Vatican City, Mar 12, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
The Coptic Orthodox Church has confirmed that its decision last week to suspend dialogue with the Catholic Church was due to Rome’s “change of position” on homosexuality.
In a video released on Friday, Coptic Orthodox spokesman Father Moussa Ibrahim said “the most notable” of nine decrees emanating from the church’s annual Holy Synod, which took place last week in Wadi El-Natrun in Egypt, was “to suspend theological dialogue with the Catholic Church after its change of position on the issue of homosexuality.”
The video message followed the conclusion of the Holy Synod the day before and an accompanying statement in which Coptic Orthodox leaders had said they were suspending dialogue with Rome.
“After consulting with the sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox family,” they wrote, “it was decided to suspend the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church, reevaluate the results achieved by the dialogue from its beginning 20 years ago, and establish new standards and mechanisms for the dialogue to proceed in the future.”
The leaders also reaffirmed their rejection of same-sex relations, stating their “firm position of rejecting all forms of homosexual relationships, because they violate the holy Bible and the law by which God created man as male and female, and the Church considers any blessing of such relations, whatever its type, to be a blessing for sin, and this is unacceptable.”
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, headed by Pope Tawadros II, is one of the world’s oldest Christian denominations whose founding dates back to St. Mark the Apostle. The principal Christian church in Egypt (the word “Copt” is derived from the Greek word “Aigyptos,” meaning Egypt), the precise number of its members is unknown but estimated to be between 10 million and 20 million people out of a total Orthodox population of 260 million.
Although it describes itself as Orthodox, it is not in full communion with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Eastern Orthodoxy but remains united with the Ethiopian, Armenian, Eritrean, Malankara, and Syriac Orthodox churches, collectively known as the Oriental Orthodox churches. None of these churches accept the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and its definition of the “two natures” of Christ. Since the late 20th century, the Oriental Orthodox churches have sought to dialogue with Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, which for centuries had considered them heretical.
Last year, dialogue appeared to have progressed to such an extent that the Vatican allowed the Coptic Orthodox to celebrate their own Divine Liturgy in the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. The following month, in an unusual move, Pope Francis included 21 Coptic Orthodox faithful martyred by Islamic State in Libya in 2015 in the Roman Martyrology — an official list of martyrs, saints, and blesseds.
Ibrahim’s video statement came after some observers had said on social media that the statement made no specific reference to the Vatican’s Dec. 18, 2023, declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed a “nonliturgical” and “spontaneous” blessing of same-sex couples. They also said it did not state that the decision to suspend the dialogue was related to the document.
The Coptic Orthodox leaders’ statement did not make any explicit reference to Fiducia Supplicans, but their reassertion in the text of their church’s teaching on homosexuality, firmly based on sacred Scripture, coupled with Ibrahim’s video message, made the cause of their suspension of dialogue incontrovertible.
They noted in their statement that God created man both male and female, that all persons are called to holiness, and that all are to live according to his will and “divine design for marriage between a man and a woman.”
They stressed that anyone who struggles with same-sex attraction but “controls this desire is praised for their efforts and is left subject to the same temptations as heterosexual individuals.” Similarly, they said it is “essential” that they “seek true repentance” as an adulterous heterosexual person would.
“If someone chooses to embrace their homosexual tendency, however, and refuses to seek spiritual and emotional help but continues to break God’s commandments, in that case, their situation becomes the same as someone who is living in adultery,” the statement continued. “In such cases, they must be warned and advised to abstain from communion, seeking repentance.”
One of the main criticisms of the document is that it makes no mention of repentance or pledge of an amendment of life before receiving such a blessing.
Quoting the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, with further references to his first letter to the Corinthians and passages from Leviticus, the Coptic Orthodox also underlined the Church’s condemnation of same-sex acts. “Accordingly,” they added, they “strongly” oppose “all forms of sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage,” adding that they see it as “sexual distortion.” They also “firmly” rejected that cultural contexts could be used to “justify same-sex relationships,” as the Copts believe it is “damaging to humanity” as a whole.
They said their church believes in human rights and freedoms but that these freedoms “are not absolute” and must not be used to “violate the laws of the Creator.”
“The church affirms its commitment to fulfilling its pastoral role in aiding individuals who have homosexual tendencies,” they said in closing. “It also emphasizes that it does not reject them but instead provides support and assistance to help them achieve an emotional and spiritual solution.”
“The church places its trust in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think,” they said.
The Register contacted for comment Cardinal Kurt Koch, prefect of the Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity, but he had not responded by press time.
This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and is reprinted here on CNA with permission.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I, for one, believed them the first time they said it.
The leadership of the Coptic Orthodox Church has commendably clear vision and enviable common sense.
I recall when the Roman Catholic Church had the same, in the decades leading up to our Bergoglian Captivity.
Now the statements our shepherds make can pretty much be used as a reverse barometer of truth.
“The leadership of the Coptic Orthodox Church has commendably clear vision and enviable common sense.”
Does this include their practice of allowing mortally sinful divorce and remarriage based either on adultery or one partner leaving the Coptic church?
The Coptic church is correct in opposing FS, but their own immoral practices/teachings that go beyond a stupid document out of Rome do not make them commendable. Moreover, as a schismatic group, it is always wiser to seek reconciliation with the One True Church instead of moving further away because of the stupidity of FS. This is simply a cop out, or in this case a “Copt out.” 🙂 But to be sure, it’s another failure of common sense demonstrated by the Copts.
I regret to see how easily you throw away the witnessing of the Coptic Church.
You would have some ground to state the superiority of the Roman Catholic Church re: marriage if the practice of an annulment did not exist in the Roman Catholic Church. To the Eastern mindset it is nothing else but a veiled ecclesial divorce. You are comfortable with saying that a twenty-years marriage of a couple which produced several children is not “valid” – to us it is absurd (and even hypocrisy and pride). We see this situation not as a “defect of intention” but a brokenness of human nature.
I know the argument of the Roman Catholics, that annulment is not an ecclesial divorce, but us it is a pure legalism and we cannot accept it. Likewise, you do not accept our arguments. The result is the same though: in both Churches some marriages break up and some people remarry; in both cases it is the Church (in our case the archbishop) who decides to grant the annulment/ecclesial divorce or not.
I think it is precisely “a matter of a fact” = non-legalistic Eastern mind which abhor legalism allows us to reject ‘FS’.
Unfortunately, I have witnessed many exchanges of that topic between Orthodox and Catholics and saw the futility of such exchanges so I will not engage further. I think it would be far more productive to support each other re: the issues which tear the Church apart (unlike you I recognize the true Church in any Church with the true Sacraments = the Real Presence of Christ and correct theology) than to poke each other’s eye about a non-existent problem.
The judgment of C.S. Lewis, or V. Solov’ev (if it were mine – that of a Roman Catholic – I certainly wouldn’t proclaim it, because not putting it into practice, I would fall under the enormous weight of his judgment) would be to affirm a single speculative and practical criterion, dogmatic and pastoral, ontological and moral, personalistic and metaphysical to arrive at truth, at interconfessional unity. The love (or at least non-judgment) of “difficult friends” (Nikolaj Velimirović).
Paola, could you unpack all that for me please. Your point is not at all clear, at least to me a bear with little brain. 🐻
“…decides to grant the annulment/ecclesial divorce…”The Church does not grant an annulment; it grants a “declaration of nullity” from the beginning.
The fact that arriving at this kind of finding can be abused is another matter, and probably helps account for the further fabrication found in Fiducia Supplicans.
Anna, it’s a bit more complicated than that. And as another commenter points out, the Church doesn’t grant an annulment, they grant a declaration of nullity. Surely you can think of circumstances where a couple may have been married for 20 years & had several children but there was a lack of consent or another critical issue existing at the time the marriage vows were exchanged?
I’m not beating up on any Orthodox church for their teaching on marriage. Praise God for them standing firm on the differences between men & women. If we lose that basic understanding, everything else falls apart.
It seems this is a better time to find common ground as allies than to bicker about annulments or remarriage. That’s not an unimportant difference, but in a battle one has to consider priorities & triage. Satan wants nothing more than to divide & splinter the Body of Christ.
Exactly, Addison. There was an article here on CWR about how frustrated Catholics should NOT turn to Orthodoxy. They have valid Sacraments; when an Orthodox priest consecrates, it truly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. But they’re NOT licit. Sort of like driving a car with a suspended license; they may know the rules of the road, but it’s illegal.
We should not flip the bird at Rome, and turn to Greek or Coptic Orthodoxy, who were still hemming and hawing at reunion long before Fiducia Supplicans came along. Regardless of Fiducia, the Orthodox Churches need to reunite with the Catholic Church. It’s been 1000 years this century since the Great Schism.
Francis seems to have a comment about almost everything almost all the time. Perhaps now he can tell us his thoughts about how rigid and backwardist those Copts are. (In case someone accuses me of calling Copts rigid and backwardist, I’m being sarcastic.)
But maybe he hath already spokeneth?
Who was it who recently prophesied “I’m not a cop[t]”?
Truly interesting
When this pontificate began the process of mitigating the validity of sacramental exchange of marital vows, then followed with a policy of affirmation of same sex unions now discussing a path for same sex marriage, we can be assured there has been a disconnect with the Holy Spirit.
Tawadros and Ambongo, two uncommon sounding Christian names both from Africa Coptic and Catholic are taking issue with this Vatican, with its Roman pontiff. Unlike previous religious confrontations like those between Rome and the East, it’s the strangers who are actually defending what should be the duty of the occupant of the Chair of Peter.