Marriage and sexuality

[Justin]

I find these teachings troubling, for reasons I've already cited, that I think are very important and contradicted by other monastic and Patristic teachings

Oh? I've devoted not a small emount of time researching sexuality and marriage in the Fathers, and would disagree. If I may ask, what specific works by or about the Fathers have you read that relates to the subject of sexuality and marriage?

[Janine]

Hello Justin. Have you never read that marriage is the layman's way to learn self-emptying? That in cleaving to one another we learn this? That the purpose of marriage in Orthodoxy is not simply for procreation? You can hear this and read it all over the place in Orthodox teachings and writings, and the teachings of Elders as well.

Are you saying that these teachings are correct and substantiated? Let me quote from the letter of Archbishop Lazar:

Marriage is "dirty"?
Men tell me that they went to a [... certain ...] monastery expecting to hear about the love and compassion of Jesus Christ, but instead heard that marriage is "dirty."

It might be meaningful to know exactly what the [members of such a community] are teaching about normal heterosexual relationships in marriage. By every report I have received, they are claiming that sexual relations within marriage is sinful and dirty and that even a newly wed couple should sleep in separate bedrooms--unless they are planning to procreate. Also, that even under such an arrangement a married couple must be careful not to take any pleasure in their sexual encounter.

We also know of at least one Geronda who insists that husbands telephone him and ask for a blessing to have sexual relations with their wives. I understand that [a certain father] insists that a married couple must abstain from Holy Communion for a forty-day "purification" period after they have had sexual relations.

Marriage is difficult enough to sustain in our current times without such condemnation of heterosexuality and lawful relations within marriage. This matter is of great concern to us.

Which Fathers say married people should live in separate bedrooms, and that marriage is dirty, or that a couple must refrain from Communion for 40 days after sexual relations?

(Message edited by admin on 28 January, 2005)

[Janine]

Archbishop Lazar wrote:
We also know of at least one Geronda who insists that husbands telephone him and ask for a blessing to have sexual relations with their wives

Is he lying? Is this an appropriate function of a Geronda, really?

[Janine]

Do you need quotations on how marriage functions as a holy institution in Orthodoxy? Let's do a Google search:

Thus, marriage is a sacrament-holy, blessed, and everlasting in the sight of God and His Church. Within the bonds of marriage, husband and wife experience a union with one another in love, and hopefully the fruit of children and one day the joy of grandchildren. And within the bonds of marriage there is both a fullness of equality between husband and wife, and a clarity of order with the husband as the icon of Christ, the wife as the icon of the Church. Reprinted in full from the Orthodox Study Bible, page 449.
found at: Marriage and Orthodoxy (http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/forfolks/osbmar.htm)

Here, from an article on the (dare I say it?) Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website on sacraments of the church:

God is active in our lives. It is He who joins a man and a woman in a relationship of mutual love. The Sacrament of Marriage bears witness to His action. Through this Sacrament, a man and a woman are publicly joined as husband and wife. They enter into a new relationship with each other, God, and the Church. Since Marriage is not viewed as a legal contract, there are no vows in the Sacrament. According to Orthodox teachings, Marriage is not simply a social institution, it is an eternal vocation of the kingdom. A husband and a wife are called by the holy Spirit not only to live together but also to share their Christian life together so that each, with the aid of the other, may grow closer to God and become the persons they are meant to be. In the Orthodox Marriage Service, after the couple have been betrothed and exchanged rings, they are crowned with "crowns of glory and honor" signifying the establishment of a new family under God. Near the conclusion of the Service, the husband and wife drink from a common cup which is reminiscent of the wedding of Cana and which symbolized the sharing of the burdens and joys of their new life together.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp,The (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp%2CThe) Sacraments - Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald


The teachings are everywhere -- marriage is not dirty, it is a sacrament, and a sacrament designed not for the exclusive purpose of the procreation of children (those are a blessing) but rather for learning love between two people and thus teaching us about relationship to God. A sacrament cannot be dirty!

[Herman Blaydoe]

Which Fathers say married people should live in separate bedrooms, and that marriage is dirty, or that a couple must refrain from Communion for 40 days after sexual relations?

None. [...]

[Justin]

Janine


Have you never read that marriage is the layman's way to learn self-emptying? That in cleaving to one another we learn this? That the purpose of marriage in Orthodoxy is not simply for procreation? You can hear this and read it all over the place in Orthodox teachings and writings, and the teachings of Elders as well.

That's sort of vague. I checked St. Chrysostom and St. Justin Martyr. Nope, it says:


We "marry only to produce children" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 29)

"'There are two reasons why marriage was instituted, that we may live chastely and that we may become parents,' ...after the resurrection, a Christan may become a parent spiritually, 'so there is one occasion for marriage, that we may not commit fornication.'" (Saint John Chrysostom, "On Those Words of the Apostle, 'On Account of Fornication'")

Gee, seems sort of... what was the word you used? Fundamentalist? People throw around "the Fathers say..." a lot without actually checking for themselves. Therefore, I reiterate: Where? What texts? In which Fathers have you read this stuff that you believe? I gave you some examples, could you give me some (from Fathers, not from contemporary theologians)?

[...]

[Janine]

By the way, the two statements are contradictory. The first sentence (Justin Martyr) says there's only one reason. The next one (Chrysostom) says there are two. And to live chastely has an entire variety of meanings and is part of a great deal of interpretation: does this mean to learn what love is? What relationship is? What purity and holiness are? Is chasteness only about sexuality and avoiding fornication?

BTW this is a very exclusive quotation from Chrysostom. Chrysostom wrote more extensively on marriage and over and over again he emphasizes the words of the bible -- that man and woman should cleave to one another, that husbands should love their wives, that this is all an essential representation of God's love. *All* of it; and the last emphasis is simply on procreation or avoidance of fornication.

Check out this homily

St. John Chrysostom on Marriage and Family Life (http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/What/Marriage-Chrysostom.htm) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church. (Ephesians 5:25).

[Justin]

I make no judgment as to whether it is wrong. I say only that it is not patristic. When St. John Chrysostom spoke of sex as a "bridge" between a man and a wife, for example, he said that the child produced was the bridge, not the sex itself. This is not the end and totality of my thought on sexuality, I'm willing to consider what Thomas said. I just dislike when Evdokimov and others make claims about "what the Fathers taught" that simply isn't true (the most common one is setting up Augustine as a straw man, knocking him down, and then using selective quotes of St. John Chrysostom to prove the superiority of eastern thought on the matter.)

[Janine]

Hi again, Justin. You write:

I say only that it is not patristic

I think there's room for argument in that though, no? I'm quite certain Evdokimov and the other sources I quoted would take issue with this, aren't you?

I also think, as I said, that John Chrysostom is implying far more to marriage having to do with love, self-emptying and relationship than simply producing children. And that Christ's words of "cleaving to one another" had far more to do with relationshp between man and wife than simply the child, and Chrysostom indicates this in the website I gave. But maybe that's another topic.

[Justin]

By the way, the two statements are contradictory. The first sentence (Justin Martyr) says there's only one reason. The next one (Chrysostom) says there are two.

Whoever said that there was one, immutable teaching on the subject? St. John Chrysostom himself makes statements which contradict earlier statements that he had made. Regarding Chrysostom, if you'd like to go beyond false dichotomies, I would suggest starting with:

Homilies 7, 28 and 62 on Matthew
Homily 12 on Colossians
Homily 20 on Ephesians
Homily 24 on Romans
Homily 19 on First Corinthians
"On Those Words of the Apostle, 'On Account of Fornication'"
The Good of Marriage

And as you're reading this stuff, remember that St. John Chryostom was the most "moderate" or "pastoral" voice.

[Justin]

You know what, I agree with you! I think there's more to it than just lust and kids. But--and it's a big but--if that is true, the Fathers chose not to speak about it. I wonder why? And how proper is it for us to totally switch the whole "this is what marriage is for" teaching around?

Here's my concern: that children are unwittingly being devalued (a big problem especially in Europe and Russia, where the native populations are declining rapidly). I mean, what a wonderful gift God gave us in children. The ability to create a human being, someone who is made in the image of God, and is more precious than the entire material universe? And God graces us with the ability to have a part in creating and bringing up this wonderful child? How then can people say things like "Oh, sex can't be JUST for procreation". Why not? Supposing for the sake of argument that it was JUST for procreation. Does it not still remain one of the most awesome and wonderful gifts God could give us? It was not the way in paradise, where virginity held sway, but now in spite of all our losses after the fall, God also gives us such fantastic consolations. So I guess the thing that bugs me is the idea that procreation somehow just isn't important enough to be it, and that there just has to be more.

[...]

(Message edited by admin on 28 January, 2005)

[Janine]

Hi Justin again. [...]

Regarding marriage: I did not say that "sex" was not just for procreation (although I disagree with that, too, anyway...) I said that *marriage* was not simply for procreation. There is a great huge difference.

I should let you know, for reasons only known to God, and as a sadness in my life, I have no children although it is not by design and I've been married for 25 years. Does God consider my marriage pointless? My husband is the greatest gift of God in my entire life and has a lot to do with my faith and my understanding of love and relationship -- and that too leads me to understand and accept Christ better.

(Message edited by admin on 28 January, 2005)

[Justin]

I apologize for the procreation/sex vs. procreation/marriage thing, you are definately right in there being a huge different.

[Denise King]

I am still new to Orthdoxy and to this forum. Could someone please tell me where to look for the Church's teaching on sexuality for those NOT married? Or is this a taboo topic?
Denise

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Denise,
You might want to try the following: celibacy,marriage or 'free love' (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/celibacy.htm).
Sexuality is not a taboo topic for Orthodoxy. It is very necessary to be dealing with this subject throughout one's spiritual life since sexuality is part of our make-up & only gradually do we discover what is sinful & what is God given in our sexuality. But we do try to be modest in how we talk about this. For example in confession we are instructed never to go into detail about sexual sins- & experience shows us how this is wise advice.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Daniel Jeandet]

Avoiding it seems to help.

[Denise King]

Dear Father Raphael,
Thank you for the link. That seems to be very helpful.
Denise

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Denise ..Glory to Jesus Christ! ... I wrote a pastoral article > entitled "Sex is Holy" that was published in THE WORD magazine > (Antiochian Archdiocese June 2004 it is archived on the Antiochian > website: www.antiochian.org (http://www.antiochian.org) .... but I will also copy paste the > article below, it is actually the unedited (by THE WORD editor and is > more complete and accurate than the one published).... if it helps > then may Our Lord be praised and may He guide you on your journey of > Him Indwelling in you ... in Christ ..Fr George Morelli > *SEX IS HOLY:*

*THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PARENTING*

* *

Rev.Fr. George Morelli, Ph.D.,A.B.P.N.



Parents and child caretakers in today's world would have to be blind to miss the proliferation of sex in all aspects of our culture. Possibly it took the superbowl halftime show wherein a performers breast was displayed simply for shock value, or the deliberate abrogation of California law in San Francisco by local legalization of gay marriage, to wake up the Christian community to the increasing "sexualization" of secular society. Sex sells. It sells in advertising, music, movies and television and in Europe one female newscaster broadcasts topless, so it even extends to reporting the news. One response could be:" What is the fuss all about?" "What is wrong with sex?" " Sex can be fun and pleasurable and if it is consensual what is the big deal?"

I strongly believe that one mistake made by Christians in response has been to react on a very simple theological and psychological level. For example, simply cite two of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". Without the context of Divine Love and God's plan for divine love for us this is a recipe for disaster. I also believe it is not effective to say we must be "pure" as if sex is "dirty". I also maintain it is useless to argue: "Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit ... so be pure". Although the reasons just cited are absolutely correct, without the underlying profound spirituality or theology of Christian sexuality these reasons will not be very effective in curbing selfish, Godless sexual behavior and prompting deep loving Christian sexual behavior. In fact given the "fallen nature" of mankind telling someone what not to do often is the incentive to make them want to try it out. This has been known through the ages as the "attraction of the forbidden fruit". An invitation to the "prohibited".

Children even at young ages are exposed to our "sexual society" and have developed a rather protracted "knowledge of sexuality". A study done several years ago at a major United States university demonstrated the seriousness, ubiquity and deleterious effects of this exposure. The subjects in the study were 4-5 yr old children. They were shown primetime TV advertisements and then asked their interpretation of what was going on. The children's parents observed the procedure behind a two way mirror. For example in one scene, a man and women are in a kitchen. It is the man's birthday. The women say's something like "Ok, big boy now for your birthday present." [She seductively winks and goes out the door]. The man opens the refrigerator, takes out a can of whipped cream, looks at the camera, winks at the viewers, and exits the same door. The scene ends and the children are asked "What happens next?" The overwhelming majority of these little ones answered: they are going to have sex and he is going to lick the whipped cream off her body. The parents, and even the researchers did not expect such an "adult" interpretation in children so young.

Surely the use of sexual and scatological "cuss words", innuendo, rudeness, and crass behavior about sex and other body parts are at variance with Christian teaching. What should be done for our response to be effective? We know from psychological studies that "internalizing" the reasons for moral behavior facilitates individuals acting morally. Children who function on a "hedonistic" or pleasure level "act out" more than children who have developed higher levels of moral reasoning such as empathy. (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Bear & Rys, (1994). Thus scientific psychology would suggest that presenting the morality of sexuality and sexual behavior on a higher level would make it more effective. In Kohlberg's (1976) system, the highest level of moral development are "universal ethical principles". For Christians the "theology of sex", based on Divine Love is at the highest principal infinitely beyond empathy or any other set of ethical standards. It goes to the essence of God Himself. St John tells us "...for love is of God ....God is love." (1 John 4:7-8) This is the love we are to have for one another. Archmandrite Sophrony (1999) reports St. Silouan the Athonite echoing the Church Fathers said: "Both Christ's commandments - of love towards God and love toward neighbor - make up a single life." The Church fathers have said the same thing. The Persons of the Holy Trinity interrelate amongst themselves in Love. Creation, is an act of love between God and His creation. He creates in love and continues to keep the universe and mankind in being out of love. The infinite God, creates out of nothing, and continues to create through the laws of nature He has created. God has given mankind through it's two modes of male and female a share in His creation. Sexuality is the gift from Him, by which we share in His creation. Therefore, sexuality is holy and should be treated as such, because it is the way we were made to share in His creation. The sexual organs are the instruments of this creation as God made them. So they too are holy. Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb and she gave Him birth in the female way. Thus these body parts are holy. By the male sexual organ the seed of life is implanted. Because this is a Godly creative act it too is holy. But it is holy only if is used in the spirit of Love as God Himself created. He gave it to us to be used only in the way He created: Love. He created out of self-emptying love. This is no better seen than in the Person of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave of Himself to us. In one of the most beautiful descriptions of the duty of spousal love St. Paul tells the Ephesians: . Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." (5:25) Therefore any type of sexuality which is self-centered, manipulative and degrading is impure, because it is not based on self-emptying, rather self-giving love. Love always has as it's core the good and welfare of the individual. It is for our good and welfare that we were created by God, our Father, redeemed by Christ in His act of "Extreme Humility" of embracing the cross, and sanctified, by the Spirit whom He sent. As Christ took on our flesh, a man and woman in marriage "...shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." (Mat. 19:5-6) Thus the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians have so much meaning: "The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body". As God's love is not casual, crude, rude and self-centered; so too sexual love should not be this way. As God's love is giving, emptying and creative; so too should sexual love be this way.

Parents have to be the main teachers of the faith on human sexuality. From early childhood to teen years, parents and child caretakers such as teachers should present this "theology of sexuality". This presentation must first be modeled by the parents themselves, in word and action. Use of crude words for body parts or the sex act undermines all holiness and sanctity of sex itself. It also bespeaks of unbelievable hypocrisy. Any presentation of sexuality must be age appropriate. Ordinary daily events give parents so many opportunities to discuss sexuality and its meaning. Young children, are naturally inquisitive. Frequently they ask about the sexual organs. Instead of shying away from discussion, this is an opportunity for parents to tell them these are gifts from God. Children ask about birth. They should be told age appropriate accurate information: "This is how God, gave mommy the way to have your "'little brother/sister'" born", etc. What is most important is never to separate the explanation of sex from the love of God in terms of His creation and commitment to us and the creative act and commitment implied in the sex act within marriage. When family members are exposed to sex, devoid of God's creative love and commitment in the media, parents can comment on it. Simple interpretive comments on advertisements can be very effective. When a suggestive ad on TV appears for example, a parent may comment: "Look how this ad is using that seductive (look, posture, etc) where is the deep meaning and love they should have for one another as Christ had for us"? Comments do not have to be long and preachy. Children learn very effectively from short pointed statements. Use of analogy is also efficacious: "When we receive communion, Jesus is really in us we would never defile Him or the chalice that holds His Precious Body and Blood, so too we should never defile the body parts that God gave us to share in His creation."

Frequently sex focuses on the "hedonistic", pleasurable feelings that accompany a sex act. This topic should also not be avoided but addressed. God, does allow us to feel pleasure, this is the way He made us. The acts that can produce pleasure can be either be acts that help ourselves and others grow psychologically and spiritually, or can enslave us and others in terms of ordinary human development: socially, occupationally, and spiritually. Pleasure blinds and enslaves us, when we are motivated to act selfishly and not for the good and welfare of the other God asks us to Love. Pleasure as a result of a loving act, can help and motivate us to continue sharing in God's loving committed creative acts. In this context, parents and child caretakers can bring up other pleasure centered activities that have similar consequences. Drugs can be used to heal, as for example when recovering after surgery. Drugs can also addict, impede clear thinking and prevent us doing well at school and occupation, etc. We become enslaved to pleasure instead of free in Christ's love.

The dignity and importance of the Christian vocation of parents becomes more meaningful after meditating on the beautiful prayer said by the priest as the married couple become "one flesh" in the Orthodox wedding service: "Unite them in one mind and one flesh, and grant unto them fair children for education in the faith and fear..." Reminded of this prayer may aid in parents remembering the reason for the spiritual depth of Christ centered marriage and parenting. This is the sacramental grace and commission bestowed on the newly married couple by the Holy Spirit. At evening prayer what a beautiful way to end the day would be for parents and all who work with children to say: /"Come Holy Spirit, [unite us in one mind and flesh] that our children be educated in faith and fear. Strengthen us for our appointed service as [parents, grandparents, caretakers] of our children. Let the Love of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ impel us in all we say and do on their behalf"/

Glory to God in all things!











*REFERENCES*

* *

Bear, G.G., & Rys, G.S. (1994). Moral reasoning, classroom behavior and sociometric status among elementary school children. /Developmental Psychology, 30,/ 633-638.



Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P.H. (1989). /The roots of prosocial behavior in children. /Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.



Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), /Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and moral issues /(pp. 31-53). New York: Holt.



Sakharov, Archimandrite Sophrony, (1999). /St Silouan the athonite. /Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

[Janine]

Thanks for that article, Fr. George.

That reminds me of something I read in The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware. He said that "sarx" (translated as flesh) was really about our perspective on life. It doesn't mean "flesh" in the sense of our bodies in some absolute sense, it doesn't mean that our bodies are in themselves "bad", but it means flesh in the sense of how we look at life when we fail to see it in a eucharistic perspective. In other words, I think that's akin to what you are saying about life as lived from a purely selfish perspective, that would bring life down to a materialist perspective. When we see others as objects to manipulate in a selfish sense, for example. At least it seems similar to me.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Janine, I remember discussing this a couple of years ago. I posted a message about sex in marriage which was very frank, mainly because I had learnt to trust the other people who were posting at that time, and I especially wanted to help the young person who asked for our help.

I tried looking for my original message but couldn’t find it.
I don’t want to repeat it all but just some of the basic things I remember writing and still believe.

God created our bodies, why on earth would a natural function ever be considered “dirty”. Something becomes sinful when it is abused or when it becomes an obsession, when you demean another person, etc. Making love with your spouse is a wonderful gift from God…. I absolutely believe this.

Monks have chosen to be celibate. This is their decision and one that each of us should respect. But it is not the decision of those that wish to marry. Should we only have sex when we want a child? Most couples today, have at the most, 3 children. Does this mean that in a 50 year marriage a couple only come together 3 times?

Some points from “Marriage and the Christian Home”

“On the eve of a major feast day and on Saturday evenings, Orthodox husbands and wives abstain from sexual relations in order that they can direct all their thoughts, actions and concerns to spiritual growth and not be occupied with non-spiritual matters.

The Christian Church does not view sexual relations between husband and wife as a base act brought about by the sin of Adam and Eve for the sole purpose of conceiving children. The abstention from physical relations at these and other times is not motivated by a mentality that views these relations as unclean or sinful.

The Church Council of Gangra held in 340 AD decreed four canons which uphold the respectability of the marriage bed.

Canon One states : If anyone disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband, notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the Kingdom, let him be anathema.

Canon Nine states :

If anyone should remain a virgin or observe continence as if, abominating marriage, he had become an anchorite, and not for the good standard and holy feature of virginity, let him be anathema.

Canon Ten states :

If anyone leading a life of virginity for the Lord should regard married persons superciliously, let him be anathema.

Canon Fourteen states :

If any woman should abandon her husband and wish to depart, because she abominates marriage, let her be anathema.

The abstention from sexual relations is for the sake of spiritual matters and preparation. This reasoning is as old as the Church itself, since St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:5) indicates that husband and wife should not refuse each other except for times when they devote themselves to prayer.”

I think the above is quite clear. Every married person knows that within a marriage sex is not just about lust – it can be many wonderful things – comfort, re-assurance, a celebration of life, an expression of deep love, …… as I already said, it is a gift from God and should not be demeaned.

Effie

[Anthony]

One might add that celibates have often had very beautiful and illuminating things to say about marriage. Mother Gavriilia, just to take an example.

However I don't quite get the meaning of Canon Nine. Could anybody explain it for me?

Anthony

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Dr Anthony,

You wrote:


However I don't quite get the meaning of Canon Nine. Could anybody explain it for me?

This is in reference to Canon Nine of Gangra, posted above by Effie:


"If anyone should remain a virgin or observe continence as if, abominating marriage, he had become an anchorite, and not for the good standard and holy feature of virginity, let him be anathema."

The implication of this canon is that vows of virginity (that is, commitments to celibacy as via the monastic life, etc.) are one thing, while remaining sexually abstinent because one despises the notion of marriage and views sexuality as itself evil, is quite another. It is very close in implication to Canon Fourteen, which anathematises a woman who leaves her husband 'because she abominates marriage' -- i.e., because the institution, the sacrament of married life is looked down upon as fallen or dirty.

Among the messages both of these canons deliver is that those who embrace the celibate life (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/celibacy.shtml) must not do so out of a despisal of marriage, which the Church clearly regards as sacramental and holy.

INXC, Matthew

[Anthony]

Dear Dr Steenberg,

Many thanks for your explanation. I was just a bit confused by the wording of "as if, abominating marriage, he had become an anchorite" - as I thought anchorites didn't (or shouldn't) abominate marriage. Possibly a problem in the English translation?

[M.C. Steenberg]

I believe the language means to suggest, through the 'as if', a pretension of holy motivation which in fact conceals an unholy drive. One feigns abstinence 'as if' he or she were some holy anchorite -- i.e. one who lives celibately for holy and good reasons -- but this is merely a mask to cover up a more base despisal of marriage.

INXC, Matthew

[nurse-aid]

Yes...and that IS why asketics ARE great...Because having the same physical obility..they may be strong enoght to abstain from it...For us, weak ones, HE bless it, because HE alsway know WHO can go higher to the top... without being broken and who needs extra toool to be able to just walk to the foot of that top...But then againg this foot is JUST right for us...It is ALL VERY RIGHT...For every shopper the right kind of product...

[Effie Ganatsios]

Anthony, the text is American English. There has been no translation on my part. Mr. Steenberg's explanation is correct.

Effie

[nurse-aid]

Mr. Steenberg IS speakes from his expirience...of course as IT should be...http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/talker.gif

[Anthony]

Thank you, Effie. I have no doubt that you and Dr. Steenberg are right about the intended meaning. I just find the way it is expressed in English rather odd, that's all (and I don't think it is a problem of American Englishhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif). But I won't drag this out further here as we are getting off the subject (my fault). Best wishes, Anthony

[Justin]

Janine,

I believe I spoke incorrectly on many things that I said above. I do apologize for that. I'm still learning (thank God!)...

[Jennifer Thompson]

Hi,
I would like to bring up a new topic under this thread.

I am looking for a forum in which I can rationally discuss homosexuality with a group of Orthodox Christians. I hope this is the place ...

I have read certain arguments for accepting homosexuality within Christian churches. These arguments say that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather biologically determined, just as heterosexual persons do not decide that they will be attracted mainly to members of the opposite sex. Sometimes, it is even said that one cannot choose their affectional/sexual orientation, just as one cannot choose their race or color of skin.

So, I guess I have several questions. 1) What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about homosexuality? 2) If the Church excludes homosexual persons from receiving communion, becoming a priest, etc., is this not similar to racist exclusion? 3) Considering that the homosexual orientation is biologically determined similarly to the hetersexual orientation, then should not both types of sexual behavior be treated in the same way (i.e. allowed and sacred within marriage; forbidden outside of marriage)?

Just a few questions that are jumbled up in my brain!

[Gregory Stackpole]

Jennifer - I will attempt an answer; men and women holier and more learned than I shall most likely post responses, and I hope you would give their answers more weight than my foolish postulations. Nonetheless, here is my understanding.

Oftentimes, the discussion in other circles as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of same sex attraction and behavior proceeds according to the assumption that for men to be attracted to men, for instance, is a thing that is by nature evil, while for men to be attracted to women is by nature good. It is not so simple - all sexuality is fallen, and needs to be transfigured. Christianity is, after all, an asceticreligion, though one that is not an enemy to the body, and such an answer should only come as a surprise to one within various other groups who have reduced the Faith to "right behavior," and not grasped that participation and delight in God are far more fundamental.

As to the argument that one comes genetically strapped with a sexual "track" of attraction in one gender direction or the other - that's not scientifically or even phenomenologically accurate, as just about anyone who's honest with themselves will tell you (how well do you remember your childhood?). Sexuality is conditioned just like any other trait (Wolfhart Pannenberg has a wonderful section on this in his "Anthropology in Theological Perspective," but don't take him as a spokesman for the Orthodox Church, as he's Lutheran), and whether or not there are genetic predispositions that influence our sexuality (I suspect there may be, but not in a sense as simplistic as those crusaders for a genetically based orientational fixicity would proclaim) does not brush aside this fact, which is more fundamental. Just because someone has desires does not legitemate them - all desire is to be transfigured, all the passions are to be integrated.

Furthermore, Men and Women are Icons of deeper realities at the heart of life, and this is made clear in our Liturgies - they are both in the Image of God, but, as St. Paul the Apostle says in his first letter to the Corinthians, Man is the Image of God, while Woman is the Image of Man. Man, Liturgically, represents epiphanically the otherness of God (Christ is male), while Woman, the Theotokos - the bearer/birthgiver/nurturer of God - is the Image of theophoric created reality. It is true, as Lewis has once said, that "in relation to God, we are all feminine," but that should not cause us to ignore this fundamental aspect of gender as Iconic in their respective ways. This Iconic nature and these Iconic roles, as I said, are not something empirically demonstrated, not some meaning or significance projected onto reality but which isn't really there (as though reality were a blank screen and we were projecting a movie onto it), but is something known truly by union and communion with God, something shown forth manifestly in the Liturgy, something confirmed and magnified in the Liturgy. Often, the very nature and identity of someone as a being posessing a gender is called into question, since gender is seen as something quite fluid these days by a secular culture, but this delusion is not maintainable in light of the Spirit's movements in the Liturgy. Gender is not fluid. Gender shows us something about God, and the world, and their relationship.

On a personal note, I find that I require community for integration of my passions and sanctification - part of this is my relationship with other men. If they're harboring a genital attraction to me, that attraction usually becomes the glue for our closeness, a subcurrent motivating their "comraderie," and the bond of friendship (on their part). Is this not a lie? It is destructive for male relationships, it destroys trust. Just a personal observation.

Furthermore, I do not believe that Men and Women who're attracted to other people of their own gender are excluded from either receiving the Eucharist or ordination (although, of course, Women simply cannot be ordained, partially - or entirely? - for the reasons mentioned above). That depends upon what they do, I believe, though it may depend upon the discretion of the priest or bishop, I'm not sure.

Finally, I have to thank John Burnett for the insight related to male and female signification - this aspect of my thought is his intellectual property, provided I've presented it properly. My apologies, John, if I haven't.

[Father David Moser]

> 1) What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about homosexuality?

Homosexuality or homosexual behavior. The first is a passionate temptation, the second is a sin.

> 2) If the Church excludes homosexual persons from receiving communion, becoming a priest, etc., is this not similar to racist exclusion?

The Church does not exclude homosexual persons from any of those things - no more than it excludes a person who is tempted by heterosexual passions or a person who is tempted by gustatory passions or a person who is tempted by violent passions. If a person were to succumb to those temptations, then yes, they would probably abstain from the Holy Mysteries until they repented and that may well be an impediment to ordination.

> 3) Considering that the homosexual orientation is biologically determined similarly to the hetersexual orientation, then should not both types of sexual behavior be treated in the same way (i.e. allowed and sacred within marriage; forbidden outside of marriage)?

Faulty premise - homosexual orientation is not biologically determined. Now that we have mapped the human genome, please identify for me the "homosexual gene". You can't because there isn't one. (I can't say that it is "chosen" either - sexual orientation is most likely a learned behavior) However for arguement's sake lets assume that homosexual orientation is one "natural" state of a fallen person in a fallen world. In that case the homosexual person is held to the same requirements as everyone else - we all have tempations that are the result of our "natural" fallen condition and we are all expected to resist those tempations and with God's grace overcome them. We are called to be transformed into the image of God, not to be conformed to the fallen world. If our fallen state pushes us one way that is opposed to the image of God then we resist that temptation and choose to follow Christ instead.

Those who struggle with their sinful nature, who strive to over come it, who repent when they fall and turn away from their sin. These people are always admitted to Holy Communion. As for ordination, there are all sorts of impediments - not just "sexual" ones. But even a person who is sorely tempted with sexual passions - if he struggles and prays and depends on the grace of God, he can overcome those temptations and keep himself pure - thus avoiding incurring an impediment to oridnation.

Fr David Moser

[Gregory Stackpole]

I should clarify something I wrote, following Fr. David, that when I speak about homosexuality among men and its effect upon relationships, I don't mean to say that the destructive effect I mentioned is always present by some automatic necessity - for those Christians (homosexuals) who seek to be transformed into the Image of God, I have never experienced such a thing. Two close friends of mine (both Christians) whom I know are homosexual, and lead an ascetical struggle against it. In both cases, their struggle doesn't show - they both seem to have transfigured their passions by the grace of the Triune God. They are some of the most wonderfully poised and compassionate men I know, and I am delighted to have their friendship.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

2) If the Church excludes homosexual persons from receiving communion, becoming a priest, etc., is this not similar to racist exclusion?

I could also add to what has already been said that this question is based on the assumption that humans are what they desire. This is a very modern definition of what we are. Basically we seem to have arrived at that point that we really believe that we are what we crave. And of course as far as we are concerned this is well worth fighting for and over.

In a way this is so attractive for it puts not only one part of me on a pedestal- rather it puts me, -craving me- the most important part of what I feel I am- on a throne and says to society, “Look at me- I am sacred!” This has now become one of the main characteristics of our society. On the other hand there is the equally loud protestation to not interfere with our own self-definition of ourselves. It’s quite a blind alley we have walked into craving the adulation of everyone else but demanding they not interfere with out lives. If this gets played out in such an active sin as sexuality then those who enter such a world know it is a lot more degraded and frightening than appears from the outside.


Defining ourselves by what we desire and crave means to base our whole selves on self-indulgence. As Orthodox Christians we should recognize that no matter how appealing this may be it will always lead to some measure of destruction to ourselves and those around us. A life based on desire- and sexual desire at that- to the extent that one’s very identity revolves around this leads not to a ‘valid life-style’ but rather something destructive. And I think that it is particularly from within this context that the issue of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ becomes more clear. We do not bar anyone from the Cup fro what they are nor for what they are struggling with. But we may very well be called to bar someone who indulges in a destructive way of life described above.

I think that as Orthodox Christians we are uneasy with such issues because on the one hand we clearly know about the teachings of our Church but yet rightfully we do not want to indulge in personal attacks on people no matter what their struggles. This is correct but when it comes to the particular issue of homosexuality (and there are other similar issues) we get confused because we have accepted to a great degree society’s definition of what a person is.

The only way to apply the teaching of the Church on this issue then is to see what the enemy is. Not the person but rather sinful choices which have to do with self-indulgence and which mask themselves as necessary human & social values. There is a kind of glitter to anything that uses the human rights mask. We need to see the reality behind this mask and reach out in compassion and prayer to the actual person who has walked into this trap.

In Christ- Fr Raphael