What role does social order have in individual purity

by Andrea Elizabeth

Yesterday I ambiguously said that some people do not seem psychologically up for purity, then later added the Romans 1 passage that says immoral people are without excuse. A lot of people understand that passage to be against atheism, but the context has more to do morality. Nature reveals God, and when people reject that, they exchange what is natural for what is unnatural – sin, contra Calvin. So, if people at large, democratically speaking, have rejected God and become immoral (though we can’t be so simplistic as to say that atheists are all immoral, but I can’t judge their private thoughts and lives either way), then their culture’s products will reflect that. And if Orthodox (right believing and acting) Christians live in said culture, then they will be affected by it. Even if they are raised in a sheltered environment, individuals have to decide for themselves to reject aspects of their culture. Just the fact that it’s there, even if being spoken against, presents a choice to everyone. And as Sherlock (and the movie Inception?) says,

So if gay marriage is legalized, then it becomes a norm that will unwittingly shape us. We have already accepted people living together, yet I think it still has a second tier status. Sarah Palin had a morality platform until her teenage daughter was found to be pregnant, after sort of trying to cover it up with her brother’s baby blanket. Then she shrugged and had to bow off the stage. It mostly became, “kids these days.” A hundred years ago girls had to go in more profound hiding, the baby was removed, or they were forced into marriages with made up stories about premature births. No shrugging. But were these fear inspiring measures the proper antidote for seduced young people? It created orphans, but less of them? In that case I think all children of young people are orphans in a way, whether they are legitimized and kept or not. Young people aren’t equipped to raise them securely.

Back to the point about being tainted by culture. If there is legitimacy given to immorality, and that generation is bent, so to speak, by it, then the proper, straight and narrow way becomes increasingly difficult. Being habitually bent forms a contracture, as it were. And to go in and immediately and forcefully straighten it is too harsh a remedy. Things can break. This is why the road to purity is a slow process. Sometimes malformed things need to be forcefully broken, usually under anesthesia, but the recovery time still takes a while. And I think the motivation to be fixed isn’t introduced theoretically only, but by example. Straight and tall is more attractive. So, physician, heal thyself first.

Another thing. Fr. Hopko once said something to the effect of, just because a person is male, doesn’t make him qualified to be a priest. Likewise, just because a person is married to someone of the opposite gender and of a certain age, doesn’t make them a good parent. It is possible, theoretically, that a given gay couple could be better parents than a given heterosexual couple, like those who give brandy to toddlers and such (I found some pictures, but they’re too horrible to link to). Yet I still believe priests should be male, even if a female could do a “better job”. Because ordaining someone or marrying someone is supposed to sanctify the act. I don’t understand the mystery of it exactly, but “sanctifying” an improper, unprescribed, sinful act is not orthodox. You can debate what is the lesser evil, but you still have to call them evils. Don’t do evil. Period. It messes up your soul. Don’t abuse your kids, and don’t do abominable acts that exchange the natural for the unnatural.