Chiesa Autonoma Ortodossa Italiana - Patriarcato di Kiev


The idea of sin itself is no longer conceivable, because sin can be reckoned just like it is only towards the glory of God, a term of comparison we have lost in the past. We cannot speak about sin on the basis of ethics, which would reduce guilt to intention and moral responsibility: as if we did not feel guilt having caused someone elses death or pain, as if Dostoevskij was wrong by having told us that we are all responsible for everyones fault. According to ethics, sin would not ever be embodied as a beast crouching at your door, spying and willing to have you (Gn 4,7).
Biblical sin is similar to disease and in the New Testament healing from sin is not different from healing from disease. As illness may be caused by a deliberate behavior, such as going to extremes, which is strictly connected to personal responsibility, so is the sin: however they are both fearful because they can act far beyond this boundary, by striking blindly, widening and infecting everyone. We tend to conceive moral obligation as a universal necessary constant rather than like a historical invention, just because we are used to taking our past experience as the absolute, and that is due to a lack of historical perspective. Ancient Jews have never taken Mosaic laws as a moral code. In fact they never felt the writs we call ritual to be worse or different than the ones we call moral writs. By the way, even in the New Testament the fundamental commandments of baptizing and celebrating Eucharist have the same ritual feature as circumcision in the Old Testament. However, the Mosaic laws do not bind because of their rational need but because they come from Gods authority, the King of Israel: God can command not to kill but he can also command to slaughter entire peoples (Dt 7, 1-2).

I wish to remind homosexuals
that Jesus walks alongside them!
Interview from Gianni Geraci Guado (homosexuals believers Milan) with Monsignor Theodore Corino, Bishop

Recently I had the opportunity to listen to you at a meeting that had been organized by a group of homosexual believers from Milano and I was very smitten by your attitude with regard to homosexuality. Rather than repeat the positions of condemnation, based on a negative vision of human sexuality, you preferred reminding us of the duty that we have, that of constructing an authentic spirituality. In what way can your attitude be included in the Orthodox tradition?

Understand that the Orthodox tradition is not so much that which we have before our eyes: the meaning of things is in the Messianic future, because only in that future do things get their light and foundation. The goal is the origin, and not the origin the goal. If this is missing, the past is merely the conservation of what is existing and, with that, one does not get anywhere. The canonic and dogmatic tradition of the great councils is based on Faith in Christ. It's incredible! Man pushes away his brother, a man like him, when he is poor and impure, while the Lord, like a loving mother towards her son, forgives everything and pushes no sinner away. On the contrary! He gives him the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, to a homosexual who asks you what must he do to implement the will of God in his life, you suggest above all that he listen to his own conscience which is, after all, the place in which the Spirit of God manifests itself to man?

I would tell him to listen to God who is manifested in Jesus Christ. He is infinitely meek, compassionate and good. And when the soul knows him, it stands astonished and exclaims: "What a Lord we have!". If even I, despite my unworthiness, can put myself in contact with him, I believe that anyone can do it! Understand this! I do not think that homosexuals are different from any other persons: certainly they are more persecuted and this brings them closer to Him. In my existential experience with Him, I had the certainty of being completely accepted and of being fully loved. But I cannot communicate this certainty with words! Perhaps, to explain myself better, I can say that, more than acceptance, one should speak of Love, of that very strong and intoxicating experience which is the discovery of being loved by Jesus. An experience which, when it happens, one spends the rest of their life weeping over it.

It seems to me that that which you are proposing to homosexual persons is more of a spiritual journey than a moral discourse: it is an evocative choice which, however, runs the risk of not being understood in a country such as ours, in which religious experience is often reduced to a series of ethical principles which are obligatory throughout the life of the believer. Do you not see this danger?

If this were true it would be very serious! To reduce religion to morality is one of the signs of the Antichrist! The vetero-testamentary and evangelical ethic is an heteronomous ethic, that is, it is an ethic that depends on God and is therefore not an autonomous ethic which depends upon man or his reason. It is necessary to distinguish the fault from the sin: the fault is what it is because of a law and laws are often arbitrary and made by men. Biblically, sin is not doing the will of God and not establishing that which is the will of God for each single man means not recognizing the mystery which there is inside each one of us. Jesus does not concern himself with the proclamation or the realization of new ethical ideals, nor does he concern himself with proclamations regarding his own goodness (Mt. 19:17), that which is closest to His heart is love for the actual man. Therefore he can enter into communion with the fault of men and to bear upon himself this burden. Jesus does not wish to appear, at the expense of men, as the only perfect individual, he does not want to be the only man without fault, who watches with disgust a humanity which gives into sin, he does not wish that any idea of a new man triumphs over the ruins of a humanity destroyed through its own fault. Regarding homosexuality, within Christianity, there have been amassed accusing moral judgments that have branded the homosexual psychology and have exasperated behaviours for the worse. The sole ethic that I feel like recommending is that of the sharing of human suffering, wherever and however one finds it.