Virginity

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Does one need to have been a virgin before marriage in order to become a deacon or priest?

If the answer is yes, doesn't this imply that one's former sins are not really forgiven, or that one is rendered irreparably less holy because of sins prior to marriage?

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

What the canons actually say is the following:


Canon 61 of the Holy Apostles: "If a charge of fornication, or of adultery, or of any other forbidden act be brought against a faithful one, and be proved, let him not be promoted to the clergy."

The reason for this canon is due to the high calling of the clergy. There are a number of other things also such as divorce or serious moral sins which bar a person from ordination to the clergy. But note that this does not mean that the sin is not forgiven. The sin would be forgiven after confession & suitable repentance. As relates to the question of being "rendered irreparably less holy because of sins prior to marriage." The Good Thief gained Paradise in a moment of repentance- so we would not say that having sinned one cannot be holy. There is however a stain that is left from having fallen into certain very serious sins which is different from the conscious sinful inclinations that we repent of and hopefully are cured of. For example there are accounts in the Spritual Meadow of John Moschos of those who had committed or allowed the murder of others. This was followed by a period of deep repentance but after this period in each case the person felt that they also needed to die likewise. And so it happened. It is difficult to put this into words but as we repent we often become more acutely aware of the ramification of what we have done despite having received forgiveness. Note that in Orthodoxy even in the case of a cleric having for example struck & killed someone accidentally with a car - the cleric should not serve at the Altar (although they are not barred from the clerical estate itself).

One further point of importance though is that according to the canons sins which occurred before Baptism or having been received into the Church do not bar one from ordination. The point here being that expectation for someone who is already an Orthodox Christian are quite high relative to those sins which would bar one from ordination.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you Fr Raphael for your response. The stain and repercussions of sin are very troubling to me. I think St Basil, in the Philokalia, says "I have never known a woman, and yet I am not a virgin". The saint's profound awareness of sinfulness, in deed and word, but also in thought - primarily in thought - is truly humbling to those of us who have become insensitive to sin.

Also, the criteria of the Church in this case confound the logic of this world, since the Orthodox, if I understand what you wrote correctly, take remaining true to one's baptism as the criterion of holiness regardless of one's sins prior to baptism. It seems to me therefore that "cradle Orthodox" who have sinned would thereby find themselves less eligible to become clergy than adult converts from other faiths with similar sins in their past. This is certainly not human logic.

Also, as in the example of accidentally driving into someone and taking their life as a result, Orthodoxy is fully aware of both the conscious and - alas - the unconscious manifestations of sin, and holds the person accountable to both. This is why we pray for the forgiveness of sins we have committed "knowingly and unknowingly".

What an impossibly holy God we believe in! By what high criteria do we esteem the sanctity of His creation! Sometimes it is difficult to remain Orthodox in the face of such criteria. It is definitely much easier to resign oneself to sin, I speak from experience; but God will not go away, even if we do. My own spiritual father reminds me to not despair over sinfulness, and keep asking the Lord for mercy. It seems to me this involves courage and boldness before God. Pray for me Father, that I may keep praying.

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

He who follows properly the spiritual pathway begins to see in himself more & more sins, until finally he sees himself completely immersed in sin. Through his spiritual eyes he perceives his leprous soul. He feels with his whole heart that he is dirt and filth, that he is unworthy even to call out the name of God. Like the publican, unable to raise his eyes, he crise out with pain of heart: 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' When a person maintains his soul in such a spiritual state for a long time, he finally emerges from it absolved, like the publican.

If a person considers himself to be good, however, and his sins, even serious ones, an accident- which occurred not so much through his own fault but due to external circumstances, other people or demons- he is deceiving himself. Such a state is one of manifest or hidden 'prelest' [deception] and may the Lord protect us all from this.

Abbot Nikon- Letters to Spiritual Children


Having completed the forty days that bring profit to our soul, we beseech Thee in Thy love for man: Grant us also to behold the Holy Week of Thy Passion, that in it we may glorify Thy mighty acts and Thine ineffable dispensation for our sakes, singing with one mind: O Lord, glory to Thee.

Glory...at Aposticha of Matins for Friday of 6th Week (today).

[Kosmas Damianides]

This is my opinion,

Canon 61 of the Holy Apostles: "If a charge of fornication, or of adultery, or of any other forbidden act be brought against a faithful one, and be proved, let him not be promoted to the clergy."

If a truly faithful Christian (or even a sinner who repents) is called to be a priest, then I believe nothing will stop him from becoming one. The Holy Spirit of God will help him just as He helped St Paul to be an Apostle and God's chosen vessel. If his calling is for something else yet he still persists and wants to be a priest, then he will meet many obstacles preventing him from doing this....Obviously here I am talking about God's Will which surpasses human reasoning. The Will of God surpasses the authority of even divinely inspired rules, regulations, and resolutions which were inspired by God and made to protect us and the Church.

If for instance a murderer, drunkard, hedonist truly repents and is later shown to be a Holy person do you think this Holy Canon should still apply to this rare occasion?

The Holy Canons are justifiably strict in certain circumstances for the protection & benefit of the faithful as a whole. We [the Orthodox]are not legalistic but we try to adhere to these Canons knowing that they are a crucial guide for the salvation of us all.

However, on the other hand we should also be fully aware that the Canons are a spiritual guide, NOT a book of rules.

[Kosmas Damianides]

I also wanted to add that ... sin has nothing to do with stopping someone from ordination since we know that all sins are forgiven after confession ...voluntary and involuntary. So what does it have to do with? Fr Raphael hit the nail on the head when he wrote that it has to do with repentance. Just as we need time for mourning our dead, we also require time to mourn our sins even if they are forgiven. The Canons also have a healing nature which I failed to mention before.

In JesusChrist

Kosmas

[nurse-aid]

i don't remember that Joseph's doubts about Mary's pregnancy...was consider a sin for him...
i didn't remeber that he was repented that...he simply folowing the angels order, so...our nature made first move....BUT if we are still obey HIM, that everything is OK!

[J. K. Amra]

What do the Canons say in regards to masturbation? If it is considered to be as grave as adultery and a charge of fornication.

[Paul Cowan]

God is a Trinity of persons and therfore Love is a communal act. Masturbation is self love and an abuse to ones self. It is a sin to participate in this activity. I have read a canon that speaks of a nocturnal emmission and the person being held apart from the Holy things for a period of time. I have no way of finding where I read this though. So even an emission not caused by a conscious act, but during sleep is a cause of prevention from Holy things.

Is it grave? well, isn't every sin? Look at the icon of the last Judgement (http://www.icon-art.info/hires.php?lng=en&type=1&id=2013). We have this one in our parish. One of the tormented on the bottom says is a masturbator.

[J. K. Amra]

God is a Trinity of persons and therfore Love is a communal act. Masturbation is self love and an abuse to ones self. It is a sin to participate in this activity. I have read a canon that speaks of a nocturnal emmission and the person being held apart from the Holy things for a period of time. I have no way of finding where I read this though. So even an emission not caused by a conscious act, but during sleep is a cause of prevention from Holy things.

Is it grave? well, isn't every sin? Look at the icon of the last Judgement (http://www.icon-art.info/hires.php?lng=en&type=1&id=2013). We have this one in our parish. One of the tormented on the bottom says is a masturbator.


Yes I also remember reading something similar to that and understand that it's a sin, being one of the acts of hedonism, but am wondering if the Church considers it as adultery, in the sense that like fornication outside marriage, the said person who has committed this act in the past, is not encouraged to be ordained as clergy.

[Michael Stickles]

Yes I also remember reading something similar to that and understand that it's a sin, being one of the acts of hedonism, but am wondering if the Church considers it as adultery, in the sense that like fornication outside marriage, the said person who has committed this act in the past, is not encouraged to be ordained as clergy.

From an article by then-Bishop (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx), it does not appear so (the St. John he refers to is St. John the Faster):


St. John's tenth Canon imposes a suspension of one year on any Priest who falls to self-abuse and, should he continue in such a sin two or three times, deposition.

While serious, this judgement is not nearly as severe as that against adultery, as noted in the canons of the council of Neocaesarea (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.iv.iii.i.html):


If a presbyter marries he shall be deposed from his order. If he commits adultery or whoredom he shall be expelled, and shall be put to penance.

While this deals with commission by a priest, and not the implications for future ordination if committed by a layman, it seems to me that if past self-abuse by a layman barred him from ordination, the penalty for a presbyter who engaged in it would be closer to that for adultery. Those more familiar with the canons, please correct me if my opinion is in error.

In Christ,
Michael

[J. K. Amra]

Hi Michael, I think me and Paul might be talking about a non Orthodox source, maybe Jewish. In regards to what's been said. I wonder if your, and other people's mentioned statements concerning adultery, fornication, and masturbation, if the same measures also apply to the monastic order, of course I think we can rule out fornicaton, nevertheless Im interested to see what the canons, and not only them, have to say about this subject in regards to the previously mentioned transgressions.


Thank You.

[Nektarios]

What the canons actually say is the following:



The reason for this canon is due to the high calling of the clergy. There are a number of other things also such as divorce or serious moral sins which bar a person from ordination to the clergy. But note that this does not mean that the sin is not forgiven. The sin would be forgiven after confession & suitable repentance. As relates to the question of being "rendered irreparably less holy because of sins prior to marriage." The Good Thief gained Paradise in a moment of repentance- so we would not say that having sinned one cannot be holy. There is however a stain that is left from having fallen into certain very serious sins which is different from the conscious sinful inclinations that we repent of and hopefully are cured of. For example there are accounts in the Spritual Meadow of John Moschos of those who had committed or allowed the murder of others. This was followed by a period of deep repentance but after this period in each case the person felt that they also needed to die likewise. And so it happened. It is difficult to put this into words but as we repent we often become more acutely aware of the ramification of what we have done despite having received forgiveness. Note that in Orthodoxy even in the case of a cleric having for example struck & killed someone accidentally with a car - the cleric should not serve at the Altar (although they are not barred from the clerical estate itself).

One further point of importance though is that according to the canons sins which occurred before Baptism or having been received into the Church do not bar one from ordination. The point here being that expectation for someone who is already an Orthodox Christian are quite high relative to those sins which would bar one from ordination.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father Bless.

This would be entirely up to the Bishop right? I just had a conversation with an Archbishop about this canon and he said that he doesn't know a bishop that would apply this canon in its strict sense. So I am assuming there have been exceptions to this canon?

In Christ
Nektarios

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It's difficult for me to recover the exact point of the discussion when I made my original post. In such matters though it would always come down to what the bishop believed to be correct.

In Christ- Fr Raphael