Rorate Caeli

Lessons from Russia:
"Rights advocated by homosexuals are nothing else than right to vice"

Russia has survived so many challenges! Will it survive the demographic implosion of Europe?

Maybe, if the view of people such as Dr. Irina Suluyanova, head of the Biomedical Department of the Russian State Medical University and deputy chair of the Church-Public Council for Bioethics of the Moscow Patriarchate, in the defense of virtue is widespread and firm-- and if Russians stop killing their unborn babies, the unending heritage of the Marxist-Leninist mentality.

Dr. Siluyanova's interview to Interfax is a must-read. The main excerpts below:

- Do you agree with Patriarch Alexy’s statement that the holding of a gay rally in Moscow and similar events are tantamount to suicide for society?

- Certainly, the patriarch is absolutely right. This suicide is manifested in the moral degradation of society, the loss of clear positions and ability to distinguish between vice and virtue. As is well known, both an individual and society as a whole can only exist biologically as long as this ability to discern virtue and vice is not lost. To lose it means to step towards self-destruction. ...

- But sexual minorities claim they defend their rights...

- In my view, to pose the problem as involving human rights in this case is absolutely incorrect. There is no right to vice or moral crime in the list of basic human rights. The rights advocated by homosexuals are nothing else than the right to vice, the way of life which is criminal from the ethical point of view. From the classical ethical perspective, morality first of all fulfills the function of protecting human life. ...

- As a specialist in bioethics, how would you define homosexuality? Is it an illness or a sin?

- This is something to be discussed very clearly, something to which we should not shut our eyes, just as we cannot shut our eyes to people’s traumas and defects. It is the same as looking at a blind man, we would deny his blindness and assure everybody that he is in good health. We should call thing their proper names. It is certainly a moral vice. Until 1980, homosexuality was viewed as a sexual psychopathology, and many psychiatrists and medics uphold this understanding today.
Generally, almost all researchers distinguish two types of homosexuality: the so-called active or inborn and passive or acquired. So, people with inborn homosexuality make up 3% of the total number of people. All that is above this 3 percent represents ‘secondary’ homosexuality, which spreads like an ‘infection’. If such a practice is viewed psychologically as a norm under the influence of cultural trends and liberal guidelines, it is as it were sealed in human physiology and this vice spreads with lightening speed.

It should be added that the threat of spreading homosexuality lies not only in moral degradation and personal ruin but inevitably in human physical destruction. Homosexuality is essentially ‘infectious’. ... In the past when homosexuality was considered to be a pathology, it was treated; people realized that it was their defect and deviation from norm. A person tried to overcome this vice, working at self-improvement, which is essentially the essence of medicine called as it is to cure illnesses, especially those involving human psyche.

-Why then today there is a growing number of medics who refuse to view homosexuality as pathology?

- The point is that in medicine, just as in society, there are its own liberal processes taking place. Medicine is directly dependent on values and worldviews dominating in a society. It is intimately bound up with the person’s understanding of himself and others. And the modern tendency to legalize homosexuality is an example of medical and social problems intertwined. When in 1993 the tenth review of the International Classification of Diseases came into force, homosexuality was moved from the category of ‘diseases’ into that of ‘sexual orientation’ for the first time in the history of these reviews. ...

-Do you know of any historical examples when legalization of homosexuality proved to be destructive for a society?

- One of the most powerful examples is the death of the antique culture caused, among other things, by the lack of clear saving criteria for distinguishing between vice and virtue in sexual relations. It is an example where a failure to make a moral distinction between vice and virtue led to the physical death of a civilization. The identity of antiquity lied, among other things, in ‘naivety of lechery’ when the sexual element came to penetrate all spheres of life. There is ample evidence of sexual perversion that prevailed in that era.

As Chesterton aptly put it, ‘when sex stops being a servant it immediately becomes a despot’. He also said that Christianity came to the world to heal it and did it by the only possible way which is asceticism. It can be said generally that the development of Christian culture was a first sexual revolution which led to a radical review of the problem of human sexuality. ...

The Bible’s strong rejection of homosexuality is a common knowledge. Let us recall the same Book of Leviticus where this kind of relations is punished by death. St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans, describes same-sex relations as ‘reprobate mind’ and those who have it as ‘filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness’ (Rom. 27-31).

In ancient cultures it was transsexuality that to a considerable extent determined the emergence of such religious and mystical cults as worship of Moloch whose ‘priests’ cultivated the rite of castration. This rite can well be accounted for as a testimony to ‘insurmountable physiological and mental aversion’ of one’s own sex and castration as ‘triumph’ of deliverance from it.

-What means can be used to struggle with the spread of homosexuality?

- Today it is necessary simply to conduct mass information campaigns, educational actions and social advertising for society to take it adequately. There is no other way. ...

In the West, all this is done by the hands of those who are themselves bearers of this vice. Naturally, they seek to legalize their depravity as a norm. But a healthy society should have strength to resist it, first of all through firm conviction and statement of the need to call things by their proper names. What is vice is vice, and it can never turn into a virtue. ...


  1. God bless him for his zeal and truthfulness!

  2. Reverend Brother,

    Please note, that it was a lady who spoke these words. Dr. Irina.

    The clarity and non-political correctness which characterize her expression of opinion and knowledge, give good hope for an eventual conversion of Russia.

  3. Whooh! For the first time, maybe, I'm in favor of a woman as Pope (we'll skip priests, bishops, Monsignors, Cardinals and such).

    Absolutely amazing. Perhaps she's been talking to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

    Should Putin find out, we'll probably next be hearing of her funeral.

    And to think that those "Russian Orthodox" who attended the Council of Glorious memory were members of the KGB!

    Let us not, however, jump to conclusions and assume that Dr. Irina has a lot of company - alas, she probably is a loner.

  4. Catholic triumphalists! Take notice! This is the fruits of centuries of Orthodox belief even after being battered by atheism for over half a century. A longer time as Catholics have brought us to the pass of having a blessing of homosexual relationships in the Cathedral of Vienna with the approval of the Cardinal Archbishop this past St. Valentine's Day. Clearly, a spiritual life for homosexuals is as compromised as it is for anyone with a serious mental illness who refuses to seek help. Orthodox do not give communion to homosexual individuals without penance and confession contrary to the observed practice of many Roman Catholic confessors who regard it as a sin of habit and therefore in need of no more than acknowledgement in confession. At least, that is true for the conservatives. As for the liberals, well, we know that they give communion to anyone willing to open their hand or mouth. I know a Catholic who became Orthodox. He went to a monastery to visit a well-known pnevmatiko [they'd call him a staretz in Russia,a function that has now disappeared from the Western church] He told me he confessed to a a homosexual act and the priest told him: "Perhaps, if you remain with us at the monatery and do penance you may hope to find forgiveness." At that point, he said he decided to return to Roman Catholicism. He has now become a Roman Catholic priest. I wonder what he's telling homosexuals in confession. O yeah1 I've heard the Vatican talk about objective disorder. But what difference will that make when the same Vatican is allowing philosophies of personalism, theological subjectivism to flourish in its seminaries as well as fostering overt self-expression in the liturgy bordering on exhibitionism. In that atmosphere any talk of an objective order falls on deaf ears.

  5. It is ironic to hear a schismatic hubrist speak of triumphalism & objective disorders.

    Okay, Mr. Proctologist, I will "take notice!". Thanks.

  6. S-P

    Your point is taken (I trust you are not a literalist!)

    For the record: my proctologist is a normal heterosexual male. I know because he uses gloves and his eyes don't glaze over during the exam and his breathing remains normal.

    It's somewhat gratifying that the Orthodox take exception to homosodomites, but not to having members in the KGB (or its modern equivalent). Apparently, the Communist version of Murder Inc. is not a matter of much severity.

    What does their confession consist of?

    "Father, I lost control of my wire."

    "Five Hail Mary's, Ivanovich."

    "It's Guido - I'm on vacation."

    "How did he offend you?"

    "He was a she and she barged in line in front of me at the grocery store."

    "We don't have grocery stores, dumkopf!"

    "Oh. Okay, Chief, would you believe a deli?"


    "How about a MacDonalds?"

    "Okay. You win. Three Hail Marys."

  7. Proklos,

    I do understand your reply. But you are now basing yourself upon the Modernist conciliar church and the abuses of prelates (like the archbishop of Vienna). But none of your objections apply to Traditional Roman Catholics. None.

    And morality is a whole. As long as cooperation as secret agent of an atheist regime is allowed, along with murdering and imprisoning the innocent, while homosexuality is condemned, is a partial morality, not a sane whole Christian morality.

    And what's the matter with Russian Federation still having the most abortions, the highest contraception rate and the lowest birth rate. Just to remind you:
    Poland has a ban on murdering the unborn child, Malta has a ban too, like Portugal, Ireland, Gabon, Andorra etc. etc. Those are Roman Catholic countries.

    While I do agree with you, that the Latin Church needs a clean up, the Russian cerularians and the Constantinople schismatics do need to look at their own countries first.

    Why do I agree? Well, I have myself protested for numerous times and at more than one prelate, because of the desecration of a local Roman Catholic church of St. Jacob Major, where the local parish priest caved in to leftist-liberal and homosexual militants to allow an 'ecumenical blessing service' to have place, which preceded a gay sex parade.

  8. Even the Soviet Commies hated and punished homosexuality. What that says, I don't know, but it's true.

    So it should be no surprise that former KGB folks should enthusiastically join with traditional Orthodox in THIS exercise of traditionalism at least. Nor would I expect to find Putin discouraging anti-homosexual activists. Rather the reverse.

  9. The point is not to triumph Orthodoxy. The point is to compare post-Xitan societies in the East and the West. What is left in the ruins? Sodomy and abortion are the two worst sins. They are the most difficult ones to gain forgiveness for because they are the most difficult ones to face and repent of, given people's tendency to desire the good without themselves being good. We almost naturally want to think ourselves better than we are in the sight of God. Now Russia has a clear problem about abortion. But so does the West. Yet, in the first days of the reveolution there was a sexual free for all that soon abated. Centuries of Orthodoxy just gave the people no stomach for this kind of thing. In order to galvanize the society the Stalinists had to let up on Orthodoxy. It then went underground and emerged again after the fall of the accursed Soviet regime almost unscathed. The Russian Church has stood up not oly against sodomy but also against Protestant sectarians. But look at Latin America! Protestantism is spreading like wild fire and not only there but in Hispanic communities in the US as well. And the Church? Liberty, Equality and Fraternity according to the Pope's December speech to the curia last year. I am neither Orthodox nor SSPX. Last time I checked I was in good standing, since I don't allow this nonsense to interrupt my spiritual life. For what? I've always had access to the traditional sacrements and have never embraced the novus ordo. I couldn't afford to and raise children. They had to be taught at home with the nourishment of traditional priests, rites and sacrements. There's enough traditional Catholicism around without resorting to dramaitc gestures.
    But why call the Orthodox schismatics? As I recall, the bans of excommunication were mutually lifted by Rome & Constantinople. Yet, I can travel in the Eastern world and be welcomed at no altar for communion, i.e., if I tell them I am with Rome. So what was the good of all the ecumenical energy expended there? Face it folks! Gestures are not enough. The excuse for the lack of depth in Roman Catholicism as taught by its Bishops especially in the US was that it was simple-minded but great for raising children. Its mandates clear and operable. Once adulthood was reached, any Catholic could seek to deepen his faith from the treasures of the Church's spiritual tradition and saintly spiritual direction. One could adopt a rule of life and learn mental and contmeplative prayer. Now, that one advantage is vansihing fast. And the the meidation of the Church's spiritual traditions is in shambles. Our monasteries giving themselvs over to personalism and Matthew Foxism or liturgical window dressing. There are of course, excpetion. I am only citing trends. But my main point is that children require clear teaching especially on sexual matters, even if one has to preach hell fire and brimstone. Rome is wavering, folks, not only in its moral teachings but also in its socio-political teachings.Go to Brother Alexis' site if you want a corrective to what many of our bishop's social teachings. The Church is a vehicle of salvation. But some people have to herded into heaven with threats and whips. And for such people this is the greatest act of charity. The traditional path has been to learn to fear God, then learn to love Him.

  10. Shameful plug here. I'm the moderator of CTN-Roma:

    This is a group for Catholic traditionalists in communion with Rome to discuss with Orthodox christians about what divides us, what unites us, liturgy, spirituality, theology, canon law, current events, etc. Topics must be of common interest between Catholic and Orthodox. With no short cuts, no oecumenical hugs, but in a true spirit of charity.

    If people care to join:

    or send me an email.

  11. Bedwere:

    Shameful, indeed.

    What divides us from the Orthodox is on a first principal basis and that cannot be debated.

    The Orthodox are in Schism (capital "S"). Period. And for very serious de fide Dogmatic reasons.

    One may proselytize (I dare use the "P" word), but there can be no dialogue between absolute truth and absolute error.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!