Priesthood and sexuality

[Kybihetz21]

I know this subject will be controversial, but I would like to hear the opinions of the members of the forum, as well as the right teaching of the Church on this theme. There have been certain discussions over this for a while among friends and acquaintances of mine, so I have decided to post this question here to get the final word on the subject.

According to the Canons of the Holy Orthodox Church, no person that has committed an act of fornication may enter the priesthood, and those that do after their ordinations, should be deposed, defrocked or excommunicated (depending on the allegations, continuity of the behavior, etc). Now, the questions are these:

Are these rules really implemented nowadays? (There are plenty of priests that without being married before didn’t follow those rules, knowingly or unknowingly – since they may had never thought of becoming pastors)

We always hear about cases of real or faked situations that involved these sorts of behaviors, are those clergymen really deprived of the right to serve, etc? Most of the time it looks like nothing is done about the matter and they continue with it.

Finally, according to some, all of that could be “erased” if the disqualifying individual would take the monastic tonsure, something that brings to my mind some thoughts about Western (Roman Catholic) influence in the issue.

Thanks beforehand for your comments. Since seminary I have been asked numerous times about the subject, and would like to receive certain information about it in order to verify the information that I have at this moment.

[Justin Kissel]

Are these rules really implemented nowadays?

I'm afraid I have to give a very simple answer to your very complex question. I have been thinking about this issue for a few years now, since back in the day I was ignorant and full of myself enough to think that I might be called to the priesthood, and I knew that things like oral sex disqualified one from priestly service.

However, in the end, it's up to the bishop to decide who to ordain. He could have been as perverted as Sodom's worst, but if he repents and the Bishop finds him worthy and necessary, then there is nothing standing in the way of a bishop ordaining him. The canons are like civil laws: lay people may use them to guide their lives, but when push comes to shove it is not lay people who decide how they get applied, but someone given specific authority to do that task.

For example, let's say that I spot a shoplifter in the store I work at. Now, the law tells me that it is wrong to steal, and that stealing has consequences. However, that knowledge does not empower me to apply the law, and take the money the guy should be fined right out of his pocket. There is a system, and someone who has been appointed to study and rule on law decides what to do with him. The judge might decide to go around the law, to ignore it totally, or to apply it strictly. Likewise, bishops can do the same (and anyone who says that bishops cannot ignore canons has definately not read many canons!).