Celibacy and Crisis Question for the EO

[Markie Boy]

So I'm feeling less comfortable as a Catholic, and more at ease in Orthodox perspectives.

With the crisis in the Catholic Church, I am amazed at how almost nobody is considering mandatory celibacy as part of the problem (just part, not all).

I feel it's a major part for multiple reasons, both scripturally and simply human/socially.

I respect you all here, which is why I am asking. Am I way off base in my thinking?

I feel until they change their perspective on the celibacy rule, the problem simply won't go away. From my reading, celibacy has be rejected in practice in so many ways since it was made the rule.

 

[archer75]

You will hear many voices, RC and not, say that priestly celibacy is not exactly the problem. It is not the problem in that being unmarried (and, in theory, not sexually active) does not cause child abuse / rape.

But a group of celibates is good place to "hide out" if you are attracted to such things.

 

[HTacianas]

So I'm feeling less comfortable as a Catholic, and more at ease in Orthodox perspectives.

With the crisis in the Catholic Church, I am amazed at how almost nobody is considering mandatory celibacy as part of the problem (just part, not all).

I feel it's a major part for multiple reasons, both scripturally and simply human/socially.

I respect you all here, which is why I am asking. Am I way off base in my thinking?

I feel until they change their perspective on the celibacy rule, the problem simply won't go away. From my reading, celibacy has be rejected in practice in so many ways since it was made the rule.

It's not celibacy per se that's causing the problems. It's always been that those who "aren't the marrying type" easily found a place to hide where no one would question why they weren't married.

If the celibacy rule was relaxed and made voluntary it wouldn't solve the problem because the people who are the problem would simply "volunteer" to celibate.

 

[thecolorsblend]

With the crisis in the Catholic Church, I am amazed at how almost nobody is considering mandatory celibacy as part of the problem (just part, not all).

The fact that most of the perps are suspected to have homosexual tendencies could have something to do with that.

 

[dzheremi]

Since I'm not EO I will not offer my opinion directly, but I'd be interested to see what the differences are in terms of the vetting and formation processes between the different communions.

I know a very little bit about what goes into training priests in my own tradition (e.g., the mandatory time -- I believe it is 40 days and nights, symbolic of Christ's time in the desert -- that they must spend at a monastery learning exactly the celebration of the liturgy, the raising of the incense, etc.), but really not enough to say why the RCs would have this problem while we OO do not beyond the simple and I think unsatisfactory answer of "we have married priests and they do not". I suspect there may be theological and epistemological differences that are under-considered here, but opening things at that level could be a whole other can of worms.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if it is a part, I don't think it's a major reason for the current mess. it might have some sway, but I don't think that much.

 

[archer75]

If indeed people who priests in the RCC do this (at all) at roughly the same rate as the population at large...

...then a huge problem is the typical workplace chain of command habit of covering things up, which allows one person to have not a couple victims but maybe dozens or hundreds. But the RCC is not supposed to be a typical workplace (and neither is the EOC and neither is the OOC). To me, one of the huge questions is not "why did this happen" but "why was it, in effect, tolerated / encouraged by the hierarchy?"

I say that because some of the documents released in the grand jury report show quite clearly that the bishops

a) treat this as an everyday matter and
b) know that certain priests are major problems and are not to be cured by a leave of absence, confession, or being shuffled around.

I cannot take seriously the claim that the higher-ups were trying to do their best and "listened" to a secular psychologist who said "well, the best thing in these cases is just to shut up the victims and send the perpetrator a ways away where people don't know him."

Which leaves me asking - how is it that all these priests and bishops, for decades or centuries, treated the rape and sexual abuse of children and minors of both sexes as nothing more than a "spill on aisle three" that should be cleaned up before it impedes shopping.

And it makes me wonder, as I have said before, what WE are doing that is as bad or worse. The speck and the log...

 

[archer75]

Since I'm not EO I will not offer my opinion directly, but I'd be interested to see what the differences are in terms of the vetting and formation processes between the different communions.

I know a very little bit about what goes into training priests in my own tradition (e.g., the mandatory time -- I believe it is 40 days and nights, symbolic of Christ's time in the desert -- that they must spend at a monastery learning exactly the celebration of the liturgy, the raising of the incense, etc.), but really not enough to say why the RCs would have this problem while we OO do not beyond the simple and I think unsatisfactory answer of "we have married priests and they do not". I suspect there may be theological and epistemological differences that are under-considered here, but opening things at that level could be a whole other can of worms.

I am interested in the theological differences, if it comes up.

I also wonder about some of these priests whose correspondence was included in the report. At least one of them sounded like a child himself. Emotionally and cognitively, to my ear. If that's even somewhat true...how did these men get ordained? What was the discernment process like?

And despite the controls enacted in the 21st century...what assurance does anyone have that the attitude to such things has changed?

 

[dzheremi]

And it makes me wonder, as I have said before, what WE are doing that is as bad or worse. The speck and the log...

Why would you assume that there is something worse in your own Church if it does not have the same structural or theological/epistemological character as the RCC?

I mean, for God's sake, in my own Church we have two monks now arrested in connection to the murder of their own abbot (HG Bishop Epiphanius), which is about as bad as anything ever can be (Lord have mercy!), but that does not somehow magically make the RCCs pattern of horrible child abuse one of our particular problems. It's not any better, either (lest anyone think I'm going there; how can we rank murder vis-a-vis child abuse, if anyone should ever be so sick as to want to in the first place?), but it remains the case that it's not the same.

And more importantly, neither is the reaction the same: rather than shuffle the murderers/conspiracy members around so that they could be free to murder someone else at a different monastery, the Holy Synod has suspended all inquiries and ordinations into the monastic life in any place in the entire world for a period of one year at minimum, to both allow the police investigation to go on and also to not allow spiritual rot/satanic infestation to go unaddressed at the monasteries. It's painful, it's awful, we wish we didn't have to take such drastic steps, but I imagine that it is a lot less painful than a cover up would be, whereby no one would ever know that it happened, no one who did it or helped it get done would get punished, etc.

Sorry to say it, but the RCC brought this situation on itself by the way it behaves. Does that really have an analogue in the EOC? I don't think so. You guys do discipline your own in very real ways, from what I've seen (laicized priests, deposed bishops, etc), and may God be praised for that.

 

[Saucy]

Why would you assume that there is something worse in your own Church if it does not have the same structural or theological/epistemological character as the RCC?

I mean, for God's sake, in my own Church we have two monks now arrested in connection to the murder of their own abbot (HG Bishop Epiphanius), which is about as bad as anything ever can be (Lord have mercy!), but that does not somehow magically make the RCCs pattern of horrible child abuse one of our particular problems. It's not any better, either (lest anyone think I'm going there; how can we rank murder vis-a-vis child abuse, if anyone should ever be so sick as to want to in the first place?), but it remains the case that it's not the same.

And more importantly, neither is the reaction the same: rather than shuffle the murderers/conspiracy members around so that they could be free to murder someone else at a different monastery, the Holy Synod has suspended all inquiries and ordinations into the monastic life in any place in the entire world for a period of one year at minimum, to both allow the police investigation to go on and also to not allow spiritual rot/satanic infestation to go unaddressed at the monasteries. It's painful, it's awful, we wish we didn't have to take such drastic steps, but I imagine that it is a lot less painful than a cover up would be, whereby no one would ever know that it happened, no one who did it or helped it get done would get punished, etc.

Sorry to say it, but the RCC brought this situation on itself by the way it behaves. Does that really have an analogue in the EOC? I don't think so. You guys do discipline your own in very real ways, from what I've seen (laicized priests, deposed bishops, etc), and may God be praised for that.

Are there thousands of accusations against murderous monks out there that were swiftly covered up? Did the head guy fire other monks for following proper procedures to report such activities. I understand that there could be pedophiles in any church, but most churches don't knowingly allow it to happen and work so hard to cover it up.

 

[dzheremi]

Are there thousands of accusations against murderous monks out there that were swiftly covered up? Did the head guy fire other monks for following proper procedures to report such activities. I understand that there could be pedophiles in any church, but most churches don't knowingly allow it to happen and work so hard to cover it up.

Yep...that was precisely my point.

 

[John Bowen]

Yes celibacy is a problem .People are hardwired for sex when a man (masculine energy ) and a woman (feminine energy ) come together they balance each other out. When you don't have women priests in a organization because women are considered inferior that they caused the fall of mankind. Then that organization is imbalanced and no matter how big and how many people try to hold it up it will fall just as the Tower of Babel fell just as the Roman empire fell.What is not of God will not last. And when the" holy innocents " children are abused who look up to people who are authority figures and who are supposed to represent God using Jesus Christ's name than woe to them then that organization will be judged and they will reap what they have sowed.

 

[archer75]

@dzheremi , I didn't mean that as a dig at my own communion. Far from it. It does appear to be, from my limited knowledge, that the privileges of being ordained in the EOC do not extend nearly so far into corruption, etc.

And I wouldn't expect the same thing (on such a scale, although of course sexual crimes do happen). But I wonder how much of my horror at this crisis is fueled by pride, even if it's hard for me to see it. Always when I look at another person and see behavior that I particularly despise, I later note that the seeds of it - if not the very same behavior- are to be found in me, too.

Maybe it doesn't work that way across communions. But there is always the POSSIBILITY of being blind to something huge.

I could probably just have said "Lord, have mercy!"

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, absolutely. The possibility is always there, and nothing should ever be a cause of pride as though it's appropriate to pray "Thank you God that I am not like so and so", but I just meant that even though there is no place that is free of problems, there is a world of difference between how churches that aren't the RCC handle their own crises and how the RCC is handling this particular crisis right now (and they could change that, if they wanted to). That's not even a judgment on the RCC itself so much as being able to contrast "Well this bad thing is going on over here and they're handling it like this, and this other bad thing is going on over there and they're handling it like that."

 

[buzuxi02]

Since I'm not EO I will not offer my opinion directly, but I'd be interested to see what the differences are in terms of the vetting and formation processes between the different communions.

I know a very little bit about what goes into training priests in my own tradition (e.g., the mandatory time -- I believe it is 40 days and nights, symbolic of Christ's time in the desert -- that they must spend at a monastery learning exactly the celebration of the liturgy, the raising of the incense, etc.),

This is how it should be. A celibate priest in my opinion does not really qualify to be in the priesthood. An unmarried priest should agree to be a monastic and be trained in asceticism. This will not eliminate all problems but an hieromonk is better equipped has better spiritual tools at his disposal than a "bachelor priest" to struggle with logoismoi.
Originally in the Roman tradition many of the married clergy were expected to live as brother and sister. Every now and then the Latins still bring this point up that the priests and bishops still remained celibate, and you can find some church Fathers mentioning this. I believe there is a canon from one of the councils of Carthage which rejected this strict idea. Anyhow the problem with this argument, (that after ordination the marriage became platonic) is that no sin is incurred if they do get the urge unlike a "bachelor priest" and the kind of person this can attract to the priesthood. I have a friend who wanted to join a convent in Bulgaria and become a nun. The Abess looked at her and told her maybe she can find a husband who also struggles in asceticism and agree to live as married monastics in the world. My friend perplexed, pressed further and the Abess told her the monastery life is not for her, the struggle with carnal passions is too great. Thus if you marry and both willing to devote to prayer its similiar and it does not matter if their carnal passions take over; he is your husband.

 

[buzuxi02]

Double post

 

[Barney2.0]

Celibacy isn’t the problem according to studies, I believe the Orthodox Church has more celibate priests then married priests, yet it doesn’t suffer the same abuse the Catholic Church faces. I believe part of the problem is the Catholic Church ordains people who have a bad history of psychological problems:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ut-clergy-sexual-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

 

[truefiction1]

So I'm feeling less comfortable as a Catholic, and more at ease in Orthodox perspectives.

With the crisis in the Catholic Church, I am amazed at how almost nobody is considering mandatory celibacy as part of the problem (just part, not all).

I feel it's a major part for multiple reasons, both scripturally and simply human/socially.

I respect you all here, which is why I am asking. Am I way off base in my thinking?

I feel until they change their perspective on the celibacy rule, the problem simply won't go away. From my reading, celibacy has be rejected in practice in so many ways since it was made the rule.

Compulsory celibacy for priests is an unsustainable model in our fallen world. It's too harsh and many men are not able to bear it (as our Lord Himself said of celibacy and as one monk stated in the 1st Council of Nicea, citing an ancient tradition of married priests). Many broken and corrupt men are desirous of the priestly role for their own evil reasons, and a compulsory celibacy eliminates too many other potential candidates to fulfill the need for having priests, thereby inducing greater temptation/likelihood to ordain predators. In these days of greatly diminished faith there are even fewer righteous candidates than usual, so that the likelihood that these predators will receive ordination is so substantially increased that they have been allowed into the priesthood in great numbers. Then, because of clericalism, Church leaders didn't feel they could afford to discipline priests as criminals, because they mustn't allow the 'masses' (laity) to have doubts about the men officiating and serving the 'masses' (Liturgy and laity). Thus, they convinced themselves that they would by exercising mercy if they just moved problem priests around, as they were not willing to expose and depose these abusive wolves in shepherds clothing. Through their inability to lead as true shepherds, they too are wolves.

But true sheep of the Good Shepherd hear only His voice, and if the voice of the supposed shepherd is not recognized as the voice of Christ they reject it, and for their Love of God and His other sheep, they denounce and publicly expose the liars and thieves, until they either repent or are driven out from the flock altogether. This is never done without great personal expense to the sheep who does it. But those who Love the Lord for real would pay with all they have, even their own life if it came down to it.

I've some questions: At first instance when a lay person became aware that their priest had abused a child of theirs did they report it to the civil authorities so that criminal charges could be brought against them? Did they refuse to believe their child because they couldn't bear the truth? Did they inform all the other members (laity) of their local Church about what they had become aware of concerning their priest? Why or why not? Could greater courage, in Christ, on the part of some lay people, due to the Love of God above all else, stopped these parasites and destroyers from committing their abuse? Could the overall spiritual condition of church membership at large be responsible for its current state?

Bottom line, for me, is that the idea of mandatory celibacy for all priests, and that even those priests who were married must put away their wives, and that those who don't must permanently abstain from all conjugal relations with their wives, was brought up during the 1st Ecumenical Council at Nicea in the fourth century. It was ruled that, for the time being, the council would not rule on it, and leave marriage to the discretion of each man entering the priesthood rather than making celibacy and abstinence compulsory. It has not changed in our Church since then. It shouldn't change.

 

[archer75]

So I'm feeling less comfortable as a Catholic, and more at ease in Orthodox perspectives.

With the crisis in the Catholic Church, I am amazed at how almost nobody is considering mandatory celibacy as part of the problem (just part, not all).

I feel it's a major part for multiple reasons, both scripturally and simply human/socially.

I respect you all here, which is why I am asking. Am I way off base in my thinking?

I feel until they change their perspective on the celibacy rule, the problem simply won't go away. From my reading, celibacy has be rejected in practice in so many ways since it was made the rule.

OP, you will find plenty of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who agree with you here. I think obligatory clerical celibacy is really not cool at all. And it's a discipline - they could lift it tomorrow if they wanted.

But personally, I don't see how the mandatory celibacy is the main part of the problem.

However, if you're interested in Orthodox perspectives, of course stick around.

 

[Hank77]

I've some questions: At first instance when a lay person became aware that their priest had abused a child of theirs did they report it to the civil authorities so that criminal charges could be brought against them? Did they refuse to believe their child because they couldn't bear the truth? Did they inform all the other members (laity) of their local Church about what they had become aware of concerning their priest? Why or why not? Could greater courage, in Christ, on the part of some lay people, due to the Love of God above all else, stopped these parasites and destroyers from committing their abuse? Could the overall spiritual condition church membership at large be responsible for its current state?

The movie/documentary, Spotlight, might answer these questions for you.