The Dilemma of Self-Defence for Clergy

The Dilemma of Self-Defence for Clergy 20Dec

Today, we delve into a subject seldom broached, yet increasingly pertinent in these challenging times. While we do not claim to exhaustively explore this topic, the perspectives offered herein are indeed thought-provoking.

A poignant query was raised on priest.today, igniting this discussion:

"Not long ago, a fellow priest endured a severe assault on the street, leading to a prolonged hospitalisation and subsequent home recovery, spanning roughly a month and a half. This ordeal, unfortunately, resulted in a significant loss of income. While support from a spouse's employment or assistance from relatives can be a blessing, the situation becomes dire when the priest is the sole provider.

The consensus among many of my fellow priests is as follows: if verbal de-escalation fails, flee. If escape is impossible, defend yourself, yet never initiate violence. Personally, I abhor violence, but in extreme circumstances, alternative options seem scarce. How does one navigate such harrowing situations without compromising one's priestly dignity?"

Interpreting Canons: The Delicate Balance between Doctrine and Reality

In addressing the question of self-defence, Canon 27 of the Holy Apostles, dating from the 4th century A.D., serves as a crucial point of reference:

"If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon strikes any of the faithful who have sinned, or of the unbelievers who have done wrong, with the intention of frightening them, we command that he be deposed. For our Lord did not teach us thus, but rather, when He was smitten, He did not retaliate; when reviled, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He did not threaten."

However, the interpretation of this Canon among our respected clergy is far from uniform, a testament perhaps to its succinct yet somewhat ambiguous wording. While the Lord remains our moral beacon and exemplar, the Gospels recount instances where He, prior to His voluntary Passion and Crucifixion, countered aggression and wickedness with divine word (John 10:31-32), divine power (Luke 4:28-30), and even a scourge (John 2:15).

Not all are gifted in the art of verbal persuasion, especially under duress. This may explain why even staunch opponents of retaliatory violence acknowledge that their stance might not be universally applicable.

The Dilemma of Self-Defence for Clergy

Bishop Anthony (Azizov) shares, "Circumstances vary, but the overarching principle for a priest is to eschew physical confrontation. Deciding whether to use force when under attack poses a profound moral dilemma, demanding robust faith. From an evangelical perspective and pastoral standpoint, we must not reciprocate violence. The Church's Canons are emphatic, a necessary check on human nature, hence their categorical stance: a priest must not strike another. This is clear-cut, yet real-life scenarios can be complex."

Archpriest Demetrius Pashkov of Moscow observes, "Apostolic Rule 27 does not address situations of minimal necessary self-defence. It solely condemns the violent outbursts of an irate cleric. Thus, it does not forbid minimal physical force needed for self-defence. Furthermore, what if one must defend another? Here, even the most stringent might concede to actions beyond mere persuasion."

Bishop Anthony (Azizov) adds, "Violence against another raises more intricate questions. Here, the priest, akin to the Levite in the parable, should not turn a blind eye but respond appropriately. Our initial reaction should be verbal, striving to defuse conflict. But in instances where conflict seems inevitable... I cannot prescribe a definitive course of action; it greatly depends on the specifics of the situation and whether the priest could have acted differently."

There are indeed moments when dire circumstances necessitate 'desperate measures'.

Archpriest Oleg recounts a harrowing incident: "In the tumultuous 90s, a drug addict broke into our church house at night. My young children and my wife were inside, and instinctively, I used physical force to subdue this spiritually troubled man and turned him over to the authorities. What else could one consider in such a moment? Defending the lives of your family and yourself cannot be deemed sinful."

This raises a profound question: could intervening to prevent potential sin (be it physical harm, murder, or other moral and material damage) be considered an act of mercy? Yet, the appropriateness and execution of such interventions are not always straightforward...

The Dilemma of Self-Defence for Clergy

Another scenario involves responding to blasphemous acts against sacred objects.

For further insight, we refer our readers to two chapters from "Everyday Saints and Other Stories" by Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov). In "Yet Another Breaking of the Rules," hieromonk Raphail, acting impulsively, expels a hooligan from the church for lighting a cigarette from the vigil lamp at the icon of the Mother of God. Subsequently, he sought repentance from his confessor and received justification.

In "On Humility," several monks endure verbal assaults from a group of ruffians without responding. However, when these assailants began blaspheming the Lord and the Mother of God, the monks' tolerance reached its limit. Reasoning that those of priestly rank should be spared from direct confrontation, they delegated a monk Alexander, formerly skilled in karate, to 'address' these wayward individuals. Could this have been part of a divine plan?

Navigating the Aftermath of Conflict: A Clergy's Dual Accountability

It's imperative for clergymen to remember their dual accountability: not only to secular authorities but also to the Church hierarchy.

Archpriest Demetrius Pashkov of Moscow elucidates, "Should an incident involving a cleric escalate to a criminal case, the cleric may face temporary suspension from priesthood duties during the investigation. In extreme cases, where self-defence results in the assailant's death, the cleric could face permanent expulsion from ministry, as per the 66th Apostolic Rule."

Understanding the Root of Conflict

Bishop Methodius (Kondratiev) reflects, "The nature of the assault on a priest is critical. If the attack is personal, resistance may not be warranted. However, if it's due to one's Christian faith or clerical status, then standing up for Christianity—whether through active defence or passive resistance—is necessary. The exact response should be at the priest's discretion, but a stand must be taken."

When Confrontation is Unavoidable

Metropolitan Longin (Korchagin) shares, "The perspective offered in the initial query resonates with me: if unable to verbally counter, then flee; if captured, defend yourself, but never strike first. This seems a practical and tested approach."

The Power of Prayer as a Shield

Bishop Anthony emphasises, "Our fervent prayer should be that the Lord keeps such trials away from a priest's life."

Archpriest Konstantin Ostrovsky remarks, "The hypothetical situation posed prompts us to speculate. Yet, our focus should be on remaining in the Spirit, not in fantasies. In doing so, either we'll be spared such trials, or God will guide our actions in the moment. When we indulge in conjecture, God allows us to stumble, teaching us humility. Our challenge is to remain 'in the Spirit', achievable through constant repentance and unceasing prayer."

Post-Conflict Reflection and Action

Archpriest Konstantin adds, "Should a priest face a situation necessitating a deviation from Church canons, he must candidly present the details to his bishop and leave the judgement to him, praying, 'Lord, Thy will be done.'"

We hope this article has been enlightening. Our prayer is that the Lord, through the intercession of Our Lady and all the saints, shields you from all harm and temptation. Remember, our primary arsenal is spiritual, and its efficacy depends on diligent practice and prevention of neglect.

By conquering the inner enemy, God willing, we stand a chance against external threats.