The most crucial issue facing the clergy of the Armenian Church is that of ostensible celibacy. Ostensible, because the current quasi-marital status of the clergy, be it legal or non-legal, is a sham and an affront to the avowed tenets of the Armenian Church. On the one hand the clergy profess absolute and unqualified theoretical celibacy, and on the other–in every-day, common practice–members of the highest ranking clergy are routinely embroiled in scandalous, profligate, and libidinous conduct, which makes a mockery of their vows of celibacy and clearly indicates the extent of their equivocal posture regarding their sacred vows to the Church and God. Before a wholesale transformation can occur within the hierarchy of the Church, this fraudulent behavior of the clergy must be addressed forthrightly and a reformation needs to be initiated regarding this duplicitous practice.
To be more effective and constructive in our analysis, we should take a historical view of celibacy in the Christian Church at large and then reflect upon the tarnished concept of celibacy in the Armenian Church and propose solutions. It is imperative for the next Synod conference in Etchmiadzin to address this particularly important issue and make it part of its agenda.
First, let us examine the historical data provided on this topic in a book called “The Marriage of the Priest”, published in 1911 in Paris, by Abbé Jules Claraz. We can also glean information from another book called “The Clergy of Our Times and Celibacy”, published in Paris around 1911, by Abbé d’Olonne. These books were on the list of forbidden books by the Vatican.
There is no reference to celibacy in the early accounts of the Christian Church. The majority of the Apostles were married, and they went everywhere with their wives (1Cor. 9:5)–such is the testimony found in the New Testament. The idea expressed by the Apostle Paul, “I wish that all men were even as I myself” has caused widespread misinterpretation.
Here is the full text of the letter sent to Corinthians: “It is good for a man not to touch woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual urges, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. … I say this as concession, not as commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn in passion” (1Cor. 7:1-9).
The suggestion that the bishops (some of whom were polygamists) should separate from their wives and live in celibacy appears for the first time in the Nicaean Council (1) (325 AD) and was proposed by some of the participating clergy. Apostle Paul, in his first letter addressed to Timothy reflects on this issue: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous” (1Tim. 3:2-3).
Before the Nicaean Council, many bishops, of their own free will, were separated from their wives. It was only at the Nicaean Council that some clergy wanted to establish this obligatory order of celibacy. One of the participating bishops, hermit Baphnos, stood up and said, “You cannot put such unreasonable burden on the clergy. Marriage is respectful and the bed is pure. Such an order will tarnish the image of the church. It is enough to say that the clergy should not marry according to the old laws, which allowed men to be polygamists. Abstinence will be in danger if we separate the husbands from their wives. Marriage itself is abstinence. We should not separate what God united” (Abbé Jules Claraz – page 137).
Right after the Neacean Council, some bishops forbade their clergy to get married. Bishops such as Eustathios of Sebasteia (Sebastia), forbade married clergy to pray in their houses and advised the faithful not to accept and receive Holy Communion from them. Fortunately, in 337 AD the Council of Gangra, Paphlagonia, forced the resignation of Eustathios and anathematized those who dared to declare that receiving Holy Communion from married priests was unlawful.
Among the Church Fathers, St. Justine encouraged celibacy, as well as St. Augustine. St. Ambrose exhorted women to dedicate themselves to God. Unfortunately however, all these encouragements could not prevent the bishops from marrying and having families.
We know from the history of the church that there was no obligatory celibacy until the 5th century AD. During this period, we see some bishops piously separating from their wives in spite of the 5th article of the Apostolic Canons which states: “If a bishop or a deacon separates from his wife for unpious reasons, let him be defrocked.” Also during this period, we see bigamous bishops as indicated in Pope Leo I the Great’s (440-461) Decree.
Pope Leo tried to make celibacy mandatory, but unfortunately he encountered vigorous opposition. Some clergy complied with this papal ordinance while others took advantage of the situation and felt free to have licentious lifestyles.
It was only in the 7th century AD that Pope Gregory I the Great (590-604) tried vigorously to make celibacy a mandatory law. He thought that by doing so the church would get more financial revenues, and it would be more successful and influential within political and social spheres.
Unfortunately, the inevitable happened. The divorced wives of the clergy surrendered themselves to prostitution and the clergy that became celibate because of their divorces, resorted to lascivious activities, including adultery, alcoholism, burglary, and even homicide. The indecent lifestyles of the clergy caused new public annoyance and outrage.
Pope Nicholas I (857-860) with a Decree ordered the public to be lenient and accept the married priests and the ceremonies performed by them, because the majority of the Catholic clergy did not want to renounce marriage and their familial lives.
Unfortunately, those who were ordered and forced to be celibate, lived a secret life. First, they allowed their mothers, sisters, aunts and relatives to live with them. And here we see a new scandal brewing: “These sisters were having children by clergymen. Some were even accused of having had lewd acts with their own mothers” (Abbé Jules Claraz – page 226). Mindful of all these scandals, the councils of Ratisbon (742) and Metz (888) forbade the celibate priest to live with any woman “be it mother or sister”.
Cardinal Caesar Baronius (1538-1607), a church historian, in his popular book “Annales Ecclesiastici”, notes that Popes of the 9th and 10th centuries were monsters and declares: ”what a shameful picture represents the Roman Church, when whores used to have power over Popes. They used to allow their lovers to sit on Peter’s chair”.
Pope Benedict X (1033-1054), who used to indulge in a lavish lifestyle and debauched sexual activities, decided to marry one of his relatives, without resigning from his papal position. It is interesting to note as well, that during the election of Pope Felix V (1439-1449) in Bazel, Switzerland, a participating member, Cardinal Selvius, defended the following principle that “someone who has a wife can be elected Pope and that Popes can get married, as the Apostle Peter was married”.
Furthermore, in the 12th century AD, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), tried to make celibacy mandatory, all the while keeping the wife of Goderfroid le Bossu, Princess Matilda, close to him, maintaining romantic relations with her in the Bibianello Castle.
Unfortunately, we find countless instances of such profligate and perverse lifestyles within the history of the Catholic Church. For centuries thereafter, the Catholic Church could not enforce celibacy by any means and end the clergy’s debauched practices. Eventually, in desperation, the church initiated a new law: those who wanted to keep lovers on the side, had to pay special taxes. We find such information in the book written by Pope John XII, called “Livre des Taxes de la Chancellerie Romaine. ”
The above-mentioned historical events clearly show that because of the imposition of mandatory celibacy, illegal and immoral conduct ensued and supplanted the ethically sanctioned practice of marriage.
Unfortunately, such, and even more egregious scandals persist today in the Western world on a much larger scale. Just within the last few decades, pedophilia and other perverse practices of the clergy not only tarnished the image of the church, but also caused huge monetary losses, and forced some of the Dioceses to file bankruptcy in U.S. Federal Courts.
Of course the picture is different in the Oriental Churches. Being faithful to the first three Ecumenical Councils, they did not accept any new theological or liturgical changes, and did not abandon their married lives.
Celibacy, considered to be the perquisite of monastic life in the Armenian Church, took effect after the 5th century, because until then all catholicoses were married and the throne was hereditary, until St. Sahag Barthev, who did not have a son to succeed him.
The Armenian Apostolic Church, with its canons, restricted the movements of the unmarried clergy and consigned it to celibacy. They did not serve in the dioceses and were confined within the walls of monasteries. Article 38 of St. Sahag’s Canons regards and declares that all monasteries are built for celibate priests. These canons kept their force throughout the centuries.
St. Nerses the Graceful (Shnorhali), in his letter addressed to priests living in monasteries, forbids celibate priests to leave their monasteries and live in towns and villages and declares: “Those who live in public will have no choice but dealing with women while hearing their confessions…it is impossible to serve God in sanctity”.
Clearly, these priests and their lewd lifestyles were well known to our church fathers and that is why they forbade them to have any contact with the public. By doing so, they encouraged priests to remain celibate and dedicate their lives to reading the Bible, literature, translations, copying manuscripts and painting.
However, it was obvious that these restrictions were not going to resolve this dilemma. Aside from these impediments, there were other reasons for celibate priests to escape the confines of their monasteries and seek worldly fulfillment in secular environments. The paucity of married priests with intellectual acumen and promiscuous attitudes, as socially acceptable behavior, were foremost among other reasons for celibate priests to seek secular pursuits and personal enrichment—leaving behind the sacred, spiritual, and devotional lifestyle in a monastery.
Thus, a schism was created: celibate priests usurped the higher hierarchical positions within the church, whereas married priest remained as mere functionaries of rituals, rites of passage, and other menial ministerial functions. By and large, these married priests were not highly educated in academic or ecclesiastical disciplines and were relegated to ordinary liturgical practices throughout their lives. And so, it became prohibitive for married priests to rise above the service to their parishes, regardless of their intellectual prowess or ecumenical know-how. Eventually the Armenian Church became replete with mediocre teachers, liturgical singers, and bankrupt businessmen who sought a life of idle pleasures and selfish comfort.
For all intents and purposes, lifestyles of the Armenian clergy were no different from the lewd lifestyles of Catholic priests. If the Armenian Church did not sanction priests to have lovers, it does not mean that the clergy is licensed to engage in licentious behavior. Only a select few were able to utilize self-control and sublimate their hedonistic desires, and deserve to be called “inculpable” clergymen.
There is ample evidence of how our “celibate” priests conduct themselves today. Many high ranking priests—Catholicoses, Patriarchs, Bishops, Vartabeds—find themselves in impious, extra-legal relationships with lovers, concubines, and some who have even sired children.
It would be counterproductive at this juncture to identify the transgressing clergy by name because the ultimate goal of wholesale reformation of the Armenian Church will come about not by affixing blame or pointing fingers at the offenders, but by making them realize the supreme violation of their oaths and vows before God and by rekindling their spiritual beings. After all, it is not for us to judge, but to reveal the righteous way to those who are lost in a thicket of materialism, hedonism, and debauchery. They will have to answer for themselves on Judgment Day.
Previously, I had mentioned what Benik Vartabed wrote in one of his articles, published in 1920 and addressed to those who slandered him: “For the last fifteen years I have been openly living as a married man. I lived with my family in the Monastery of Etchmiadzin where others also were living with their spouses, such as Archbishop Nerses Khudaverdian, Adam Vartabed, Yeghishe Vartabed, Kevork Vartabed Cheorekjian, Daniel Vartabed, and none of the Catholicoses demanded that they should be separated from their spouses”. When the Catholicos Kevork V invited Bishop Kevork to become a priest, the latter was honest enough to tell the Catholicos that he was married, but that declaration did not prevent the Catholicos from ordaining him a Vartabed, Bishop, and then, Archbishop. But the same Catholicos with his official Decree in 1919, ordered all the monastic debauchees to leave the Monastery within three days with their maids and teenage boy-servants.”
This was the lifestyle of the clergy in St. Etchmiadzin Monastery. The article written by Benik Vartabed demonstrates that the sacred center of our nation, the Monastery of St. Etchmiadzin, was a hub of corruption and scandal. Is it any different today in all our other historical Seats?¼.INDEED NOT.
All testimonials referenced above, indicate that celibacy is an anachronistic and unenforceable institution, and all those who purport to live in such a lifestyle are either lying to themselves or to the rest of the world. The consequences of enforcing a celibate lifestyle clearly results in covert depravity, thereby enabling misdeeds and turning a blind eye to sinful acts such as adultery, prostitution, deception and betrayal of one’s holiest of vows and, in the process, making a mockery of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
It is unrealistic to require the suppression of the most fundamental human urge to procreate. Time and again we witness the power of nature to triumph over will-power—especially the kind that is extrinsically mandated. In light of such historical evidence and experimental knowledge, it is obvious on so many levels—practical, theological, ethical, as well as genetic—that priests of all denominations should get married legally, rather than have to live illegally in the shadows of shame with women or men, or worse yet, become perverts and pedophiles.
However, there must be sanction and support for those who truly wish to seclude and cloister themselves in monasteries and keep to the devotional edicts of abstinence. And for those who are chaste in spirit and mind and adhere to the sanctity of married life, allowance must be made for them to practice their holiest of callings without fetter or fear of reprisals or retribution. In other words, moral conduct cannot be legislated, but rather, it resides within the heart of each and every individual. Hence, neither celibacy nor marriage should be an impediment to the service of God and humanity.
Who is sanctimonious enough to claim that in order to serve God, the church, and humanity a priest must be celibate? Those who served our church as married clergy in the first five centuries were no less dedicated or devoted to Christ’s word.
Who would maintain that the Anglican Church is less inviolable in the hands of married priests? Or that the Protestant Church is less cherished or secure in the hands of their married preachers? Is it not amply obvious by now that the stability and continuity of the Armenian Church depends on the wholesale psychological transformation of the elite in the hierarchy of the church and the re-education of the clergy in order to garner the trust and faith of the Armenian people and be their spiritual servants.
In the past, the public used to regard the promiscuous lifestyles of clergy with a kind of indifference. Today, however, more than any other time, in this materialistic life, we need role-model priests to act as representatives of love, peace, and compassion, and who would revive our spiritual and moral values.
Unfortunately, the Armenian Church has lost its moral authority. Because of the unacceptable lifestyles of its clergy (with some noteworthy exceptions) the image of the Church has been tarnished. The burning question remains: What can be done to avert the Armenian Church from certain disaster and doom?
In secular life, there are people who prefer to stay single for many reasons. Some prefer to live alone, away from all family obligations, while others are so dedicated to their professions that they choose to stay single and not bother with marriage.
Correspondingly, promotions within the ranks of the church should reflect this natural humanistic approach, based on merit, dedication to one’s calling, intellectual acumen, moral fiber, and sincerity of faith, and not on an arbitrary litmus test of ostensible celibacy. For those who wish to affirm their faith through abstinence, the church should neither show preference nor penal reproach.
A similar idea is expressed by His Holiness Catholicos Papken Guleserian of the Great House of Cilicia. In his book titled “Issues of Reform of the Armenian Church” he declares: “The freedom of choice will solve the crucial issue of ranks, which means, higher ranks will be open to all who deserve and are capable. A celibate priest who is unworthy, could not elevate to higher ranks, just because he is celibate, and conversely, a married priest who is worthy, can be elevated to higher rank. Therefore the higher ranks will be bestowed upon those who are worthy of their Callings and shine with their character and education”.
Patriarch Torkom Koushagian of Jerusalem, expresses a similar idea in one of his articles, published in “Sion” Magazine: “Bearing in mind that marriage is sacred and is one of the Sacraments of the Armenian Church, being married is not the denial of spiritualism, because in the past, one way or the other, the higher ranks were not denied to the married priests; therefore, why aren’t we reestablishing the same principle today, and revitalizing the church’s mission? We know that the transition will not be smooth and easy, but it is imperative that we open the door for married priests and see them elevated to higher ranks in the church, according to their character and abilities”.
Change in society rarely comes from the top down. On the contrary, if history teaches us anything it is that meaningful and long-lasting change always comes holistically from the populace. A groundswell of discontent with the status quo or malfeasance on the part of the ruling hierarchy initiates the impetus for change. Outrageous behavior by those entrusted with the stewardship of the most sacred institutions is more often than not the spark that leads to internal reformation of entrenched dogma, hypocrisy, and systemic injustice.
Today, Armenians in the Motherland and in the Diaspora are witnessing corruption and wanton scandals within the church, and demanding change.
It is high time for the church to face reality, renounce corrupt practices and lewd activities, reject temptation of worldly trappings, abnegate age-old dogmas regarding issues of celibacy and marriage that pertain to priests, and allow those who are eminently qualified to rise in the ranks of the church, to perform their ordained duties as torch-bearers of the faith, and uplift the masses to which they have been entrusted with the word of God.
______________________________
(1) The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod and was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinalorthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
VOSGAN MEKHITARIAN
February 20, 2014
