Adelphopoiesis

[Guest Aluigi]

For those of us who follow the ever-continuing PhatMass drama that is Nathan,, he has now begun advocating adelphopoiesis as a Catholic form of same-sex-marriage. [url="http://nnelson.blogspot.com"]http://nnelson.blogspot.com[/url] I figure Apotheon will have something to say on this subject refuting what modern people have done to the ancient rite of Adelphopoiesis. Anyway, I did some reading into it and this is the best thing I found on it. It sounds like a really neat ceremony, but it would clearly not allow for sex within it (and I haven't seen GF specifically advocate that adelphopoiesis would include sex but it seems that's the direction he's going)

[url="http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/articles/adelphopoiesis.html"]http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/article...phopoiesis.html[/url]

Highlights:

[quote]There are different versions of this rite, but its chief elements are as follows: (1) the brothers to be are positioned in the church before the lectern, upon which rest the Cross and the Gospel; the older of the two stands to the right while the younger stands to the left; (2) prayers and litanies are said that ask that the two be united in love and that remind them of examples of friendship from church history; (3) the two are tied with one belt, their hands are placed on the Gospel, and a burning candle is given to each of them; (4) the Apostle (1 Cor 12:27 to 13:8} and the Gospel (John 17:18-26) are read; (5) more prayers and litanies like those indicated in 2 are read; (6) Our Father is read; (7) the brothers to be partake of the presanctified gifts from a common cup; (8) they are led around the lectern while they hold hands, the following troparion being sung: “Lord, watch from heaven and see”; (9) they exchange kisses; and (10) the following is sung: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).

[b]Pavel Florensky,[i] The Pillar and Ground of the Truth[/i], trans. Boris Jakim (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Originally published in Moscow, 1914), p. 327. Another translation of this passage may be found online in “Florensky on Brotherhood Rite” at <www.gay.ru/english/life/religion/florensk.htm>. Florensky’s book also offers a good bibliography of Russian sources on adelphopoiesis—see pp. 571f.[/b][/quote]

[quote]Bray’s area of expertise was English history, and the parallels he draws between adoptive kinship rites in Eastern and Western Europe are striking. “Westerners,” he wrote, “had no difficulty in recognizing it [adelphopoiesis] as the sworn kinship of the Latin west.”
[b]Alan Bray, “Friendship, the Family, and Liturgy” Theology and Sexuality 13 (2000): p. 29[/b]
He did see some differences of theological emphasis between adelphopoiesis and its Western counterpart, however, and it was these, he said, that ultimately have made “the friendship of the Latin west far less visible to the historian than its Byzantine counterpart.”
[b]Ibid., p. 29.[/b][/quote]

[quote] In any case, it is clear that the ceremony should be understood as creating a relationship akin to those created at baptism. Constance Woods wrote: “The OCS [Old Church Slavonic] dictionary defines the relationship established in the ceremony as a spiritual brotherhood or a godbrotherhood (krestnoe bratstvo: literally ‘cross brotherhood,’ but a direct analogy to the formation of ‘godmother,’ ‘godfather,’ etc.).”
[b]Constance Woods, “Same-sex unions or semantic illusions?” Communio 22:2 (1995): p. 322.[/b]
One result of this would have been to create an impediment to marriage. As Fr. Evangelos Mantzouneas, Secretary of the Greek Synod on Legal and Canonical Affairs, wrote in a document summarizing the Greek church’s historical position on adelphopoiesis: “…whenever fraternizations were taking place with the blessing of the Church, there were created marriage blocks. This block [was] a spiritual one, similar to baptism.”
[b]Fr. Evangelos K. Mantzouneas, “Fraternization from a Canonical Perspective,” trans. Efthimios Mavrogeorgiadis (May 1994), ed. by Nick Zymaris with comments by Fr. N. N. Originally published as “He Adelphopoiesis ek Kononikes Apopses” (Athens, 1982). Available online at: <www.gay.ru/english/life/religion/canonic.htm>.[/b]
In a few cases, it seems that adelphopoiesis entered into with someone of the opposite sex functioned as an equivalent to a vow of celibacy, at least in relation to that other person.
[b]Kenneth W. Kemp and Robert Kennedy, “Review Essay: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41:1 (1996), pp. 57, 79.[/b][/quote]

So.. discuss. Perhaps GF will come back and comment. I don't think he likes it when I try to comment on his blog.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I hate it when Satan tries to make a mockery of the truth.

[Socrates]

I think Nathan has become an instrument of the Devil. (Seriously)

Pray for his soul.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Why is it when someone formidably challenges the Church, and the Church has no answer at the moment, simply helping clarify reasonably considered issues, they are instantly deemed instruments of the devil?

[Socrates]

Nathan has not "formidably challenged" the Church. The Church and her Truth will long outlast Nathan and his ideas. He has challenged only his own chance of salvation, and the chances of those who would listen to his false ideas. By leading those from the truth, and promoting falsehood and dissent within the Church, he is a tool of the devil.

The Church has long had an answer. Nathan simply refuses to accept it. All he is doing is saying that because he has trouble following one of the Church's moral teachings, therefore the Church should change its teaching. This is nonsense. The Church's moral teachings never change.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I see we're talking about different things. I suppose ultimately you're right about hi. I was referring to the notion of gays living together but not doing anything or being "married".

[Guest Aluigi]

I'm not prepared to call Nathan an instrument of the devil. In fact, I think God is using him in a special way right now. Hopefully he will not further any point that attempts to sexualize Adelphopoiesis though. That attempt would be the work of the devil.

[Socrates]

It is clear from that blog that Nathan wants to change that ceremony to a means of the Church blessing homosexual activity (or "same-sex affection" as he so delicately puts it.)

He is pushing for the Church to change her teachings on sexual morality.
In this sense, he acting as a tool of the devil, not of God.

[Guest Aluigi]

I am not prepared to make that statement. He as of yet has not actually said anything about a sexual aspect (though it seems implied) and I don't think it's going to help anything to call him a tool of the devil. I invited him to this discussion, but I don't think he's going to come after reading this. He is introducing ideas. If he hadn't, I never would have learned about Adelphopoiesis. He's also promoting orthopraxis and obedience.

Now, no more talk of what you cannot know-- where Nathan's allegiance truly lies, with God and His Church or with the Devil and his minions. That's what the angelic battle is all about.

[Socrates]

The implication is more than subtle. He explicitely puts "adelphopoiesis" in the context of homsexual unions.

[quote] but it could be a way for the Church to bless same-sex unions on a par with the blessing of religious life or consecrated virginity. It would allow gay and lesbian Catholics to be who we are while still receiving the grace-filled blessing of our unions from Christ and the Church[/quote]
In other words, he is promoting this as a way for the Church to bless "same-sex affection" e.g. homosexuality.

[quote]This means that I will live a celibate lifestyle unless and until such a time as the Church frees me to live in the blessed state of adelphopoiesis .[/quote]
This implies that his "blessed state of adelphopoiesis" is not celibate.

If the version of "adelphopoiesis" Nathan promotes is celibate, why does he only talk about it in the context of gay and lesbian couples? What would be the point?
[quote]I will nevertheless continue to publicly ask the Church to show compassion for gay and lesbian Catholics by resurrecting the blessing of adelphopoiesis, not only and not even primarily for myself, but also for my gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, and for those who will come after me.[/quote]

While I commend Nathan for his obedience to the Church teachings of celibacy, he is continuing to promote ideas contrary to Catholic teaching (which he himself acknowledges). People like this, who present themselves as loyal and faithful Catholics, while working to undermine the Church's moral teachings from within, are those most dangerous to the Church. They are indeed wolves in sheep's clothing, who seek to lead the flocvk astray with their false and abominable teachings.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Socrates

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aluigi']So.. discuss. Perhaps GF will come back and comment. I don't think he likes it when I try to comment on his blog.[/quote]
I don't generally like when people from Phatmass comment on my blog. Why? I don't generally like people from Phatmass. You, of course, are exempt from that and can comment on my blog anytime you want. So can anyone else, but the first person who accuses me or, especially, anyone else of "devilolatry" as they have accused me of here (and apparently gotten away with free of moderation, big surprise) -- at any rate, anyone who accuses me or especially one of my readers of being an instrument of the devil will find that comment, and any subsequent comments (regardless the content) deleted.

Al, I would rather you commented on my blog rather than bringing this to the public attention of people here. If they don't already read my blog as you do, then I'd rather they didn't start. I don't need their negativity, nor do I want it. Otherwise I would come here.

With all of that said, I have no intention of engaging anyone here in this debate. To make myself perfectly clear, yes, I do believe that same-sex affection, including sexual affection, should be permitted within the realm of [i]adelphopoiesis[/i]. I know that no one at Phatmass will agree with that, which is why I did not post it on Phatmass, and why I have absolutely no interest in discussing it with the folks from Phatmass. The folks from Phatmass are the fundamentalists and evangelicals of the Catholic Church, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of Catholicism, and I would rather shake the dust from my feet and be done with the vast majority of them.

Which is exactly what I now intend to do. I will not be back. God bless.

[Benedict]

A "fundamental, evangelical" or, alternatively (and preferrably), orthodox Catholic is the only kind to be.

[Guest Aluigi]

sorry about that, GF. I just wanted to discuss it and figured PM would be the best place. Ah well, I'd still like to see what you have to say about the info from the site I linked here. Perhaps you can blog about it or something?

[bookwyrm]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Feb 2 2005, 11:04 PM'] [quote name='Aluigi']So.. discuss. Perhaps GF will come back and comment. I don't think he likes it when I try to comment on his blog.[/quote]
I don't generally like when people from Phatmass comment on my blog. Why? I don't generally like people from Phatmass. You, of course, are exempt from that and can comment on my blog anytime you want. So can anyone else, but the first person who accuses me or, especially, anyone else of "devilolatry" as they have accused me of here (and apparently gotten away with free of moderation, big surprise) -- at any rate, anyone who accuses me or especially one of my readers of being an instrument of the devil will find that comment, and any subsequent comments (regardless the content) deleted.

Al, I would rather you commented on my blog rather than bringing this to the public attention of people here. If they don't already read my blog as you do, then I'd rather they didn't start. I don't need their negativity, nor do I want it. Otherwise I would come here.

With all of that said, I have no intention of engaging anyone here in this debate. To make myself perfectly clear, yes, I do believe that same-sex affection, including sexual affection, should be permitted within the realm of [i]adelphopoiesis[/i]. I know that no one at Phatmass will agree with that, which is why I did not post it on Phatmass, and why I have absolutely no interest in discussing it with the folks from Phatmass. The folks from Phatmass are the fundamentalists and evangelicals of the Catholic Church, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of Catholicism, and I would rather shake the dust from my feet and be done with the vast majority of them.

Which is exactly what I now intend to do. I will not be back. God bless. [/quote]
^ This makes me sad.


You shouldn't have called him a tool of the devil. That was unneccesary.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Feb 2 2005, 10:04 PM'] The folks from Phatmass are the fundamentalists and evangelicals of the Catholic Church, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of Catholicism, and I would rather shake the dust from my feet and be done with the vast majority of them. [/quote]
Yikes. Pat Robertson?

Anyways, I think its a far far far stretch to call Good Friday a tool of the devil. In fact, I think its a flat out ignorant comment to make. He's trying to find something for himself within Catholocism. While he is definately taking it in the wrong direction, I think his attempts at orthopraxis are commendable.