Cats&DogsRock

Once a man has made the commitment to become a priest, he has accepted the power and trust and responsibilities that come with that position. Priests will never have equal relationships with their parishioners - or anyone else - because they are always in a position of power. Just as a doctor's first duty is to cause no harm, so is the fiduciary duty of a priest to keep fellow worshippers safe from abuse. Sexual contact with a woman or man are moments of intimacy that priests, married or celibate, cannot initiate or respond. As they can never marry or form any other type of commitment, they cannot indulge themselves in temporary moments of pleasure, even if it means going against their biology. Sexual contact cannot be with an equal or consenting partner because there is no possibility of commitment on the part of the priest. If sexual contact happens between a priest and a congregant, the priest has broken his vows and his fiduciary duties. This has been referred to as "sex in the forbidden zone" by Dr. Peter Rutter, M.D., and the Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune in her book, "Is Nothing Sacred?" If the priest or clergywoman is female, then the same rules that apply to men would also apply to women.

quote:Originally posted by hyebruin:I think it's mostly (if not allll!!!) about sexual frustration----I never understood that celibacy crap when it comes to high level priests (even nuns, I don't know! at least women can control their urges better!) for life? First, it is my opinion that very few unmarried priests practice celibacy. And breaking vows of celibacy is something that is rarely punished by Primates, even under the worst of situations. Unmarried priests have a range of reasons to justify breaking celibacy vows. They include, "I was forced into celibacy when I was young and I didn't understand the consequences," to "I need sex everyday because I'm a man." I also have found that some priests, who view themselves as vessels of power, use sex to manipulate and dominate their parishioners. All of the reasons lead to clergy sex abuse. To try to answer your question with information that comes from the clergy, it's not about sexual frustration as it is about stations of power and control. The role of monastics isn't to practice celibacy, it's to provide a leadership base that is free to move about the world and take hold of managerial responsibilities within Dioceses, etc. Several priests told me that they were taught in the monasteries that women and families pose problems. Unmarried men are the happiest. Older unmarried priests, as well as bishops and Primates, instruct potential celibates that instead of having one woman who remains a burden to you for your entire life, why not become ordained as an unmarried priest, have as many women as you want. When you're through with them, you get rid of them. There is no recourse for the woman - her shame would be too great to disclose she's been in sexual contact with a celibate (and probably her own parish priest). That leads to silence (and suffering) on the woman's part, and the freedom to move from sex partner to sex partner for the celibate. This also constitutes clergy sexual abuse. Should the Churches allow married men to grow in the ranks of the hierarchy, then celibacy would become obsolete. I'm not suggesting that married priests do not break their marriage or other vows, but I am suggesting that happily married men are less likely to abuse others. I recenlty read a book that was written and privately published by the family of a woman who allegedly was the sexual partner of the now Patriarch of Jerusalem. The book details the activities of the that relationship, which included all different types of sex acts over the course of many years. For the woman, it was a love relationship. But at one point, the now Patriarch ended this relationship, leaving the woman alone and suffering. The book deals with the aftermath of the ended relationship, of the woman and her suffering, and of the easy detachment by the clergyman. Because the book was written by a family member, it is considered a biased and untrue record by many within the church. However, several priests have told me that the situation described in the book did take place. The woman, who was and still is described as deranged because she dared to speak up about her abuse, is still alive, and lives in some type of institution, but not an institution that treats mental illness. One Armenian priests told me he visited her regularly for many years.

Not all Armenian church communities welcome negative information about their priests. Priests, especially charasmatic ones, tend to encourage their congregations to support them in times of trouble. If allegations are made and then proven against an abusive priest, the victim may still face a congregation of "disbelievers." The victim again becomes the focus of abuse when faced with a disbelieving parish. The community, in effect, finishes off where the priest leaves off. Case in point: one Armenian parish recently "punished" an abuse victim by contracting a writer to develop news stories intended to shame the victim in public opinion. For two months or more, news reports appeared in several different Armenian publications where the priest was praised and the victim was denegrated. Following these news reports is what prompted me to study the Orthodox faiths and their policies regarding clergy sexual abuse. Several Armenian priests have, when asked, remarked to me that they reconcile their actions by asking God for forgiveness. The one priest I mentioned here, however, did so in striking terms.

quote:Originally posted by Sip:Want to talk about abuse? How about the fact that I was in my early teens before I discovered I had been lied to my whole life and basically my entire belief system was based on word of mouth passed on from generation to generation, mainly by these clergy people? An Armenian priest once told me that he didn't believe in God or Christ, either. His view of believers was they were fools. When I asked him how did he reconcile his beliefs with his job, he simply stated that he asks for God's forgiveness every week during church services in order to forgiven for his lack of belief, just in case his opinion was wrong. Was there an event that changed your mind about your faith in your family's religion? Was that change of faith prompted by actions of a clergyman? If so, that might constitute abuse. And of course, I don't believe you're going to hell. That statement was meant to be humourous, I am sure. But it somewhat illustrates the lack of seriousness shown in the Orthodox faiths towards the subject of clergy abuse and clergy sexual abuse.

Reply to Hagarag: I commend you for the courage it takes to talk about abuse. I hope you received or now receive the proper advice or counseling you need to deal with whatever emotions remain due to your abuse. One thing I would disagree with you is that there is no consensual sex between priest and congregant. Because of the unequal balance of power between the two, the priest is always in control and the victim, no matter how willing he or she says, he or she has no ability to consent or not consent. It is the clergymen's responsibility at all times to keep his parishioners safe from any type of abuse or sexual contact. For a good source on this subject, please consult Dr. Marie Fortune's book, "Is Nothing Sacred?" to learn more about the unequal balance of power and the fidiciary duty of priests to keep their congregants safe. I would be interested to how the experience has affected your life and if you still suffer from being abused. Let me know if you require further resource information. Reply to Harut: In my research in studying relationships between the Orthodox clergy and their communicants, a strong bond exists unlike that between other religions. More so in the Orthodox faiths because many, like the Greeks, Armenians, Russians, Serbians, etc., have histories of mass murder and genocide that link their ethnic histories with their faiths. Their common experiences of suffering make families out of their religious affiliates, with the role of the priest as head of the family - a powerful position in a patriarchal system. And since women play a minimal role at church (as compared to a maximal role at home), the faithful look to the priest as an enduring force of faith and a tangible symbol of the past. That is why it is so important to maintain a clergy base that is worthy of such trust and able to bear the burdens of "patriarch."

I am conducting research in clergy abuse as it affects other religions vs. the experience of the Roman Catholic Church in the United Stations. I'm interested in an Armenian response to the following questions. If you have opinions or answers and would like to share them - by name or anonymously, I would be grateful for your participation. If someone told you they had been abused, harassed, threatened, or harmed in any way by an Armenian clergymen, what would you do? Is disbelief your first reaction? Would you defend the priest instinctively? Would you be supportive of the victim, angry, or have no opinion? Would you mind having an abusive clergyman as your priest vs. having no priest at all, knowing the shortage of priests in the Armenian Church? Would you demand your diocese and its leadership investigate allegations of abuse, or should the victim seek legal counsel and by-pass bishops or archbishops for help? Have you known anyone who was abused by a priest and afraid to speak up? How do you define abuse? Would you feel abused if a priest who was counseling you became too intimate with your emotions or your physical being? Would you feel abused if a priest stole money from your church? Would you feel abused if a priest pushed you, touched you when you didn't want to be touched, asked to participate in illegal or immoral activities (theft, falsifying of documents, embezzlement, pilfering of goods, gossip)? Would you feel afraid to report such episodes? Would you feel comfortable reporting criminal activity to your bishop, archbishop, primate, or to the Catholicos? Would you expect to be heard? To what length would you go to present evidence or have your voice heard? If you, your spouse, child, relative, or friend was sexually abused by a priest, would you counsel them to remain silent, or report the incident to the Primate? Would you suggest reporting it to the police? Seek legal counsel? How would clergy abuse affect your faith? Would you feel challenged to remain an Armenian Christian? Do you prefer to ignore complaints as gossip? Do you find more blame on the part of the victim or the clergy? Do you think there is ever a time when clergymen, married or celibate, should engage in intimate or sexual contact with parishioners? And if they do, what is the appropriate consequence? If you knew a person had been abused by a clergymen, do you think they should be forced to leave the church? Would you reach out to them? Would you prefer the subject not be given attention? Finally, do you believe that people who have been sexually involved with a clergymen share any blame in their abuse? Do you believe that clergymen possess all the responsibility in keeping their vows and keeping their parishioners safe from any harm, including having sex with parishioners, no matter who initiated sexual contact? Thanks for considering these questions.