Religion on Same Sex Marraige, Abortion and Suicide

“...believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of life and the right to death, the value of family and validity of same-sex relations, the protection of child 's rights and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes.”
(Metropolitan Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate)
Discuss.

Metropolitan Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate argues irrefutably for the beliefs of the Church and thus, members or believers of the Church in the right to human life, the value of family and the protection of children’s rights. Furthermore, he acknowledges those values which entirely oppose the morale of the Church as being any validation of abortion, the validity of same-sex relations and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes. The Christian Church is run on the basis of general consensus and the symbiotic relationship between Church and individual. In effect, it may be surmised that the rights of the individual are deprived in exchange for access to this ‘community’ as an unwavering ‘believer’. Spickard and McGuire comment that “Where once most individuals accepted what their leaders told them, today they demand the right to decide for themselves: their core beliefs as well as the details” (Spickard and McGuire, Personal Knowledge and Beyond, New York University Press 2002, P.292). Hence, it can be argued that the once undeniable and unquestioning loyalty of a congregation is no longer without question. Nowadays followers can begin to cast doubt on authority and to require answers, with modern insight and with regard to the knowledge allowed to present day Christian by hindsight.
According to tradition, one wholeheartedly and singularly believes in the teachings of the Christian Church. Anyone who diverges from these beliefs is therefore unchristian and unbelieving in the Christian message. In a contemporary setting followers have become diverse in their views and unafraid to examine core beliefs which are integral to the Christian religion as a whole. Is one still defined as being Christian if they begin to openly question a core belief which is central to the Christian morale? Hermans outlines the argument for the opposing ideas of the metaphorical analogies of the “computer metaphor; in which the self is studied as an information-processing device, and the narrative metaphor; in which, story and storytelling are the guiding principles for the self”. Theoretical and empirical arguments emphasize the relevance of the dialogical view for the study of the self. In this way a more profound understanding of the interconnection of self and society is established (Hermans, Hubert J.M, ‘Voicing the Self: From Information Processing to Dialogical Interchange’ Psychological Bulletin, Vol.119, No. 1, University of Nijmegen American Psychological Association 1996, p31-50). In this way personal views and ideals may be irrevocably affected by external thought processes and thus it may be argued that external influences such as the Christian Church, as an efficacious authority have power over its congregation. One such issue, which is a predominant example of differentiation between the Church and individuals of the community, is abortion. This is a highly discussed and disputed issue which has remained relevant since the availability of abortion as an option for women and remains a topic of contemporary debate and analysis today. “Within the first century of its existence it [the Church] had specifically condemned abortion” (Lumpkin, Joseph B. The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Fifth Estate Publishers 2012). The Christian Church is still today one of the most outspoken and critical commentators in its condemnation of abortion and has from the beginning been an abrogating source of denouncement. Krill expresses his personal conviction that ‘believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of life and the right to death’. Correspondingly, Hermans’ thoughts on the dialogical view of self and the effect of external opinions and theories in influencing personal conclusions as discussed above, becomes substantial (Hermans, Hubert J.M, ‘Voicing the Self: From Information Processing to Dialogical Interchange’ Psychological Bulletin, Vol.119, No. 1, University of Nijmegen American Psychological Association 1996, P.31-50). The Church conviction that those who acknowledge abortion are therefore unchristian and non-believers is thoroughly demonstrated in Gardner’s work “The Church’s attitude was to forbid abortion – absolutely”. He continues his portrayal of the attitude of the Church as entirely anti-abortion and refers to Pope Paul VI’s condemnation of abortion as an “act of barbarianism” (Gardner, R.F.R. Abortion: The Personal Dilemma, The Paternoster Press 1972, P.98-99). Hence, it may be surmised that the ideas proposed by the Church and by theologians of the Christian sphere as an entirety, has certainly the potential influence to affect consensus within the Christian social setting.
Contradictory with the notion of Christian community, the sovereign self is in modernity, deemed the source of authority behind one’s religious decisions. When one diverges from the Christian ideal may they still be counted as Christian? “There may be perfect clarity on one’s understanding of faith but a choice to disregard it when faced with a decision of whether to abort their child or not” (Smith, David, Life and Morality – Contemporary Medico-Moral Issues, ColourBooks Ltd 1996, P.6) Christianity expressly acknowledges the significance of the belief in the right to life and the ‘pro-life’ position. Smith outlines four basic principles summarising the Roman Christian theological position on abortion. They are: God alone is the Lord of life and death; human beings do not have the right to take the lives of other innocent human beings; human life begins at the moment of conception; and abortion, at whatever the stage of development in conception, is the taking of an innocent human life (Smith, David, Life and Morality – Contemporary Medico-Moral Issues, ColourBooks Ltd 1996, P.26). However, “Religion is increasingly a matter of personal choice – a personal bricolage by which individuals create meaningful lives for themselves at a time when they can no longer rely on social institutions.” (Spickard, James V. ‘Transforming Religion: Religious Change and the Rise of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, Beckford and Wallis (ed.), Theorising Religion: Classical and Contemporary Debates, Ashgate 2006). This is in accordance with the belief of Kirill, that the Christian authority also emphasises the fact that one may not be a believer in both the validity of life and abortion simultaneously.
Moreover, in addition to Kirill’s discussion of the Christian value of life in contention with the right to death, he also states that believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of family and the validity of same-sex relations. The topical discussion of the rights of homosexuals to Christianity is relevant today in a contemporary setting and relies heavily on the much debated and antagonised over role of the homosexual within the Church and Christian society as a whole, if there is any. Dilenno and Smith attempt to surmise the original teachings on homosexuality directly from the Bible before interpretation and influential bias may be construed, as may be the case in the Christian message passed to the community by the clergy. They ascertain that Genesis, the first book of the Bible reveals God ordaining the purpose of sexuality as “to be exercised in a stable heterosexual relationship, of the sake of the family community of love and parenting”. Genesis outlines the ‘general’ meaning of human sexuality as the union of husband and wife and the procreation of children. They continue to analyse what it is to have family values and the importance of procreation since the time of The Fall and mortality, to man’s survival. Overall, this bodes well for Kirill’s argument that believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of family and the validity of same-sex relations (Dilenno, Joseph A. and Smith, Herbert F. Homosexuality The Questions: Spiritual, Church & Psychiatric Answers, Daughters of St. Paul 1989 P.55-57). “Many consider being gay and Christian incompatible because of the perceived strict prohibition of homosexuality in the Bible”, (Yip, Andrew K.T. ‘Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 1, Wiley-Blackwell 1997, P. 113-127). However, if this is the case of the ‘general’ conventions of man and sexuality, what then of the exceptional case of homosexuality?
The case for homosexuals as individuals of the entirety of the Christian community may be further explored and contemplated through the questioning of whether or not Christianity equates homosexuality with sin. This question of the relationship between religion and homosexuals is as complex in the modern day world as ever. As with many aspects of Christianity, perception must be compared with the reality of today’s world and Kirill’s statement that believers cannot recognize at the same time the values of family and of same-sex relations must be investigated in a modern context. In 2006 a study carried out on ‘Associations between Religious Personality Dimensions and Implicit Homosexual Prejudice’ revealed that Religious fundamentalism was the strongest predictor of a negative implicit attitude toward gay men relative to heterosexuals. This may be taken as an affirmation of the condemnation of homosexuals by the Church, as a lasting and ever-present contemporary outlook (Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina, McCullers and McKinley, ‘Associations between Religious Personality Dimensions and Implicit Homosexual Prejudice’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 45, No. 3, Wiley-Blackwell 2006, P. 397-406). Furthermore, this may be compared with past examples of Christian condemnations of homosexuality such as a 1975 declaration on certain questions of sexual ethics by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which taught that homosexual acts were wrong even for those who are homosexually orientated by some kind of “pathological constitution judged to be incurable” and the hope of their “overcoming personal difficulties and the inability to fit into society”. In this way being a homosexual is still today, as in the past, seen as opposing family values (Dilenno, Joseph A. and Smith, Herbert F. Homosexuality The Questions: Spiritual, Church & Psychiatric Answers, Daughters of St. Paul, 1989 P.27, 55-57).
It may be indisputably argued that the Christian Church is morally opposed to homosexuality, regarding it as a major factor in the obstruction of wholesome nature of Christian family values. Never is this more clear and undeniable than in the case of the confliction between the Church and Gay rights defenders in relation to Gay marriage. Once again the defiance of ‘believers’ as individuals disregarding the teachings of the Christian community and neglecting particular core values or beliefs which do not adhere to their situation arises here, as with the case of abortion as opposed to the right to life. Once again the notion of ‘personal religion’ comes into contemplation “Where once most individuals accepted what their leaders told them, today they demand the right to decide for themselves: their core beliefs as well as the details” (Spickard and McGuire, Personal Knowledge and Beyond, New York University Press 2002, P.292). Although Kirill compels a persuasive argument that true believers may not at once acknowledge both the importance of family values and the possibility of same-sex relationships, it must be urged that both the modernisation and urbanisation of thought processes, perceptions and image have helped with the integration of same-sex relationships into modern social consensus (Greenberg, David F. and Bystryn, Marcia H. ‘Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality’ American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 88, No. 3 University of Chicago Press 1982, P. 515-548). In recent years the battle for marriage equality has become for many activists, the central struggle for Lesbian and Gay rights. Polikoff and Bronski deal with the importance of new family values emerging which encompass all modern family structures and which they argue should remain unrestricted by particular religious or ethnic views in order to allow for continued civilised social growth (Polikoff, Nancy D. and Bronski, Michael. Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law, Beacon Press 2008). This is in direct confliction with Kirill’s view of the inability to recognize the values of family and of same-sex relations simultaneously and also of Christian antagonism of same-sex marriages, however engages with a modern opposition commentary. This is highly indicative of the disinterested and uncompromising attitude of the Church toward modernity and change. Lastly, the third and final issue to be outlined by Kirill is the concern that the “believer cannot recognize at the same time… the protection of children’s rights and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes”. Once again reason, conscience and the individual authority of the ‘self’ must be considered when examining the religious implications of an issue such as the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes. Religious versus Scientific revelations have been pitted against one another for centuries and historians now comment on the almost warlike interaction between the two, though these submissions of the relations between the two have only been identified in retrospect (Livingstone, David. ‘The Preadamite Theory and the Marriage of Science and Religion’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 82, No. 3, American Philosophical Society 1992, P.1-78). The debate over the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes and scientific discovery was awakened as technological advances and scientific discoveries have continually advanced throughout previous years. On the side for the advancement of medical research, the positive benefits are seen as the possible discoveries of new knowledge on the process of fertilisation, perfecting the in vitro procedure, information on birth defects as well as the discovery of new methods of contraception. However, both religious and ethical critics of laboratory research with early embryos, argue that such research is not compatible with the kind of respect which should be shown to developing embryos who have the potential to become human beings. In this way, the rights of the child must be protected and taken into consideration. Thus, the debate breaks down based on the many contrary viewpoints which emerge based on differing conceptions of the moral status of the early developing embryo, all emphasising Kirill’s concern for the protection of children’s rights (Smith, David, Life and Morality – Contemporary Medico-Moral Issues, ColourBooks Ltd 1996 P.70-72).
Within both the field of science and also within the entirety of the denominations of Christianity, differing views exist on the specific time when an embryo becomes an individual and human being. Who then holds the most authority within Christianity to allow for agreement and consensus on the issue? “The question of authority ... in its religious form, is the first and last issue of life… as soon as the problem of authority really lifts its head, all others fall to the rear.” (Chapman, Mark, ‘Authority’, in Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Routledge London, 2008, P. 497-510). Throughout centuries of speculation numerous theories on the origin of the soul and the timing of its entrapment within the individual, either as an embryo or outside of the womb have been hypothesised. Aristotle writing ‘On the Soul’, speculates that the appearance of the soul is connected to the growth of the embryonic limbs and organs, and hypothesises that the soul appears when the embryo reaches full completion within the womb. One of the first accounts of Christian reasoning of the soul was Tertullian’s second century theory that “the soul is present from the beginning and life is present from the beginning”. Furthermore, the saying “That is a man which is going to be one - homo est, et qui futurus est” reflects the idea that the basis of the human being, the seed of body and soul, is already present in the embryo (Jones, David Albert, The Soul of the Embryo, Continuum, London, 2004). Here evidence of early Christian ideas on the soul, acknowledge Kirill’s recognition of the rights of children and that this is in direct contempt of any acceptance of the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes.
In conclusion, Metropolitan Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate proposes the argument for the belief in the Morales of Christianity and thus, member’s belief accordingly in the right to human life, the value of family and the protection of children’s rights. Furthermore, he acknowledges those values which entirely oppose all which the Christian community stands for, as being any validation of abortion, the validity of same-sex relations and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes. It has been proposed and made evident that the symbiotic relationship between individual and the Church comes into contradiction when the question of ‘personal religion’ and the examination of core Christian beliefs are challenged by the individual. Hence, it may be considered that the once undeniable and unquestioning loyalty of a congregation is no longer without question. In relation to the issues of women’s rights to acknowledge the very personal ‘pro-choice’ decision, as opposed to the Christian argument for ‘pro-life’, shows the pressures of the Church conviction that those who acknowledge abortion are therefore unchristian and non-believers. In conjunction with this, the issue of the apparent opposition of traditional family values with those of same-sex relations as according to the condemnation of the Church has been reflected in the portrayal of the Church condemnation of homosexual relations. The Christian Church as a societal and oftentimes political figure of influence uses its power to demonstrate a lack of agreement with modernisation and openly opposes new legislation which would allow for the introduction of equal marriage opportunities for same-sex couples. Finally, the importance placed on the rights of children by the Church is contradictory to any validation of the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical advancement. In this way, the power of the Church and the effect of condemnations such as that of Kirill are throughout demonstrated to be extremely influential even in the contemporary world of a more inquisitive and challenging Christian community.
Bibliography
* Chapman, Mark, 'Authority ', in Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Routledge: London, 2008

* Dilenno, Joseph A. and Smith, Herbert F. Homosexuality The Questions: Spiritual, Church & Psychiatric Answers, Daughters of St. Paul, 1989

* Gardner, R.F.R. Abortion: The Personal Dilemma, The Paternoster Press 1972

* Greenberg, David F. and Bystryn, Marcia H. ‘Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality’ American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 88, No. 3, University of Chicago Press 1982 <Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779118>

* Hermans, Hubert J.M, ‘Voicing the Self: From Information Processing to Dialogical Interchange’ Psychological Bulletin, Vol.119, No. 1, University of Nijmegen American Psychological Association 1996

* Jones, David Albert, The Soul of the Embryo, Continuum, London, 2004

* Livingstone, David. ‘The Preadamite Theory and the Marriage of Science and Religion’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 82, No. 3, American Philosophical Society 1992 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3231948>

* Lumpkin, Joseph B. The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Fifth Estate Publishers 2012

* Polikoff, Nancy D. and Bronski, Michael. Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law, Beacon Press 2008

* Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina, McCullers and McKinley, ‘Associations between Religious Personality Dimensions and Implicit Homosexual Prejudice’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 45, No. 3, Wiley-Blackwell 2006
<Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838292> * Smith, David, Life and Morality – Contemporary Medico-Moral Issues, ColourBooks Ltd 1996

* Spickard and McGuire, Personal Knowledge and Beyond, New York University Press 2002

* Yip, Andrew K.T. ‘Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back’ The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 1, Wiley-Blackwell 1997 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/591913>

Bibliography: * Chapman, Mark, 'Authority ', in Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Routledge: London, 2008 * Dilenno, Joseph A