www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Clergy and Chastity

CIX

Dear friends, Can anyone provide for me an enlightenment as to the Eastern theological perspective on sins against chastity, and how this affects one's standing with the Church. I'm thinking of the CCC, which sometimes speaks of mitigating circumstances rendering the sin venial or no sin at all. It seems to me that traditional Eastern theology allows for no such 'mitigating circumstances'. I remember once reading an Orthodox perspective on it: sins against chastity are serious sins, and the more they're committed (e.g. if someone's addicted), the more sinful they are. Whereas, the Latin Catechism seems to factor in psychological and sociological causes etc.

Also, what about the Eastern view of those members of the clergy who have sinned against chastity (even married clergy)?

Another thing: what does it mean in the CCEO when the absolution of sins against chastity are reserved to the Apostolic See. Does this mean even every lustful thought is a kind of 'excommunication'?

Many thanks for your perspectives!

Interesting question. I wonder how it plays in with the eastern concept of asking for forgiveness for unintentional sins. How do the answers to your questions differ when the sin against chastity is unintentional? Is an unintentional sin comparable to the idea of mitigating factors in the west (which, in the west, diminishes culpability) or is it comparable to a lack of knowledge of the sinfulness or of one's actions (which, in the west, removes culpability)?

Dear Friends,

There are a number of canons regarding penances for various sexual sins - it would depend on the confessor and on the Orthodox jurisdiction if these canons would be enforced during confession.

For example, an act of masturbation is penanced by 40 days of fasting (xerophagy or dry food) and 100 prostrations daily (the Canons of St John the Faster in the Rudder).

Someone who has a seminal emission while awake is forbidden from partaking of Holy Communion for seven days and must, on each of those days, recite the 50th Psalm and make 49 prostrations.

If a candidate to the Priesthood commit masturbation prior to ordination, he is to be "sufficiently penanced" and then ordained. But if he masturbated after admission to the priesthood, he must be suspended for a year doing the usual penances (or "soberized"). For a priest to continue doing this would make him liable to being dismissed and reduced to the class of lectors.

If a woman allowed herself to be kissed and fondled by a man, but without being ravished by him, she is to receive the penance for masturbation.

Any monk or layman that has committed fornication is to be excluded from Communion for two years - and each day he or she must do 250 prostrations and must submit to xerophagy after 3:00 pm daily . . .

There are others . . .

As for masturbation and related things, only one's spiritual Father in confession may judge "extenuating" circumstances.

Ultimately, even extenuating circumstances with such sins can be sinful in and of themselves i.e. someone was engaged with pornography or otherwise brought themselves to a state where they were inclined to committing such sins.

I've seen Catholic manuals that teach that such sins are somehow a part of growing up and are therefore not seriously sinful. One priest in high school counselled that he didn't think that masturbation should be something that should keep us from Communion etc.

In my experience with sexual temptations and sins (and please remember that I am of part Roumanian background and therefore highly passionate by nature!), the BEST way to fight them is by TOTAL SPIRITUAL WARFARE.

Turn off the taps that flow into the commission of such sins right away. Don't play with thoughts, books, pictures, sensual whatever - there is only one road these things lead us down towards and the end of that is a hightened need for some sort of full sexual gratification.

Fra Girolamo Savonarola once recommended something that seems so foreign to our modern minds when he said we should carry a little skull in our pockets with us.

When tempted to sin in this way, we should take it out and look at it as a reminder of our death.

That will be more than sufficient to return a sense of sobriety and self-control to us.

There are also other circumstances that lead us to seek self-gratification such as worries, a feeling of being overwhelmed by difficulties and insecurities and the like.

When that happens, rather than consider those feelings normal (which, for a Christian, they are not), we should take them as a cue to surrender our wills to God and give whatever problems we are experiencing over to His Son to deal with on our behalf.

In our prayer, we should then say, "Heavenly Father, I have already given this matter over to Your Son, Jesus Christ, and have placed it in His Hands to resolve for me who am a weak sinner and unable to do so myself. I know He will deal with it in a way that is best for me and I now will stop worrying about it or else let it ruin my life."

Alex

This one doesn't make any sense to me. If you are awake, how does this differ from masturbation?

Are these just rule for clergy?

Brother Ed

Technically, one can have one without the other. One could think lustfully and have an emission or one could masturbate and not have an emission. I read it to be a loophole closer. No one can claim innocence by saying, "I didn't actually masturbate." or "I didn't actually have an emission."

In the Byzantine and Oriental Church Tradition sins against chastity are sins like any other that separate the sinner from God and need to be confessed before approaching Holy Communion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the Latin catechism, it explains the various usages as it goes along. Various Particular Churches are preparing their own Catechism. The Eparch of Melbourne (Australia) Bishop Peter Stasiuk is on the UGCC group preparing the UGCC Catechism.

Sins against chasity are a bit varied but all require confession. Clergy need go as well as lay people and often to give an example to their congregation. Sins against chastity covers a bit of a spectrum.

Very serious sins are so serious that the Pope handles them. For example in a South American country a senior official got himself excommunicated for his rough handling of the clergy. It is like royal weddings they also get referred to the Pope. It stops local bishops getting extra pressure to deliver the result wanted by who ever, by taking it out of their hands.

I can only guess that if the serious sin involves chastity there is also serious scandal involved and brings into question the suitability of the sinner to continue in the ranks of the clergy.

Hope that is helpful!

CIX

Wondering - Your point is very interesting. In the East, I'm assuming that one requires INTENTION for committing a sin. In this case, psychological and sociological factors could mean that a sin was not fully intended, hence comparing the two interpretations.

Alex - Interesting...I've never seen any part of the Rudder canons before. I've always been told how out of date they're supposed to be (e.g. there's one rule about a priest not being able to shave with a hot tile!).

Pavel Ivanovich - yes that seems to make sense out of the CCEO. I guess that where there is public scandal, such as paedophilia, it is reserved to the Apostolic See, which may just mean the bishop.

About the UGCC Catechism - I've just returned from Ukraine and had the good fortune to travel on the plane to L'viv with Bishop Peter. I was told that a lot of work is being done to prepare this Catechism!

In Christ!

Just to clarify. if it means the Holy See then is is going past the bishop (he may be very pleased that the problem is going that way on occasion). If it stops at the bishop's desk the canons state it clearly.

Anything at all that causes scandal (sex with children and vulerable others or living with a mistress/boyfriend) and brings the ministry into disrepute.

Bishop Peter has put in quiet a bit of work on their catechism.