We
have received an email from someone who poses the question of the
responsibility of the monastic towards their parents in the light of
Mark, 7, 9 – 13. This person—let us call her Euthymia, after St
Euthymius the Great—poses her question in the context of our post
Is
a Rasophore a Monk or a Novice? We received Euthymia’s
permission to quote her email and discuss it. Here it is:
Dear
Orthodox Monk,
I ask for your
blessings and prayers. Thank you for maintaining such an interesting
blog.
My question has to do
with the penultimate paragraph of the post:
“Rasophore
monk Seraphim raises the issue of possible legitimate reasons to
return to the world—aged parents and so on. These things are
pretexts since on the one hand they would have been discussed with
the Abbot before the tonsure and directions given; and, on the other
hand, the monk has no obligations to those in the world such as
Rasophore Monk Seraphim describes. For example, when a married man
becomes a monk, under canon law the marriage is automatically
dissolved. So the monk is free of such worldly obligations; indeed
they must be seen as temptations of the Devil to return him to the
world.”
The Lord's teaching in
Mark 7,9 – 13, in the situation of a monk or
nun whose parents are in need, seems to
imply that the monk or nun
in question is required to do whatever is necessary to care for the
parents. This principle might be stretched to cover other
situations. How can one offer one's life as a sacrifice to the Lord
via a sinful means—by neglecting love and responsibility to one’s
family? I am curious to know how the Orthodox interpret such
passages. Say, for the sake of argument, that the parents of the
monk or nun fell into unforeseen need after their child was already
tonsured. Is it true that “the monk has no obligations to those in
the world” in such a case?
For the sake of
disclosure, I am not dealing with such a situation; I’m just
curious. This passage has always been fascinating and challenging to
me.
In Christ,
Euthymia
Let
us start with the passage in question:
And he said to them: Well you displace
the commandment of God so as to keep your tradition. For Moses said,
“Honour your father and your mother;” and “He who speaks ill to
father or mother, let him die by execution.” But you say, “If a
man say to father or mother, that of mine which would benefit you is
‘Corban’ (which is to say ‘gift’),” then you no longer
allow him to do anything for his father or mother, invalidating the
word of God by your tradition which you have transmitted; and many
other such things do you do. (Mark 7, 9 – 13).
Let
us clarify the basic meaning of the passage. The Pharisees
maintained certain oral traditions in addition to the Mosaic Law. In
the case at hand, the Pharisees have complained to the Lord that his
disciples have eaten with unwashed hands, something according to the
Pharisee’s tradition the disciples should not have done. The Lord
replies by commenting on a particular tradition of the Pharisees.
That tradition is that if someone says that some property or
possession of his is dedicated to God (this is the meaning of
‘Corban’) then that person’s parents no longer have the right
to be benefited by that property or possession in accordance with the
commandment of Moses.
Euthymia’s
question is how this passage bears on our remark to Seraphim that the
Orthodox monastic leaves his parents behind. Let us turn to some
basics on the monastic vocation.
First
of all, a monastic vocation is a call from God. It is not human. It
is not something I decide to do because I don’t want to get
married, because I want to dissolve a marriage, because I want to
evade my responsibilities in the world. The most basic passage
concerning the monastic vocation is Matthew 19, 10 – 19:
But I say to you that he who dismisses
his wife, except on the grounds of adultery, and marries another,
commits adultery. And if she who has been dismissed marries, she
commits adultery. His disciples said to him, If such is the cause of
a man with his wife, it is not profitable to marry. But he said to
them, Not all can contain this word but only those to whom it is
given; and there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s
womb and there are eunuchs who were castrated by men and there are
eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the Kingdom of the Heavens.
He who is able to contain this word, let him contain it.
We
discuss the monastic vocation in greater detail in Questions
about Orthodox Monasticism and
The
Monastic Vocation and we would
recommend that Euthymia read those two posts before continuing.
Now
there are other passages in the Gospel that discuss the relation of
Jesus’ disciple to the disciple’s parents. In Luke, 18, 20 –
21, Jesus says that his mother and brothers are those that hear the
word of God and do it. In Matthew 10, 37 – 38, Jesus says that he
who loves father or mother more than him is not worthy of him and he
who does not take up his cross and follow Jesus is not worthy of
Jesus.
Part
of the monastic calling is the renunciation of the world, including
the family. In other words, in its classic form, monasticism is a
radical renunciation in order to respond to Jesus’ call to love
Jesus and him only, the monastic taking up their cross and following
Jesus to the exclusion of all else. It is in this context that the
Church has understood Matthew 19, 16 – 22 where Jesus counsels the
rich young man, if he wishes to be perfect (and not just to be
saved), to sell all that he has and give to the poor, and to come
follow Jesus.
What
can be inferred is that if someone has a divine calling to the
monastic state, then that calling supersedes love of parents. This
can be seen in the historical record. In the Pachomian monasteries,
St Theodore the Sanctified refuses to see his mother who has come
with a letter from the bishop. There are many other such cases.
In
the Ladder of Divine Ascent,
St John of Sinai discusses the temptation to the postulant arising
from their
love for (or attachment to) their
family. John is clear that a
fundamental part of the monastic vocation is renunciation of family.
(In this, we would suggest that Euthymia read Steps 1 and 2 of the
Ladder in the Lazarus
Moore translation, published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery.)
While
Sinaite monasticism is not strictly the same as Egyptian monasticism,
on this point the two traditions agree. This is important since to a
very great extent Egyptian monasticism became the dominant form of
monasticism in the Orthodox Church.
However,
we would also suggest that Euthymia read all of
the ascetical works of St Basil the Great, which constitute a
somewhat different tradition in the Orthodox Church. We would think
that the relations between the monastic and the monastic’s parents
would have a somewhat different treatment in Basil’s ascetical
works, especially the Short Rules.
Next,
depending on the tradition within which Euthymia is situated
ecclesiastically, there will have been different historical
evolutions of these
basic ascetical traditions.
By which we mean that if Euthymia were to enter say
a
Russian monastery whether in Russia or outside Russia she would
encounter a somewhat different attitude to renunciation of one’s
family than in say a strict Greek monastery. In this regard it
behooves Euthymia to study the historical evolution of monasticism in
the jurisdiction in which she is situated. Two good ways to do this
are the monastic typika
(plural of typikon; the
monastic typikon
is not the liturgical rule
but the organizational
rule
of the monastery)
in her tradition and the lives of the saints in her tradition.
Euthymia should consider, for the Byzantine tradition, looking at the
complete
collection
of translated
monastic
typika
in the Byzantine tradition published
free online by Dumbarton Oaks.
She
should
also
seek
out the best translations of the best texts of the lives of the
saints—preferably those written by an immediate disciple.
Dumbarton
Oaks publishes online a
free set of 10 lives of woman saints in the Byzantine Tradition
and also free
the
very important life of St Lazaros of Mt Galesion. Also relevant
would be the Sayings of the Desert Fathers but the offerings in
English are minimal, the best work having been done by French
Catholic scholars and published in
Latin or Greek with French translation in
Sources
Chrétiennes.
We
would also suggest that Euthymia
spend some time in a good woman’s monastery in the
home country of her
jurisdiction in order to discuss these matters with the nuns and
perhaps the Abbess, so that Euthymia
can understand how her jurisdiction at its best understands these
issues. In this regard we
might remark that monasticism in the Orthodox diaspora is not always
in its ideal condition.
