missed:

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=28-01-031-f

    • Excellent article. It draws some important distinctions and is worth a close reading — and a close re-reading. At the risk of using Stankovich’s name in vain, as I was reading your article, I was reminded of something he wrote recently that has been on my mind a lot. If I understood him correctly, he made reference to the huge percentage of human DNA that is junk, so to speak, not coding for anything (anymore?) And he talked about how Christ was so transfigured after his Resurrection that those closest to him didn’t even recognize him when he was standing in front of him. Man before the fall was that different from man after the fall. What I gleaned from his musings was just how broken and sick we humans are, down to our very DNA — the effects of the fall and of millennia of sin (I paraphrase broadly).

      It has actually been very helpful for me to reflect on these things, especially as I am tempted to despair over the hardness of man’s heart toward God. Most of us are so sick that the words of the Gospel and the promise of life they give are unable to penetrate through, and only faintly, when they do reach us.

      But God can change all of that, down to our very disordered DNA, through prayer and the Holy Mysteries of the Church. I just had the privilege of receiving communion three times in less than a week, and I must confess that on one of those occasions, a vision of Holy Communion healing my DNA “hard-wiring” briefly sprang unbidden into my mind.

      I was therefore struck by this wonderful passage in your article:

      For those who so deeply desired the Body and Blood of Christ that they truly repented of their sins through fully humble confessions, the choice of the Savior could be suddenly and wondrously healing — like having one’s brain instantly rewired to erase habitual though patterns inconsistent with life in Christ. This was not something to expect, but it did and does sometimes happen.

      It did and does happen. I think that even more common is the gradual transformation. Just as most medicines don’t cure with a single dose, so too, one good heartfelt confession and one reception of the Holy Mysteries usually don’t dramatically change a life. Baptism had a dramatic and sudden effect on me — one that was quite unexpected, frankly, but no single communion has, that I remember (or noticed — so much spiritual growth is subtle and passive, taking place without our detecting it. But the even more profound effects have come during times when I have been disciplined about regularly preparing for — and then doing, confession and communion on a frequent basis. When one’s life begins to literally be one continuous and seamless blend where one feels as though the thanksgiving for communion has blended seamlessly into the preparation for the next communion, it shouldn’t be surprising when one looks back and sees how ones body and mind have been slowly but unmistakably transformed in a way that, if science knew what to look for, could be measured…

      Anyway, great article, and I strongly encourage everyone to read it.

    • M. Stankovich says

      George somehow missed?

    • Dn Patrick ,

      This part of your article is exactly what angers me with “gay politics” in churches and schools. . . . Whatever people do in secret-they’ve always done, but to push this agenda in these places is really evil.

      “The testimony against these truths by publicly identified “gay Christians” is most damaging to the young. Many children go through a phase of infatuation with someone of the same sex, but very few such children get stuck in the phase by indulging the infatuation and -consummating it carnally. Most recognize the infatuation as unnatural and immoral, so they consciously resist it by denial, avoidance, and redirection. It is in this process of resistance and redirection that the heterosexuality of many children is confirmed and secured, but the will of such children to resist is undermined by public acceptance of homosexuality as an immutable aspect of one’s identity.”

      Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=28-01-031-f#ixzz3bkde8lW5

      • M. Stankovich says

        I would first ask from where this notion is derived; how many children, roughly, experience this phenomenon; and, approximately, at what age does this phenomenon occur in human development? And you know why I poses these questions because there is absolutely no credible research to support such contentions. None. If this is Freud – who believed that all young children pass through this phase, but are far too young to “recognize the infatuation as unnatural and immoral, so they consciously resist it by denial, avoidance, and redirection,” let alone “consummating it carnally” – than it is a seriously flawed interpretation of Freud’s psychodynamic theory of development. Secondly, we know from the available research, that of adolescents who struggle with issues of orientation, >95% will resolve as heterosexual on their own. So, as I have stated so many times here, if there is any credible evidence that a social, psychological, or environmental post-natal event that is not anecdote correlates with the development of homosexuality, I would like to see the credible evidence. The fact is, we simply do no not know why some individuals become homosexual and the overwhelming majority do not, but the best evidence to date is genetic/biological. You no more need to “confirm & secure” your heterosexuality by “resistance & redirection” than you to do to maintain your height.

        My point: there is no evidence that suggests that by “exposing” a child to homosexuality everyday of their development, you can “fashion” or create them into what they are not. Classic family pedigree twin studies of children removed from the environment of their homosexual sibling – thus removing the variable of “modeling behaviour” – continued to have the identical potentiated risk for homosexuality as those not removed from their homosexual twin. Children, like all Christians, will learn morality at the voice of a combination of the Church, and the diligent, ceaseless witness and instruction of their parents. Not fear-mongering, unsubstantiated falsehoods of child-development.

        • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

          Here’s credible evidence showing that M. Stankovich is in deep denial and only blowing smoke:

          http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/05/14978/

          • Carl Kraeff says

            I am just a layman and could not fully understand the import of the article cited by you. However, I did get the following: “I just wish the charged atmosphere could begin to sustain a healthy and fair debate. Not just yet, it seems.” I suspect that your personal attack on M. Stankovich is another example of why a health and fair debate is in our future.

            • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

              In a fair and healthy debate, participants are held accountable for their words. When they speak absurdities, they are rightly taken to task. When they persist in defending their absurdities, to avoid admitting they are wrong or to cover their true intentions, they deserve censure.

              Stankovich has persisted in defending his absurd statement that same-sex attraction and same-sex acts are “mutually exclusive.” Had he come clean years ago, I would have let him go, but he hasn’t come clean and still argues dishonestly on the issue, as when he insists there is no evidence that experience contributes to SSA or that therapy is effective in alleviating it.

              • when he insists there is no evidence that experience contributes to SSA or that therapy is effective in alleviating it.

                There isn’t much evidence because such therapies are not allowed to be developed.

                I challenge anyone to present yourself as a homosexual to a therapist and tell him you want to be healed. At best you’ll be counseled to accept your homosexuality; at worst you’ll be shown the door. You won’t find a certified therapist who would even try to help you overcome homosexuality as a mental delusion.

                That’s one of the arrows in the gay lobby’s quiver: suppress all psychological research that would go to treating homosexuality as a disorder, and then claim it’s not a disorder because there is no evidence.

                • That’s true only recently. I know many many people who have been through such therapy and they are very grateful for it.

              • Daniel E Fall says

                SSA doesn ‘t translate to sexual desire. Trust me. I always had friends that were male growing up. I never wanted to kiss a one. It never crossed my mind. In fact, we would generally talk about girls sometimes!

                Even as little children the sexes play together. So I attest there is nothing wrong with children of the same sex playing together. In fact, this can translate into having sex later and not as young teens.

                So, are you suggesting therapy start at age three or age eighteen? Most people develop sexually at their own pace and some never develop at all. There is nothing wrong with ssa and it doesn’t result in sex. It is just developmental. Trust me, I’ve been mistakenly called gay more than a few times . They were all wrong. So are you.

                The real story is you can’t handle the notion of someone with ssa being full on straight because the terminology twists you up Brian.

                Consider though for a moment if you are right versus wrong. You would posit a link and then instead of saying ssa is developmental; you would say ssa results in gay. All those developing children then, by your posit, might become gay. If you are wrong, same sex friendships are part of development and does not mean those teens should act.

                Wouldn’t you prefer to be wrong? Or am I just confused?

                • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                  Daniel, the answer is, you are confused. I don’t say what you say I say, and you and I are actually more in agreement than you realize, but to see how you need to be more conceptually exact and terminologically accurate.

                  “Same-sex attraction,” as commonly and clinically used, does not mean merely liking one’s same-sex friends and wanting to be with them; it means an intense erotic attraction to someone of one’s own sex, equivalent to the attraction felt by heterosexual couples and usually involving a desire for close physical intimacy.

                  So close friendships and even sudden “bromances” don’t really count as SSA. But even what does count as SSA need not develop into a chronic condition, and even the chronic condition need not result in homosexual behavior. Someone with SSA can indeed live “full on straight” (as you say) by living “heterosexually” (as I say in my Touchstone article).

                  • Daniel E Fall says

                    So, let me get this ‘straight’. You say ssa is only a sexual nature, but then suggest that person should lie about to whom they are attracted? Doesn’t seem healthy long term.

                    I’m confused for sure now.

                    My kids say gay seems trendy. Dr S, is that true? If gay is trendy, then wouldn’t gay parents have more gay children?

                    Frankly, the gay stuff is starting to bore the hell out of me.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Mr. Fall,

                      Trendy, indeed. I heard that fellow – whose name escapes me – who had a fashion designer competition show (you see him everywhere in the media now) describe some fashion as “gay – no not homosexual, gay.” So, recently I went shopping with my wife, and as we passed men’s clothes, she asked me, “Do you like this sweater?” I said, “no, it’s gay.” She, looking around, said, “You can’t say that.” I said, “Not homosexual, gay.” Oh. Nomenclature. Like you, I too am very bored with this gay stuff. I had exactly six essays on science & homosexuality and, to this day, am accused of having had a “gay website.” Fr. Hans is averaging two out of three threads, and this site – one way or another – seems to ramble in that direction in every other discussion.

                      The mistake is seeing me as pursuing topics of homosexuality, when, in fact, I am arguing against the fundamental lack of corroboration for stupid statements & conjecture; far too often here, they happen to be about homosexuality. Just yesterday, I told my doctor I was having some unexplained itching that I could not explain except for a new medication she had given me. She asked if I wanted a prescription for hydroxyzine – actually a complex med, often casually prescribed for allergic reactions like itching. I said, “You are aware that the European Medicines Agency issued new guidelines in February suggesting significantly limiting its use because of a risk of of QT-interval prolongation & torsade de pointes?” “What? It’s been prescribed for years for sleep, anxiety, and allergic reactions. Where did you read that?” (sigh) Where have I heard this before… “I’ll send it to you when I get home.” But, Mr. Fall, I must compliment a recent complainer to one of my on-line “challenges”: “You are not only schismatic but a heretic ecumenist graceless parasynagoguer.” That, Mr. Fall, was an Orthodox “man with muscles.” Yeah, buddy.

              • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                By the way, when Stankovich says there is “no evidence” of something, he’s often doing two things, both of which are misleading:

                (1) He’s dismissing evidence injurious to his argument on the grounds that it is “not credible,” which only means that politicized pro-gay professional organizations don’t like it.

                (2) He’s purposefully using an extremely narrow definition of evidence that allows him to disregard most of what people regard as evidence. Stankovich’s “evidence” can only come from a laboratory; anything that can’t be tested in a laboratory he dismisses as “anecdotal.”

                He’s not entirely consistent in his dismissal of anecdote. He rejects as “anecdotal” the claims of people reporting a change in their sexual orientation as a result of therapy, but he accepts, though equally “anecdotal,” the claims of people saying change therapy drove them to attempt suicide.

                Of course, when it comes to “evidence,” most of us mean more. Here are a few dictionary definitions:

                1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
                2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
                3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

                By any of these definitions, there is plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction, and honest men can admit that without agreeing on what the causes are, but an honest man cannot say there is no evidence of any post-natal causes, as Stankovich does above, when he writes, “there is no evidence that suggests that by ‘exposing’ a child to homosexuality everyday of their development, you can ‘fashion’ or create them into what they are not.”

                • M. Stankovich says

                  Ordinarily, this would be an exhausting banter. In my discipline, there was a continuous atmosphere of scientific debate; questioning, challenging, presenting evidence, examining evidence, and refuting evidence. At times, tempers flared – particularly when personalities clashed – and matters were eventually resolved. How did this happen, particularly when the environment became contentious and ego-driven? Because it was conducted among colleagues. For nearly five years, you have attempted to impose yourself in matters as if we were colleagues, and we are not. You are unqualified to enter “debate” with me at the level of competence you attempt, and by doing so, you pin yourself with a bulls-eye target,

                  Case in point: because you are so unqualified and grossly out of your level of competence, out of all the research scholars & studies examining the impact of external factors on child development in general (and there some very compelling studies), you unknowingly happen to pick the one man who was openly discredited by a Republican, Reagan-appointed Federal judge for his lack of integrity in proffering to the Court a study he knew to be purposely misleading and deceptive (download the judge’s opinion in a pdf here, with commentary on the testimony of Regnerus beginning on p.11), and in the end, to settled an ethics violation charge from his own department and save his job, Regnerus had to officially admit with his own university that no conclusions could be drawn from the study.

                  Now, if that were not sufficient testimony to your fundamental lack of qualification, you offered up Regnerus arrogantly, suggesting it would finally prove me wrong and “blowing smoke.” And if that were not enough, you then invested nearly two days attempting to prop this moron Regnerus up and correct your error in judgement – even going so far as to say that the purposeful manipulation of Regenrus was true in nearly all social science research studies . And if that still were not enough, all the while lacing your “fire alarm” with personal comments about my lack of honesty & the manipulation of “evidence.” And Madonna Mia! what idiot on this site doesn’t understand the meaning of “there is no evidence?”

                  The point I am making is a simple one: we are not colleagues, you are astonishingly unqualified and incompetent to wage this “battle” with me – and your battle is with me, personally, in case anyone missed it – it would seem to me that after five years of similar or identical errors in judgment you would realize that, not only are your errors in judgement an embarrassment, but potentially dangerous [such is your arrogance that you even argued a Google-driven, out-dated, absurdist “refutation” of a genetic, x-chromosome-related influence on female fecundity study, when I knew you didn’t have a clue as to what it actually meant! Lulz to this day when I think about it. Absolute lulz!].

                  So, let me repeat myself: “There is no evidence that suggests that by “exposing” a child to homosexuality everyday of their development, you can “fashion” or create them into what they are not.” I tried this one on Fr. Hans site and you were marvelously a failure: since you claim there is “plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction,” show me three credible studies from legitimate journals, and I will change my mind.

                  • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                    Sound and fury, signifying nothing — except dishonesty, malice, and offended arrogance.

                    Prof. Regnerus was not required, “officially” or unofficially, to admit any error or misdeed in order to keep his job. He continues to defend his study and to disagree with the opinion expressed by Dean Diehl and others. This recent article is an example of that.

                    The ethics complaint was bogus from the beginning, and UT rightly recognized its worthlessness by refusing to take any adverse action against Regnerus. To ignore that fact and allege that he was forced to retract is potentially libelous, as was the initial complaint against him.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      I hope you can hear me over the sound of your keyboard on Google and sump pumps desperately working to keep your sinking ship afloat. SECOND REQUEST:

                      So, let me repeat myself: “There is no evidence that suggests that by “exposing” a child to homosexuality everyday of their development, you can “fashion” or create them into what they are not.” I tried this one on Fr. Hans site and you were marvelously a failure: since you claim there is “plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction,” show me three credible studies from legitimate journals, and I will change my mind.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      So, I got a call this morning from a friend at Duke University who points me the upcoming July issue of Social Science Research – the same journal that originally published Regenerus’ NFS [New Family Structure] study – where there is a new article, “Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents.” Cheng, S. and Powell, B. Social Science Research, Volume 52, July 2015, Pages 615–626. Hmm. Unfortunately, without an academic library account, it will cost you $35 to read this article in its entirety. While the highlights & abstract provided give you a sense of extent of the methodological errors – and even you aren’t dumb enough to again propose a “refutation” based on an abstract (like you did previously in arguing with me regarding Dr. Kenneth Zucker & transgender children), I tell you from reading the entire study some interesting findings: in “eliminating suspect data,” they note “a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’ 8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1.” Regardless, this study draws an over-all conclusion that:

                      [W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used, a different conclusion emerges: adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families.

                      Imagine! Next, I was directed to the address of W. Bradford Wilcox (I won’t touch him, other than to say he was a co-investigator and contributor to the NFS with Regnerus), to The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2014 on the topic of marriage. In the question & answer session that followed, he made interesting remarks:

                      Following his talk, Wilcox took a number of questions from bishops on the floor of the meeting.

                      Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput asked why, if marriage is so valuable for economic success, same-sex marriage is being legalized in so many states.

                      “Most of the scientists would say that there’s no difference between a stable same-sex family and a stable heterosexual family,” replied Wilcox, noting that those scientists might consider stability the “key factor, not other issues that might relate to a child’s well-being.”

                      Yakima, Wash., Bishop Joseph Tyson asked why same-sex marriage is not considered by the studies Wilcox cited to be as dangerous as cohabitation.

                      “I think that the assumption is that when same-sex marriage is legalized and it is given cultural support, it will be as stable as heterosexual marriage,” Wilcox replied.

                      “Is there data to back that?” Tyson asked.

                      “The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships,” Wilcox replied.

                      WAT! Regnerus’ co-investigator indicates same-sex-couples are are more likely to have stable relationships when legalized and there is preliminary data to support this contention? I see the hand of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Yes, Fr. Alexander? “ERROR IN JUDGMENT.” Gratzi. Lulz. the sound & fury of lulz, I tell you…

                      Please, do not let this deter you from your mission of supplying three references in support of your contention that there is “plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction,” but is this actually you demanding “statistics” lest someone take you for a fool? My sides! This was the week that lulzed…

                  • Centurion says

                    M. Stankovich first says:

                    “For nearly five years, you have attempted to impose yourself in matters as if we were colleagues, and we are not. You are unqualified to enter “debate” with me at the level of competence you attempt, and by doing so, you pin yourself with a bulls-eye target”

                    In the very same post M. Stankovich then says:

                    “I tried this one on Fr. Hans site and you were marvelously a failure: since you claim there is “plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction,” show me three credible studies from legitimate journals, and I will change my mind.”

                    Which is it man, make up your mind!

                    PS – Apparently the mere possession of a Ph.D. is no guarantee of common sense or reasoning ability.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Apparently I don’t possess a Ph.D., merely or otherwise. Secondly, despite my near five-year insistence that he is a posuer “Google scholar” ( and no one has yet to request his “credentials” to discuss medical science, advanced research statistics, or research design protocol) and unqualified, he forges ahead, undeterred. And even when witnessing others use his uncorroborated silliness in argument, no one seems to care; and even I would let it pass with a warning that he is making statements he cannot corroborate, if it were not for his “baiting” of my “selectivity” in presenting research – excluding arguments that would question the integrity of the data I have presented – in effect, being “dishonest.” So, if I am, in fact, being dishonest by selecting research that is only in my favor, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask him to present the “plenty” I have been withholding. After all, he has also in past made the same claim and failed to do so. Now, I don’t know where you went to school, Centurian, but I can’t help but think you slept through that hour on “reasoning & common sense.”

                      What I predict he will do is come forward with articles from the charlatans of NARTH, expecting me to engage in a big debate as to what is “credible” research published in “credible” journals. I will save us all time by referring to a similar argument, and how it will similarly end. And so it goes…

          • M. Stankovich says

            On March 21, 2014, Federal Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the state of Michigan’s ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and it was one of the cases brought before the SCOTUS this year to be decided in this landmark ruling that we await. While Judge Friedman’s ruling was minimal as to matters of law, he did make it a significant point to address the research and testimony of Dr. Mark Regnerus, who was brought before the Court to specifically testify as to the matter of the impact of homosexuality on children, and more specifically as to the matter of the ability of homosexual parents to nurture their own children:

            The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.
             
            The 2012 study alleges that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to attempt suicide and experience sexual abuse than children raised by a married mother and father.  In reality, the “New Family Structures Study” never measured the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples.  Since the study’s publication in 2012, fellow social scientists, scholars and the American Sociological Association have rejected Mark Regnerus’s biased work. In March, the University of Texas Austin denounced his research as “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families.”

            One man’s credible is a Federal Judge’s “foolishness” (his own university denounced his research!), and sometimes, when you blow smoke, there’s fire. Did you honestly imagine you could pass Mark Regnerus by me like I’m some chump from the street? If I may quote Muhammad Ali, “I ain’t afraid of nobody, and I’m as pretty as a girl.” Stay down for the count this time.

            • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

              As we all know, judges say a lot of stupid, dishonest, and immoral things nowadays, and when you have to quote them as authorities on science, it means the science on your side is extremely weak.

              • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                I should add that, despite the outcry from the usual suspects, who like Stankovich declare Regnerus unbelievable, his employer, the University of Texas, has failed to find anything in his work worthy of censure and so has taken no advserse action against him.

                Regnerus is no slouch as an academic. His publications include two books on the sociology of sex: Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying and Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, both published by Oxford University Press.

              • M. Stankovich says

                A fair & healthy debate is dependent, first and foremost, upon evidence. Statements that begin, “As we all know…” are opinion; this is conjecture; and it is an attempt to be purposefully deceptive. In the last incarnation of this one-sided argument, I made it a point to state that there is no debate with unqualified, unlearned, self-aggrandizing Google “scholars.” I maintain that position, and am gone from this debate.

                Jean Baptiste Poquelin Molière (1622–1673).

                Tartuffe

                Act V, Scene VII

                The Officer: (leading Tartuffe to prion, To Orgon)

                Our prince is not a friend to double dealing,
                His eyes can read men’s inmost hearts, and all
                The art of hypocrites cannot deceive him.
                His sharp discernment sees things clear and true;
                His mind cannot too easily be swayed,
                For reason always holds the balance even.
                He honours and exalts true piety
                But knows the false, and views it with disgust.
                This fellow was by no means apt to fool him;
                Far subtler snares have failed against his wisdom,
                And his quick insight pierced immediately
                The hidden baseness of this tortuous heart.
                Accusing you, the knave betrayed himself,
                And by true recompense of Heaven’s justice
                He stood revealed before our monarch’s eyes
                A scoundrel known before by other names.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                We all have a tendency to use sources that support us and reject those that do not. Dr. Regnerus was perfectly acceptable to you–a newsman by training and deacon by vocation, while you completely ignored the opposing point of view represented by “fellow social scientists, scholars and the American Sociological Association (who) have rejected Mark Regnerus’s biased work. In March, the University of Texas Austin denounced his research as “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds to a lot of other folks” (according to M. Stankovich). There is no question that you are a smart man who has written some interesting analyses (Scandal of Gender and Eighth Way, among others). However, you are no scientist and your credentials pale in comparison to those possessed by M. Stankovich. So, the question arises: do you really want to pick a fight, punk? Do ya? Go ahead and make M’s day. 🙂

                • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                  Carl, Stankovich’s claim that UT denounced Regnerus’s research is yet another example of his dishonesty. Here are two statements by UT. Read carefully and you will see that neither says that Regnerus’s work is flawed in any way. One slyly quotes another organization saying that, but does not actually endorse the other organization’s statement.

                  Statement Regarding Sociology Professor Mark Regnerus
                  Fri, Feb 21, 2014

                  Following is a statement by UT Austin and the College of Liberal Arts regarding sociology professor Mark Regnerus.

                  Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the university. Like all faculty, he has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. We encourage the community of scholars and society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

                  Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus

                  Posted: April 12, 2014

                  Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

                  The Sociology Department at The University of Texas at Austin aspires to achieve academic excellence in research, teaching, and public service at the highest level in our discipline. We strive to do so in a context that is based on the highest ethical standards of our discipline and in a context that actively promotes and supports diversity among our faculty and student populations.

                  The Sociology Department resides in the College of Liberal Arts, which has issued a statement regarding Dr. Regnerus.

                  The Sociology Department has no affiliation with the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.

                  • Perhaps you all need to hear from the children themselves. . .

                    http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    Wow. How to account for an agreement reached by the College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas at Austin, and Dr. Mark Regnerus, in a letter dated to the President of the University on March 15, 2015 from the Dean, in regard to the ethics complaint filed against Regnerus by Prof. Mark A. Musik of the Department of Sociology on June 9, 2014:

                    Following consideration of our discussion, and my own reading of the case, I draw the following conclusions:

                    (1) Leaving aside for the moment the matter of the NFS [New Family Structure] study, the departmental review committee’s assessment of Professor Regnerus’s publication record — both in terms of quantity of papers and quality of publication venues —seems fair and reasonable.

                    (2) With respect to the NFS [New Family Structure] study, valid methodological concerns have been raised by former chairperson Christine Williams and Marc Musick. A key one is this: Because the design of the study ensured that the parental same-sex relationship variable was confounded with the family structure stability variable, it is not possible to conclude that the different life outcomes between the two groups were caused by the parental relationship variable. This is not simply because of the usual difficulty of inferring causality from correlation. It is rather because family instability is well-known to be associated with less favorable life outcomes (e.g., Arnato, Keith, 1991). Therefore, it cannot be concluded on the basis of the NFS study that the parental relationship variable plays any causal role in life outcomes.

                    (3) From (2) it follows that no policy implications about same-sex parenting should be drawn fiom the study. As Professor Regnerus himself noted in the NFS paper, “American courts are finding argunients against gay inarriage decreasingly persuasive… This study is intended to neither undermine nor. affirm any legal rights concerning such,” (Regnerus, 2012, p. 766). [Emphasis mine]

                    Seriously, I told you to stay down for the count, and now you are left to bail yourself out of a rapidly sinking ship. Am I correct that you said I am dishonest? A “man with muscle” with apologize for his arrogance.

                    • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      Where in this excerpt of Dean Randy Diehl’s letter do you see a denunciation of Prof. Regnerus or of his study?

                      Where in this excerpt is there an indictment of Prof. Regnerus’s integrity?

                      All you have here is Diehl’s opinion that (a) “valid methodological concerns have been raised,” (b) Regnerus reached a wrong conclusion because he did not compare only stable families, and (c) “no policy implications about same-sex parenting should be drawn from the study.”

                      No accusation of falsified data or other improprieties. Just a difference of opinion about the best way to compare data sets, which is why Diehl dismissed Musick’s bogus ethics complaint and took no adverse action against Regnerus.

                      Finally, we are not obliged to assume that Diehl’s opinion is correct, but even if it is, it only amounts to a disagreement with Regnerus, not a denunciation of him.

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    There are a number of valid interpretations and characterizations that are permissible in public debate. You seem to insist on one, very literal interpretation. The statement indeed does not use the word “denunciation” but what other word could you use to summarize these words?: “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.” I think that “denunciation” is a valid word to apply in this situation. I think you should apologize to Stankovich for calling him dishonest.

                    • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      Carl,

                      First, the statement that “his opinions are his own” is true of every scholarly study and the appropriate response of every institution committed to academic freedom. Such institutions cannot take sides in academic debates without abandoning their commitment.

                      Second, the statement does not forthrightly take a position on the issue. It does not say, “His opinions are his own, and this department disagrees with them.” Much less does it say, “His opinions are his own, and this department condemns them as worthless and despicable.”

                      Third, the statement does quote another organization disagreeing with Regnerus’s opinions, and the use of this quotation does indicate (and, we might even say, express) the opinion of the department, but the use of quotation without an explicit statement of agreement PLAINLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DELIBERATELY STOPPED SHORT OF AN ACTUAL DENUNCIATION.

                      Fourth, to be quite clear about Stankovich’s dishonesty, let me restate my accusations:

                      1. Stankovich has been dishonest in his misuse of “mutually exclusive.”
                      2. He has been dishonest in his obstinate defense of his misuse of “mutually exclusive.”
                      3. He has been dishonest in his allegation that UT has denounced Regnerus and/or his study.
                      4. He has been dishonest in his potentially libelous allegation that Regnerus has been forced to admit anything “officially” to save his job.

                      In the case of 3 and 4, it should be noted that Stankovich has been repeatedly dishonest in angrily attempting to discredit research providing evidence of just what we as Orthodox Christians should expect — that it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father than by two gay men or two lesbian women. God, after all, has entrusted children by nature to heterosexual couples. Why then should Regnerus’s research raise any Orthodox Christian’s hackles, as it raises Stankovich’s?

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      It should raise “hackles” because you are not telling the truth:

                      1) Dean Diehl: “It is not possible to conclude that the different life outcomes between the two groups were caused by the parental relationship variable ” and “no policy implications about same-sex parenting should be drawn fiom the study.

                      2) Judge Friedman: “The 2012 study alleges that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to attempt suicide and experience sexual abuse than children raised by a married mother and father. In reality, the “New Family Structures Study” never measured the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples. Since the study’s publication in 2012, fellow social scientists, scholars and the American Sociological Association have rejected Mark Regnerus’s biased work. In March, the University of Texas Austin denounced his research as “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families.”

                      3) Cheng, S. and Powell, B. Social Science Research, Volume 52, July 2015, Pages 615–626. “[W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used, a different conclusion emerges: adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families.”

                      4) W. Bradford Wilcox (Regnerus’ research associate for the New Family Study): “I think that the assumption is that when same-sex marriage is legalized and it is given cultural support, it will be as stable as heterosexual marriage,” And, “The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships.”

                      And finally, I never questioned whether are not children are better off with two heterosexual parents as God intended – in fact, I heartily agree. I questioned your ridiculous assertion that by “exposing” a child to homosexuality everyday of their development, you can “fashion” or create them into what they are not, and that since you claim there is “plenty of evidence of post-natal causes of same-sex attraction,” to show me three credible studies from legitimate journals, and I will change my mind.

                      Are you ready to apologize? Because, as you might guess, I do have more.

                    • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      “[W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used, …”

                      How telling these few words! Regnerus’s methodology is declared “plausible,” even “equally plausible” to the methodology of this new study, and the difference between them is admitted to be matter of mere preference: The authors of the new study prefer to dice the data in ways that make homosexuality look good.

                    • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      By the way, far from having to disavow anything in his study “officially” or unofficially, Regnerus is actually arranging to have the study translated into other languages for publication abroad.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Yeah, good night, sweet prince. You lack the character to apologize and you are a poseur who had no business making such unsubstantiated, uncorroborated statements in Touchstone or on this site. You had no idea who Mark Regnerus was when you made your ignorant & arrogant accusations against me, and you got caught. You are out of your league and up to your neck in discredit. You even lack the fundamental honesty to admit that this whole tempest had nothing to do with defending Orthodox morality, but simply was an attempt to discredit me personally. You have had nearly five years to “put me in place'” and you are again a failure because I do not have a personal need to be correct. My need is to ensure that the data is correct, and if that means I will be corrected as to substance, the better the debate. Stick with denigrating and putting women in their place, and keep your unqualified and dangerous opinions and personal insults out of my house.

            • It goes both ways
              http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/data-faked-in-study-about-gay-canvassers

              Actually it seems they are throwing out  Regnerus research because they don’t like it. They are not proving his research was flawed. Have we not seen judges push their own world views on the people of this country over and over again?

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald says

              Michael, I think the point the Protodeacon wants to get across is that the only reason he’s not a homosexual is because he (virtuously, of course) CHOOSES not to adopt homoerotic behavior He could “go gay” tomorow, but he’s decided not to.

              • well ya he could actually chose to go gay tomorrow. . . .

              • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                Your Grace, I’m at a loss to explain why you seem now to hate me so much. We’ve really only crossed swords on the origins of English, yet you take every opportunity now to insult me, even when I’m agreeing with you, as I did on double-negatives and the use of ain’t. What have I said or done to offend you? Please let me know so I can ask your forigiveness.

              • lexcaritas says

                It is not his point, and this is a stupid statement.

                lxc

              • Centurion says

                By this foolish comment this bishop shows himself to be a member of the “born this way” worldview. He’s in great company with Lady Gaga, the Clintons, Obama, the ACLU, all LGBT groups, most of the Democrat leadership, Bruce Jenner, Huffington Post, and all liberal and progressive media outlets and pundits, and completely at odds with the entire teaching and Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church.

                You shall know them by their fruits! We sure do.

                • Daniel E Fall says

                  Well, Centurion, at least those folks are committed enough to their opinions to say who they are..sounds a little absurd dropping all the names while remaining secretive about your own.

                  Just sayin…your post is a little hard to see the point past the comedy….

        • I could care less about Freud. Your questions are better known to mothers and fathers who watch the development of children every day. What of your scientists? Social sciences are hard to nail down. And what genetic/biological proof??

          Little things in our childhood could set such an attraction in motion, a simple mix -up or crush, or lack of a parent, but it’s either fed or dissuaded. TV , friends, teachers, whatever all shape and feed us. . .that’s how we work. Kids are easily influenced and if you give them bad ideas-then the idea is in there, looking for a spot to sprout. That’s why we guard our children (and ourselves) from bad ideas. We don’t let those ideas even enter a child while they are developing. Society aided good ideas before by simply not putting the idea in front of the children, but now society has no discernment.. . . it get’s to them young so the ideas are there and only have to land.

          I do agree that, ” that of adolescents who struggle with issues of orientation, >95% will resolve as heterosexual on their own. ” And why have they resolved this issue in the past?-you don’t think society played a role?? They were somehow disuaded from going down that path. Weather they want a family like what they grew up with, or they didn’t want to feel weird around their friends, or just wanted to be normal (??) , they saw from society that it was not cool to explore that path and blocked or stopped going down it. That is not the case any more. And if you think this is not going to affect our children and confuse them, you are just not so smart. There is no genetic sway in a homosexual man that is not also found in a “straight” man. Anyway, it’s futile to argue about “proofs” of such things. We’ll see our “evidence” in about 30 years. . . . We already have a lot of proof-It does not take a “scientist” to see the confusion of our culture in the last 50 to 60 years. Sex has no bounds now. It didn’t start with militant SSS and it won’t stop with it. We now only have to wait for the next shocking sexual boundary to be pushed. Can’t wait for them to declaire that is biological too . . . Bad fruit.

          • M. Stankovich says

            colette,

            It is also the collected wisdom of parents – certainly acting in what they believe to be the best interest of their children – based on pure emotion and faulted, “scare-tactic” information, to stop vaccinating their children and putting a greater number in harm’s way in epidemic proportion. If you wish to believe that withholding half-cling canned peaches in heavy syrup from your children will “confirm and secure” their heterosexuality, you will find absolutely no argument from me because, while we have some credible suggestions as to what does not cause homosexuality, we do not know what causes homosexuality in humans. However, the moment you would attempt to project your personal opinion – beyond our knowledge and acceptance that it is a direct consequence of our fallen humanity in the context of the this fallen world – I then will oppose you and demand you offer proof. And why do I say this? Because the truth is more important than my need to be “right.” How many times in nearly five years has this man insulted me with these moronic comments that I am in “deep denial and only blowing smoke?” On this site and others, too many to count. And exactly how many times has he corrected me as to substance – that I have written something that is contrary to the Holy Scripture, the Fathers, our Holy Tradition, or medical science? Not once. We are all entitled to our opinions and theories, but there are few things that disturb me more than conjecture, contrivance, and fraud that poses as truth, or the failure to disclose one’s opinion as differentiated from fact. There is no excuse, and it is intolerable to me. And for the record, I don’t care that much about Freud either.

            • My dear Michael,

              I do not wish to call you names or say you are contrary. You may speculate, but allow me the same I have read through some of your writing on the topic. . . ..
              But as far as my point-children being influenced by society and media, you can’t possibly think they are not?
              Science tries to prove through research and experiments-what many observe. I’m telling you what I observe. Scientifically, it makes no sense to me if “science” says homosexuality is both-nature and nurture. If there is not a testable “thing” that a homosexual has that makes them different from another man, then it is something that happens after the womb (although I think we should look at this closely). And we should take care to guard the influential.

              • M. Stankovich says

                My equally dear colette,

                Let me make this final point to you: I am significantly more easily convinced of an opinion contrary to my own than you are. In other words, it is simple to change my mind. In this case, show me credible research from respected investigators that exposure to homosexuality in our society, schools, entertainment, and so on as children, has the ability to mediate, affect, redirect, differentiate, and/or determine one’s born sexual orientation, and my mind will be changed. Over nearly five consecutive years, I have presented the best data available – and if you believe I am “manipulating” my choice of data simply to make a cheap point, you are welcomed & challenged to put in the investigative time I have put in to prove me wrong – yet, my conclusion is never logical, or convincing, or satisfying enough. And this, in my estimation, is despite the fact that the evidence is stronger than it was five years ago.

                And finally, I have been transparent for five years with complete consistency that there is no answer! We have increasing insight as to this disorder – and disorder in this fallen world it is – but no one can explain why, despite the “encouraging” implications of the gay community: “We are different by biology, and when the discovery is made, you will be humiliated.” And so, now we see the gay community’s decision at this crossroads of “taking too long to wait”: it does not matter. Gay biology, as it turns out, was a homophobic construct from the beginning. “Accept us for who & what we are, and we’re done being nice about it.”

                Where does this leave us? Judging by the learned comments on this site & others, the plan is to continue to inform homosexuals that homosexuality does not, in fact, exist, and argue with them about how they have – based upon the incorrect first premise – incorrectly and foolishly incorporated homosexuality as “an immutable aspect of one’s identity,” – the discussion of which with children in my state of California, colette, will get me arrested! Literally. And what the hell, why not explain how magnets work. This, of course, is because we have been demonstratively successful in affecting change in the public square and our own church. Oorah.

                colette, I have been looking at this whole matter closely – apparently much closer than the newsman who “happened” to miss what every news organization in the US reported about Mark Regnerus – and let’s be clear that the judge criticized Regnerus’ integrity, first and foremost – and will continue to do so because it is the correct and proper course of action. And you know I am scrupulous; I do not make statements of substance I cannot document, and I read & understand your concerns. I’ve said enough – again – on this topic.

                • Is Mark still employed at the University?

                  • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                    Yes, he is, which means that even if they wanted to fire him, they know they don’t have a case that will stand up in a Texas court, no matter what some judge in Michigan says.

                    • There you go-the University was covering it’s but. I mean I’m positive many even most of the University don’t agree with him, but as far as banning his research, they can’t -as you say. If there is malpractice in how he did his research after all the cases brought against him (I remember a story a few years back of a gay man taking him to court for his assertions and loosing), then they would and should take him to court and fire him if it’s true.

                • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                  Unfortunately for Mr. Stankovich, the University of Texas disagrees with him about Prof. Regnerus’s integrity. It has reviewed Regnerus’s study and found nothing to support any adverse action against him.

                  According to Regnerus’s dean, Randy Diehl, UT’s review found only “valid methodological concerns” — a very vague term that could be fairly applied to quite a few social science studies (perhaps even all of them).

                  Chief among these “concerns” was Regnerus’s inclusion of data from both stable and unstable couples, which reflects poorly on same-sex couples because they are more unstable than normal couples. If Regnerus had compared only stable couples, same-sex couples would have faired better in his results.

                  But as Regnerus points out, he was under no obligation to limit his data to make same-sex couples look good, and ignoring the greater instability of same-sex couples doesn’t give us a fair look at the phenomenon.

                • There is no way to determine a person’s born sexual orientation in a vacuum outside their environment, so while you may be willing to change your mind, you would only do so based on impossible evidence.

                • “We are different by biology, and when the discovery is made, you will be humiliated.” And so, now we see the gay community’s decision at this crossroads of “taking too long to wait”: it does not matter. Gay biology, as it turns out, was a homophobic construct from the beginning. “Accept us for who & what we are, and we’re done being nice about it.”

                  Well clearly I am not afraid of “being humiliated” -I speak my mind, it’s ok if I am wrong. . . . but don’t experiment on my kids!!! Which is what it comes down to. You will never convince someone to stop protecting thier kids.

                • Gregory Manning says

                  I agree with Michael. Exposing the young to homosexuals won’t have any final influence on their sexual orientation. They either have a need for intimate and, ultimately, erotic affection from those of their gender or they don’t. No gay scout master is going to turn your son into a homosexual. Nevertheless, for entirely different reasons, if I as a gay man, had a son, I would definitely avoid leaving my son with such a person. By the same token, any straight man who wants to be in charge of the local Brownie or Girl Scout troops, would get my “NO” vote as well.

                  • Our little neighbor girl down the street decided she was gay at 10. This is after having a boyfriend at 9. I don’t think with whatever is going on with her (her dad is remarried and I don’t know their family story) that 30 years ago “gayness” would have been the experiment she would try. She now says she is not gay.
                    It is fashionable to be gay and kids are trying it because the idea is all around them.

  6. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    It is regrettable that some of you chose to interpret the comments of Michael James Kinsey as evidence of Donatism.

    That interpretation was, in my opinion, unfair and unkind; it certainly was not warranted by what Kinsey actually wrote.

    If I read him correctly, Michael James Kinsey simply intended to say that pastors have a moral responsibility to live in a manner consonant with their sacramental ministry and that, if they don’t, their congregations will suffer spiritual harm.

    I can also understand, on the other hand, why that message might be offensive to some clergy in the Orthodox Church.

    • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

      Thank you for saying this Fr. Patrick.

      I read Michael James Kinsey’s comment in the same way you did. The charge of Donatism came out of the gate too fast.

      What is worse? A technical term perhaps not precisely applied or the corrosive effects of a compromised priest on the faith of those under him?

      Michael Kinsey argued that compromised priests undermine the work of Christ. He is correct. What point is there in arguing about the efficacy of the sacraments when the faithful are scandalized?

      • M. Stankovich says

        No, what he “actually wrote” was heresy. In fact, this a concept that has been frequently insinuated by the anonymous – and I have asked the same question posed by Vladyka Tikhon – but Mr. Kinsey’s posture is so glaring as to be unmistakable. These clergy are not “compromised,” but are undeserving of their pay because they cannot “deliver.” Having said this, it makes all the more ridiculous the attempt to soften the dangerousness of his comment with the introduction of the “What is worse?” – man rides donkey, donkey rides man – dichotomy that only is possible by misinterpreting his statement to begin with. Who cares what is worse?

        And, “What point is there in arguing about the efficacy of the sacraments when the faithful are scandalized?” Madonna Mia! This is the crux of the heresy! He is saying the faithful are unaware of the “scam” being perpetrated against them: “they don’t feel nothing.” It’s like paying for Zomig for a migraine headache, but being given a TicTac. (Faithful): “I took the Zomig but it didn’t stop the headache.” (Evil Tree who doesn’t deserve his pay): “That’s odd. Try taking two TicTac Zomig and see what happens.” Get it?

        Personally, in real life, I could envision beloved SS Verhovskoy, Professor of Dogmatic Theology, quietly summing it all up in exactly seven words: “And so, my dear, you are heretic.” This would be without unfolding his hands from his lap, and probably not opening his eyes. But more importantly, he would then, equally quietly, say, “And let me explain it to you.” This, however, is the internet; inherently lacking in charity and empathy, even among Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, it is hardly improper to correct Mr. Kinsley, our brother, because if not us then whom?

      • I once was in an argument with a friend whose opinion I respected very much. The topic wasn’t, in that case, anything moral, but rather the way that some Orthodox churches, in ignorance, have embraced Scriptural texts in liturgical usage that are the product of agnostic German theology and theories. When I pulled out the “validity of sacraments” argument, he snapped at me, “of course the Mysteries are valid, even under extreme circumstances, until a bishop says they aren’t, but if you think that they can’t be polluted, you are in for some unpleasant surprises in your time in the Orthodox Church.”

        I will just say that I have found there to be more truth in his statement than I was willing to accept at the time.

        All too often, the charge of Donatism is casually leveled by those who don’t think particulars matter at those who do (I am not saying that about those who responded to the above post — clearly some were written by people with a keen eye for careful detail). I have no strong opinion on this particular comment, since I think it can be read either way, but there are uncomfortable truths in what he said, regardless of whether or not he is truly being Donatist.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          I imagine there are as many real Donatists around as there are Arians.

          Somehow, being accused of Donatism (not that I have myself been accused of the dreaded thing) seems like being shot at by a very damp squib. The powder behind that charge has run very weak after a millennium and a half (plus) on the shelf.

          We should be so lucky as to have the ancient heresies alive and rife! That would mean that Orthodoxy was, too!

          • Michael Bauman says

            Timor, here us the problem: While the ancient heresies may not be around in systematic vigor they are still around in attitudes corroding belief and people’s souls.

            That being said heresy hunting is a bad idea unless we are examining our own hearts with the aid of a good confessor.

            At the same time the Church must guard the truth. Watchfulness is required.

            Old heresies never die they ate like mutatant viruses.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              Indeed, but what we have here is one of Mr. Kinsey’s very occasional posts, somewhat idiosyncratic as always, but because what he does post often annoys some, the moldy accusation of heresy is deployed. With, dare I say, a tone of false indignation…..

              • Michael Bauman says

                Yes, and by people who have no standing to do so. We all share in and believe, I dare say, some heretical ideas of one stripe or another. It is meet and proper for our brothers and sisters to call gentle and loving attention to such ideas when they appear. In fact, the idea of the validity or invalidity of the sacraments is somewhat foreign to Orthodox thought altogether, or so I have been taught.

                It is, for instance, gross error that same sex attraction is of human nature in the same way that the attraction of males to females is. That does not make people who believe that error heretics, nor can we say that such belief is a heresy–only that it does not represent the anthropological reality revealed in the teachings and the practice of the Church as such it is a Christological error.

                At some point a council of bishops either local, regional or ecumenical may decide that such belief is heretical and that the active propagation of such belief places one outside the Church and, indeed, a heretic. Such can always be restored if they repent. Still, the heresy itself often lives on, as with Nestorianism.

                That is why I said heresy hunting is a bad idea. We need to look to our own hearts on such things.

                It behooves us to be knowledgeable of the heresies, why the Church condemns them and vigorously guard our hearts against such soul destroying beliefs. They are not just ideas that can be played with in the rational brain.

                It is proper to warn Mr. Kinsey against heretical ideas, if they indeed are present; explaining why they are heretical. It is not proper at all in any manner to condemn him as a heretic or even to say that he is advocating heresy.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Tim remarks, “I imagine there are as many real Donatists around as there are Arians.”

            In fact, inasmuch as it did hold to some form of “pre-existence” in Christ, Arianism represented a fairly “high Christology” by modern standards.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              Exactly. I don’t think a modern person could even be an Adoptionist, much less an Arian. The anachronism of these once-great heresies is that of their milieu– everybody believed in God, and the speculations were about “degrees”, as it were, or perhaps refinements and details, about divinity, especially that of Christ.

              Nowadays, if you actually believe in God, you’ve already swallowed the camel, and the nitpicking is unnecessary: if any form of divinity is to be attributed to Christ, why not be Trinitarian? Or so it seems to me, anyway.

              Perhaps one can believe in God, and regard Jesus Christ as good man and prophet. This is the position of many mainline denominationalists, explicitly or implicitly. And of Islam as well, of course.

              You are already pretty remarkably devout in mainline Presbyterian circles if you accept only the first clause of the Nicene Creed…..

              • Michael Bauman says

                Timor, you may be right as most moderns have lost the sense of the sacred that most classical heresies require.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      Dear Antiochene Fathers. Mr Kinsey wrote the following in the context of condemning homosexual clergy:

      “I write this because some only perform useless empty ritual, being evil trees which bear only evil fruit,, incapable of the Holy Miracles. Gay,s, of course are among the evil trees, shutting up heaven against men, faking being real priests., while the congregation is told , the Holy Sacrament is received, even from the hand of evil trees.”

      That is clearly the Donatist heresy. Just because Mt Kinsey is so vehemently opposed to the problem of homosexuality, particularly amongst clergy, is no reason to bestow your would-be imprimatur on anything he utters! You shouldn’t fear that your cause would be seen as weak if you let the diagnosis stand!

    • anne margaret says

      “Offensive to some clergy in the Orthodox Church” says Father Pat. My goodness, these days you can’t say or do anything without offending SOMEONE. Now the PRIESTS are offended too? Grow some balls people! And Father Pat, since when do you CARE that people are offended anyway?

  7. Daniel E Fall says

    I don’t understand or see things as black. Take, for example, the scotus decision for Westboro re Snyder. Westboro perpetrates real evil in the name of God and we only get one dissenter who recognizes how Phelps n co dug into Snyder.

    The case did not boil down to free speech and the good Catholic on the bench had some wisdom. But the idea that freedom to do or say anything we please needs bounds. For the same reason, the mayor of Baltimore should resign. Freddie Gray’s abuse in custody could have resulted in a sit down protest; not let them destroy for a day.

    Freedom untempered is not freedom.

  8. Pelagia Hoffman says

    The abortion rate in Greece is highest in all of Europe. The abortion rate in Greece is higher than the abortion rate in the United States.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      I don’t agree with those who say that what pushed the Fathers into formally condemning abortion is because the Greeks have been notoriously given to murdering their own offspring from time immemorial, but I understand those who would make that assertion!. Just MENTION the custom of exposing newborn baby girls on a mountain side, and everyone knows you’re referring to a peculiarly Greek custom, reports of which extended well into the 20th century! A Muslim might very well preach: “Christian Greeks, Taoist and Confucian Chinese ‘ are alike in their abhorrence of economically unproductive girl babies!
      But I don’t mean to make a detour from the main thread here, which is Greek Love and Greek Style. Everybody knows what those concepts are: those behaviours are so termed in all Western European languages and some others. Mr Putin and his ilk, however, act and speak as if Greek Love and Greek Style (not to mention pederasty and pedophilia and Lesbian as being also peculiarly Greek, since the Western Europeans have no words of their own to express such novelties.
      Any Greek Americans HEREwho find this offensive might want to reconsider their similarly specious characterizations of other ethnicities, such as Afro-Americans.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      “The abortion rate in Greece is highest in all of Europe.”

      And Serbia is second.

      • anne margaret says

        Why are people “liking” the high rates of abortion in Greece and Serbia? I thought this was a Christian blog.

        • Daniel E Fall says

          Oh Anne Margaret, if you only understood. Allow me. The like button here is used mainly to “like” the person who posted the message. It has no regard for content.

          Perhaps your doom and gloom posts will get a few more to vote for you.

          In the words of my cartoon friend, rotsa ruck.

          • anne margaret says

            Oh I think I understand. So this website is sort of like a game?

            • Daniel E Fall says

              To a degree. Most of the people that post anonymously are more into gamemanship. The people who attach their name to posts are less about that and more about sharing opinions. Take yourself as an example.

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          anne margaret, they “like” being INFORMED by the posting.Don’t you like being informed of the facts?

        • HI Anne,

          I think people “like” being informed. It may be terrible information, but they “like” that it was posted.
          Having said that either this blog has been invaded by protesters or the “like ” button is being played with . . . .

  9. Thomas Barker says

    the corrosive effects of a compromised priest on the faith of those under him

    Years ago I was in an Orthodox parish which received a new priest. Unlike his predecessor, who was married and had three children, the new priest was single. Many of us felt that something was not right with the priest. He was a social “hit” with the older women and his mother seemed to accompany him wherever he went. Personally, I always felt a mild revulsion for him, but didn’t know why. There were symptoms that something was wrong. There was a lack of abiding human warmth from him. He was what you would call a ‘cold fish.’ Witty, but cold. His sermons, and even the messages he wrote in the parish bulletins, had the ring of essays on sociology. He did not dwell on patristic wisdom or the lives of the saints. The flock (myself included) did not do well under him. Corrosive is generally descriptive of his effect on the congregation. It was revealed later that the priest was homosexual and was engaged in a very physical relationship with another man at the time he was our priest. My point is that, although I do not question the validity of the Holy Mysteries celebrated or performed by this priest, his secret life had a deeply negative impact on our spiritual lives. I have never looked at the clergy the same, which is a shame.

    • Christopher says

      One wonders if his Bishop:

      1) Knew/suspected, but thought that his congregation would be part of the process/relationship that would “save” him

      2) Did not know, and thus his ignorance reflects something about the bishops responsibilities and his relationship with his clergy

      3) Knew, and did nothing because he too is compromised in the very same area

      Can anyone think of how the bishop comes off well in this scenario?

      • Thomas Barker says

        Christopher,

        After the fallout, I wondered the same and much more. I’ve never found answers to those questions.

  10. In my long past, as I am in my seventies, I have known clergy both in and out of the Orthodox Church, who led moral lives, but really had no clue about making Jesus Lord of their lives. Life is much easier if we can make rules, like the Pharisees, that show that we are “good” people. Being “born again” as Jesus advised Nicodemos is a whole other ballgame. There is one priest that stands out in my life, not Orthodox, but orthodox. From our very first meeting, he was interested in the state of my soul. His presence in my life and his close relationship with God, transformed my life and that of many others. We still reminisce about him 30 years later and are in awe of the God that he served.

  11. My brothers and sisters, these are all signs that we are living deep in the last days of this system. “it is written” there fore there is nothing that should shock us, or shake our faith in the one True God.
    Do we not pray for God’s Kingdom to come to earth “as it is in heaven”. We pray is at least daily, do we not?
    “The love of the greater number will cool off”, “Lovers of pleasure, rather than lovers of God”, immorality will be rampant, and perhaps even accepted by the church, yes even this!
    “Seek FIRST the Kingdom of God…”

    • Daniel E Fall says

      This is such a sky is falling thread. With the undertone gays are causing it, while all the while, the real fear is for humanity is nuclear. Look at China. They are basically trying to imperialize the ocean and we can’t go to war with them or Putin advancing on Crimea because of the nuclear threat. Never before have we seen such arrogance of a nation building ports on reefs 600 miles from their coasts, save perhaps the US.

      The reality is the collapse of society will not be men loving men, but men hating men. I’m not advocating gay anything, but find the premise here of cultural catastophe bordering on absurd.

      • There will never be such a war. The global elite will never allow it.

        But a collapse of public morality is occurring before our eyes, and people deny it.

  12. Luke Padgett says

    George, who are these people decrying traditional Christian rejection of depravity? Or am I misreading them?

  13. Pelagia Hoffman says

    Some Orthodox priests are more interested in advancing their literary careers than they are in shepherding their flocks, not to mention feeding the homeless, clothing the poor, and turning the other cheek. These priests are particularly attracted to blogs such as this one, where they are able to showcase their intellectual wit.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Miss Hoffman, this is not “either/or” but “both/and.” To insinuated that Fr Reardon shouldn’t write (in lucid prose no less) on matters of which he is incredibly concerned about disingenuous. Why shouldn’t priests who have that gift preach? That’s part of their job.

      • Daniel E Fall says

        I’d say you got it fully wrong P. They are concerned with things that aren’t vital (per me). I don’t really see intellectual wit, but rather, passion for that which means little. But then I like fishing…

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      Pelagia remarks,

      “Some Orthodox priests are more interested in advancing their literary careers than they are in shepherding their flocks . . . These priests are particularly attracted to blogs such as this one, where they are able to showcase their intellectual wit.”

      Those interested in advancing their literary careers should send in their short stories and poetry to literary journals.

      I can’t imagine anyone’s literary career being advanced by sending blog messages to our buddy George.

      • Christopher says

        Those interested in advancing their literary careers should send in their short stories and poetry to literary journals

        Ah Father, have you not heard – the comment box here is the new promised land for the undiscovered poet… 😉

  14. Pelagia Hoffman says

    To my ear, some Orthodox priests are like “resounding gongs” and “clanging cymbals”.

    • Pelagia, please try to be less judgemental. We are all mere human beings. Christ is Risen!

  15. George Michalopulos says

    To your ear, that may very well be. I can assure you that Fr Webster is anything but a “clanging cymbal.”

    I suppose it’s a matter of whose ox is getting gored. I imagine that some people would find Fr Arida’s turgid musings more to their taste.

  16. May Fr. Alexander’s (Orthodox) tribe increase.

  17. Thomas Barker says

    M. Stankovich,

    I only just came across your notes to me (thread closed) that begin “Thomas Barker, votre attention, s’il vous plaît: voici votre Tartuffe.” So Monk James is your Tartuffe. Thank you for the clarification.

  18. Michael James Kinsey says

    The ace in the hole, has finally been played, Donatism. Two Holy scriptures say almost exactly the same thing. But with a clarifying difference. When two or more are gathered together in my name( being authentic Christian) , there am I also. And where the eagles are gathered together, there also will the Body be. The use of the word Body, is clearly a Sacramental reference to the Eucharist. Which does answer the question of when Donatism is appropriately applied.It cannot be applied to any un -canonical church or defrocked cleric. The Christ is present as the Holy Fathers discerned when those of the body of the Christ, are gathered together to receive the Body of the Christ. The life, and Love is God’s Revelation to the human heart, via the Holy Spirit. This is the Rock the authentic Church of Jesus Christ is built upon.
    Whereas, only those who serve themselves or another God, enter into the great whore desolating the life and the Love. Again , those who live for bread alone, desolate the Life in the spirit of a man. Only these can become gay. Because it is a plague of the great whore, sent to those who disregard the 2 Great Commandments.They are being punished by God, not Satan, says St. John Chrysostom. These cannot do Holy Sacraments, the Holy Spirit is only sent to a soul in relationship with God. This comes, as the Filoque is correctly addressed by Orthodoxy., only from the Father. The Christ is always present in Donatismey ignore the 2 great commandments., in the hearts of true believers.I doubt many will call my response heretical.The major point is you are created male and female, you cannot become gay, unless you have entered the great whore, and live for bread alone. They ignore the 2 great commandments. Bless you all,

  19. Michael James Kinsey says

    Where 2 or more are gathered together in My Name, there will I be also. Where the eagles are gathered together, there also will the Body be. A clear Sacramental reference.Here Donatism obviously applies. In another post, I will explain when Donatism does not apply.

  20. Michael James Kinsey says

    Obviously, does not apply. (correction to previous post.)

  21. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    Father Alexander Webster wrote a Touchstone article, two paragraphs of which were published on this blog site.

    In response, Jerry, Richard, and Charles took the occasion to inform all of us about their preference in sexual partners.

    Why do they imagine that any of us give a damn?

    • Daniel E Fall says

      I couldn’t agree more.

      • Dan Fall says

        I understand your question was rhetorical, but it brings on the obvious which I feel compelled to point out to anyone who doesn’t get it.

        Rarely do homosexuals work that hard at expressing their personal lives, so what we really most likely have is Bob Bowers, or the contra persona of Betty operating in a weak attempt at making the gays look bad…it is pretty fun to read between the lines. Of course, some of those same people will come back and say the gays want to express their personal lives through the social contract of marriage, blah, blah, blah. Jerry, Charles, and Richard are the expression of some anti-gay persons idea of the militant gay.

        I had a militant gay guy rub me on the back once at a cafeteria. He was trying to prove a point, but he failed. That is the only time in my near 50 years of experiencing a ‘militant’ gay. The militants are almost always on the other side, i.e. Westboro protesting Snyder.

        I say Jerry, Richard, and Charles are not who they claim to be at all. If I’m wrong, let them share their names more fully. They won’t to suggest they are protecting their priest, but more truthfully because they aren’t real.

        I still don’t care, except I hate to see any of them taken too seriously.

        On a more serious note, someone referred to you as father in another post. Is that an appropriate title? I honestly thought you were a deacon or something, but wondered why you didn’t post your name with the title if someone else gave it.

        • Dan, that was my thought exactly. They sound like caricatures, not real people. I would suggest that they could just as easily be straight lefties who are just trolling for extreme responses from what they imagine “right-wing nut jobs” are like. Conservatives don’t have a corner on the stereotype market.

          • Daniel E Fall says

            I hadn’t considered the reaction rousing aspect, but that, too, is a good likelihood.

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          Dan remarks that he “wondered why you didn’t post your name with the title if someone else gave it.”

          Dan, thank you for disposing of Jerry, Richard, and Charles,

          With respect to your query—when I take up the pen, I tend to use only my pen name.

  22. I’ve been in many churches since my Baptism, from Baptist to Presbyterian to Anglican to Catholic to Orthodox. There is one constant among all of them. No one will stay in a church where his sins are illumined from the amvon. Either one will repent or he will leave. He will not sit under the judgment of the word, unchanged. The one sure and infallible way to drive homosex promoters out of our parishes, monasteries, and synods is preaching of the word of God. It’s as simple as that.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      You’re entirely right, Luke. I saw this in several congregations I pastored, years ago, in the Episcopal Church.

    • Dan Fall says

      So, you are saying it is right to pick on the fat man for gluttony?

      Exactly what was illumined through Christ’s resurrection? Did Christ’s time on life here teach us to illumine sins from the amvon?

      Sorry, but the approach is all wrong, unless the church is full of fat people. Then, the priest should commit political suicide and have a sermon on gluttony every Sunday until termination. Huh? We mean gays Dan..

      Where is Scooby Doo when he is so badly needed?

  23. Michael Bauman says

    Luke part and parcel to what you rightly suggest is enforcing appropriate discipline on those who are living in fornication whether male-female or same sex. Otherwise some will give away the store in the name of economia.

    Fr. Pat. The only reason to give a damn is to be watchful.

    • Michael, agreed that discipline is appropriate and needful for all unrepentant sins. I believe that commensurate with that, the Holy Spirit is most able to impart spiritual discipline so that ecclesiastical discipline isn’t necessary in most cases. As the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “piercing to the division of soul and of spirit.” There are always exceptions, of course, but in general the problem disappears where the Gospel is preached in its fullness. In a situation where economia obstructs tough love it really isn’t very economic.

  24. On the sanctity of relationships says

    I thought I would add the voice of others on Pentecost. Here is a statement from Texas

    We, the Orthodox clergy of Houston and Southeast Texas, are compelled by our responsibilities before God to speak out plainly against the rebellion against God’s created order that we see being waged on both the local and national level.

    It is God who created the two sexes, and established marriage at the time of creation, as our Lord Jesus Christ tells us:

    “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh.What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6-10; cf. Genesis 1:27; 2:24; 5:2).

    The so called “Houston Equal Rights Ordinance,” is nothing of the sort; but rather gives a man who wishes to consider himself a woman, on a given day, the right to use women’s restrooms in the city of Houston. Such a man need not have even had a “sex change” operation, or even dress like a woman, since “gender” is considered to be a state of the mind rather than a biological fact. After the City council approved this unjust law, Christians of all races, denominations, and political affiliations organized a petition drive, which resulted in far more than the required number of signatures to get the issue on the ballot. But Mayor Annise Parker, disregarding the law, simply chose to disregard the will of the people and their right to vote in accordance with the law. She also used the occasion to unconstitutionally subpoena the sermons and private pastoral correspondences of pastors who were not even a party to a lawsuit that is seeking to force the Mayor to simply obey the law and allow the citizens of the city of Houston their right to vote. We wish to express our support for the fight against this unjust law, and the unlawful actions of Mayor Annise Parker, and we call upon her to cease ignoring the will of the people — which she clearly knows does not support her actions, or else she would not fear leaving the matter to them.

    The question of “gay marriage” is also before the Supreme Court, and it is feared that they will impose “gay marriage” on the entire United States. We want our parishioners, fellow citizens, political leaders, and our nation’s judges to know that if this is done, it will be a violation of the letter and the spirit of the United States Constitution. More importantly, it will be an act of rebellion against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” We have laws respecting marriage because only heterosexual relationships are capable of producing children, and those children are best provided for and properly raised within the context of traditional marriage. Homosexual relationships cannot possibly produce children, and so cannot possibly fit the meaning of the word “marriage,” neither should the state concern itself with recognizing such relationships. Homosexual couples also cannot provide both a mother and a father to a child, and so should not be allowed to adopt children.

    The Declaration of Independence correctly states that our rights come from God, not from the state. The state can either justly protect those rights, or unjustly violate them. No government, much less an unelected court, can justly proclaim something to be a right which violates God’s natural order. The only way society can accommodate the demands of homosexual activists to call their relationships “marriage” and to allow everyone to pick which restroom they desire, is to ignore that men and women are different and have unique characteristics, and to pretend that there is no difference between a mother and a father. This can only be accomplished if we all deny that which we know to be true, and “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

    Let it be known that we will never recognize such laws or judicial decrees to be either right or just, nor will we be intimidated into silence, but will continue to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), and proclaim the whole council of God on these issues (Acts 20:27).

    Signed:
    V. Rev. Fr. Serge Veselinovich, Ss. Constantine and Helen Serbian Orthodox Church, Galveston, Texas
    V. Rev. Fr. Gabriel Karam, Holy Forty Martyrs Antiochian Orthodox Church, Sugarland, Texas
    V. Rev. Fr. Joseph Huneycutt, St. Joseph Antiochian Orthodox Church, Houston, Texas
    V. Rev, Fr. Anastasios Raptis, St. Basil Greek Orthodox Church, Houston, Texas
    V. Rev. Fr. John Whiteford, St. Jonah Orthodox Church (ROCOR), Spring Texas
    Hieromonk John (Anderson), St. Cyril Orthodox Church (OCA), The Woodlands, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Lubomir Kupec, St. Vladimir Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR), Houston, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Cassian Sibley, Life-Giving Spring Orthodox Church (ROCOR), Bryan, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Michael J. Lambakis, Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Houston, Texas
    Rev. Fr. James Shadid, St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church, Houston, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Richard Petranek, St. Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church, Katy, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Demetrios Tagaropulos. Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Houston, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Anthony Baba, St. Anthony Antiochian Orthodox Church, Spring, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Symeon Kees, St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church, Houston, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Benigno Pardo, St. Jonah Orthodox Church (ROCOR), Spring, Texas
    Rev. Fr. Christopher Xanthos, Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Houston, Texas
    Rev. Dn. David Companik, St. Jonah Orthodox Church (ROCOR), Spring, Texas

    More names from the clergy association are likely to be added

    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

      Outstanding! Orthodox priests “with muscle,” to coin a phrase, in Houston.

    • Daniel E Fall says

      It looks like the letter was a shotgun blast at two distinct issues. By lumping them; much was lost. I am opposed to trannies swapping restrooms, don’t care on marriage.