Православное

Material Support of the Priest.

Usually this question is not given enough attention in Pastoral Theology courses. It relates rather to church policy, problematics, and administration. However, because the basis of this question very closely relates to the realm of pastoral psychology, we cannot let it escape our attention, especially the duties and the mode of behavior for a priest. The sharpness of this question was realized in all times, material needs, no matter how simplified, still will worry every single person, which is why this question received proper attention throughout all ages.

In the Holy Bible much is said of a priest’s provision, his nourishment and possible difficulties in this field: “…as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” (Joshua 1:5). The Apostle Paul writes these words in the Epistles to Hebrews: “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have” (13:5). In the first epistle to Timothy there is the same thought: (a pastor should be) “not greedy of filthy lucre” (3:3), the same is repeated in the epistle to Titus (1:7). Avarice is represented as one of the main sins not only of those in pastoral service but for all Christians, for in the second epistle to Timothy (3:2) the sign of the”perilous times in the last days” will be avarice of the people. The Apostle Paul calls this sin “the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). The apostle prohibits associating “altogether with extortioners” (1 Cor. 5:10), for they do not inherit the Kingdom of God, as well as drunkards, thieves, fornicators, etc. (1 Cor. 6:10). Covetousness is called idolatry (Coll. 3:5). We conclude all this is just from the text of the Gospel sermon. If in the Sermon on the Mount in St. Mathew it is said: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (5:3), then the best manuscripts of the Gospel from Luke do not contain this last word, which has entered our present church text. We must read in St. Luke: “Blessed be ye poor” (6:20). A rich man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 19:23). The parable about the rich and Lazarus sufficiently confirms this (Luke 16:19-31).

If the Savior in the tenth chapter of John gives us the image of “a good Pastor,” then perhaps nowhere is the Judaic priesthood is exposed as vividly as in one of the last speeches of our Lord, dedicated to the Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites. In vain do they think that it relates only to that historical moment and is addressed only to the Pharisees (regulators) and Sadducees (intellectuals) who were contemporary to the Savior. This speech is addressed to all religious scholars and legalists of all periods. “Devouring widows' houses” (Mat. 23:14), “paying tithe of mint and anise and cumin” (23) together with all sins of hypocrisy, external piety, formalism, etc. is decried in the formidable word of the Lord to the priests of all times. But even sharper and more merciless in respect to the question at hand is the accusatory speech of the prophet Ezekiel in his thirty-fourth chapter. It truly sounds as a reproach for all times to a negligent pastor and as the exposure of his vices. Here are these reproaches: “The shepherds of Israel Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock (3), with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them (4), fed themselves (8),” i.e. looked after their own self-interest, therefore the Lord promises: “I will deliver my flock from their mouth” (10). No lesser reproach is heard in the words of another prophet, Micah (3:11): “…and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? None evil can come upon us.” The desire of Simon the magician to acquire the Grace of the Spirit with money (Acts 8:18) is a completely scandalous sin, from which comes the common noun of the sin of “simony.”

Avarice and a predilection toward material prosperity are exposed as grave crimes, also, in the monumental works of the early Christianity. Thus, the “Didache” (ch.11) commands: “departing, the apostle must not take anything, except bread and the necessary things, until he stops somewhere. But if he demands money, then he is a false prophet.” It is indicated in the same place, that “no true prophet, being in the spirit (in ecstasy) will assigning meal, unless he is a false prophet.” As well a wanderer (chapter 12), who does not desire to work and live according to the rules of the voluntary povery, is demed as one “selling Christ.” All is summed up in the words (ch.4): “do not be as one who stretches forth his hands to obtain, and conceals them when we must give,” which is also repeated literally in the epistle of pseudo-Barnabas 19:9 and, with several changes in the first^t epistle of St. Clement of Rome (chapter 2).

“Pastor” Erma sketches a sad picture of the declining Christian society and clergy in the beginning of the second century. The clergy were caught up in the temptations of the world, presbyters argued between themselves over superiority, lived in luxury, deacons plundered the property of the widows and orphans, prophets were proud and searched for superiority, they predicted for money, there appeared social inequality — on the one hand, there was the wealth, and on the other — poverty (the Commandment 11:12). The so-called “Epistle to Diognetes” sounds as one of the last chords of the primitive, eschatologically disposed, evangelically poor apostolic church.

Though the voice of exposure against self-interest and avarice does not cease, and is heard from Christian teachers, bishops and councils of the following centuries, the state of things changes radically in essence. The church acknowledged by the state begins to strengthen its terrestrial order; the life of a pastor becomes calmer, fixed, provided for. The emerging administrative and managerial system of the church organization contributes to such construction. If the “Didaches” appealed for the fastest end, then Tertullian testifies that they prayed about the retarding of the end. The entire further history of the Church and pastoral activity is already the history of more or less firm priestly daily life established. This, though, does not at all indicate a material prosperity and enrichment of the clergymen, however, it is not the apostolic poverty of the first life cycle of the church. Poverty as an ideal, non-covetousness, become the subject of the pious desire in the cloistered life alone, or to be more precise, in the anchorite life. In the West St. Francis D'Assi, and the absolutely poor orders, and in the east the founders of our monastic “deserts,” especially trans-Volga elders, still defend the ideal of Evangelical poverty. At the same time the abodes of Joseph defended their properties, and the poorest orders of the west were converted rather rapidly into the stable and far from poor organizations of the Franciscan and Dominican orders. This phenomenon, as cure d’Ars from France who lived in the nineteenth century and his literary echoes, is reflected in the priests — the heroes of Bernanos are but an exception. However, this does not completely mean that a priest in the subsequent times became synonymous with a capitalist, or exploiter, as the anti-religious propaganda presents.

However, what did the church practice work out concerning the question of the material support of a priest? And how a priest must perceive this practice?

Overall, life established three methods of settling this question: 1) to partake with the altar, i.e., to take payment for religious rites, 2) to obtain a established salary from the parish and 3) to receive a salary from the state or the central church authority. All these methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

1. To be partakers with the altar. The basis of this principle is given in the Holy Scriptures: “they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple, and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar” (1 Cor. 9:13). We must accept that this principle “to live by preaching,” bequeathed by the apostles and brought to life by them, blessed by the long, centuries-old practice of the Church, became almost a common custom. Antiquity did not know another method of supporting its clergy. The other methods of setting of this financial question are suggested already in the present time and seem to be dictated by some new ideas. But what are the negative sides of this principle “to partake with the altar”? New and young priests and mostly those having “personal direction” usually give the following objections against this method of payment: A) It is humiliating for a priest to take money for religious services; b) one gets the impression of a certain simony, i.e., sale of the Grace of the Holy Spirit for money; c) this method brings abuses, extortions in the flock and self-interest uncontrollably develops in a priest, and affects his responsibilities; g) in poor and ill provided parishes such a system leaves a priest in an ill-provided position and and even reduced to beggary. In each position, except the first, there is an element of truth, which, however, can be softened by this or that improvement in the parochial and diocesan life. All these considerations should be discussed one by one.

Humiliation. This consideration is unjustified, a priest less than anyone should fear humiliation. An example of the absolute humiliation and resignation is given to us in the kenosis of the Savior, Who became poor, taking the image of a slave. An augmented sense of self-respect, typical of youth, must be banished from the pastoral heart. It always borders on pride and testifies about the excessive concern over ones authority. The payment of the fee to a doctor or attorney does not at all degrade people of these professions and their authority in the eyes of their clientele. However, if being paid for religious services subdues the pride of a young priest, then this is only useful for him. In connection with this, some young priests have a way of not taking money for religious services that only: 1. Testifies to their pride. 2. spreads rumors about them as of the benevolent. 3. It places in a false position those brothers who humbly accept payment for a serving a religious service. It is possible to do everything, including the receiving of payment, with dignity, and not to suffer of the depreciation of one’s authority. More will be said about the possible improvements in this method of the levy of the fee.

Simony. This sin should not evenbe mentioned in this regard, if you recall the words of the Apostle about “partaking with the altar” and see this payment not like payment for the grace of prayer, but as an offering to God, given from the loving heart of spiritual children, who worry about the fathers and their prayers.

The possibility of extortion and abuse can happen always everywhere and it does not depend upon the method of payment, but on the nature and disposition of those extorting, who will know how to find the methods to extort in the other conditions as well. The isolated cases of extortion from the side of a priest cannot be disseminated, generally, to the entire organization.

Financial insecurity in the poor arrivals is, perhaps, the most serious objection. Actually, a priest will be always better provided for in the urban, capital and generally rich churches than in one of the forgotten and neglected parishes. This is one example of how the sinful world leads to the evil of social inequality. Sharp contrasts in this respect always were present throughout history. Here it is necessary for the church authority to interfere; deans and bishops must have a special concern for the needs of the poor pastors. Here it is possible to recommend constant aid from the center or from the cashier’s offices of the priestly mutual aid, but this already exceeds the limits of our science.
2. The salary. (From the state or diocese). Many see this as one of the best present methods. A priest is not, as it were, abased by the levy of payment, the sense of “simony” does not arise, the abuses are impossible, everywhere reins justice and there are no poor and rich parishes. All this seems alike only at the first glance.

First of all, this principle is possible only where the church is recognized by the state and it is not isolated from it or, the dioceses are provided so, that they can give salary to the priests. There, where the church property is sequestered or the state hardly bears such “evil,” as the Church, this method cannot be spoken of.

In reality this principle was used in the history of some states as for example, in Montenegro up to 1914, in some dioceses in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, some ranks of the clergy, as military priests, consistory clergy, in the foreign missions, embassy churches, schools, prisons. As the most recent example of putting this into action one must see the law of the separation of the church from the state in Yugoslavia in 1933, according to which the state collected extra tax from the salary of all the officials of the Orthodox confession, (which frequently disturbed those who did not desire to donate to the church), it gave a monthly grant for the church, which paid a salary to its clergy, converting it by such means into the church officials.

The negative side of this method of clergy support is obvious. First, the mentality of an official is being formed in a priest, who each month receives his salary. This can easily lead to formalism and the idea that “they will pay anyway.” This contributes to the secularization of the clergy, breaks his connection with the flock, and creates a bureaucratic system where instead it must be like one family. Then recognized self-seeking develops in a priest, for he lives on the determined “table of ranks” and rises in his position as any official.

The very principle of relationship, sacrificial love, fatherhood, is erased in this atmosphere. Since this does not completely destroy the possibility to accept donations for religious services, then a priest becomes interested only in the advantageous cases, he does not care about those insignificant from the material point of view, does not react on the spot to the needs of his flock. Finally, this method, even if it frees a pastor from the possible “humiliations,” on no account develops in him the humility which is connected with “partaking with the altar.”
3. Remuneration by the parish. This method is somewhere between the first two. The parish gives to a priest the specific salary though benefits and money. The benefits are an apartment, heating, work in his garden and household. Furthermore, the parish appoints a sufficient payment for the living of its clergy that does not prevent the clergy from using free-will gifts and donations of his flock. A priest is more or less provided for within this practice, the parish is responsible for his welfare, and he is freed from concerns about daily bread. This method can be acknowledged as the best settlement of the question, taking into account some exceptions.

The act of paying a priest by a parish, flock or diocese must be perceived as an offering to the Church and to God, a sacrifice to Him, but not as a salary, payment, or fee.

As for payment for special services, we must make the moment of payment as graceful as possible. It produces a poor impression, if, for example, after confession all those present hear the rustle of paper or the ringing sound of a falling coin. It is better to place on the candle desk a box, into which the parishioners may put their mites. This frees a priest from the unpleasant impression, who gave how much for what. Specific fees for religious services are absolutely not permitted. The very conversations about the payment for a wedding, burials, baptism, etc. are offensive to the religious consciousness; they are the intrusion of the material into the sphere of prayer and grace.

In those churches where there are several members of the clergy, the division of the parish must occur in the proportion, established by the central diocesan authority, in order to avoid oppressions of the lowest members of the clergy. A dean should remember the needs of his brothers in Christ, who have less hope for the attention and concerns of the parishioners. One should also remind to young priests to be subdued in this question, not to pose with their benevolent deeds, but rather to remember the solid responsibility of the entire clergy.

The Family Life of a Priest.

This question represents a special feature of the clergy absolutely unknown to the Catholic world. Therefore we should first come to know the difference in the view on this side of life as seen by the Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholics, touching as well upon Protestantism, though its representatives do not have priests in the real meaning of the word.

Roman Catholicism made the celibacy of the clergy legal in its canonical practice, making it obligatory. If the Catholicism sometimes allows the clergy to marry in its “eastern rite,” as a rare exception, this, though, meets with no sympathy of the catholic society and the ecclesiastic consciousness. The celibacy became firmly established as an age-old practice, which Rome cannot and will not reject.

Orthodoxy not only allows, but appreciates married clergy. Celibacy is purely monastic, or for a long time was met with a caution. There are special time limits under canon law that pertain to the marriage of the members of the Orthodox clergy, and it is possible only before ordination into the sacred ranks. After ordination (hierotonia) a priest cannot marry.

Protestantism does not prohibit clergy marriage, and besides that that allows it after the appointment of a pastor to his service.

This is the brief outlook upon clergy marriage. Some historical information should prove the previously mentioned.

Christian antiquity had a more tolerant point of view on this question than that of the later Latin canonic code. The fifty-first rule of the Holy Apostles made celibacy non-obligatory. During the time of the First Ecumenical Council, according to the testimonies of the recognized historians Socrates (H.E. 1:2) and Sosomenus (H.E. 1:23), the church represented by Paphnutius (who seemed to be the defender of celibacy), stands in defense of the married clergy, understanding and foreseeing all the difficulties of celibacy for everyone.

But there were the other opinions in Christian society. The tide of a certain rigorism and immoderate asceticism often made demands which did not reconcile with the blessing and love of the Gospel morals on the one hand, and the church wisdom and caution on the other. The decisions of the Ganger Council clearly testify to the fact that rigorism made demands in the Christian realm. For example, the tenth rule of this Council declared anathema those who felt superior to the married because of their chastity. The Fourth rule of the same Council threatens those who think it unworthy to take Communion from a married priest. In the Thirteenth rule the Ecumenical Council asserts, that marriage should not be an obstacle for ordination, because “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebr. 12:4) and “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed” (1 Cor.7:27); if a deacon or presbyter, under the pretext of piety will abandon his wife, let it be anathema.

By the eleventh century the Roman Catholicism (Pope Gregory the 7^th in 1076) legalized celibacy and made it compulsory. The East responded to this phenomenon with extreme caution, if not to say negatively, allowing an unmarried man or a widower to seek to become a priest after tonsure into monasticism. In Russia by the law of 1864-1869, the ordination (hierotonia) of those keeping celibate was legalized only after the age of 40. The reasons are understandable. An event of enormous importance was the ordination of Moscow Spiritual Academy Professor Alexander Gorsky, bound neither with matrimonyl, nor with monastic vows, ordained by Metropolitan Philaret. As protection from possible disapproval by the Synod, Metropolitan Philaret first charged Gorsky to gather historical information about the permissibility of celibacy in the past. When the Metropolitan obtained such well-documented information, he offered the author of information to join the priesthood in order to promote him to the rank of a protopresbyter in a short time and to make him the rector of the Academy. The Metropolitan could answer the Synod’s questions with this exhaustive documentation by our bright church historian. All of Russia discussed this unprecedented fact, and this was considered almost a dangerous reformation attempt to imbalance the church way of life, settled throughout the centuries.

The view on this question has strongly changed in recent times. The ordination of Gorsky was not a single phenomenon. After the Moscow Council of 1917-18 the ordination of celibates became much more frequent. In the emigration they resort to that more easily than in Russia, without making it a required standard. The ability of a priest, not bound with vows of monasticism, to enter canonical marriage before ordination remains as the standard. It is understandable why the Protestant and Anglican view is unacceptable for us. Ordination is that boundary which separates the mundane sphere from the purely spiritual. After passing through the Royal Gates, a priest no longer can return to the thick of worldy interests and fuss. From this moment on, he must try to free himself from earthly temptations as much as possible. However, matchmaking, engagement, the atmosphere of love and honeymoon are simply unthinkable after he has given himself to the Holy service. Not depriving a priest of the delights of the family hearth, coziness and kindness of dear to him people, the Church cannot nevertheless convert into the secular the high vocation of a priest. Antiquity, in its generosity, went further. The episcopate was married, also, before the Trullan Council. The father of St. Gregory the Theologian, also the bishop of Nicea, was married and had children. And there are many such examples. After depriving the episcopate of the family happiness and leaving that only for presbyters, the Church nevertheless placed here certain time limits.

It is completely understandable why the Catholicism legalized celibacy and made it obligatory. When a priest does not have his own family, he more easily and freely gives himself to church activities, he is more mobile in the case of any shifts, missions, etc. He falls under the influence of the people less, and close to him, he has no concerns for wife and children and thus finds himself more in obedience to the church hierarchy. To a considerable degree Catholicism may construct such a well-proportioned and hierarchically disciplined building of its spiritual army due because of celibacy.

However, at the same time obligatory celibacy introduces a number of shady sides into the life of the clergy. It is necessary to show some of the psychological negative sides of celibacy, to say nothing of the larger accessibility of temptations, covered by the seemingly blissful shroud of the “housekeepers” and “close relatives.” A celibate priest more easily becomes dry and egoistic, he does not have experience of the family life, and a paternal relation with the flock is unknown to him, especially to the young person, which prevents him from serving in this medium. He easily can begin to feel abandonment, solitude and melancholy, sometimes despondency, and his paternal feelings remain unexposed. This latter fact can pass into the more dangerous psychophysical complexes. Works of literature give some luminous examples of this (“the Gadfly” by Voynich, “The Ruler” of Trenev, also in E. Zola's novels).

However it may be, a candidate to the priesthood faces a question about the future arrangement of his life which forces some to put aside ordination until he makes a final decision. Not finding a wife that he likes, such a candidate can decide join the celibate priesthood. Here it is necessary to verify and to weight in depth all the possible pros and corns.

In this case, it is necessary to emphasize the entire irregularity of such an approach: the priesthood or monasticism cannot be “either this or that.” Becoming a monk is not choosing one of the two mentioned ways, but is a totally unique and exceptional path. If one does not feel any certain affection for the monastic way, then to become a monk only because one did not find a bride, either because a special someone refused, or because monasticism is the easier way for promotion to the hierarchy, is completely erroneous. Upon graduation from a military school it is possible to choose between the infantry and cavalry, but after the seminary or academy graduation there must not be such selection. Those who go for monasticism exceptionally heed the call to the secluded life, either missionary or sociable.

It would be appropriate to indicate that Catholicism, due to its compulsory celibacy, does not encounter one of the temptations of our ecclesiastic way of life — the dissension and hostility between the white and black clergy (i.e. married and monastic). Because monasticism is the easier path to become an archpriest and jointo the church administration, the married priesthood cannot achieve the highest steps of hierarchy; therefore it can have hostility toward monasticism as to the careerist way in a world of educated monks. Catholicism does not know this. A simple rural cure, possessing abilities, can become a bishop with time and even get to a higher position. The monastic tonsure is necessary neither for the cardinal nor for the Papacy. The last Pope-monk was Gregory the 16th (Cameldulus), who at the time of his election (1831) still was not a bishop. Certain monastic orders gave birth for many talented bishops and popes (for example, Augustinians, Clunians, and Franciscans), but one of the merits of the Jesuit order is their fourth vow of monasticism: never to be a bishop.

In Orthodoxy, a number of the compulsory requirements of canonical nature are connected with the question of the marriage of a priest. Although they relate to the field of the ecclesiastic law and discipline, their recollection in the present context can be of an interest. A priest cannot be married to someone of another confession (4 Ecumenical Council, rule 14); his home must be Orthodox (Carph., rule 45 ); his children must not marry the heretics (Laod., rule 10, Carth., rule 30); the wife of a priest herself cannot be either widow or a divorcée, a fornicatress, or an actress (Apost. Rules. 18, 6 Ecum. Council, rule 3); in the case of improper behavior by the wife he must either divorce her or be defrocked (Neocaes. 8).

In accordance with the question of the married life of a priest appears a number of themes, which cannot be easily and conventionally solved. Here comes the special “problem of a priest’s wife,” which nowadays, especially in the emigration, becomes very difficult.

In the ancient courses of patrology, this question belonged to the category of morals and manners and the selection of a bride had a nuance of tradition. The entire life contributed to this simple everyday interpretation of the problem. First is the hereditary priesthood. With a few exceptions, men did not enter the priestly class from outside. The son of a priest inherited the priesthood in the parish from his father or obtained a parish due to his bride, and was not an alien element in the spiritual medium. The same medium by the force of the age-old customs and because of the wise care of the Great Russian hierarchs Philaret of Moscow and Isidor of St. Petersburg wonderfully organized the matter of the spiritual training of the candidates to the priesthood and their wives. If a future priest passed the normal 10-year preparation of the school and seminary, or the highest one — 14 years; then, from the other side, in many dioceses of Russia there were diocesan schools for the daughters of priests with a specific program, wisely fitted for the future priests’ wives. In these schools, the dioceses’ students had, besides the general education subjects, also a wide church program including the study of the church history, a theological course, studying of the Slavonic language, church chanting and the Divine service rules. They paid special attention to upbringing in the church spirit, strict morals and secular decency, as well as to fostering of girls so that they could keep the household and bring up their children.

By such means, they prepared to devote themselves to the worthy living of their difficult life as a priest’s wife. Such everyday life facilitated the resolution of this complex question of the family life arrangement for a candidate for the priesthood. Now all this already disappeared into eternity with the destruction of the majestic establishment of former Russia and its well-organized and wise structure of life.

The Russian historical catastrophe brought about an entirely different setting of the family life of a pastor. Everything changed. The priesthood ceased to be a class, the state is no longer a friendly factor in the life of the church, there are no normal spiritual schools, the tradition of the morals and manners of the priesthood faded, and there are no remarkable Diocesan female schools. This cannot be restored, and the question must be set in a new way now.

The existence of the diocesan schools to a considerable extent resolved the difficult question of the organization of the future family life of a pastor and prepared the future priests’ wives. In the old times, there were also some “problems of priests’ wives” in the latent state. Now they arise with more sharpness and complexity.

The problem of being a priest’s wife lies in the very basis of the question. Many young girls are confused by the question of whether to become the wife of a priest. Internal psychological obstacles for this lie in different spheres and therefore are unequally estimated both by women themselves and by their future husbands. Here are some of these obstacles: A) the fear and shame to become a priest's wife, which still can be explained by the old prejudices of the Russian liberalism, which was condescendingly disposed to the priesthood. b) In the Catholic mode of the Latin countries, which are accustomed to celibacy of the priesthood, it seems strange and even a little indecent to be the wife of a priest. c) The fear of being deprived early of secular pleasures and purely mundane happiness (theater, dancing, social noisy life, the ease of secular relations inappropriate for the family of a priest, and so forth.); g) Less financial security in life and anxiety for the future of the children.

The sharpest point of this problem relates already to the very behavior of a priest’s wife in the rhythm of the work and life of her husband, a priest. If the future wife of a priest found in herself the courage to decide to become his wife, then in the very life and work of her husband she will meet with new difficulties, unknown earlier and more painful than the impossibility of entertainment or other things. Here it is necessary to speak about the special tact of a priest’s wife. Marriage is not always the complete belonging of the one to the other. In the internal, spiritual, intellectual field there always remains such a sphere, into which “the entrance is prohibited” for a woman. A military man has his official secrets, a doctor, scientist and attorney — their ethical standards, unassailable for the wife. Any clever woman understands this perfectly well and will never be jealous about her husband’s work, patients, clients, etc. This something, impermissible for a wife, must not disrupt family accord and warm relations.

But this “something” especially sharply enters into a priest’s life. In the ideal family husband and wife are used not to hide anything from each other, but a priest acquires the whole world of secrets, totally concealed and never shown to his wife. The fact is that a priest does not to a considerable extent belong to his wife spiritually and intimately, but is very deeply connected with many of those, whose life he knows better than anyone else, whose interests are as if his own, and he is connected with them with the bonds of the pastoral compassionate love, confession and so forth. He becomes one family with them, and this to a certain degree cuts his own legal family.

The special task of the wife of a priest and difficulties in this problem, lie in finding sufficient tact and internal accord in order not to prevent a priest from doing his great guidance of strange souls, their transformation, fostering and so forth. The flock, which came between the priest and his wife, is in significant measure a stumbling block for a wife and tests her consideration, tact and spiritual height. History iss full of sad examples where a wife, without being aware of all of her husband’s responsibilities felt unwisely jealous towards her husband; she harmed him, herself, and the flock because of her tactlessness.

In this problem, one ought not to fall into another extreme and to ascribe to his wife any of the responsibilities of the assistant and colleague of her husband. If she has such a gift and a priest himself will find this useful, if the circumstances will show such a necessity, then, it goes without saying, the participation of the wife in a matter of the parochial aid can be useful and fruitful. But this is not in any way the responsibility of the wife. There is no doubt that she can help with the matter of school, catechetical work, in the matter of hospital and social work, in the simple aid, where and when this will prove to be necessary and only with the approval of the pastor. It is nevertheless necessary to remember that it is better for the wife to be busy with the household and the family, to be simply the wife for her husband and the mother for the children, than to play the role of a colleague, friend at work, assistant in the labors of her husband, etc., which can introduce an unpleasant nuance, resembling the mood of the “leading society” before the revolution, a woman with “demands,” etc.

Regarding the difficulties for the wife because of the intrusion into her life of the flock, it needs to be said that she will require special tact when there appears around a priest the unhealthy surrounding of different admirers and ecstatic women. In these cases, a correct understanding by the wife of her task and her gifts can liquidate this ill-character situation and tense atmosphere around a priest and avoid possible tragedy for him and his family.

The Behavior of a Priest, His Outward Appearance.

This question receives different levels of attention in courses of pastoral science. Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky pays little attention to it; protopresbyter Shchavelsky says nothing of it, Pevnitsky and Bishop Boris Plotnikov say a bit more.

The spirituality of a pastor serves as the leading principle in this problem. The priestly mood must be, first, spiritual, and not sinful. A priest must worry about maintening and developing spirituality within himself. No worldly interests must lead him, but rather those religious and spiritual. A pastor is called to change the world by prayer, sacraments, through the example of his personal spirituality. He must bear in himself the highest cultural values; personify the highest spiritual life and dignity of the heart.

We already discussed the need for a broad education for the pastor; besides purely theological questions, he also must be well-read in respect to general culture, to have knowledge of history, philosophy, literature, arts, etc. so that he can understand the interests of his flock, ennoble them, lead, correct, and influence his spiritual children.

For such successful leadership a priest must not fence himself off by the impenetrable wall from an interest in the world, he must investigate what happens around him. The question touching upon the benefit of secular civilization must arise for a priest as for one who is required to become aquainted with worldly distractions. In what measure is it permissible for him?

This answer cannot be found in canon law. The canons reflect the historical epoch in which they were formed. They can give guidelines, outline the principles which a priest must adhere to in his life, but cannot, and even must not accurately regulate forever, for all coming centuries, all the details of priestly experience.

In the canons, we find absolutely clear indications, compulsory for all times which touch upon the problem of inadmissible behavior. As for example, the rules: the eighth of the Ecumenical Council, forbidding the maintenance of fornicatresses, or the ninth rule of the same Council, forbidding a priest to run a tavern, or the forty-fourth Apostolic rule, the 17^th rule of the Ecumenical Council, the 4^th rule of the Laodicean, the 10^th of the Trullan, the 5^th and 21^st rules of the Carthage Council, that forbid extortion. The examples given are obvious and no problem appears there.

Much more complex and more controversial is the question about the more usual entertainments, accessible to lay-people, but perhaps becoming suspect for a servant of the altar. These include, for example: reading secular literature, attending concerts, theaters, the cinema, the occupation of a priest with literature, or with scientific research not just in the field of the pure theology or ecclesiastical-historical science (as, for example, astronomy, natural sciences, etc.).

What must the governing standard be here? What is the general view of the Gospel upon life, merriment, entertainment, etc?

It is possible to say in advance that two dangers, two extremes await for us here: either to fall into an optimistic overestimation of culture and art, orto turn away from everything that is not included in the divine service, piety, theological thinking and asceticism, with rigor and pessimism.

The Gospel clearly indicates that the world lies in the evil, that the sin penetrates everywhere, that it is necessary to observe ourselves and to walk “not as foolish, but as wise” and not to become a part of the affairs of darkness. All temptations of the heathen world of “the disorderly cries and drunkenness” must be removed away from Christianity, especially from each pastor. But must we add to this all pleasure, happiness or normal human entertainments? Does the Gospel oppose all merriment? Must we then forbid all happiness, and turn the sermon of salvation thus to a gloomy cloud covering all life? Is it instructive to banish from the whole life or only from priestly habit all entertainment, merriment and searching for the beautiful in life? Must Savonarola be acknowledged as the ideal of the priestly service?

It is hardly necessary to prove that rigorism is not characteristic of the spirit of the Gospel. The example of the Savior, Who attended the suppers of simple people, marriage meals and nowhere denounced merriment, beauty, innocent pleasures of life, — does not justify of the gloomy attitude of the pastors of Savonarola’s type, typical of the Latins, Archimandrite Photius (Spassky) and Constantine Matveevsky.

But if merriment, pleasures, entertainment, and beauty are not forbidden for the simple people, for the flock, then how will a pastor who condemns everything, except piety in the narrow sense, soul saving literature and divine services, be able to understand his flock, how will he not repel it from himself? A priest who values music, theater, exhibitions of pictures and literature only as the evil charms of the devil, will never understand his flock, which lives by these interests. The flock will only stand away and fear such a priest, afraid of his censure and strict scolding at every turn. Such a priest will never be able to understand his flock, or give useful advice about whether one or another phenomenon is good or bad, if they ask him for such advice.

The sharpest is the question about the theater. In writings of the fathers, especially in Tertullian and Chrysostom this kind of art meets only irreconcilable and extreme denouncement. How many bitter words Tertullian said to the lovers of theatrical shows! How he condemns all the actors, gladiators, and musicians into eternal fire! Chrysostom is not much softer. But it is necessary to recall what the theater of their times was and whether there exists a certain difference with our operas, dramas and comedies.

If the theater of the second to fourth centuries were, as the folk shows of the Byzantine middle ages, full of rough and sensual details, resembling heathen bacchanalias, this is why the Apostle could speak at that time about “the disorderly cries, yelling and drunkenness” that could not serve to the ennobling of dispositions, and why the church condemned all this and warned the faithful not to fall into this explicit temptation. But theatrical art has something else; if offers medieval mysteries, different religious dramatizations, known in the West and East. These arts came to us through Kiev and Little Russia, but it happened absolutely legally, and the Church was sufficiently opened-minded to tolerate them and even to patronize them. Furthermore, it is necessary to have a look at the historical perspective: the theater of Tertullian’s epoch was full of erotic, immoral elements. The repertoire of our days contains many vulgar and obscene things. However, along with the frivolous repertoire and tempting plays, theatrical literature gave us an enormous number of excellent, purely artistic works. Shakespeare, Racine, Sheller, Pushkin, Chekhov and many others raise the soul above rough feelings, force us to think about something higher, take the spectator away into some other world, distant from banality and prose. It would not occur to sober thinking people to place the opera of our days, the Artistic Theater and serious symphonic concerts with those plays by mimes, gladiators and Bacchanailan dances. If we add to this that the artists themselves very frequently were and are deeply religious persons (Savina, Yermolova, Butova, Sadovskaya, etc.) who served the theater as a form of art, then any generalizations must be made with caution.

Therefore, this observation sounds like a terrible, unjust reproach and shows complete cultural insensitivity: “Woe to you, the theater-goers! Grief to you, gamblers!” Religion is right to rise against reckless card games, but it is not possible to place on one line the ardor of the card hang-outs with the artistic experiences of connoisseurs of pure art, which shows the large gap in the cultural and artistic instinct.

Various pastors and pastoralists had different opinions on this subject. Father George Spassky himself visited theater, cinema and concerts, since he wanted to know and help the others to understand what is good in the theatrical and musical world and what is necessary to stand apart from. Bishop Boris very wisely and humanely speaks on this topic. For him, the Church is not the inquisition. A priest must not be some kind of an obscurant, rigorist and ascetic. Ttemptation frequently hides not in a lighthearted mood, but in one gloomy, embittered and suspicious. On the advice of this pastoralist, entertainment must really refresh the body and soul; they must not soil and degrade the religious mood, they must not be the purpose, but only a booster agent in the vital difficulties. Following these orders, one can hope that the entertainment will not be dangerous.

Tact, spirituality and a prayerful mood brought up by years will show a priest in an error-free way, if that which serves as entertainment is good or bad. Reading native and foreign literature enlarges the horizon of a pastor, gives him more points of contacts with the flock and will help him to influence their literary tastes. Such irreproachable monks and teachers of the pastoral activity as Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky were excellent experts of the literature, they approved of similar tastes in their students and priests. There are many priests who are amateurs and connoisseurs of classical music, which helps them to have a rest from their occupations and is a means of purification of the soul from daily impressions. The priest brothers Kapustin knew perfectly well that astronomy did not disturb them from being spiritual and prayerful.

One should possess a sense of tact and measure. There can be a danger of being converted into a father-theater-goer, either a ballet lover or writer, who forgets about his direct responsibilities and substitutes for true intellectual values secondary entertainment. One must have a feeling of tact and measure.

There is one additional question that is fundamental: is it permissible for a priest, and in what situation and measure, to wear usual secular clothing?

There exist no canonical orders about the cut of spiritual clothing. Meanwhile the life and practice of the church worked out the form now known for vestments for priests. The sense of this tradition lies in that: 1) the vestment distinguishes the clergy from other ranks, 2) it restrains a priest from many words, gestures unworthy of his rank, from such actions, from visiting inappropriate places like the saloons, tempting shows, etc., 3) the vestment is to a certain degree a confession of our title. The entire cut and style of our vestments calls to staidness, modesty, strictness, chastity. The eastern, Byzantine cut (and similar to it the Russian cut, of course, only the cassocks) hides all the natural deficiencies of the body, stoutness or, on the contrary, beauty of the build. A cassock distinguishes a priest and makes it necessary for him to know how to wear it.

Usually the young priests with the tendency towards reforms in the realm where they are novices themselves, rise against the clerical garments which prevent them from being more mobile, more secular like others, and can even cause mocking looks and sometimes obscene remarks in the street.

For the purposes convenience the foreign priests even in the pre-revolutionary time were permitted to wear the secular garments after the divine services and in the unofficial places and to cut their hair and beards.

It is natural that in those states where the law forbids wearing the clerical garments (Switzerland, Turkey and some other countries), priests must implicitly submit to these resolutions of the civil authority, though in wearing of this or that type of clothing one ought not notice any Divine, dogmatic or canonical condition. The observance of the similar non-humiliating orders of authorities will only facilitate the actions of a priest in that situation, while breaking the law will cause unnecessary frictions between him and the authorities.

When the civil authority allows this, a priest should be in the proper vestments everywhere and most often he can, but when he needs to appear in working conditions, pertaining to his personal economic matters then naturally the priestly clothing cannot be compromised. (It is not possible to bring a rucksack or a bottle of milk from the market, wearing a pectoral cross and having one’s hair down the shoulders, which will cause smiles in the passers-by. A priest himself will feel awkward). Tact must prompt a priest the to know how and when to wear his cassock.