Why the Church Cannot (and Will Not) Countenance “Gay Marriage”

Oxford Union Debating Center

We conservatives and traditionalists have been fighting against “gay marriage” for decades now.  First in the secular sphere and then in the religious.  All to no avail.  

Clearly we have lost.  Even the Mormons have recognized sodomy as marriage.  (How’s that for a kick in the head?)    In reality, we lost the debate right from the start, when we acceded to the term “gay marriage.”  There is no such thing.  It is an oxymoron, along the ranks of “married bachelors” and “chaste prostitutes.”

But it framed the debate on their terms.  Big mistake.  

So far, the Catholic Church has held out, but the “Jimmy Martin” contingent seems to be carrying the day.  Indeed, the Catholic bishops of Germany are completely on board as far as sodomy is concerned.  As for the Orthodox Church, we have our own Fordhamite faction which has the power of an influential Jesuit university on its side.  They also have the State Department.  They probably have the “Mother Church” of Orthodoxy and its various eparchies on their side as well.  

If the Church continues down this path, how soon will it become indistinguishable from the world?  And how soon will the question arise, what’s the point

The world will have a ready answer: “There is no point” and the Gospel will be relegated to the garbage heap which is getting bigger with each generation.  It will become irrelevant. 

It’s been hard, grueling work to stand athwart the zeitgeist and to say “No!”  It’s very tempting to throw in the towel and just give up.  I guess that’s one reason why I won’t go into a 2,000 word essay on why homosexual nuptials are not only illogical but insane, evil, stupid and unworkable, all at once. 

Instead, I’ll kindly direct you to Dr Calvin Robinson, an Anglican deacon, who spoke eloquently against this abomination at the Oxford Union Debating Society.  Far more eloquently than I ever could.  Far more eloquently than I’ve heard an Orthodox theologian exposit on this subject.  Thus, I direct you this short, 12 minute video (courtesy of our friends at Helleniscope). 

Dr Robinson says it all –and for all time as far as I’m concerned.  There’s nothing more than I can add, it’s that powerful.

As for me, this will be the final word on this matter.   If the Fordhamites, ensconced as they are in their cushy positions want to keep on spouting their inanities, fine.  But you’ll never convince me that they’re doing anything but peddling untruths.  As Solzhenitsyn said, “live not by lies.”  At this stage in my life, I can’t put up with nonsense.  If the “Mother Church” wants to be sucked into this vortex of unreality, then that’s their problem, not mine.



  1. To exist, the Church needs members.
    To continue to exist, she needs future members.
    Future members do not issue from homosexual couplings.

  2. Charles Curtis says

    One of the things I do not understand is why we bother talking to these people at all. They are insane, to the point of spiritual inanity.

    It’s very simple. Sodomy is not sex. Whenever anyone uses the phrases “anal sex” or “oral sex” they are outting themselves as mindslaves of Moloch. Copulating and ejaculating into the mouth or anus is not sexual, much less sacramental. You can mix semen with gastric juice and feces for eternity, you will never get a baby back.

    Two people of the same sex cannot have sex with one another, which is to say cannot have a baby with one another, cannot form a family with one another, which is all just another way of saying it is utterly impossible for them to marry one another.

    There is nothing any bishop, priest, theologian or any other human being can do to change this simple reality. Anyone who pretends they can is in defiance of divinely established natural order, and therefore not a Christian. There is nothing to debate or discuss. It’s time to simply start telling them this: “Leave us. Begone. Go to the Church of satan and offer aborted children to Moloch, for he is your actual god, and satanism your de facto religion.”

    • Well stated! Are they teaching biology in school anymore? Parents need to find out what their children are learning.

      System of organs
      A group of organs that work together to perform one or more functions in the body.

      Musculoskeletal system
      Mechanical support, posture and locomotion

      Cardiovascular system
      Transportation of oxygen, nutrients and hormones throughout the body and elimination of cellular metabolic waste

      Respiratory system
      Exchange of oxygen and carbon-dioxide between the body and air, acid-base balance regulation, phonation.

      Nervous system
      Initiation and regulation of vital body functions, sensation and body movements.

      Digestive system
      Mechanical and chemical degradation of food with purpose of absorbing into the body and using as energy.

      Urinary system
      Filtration of blood and eliminating unnecessary compounds and waste by producing and excreting urine.

      Endocrine system
      Production of hormones in order to regulate a wide variety of bodily functions (e.g. menstrual cycle, sugar levels, etc)

      Lymphatic system
      Draining of excess tissue fluid, immune defense of the body.

      Reproductive system
      Production of reproductive cells and contribution towards the reproduction process.

      Integumentary system
      Physical protection of the body surface, sensory reception, vitamin synthesis.

    • In Chapter 13 of his 1862 novel Salammbo, Gustave Flaubert describes how,
      at the height of the siege of Carthage in the 241-237 BC Mercenary Revolt
      and when their aqueduct-borne water supply had been interrupted
      the citizens sacrificed their children in holocaust to Moloch for rain.

      In English translation, the chapter ends thus:
      The loud noise and great light had attracted the Barbarians to the foot
      of the walls; they clung to the wreck of the helepolis [mobile siege-tower]
      to have a better view, and gazed open-mouthed in horror.

      How is this different from today’s ‘civilised’ Western World
      where boys are routinely castrated to become ‘girls’
      and girls are given double mastectomies to become ‘boys’
      and both sexes are encouraged to consider suicide
      when their safe and effective ‘vaccines’ prove to be neither;
      while the ‘Barbarian’ Third World gazes open-mouthed in horror
      as the West insists such practices must be adopted by them?

  3. Deacon John says

    The Church does not need us. God does not need us. It is we that need the Church and God if we want salvation. God and His Church will survive for all eternity without us if we so choose. Me? I’m gonna walk into the Ark of Salvation that is the Church and take my seat. Who will come with me? It will be a bumpy ride and I have a feeling it won’t be crowded in the Kingdom of Heaven.

  4. And you wonder why people don’t take the Orthodox Church seriously. Orthodox Christians, like you and Gail, just judge constantly and leave no room for God to make the final judgment about a persons salvation. As a so-called Orthodox Christian, why don’t you just start focusing on loving everyone and let God worry about who is worthy to be in His Kingdom. If you are going to do God’s work for him, no wonder Jesus hasn’t returned yet! He doesn’t need to as long as Gail and George know it all!

    • Seriously? Neither Gail nor I “judged” anybody. Nor do we.

      It’s the Church which adjudicates issues of morality. All we did was post a video of a well-spoken Anglican deacon and allowed him to give the moral case against the Church sanctioning homosexual couplings as “marriage.”

      As for myself, one of the purposes of the post in question is to inform everybody that as far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed. The proglibs one, we lost.

      But I am not going to live by a lie. “Gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms, always has been, always will be.

      • “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

        The only question is whether we have the authority to change the faith.

      • Deacon John says

        No, The Church has not lost and those espousing heretical teachings have not won. During the end times it will appear that the heretics and their leader the Antichrist are winning but as we all know through our reading of Holy Scripture that Christ will triumph in all His Glory. Trust me Satan and his followers take the Orthodox Church very seriously which is why The Church is attacked on a daily basis. The Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Christ Himself and given to us by His Holy Apostles and can never be defeated.

        • Rev Dn, I know you are right. In the end, Christ wins. My observation is that as far as the West in concerned, the cause is lost. All states, whether they be republics, monarchies or tin-pot dictatorships, fail. As do all civilizations. The same goes for Churches. When Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, he meant the eternal Church, not individual dioceses.

          That’s all I was trying to stress, that we in the West have lost this battle. Now all that’s left (barring major repentance on our part) is waiting for our civilization to self-destruct.

    • The Priest Nicholas Young says

      Who are these persons who don’t take Orthodoxy seriously? If you are talking for yourself, or about yourself, say so. The teaching about same-sex relations has been the same since Apostolic times. (Orthodox Judaism has the same teaching.) There should be no surprise or shock that faithful Christians wish to uphold this teaching. If you reject it, that’s “your business”, not the Church’s.

    • Linda, you epitomize why it is good that women are not allowed to be clergy, and that they should be quiet!

      • I’m a women (adult human female if anyone is confused by that term) and I completely agree.

    • Nobody “lets” God do anything, Linda. He will do what He will. That He might be uncharitable toward people who do evil things for selfish reasons, resulting in disastrous consequences for whole nations, is certainly a possibility (perhaps even likely), however, I hear repentance is a game changer. Let’s hope for that outcome.

    • There are two prevalent fallacies (demonic in origin) reflected in Linda’s comment.

      1. That agreeing with God about sin and where sin ultimately leads is equal to condemning sinners.
      2. That when it comes to sinners Christians have only two choices: either we must accept sinners and their sin, or we must hate them.

      Both of these are modern fallacies that have no basis whatsoever in Orthodox Christian tradition.

      I would ask those Christians who seem to have bought into these fallacies what approach they themselves would suggest toward alcoholics or drug addicts. Do we do those enslaved by these passions any favors by accepting them and their sins without calling them to, and helping them toward, repentance and the freedom it brings through Christ? Would they accuse us of ‘judging’ or hating them by doing so?

  5. Please provide your “proof” that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints approves of “sodomy” as marriage. As a practicing member of the LDS, I have never been taught or told that so-called “gay marriage” is acceptable to the Lord.
    Thank you.

  6. Fascinating. But why does he persevere inside the Beast? I know a priest who recently graduated from the Greek seminary here in America. Agreeable fellow, not radical at least as far as I have heard him. Yet he chose Holy Cross to study Orthodoxy and GOARCH for ordination (despite not being Greek), knowing full well that it is in the grip of the sine paribus heresy as well as risking apostasy given the pro-gay views of many clerics.

    Perhaps the good deacon will see the writing on the wall and come over to Orthodoxy. However, if he is foolish enough to come under Constantinople, he will be out of the frying pan and into the fire.

    • George Michalopulos says

      One reason I can say Misha, is that honest seekers are rightly shocked by the EP’s obeisance to the West as presently constituted. An honest Anglican like Dn Robinson might look to the (South)-East and think he’d be jumping out of the frying-pan and into the fire.

    • Sarah Karcher says

      Holy Cross the seminary and the GOA are connected but they are different entities. Currently there are a good number of instructors and staff at the seminary who are faithful and devout Orthodox Christians, I would say the vast majority, and Holy Cross offers an exceptional patristics program, and Id also say one would struggle to find a better place to be formed in Scripture in the language of the Bible than Holy Cross. It may not have always been the case that it was such a solid institution as far as potential for spiritual and academic formation, but I would take a look at the current listing of faculty and staff before judging too harshly. I think the priests who were graduating in the 90s vs now look very different, as far as their spiritual formation.
      Note that I am not speaking to the financial situation of the seminary or any other administrative issues, although these seem to have improved over the decades. Also, full disclosure, I am a Hellenic College graduate and have a relative in the seminary. But I wouldnt sugar coat things about the seminary. I think it is currently one of the best.
      I hardly think it is risking apostasy to be within the GOA as a faithful clergyman. At least, not any more than it is risking apostasy to be living in the US as an Orthodox Christian right now. We can all see our reflections in the teeth of the Beast right now, I think, and God help us. I think the more we simply seek out shepherds who can feed their flock and places where there is spiritual fruit to be had, and maybe slightly less on the divides among canonical churches, maybe we will find ourselves more spiritually robust and able to shove forward when the times call for it and take up our crosses faithfully for Christ.
      You can not ignore wrong teaching, but one wrong bishop doesn’t make everyone under him an apostate. I feel sorry for them and I agree that it is confusing to see people voluntarily going under the GOA as clergy, but there are lots of reasons why that can happen. I try to remember that bishops can come and go but the people/the Church remains.
      Anyway, please forgive and forget anything I said that grates on you. God help us all here in the US.

      • @Misha I agree with what Sarah has said above.

        I’ve been openly critical of the EP/GOA on here many times (probably more so than being praiseworthy). I also know people who have been to HCHC both for seminary and regular college education and I’ve heard nothing but great things, though I don’t think this was always the case in the past.


        Having previously belonged to the GOA, had a spiritual father in the GOA, and frequented their monasteries, I can say that even though I am critical of some of their bishops and definitely the EP, all the priests and monks I have met I would trust with my salvation. Just because they are under a terrible bishop or a horrible patriarch doesn’t automatically make them heretical or invalidate their sacraments, even the Church of Russia (and ROCOR which I belong to) doesn’t say that. Though I don’t always agree, the clergy & monastics I have spoken to in the GOA are playing the “wait and see” game.

        There is a weird dichotomy in the EP/GOA (and from what I’ve seen the Church of Greece) in that some of the biggest threats to Orthodoxy belong to them, but, some of the biggest defenders of Orthodoxy belong to them as well.

        I fluctuate between “everyone should leave the GOA” & “they should stay and fight,” and I think there is some truth in both. Some people are meant to leave for other jurisdictions where they can preserve their salvation, while others are meant to stay and fight. The GOA has their fair share of both and if it wasn’t for the latter plus the Ephraim monasteries, who knows what GOARCH would look like.

      • I swear almost like clockwork every time I give them the benefit of doubt they end up doing/saying something stupid 🤦🏻‍♂️


        • If they want communion in an Orthodox church,
          all they have to do is become Orthodox,
          Is that too difficult to grasp?

        • This alleged pastoral approach advocated by Metropolitan Methodios, when it plays out in reality, is short-sighted and frankly is unwise, not allowing the Holy Spirit time to act, in my unworthy opinion.

          For those of us who grew up in the Church in America or who’ve been Orthodox in the West for a long while, we know very well that Eastern Orthodoxy is frankly considered weird and bizarre to many western Christians. This reality is often hard for us to see, but it is a fact. I was like 11 or 12 years old before I realized that Church for all of my friends wasn’t also liturgical and full of icons — Eastern Orthodoxy is “normal” Christianity to me, but it isn’t for most western Christians.

          Marriage to Orthodox Christians is an incredibly significant manner through which Trinitarian western Christians become Orthodox. But many of these western Christians approach Orthodoxy very slowly and with trepidation because, well, it’s just weird for them. The non-Orthodox spouse lovingly agrees to marry in the Orthodox Church – and by economia he/she is permitted to do so, because otherwise the Orthodox spouse would excommunicate him/herself if he/she married somewhere outside of the Church.

          But just giving the non-Orthodox spouse Holy Communion right off the bat not only is completely ridiculous from a theological perspective, it also doesn’t allow time for God to act! It doesn’t allow time for Christ and His Church to touch the non-Orthodox spouse, for he/she to accept the Faith with his/her entire heart, which I think is the method that God wants.

          These formerly western Christians who marry an Orthodox spouse and who gradually accept the Orthodox faith in their own time and under pastoral guidance — these folks often become far more devout Orthodox Christians than those of us who were baptized into the faith as infants. Seen this pattern with my own eyes and in my own life many times. Particularly these days where Western secular culture is completely insane, these former Western Christians who accept Christ and His Church in their own time absolutely love/adore the faith and literally *come home* to it with their whole heart.

          Met. Methodios’s “pastoral shortcut” approach, in my unworthy opinion, does not allow time for the Holy Spirit to work. As one of my favorite Orthodox podcasters Fr Turbo Qualls wisely says, with respect to the Christian life, “there are no shortcuts!”

      • Sarah, hopefully this guy doesn’t teach at Holy Cross:


        • Metropolitan Methodios has historically had many disagreements with Holy Cross, for better or worse. I will leave it at that.

          • Sarah, perhaps we should pray for him (Methodios), then?!

          • Well the good news is, Metropolitan Methodios is being raked over the coals in the YouTube comments on the video.
            Whoever at the AOB that decided to post that video didn’t make a very good PR move.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Very well said, Sarah. I have an intuition (hope, really) that we might be pleasantly surprised by future graduates of Holy Cross.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        HC/HC is perfectly Orthodox and there are many, MANY faithful Greek Orthodox in the GOA despite our hierarches being out to lunch as some ecumenist cafe.. Misha is just anti-Greek Orthodox and always has been for years as a pro Russian Orthodox that sees only purity and goodness in the Russian Church. Best to not take the poor lad too seriously. While the EP is deeply heretical at this point I am sorry to say so is the MP. The war in Ukraine didn’t break Orthodoxy it just showed as where we are broken and have disunity.

        Moscow has been wanting to be the Eastern Pope for a long time. Don’t think things would be any different under Moscow. If we are to have a “Protos” it should either be the Jerusalem Patriarch or have the title and position rotate every few years. That is how you keep us all honest and avoid power accumulating in the hands of just one person for too long.

        Pray for each other, love one another, faults and all, and keep each other honest and try to avoid the propaganda of either the extreme left or right, and simply embrace and live the Gospel.


  7. Joseph Lipper says

    Cannot and will not is exactly right. How many times does the Assembly of Bishops have to reiterate this over and over again to Americans that the Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless same sex unions? There’s never even been a possibility of this happening.

    The Orthodox Church is not ruled by congregationalism, nor by a central Pope, nor by fringe “theologians”, nor even by the whims of some rogue priest. I have never even heard of an Orthodox bishop bringing up the possibility of blessing a same-sex union.

    The only people that I ever hear this from, about the “possibility” of the Orthodox Church blessing same sex unions, are usually recent converts from Protestantism who breathlessly want to warn everyone of this dangerous “possibility”.

    • Seriously, Joseph? You haven’t?

      What do you think Elpi’s message was when he suggested during a question and answer period (offline) at a Leadership 100 meeting that we should commune the spouses of the Orthodox? There are people in the Church who have married same sex people outside the Church so essentially what he’s recommending is we offer the Sacraments to same sex couples with his blessing.

      That was the impetus behind his statement and the Assembly knows that. That you don’t is concerning. https://orthochristian.com/130200.html

      When asked a direct question about the matter in 2022, I think he was pretty clear on where he stands when he says, “. . . we theologians cannot support our views by looking to the past alone, however sacred and mighty it may be.” Funny, because we Orthodox do support our views by looking at the past, as it is the past (the teachings of the Holy Apostles) that shape the present.

      At least for us.

      Contemporary developments in science, medicine, and psychology matter not at all. If we wanted to practice “contemporary thought,” we wouldn’t be Orthodox. It is people rooted in the culture who care about contemporary developments.

      And don’t single out converts, as if the cradle Orthodox share your views. They don’t.

      Q: The Greek Prime Minister has pledged to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you agree with him?

      A: Mr. Mitsos, let me quote the scriptural “Render to Caesar the things that belong to Caesar.” The Prime Minister has the knowledge and discernment to make decisions in a way that serves the Greek people in its entirety. The Church, of course, will express the faith, conviction, and tradition that it has expressed and practiced for ages.

      The issue, you know, is not that the Church understands things differently to the state or a section of the population. The issue lies in the process and reasoning whereby the Church deliberates and decides. As hierarchs today, we cannot groundlessly insist on things, expressing opinions or issuing decisions without any explanation. In today’s world, it is not enough to publish public “affirmations” or “statements” regarding the teaching of the Gospel, while ignoring the severe criticism from those who disagree or seek to hold a conversation with us. Dialogue with other points of view has always helped the Church to deepen its understanding of the Gospel’s teaching, while at the same time compelling it to speak the language of every generation and avoiding marginalization. As our Patriarch said recently: “In authentic dialogue, there are no losers.”

      In fact, I would add that, today, we theologians cannot support our views by looking to the past alone, however sacred and mighty it may be. We should also respect contemporary developments in science, medicine, and psychology. And it is a great blessing and a great advantage that experienced clergy-physicians and theologian-psychologists serve the Church today.


      • “In authentic dialogue, there are no losers.”

        Perhaps, but is all dialogue in and of itself ‘authentic’?
        Or does that depend on what the meaning of ‘is’ is?

        • Nothing is fixed in their minds.

          It reminds me a little kid: “Can I, Mommy? Please? Pretty please? Why can’t I? I want to!!! Mommy, pleeaase! Why not? Why? Just tell me why. Why can’t I? Why? Mommy, pleeaase! I want to. Let me. Come on, Mommy, I want to. OK, then tell me why. You don’t know why! You’re just being mean. It’s not fair. It’s not fair! Mommy, pleeaase???”

          Oh, my gosh. The answer is “No!” You can’t change the Church!!!

        • George Michalopulos says

          All I can say is what we know from the mainline Protestant denominations, when in the 70s, all that the enemies of Tradition asked for was “dialogue.” Cue the camel’s nose under the tent.

          It didn’t work out for them, did it?

      • “…we theologians cannot support our views by looking to the past alone, however sacred and mighty it may be…”
        Now listen to that language by an Orthodox bishop!
        It is dangerously misunderstandable if not a deceptive statement:
        “We theologians”
        He forgets or hushes the fact that many other theologians do not agree with him.
        After all it is not a question of ballots.
        Saint Markos of Ephesos was a minority in Italy.

        Elp. forgets or hushes the fact that the Church recognizes THREE “Theologians”, the three Hierarchs.

        Elp.’s statement kind of reminds the recent vaccine language paradigm:
        “We scientists believe…”

      • Joseph Lipper says

        Gail, no, Archbishop Elpidophoros’ words specifically refer “to those couples who are married and who received the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church”. That’s the direct quote from the Orthochristian.com article you offer. There is no mention of blessing same sex unions here. It’s not even hinted at.

        Here’s the service of marriage from the GOA website:


        It’s literally impossible to make this into a blessing of a same sex union.

        I could additionally offer almost endless statements from Orthodox bishops, Holy Synods, and even the recent Assembly of Bishops in American that the Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless same sex unions. I can’t even find one statement from an Orthodox bishop that says otherwise. Can you?

        • Of course, it is hinted at!

          Not everyone receives the service of marriage you posted. The crowning ceremony is but one. Some people don’t qualify for a crowning ceremony so they are married in the Church without it. Some people are given a blessing to marry outside the Church and then their civil marriage is recognized. Some people are given the crowning ceremony if they were married outside the Church before coming into the Church.

          But in every case, these marriages are between one man and one woman.

          George wrote a piece a while back where he reported: “Certain bishops in the GOA instructed their priests to commune homosexual couples who are legally “married.” This was in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision which legalized this practice. This was also about the same time The Pappas Post announced that Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, declared in a public forum that Christians who have been married in the Orthodox Church, where the spouse was not chrismated, may receive Holy Communion. The impetus behind this was to normalize “gay marriage” in the Orthodox Church; a temporary “workaround,” so to speak, obviating the need for a formal liturgical rite. This was undoubtedly the same thinking that led to the baptism of the children of a homosexual couple in the hope that it would normalize homosexuality through the “family” in the eyes of the Church.”

          Joseph, we have a Church full of people who insist the beliefs and practices of the Church are mutable. It is no secret Elpidophoros believes that and he has peppered the landscape with “oopsies” to push in that direction.

          As my grandmother used to say, “By way of little steps,” Elpidophoros, et al., are trying to make the Church into something it isn’t, which begs the question, if they don’t like the Church as is, why can’t they just find another one and leave ours alone? A 2000 year institution should not have to change for the people who don’t respect it enough to honor it. Clearly, it is NOT what they want.

          I never said Elpidophoros was going to be successful. Joseph. Of course, “Orthodox bishops, Holy Synods, and even the recent Assembly of Bishops in American that the Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless same sex unions.” But that he wants to “go there” is a given. He keeps pushing and pushing and pushing. The gay baptism thing is a case in point.

          • Joseph Lipper says

            Gail, the bishop’s comments are specifically directed at those who receive the Sacrament of Marriage within the Orthodox Church. His comments don’t apply to those who only have a legal civil union. So by very definition of the Orthodox Sacrament of Marriage between a man and a woman, this is not and cannot be a homosexual agenda.

            Whether or not the Orthodox Church should even offer the Sacrament of Marriage to mixed marriages with heterodox Christians in the very first place is a completely different rabbit hole. The Russian Church does it too. It’s certainly not ideal. It can and does create problems.

            By the way, there is no “gay baptism” either. That’s another oxymoron. Archbishop Elpidophoros has never used such a ridiculous term.

            To all those who promote the existence of “gay baptism”, is there also a “heterosexual baptism?” Let’s suppose a heterosexual couple is living in fornication, and the Orthodox grandmother wants the fornicating couple’s baby baptized in the Orthodox Church. It just so happens there are canonical impediments that don’t allow the fornicating heterosexual couple to be married in the Orthodox Church. Yes, this happens often enough in real life. However, the bishop agrees to do the baptism.

            Does that make it “heterosexual baptism”? Or maybe a “baptism of fornication?” No, of course not. To call a baptism that would be just plain wrong. Frankly, I think calling a baptism that would be blasphemous.

            • I hope you’re right.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Me too.

                But let’s be honest, there’s no way that individual Orthodox priests won’t “wink and a nod” this. A few years ago, two GOA bishops told their priests to go ahead and commune those who have contracted a civil union.

                We know which way the wind is blowing.

                • Joseph Lipper says

                  George, the driving force behind all this is the statistic that 65 percent of marriages in the GOA are mixed marriages with heterodox Christians. If anything, it sounds like there’s a heterosexual agenda at play here.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Joseph, what you say is true –as far as it goes. But ever since the Big Fat Gay Baptism fiasco of last year, it’s clear that there’s another agenda underlying the heterosexual angle.

                • I think most of us here can recognize that Joseph’s arguments (above) about ‘gay marriage’ or the ‘gay baptism’ are reasonable. Even much of what Elpidophoros says publicly can be perceived as ‘reasonable’ in certain respects.

                  But frankly, I think for most most of us here (and certainly myself) the issue is not the ‘reasonableness’ of the arguments. What is sorely and obviously lacking in these reasonings is what has been called “the aroma of the Fathers” and/or the witness of the Spirit.

                  Some of of us here have long personal histories of having listened to such ‘reasonable’ arguments and have attempted either to accept or refute them by reason alone. What many of us have ultimately found is that reason alone is wholly insufficient to refute these or similar such arguments. This is not to say that reasonable arguments against such things cannot be made – they can. It is to say that most such arguments are rarely rationally convincing to those who are already inclined toward the opposing view.

                  One can (as can I) make rational arguments against, say, the baptism in Greece or against the vague (and sometimes not so vague) statements or actions of the archbishop.

                  But ultimately it comes down to this:

                  “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

                  Such knowledge (as in “for they know His voice”) is not attained through human reason or rational argument. It is attained though having habitually heeded the voice of the True Shepherd.

                  “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.”

                  “These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”

                  I do not judge the archbishop. He may be, in many respects, a good man. Even otherwise good men can be misled or deceived, as many of us (including myself) have been. But as things now stand his voice is that of a stranger, and many of us are compelled to see his reasonings for what they are.

                  • Part of the problem is the language Elpi used.

                    Does “married in the Church” mean a couple who got married by a Orthodox priest in the Church or does it mean someone in the Church who is married?

                    I have a friend who was “married in the Church,” i.e. she was “married” and “in the Church.”

                    When he explains why it is necessary to commune the spouse he’s talking about welcoming the other spouse into the fold. This makes no sense because the “fold” are Orthodox Christians who became Orthodox legitimately, either because they were born into the Church and knew the Church from infancy or were Chrismated, which requires being educated about the Church over a period of time.

                    What if the couple has a family? Are you going to let the spouses commune and not their children? That wouldn’t make sense. What if there are step children in the family? Are they going to be allowed to partake, as well? You can’t really leave out the other spouse’s children! And what about the other parent of the step-child? Shouldn’t they be allowed to commune with the family at Pascha? After all, it’s ONE family.

                    These “miracle” attachments have tenacles. They also have legal consequences. Gay marriage is the law. If you commune non-Orthodox spouses without chrismation, the law is going to wonder why you would exclude a gay spouse in a legal marriage. If you start making these distinctions, you could lose your 501c3 status.

                    There is another problem: Why should Orthodox Christians be required to go to confession when their spouses can commune without it?!

                    This is a can of worms at best. [Forgive the errors I have since corrected. I did this in a great hurry!]

                    • I take Joseph’s understanding of their having been married in the Church at face value. Whether others who have agendas do (or will) share that understanding is another matter.

                      For example in regard to the baptism, the godfather’s clear understanding of the baptism was as follows…


                      …and I have yet to hear that his understanding was ever corrected.

                      Someone once said (whether technically true or not) that sins are choices made against the expressed will of God – where we had the choice to obey, to do rightly, and willingly chose to disobey, whereas iniquities are the traps into which our disobedience leads, leaving only choices that are wrong and/or extremely painful to others.

                      I am reminded of those who married foreign women in the days of Ezra.

                      Admittedly we are not Jews, but we are commanded not to be unequally yoked. Once we are, we cannot turn back, and our disobedience is bound to be hurtful, either to ourselves or our spouses.

                      But it the height of folly to presume that disobedience on the part of parishioners, aided by the clergy who allowed it, can be remedied by anything other than repentance on the part of all involved.

                      As is par for the course for those trapped in iniquity, the wrong questions are being asked. The question is not how we make people comfortable in their sins, it is how did we get here in the first place and what needs to change to prevent it moving forward.

                      The only saving answer is repentance. Anything else is a further plung into ever greater iniquity that cheapens the Faith and saves no one.

                    • And a diet of worms leads to Luther…

            • Alexander II says


  8. Who is this “thorn” Linda? Is she Orthodox?

  9. It’s pretty simple: the goal of the Christian life is to live in communion with Christ and God, which brings peace beyond understanding, love, and joy.

    Same sex sexual activity or any sex outside of marriage puts huge roadblocks in the way of this communion. Unrepentant, it makes communion with God pretty impossible.

    Many westerners have bought into the lie that God creates SSA people the same way He creates white, Latino, black, Filipino, etc people. This is a total lie. But it’s a fully accepted belief of mainstream post-Protestant western culture. It’s the sea that we swim in and is very tough to march against.

    For many who suffer from SSA it’s an intense emotional desire/passion, almost always with its roots in childhood abuse/neglect/abandonment or sexual abuse/trauma. Yes some may engage in SSA activity because it’s considered cool or trendy, but many want to struggle against it. We must have compassion for those in this struggle, which of course Christ can heal.

    There used to be help for these folks in terms of trauma therapy to heal the trauma that triggers the passion, but such therapy is very hard to find these days I think and in some states it is flat out illegal. Many find help and recovery through garden variety 12 step programs, since SSA or any type sexual passion are variations of addiction.

    What the Fordhamites try to do is create new Church teaching – that yes one can live in communion with God in a sexual relationship outside of man/woman marriage. This is a lie, but they’re trying to say the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years.

    They know if they word it like that, serious Orthodox Christians will tune them out immediately. So they try to approach it subversively and pseudo-intellectually in a demonic manner. Being in bed (pardon the pun) with a totally homosexualized Roman Catholic Church doesn’t help at all.

    My opinion is that the Church must ignore these Fordhamites completely. The GOA contingent & other modernist Orthodox who they’re comprised of are probably already outside of the Church anyway.

    Wow, a Mormon/LDS reads this blog. Amazing!

  10. Antiochene Son says

    Those who cannot fathom (or worse, accept) their lives being radically changed by Christ are not ready for true repentance, nor for the Christian life. They are essentially pagans. It is sad.

    • Christ has a way of getting our attention. Let us hope this is the case in this situation.

  11. “…we theologians cannot support our views by looking to the past alone, however sacred and mighty it may be…”
    Now listen to that language by an Orthodox bishop!
    It is dangerously misunderstandable if not a deceptive statement:
    “We theologians”
    He forgets or hushes the fact that many other theologians do not agree with him.
    After all it is not a question of ballots.
    Saint Markos of Ephesos was a minority in Italy.

    Elp. forgets or hushes the fact that the Church recognizes THREE “Theologians”, the three Hierarchs.

    Elp.’s statement kind of reminds the recent vaccine language paradigm:
    “We scientists believe…”

  12. While still on the agenda, not sure “gay marriage” is a priority for those who undermine the church. Below, two influential Hierarchs who might as well be Uniates, actively push ecumenism to blur the boundaries of the Church and on a YT Channel sponsored by the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops (!). If this is supported by the Assembly of Bishops … what next?

    “Its scandalous not to commune non-Orthodox…”


  13. …he said to great applause. YIKES! Who made up that audience?