Depressing

Mark Shea links to this article, and remarks "Article Like This Make Me Wonder How Orthodoxy Will Weather the Collision with Modernity."

In truth, the article is most depressing.

Bouteneff concluded that gay sex is "misdirected" sexual expression and sinful. But he said the church has to address sensitive questions, such as whether there is anything redeemable in a committed, same-sex relationship.

"If we answer in the negative, we better come up with a good reason, a credible reason," he said. "I don't think we have yet."

Actually, the Church did that quite a long time ago (read this wonderful take on sexual ethics, for instance). Sad that Bouteneff, an assistant professor at a prominent Orthodox seminary, isn't aware of the teachings of the Fathers (or at least doesn't think they're persuasive).

Here's more from him:

On the controversial question of same-sex relationships, for instance, the speakers agreed that Orthodox tradition requires gays and lesbians to live chaste, sexless lives. But they hardly seemed satisfied with such a conclusion, in light of the growing consensus that homosexual orientation is not a choice for at least a large minority of gays and lesbians.

Peter Bouteneff, an assistant professor in dogmatic theology at St. Vladimir's, considered the options facing a gay Christian, such as denial, lying, leaving the church or chastity. "I'm not sure I could bear that cross," he said.

If you believe that homosexuality has a genetic basis (which is ultimately irrelevant, since alcoholism and pyromania do and that doesn't make those vices allowable either), people have been bearing that cross since Christianity first came around, at least. Homosexuals (or, more accurately, those with a homosexual proclivity) have been called to chastity by the Christian Church for 2,000 years. Why is that call suddenly problematic? Were the Father wrong then if their words are wrong now? Does the Church have any claim to a Truth that exists across time for all men?

As a related point, why doesn't the logic being Bouteneff's words call him to argue against (or at least doubt) the priesthood, the ascetic/monastic life, chastity, or virtuous living generally (we're all called to one or more of these, and all of us find our respective crosses difficult)? The culture has made it harder to bear our crosses now (even Saint Basil the Great once wrote that he feared to live in the end times, because he doubted he has the strength to remain a Christian amidst such tribulations), so should we drop them altogether?

Christians have been fighting their own long defeat for close to a millennium now. We foolish mortals sundered the Church in our folly in the 11th century (a wound we ripped into and--perhaps irrevocably--deepened in the 13th century when Christians slew Christians and Constantinople fell for the first time). We continue to bear the fruits of our madness even now, and will until the End of Days. Had the Church not torn itself apart Protestantism would not have spawned in the heart of Christendom, and the Turk would have never defeated a Christian army. I leave it to the reader to imagine what might have been.

Our task is clear. The Orthodox Churches must first of all awaken from their slumber. For too long has the Patriarchate of Constantinople been in heathen hands and thus the object of dread manipulation. The presence of more than one bishop in one city defies the earliest canons and must end (in other words, the various Churches must administratively unite into one American Orthodox Church). The various Orthodox Churches must then hold Council with Rome and unite. Only then will the Long Defeat become a New Dawn.