Sex and Fasting

[Hermit76]

I guess I am fortunate. Confession to my priest is gentle and always a healing time.

As far as being open, when I was a Protestant pastor we didn't have confession, but we did do a lot of counseling that would have been similar. I found it easier to be a help to those who were open, even to the point of being uncomfortable. Holding back does more than keeping a secret, it keeps things inside. There is a real release in confessing.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm a little surprised at the idea of folks becoming actually hostile or aggressive at such a suggestion. Wow.

I had assumed that happened in all denominations (with a small minority of people); I'd be curious to hear about Orthodox experiences in that regard.

 

[Hermit76]

I had assumed that happened in all denominations (with a small minority of people); I'd be curious to hear about Orthodox experiences in that regard.

I think it is more pronounced with Protestants. The priest/pastor is seen as an employee and often is treated as such. However, people still get angry at the suggestions of Orthodox priests. I have seen the results on Facebook groups. After all, America is about you being an individual.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it is more pronounced with Protestants. The priest/pastor is seen as an employee and often is treated as such.

True. I remember in the last parish where I worked, the parish council tried to place a restriction on me talking about a particular topic. I reminded them that they weren't able to restrict what I talk about, to which one astonished woman said, "But aren't you an employee?"

No, actually, I'm not. I hold the archbishop's licence and my authority to do or not do things comes from him, not the parish. But they forget that sometimes.

I also sometimes suspect that because I'm young (for clergy) and a woman, that it is a bit more pronounced. People think they can tell me what to do. It seems to come as a bit of a surprise that I'm not very prone to being bossed around.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I had assumed that happened in all denominations (with a small minority of people); I'd be curious to hear about Orthodox experiences in that regard.

I wouldn't know, I suppose.

Our priest is very tactful, but manages to have a quiet - very quiet - authority. Considering the unusual circumstance that he came from this parish before seminary, one might expect more - disaffection - than average. And unfortunately I can't help being made aware of gripes in the parish. But people having that kind of aggressive response? I know of none.

But my experiences are really limited to one parish, one slice of time, one priest in this regard. I don't wish to know scandalous details, but because of my function of helping certain persons, I hear them all. So all I know is that there's nothing like this really in our parish.

Of course if there was, I wouldn't be discussing it publicly. It might be possible to identify persons, so I wouldn't do that.

 

[truefiction1]

I've only fasted really well once in my entire life. It was in a monastic setting for the whole duration of lent and beyond Pascha. It was a true blessing. I hope to get the opportunity to fast in like manner again someday. I don't know if that will ever be possible any time soon. I have too much labor to do much of the time.

By the way, I watched that "Science of Fasting" documentary for a second time, paying closer attention this time around. I'm even more impressed by it now. So I repeat my recommendation to watch it on Amazon or some other venue if possible.

 

[truefiction1]

True. I remember in the last parish where I worked, the parish council tried to place a restriction on me talking about a particular topic. I reminded them that they weren't able to restrict what I talk about, to which one astonished woman said, "But aren't you an employee?"

No, actually, I'm not. I hold the archbishop's licence and my authority to do or not do things comes from him, not the parish. But they forget that sometimes.

I also sometimes suspect that because I'm young (for clergy) and a woman, that it is a bit more pronounced. People think they can tell me what to do. It seems to come as a bit of a surprise that I'm not very prone to being bossed around.

The bishop is an employee of the Church diocese, yet at the same time the overseer. The same sort of dual status applies priests at the local congregational level.
What does this mean, exactly? It means that should either a priest or a bishop cross lines that mustn't be crossed into evil, the laity can indeed hold such accountable. Money (tithes) that people contribute to the Church can be withheld and either local or diocesan organizational operations jeopardized due to lack of funding.

The following scenario would be an example of how this would play out in real life:

Fr. So-and-so loses his temper and starts slapping around one of his altar boys. This abuse is reported to members of the Church council by the mother of the abused altar boy. The priest is confronted about the incident and insists that he was justified in slapping around the stupid brat and that since he is rector, his authority in all such matters of Church discipline is above question. The Church council brings the issue to the bishop. The bishop responds by saying that the priest is the rector of the congregation, and his "correctness" and authority are thus above question, and he is standing behind the priest in this and all other disputes.

The Church council has a decision to make here. They appealed to the priest to no avail and then to their bishop to no avail, and the corruption of "clericalism" (which is apostasy) is clearly evident. Since there is no higher ecclesial authority to whom they can appeal, then what can they do? Would they continue to give their money, a large portion of which goes to paying the salaries of those whose own behaviors have revealed them to be but wolves in sheep's (actually shepherd's) clothing? A follower of Christ wouldn't. They would use their limited resources in ways more pleasing to God, and do everything possible to make the apostates feel the heat that can hopefully lead to repentance. This would include but not be limited to: preaching, teaching, exhorting, denouncing, publicly exposing, and withholding money (which they would listen to the most, because Mammon has become the one they obey). No follower of Christ would enjoy any of this. This is a form of cross-bearing that can cause the bearer's heart to fail due to sheer grief. In the Orthodox Church, there is a category of saint called "passion bearer". Few understand what the passion bearers endured in their physical hearts as they had to stand against corruption within the very congregation they seek comfort in.

The point to this post is, all authority comes from God. God works that authority through those who obey Him. Sometimes that is a simple lay Christian.

 

[Paidiske]

In Anglican structures, a priest or bishop is not an employee at all. (This has benefits and drawbacks; it means I have none of the legal protections any employee has in his or her workplace).

I am surprised to hear that the Orthodox consider their clergy "employees" in any sense of the word. Would there be an employment contract?

We do have disciplinary processes which would deal with the above sort of situation, though; I have seen a bishop removed from his role for a breach of professional standards. I would be concerned that you apparently have no complaints or disciplinary process independent of the bishop?

 

[prodromos]

There is always the local synod.

 

[Paidiske]

How do synods function in Orthodoxy?

 

[truefiction1]

In Anglican structures, a priest or bishop is not an employee at all. (This has benefits and drawbacks; it means I have none of the legal protections any employee has in his or her workplace).

I am surprised to hear that the Orthodox consider their clergy "employees" in any sense of the word. Would there be an employment contract?

We do have disciplinary processes which would deal with the above sort of situation, though; I have seen a bishop removed from his role for a breach of professional standards. I would be concerned that you apparently have no complaints or disciplinary process independent of the bishop?

Do you receive an IRS form W-2 from your Church, or a 1099? Either way, it makes you either an employee of the local congregation you serve, or an independent contractor who is paid by the local congregation for your services. Ministers are given dual tax status by the IRS, and usually receive a W-2, but pay taxes as if they were self-employed. Perhaps your pay comes from your diocese or Anglican headquarters, then you could claim not to be employed by your congregation.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not in America, so those forms etc. don't apply. In Australian law - which has been tested by the courts - we're not employees but are considered "holders of an office." Our situation is most akin to, for example, if a social club elected a president and chose to pay that president an honorarium; they're not an employee of the club nor a contractor.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How do synods function in Orthodoxy?

the synod is the highest governing body in the local Church, with the primate serving as the first among equals and president of the synod. this does not mean he has authority over his brother bishops, but simply to keep good order.

 

[Paidiske]

I meant more what its makeup is. My diocesan synod, for example, is 1/3 clergy and 2/3 laity. Do laity sit on Orthodox synods?

Our synods would not deal with disciplinary matters either; is that the normal place for those matters in Orthodoxy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I meant more what its makeup is. My diocesan synod, for example, is 1/3 clergy and 2/3 laity. Do laity sit on Orthodox synods?

Our synods would not deal with disciplinary matters either; is that the normal place for those matters in Orthodoxy?

no, synods are only the bishops. the priests, deacons, and laity can weigh in if asked, but all decisions are of the bishops.

 

[truefiction1]

I'm not in America, so those forms etc. don't apply. In Australian law - which has been tested by the courts - we're not employees but are considered "holders of an office." Our situation is most akin to, for example, if a social club elected a president and chose to pay that president an honorarium; they're not an employee of the club nor a contractor.

Okay.

 

[gzt]

The synods of course are the bishops themselves, but a fair amount of work is done by some sort of clergy-laity council in most jurisdictions. In the OCA, there's the "Metropolitan Council" which has clergy and lay delegates from each diocese who work alongside the synod - though, ultimately, the bishops run the show. Similarly when it comes to diocesan administration.

 

[truefiction1]

I meant more what its makeup is. My diocesan synod, for example, is 1/3 clergy and 2/3 laity. Do laity sit on Orthodox synods?

Our synods would not deal with disciplinary matters either; is that the normal place for those matters in Orthodoxy?

Sometimes the synod of American bishops do have to deal with disciplinary matters, especially when the matter at hand is regards to a problem with a particular bishop, or if an appeal was made to the synod in a case where a dispute wasn't resolved at the diocesan level.

 

[truefiction1]

I'm not in America, so those forms etc. don't apply. In Australian law - which has been tested by the courts - we're not employees but are considered "holders of an office." Our situation is most akin to, for example, if a social club elected a president and chose to pay that president an honorarium; they're not an employee of the club nor a contractor.

In that case, can your social club elect not to have a current president be the one who presides over them and receives honorarium pay from them, if said person fails to properly honor their office?

 

[truefiction1]

I am surprised to hear that the Orthodox consider their clergy "employees" in any sense of the word. Would there be an employment contract?

In America "employees" can receive employer paid health insurance for themselves and their families. Premiums paid by employers are considered "benefits" and are not subject to income tax. Non-employees, however, are not entitled to "benefits" of this sort, so all money paid to them to cover the costs of health insurance premiums would be considered "taxable income". So, in a sense it can be advantageous for a minister to be considered an "employee". Compensation packages are discussed and agreed upon by priests and the elected representatives of the local congregation at the time of their installment as rectors. The Orthodox jurisdiction provides minimum compensation guidelines to parishes and there is an expectation that these will be adhered to if possible. But there is also the understanding that some parishes are too small or poor to do so. The guidelines are goals, and they are sometimes exceeded by parishes that are well off financially, and sometimes are not met.