I mentioned in an earlier post that in the Orthodox Church in America, an archdeacon who left his position to go to California to “marry” another man was restored to active ministry after he came home and reportedly repented. My view is that even if a cleric who does that repents and is restored to full communion, he still should not be in ministry. How can he be taken seriously as a spiritual leader after that? Should one forgive him and receive him back as a fellow sinner and communicant of the Church? Yes, absolutely, no question. But not as a deacon, or as a priest. To whom much is given, much is expected.

We ought not to expect our priests and deacons to be perfect, but when they commit serious sins that speak to a graver disorder impairing their Church ministry, they rightly lose the confidence of the faithful. When bishops allow priests and/or deacons who have transgressed in particularly egregious ways to remain in ministry, it shows a certain contempt for the faithful, in my view, or at least an stunning lack of sensitivity. The primate of my church, Metropolitan Jonah, was wrong to have signed off on this when he was in charge of the Diocese of the South — though to his credit, he later tried to reverse it when this was pointed out to him. The bishop who currently has authority over this situation, Bishop Nikon of Boston (locum tenens of the Diocese of the South), is aware of it, and has done nothing.

But where do you draw the line? What are the “unforgivable sins,” so to speak, from which an ordained minister cannot recover his ministry, and ought to be removed?

I believe use of pornography is one. A pastor who has a pornography addiction, or even simply a hobby, is not trustworthy as a spiritual leader. At least, I couldn’t respect or trust him. Could you? Would you trust him to hear the confessions of your children? Me, not for a second.

The conservative Catholic writer and activist Matt C. Abbott e-mails to point out that in Kansas City, Bishop Robert C. Finn, who was recently indicted for allegedly failing to report a child porn priest to the authorities, earlier reassigned a priest who had been caught by police with a large cache of pornography, most of it homosexual in nature. According to the activist group Roman Catholic Faithful, a layman examining Father Anthony Pileggi’s computer back in 2006 found pornography on it, thought it might be child porn, and called police. The Missouri State Police investigated, and, according to their report, they found gay porn videos in Father’s house, and “large amounts” of porn, most of it gay, on his computer — including pornographic websites that featured young males. But no child pornography. Father Pileggi broke no laws, and was never charged.

Bishop Finn reassigned Fr. Pileggi, but didn’t tell the parish to which he was sent what they were dealing with. RCF sent a letter to parishioners in both parishes, telling them what the deal with Fr. Pileggi was, including information from the state police investigation. His hand forced, Finn removed Fr. Pileggi, and told the parishioners that he had reassigned Pileggi even knowing of the police investigation because he concluded that Pileggi was fit to serve. RCF commented:

According to the Bishop’s letter it seems there was nothing wrong with appointing Pileggi as pastor of a parish and school as long as the parents did not know of his past. … If your neighbor was an active homosexual who was sexually attracted to younger males and spent hours a day viewing pornography would you allow your child to spend time there? Of course not.

No, of course not. Nor would I allow my children to spend time in the house of a heterosexual neighbor who was sexually attracted to young women and spent hours a day viewing straight porn. It is morally insane that a bishop would find this behavior not disqualifying from the ministry (and for the record, Fr. Pileggi serves today at a parish in Kansas City).

The faithful in all churches — Catholic, Orthodox, and otherwise — have to be able to trust our leaders to deal with moral clarity and resolve in cases like this. People don’t want  and don’t need to know the personal problems of our clergy — unless we can’t trust the bishops to be looking out for the interests of the whole church, instead of the clerical class. There are surely some exceptions, but as a general matter, I don’t believe we can. The breakdown of trust is profound, and I don’t know how it gets fixed. Putting programs and procedures in place is not enough. In the end, you have to be able to trust the judgment of the bishop. Good luck with that. Honestly, I have never understood why a situation in which the right thing to do is clear to a garbageman or a check-out clerk is not clear to a bishop. I guess it takes advanced theological education and ordination to the episcopate to believe that a priest addicted to gay porn is still fit for ministry, or that a deacon who flees his post to marry a man but changes his mind can be restored to the altar, as if it never happened.

Anyway, back to the original question: do you think having a pornography habit is enough to disqualify one from the ministry? Why or why not? Which sins qualify?