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

I have four questions regarding this topic. I have been informed that deacons and priests in Eastern Churches may remain married after ordination. Do they have to remain continent or can they continue to engage in the conjugal act with his wife? Secondly, can priests and deacons not be married more than once? Thirdly, must they remain celibate after the death of his wife after he is ordained? Finally, do the guidelines differ among various Eastern Churches or between Catholics and Orthodox?
God bless,
Michael (a Latin Catholic)

Michael,

Actually, deacons and priests in the Latin Church "may remain married after ordination." I realize that married priests in the Latin Church are the exception to the rule, but they do exist.

The rules are actually the same. Should a cleric lose his wife the he is to remain celibate from then on. Thus, a priest or deacon would normally not be married more than once. It may happen, however, that a priest or deacon is on a second marriage at the time of ordination, and this is possible (although I only know of one case, and that is a deacon whose first wife died and he remarried long before he was a deacon).

All rights and privileges of marriage remain after ordination. Many deacons and priests have families that consist of children conceived after they were ordained. This does not, of course, mean that the children are any holier than those born to non-ordained persons.

Edward, deacon and sinner (and married!)

I have been informed that deacons and priests in Eastern Churches may remain married after ordination.

Yes.

Do they have to remain continent

No.

or can they continue to engage in the conjugal act with his wife?

Yes. However, like all married people, Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic clergy and their wives are not supposed to have sex during the Church's fasting periods (including Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year). Also, clergy and their wives are to abstain from sex the morning and even the night before the cleric is to be in the altar (in Western parlance, the sanctuary area — behind the icon screen in the Byzantine and Coptic rites) serving Liturgy (celebrating Mass) or assisting at the celebration.

Secondly, can priests and deacons not be married more than once?

Usually, no, they cannot, but exceptions can be granted as Fr Deacon Ed notes.

Thirdly, must they remain celibate after the death of his wife after he is ordained?

Usually, yes. Same answer as above. There can be exceptions.

Also, in the Orthodox tradition, bishops usually are celibate (a rule that has existed since 500? 600?) and most often technically are monks. Often they aren't longtime monks (lifelong celibates) but are widower priests who are tonsured as monks before being consecrated as bishops.

Finally, do the guidelines differ among various Eastern Churches or between Catholics and Orthodox?

The Assyrian Church (formerly called Nestorian) might let deacons and priests marry after ordination*; I'm not sure. Other than that, the rules are the same throughout the apostolic Churches, Roman Catholic (as Fr Deacon Ed explained — when they ordain a married man, he is under the same rules as the East), Eastern Catholic and Orthodox.

*The only other Church I know of with a claim to real bishops that does this (I'm certain in this case) is the Polish National Catholic Church, an American splinter group that split from the Roman Catholics in the 1890s. It also has married bishops, unknown anywhere else in the apostolic world as far as I know.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I was thinking that there were guidelines concerning when a deacon/priest may engage in sex with his wife. If this is prohibited on the night before he is to celebrate/help celebrate the Divine Liturgy or other liturgical function, when do they engage in the conjugal act? From what I know of the Latin Church, priests are urged to celebrate Mass daily and most of the priests I know do. Of course the deacons that I know aren't involved in liturgical functions as often.
God bless,
Michael

Michael --

Ah, there's the source of your confusion, I think.

The Byzantine tradition has not known -- outside of some monasteries and, historically, some major Cathedral churches -- the tradition of serving the Divine Liturgy on a daily basis. This practice -- which is, in my view, a legitimate part of the Western tradition, but isn't a prt of the Byzantine tradition -- came into wide use in the Western Church around the beginning of the second millenium. If Byzantine priests were expected to serve the liturgy daily, as is the case for the Western, almost exclusively celibate, clergy, then surely our guidelines for clerical sexual activity would have evolved differently.

Brendan

The practice of sexual abstinence before serving the altar is a post-New Testament tradition stemming from the idea that the body was impure and contaminating. It is odd that the sins of the priest have absolutely no bearing on the consecrated gifts, so we shouldn't abstain from the eucharist because of the 'lowly' character of the cleric, but ... within the holy sacrament of marriage the cleric must abstain from his rightful relationship with his wife. Again, it seems that those who try to live out a virtuous life get the obligatory rules to refrain from a sacramental relationship (which celibacy is not!). Something is wrong here and it derives from an anti-marriage thinking that has no connection with the NT.

From what I know of the Latin Church, priests are urged to celebrate Mass daily and most of the priests I know do.

Not an Orthodox custom outside of monasteries, as Brendan explained, and yes, perhaps the ban on sex the night before and the morning of the Liturgy (also required of laity who plan to commune) has something to do with it.

An acquaintance who is a stickler for rules like this once told me Orthodox don't need any form of birth control because, since there are more fast days than other days in the year, the times when one can have sex are automatically limited.

The practice of sexual abstinence before serving the altar is a post-New Testament tradition stemming from the idea that the body was impure and contaminating. It is odd that the sins of the priest have absolutely no bearing on the consecrated gifts, so we shouldn't abstain from the eucharist because of the 'lowly' character of the cleric, but ... within the holy sacrament of marriage the cleric must abstain from his rightful relationship with his wife. Again, it seems that those who try to live out a virtuous life get the obligatory rules to refrain from a sacramental relationship (which celibacy is not!). Something is wrong here and it derives from an anti-marriage thinking that has no connection with the NT.

I understand your concern about "dissing' marriage, Edwin, but sexual fasting, as we call it, is a form of ascesis. Father shouldn't be distracted with fresh memories about "fun times' with Matushka (Pani/Presvytera/Khouria) when he is in the altar! Eating is legitimate too but we don't chow down before receiving the Holy Gifts, unless dispensed for health reasons.

I would apply your criticism to some of the "puritanical', prudish practices from evangelical Protestantism that have found their way into conservative Roman Catholic life through the charismatic movement (Anthony probably has experienced some of this): things like bans on couples holding hands in public (once true at an otherwise pretty good private conservative Catholic college) and the notion that one shouldn't kiss one's significant other on the lips before marriage. Oh, please. I think that, like children of teetotalers who abuse alcohol, making people neurotic about even healthy sexuality will lead them to sexual sin. Perhaps the no-drinkin', no-dancin' strain of evangelicalism has cross-pollinated with residual Irish Jansenism in American Roman Catholic culture to produce such foolishness.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I agree with Edwin. I remember reading in the book "Facing East" by Frederica Mathews-Green that when her husband was ordained in the Antiochian Archdiocese, no one even mentioned the "no sex" thing to her husband. Maybe I could see abstaining before Sunday liturgies as a fast much like we do from food; but to say that one must abstain before every liturgy seems like a docetist (?) "body evil" kind of thing.

anastasios

Anastasios,

Yup! I would like to know of the statutory document mandating sexual abstinence for married clerics and the reason why. Its all a big poof of non-Gospel piety to me - probably coming from some heretical notion about that body as being evil and/or non-redeemed. Maybe from some monastic tradition? Didn't we get he idea somewhere in time that bishops must come from monasteries? What a monopoly on the episcopacy! Yet we did have a "Tradition" of married bishops.

Marriage is a renewal of one's baptismal vows. It is holy and a sacrament unlike celibacy. God told Abraham to be fruitful and multiply long before some Church brigade mandated sexual refrain. I am confused when a holier-than-thou idea that leads to necessity of mandating their people are less-than-holy to the point of regulating their bedroom lives. This sick form of piety also gave us the idea that the Eucharist was so holy and we were such sinner that it be best to abstain from that too.

Anyway, if one make a rule like clerical abstinence, how does one enforce or monitor it? Cam-corders? Does one go to Hell because he enjoyed a little marital bliss the evening before? I think it has to do with jealousy. How many celibate priests actually practice celibacy? And again, where in the canons, norms and statutes is this rule?

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Serge,

I don't think the "recency" of the act has much to do with it. Fr. could be so turned on because he has been fasting from sex for so long, that he takes a peep at some of the cute girls in church while doing a procession and well, gets distracted. Ultimately, it does not really matter if one ate or made love to his wife before going to church. What matters is that in that moment we "set aside all earthly cares." Anything could be a distraction, whether it happened yesterday, five days ago, or last year. I don't think the Church or us should tell a legitimately married man when he can make love to his wife.

anastasios

You go, Dustin!

K.

Anastasios,

Excellent point. "Put aside allL earthly cares" means what it says and says what it means - all earthly cares.

The Cherubic Hymn has us sing "Let US who mystically represent the Cherubim". There are no other requirements than for "us" to put aside all earthly cares. No regulation against those who shared some intimacy with the wife the night before. Why single them out? Unless they should be classified as penitents or sinners?

If a cleric is a monk I can see why sexually abstaining from his wife is necessary; monks don't marry and married priests aren't monks nor do they take vows of perpetual continence. They are crowned in marriage. Someone, stop the confusion!

I don't think it's confusing, Edwin, it's just a part of our fasting tradition. Traditionally, we fast from certain foods at certain times, and, at other times, from all foods for a certain period of time. None of that is to be taken to mean that food defiles, that food is bad, that eating is sinful or anything of the sort -- it *is* taken to mean that there is a time and a place for everything under heaven, and some times are times when we should refrain from eating to focus on other things. Eating from the bounty of the earth is surely one of God's greatest gifts to humanity -- and, contrary to popular culture, there is nothing 'sinful' about double cheeseburgers, chocolate or Domino's Pizza -- but the Church simply offers that 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.

Sexuality is the same -- it is a wonderful gift from God that gives humanity great pleasure while expressing marital love in a concrete sense. It is not defiling in any way -- St. John Chrysostom himself emphasized that the marital bed is not defiled. But there are times when we are to refrain from sex, just as there are times when we are to refrain from certain types, or all types, of food -- again, in an effort to focus ourselves -- all of us, including our bodies -- on God the gift-giver, and not the gifts of his creation. It is this effort of focusing produced by fasting that is designed to help us heed the words of the Cherubikon, and to succeed more closely in laying aside all earthly cares -- not because the prior night's sex may be on our minds in church, but rather that the fasting provides a longer period for concentration and reflection on God -- using all of our faculties -- bodily, mental and spiritual. The communion fast serves a profound purpose and bears testimony to the Orthodox understanding of the human person as an intricately linked unit of body and soul -- to assert that we can try to completely focus spiritually when we are not completely focused physically just doesn't make a lot of sense to Orthodox spirituality. We refrain, therefore, from nature's gifts for the body before receiving communion not because these gifts defile us, but because we need that time to concentrate - with our physical as well as our spiritual faculties - on the divine communion with God afforded in the Eucharist, of receiving the gift-giver instead of simply His gifts.

Brendan

Brendan,

You wrote a wonderful treatise on human sexuality and ascesis, but what did Jesus say? You have to realize that such a treatise developed alongside the idea that the Eucharistic gifts are beyond approach and that conjugal fasting was singled out as the prime reason for that defilement that must be abstained from. It had to have come from the monastic tradition. The rule that bishops must come from monasteries is another post-NT development that ignores the apostolic writings of Paul. Latin catechisms of the recent past used to depict the monastic tradition as being "better" than the "sacramental" status of marriage. It goes to show that whoever is currently in control writes the rules. Someday the tide will turn and the married clerics (priests and bishops) will write the rules for the monks.

GEE!!!

Do you guys notice that it's usually the Latins that bring up sexual issues or questions? The Latins sure are uptight and overly obsessed about sex! They must like to talk about sex.

So..hey Latins...lighten up! We Byzantines don't talk about it all the time.

Geesh! :rolleyes:

spdundas
Deaf Byzantine