Dr Ruwan M Jayatunge 

The ordination of young children has emerged as a significant societal concern, primarily due to the alarming reality that many of these vulnerable individuals become targets for pedophiles. This troubling trend underscores the urgent need for government intervention to implement stringent measures aimed at safeguarding children from abuse within religious institutions. Authorities must take decisive action to establish comprehensive policies and oversight mechanisms that not only prevent the exploitation of minors but also promote a culture of accountability and transparency within these organizations.

Child Ordination is a practice that is still prevalent in numerous temples today, yet it raises significant ethical concerns in light of contemporary laws that often categorize it as a form of child abuse. Critics argue that this practice undermines the rights and well-being of children, as it involves their premature commitment to monastic life, often without fully understanding the implications of such a decision. In contrast, various Buddhist sects defend the tradition by referencing historical precedents, asserting that the Buddha himself endorsed Child Ordination as a means of spiritual development. 

I believe that the practice of Child Ordination within Buddhism has been misapprehended by some priests. My perspective is that this practice was largely misinterpreted. We have to understand the sentiment that was echoed by King Śuddhodana, who implored the Buddha to refrain from ordaining children without the explicit consent of their parents.  

However,  the Buddha had special plans for his son, Rahula. During his interactions with rulers such as King Pasanadi Kosala and King Bimbisara, the Buddha became aware of a looming threat to the Shakya clan posed by the warlord Vidudabha, who harboured a deep-seated animosity towards them due to their perceived arrogance. This animosity culminated in a brutal genocide against the Shakya people. By ordaining Rahula and his cousin Nanda, the Buddha effectively safeguarded their lives, as they were next in line for leadership. 

In a different context, the Buddha also took in Sopaka, a neglected child who had suffered severe abuse, recognizing the absence of child welfare services at the time. Sopaka found refuge among the adult priests in the temples, and through his compassion, the Buddha’s religious community became a sanctuary for destitute children. Unfortunately, this benevolence was sometimes exploited, as some monks began to ordain children for their own gain. In desperate circumstances, impoverished parents would bring their children to temples in hopes of securing food, leading some of these vulnerable children to fall prey to monks with predatory intentions. 

The Buddha had established a guideline that a child should only be ordained when he was old enough to “chase a crow,” a phrase rich in meaning. This directive implies that a child should possess the maturity and capability to defend himself against potential abuse within the monastic community. In this context, it is essential to focus on psychological maturity rather than biological age.

Historically, in ancient Sri Lanka, it was primarily young boys from noble families who were permitted to ordain, as they enjoyed the protection and influence of their social status. Over time, however, the practice shifted, and underprivileged children began to don the robes, often seeking food and shelter as their primary motivation.  The plight of these children has rendered them vulnerable, exposing them to sexual exploitation by older monks within the monastic community. 

The current circumstances are dire, as a significant number of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka originate from impoverished backgrounds. Many of these children are sent to temples by parents who lack the resources to provide for them, leading to a life marked by trauma and various forms of abuse. Once they enter the monastic life, these young monks frequently fall victim to sexual abuse at the hands of their elders. 

Consequently, a new generation of monks emerges, carrying deep psychological scars while attempting to offer spiritual guidance to a society grappling with its own challenges. This vulnerability makes them susceptible to manipulation by radical political factions, who exploit their influence for ulterior motives. Furthermore, these monks often propagate messages of hatred and division, exacerbating societal tensions and creating a complex social dilemma that demands urgent attention and intervention. The presence of psychologically traumatized monks poses a significant risk to the stability of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka. 

When discussing the issue of child abuse within Buddhist temples, it is essential to broaden the conversation to include similar abuses that have been reported in Christian churches, where even the Vatican has acknowledged and expressed remorse for such incidents. Child abuse in religious settings is a pervasive issue, with altar boys in Christian communities often falling victim to predatory priests. 

Similarly, in Hindu Kovils, both male and female children have been subjected to sexual exploitation. In certain Muslim mosques, extremist figures have been known to manipulate young minds, attempting to indoctrinate them into committing acts of violence, as exemplified by the tragic events surrounding the Easter Day massacre. It is important to express concern regarding the practice of elderly Muslim men marrying very young girls under certain religious laws in Sri Lanka, which can be interpreted as child marriage and a form of legalized abuse. 

In light of these alarming realities, the National Child Protection Authority must implement measures aimed at eradicating child abuse linked to religious institutions. This could include the establishment of a comprehensive registry for children involved in religious activities, alongside regular oversight by probation officers to ensure their safety. The responsibility to protect children from abuse in these environments extends beyond authorities; it is a collective societal obligation to safeguard the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our communities.