www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology sexual guidelines for clerics

Dear Dr. John and Serge,

Great posts and insights into the nature, power, and importance of sexuality in all of our lives.

Thanks for bringing things into focus!

Steve
JOY!

This has been an interesting and revealing post. I haven't been here for a couple of weeks, during the holidays and could spend a whole week catching up on the dialogue. I respect this forum more than any other for its openness and cordiality, in as much as these vehicles go. Our interaction here is certainly more Christian and realistic than the infamous "Indiana list" and others of like mind (or actually, "closed mind") that I could not in good conscience, ascribe to. It's good to be back and read the new developments. I'm glad to occasionally contribute my thoughts on the subjects at hand, even though I can be labeled as an easternizer, modernist, Ruthenophile and a Ukrainophile all at once. I do hope that some of you can gain an amount of insight from my comments. I know: another long post, but I try to limit their frequency and admit that I enjoy sharing my thoughts that I cannot otherwise do so candidly. I do try to be honest and realistic in my assertions and hope that they are helpful.

I agree with those posters who have indicated that the regulations concerning abstinence from sex on the part of clerics prior to celebrating the Divine Mysteries reflects an antiquated and wrong view of sex within the commitment of the marriage sacrament. What was once thought of by some as a "necessary evil" is thankfully, viewed today as an integral part of a relationship. Especially in Orthodox sacramental theology, marriage has more than one aim, (i.e.: the procreation of children) and these include expressions of love between partners which reflect in the human realm, the love between Christ and the church. There are more possibilities that are worthy in marriage and even the Roman Church has departed from what was once seen as the main objective of the sacrament of matrimony - to bring more Christians (and specifically Catholics) into this world. Whether official teaching or not, this is the attitude that was portrayed in the average catechism or marriage class through the mid 20th. century.

We should be honest and help the church to express externally what faith tells us in our hearts. As some have mentioned here, there are many archaic practices that we are perpetuating merely for the sake of the customs themselves and these are not integral to the faith but rather were inaugurated to address particular needs and viewpoints of a different time. Among these anachronisms is the prohibition of women entering the sanctuary or altar area. While the Ruthenian Church has been more relaxed on this issue in the recent past (especially for the purposes of cleaning the altar), I'm sure that many here would like to see this continue to be forbidden. It is clear that the origin of this rule reflects an understanding of the woman's menstrual cycle as being somehow "impure" and thus not appropriate for interaction within the confines of the "holy of holies." The difficulties with the issuance of blood during menstruation echo back to Old Testaments prohibitions against impurities in the Temple and in life in general, particularly the presence of blood-defiled individuals that would "corrupt" the holy places.

The origin is the same for the rite of the "Churching of Women" after childbirth. A special blessing and re-admittance to the Eucharistic synaxis was deemed necessary because the woman that had given birth had engaged in sex, something considered interestingly, impure for women but not for men. There was also the issue of blood again, this time resulting in a new life entering the world. In many cases, even today (at least in some Orthodox churches), women who have given birth will not attend church until the child is baptized and they themselves are purified. Ipso facto, a birth-mother is temporarily excommunicated from the body of Christ for following her role in the natural order. I did not realize why some would stay away from the liturgy until becoming aware of the implications in our ritual. I don't think that most women in our churches who do follow this practice understand the reasons why it is traditional to stay away from church for forty days. Today, thankfully, we don't interpret the "churching of women" to be employed to purify one from the corruptions of sex and childbirth, but see it as a special blessing for motherhood and the like. This is an example of re-baptizing a ritual once intended to emphasize a misunderstood role of women in society and has been a positive step. As distasteful as the former intention sounds to us now for a Christian understanding of marriage and children, it doesn't seem too far from more recent Taliban-style treatment of women.

I think that today, for the most part, we do not consider these natural human occurrences as being impure or corrupting to the sanctity of our churches. Therefore, the prohibition against women in the sanctuary would seem meaningless now. Women were permitted to be in the altar area in earlier periods and this is where the witness of "deaconesses," although not identical to the role of male deacons, gives testimony that there were times when women were close to the altar. Liturgical scholars tell us that until around the 9th. century, women deacons were admitted to communion at the holy table itself, which was then, as now, located in the sanctuary. The issue here is not to discuss the feasibility or lack there of, of the role of women in the liturgy or as deaconesses, but rather to enlighten as to the mind-frames that have contributed to our still current quibbles with issues such as the entrance of women into the altar and other sexual-related attitudes that still plague our consciences in the twenty-first century.

The rules that pertain to abstinence from sexual relations within a priestly or even lay marriage, at those times when the sacraments are to be celebrated or during fasting periods also reflect an unenlightened attitude about the meaning and purpose of intimacy between husband and wife. They place a wrong emphasis on the alleged incompatibility of human sexuality and spirituality, the same arguments that are often used for mandatory celibacy on the part of priests. I think that we have progressed in our understanding of both the natural physical occurrences in women's bodies, called the menstrual period and childbirth, and also the meaning of a giving of self through sexual intimacy, between committed partners within marriage. God has given us the blessing of knowledge through scientific, academic and even theological advancements that have led to a more correct understanding of human sexuality as our Creator intended it to be. We have in many places made great strides against the negative connotations that sexuality has carried with it through the centuries, from Paul, Augustine and others, especially in Western culture, who have left a lasting scar of mental anguishes when facing our own physical intimacies and commitments.

Now would be the time to de-emphasize those mentalities which would place sexual relations within marriage in the "necessary evil" category and focus on the more important aspects of clerical and lay ministry. Once again, as some have mentioned, while this outlook is certainly embraced by too many Orthodox and now Eastern Catholics, it does not reflect the traditional attitudes of the Christian East towards sexuality, but rather, denotes an acceptable but negative and frowned upon role of sexual relations between married partners.

While there are no doubt those who would like to keep control over the sexual lives of priests and probably ponder these things often privately, in a deranged manner, I do not believe that most bishops keep tabs on when their clergy engage in sexual relations, so the point would be rather moot unless the parties involved are plagued with some sort of personal "guilt complex" because of archaic church discipline that was formed from an incorrect understanding of the issues. It's time to move on from this point and encourage our married clergy to have meaningful and intimate relationships with their spouses, leading to a healthy and happy marriage from which all the parishioners can receive encouragement and use as an example.

" . . . during the lenten periods, we should abstain from eating these, and when we are preparing to receive communion, we should refrain from eating anything so that we can focus on God -- the gift-giver, rather than the gifts."

While this is a nice expression of personal piety, I do not see how either food or sex can distract a healthy person from concentrating on spiritual matters when attending or celebrating the Divine Liturgy. If one is overly obsessed with either thing, then there is something wrong psychologically (or perhaps even physically) with that person and they should receive help for their problems. The average person does not continue to reflect on what they had for dinner, hours after they leave the restaurant or dinner table. A hungry person however, will focus on each restaurant passed on the road or return continually to an empty refrigerator, thus interfering with concentration on other things.

Likewise, I don't see the healthy Christian obsessing about the endless sexual escapades that they and their husband/wife engaged in the night or day before. Instead of a priest catching a glimpse of an attractive person during the service because of memories of sexual activities the night before, perhaps a sexually deprived person would be preoccupied with fantasies that they cannot or have not realized for some time. Before I am criticized, I do not mean that sex is necessary each and every day for one to be fulfilled. I'm just using an analogy that is meant to show that deprivation, not engagement, is normally the reason that one obsesses on this or that desire.

So, how can these proper and necessary elements of human life really put us in an undesirable position for participating in the church's worship? I agree that "putting aside earthly cares" is indicated in the liturgy to encourage us that the cares of this life can be overcome by the grace of God experienced in word and sacrament, as well as in community activity. If eating or having sex within a day of worship interferes with our spiritual experience and we obsess on these things, then there is something gravely wrong.

Some have indicated the lack of tradition in the Eastern Church for the daily celebration of the Eucharist, except in monasteries. While this may be true to some extent, its origin seems to be to serve the regulations of the church against sex before worship, which I have already stated reflect an unhealthy and uninformed attitude about the function of human sexuality. When the clergy are forbidden to engage in sexual relations the day before the liturgy, then of course, very few married priests would celebrate more than once or twice a week. If the husband-priests celebrated more often, then both they and their spouses would certainly have a problem with the relationship, since they would never be having sex. Do we really have to perpetuate a disdain for frequent Divine Liturgies simply to serve tradition or outdated discipline? If the blind devotion to established practice circumvents people from participating more frequently in the Eucharist, (a practice that does have precedent in the New Testament), then it needs to go. It is simply wrong to place a disciplinary norm above the grace and fellowship experienced in the Divine Liturgy.

One of the positive contributions of the Byzantine Catholic Churches to the Eastern experience is, in my viewpoint, the more frequent celebration of the liturgy. There can be much gained from a daily or several times a week participation in the liturgy and holy communion. A lot of people have told me that this is an important part of their day, either before work, at lunchtime or before going home. Many Roman churches offer multiple daily liturgies that commuters can take spiritual advantage of. (Please: no one give the lame excuse that there can be only one liturgy celebrated a day on the same altar. The legalistic ways that some churches use to get around this are more ridiculous than the concept itself.) There is nothing like the feeling one gets from being part of a weekday liturgy attended by a couple of hundred people. It is a wonderful thing to see. I do realize that the RC has a lot more call for daily liturgies than we do, but I could envision at least one being celebrated in BC or Orthodox churches each day or on several weekdays that would allow people to avail themselves to prayer and communion.

On the other hand, it is sad to see so many Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches that only have services once a week or at best, on Saturdays and Sundays, even in parishes with large congregations. If anything reflects a stereotypical "protestant" mentality it is this. I do not mean to say that this is the correct image of our Protestant friends, only that it is what comes to many Catholic and Orthodox minds. For the church to be closed from Sunday to Saturday, with no Eucharist but once a week is to me, contrary to the proper spirituality of Orthodoxy and Catholicism and deprives the community of great spiritual graces.

I feel that our churches should also (and some do) avail the faithful to the liturgy and communion on a daily basis. A weekday Divine Liturgy that can fit into people's schedules, would be a wonderful way for many to begin or complete their hectic day. It need not be an hour and a half or two hours long and our Ruthenian Church has done a good job in accommodating the liturgy to modern circumstances, within a forty-five minute to an hour time frame. This may sound like putting the liturgy at the prey of contemporary schedules and busy secular lives, but this is reality and I feel that if offered on a daily basis, the Divine Liturgy can and should be celebrated with dignity, solemnity and true devotion, but not be overly taxing to the point that it discourages and even prohibits people's attendance. This is where the issue of liturgical reform makes sense and I believe that God would want us to continually find methods to adapt the ways we can experience his grace to what is feasible in our lives. I don't think that the Lord is displeased if certain repetitious or non-integral parts of the liturgy are eliminated at times, in order to offer people a more practical and positive experience of living worship. A clear distinction between a weekday liturgy and the larger gathering of the community on the Lord's Day can and should be made.

While Brendan has given a beautiful reflection on the interrelation between the physical and spiritual aspects of the human person, I don't believe that we can or should impose these standards on everyone, given that it is affirmed that sexuality in the proper context is not "evil" but a gift from God. Some may call me also a "protestant" for this mentality, but in reality, my experience of church, which I consider to be well-rounded and honest, is that of the Eastern tradition which for me, has not at all meant that I live in a world which is negative about life, society or humanity but rather seeks to help others get the most out of the life that God has generously given us, while growing in the virtues that Christ really attests to in the Gospels - love for God and charity, justice and decency toward all people.

Michael, the twenty year old seminarian of the Latin Rite displays typical "neophyte" attitudes towards church laws and the penalties for transgressing them, as well as a lack of complete information regarding certain matters such as married bishops and priestly continence. This is common among the young who have not yet been exposed to the complexities of church life and politics. In a way, those of us who are middle age or older would all like to be in that position again. All of us were there at one point or another, but, good or bad, experience is a great teacher of reality. As Michael continues in his formation, there will be certainly many other things from which he will gain insight. We pray for him as he journeys on.

There is much talk about fasting from both food and sex. This is commendable for those so inclined and who derive spiritual welfare from these time-honored disciplines. But, whatever happened to the fast from sinful behavior, lack of charity, unbecoming and/or hurtful statements and un-Christian attitudes/actions? I have noticed nothing at all about this in any of the replies here. If I've missed them, please refresh me. It seems however that, as is common, the externals are placed before the internal reality that they should be reflecting.

Besides what can be found in the vast compilation of various church canons in books like The Rudder, it should be noted that the liturgical book which contains the very words and actions of the Divine Liturgy, simply mentions that the priest is to follow the disciplinary regulations regarding fasting from food and drink prior to the celebration. Sex is not listed, obviously. The liturgikon is most specific however, as to the internal disposition that a minister must have to properly and spiritually offer the holy sacrifice. All Byzantine liturgikons give the same preface before any other rite or action is mentioned and are quite serious about the attitude needed to celebrate the liturgy:

"The priest who intends to celebrate the divine mystery should be reconciled, first of all, with everyone and have no animosity toward anyone. To the best of his ability, he must keep his heart free from evil thoughts {another translation='harbor no evil in his heart'}. He must abstain from food and drink in accordance with ecclesiastical legislation until his priestly function." (Ruthenian translation of the Divine Liturgy, 1965).

It would seem to me that as a preparation to receive the Holy Eucharist, which unites us with both Christ and one another in a real, tangible and serious way, it would be more beneficial and certainly pleasing to God, if we were to pray that we grow in virtue and charity and engage in activities that aim to increase these in our daily lives, rather than worry about what we had to eat the night before or what occurred in our marital bedrooms. Fasting is to be encouraged when done in the proper spirit and without being judgmental about it, but there are many other things that can well and perhaps better prepare us to partake of the holy mysteries.

The traditional "Prayers Before Holy Communion" are so negative in their estimation of human nature, that I could hardly recommend that anyone pray them. Even though some are attributed to Patristic writers, they do not seem to reflect Jesus' understanding of communion between God and people. I was surprised to find out years ago though, that many Orthodox priests actually tell their people to recite these depressing texts, especially for those whom they feel need a particular amount of "penance," usually for some sexual sin which could quite easily dam them to hell (sarcasm being used). The whole idea of the priest actually asking people questions in confession, especially about sex, was unknown to me before it was brought to my attention by some of the laity. From my education in the sacrament of reconciliation, it was up to the penitent to list the sins, not the priest, but I learned that some confessors feel it their duty to "pry" into people's personal lives or conduct some type of ecclesiastical interrogation during the sacrament. It is this type of experience that has scarred many away from confession and communion, not to mention some Orthodox priests' public denial of the "seal of confession" that they feel is not present in Orthodoxy as in Catholicism. If it isn't, then I could not imagine many receiving the sacrament or giving an honest account of things that may actually be bothering them spiritually.

I am in agreement with Lance, that books such as that mentioned written by Fr. Zimmerman, can hardly be considered scholarly or worthy of consideration when trying to place issues into historical and theological perspectives. When a writer begins their research with the conclusions already drawn, it is not research at all, but polemics, which are self-serving and do not benefit the faith community but rather distract from sincere attempts at honest, enlightened research. To identify the idea of married bishops who continued to have relations with their wives with an Arian phenomenon is simplex and pointed. If one judges the capabilities of bishops or priests on their abstention from healthy sexual relationships within their marriages, then the priorities are in the wrong place.

All in all, a very interesting discussion, which is relevant to our times. Things do indeed change, and not always for the worse, but sometimes for the better. Good work all.

Joe

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Joe ]

Michael,

My reply is two days late, but...

The Melkite Church which claims Antioch as her home was, originally Syriac. I believe this is also true of the Antiochene Orthodox Church. Because of commerce the Byzantine tradition eventually was adopted by these Churches, but their roots are Syriac.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Joe wrote: "... in Orthodox sacramental theology, marriage has more than one aim, (i.e.: the procreation of children) and these include expressions of love between partners which reflect in the human realm, the love between Christ and the church."

Paul wrote that it be better to marry than to sin. Marriage, in this case, was an answer to basic human desires and not just for the bearing of children.


Joe wrote: “The difficulties with the issuance of blood during menstruation echo back to Old Testaments prohibitions against impurities in the Temple and in life in general, particularly the presence of blood-defiled individuals that would "corrupt" the holy places.”

We fail to miss the subtle irony in the blood-life theology. It is not so much the “impurities” but the fact that “blood”=”life-force”. Woman, by her nature and design, gives bios (life); man, by his ministry at the altar, gives life through the "blood' of the New Covenant. We have become so accustomed in seeing "Woman Impure' (or Woman Shedding Blood) and "Man as Murderer' (or Man Shedding Blood) that we have deprived ourselves in seeing the beauty in this. Woman, who cannot serve at the altar, offers life on one side of the "barrier' while man, who cannot offer life, offers it as a service at the altar. And we all know it takes two to tangle.

(Fr.?) Joe,

Excellent post. And don't worry about the length, I certainly don't mind and have gained much insight from your comments.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your kind words. I have just one question.

Where did I say that the Latins lacked understanding? I thought in all I've ever said that I made my support for Latins around this forum and elsewhere quite clear...so if I've implied otherwise, show me where, and help me clarify myself so we're all on the same page. God bless!

Good to hear, Fr. Dn. Edward...thanks!

Dear Mor Ephrem,

Oh my friend, let me clarify! You have been most supportive of all persons of good will who come here. Especially we who are Latin Catholics. You are a sure support in times of trial.

My post was to thank you for this that you wrote:

"Re: your point about Latins perhaps misunderstanding some things, perhaps you and I when we find things which sound "heretical" to us (using the definition of heretical which you use) really are viewing things with our respective Byzantine and Syriac lenses. Perhaps they're not heretical to Latin eyes at all, even though they don't work for us. Is that their fault? Should their theological expressions accomodate us? Not unless we're willing to accomodate theirs...when the Latin clergyman said death was natural, perhaps all he meant was that it's something that happens to everyone, and not that death was a part of the original plan. Can you deny that we won't die a physical death one day? "

It was your support when someone was upset at some behavior or ideas shared by a Latin that I was referring to when I posted this!

"Thanks also for your spirited remarks about us Latins and our lack of understanding. Now what was that about?"
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

The "now what was that about" was a referrence to the fact that sometimes I have senior moments and the memory fails me! I was being humorous bout age peeking round the corner at me. Guess it lost something in the sharing from here to there. Sorry.

I am so glad that you asked. I wouldn't want some of my foolishness to offend or upset you!


-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Steve,

"Thanks for your kind words. I have just one question."

They come with great affection!

Where did I say that the Latins lacked understanding? I thought in all I've ever said that I made my support for Latins around this forum and elsewhere quite clear...so if I've implied otherwise, show me where, and help me clarify myself so we're all on the same page. God bless!

No problem Steve, I'm glad we cleared that up.