Just a note to say that I appreciate User:Sophysduckling's contribution (check history), but think it still needs work before going public. A couple notes on this: 1. I don't think we need a dictionary or Wikipedia-style definition of homosexuality here. 2. Some areas were expressed in terms of "general" feelings of Orthodox people rather than from a dogmatic perspective -- that's fine in it's own way, but the basic article should be mostly dogmatic in content. 3. Along these lines, e.g. the matter of adelphopoiese is much clearer-cut than was expressed. 4. And the issue of orientation is more complicated.
I removed rather than edited the piece because I don't have the time to write something else now and I didn't want anybody to be mislead. It's a sensitive area in many ways (though dogmatically clear), and since OrthodoxWiki is becoming a standard reference site, I think it would be good if we could start off with a more precise and expanded article. Fr. John 01:19, 20 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Under the section "Articles from an Orthodox Perspective", the first and third links link to the same article on different websites. The article is attributed to a different priest in either case. Rather than removing either of the links, I have contacted one of the priests in question as, either his article is being plagiarised or somebody else's words are being wrongly attributed to him. I thought that this course of action would be best as I don't know the true details of the situation - user Sarisburium. 15.20, 19th August, 2006. BST:
- Hi Sarisburium, thanks for your work on this. Can you be more specific about which articles you're tlaking about? The articles from Frs. Hopko and Caldaroni are different, yes? — FrJohn (talk)
The tone of the article
This is one of the articles on Orthodox Wiki that doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. The opening section has a rather "preachy" tone to it. Also, it includes the claim that "In either case, any practicing Orthodox Christian cannot at the same time be a practicing homosexual." Clearly this isn't a true statement; there are practicing homosexuals who are also practicing Orthodox Christians. The statement could give the false impression that the Orthodox Church doesn't include sinnners in its membership, or that the author thinks that practitioners of this particular sin do not or should not belong to the Orthododox Church. The statement also runs counter to the linked article by Fr Joseph Huneycutt, which refers to a gay man saying "It took the man a couple years to become Orthodox, but another 10 years to become celibate." The Church is a hospital for sinners, and we are rarely healed overnight. --Fr Lev 11:26, August 22, 2006 (CDT)
- Perhaps the section on the Church's view on homosexuality is too preachy. But would you not agree, Father, that the act is unequivocally considered sinful? If my last sentence sounded condemnatory, that wasn't my intent; instead, it was meant as a clarification of the ambiguous nature/nuture debate discussed immediately before. I accept that it takes time to overcome one's passions (God knows I have enough myself) and that indeed one may be Orthodox while struggling to overcome such tendencies. The point, though, is that they are struggling and realize that the act is wrong. I've modified the article to say that Orthodox "should not" be gay instead of absolutely "cannot." If you can express this better, please do so (this is not a challenge, I speak sincerely).
- Also, about the encyclopedia style: Orthowiki isn't meant to be completely "neutral" as is wikipedia. In my opinion, it wouldn't be Orthodox if we didn't give the un-PC view on contentious moral issues that affect the lives of the faithful. Just my two cents; sorry if I offend. Gabriela 23:08, August 22, 2006 (CDT)
- I have attempted to amend the connotation that a repentant person cannot enter the Church (regardless of the sin). I don't think, however, that this article is preachy; rather, the article barely says anything; it is currently a stub, and more precisely a list of links (possibly the safest thing, but not necessarily the best). As an 'Orthodox encyclopedia' (as noted in our biases), in matters of morality, it is our role to give the Orthodox stance on these issues, any responses to these (e.g. from AXIOS) and controversy surrounding these (most notably from AXIOS) - the neutrality comes in describing each side of a conflict. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:27, August 23, 2006 (CDT)
Okay. I'd say the "stub" sounded preachy. I think the change made by Pistevo works; it removes the erroneous meanings that could have been inferred. Yes, of course I agree that homosexual acts are sinful. No, I don't think we need to represent individuals or groups who dissent from the Church's teaching on this issue. I simply wanted to avoid anyone getting the impression from the article that the Orthodox Church doesn't contain sinners in general, or that those who commit homosexual acts in particular, or that those who are genuinely struggling with same-sex attraction are unwelcome in the Church, or that they are prohibited from participating in the Holy Mysteries (provided, of course, that they are truly seeking repentance). --Fr Lev 10:13, August 23, 2006 (CDT)
- Excellent. I'm happy we've cleared things up. Pistevo always does good work. Gabriela 23:08, August 23, 2006 (CDT)
In the section Homosexuality#Articles from an Orthodox Perspective, an article by Shenouda III, Coptic Church's current head (so I understand) is listed. Is this placement proper from this wiki's view? Here "orthodox" means not only non-Calcedonean Church but also Coptic, Syrian or Almeniac churches? I am a bit confused ... --Cat68 20:13, February 25, 2007 (PST)
- Hmm. I'd say that while the Copts aren't Orthodox according to the rest of the Orthodox communion, their position about this particular matter is orthodox, lowercase intentional. I'd call this a definite gray area. Maybe we could add an extra bullet for the Coptic pope under that subhead. Any thoughts, other sysops and regulars? Gabriela 20:32, February 25, 2007 (PST)