Non-monastic celibacy

[Olympiada]

Dear Monachos Community,

I have begun to read Dr. Steenberg's essay on celibacy and it integrate it into my thoughts on celibacy. I started studying non-monastic celibacy under the tutelage of Paul Evodokimov who writes about it in The Sacrament of Love. Then I got into a discussion with a minor clergy member who is committed to celibacy who told me women must relate to men even though evil desire gets in the way. That got me thinking about evil desire, what is it? All sexual desire outside of marriage. So does non-monastic celibacy mean cutting off sexual desires? How does one do that? Guarding the heart, correct? Like not even entertaining those thoughts when they come up.

I did get in an argument with this minor clergy member because he alluded that he had control over the beginning of his thoughts and I thought that was a lie. No one has control over the beginning of their thoughts from my understanding.
So then the question is, if we are required to cut off all sexual thoughts at the root outside of marriage, than what motivates one to marry? I know this gets back into my thread reasons for marriage but I am not satisfied that I got an answer to that question.

Also if we look at man as the intiator of marriage, well obviously the spiritual warfare of a celibate man will be different from that of a celibate woman, yes?

INXC
Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Beloved in Christ:
Our sister Olympiada makes reference to Dr. Steenberg's essay on celibacy. Where may the essay be found?
Agape, Alec

[Klod]

I do completely believe one can have control over the beginning of ones thoughts, but I think, if I were this person, I wouldn't declare it, I would have hidden it.

To have control even over the beginning of thoughts it all depends on the state of spiritual holiness, and, actually, what is called vigilance is all about that.
Entertaining an unclean thought is in itself a sin.


Again, on cannot treat this topic outside other aspects of spiritual life. That is one cannot have a purity of sexual thoughts while one has problems with pride, selfishness, gluttony etc.


Life in world is not easy and one must take care to do as much as it is given to him/her by blessing of spiritual father, otherwise it may end in shame. Be careful to follow the middle way.

Father Cleopas of Romania used to say (I have read in books about him) that the forest is not afraid of one who goes there to cut off a full load of woods and goes, but he is afraid of one who goes to the forest daily and takes every day a piece of wood.



Apart of that one (christian) must love silence (about uncertainty, ignorance, inability of doing the 'right' things etc) and bear it as a cross given from the Lord to bear fruits through humility and humble thoughts about ones self, without making too much noise and "disturbing" others around.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olympiada,

This is a very good question, and one I've wondered about myself. If sexual desire outside marriage is wrong, how do Christian men and women meet, fall in love and marry? I can't say I've answered it satisfactorily for myself, but there are probably several points worth considering.

Firstly, what do we mean by the word "desire"? This already causes problems as we can see by recent threads on this forum. There is lust, of course, and that is quite clearly wrong since it turns another person into an object suitable for the satisfaction of our own needs; but is that the only kind of desire there is? Marriage in the church is a calling, a kind of salvation for two if I understand it correctly. Lust doesn't, or shouldn't really be part of Christian marriage, in the same way as it shouldn't be part of the celibate life. The desire of spouses for each other should be pure, giving and unselfish, keeping the marriage bed undefiled. Now what kind of desire that is, I don't know - someone spiritually more advanced than me may be able to say. I guess if such a pure desire exists, it would also be the force that brings two single Christians together in marriage - though again here we are making perhaps modern assumptions. Firstly, marriage has not always followed the above sequence of "meet, fall in love, then marry"; as we know pefectly happy marriages have occurred and continue sometimes to occur by arrangement. Secondly, there are things other than desire that motivate people to marry - what about liking, friendship, admiration, trust? However, if we believe that human nature as the Lord created it was very good, then we are left with two options (it seems to me):

- either the desire we feel now (post-Fall) is inevitably a bit lustful and therefore stained by sin; or
- it is possible to experience degrees of purity in relation to a desire which may almost be described as chaste, depending on the level of one's spiritual condition.

If I'm beginning to sound legalistic again, this is probably because my training is in the social sciences. I certainly do not mean to introduce legalistic thought into our Orthodox phronema, and of course I hope for comments on my thoughts from all the reverend fathers and theologians on the forum!

Olympiada, on a second point, I do think Antonios was correct in pointing out the mixed character of your postings. Sometimes you seem to me also to have a sharp mind, thirsty for knowledge and perhaps wisdom; at other times you can sound a bit of a bully yourself. I'm not holding my punches here, but that's because I sense you can take it, and you do not like beating about the bush in your own posts anyway. I do appreciate honesty (VERY much), but it needs to be softened by humility and compassion (I confess I'm not terribly good at those either). So please accept my sincere apologies if what I write here is upsetting for you, and don't take it personally - I'm just responding to your posts in my own way.

Regarding gender, there are many notable ladies on this site, and I don't personally see it as an Orthodox boys club. The word "fraternity" calls to mind images of brotherhood and brotherly love for me, but Antonios could as easily have said "sorority" and I for one wouldn't have minded. Having said that I know it can't be easy as a woman fitting into a linguistic environment that can be seen as priveleging men.

In Christ
Byron

[Theopesta]

dear Alec:
at firest welcome with you in the fora, you ask about where the essay is?
[www.monachos.net/monasticism/celibacy.shtml (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/celibacy.shtml)]
there is a system for search to any thing in this URL

[Olympiada]

Dear Klod,

So this person was telling the truth. But can a person be an alcoholic and still have control over the beginning of their thoughts? I find this hard to believe. Or be in debt and still have control over the beginning of their thoughts? What if there were some other reason for not having the beginning of a carnal thought towards a woman such as being carnally attracted to men? No, I do not think it is so simple. I do not know. I can not call it. But I find it hard to believe that a sinner would have control over the beginning of their thoughts, don't you?

INXC
Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Byron Jack Gaist wrote, inter alia:


"either the (sexual) desire we feel now (post-Fall) is inevitably a bit lustful and therefore stained by sin;"

Desire is to lust as hunger is to gluttony? We feel desire and hunger as part of our fallen nature, but neither is sinful in itself, I would hope. It's what we do with it. If we eat in moderation, no sin. If we act on desire within Christian matrimony, in the way that God has ordained and for the purposes He has ordained, no sin.
I accept that there are limits to the analogy. While man must eat, or he dies, man can certainly live, and live a full and happy life, without sexual intercourse. But we must admit that the experience of the two -- hunger and desire -- are similar.
If the is error in my thought, forgive me and correct me.

Agape, Alec

[Klod]

Actually, I didnt say anything about a particular person. I said I believe a christian can have control over the beginning of thoughts, that this, if it's e real control over thoughts, depends on spiritual state, and that it is actually required that christians exercise control over thoughts.


The Battle ground of spiritual life is all in ones mind, and thanks God it is so hidden for His Glory, because one doesnt have to be in a special place or to hold a special position to enter this battle, but all one can do is to reach his mind and control it. That is a real Cross, which makes one a martyr.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Alec,

Thank you for your posting, which is eminently reasonable. C.S. Lewis used the parallel between sex and food to explain why voyeuristic activities are perverse: he said that if in a certain country somewhere a group of people got together to stare longingly at a lamb chop, that would tell us something about the sort of relationship they have to food!

I do think our natural passions are natural forces, and that they were planted in the soul by God, as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum; the soul has appetitive and incensive parts, and each has its right and wrong use. What worries me about sexuality in particular is the extent to which it is indeed "natural", or a result of the Fall, since as you say one can live quite well without sex, but not without food or drink, rest etc.. Also, where does desire end, and lust begin? Although the distinction is an important one, in practice it doesn't seem so clear. My own spiritual father in Cyprus tells me to use giving as a criterion of blameless desire; it seems ideal, but maybe that's what Christian marital union is ultimately about.

Thanks again for your response, brother.

In Christ
Byron

[Olympiada]

Byron,
It seems to me that giving can be miscontrued as well. Like what is motivating our giving? A person can mistrustful of giving as well...

[Alec Lowly]

Byron Jack Gaist wrote:


" I do think our natural passions are natural forces, and that they were planted in the soul by God, as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum; the soul has appetitive and incensive parts, and each has its right and wrong use. What worries me about sexuality in particular is the extent to which it is indeed "natural", or a result of the Fall, since as you say one can live quite well without sex, but not without food or drink, rest etc.. Also, where does desire end, and lust begin? Although the distinction is an important one, in practice it doesn't seem so clear. My own spiritual father in Cyprus tells me to use giving as a criterion of blameless desire; it seems ideal, but maybe that's what Christian marital union is ultimately about."

Alec muses:

Thanks right back at you, brother Byron.

I once got into a fierce intra-Orthodox row when I pointed out, innocently at the time, that since Adam and Eve were created male and female in paradise, with the respective, umm, equipment, one assumes, that therefore physical procreation must have been in God's plan for them at some point, even in paradise.
WRONG, I was told. To my astonishment, the counter-argument was that I should not assume, that in fact we can have no idea what physical form the pre-fall Adam and Eve possessed because the "garments of skin" that the Lord fashioned for them after the fall (Genesis 3: 21) were, in fact, the post-fall bodies we now possess.

There is some patristic support for this view, which can be found cited in Panayioitis Nellas' "Deification in Christ: the Nature of the Human Person" (SVS Press 1987).

This position begs various questions, all of them important, e.g., absent genitalia and procreative function, what is the meaning of "male" and "female"; whether Orthodox belief necessitates the kind of literal understanding of the Genesis account of human origin that this position necessarily entails, and whether a teaching so obscure rightly commands the assent of unquestioning faith.

I bring this up because I believe that it's relevant to the discussion.

If the pre-fall Adam and Eve were "built" the way we are, then we can be confident that we have some realistic idea of the Creator's intention regarding human propagation for those men and women whom the Lord would call to propagate (married couples).

But if we can have no idea how Adam and Eve were "built" prior to the fall, then I submit that we would find ourselves in total confusion regarding gender and sexuality in general, and we might even find ourselves drawn to a Manichean view of the body and sexuality as inherently fallen and irredeemable.

In the first case, we can talk about "natural passions" and consider the moral gradation of the progress from natural desire to sinful lust. A difficult discussion, true, as you rightly point out, but a legitimate discussion.

In the second case, there's nothing to talk about, it seems to me. All desire would be fallen. I am unable to view this position as consonant with the bedrock Christian confession that an all-good God created a "very good" creation (Genesis 1:31), a creation too good to be completely or irredeemably ruined by man's sin.
Byron, would you expand somewhat on your spiritual father's counsel on "blameless desire"? I don't think I understand it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
A.L.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Olympiada,
You are right that giving can be misconstrued. That can be because the giving is not genuine, but probably it is more usually a problem of trust on the receiving end.

In Christ
Byron

[Christopher]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I hope my bumping into this thread will not offend. I wanted to very humbly make the point that maybe questions are being asked that are not "relevant" to the pursuit of Orthodoxy. My understanding is that we cannot and should not seek to understand "everything" there is to know about God and His creation, because 1) it is not possible for us to know and 2) it is not necessarily beneficial for us to know. I would refer you to, I think, St Anthony the Great's concern over what happens to sinners (I think that was the subject matter he was fervently praying to God about); the reponse he got from God was that there are some things he should not be concerning himself with because he had no right and it was not beneficial to his soul (please correct me if I am paraphrasing incorrectly). One may also remember the ridiculous "theological problem" the Latins had with the dispute as to how many angels could dance on the tip of a pin.

I would therefore humbly submit that the question of whether or not Adam and Eve had genitals is one of those questions. I think it is established that God knew His creation would fall and that He would have to suffer His only begotten Son to redeem His creation through the Cross. He also commanded His creation to be fruitful and to multiply and as such procreation is a natural part of our fallen state. But like ANYTHING we do, we can turn something that is beneficial to us into something that is not - procreation can become lust, charitable giving into pride and so on.

Please forgive if I have misunderstood what has been said, or if what I have said offends.

In Christ,

Christopher.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Christopher,

You write:


He also commanded His creation to be fruitful and to multiply and as such procreation is a natural part of our fallen state.

There seems to me to be a paradox there: if God commanded us to be fruitful and to multiply before we fell, then why is procreation a "natural part of our fallen state"? I have heard it said that the command to be fruitful and multiply did not mean to procreate. However, Alec's comments regarding the physical structure of our parents Adam and Eve, and God's intentions regarding "male" and "female", are I think, quite pertinent and relevant. Maybe you are right (probably you are right) that this is ultimately just another mystery we should accept with gratitude; but I for one would be helped enormously by some further prayerful clarification of this issue which touches us all so personally.

Alec, I am drawn to your appreciation and respect for the human body as it is, and tend to agree that our nature when we are born is a very good thing, albeit in a very rotten context. However, I can also see how liberating the thought is of not having had to be born inter faeces et urinam in Eden.

I guess I'm confused. Regarding "blameless desire", that's my phrase, not my spiritual father's. He just said something along the lines of desire in marriage being good if it is an act of giving. This, taken with the other Orthodox (correct me, theologians) teaching that sexual union in marriage is a Divine gift which is not only for procreation, but also for the deepening of a relationship, to me suggests there is a "model" of Christian lovemaking: the lovers are 1)married 2)thankful to God 3)concerned to please the other first 4)in relationship as persons, not as objects or part-objects, and 5)open to the possibility of conception and bringing new life into the world by the Grace of God.

Obviously these are just the musings of a married layman, but I'm hoping they are in line with Orthodox thinking about the sexual relationship in marriage.

In Christ
Byron

[Olympiada]

Alec
You wrote


While man must eat, or he dies, man can certainly live, and live a full and happy life, without sexual intercourse.

There are some people who would beg to differ. They think that men to need to have sexual release in order to function. These include the heterodox Dr. Laura Schlessinger in her book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands as well as a book by Harvest House called "The Power of a Praying Wife" which states, and I quote,


For a wife, sex comes out of affection. She doesn't want to be affectionate with a man who makes her feel angry, hurt, lonely, disappointed, overworked, unsupported, uncared for, or abandoned. But for a husband, sex is pure need. His eyes, ears, brain, and emotions get clouded if he doesn't have that release. He has trouble hearing anything his wife says or seeing what she needs when that area of his being is neglected.Wives sometimes have it backwards. They think, We can have sex after we get these other issues settled. But actually there is a far greater chance of settling the other issues if sex comes first.

Bold is mine, italics the book. It is by Stormie OMartian.

I am *so* glad to have a place to discuss this *stupid* book. I hate it. It was recommending to me by my ex sister in law and I bought it in Dallas, TX of all places at a Protestant book store. God help. God have mercy. Talk about brainwashing. There are more goodies in this book but we will deal with it one paragraph at a time. Oh it makes me *so* angry!

Dear Byron,
This brought me to a state of contrition:


This, taken with the other Orthodox (correct me, theologians) teaching that sexual union in marriage is a Divine gift which is not only for procreation, but also for the deepening of a relationship, to me suggests there is a "model" of Christian lovemaking: the lovers are 1)married 2)thankful to God 3)concerned to please the other first 4)in relationship as persons, not as objects or part-objects, and 5)open to the possibility of conception and bringing new life into the world by the Grace of God.

You have a blessed marriage. May it be blessed for many years.

In Christ
Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Christopher wrote:

"I would therefore humbly submit that the question of whether or not Adam and Eve had genitals is one of those questions. I think it is established that God knew His creation would fall and that He would have to suffer His only begotten Son to redeem His creation through the Cross. He also commanded His creation to be fruitful and to multiply and as such procreation is a natural part of our fallen state. But like ANYTHING we do, we can turn something that is beneficial to us into something that is not - procreation can become lust, charitable giving into pride and so on."

Forgive me, my brother, if anything I have written has offended or scandalised you. That was not my intent. Also, please know that having made a certain point, I move on now as a participant in this discussion, which is of spiritual value, I believe, to those of us who are married and who are striving to live our marriages in and by the light of Jesus Christ.

My aim, I think, was to point out that before our God inspired the writing of even one line of holy scripture, He had already directly written a much larger book of revelation, which is the book of creation. Due to man's sin, that creation is fallen, tragically, but even in its fallen state creation testifies to the marvelous purposes of God.

The issue that has been under discussion is that of the moral dimension of sexual desire. This is a very important issue for married Christians, a day by day issue -- well, for all Christians, I would think. But because the married are free to allow desire to proceed to its natural consummation, its moral dimension is of immediate and continuing concern to them.

Perhaps the clearest indication of our fallen state is the ease with which desire can turn into lust, which is evidence of our "diminished capacity" to resist such a sorry eventuality. A lot of our discussion here has been concerned with holy nepsis, i.e., the inner vigilance Christians must constantly keep over themselves.

With grace, of course, by faith, all things are possible, including obedience to the apostle's command that we keep the marriage bed undefiled.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Alec, sinner

[Alec Lowly]

Byron Jack Gaist wrote:

"Regarding "blameless desire", that's my phrase, not my spiritual father's. He just said something along the lines of desire in marriage being good if it is an act of giving. This, taken with the other Orthodox (correct me, theologians) teaching that sexual union in marriage is a Divine gift which is not only for procreation, but also for the deepening of a relationship, to me suggests there is a "model" of Christian lovemaking: the lovers are 1)married 2)thankful to God 3)concerned to please the other first 4)in relationship as persons, not as objects or part-objects, and 5)open to the possibility of conception and bringing new life into the world by the Grace of God."

My dear brother, I think that you've got it exactly right. Also, I think that the necessity of tussling with desire helps to keep us humble. It's one thing to follow the celibate call, in which case, the minute desire raises its head, you extinguish it, with God's help. It's another thing entirely to be called to the married state, in which case you must discriminate between desire to be extinguished, right now, and desire that can be permitted to follow its course.

Again, with God, all things are possible.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Alec Lowly]

Olympiada Kane wrote:

"They think that men to need to have sexual release in order to function. These include the heterodox Dr. Laura Schlessinger in her book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands as well as a book by Harvest House called "The Power of a Praying Wife" etc.

Dear sister,
That view may true of most fallen males, but it is not true for men who have come to be liberated from their passions by the one and only Physician of their souls and bodies. Some men may have to struggle terribly to attain the freedom that Christ has promised to the sons of God, but the goal can be achieved. Alleluia!

Please continue to speak from your heart. Let us have fellowship together, as best as may be possible in a forum such as this, and continue to encourage and strengthen one another as we hurry to follow the One who strides before us.

Light and Life!
Alec, sinner

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olympiada,

Thank you for your kind wishes.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In Christ
Byron

[Olympiada]

Alec,
You wrote


The issue that has been under discussion is that of the moral dimension of sexual desire. This is a very important issue for married Christians, a day by day issue -- well, for all Christians, I would think. But because the married are free to allow desire to proceed to its natural consummation, its moral dimension is of immediate and continuing concern to them.

Perhaps the clearest indication of our fallen state is the ease with which desire can turn into lust, which is evidence of our "diminished capacity" to resist such a sorry eventuality. A lot of our discussion here has been concerned with holy nepsis, i.e., the inner vigilance Christians must constantly keep over themselves

This issue is not just of concern to married Christians. It is also of concern to separated and divorcing Christians. In fact this issue can cause a Christian to end a marriage, because it is full of lust. One does not marry in the Orthodox church expecting a lustful relationship to ensue.

Also thank you for exposition of the call to celibacy which is to extinguish desire as soon as it rears its head. I have never heard it explained quite so clearly before. Now how is this done?

In Christ
Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Olympiada wrote:

"Also thank you for exposition of the call to celibacy which is to extinguish desire as soon as it rears its head. I have never heard it explained quite so clearly before. Now how is this done?"

It's easier said than done, but I don't think there's any mystery how it's done. It's in the teaching of all the ascetics I know.

Lust can be compared to fire. Fire starts as a little spark; while it's little, it's easily controlled and extinguished. Once out of control, it grows and grows until it burns down the house.

Each of us is called in Christ to keep watch over our hearts, our minds, our bodies. If we're keeping proper watch, we will notice that little spark when it first lights up. It may be a feeling, it may be a thought, it may be something we see or hear.

As soon as we realize the spark has lit up, we must take action. We think of something else. We look at something else. We depart from the person, place or thing that's "feeding" the spark, departing either physically or within ourselves. We do everything that we can think of to extinguish the spark. And we should pray, of course, both against the temptation and for the virtue that counters it. For instance, if it's lust, we can pray to the Lord to rebuke it and we can pray to the Theotokos that we might be granted some measure of her purity.

All this can be very difficult to do, but like everything else, "practice makes perfect" -- or as close to perfect as we can get.

Listen, my sister, I'm no teacher of these deep things, I'm a student and a struggler. To pursue this further, talk to your priest. He can give you counsel and also recommend some reading.

Oh -- I heard something wonderful today!

I was listening to a recorded talk given by Father Thomas Hopko and he said something that really has to do with married life. Basically, he said that if a man is in an intimate relationship with a woman, and if he cannot be to her as a brother and a friend as well as a husband and a lover, then look out for pride and lust because the relationship isn't whole/holy.

How many husbands think of their wives as their sister and their best friend? But if a man does not have that kind of love for his wife, and the only love he has for her is erotic love, then he is going to end up as a dominator and an ab/user in that relationship.

I think Father Hopko is realy on to something there!

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Olympiada]

Dear Alec,
I am really enjoying our exchange. I have spoken to my priest many times in confession, and will continue to do so, tonight even.

You are absolutely right about the abuse and domination thing. I had to end my marriage because of it. I could not turn my ex into my brother and best friend.

I know Father Thomas Hopko and this is the second time someone has referred me to his tapes on gender. He is a very sweet priest.

This is a very personal topic and probably better deal with in the recovery community I am realizing for my part.

So now my question is how to cut off all romantic feelings until commitment. I am no longer talking about bodily lust. Now I am talking about feelings and romance and whatever that may be. I want to learn how to nip that in the bud.
In Christ
Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Olympiada wrote:

"
So now my question is how to cut off all romantic feelings until commitment. I am no longer talking about bodily lust. Now I am talking about feelings and romance and whatever that may be. I want to learn how to nip that in the bud."

Oh, I've no idea. That's a tough one!

Alec

[Olympiada]

Dear Klod,
You wrote


Father Cleopas of Romania used to say (I have read in books about him) that the forest is not afraid of one who goes there to cut off a full load of woods and goes, but he is afraid of one who goes to the forest daily and takes every day a piece of wood.

Do you remember what book you read about him? Would it be the one published by Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood?

Alec,
You wrote


WRONG, I was told. To my astonishment, the counter-argument was that I should not assume, that in fact we can have no idea what physical form the pre-fall Adam and Eve possessed because the "garments of skin" that the Lord fashioned for them after the fall (Genesis 3: 21) were, in fact, the post-fall bodies we now possess. There is some patristic support for this view, which can be found cited in Panayioitis Nellas' "Deification in Christ: the Nature of the Human Person" (SVS Press 1987).

Is that by chance the second of the modern greek theologians series, the first being Hymn of Entry?

You also wrote


Perhaps the clearest indication of our fallen state is the ease with which desire can turn into lust, which is evidence of our "diminished capacity" to resist such a sorry eventuality. A lot of our discussion here has been concerned with holy nepsis, i.e., the inner vigilance Christians must constantly keep over themselves.

I think "nipping in the bud" is another way of saying "nepsis". They look the same. So that is how we nip inappropriate feelings in the bud, keeping watch over ourselves. This is a new endeavor, and a very hard cross to bear but hopefully it will get lighter with time. I have an older Western friend who has gone through this and his enouragement helps.

Byron,
I was thinking about what you wrote today


Alec, I am drawn to your appreciation and respect for the human body as it is, and tend to agree that our nature when we are born is a very good thing, albeit in a very rotten context. However, I can also see how liberating the thought is of not having had to be born inter faeces et urinam in Eden.

I have never thought about being born in Eden. Perhaps I should.

In Christ
Olympiada

[Owen Jones]

The Desert Fathers would say to let go of all attachments to material things.

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen,
Do the desert fathers address the special circumstances of a single mother when they advise to let go of all attachments to material things? And where can read about this?

In Christ
Olympiada