But the evolution of technology and the wide accessibility of recording devices means that what was once gossip can hardly be contested today. Especially when bishops were involved, even though sometimes the disputes, some even political, could have led to interested negative publicity, so that some ended up being publicly defamed.
But these were rather exceptions. For the good renown of the Church it was much better to remain silent about such events. It is, of course, difficult to now deem how many or how few in number all of these illicit sexual practices were. What is certain is that they were drastically blamed at the level of official discourse and looked upon as grave pathologies.
Against the backdrop in which the BOR is getting ready for a potential constitutional referendum meant to introduce the restriction of understanding marriage as anything but between a man and a woman β a preventive measure, considering that at this moment no other possibility exists β, the recognition of the fact that even its leaders have not given up their sexual lives is meant to raise doubts about the advisability of such a lecture.
In what concerns the obvious predilection for homosexuality, this has, of course, contextual causes too. For a bishop, it is far easier to seduce a young student whose presence does not necessarily raise suspicions than to keep getting feminine visits. Even more so in the case of monks, secluded in a monastery in which the presence of the other gender is, in principle, even more drastically restricted.
A catholic priest, celibate by excellence, can more easily hide a mistress than an Orthodox monk can β and all bishops are monks. Double standards are often applied.
