Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:47:03 PDT
From:         "John R. Covert 28-Sep-1992 2348" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      31 Resolutions for Mass. Episcopal Diocesan Convention (4 of 4)

25. RESOLUTION ON FORNICATION

RESOLVED, THAT FORNICATION IS SIN.

                           Explanation

Fornication, that is, sexual relations outside the bond of holy
matrimony, is a sin, separating from God those who commit it.  What
did Jesus have to say about sexual immorality, specifically
fornication?  We know what he thought about it from the Gospels.
In the passage where Jesus answers the Pharisees criticism of the
disciples, that they ate with unwashed hands, Jesus uses his
answer to define what is evil and defiles a man, cutting through to
the heart of the matter:

     For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts,
     fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness,
     deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
     All these evil things come from within and they defile a man.
     Mark 7:21-23; Matthew 15:18-20.

Contrary to secular wisdom which says "you are what you eat", Jesus
says you are what is in your heart and how you act.

Paul gives very specific teachings on sexual immorality in almost
all of his epistles.  He states quite clearly why it is wrong, what
the consequences are for those who commit this sin and how to
resist temptation.  Speaking to people who confess Christ as their
Lord and Saviour, he says:

     Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor
     adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
     mankind, Nor thieves nor covetous, nor drunkards nor
     revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
     And such were some of you ...
     ....Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord;
     Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the
     body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his
     own body.  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of
     the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye
     are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price.
     1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 13, 18-20.

What should this Diocese say as a Christian witness to people in
our own day when fornication is claimed to be acceptable as long as
it is between two consenting adults?  Just because two people
agree, doesn't make it any less a sin.

What is the Church's responsibility and what happens to those who
would change the teachings of Jesus Christ? This resolution should
be supported because the Church is called to "earnestly contend for
the faith once delivered unto the saints.  For there are certain
men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus
Christ."  See Jude 3 & 4.

The Good News of the Gospel is that if we repent, our sins are
forgiven.  Moreover, we will be given the Holy Spirit to guide us
to practice self-control and be reconciled with God.

     For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that
     you should abstain from fornication:  That every one of you
     should possess his vessel in sanctification and honour:...
     That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter;
     because the Lord is the avenger of all such,....
     1 Thessalonians 4:3-7.

Sexual sin does hurt others as well as oneself.  Let this Diocese
and the Church teach people of all ages how to exercise self-
control.  This is a gift of the Holy Spirit to which all Christians
should lay claim.  This Diocese should support this Resolution and
uphold the Biblical standard for sexual morality.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Convocation of the Episcopal Synod
of America
Contact: Jane Shipman tel. 617-298-1075

26. RESOLUTION ON FAITHFULNESS IN MARRIAGE AND CHASTITY

RESOLVED, THAT FAITHFULNESS IN MARRIAGE AND SEXUAL ABSTINENCE
APART FROM MARRIAGE ARE ESSENTIAL MORAL STANDARDS FOR ALL CHRISTIAN
PEOPLE, CLERGY AND LAITY ALIKE.

                           Explanation

This Resolution summarizes the kernel of the Church's teaching for
the past 2000 years on sexual behavior.  See 1 Corinthians 7;
Ephesians 5:25, 28.  These standards were articulated by our Lord
Himself, based upon Old Testament principles of marital fidelity
and single chastity which were over a thousand years old at the
time Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.  See the Explanations to
the Resolutions on Adultery and Fornication.  Unmarried chastity is
a blessed state.  See Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35; Revelation 14:4.  Our
Savior Himself was unmarried and chaste, saving Himself, body and
blood, for His bride the Church. Nevertheless, He clearly affirmed
marriage in His first miracle at Cana.  See John 2:1-11.

    During the past 25 years or so, some in our Church, having sold
themselves on worldly conceptions of "sexual liberation", the
"sexual revolution" and other self-serving ideas that free sexual
gratification represents "love," have attacked the Church's
teaching in this area, in the teeth of nearly every important moral
theologian of the previous nineteen centuries.  This is not
surprising in a civilization where sexual virtue, fidelity and
honor are considered by many to be no more than vehicles for
generating derision and sneering laughter for any pop comedian,
talk show host or occultic charlatan who happens to be trying to
make a buck or a career through getting a rise out of jaded
audiences.  The pews, the pulpit and, yes, sorrowfully, even the
episcopal palace, whether they realize it or not, have all too
often fallen in with this mentality.  Do not be beguiled.  The "new
morality" is only the old serpent of lust dressed in new
intellectual clothes and clever social trappings.

     A husband who defrauds his wife, the flesh of his flesh, his
mate, has lost his way spiritually, is deceiving himself, his
spouse, and most importantly, he is defying the Lord Christ.  In
the absence of true, sustained repentance and healing, such a
person cannot be considered fit or qualified for any role as a
leader or example in the Christian Church or, for that matter, out
of it.  A single woman or man who indulges sexual appetites outside
the sacrament of marriage is defiling and polluting their body, the
temple of God the Holy Spirit, and will inevitably pay a price in
alienation from God. Hebrews 13:4.  A Church or culture which
tolerates, facilitates or fosters such immorality is feeding the
worm which will attack and eventually destroy the vitals, and is
itself undermining the basic foundation unit and building block of
any healthy society, the family.

     Our Church must not fall into the error of the Nicolaitans or
some in the Church at Thyatira, who used the liberation from sin
that Christ suffered to give them as an excuse to indulge their
carnal lusts.  See Revelation 2:6,15,20-23.  We must hold fast to
God, each other and our true selves by endeavoring, with the loving
help of Jesus, to defy the snares and seductions of the world
around us.  We must declare before the world, and to those in our
Church who would join us to the world, that chastity and marriage
are sacred.  We must be the pure, holy, chaste members of the bride
of Him who is called Faithful and True.  Revelation 19:11.

     This Resolution was passed at the 21st Convention of the
Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast.  It is consistent with
Resolution A-53sm of the 1979 General Convention which reads in
part:  "We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on
marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of
Christian sexual morality.  Candidates for ordination are expected
to conform to this standard."

Submitted by the Massachusetts Convocation of the Episcopal Synod
of America
Contact: David Trumbull tel. 617-876-6004

27. RESOLUTION ON PORNOGRAPHY

RESOLVED, THAT CREATING, PUBLISHING OR VIEWING PORNOGRAPHY IS
SINFUL, EXPLOITATIVE AND DEGRADING TO CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN.

                           Explanation

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh at a woman to lust after
her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  And if
thy right eye offend thee pluck it out and cast it from thee:  for
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and
not that thy whole body be cast into hell.  Matthew 6:28-29.
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,
and covetousness which is idolatry.  Colossians 3:5.  For they that
are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh:  but they that
are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.  For to be carnally
minded is death: but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:  for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.  So then they
that are in the flesh cannot please God.  Romans 8:5-8.   But every
man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when
it is finished bringeth forth death.  James 1:14.  For all that is
in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes, and
the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.  I
John 2:16.  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness....of
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21.  For God hath not called us unto uncleanness,
but unto holiness.  I Thessalonians 4:7.

Sexually explicit obscene materials have become a multi-billion
dollar industry in the United States.  These materials are
increasingly available and graphic.  They have become more and more
accepted by the "main-stream" media in everything from
advertisements to animated films.  Materials depicting violence
against women, the carnal exploitation of children, filth among men
and depraved practices such as bestiality, sado-masochism and group
sex have appeared as greedy pornography producers have competed to
normalize satanic lust and meet demands for novelty from those
sated with nudity.  The corrupt mentality and seared conscience
derived from pornography turns human beings into objects,
merchandise, not people but things to be used, abused and
discarded.  It has been shown to be a significant causative factor
in child and spousal abuse, prostitution, rape and serial murder.
Warped, obsessive behavior patterns founded in obscene materials
have destroyed many lives and families.  Our Church cannot stand
aloof and silent as both those of the world and Christians fall
victim to pornography.  We have a duty to our Lord Jesus Christ to
make sure there is no doubt where our Church stands.  We must speak
and act against this scourge.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Convocation of the Episcopal Synod
of America
Contact: Richard Mercer tel. 508-785-1831

28. RESOLUTION ON SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN ADULTS AND CHILDREN

RESOLVED, THAT PEDOPHILIA IS SIN.

                           Explanation

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb
is his reward.  Psalm 127:3.  Train up a child in the way he should
go:  and when he is old he will not depart from it.  Proverbs 22:6.
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before the
apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there
should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own
ungodly lusts.  These be they who separate themselves, sensual,
having not the Spirit.  Jude 17-19.  And they have cast lots for my
people; and have given a boy for an harlot and sold a girl for
wine, that they might drink. Joel 3:3.

The increasing appearance of instances of the sexual abuse of
children is one of the more hideous marks of worldly corruption in
our society.  Sexually predatory action toward children, who in
their simplicity and innocence unreservedly trust the adults around
them, is destructive in ways we can only begin to fathom.
Nevertheless, there are those so far gone in relativist narcissism
that they rationalize even this unspeakable abuse of the pure and
vulnerable and would, if not impeded, sully even the sacred
precincts of God's house in seeking to satisfy their despicable
desires.  Our Church, whose vital role as spiritual guide and
protector of children is at the core of its efforts to win souls
and change the world for Jesus, cannot suffer the rot of child
molestation to infect it.  It is imperative that our Diocese be on
record in unequivocal terms that this behavior is sin and will not
be tolerated.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Convocation of the Episcopal Synod
of America
Contact: Richard Mercer tel. 508-785-1831

29. RESOLUTION ON SODOMY   [EU]

RESOLVED, THAT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN OR AMONG PERSONS OF THE
SAME GENDER IS SIN.

                           Explanation

The unbroken witness of Scripture, and the Church's application of
the scriptural witness, is that intercourse between persons of the
same gender is displeasing to God, and thus must be considered sin.
In Scripture, marriage is seen as the only relationship where
intercourse is to take place.  Heterosexual marriage is the only
marriage which Scripture approves.  This biblical witness is seen
in Genesis 1-2, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Mark 10:4-9, Romans
1:18-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, and I Timothy 1:9-10.  In addition,
the only positive depiction of two people's mutual sexual delight
is in a heterosexual relationship.  See Proverbs 5, and Song of
Solomon.

The modern challenge to this "unbroken witness" was begun by D.S.
Bailey in 1955.  More recently, John Boswell, L. William
Countryman, and John S. Spong have furthered the challenge.  See
Bibliography below.  Two aspects of this challenge will be
discussed here.

The first challenge centers around the apostle Paul's words in
Romans 1:26-27, where he condemns homosexual behavior, calling it
(among other things) unnatural, against nature, and an exchange of
the natural.  Many proponents for change argue that Paul is
condemning those who are heterosexual by nature, who exchange
natural sex (for them) for homosexual behavior, which is unnatural
(for them).  These proponents claim that Paul is not condemning
those who are homosexual "by nature," and so, who participate in
behavior which is natural for them.  This interpretation has been
convincingly refuted because, in fact Paul condemns homosexual
behavior in general, or better, in a "non-specific sense."  That
is, homosexual behavior in itself, is contrary to God's created
order, and is thus sin.

A second challenge continues the discussion of the Romans text, but
includes the lists in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1Timothy 1.  It claims
that, not only did Paul not speak against homosexuality by nature,
and monogamous same-sex relationships between consenting adults,
but that he was unfamiliar with this phenomenon.  Further, it
asserts that had he known of this, he would not have condemned it.
This view boils down to an argument from silence.  Even though the
precise nature of homosexuality as practiced in the first century
is elusive, nevertheless, universally, throughout Scripture and the
Patristic period, there is no positive view toward explicit
homosexuality.  See Kendall S. Harmon, Richard Hays, Robert W.
Pritchard and J. Robert Wright in the Bibliography below for
further discussion.

Proponents for changing the Church's traditional view on homosexual
behavior argue that neither Jesus nor Paul would condemn
"committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships" between consenting
persons.  However, Jesus condemns all sexual relations outside
monogamous, heterosexual marriage.  See Matthew 19:3-9; Mark
10:4-9, where Jesus defines marriage using the words of Genesis
1:27 and 2:24.  Therefore, Jesus proclaims that marriage between an
man and a woman is rooted in God's created order.  In spite of
that, proponents for changing the Church's traditional view on
homosexual behavior, argue that neither Jesus nor Paul would
condemn committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships between
consenting adults.

And yet, many proponents for change use the "genetic argument,"
claiming that since persons with a same-sex orientation are so "by
nature," and so God would not condemn something which they cannot
help.  Studies of twins have been a common source for genetic
research (see: Bailey and Pillard in Bibliography below).  Recent
research on brain structures, though explicitly biological, have
been used to support "genetic causality" (see: Simon LeVay, Time,
9/9/91; L. Allen and R. Gorski, Associated Press, 8/1/92).

Many who oppose change use the "environmental/behavioral argument"
under which same-sex orientation rises from family of societal
influence.  Since these factors are not static, homosexuals can and
should change or be celibate (see: Joe Dallas, Christianity Today,
6/22/92).  In addition, see Harmon and Pritchard, Bibliography
below.

However, one may ask the same question to proponents of both the
nature and nurture positions:  what are you trying to prove?  Even
if same-sex orientation can be found to be primarily environmental,
the majority of gays and lesbians say they did not choose to be so.
Indeed, many have sought to change.  On the other hand, it would
not be surprising that there is at least a genetically based
predisposition to (any) sexual orientation.  If this is true, this
"natural orientation" would have existed in early cultures.  Thus,
if early Christian writers were aware of this orientation, there
was an ability to control it.

The trouble with genetic theories is that a genetic excuse for
other behaviors may be developed.  For example, genetic theories
for alcoholism are being developed.  Yet, it is unlikely that the
Church will declare alcoholic behavior to be acceptable.  Other
genetic causes for unacceptable behavior may be developed.  Proof
of causation would improve understanding.  It does not necessitate
acceptance or approval.  The case for changing the Church's
position toward non-celibate same-sex intercourse has not been
proven.

                          Bibliography

Bailey, D.S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition,
Longmans, 1955, Archon Books, 1975.

Boswell, J. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality,
University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Countryman, W., Dirt, Greed and Sex, Fortress Press, 1988.

Spong, J., Living in Sin:  A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality,
Harper and Row, 1988.

Dover, K.J., Greek Homosexuality, Vintage Books, 1980.  In their
encyclopedic works K.J. Dover and David F. Greenberg (below)
discuss various homosexual manifestations in the Greco-Roman world.
According to them, pederasty (sex between adult and young males)
was popular (particularly in Greece) and was seen primarily as an
initiatory rite into adulthood, non-permanent, and not a wholesale
replacement of adult heterosexual behavior.  Indeed, Roman society
(especially influential women) had a negative view toward male
same-sex relationships between adult peers.  There is little
documented evidence of such relationships.

Greenberg, D.F., The Construction of Homosexuality, University of
Chicago Press, 1989.

Harmon, K.S., Should Practicing Homosexual Persons be Ordained in
the Episcopal Church Today?, Episcopalians United, 1991.

Hays, R., "Relations Natural and Unnatural:  A Response to John
Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," Journal of Religious Ethics, 14/1,
1986.

Pritchard, R.W., ed., A Wholesome Example: Sexual Morality and the
Episcopal Church, Charter Printing, 1991.

Wright, J.R., Boswell on Homosexuality: A Case Undemonstrated,
Anglican Theological Review, LXVI:1, 1984.

Bailey and Pillard, in Bower, B., Gene Influence Tied to Sexual
Orientation, Science News, January 4, 1992.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Chapter of Episcopalians United
Contact: The Reverend Thomas White tel. 617-447-6106

30. RESOLUTION ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE   [EU]

RESOLVED, THAT THE BLESSING OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS OR MARRIAGE
BETWEEN OR AMONG PERSONS OF THE SAME GENDER IS CONTRARY TO HOLY
SCRIPTURE AND THE TRADITION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

                           Explanation

What is the meaning of "Blessing"?  What are we saying when we
pronounce a blessing, or ask God's Blessing upon someone or
something?  We may ask God's blessing upon many aspects of human
relationships.  However, are we not indicating that God says such
and such is pleasing to him by pronouncing a blessing?  Further,
may we pronounce a blessing upon something which God has indicated
is displeasing or sin?

Living out the homosexual lifestyle is itself contrary to God's
revealed will.  While it is appropriate and good to ask for God's
blessing upon any healthy aspects of a relationship, a liturgy of
blessing primarily proclaims God's approval of the relationship
itself.  Therefore, it is sacrilegious for the Church to conduct
liturgies which bless current, or intended, sexually intimate
homosexual relationships.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Chapter of Episcopalians United
Contact: The Reverend Thomas White tel. 617-447-6106

SEE explanation under RESOLUTION ON SODOMY for a more complete
discussion of non-celibate homosexual behavior/relationships.

31. RESOLUTION ON PERMISSIVENESS TOWARD SIN

RESOLVED, THAT IT IS NOT AN ACT OF LOVE TO ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO
COMMIT SIN TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS SANCTIONED BY GOD OR
THE CHURCH.  WHEN WE DENY SIN TO BE SIN, WE ALSO DENY THE
POSSIBILITY OF REPENTANCE AND RECONCILIATION WITH GOD THE FATHER.

                          Explanation

     After Jesus had baffled the would-be executioners of the woman
taken in adultery, He asked her: "Woman, where are they?  Has no
one condemned you?"  She said, "No one Lord."  And Jesus said,
"Neither do I condemn you: go, and do not sin again" (John
8:10-11).  In this episode, Jesus provides a model for dealing with
sinful behavior, a model that St. Augustine was following when he
gave us his great apophthegm: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
     Jesus clearly identified the woman's adultery as a sin, as he
did on other occasions (see his statements on marriage, Mt.
5:31-32; 19:3-9).  Yet, he preserved her life, and so provided her
a forgiveness that allowed her to repent, and to turn from her sin
to a new purer way of life.  Of course, we do not know what she
made of her new opportunity, but we do know that, according to the
Scriptures, a great deal depends on that decision:  "Flee
immorality [fornication].  Every other sin which a man commits is
outside the body; but the immoral man [he that committeth
fornication] sins against his own body.  Do you not know that your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from
God?  You are not your own; you were bought with a price.  So
glorify God in your body" (I Co. 6:18-20).  Here, St. Paul
chastises certain members of the Corinthian church for sinful
sexual behavior; like Christ before him, he denounces the bad
behavior and offers the offenders the opportunity to repent and
return to purity.
     Ever since the Church was founded, however, there has been
worldly pressure brought upon her leaders to be permissive toward
behavior they ought not to condone.  We see this already in the New
Testament Church; it was a major problem in Corinth, and in the
churches of Asia Minor, addressed in Revelation chapters 1-3.
     The reason for such falling away is evident, since every one
of us has a sin problem that selectively weakens our power of will,
such that, without the admonition of the Lord, we tend to want to
indulge our weaknesses and rationalize the consequences.  So, it is
an especially important part of the Church's ministry to hold
firmly to these moral requirements that the Lord has given to us,
because without the Church's steadfast encouragement for us to live
lives of holiness, weakness can have its way with us.  That is why
the Church has already been warned:  "...the time is coming when
people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they
will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into
myths" (2Ti 4:3-4).
     Rationalizations that condone sin are inevitably couched in
terms of compassion and pastoral sensitivity, underwritten by the
great Christian virtue of love.  But this is a destructive half-
truth, since God's love is always expressed in terms of mercy and
forgiveness, and His moral standards are always lifted high above
the worldly morass:  "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your
heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48).  Scriptural love is never
passive, but is always considered in terms of action and personal
responsibility to the Lord's standards, as when Jesus gives this
definition of love:  "If you love me, you will keep my
commandments" (John 14:15). The cry goes up from the secular world:
I was made this way, I cannot help the way I am!  But, whatever the
proclivities of our sin-touched nature, the fact is that, when our
impulses point towards wrong behavior, they must be looked upon as
temptations to sin.  In short, it is not a loving thing to affirm
or condone a course of behavior which violates God's commandments,
because that actually violates real love of God, and leads away
from true fellowship with Him.

Submitted by the Massachusetts Convocation of the Episcopal Synod
of America
Contact: Thomas Lloyd  tel. 617-696-9517
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU