Orthodoxy and sexuality

[Maria Kouroumali]

Hello, I am new to this forum so perhaps I am not
posting this in the appropriate category or
there may well be the answer to my question somewhere else in the discussion community. If
this is the case, I trust someone will point me
towards the relevant posts.

Recently I have had discussions with several
people on the subjects of both homosexuality and
erotic self-satisfaction. As an Orthodox
Christian, I have a considerable amount of
information about the Church's view on the first
topic. However, I was at a loss to argue
persuasively about the sinful nature of self-
eroticism, especially when confronted with
modern psychological theories of 'natural
expression of sexuality', 'harmless and necessary
in the sexual development of an individual', etc.

I have discussed the issue with my spiritual
father who views self-eroticism as one more
form of the deviation of the natural sexual
instinct towards self-love and pride. The
sinfulness lies, as with most carnal deviations,
with the cultivation of emotional and psychological immaturity and the inability in
some excessive cases to form appropriate
relationships with members of the opposite sex.
Furthermore, it promotes an unhealthy fascination
with one's own pleasure, not to mention that
people use it as a justification to avoid more
intense and direct carnal temptations.

I have even personally considered whether self-
eroticism in particular further reinforces a
psychological propensity towards homosexuality
insofar as it provides the means to achieve
carnal satisfaction by stimulating one's own
body and thereby possibly making it more likely
to respond to similar stimulation from a member
of the same sex.

I would like to point out that I am not trying
to condemn anyone in particular as I believe
that we are all guilty of many sins and whether
we have the inclination to sin in this or any
other way is irrelevant to the reality of
our fallen nature. But I would like some more
information on the concept of self-eroticism
from the Orthodox perspective, perhaps by
reference to specific passages from the Scripture
or the Holy Fathers and Saints, or even from
an Orthodox psychological point of view, if there
are any specialists in the membership. Other
views or corrections of my perspective are
equally welcomed as I certainly do not claim to
have any profound knowledge nor expertise on the issue.

Apologies for the long post, especially since I
am a newcomer!

In Christ with love,
Maria

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Maria,

You write:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I have discussed the issue with my spiritual father who views self-eroticism as one more form of the deviation of the natural sexual instinct towards self-love and pride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Others may pick me up on this, but I will venture to respond to your question despite my informal theological training.

I think your spiritual father is correct in placing autoerotic behaviour within the framework of an Orthodox understanding of sexuality as a whole. I think in a sense it is not the act of masturbation as such which is sinful, but its potential effect in a person's spiritual development (although of course the act and its effect would in most cases be inseparable). The same would be true of homosexuality and other sexual behaviours. It is clear from the Lord himself in holy scripture that marriage is holy, and this is where human sexuality is sanctified according to Fathers like St John Chrysostom. St Paul encourages couples not to deny themselves to each other, but at the same time presents the danger in using sexuality outside marriage, when he writes "better to marry than to burn".

The question of sexuality goes to the heart of Orthodox teaching about human nature and destiny, since different Fathers have given diverging views on sexuality; some said it was the result of the Fall, while others - I'm not entirely sure about this, so please help out anyone who knows - suggested that Adam and Eve did have sexual relations prior to the loss of their communion with God (wouldn't this clash however, with the fact that in heaven "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels"?). The Biblical use of the word "knowledge" to describe sexual intercourse also suggests the unitive depth of a sexuality which is according to nature, that is in communion with God. Perhaps modern views of masturbation and homosexuality being "natural" therefore rely on a non-Christian assumption, namely that the 'nature' we observe around us is the same as our original nature. As a psychologist myself, I can vouch that guilt is not a healthy way of dealing with sexuality, but I agree that neither is the simple lifting of all inhibitions under the label of what is "natural". Freud himself, by the way, did link autoerotism to narcissistic regression, and did consider adult heterosexual relations to be the true form of mature sexuality; of course others since have heavily critised him for this 'heterosexist' view. The political climate today does not permit the ascription of homosexuality to developmental factors such as you very interestingly suggest, but instead views homosexuality as "natural" because it occurs in certain animals, and looks to various other empirical findings to support the claim that one is born homosexual - even though developmental factors have not been completely disproved, it is "politically incorrect" to research this, and there is unfortunately very little detached science around this and other thorny political issues.

Incidentally, the apparent tension in the writings of the Fathers between uprooting passions and redirecting them or transfiguring them also seems to be related to the question of what our original nature was - and may provide a context in which to understand sexual sin, which we as Christians rightly worry over, but sometimes - it seems to me - pay far more attention to this tangible problem than we do to more abstract but equally (if not more) serious ones, like pride or envy. I for one find it amazing how much we worry about sexual purity or food ingredients, and yet can fight and envy each other viciously over things like jobs, qualifications and property without worrying too much about what that does to our souls!

Perhaps I've confused even more with these thoughts, but I offer them as stimulus for what surely promises to be an interesting and important debate.

ICXC
Byron

[Monachos.net]

NOTE: The following is a message from user Fr George Morelli. It is being posted by the Administrator due to technical difficulties.

Maria ... Glory to Jesus Christ ...I have already discussed the issue of Orthodoxy and Sexuality on other threads .. I do not think it
appropriate to re write what has already been written ... I also posted an article unedited as it was originally written and posted for the
Antiochian magazine "The Word" on the Monachos website and can be found
by searching the Monachos threads.... It is entitled "Sex is Holy". An edited version was print published 2004 June. It is archived on the Antiochian website www.antiochian.org (http://www.antiochian.org). A revised and updated and unedited version was just published on the website of the Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine Psychology and Religion. www.ocampr.org (http://www.ocampr.org) in the e journal section. Basically ...our sexual
organs and their use are a gift from God whereby we share in his creative act. This models the relational aspect of the love within the Holy Trinity. The pleasure in the completion of the sexual act is to be
viewed as His gift to us for sharing and participating as instruments in His creation. Auto eroticism by definition is a "self-centered" act. There is no relational or 'trinitarian' aspect. After reading the articles please post any other question. May Our Lord bless you on your journey to Him. In the name of the self emptying and ever-giving loving Christ ...Fr George

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

Dear Maria,

The classic on human sexuality from an early church perspective is Peter Brown's "The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity" (Columbia Press, 1988) He's a Professor Emeritus at Princeton and his work is amazing.

Check out the table of contents and you'll see the incredible range of Fathers of the Church he cover and you'll see what I'm talking about. You won't go wrong with it.

Good reading to you!

Anesti}

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Morelli,

Your article on the holiness of sex is very enlightening and useful. I am puzzled however, by the emphasis on loving the other, but not oneself. Granted that sex should take place within the context of a loving relationship; what about the relationship to oneself? What kind of love for self should a Christian have (seen as the kind one shouldn't have is much easier to point out)? What does it mean, to love one's neighbour as oneself? Is there, in other words, a positive form of self-love? And if so, why is sexual self-stimulation not part of this positive self-love?

Sorry about all the questions, but I am really curious - is Christian life all self-denial and love for others? How can anyone live like that?

Respectfully

ICXC
Byron

P.S. Anestis, is Peter Brown an Orthodox author? If not, to what extent is the book you reccommend suitable for Orthodox readers?

[nurse-aid]

Why Virgin Martyr was care about to keep this way...even IF they were tourchured...BUT Virginity they were try keep no meter what....If it doesn't meter...accordi8ng to love others...According to sacrifies themselves for others...Not my casehttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gifof course...just guessing how selfish they were...our Great Martyrs and Saints in order DO NOT SHARE themselves with others...some of them was even married...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The discussion concerning the psychological using this in both its modern & Patristic sense is very important. However we must remember that the goal of our life in Christ is not psychological but rather spiritual. That is: our effort is not a regeneration of behaviour patterns or a new kind of morality- rather it is the deification of our life in Christ. It is Christ's grace acting in us & through us so that we are "new creatures' in which death & sin are being trampled down. And it is from within this context that we most clearly recognise what is sin in ourselves & its cure.

One major difficulty here is of language- for example when we say our life is to strive for the spiritual & not just psychological. What is meant is a new or renewed being through the grace of the Holy Spirit & most crucially a life "not of this world." It is this aspect which is most critical for it is in this realm that most mistakes are made in our understanding of our life in Christ. For example from the psychological perspective 'victory' will only be seen as being attained if one can attain to certain reformed behaviour. In the Orthodox Christian life however there is always a great paradox that victory over the passions goes hand in hand with humble failure. It is this last after all which is crucial to the true spiritual life for this brings us to true contrition & repentance.

I bring this up because this is crucial for our spiritual life if it is truly to be a life lived in Christ. The alternative is a subtle temptation, easy to fall into, all the more due to modern ways of thinking about 'personal progress' & (most dangerous of all) the self-satisfaction which comes from attaining some mark of personal behaviour. Compare this to the constant advice of spiritual fathers that the greatest progress is to see ourselves as the greatest sinners.

Both what we have to deal with (sin & death) & the cure to this (a life in & through Christ) are extremely profound. We only understand this from within the context of our spiritual struggle against passion & the constant & delicate balance between victory & defeat. What we seek is a life not of this world, remade through the Holy Spirit in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron.. Glory to Jesus Christ! I only post to Monachos when I can use > the gifts God has given me as a priest-psychologist. I am not a > theologian. As usual I would defer to Fr. Raphael for his > understanding of your question. Because your question was directed to > me I will try to give me some reflections, based on my limited > understanding how Our Spiritual Fathers have understood and > experienced God's gift of sexuality to us on this matter. My > understanding is the fallen state we are born into allows us to have > passions that are 'precursors' to sin. Many of the Church Fathers > site Gluttony as an example. We need physical sustenance to stay > alive. If we ingest in moderation then we maintain and care for our > bodies as God would direct us too. How easy it is to "indulge" > ourselves, by overeating and drinking etc. Not only are we not > caring for ourselves, but we are developing a habit of "giving in" to > our desires, and indirectly not making available that (food) which > could be used for others. Some Fathers, have placed gluttony first > in that it leads to the sins of lust and others. From a > psychological view the emphasis in gluttony is more directly personal > and auto centered (care of self as God asks of us). However there is > still some relational component as I mentioned above (availability of > food etc for others). Sexuality however, was intended by God, right > from the start to have an interpersonal dimension ... as God's message > to us as been gradually revealed to us over time, we have learned from > Our Lord, the depth of this when He spoke of Himself as the Bridegroom > and we the Bride. This entails the fullness of God's love for us, > the sacrificial commitment He has for us and the man and woman now > united in "one flesh" to have for each other. This involves the joy > and martyrdom of marriage as is typified by the crowning in our > wedding ceremony. Our spiritual fathers have told us this depth of > love, a man and woman have for one another should model the relational > love of the Holy Trinity. Thus it would seem to me that the > "definition" or what is 'essential' to the sexual act is a relational > commitment, an image of Christ's love for us, and the persons of the > Trinity to each other. Lust, the precursor of Sexual Sin, in self > centered sex is missing this relational element. In fact the gravity > of sins of lust are so great that the greatest of them lead to making > people objects of our gratification, lording power over them, > manipulating them, without the love and commitment that Christ has for > us and the persons of the Trinity have for one another. Thus > auto-eroticism in and of itself is a relational 'singularity'. This > was not God's intention. His intention was that sexuality be > relational. Sex acts blessed by God, relational in nature thus are > true to what He intended them to be for us (our true nature). When > using our sexual organs in this way, we share in His Creation and > model His love. Now I am not judging a particular person. Only God > can judge our hearts and the degree of our sinfulness. The two great > models of sin in the Eastern Church is "Illness" and "missing the > mark". The passion of lust can be very strong. It is so easy for > Auto-eroticism to be done without the fullness of the blessed > relational aspect of creativity and commitment as mentioned above. > It is so easy for it to be an end of itself. Objectfully this would > both " be an "Illness" and "miss the mark". And thus it would be so > easy for someone to be a "slave to the act" .... "a slave to sin". I > have dealt clinically with individuals who are become in lay terms > 'sexual addicts': constant masturbation, pornography etc. ... thus > auto-eroticism has definite psychological and spiritual effects. In > the Eastern Church we do not prefer to view sin in the "legalistic" > way of the Western Church. I think it is easier to understand the > problem of auto-eroticism from the "illness-missing the mark" > perspective because ultimitly we are asking the question: are we > fulfilling God's will for us by such an action? As I mentioned > before only God can judge the individual. Once habits are formed > they are hard to break and in fact can mitigate culpability. > Sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, objectively make > our thoughts words and deeds more 'voluntary'. Strong habits (why > our spiritual fathers caution us so much) can make such thoughts, > words and deeds less voluntary... but still an 'illness and miss the > mark' ....Note in our prayer we always ask for forgiveness of our sins > both 'voluntary and involuntary' .... I hope some of this may help > .....Glory to God in all things ...unworthy priest George

[Maria Kouroumali]

Thanks for all the responses.
Byron, I did not find your post confusing in the
least. On the subject of 'political correctness',
I have to say that, being Greek, I do not have
any particular reservations on pursuing the
research of a certain issue in ways that might
perhaps be considered 'incorrect' in today's
superficial and hypocritical society. Concerning
other sins, I agree with you how often we obsess
about the sins of the flesh and overlook the
more serious, underlying spiritual reasons which
move us to sin bodily as well. However, I think
that is another topic because I am not so much
asking whether homosexuality and autoeroticism
are sinful in their isolated carnal expression, but want to understand the spiritual
harm that derives from engaging in such practices;
the same would apply for inappropriate hetero-
sexual physical relationships. I have never,
personally, associated sex with guilt, but I do
attribute that to God's love, grace and mercy in
providing me with the prayers and guidance of my spiritual father who is a true Elder in the Orthodox tradition and I have always seen it as
a gift from God, to be preserved and used within
the sanctioned union of marriage.

The issue of homosexuality and autoeroticism is
one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted
topics in modern psychology. My personal view is
that it is highly unlikely that homosexuality is
inborn - with the exception of serious biological
and hormonal cases such as hermaphrodites, which
are both rare and do not really fall into the
above category. I have several gay friends and
from all the discussions I have had with them,
my impression is that there are specific
psychological aspects which led to their sexual
choice. I have not yet met a gay Orthodox person,
but some of my friends have been devout Christians of other denominations. Unfortunately,
especially in the case of Anglicans, they appear
to believe that, since they are in a committed
and loving relationship, they are acting in
accordance to God's will. It is very hard to
argue with such people on the basis of
theological understanding because they already
have a skewed perspective. This is why I
asked for specific references, including modern
Orthodox psychospiritual interpretations, as it
is more helpful to include psychology when
discussing this with people who are not Orthodox

I agree with you, Fr Raphael, that the problem
is spiritual and has nothing to do with current
appropriate psychological behaviours, but we do
live in a society which has, sadly, turned
from a true understanding of God. It is very
hard to explain to non-Orthodox the concept of
sin, struggle against the passions and spiritual
progress when the majority have very different
notions of all the above compared to us
Orthodox.

Fr Morelli, thank you for the references.I have
read your article and followed previous threads
on the topic, but have found nothing relevant
to autoeroticism in particular. Since you and
Byron are also specialists in psychology,
perhaps there is some book or article which one
could read on the issue and gives a balanced
perspective? not necessarily Orthodox, but a
serious academic study would be welcomed.
also, if someone can recommend any
specific church Fathers and modern Orthodox
theologians on the subject of sexuality?
I already have Fr Meyendorff's book on marriage,
St John Chrysostom's on marriage and the family
life and have myself read the Desert Fathers and
saints lives, but would be interested to know
of others.
Anesti, thanks for your suggestion, but I already
know and have read Peter Brown's book although
it was some years ago when I was doing my Master's degree. I have to say that I am currently completing a doctorate on Late Antique/Byzantine history at Oxford and am
familiar with all of Brown's academic work.
I would not,personally, recommend his book for
an Orthodox understanding of sexuality as he is
not Orthodox himself and, frankly, I feel he has
little understanding of the issue he is discussing. Though perhaps illuminating for non-
Orthodox and western readers, any marginally
theologically read Orthodox reader would find
little of interest. As far as I can see, the
only useful thing is his collection of the
views of several fathers and saints, but these
are treated from a very secular perspective
and with the usual, 'jaundiced' academic attitude
that plagues all modern historical interpretations of hagiology and theology. His
other books on more secular topics are perhaps
more appropriate. I would agree with you that he
is highly revered by academics worldwide and many
of my own professors here have been his pupils.
I will have another look at his book, since i read it so long ago, but I do not think I will
change my opinion.

Thank you all again.

In Christ,
Maria

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron .... Glory to Jesus Christ ....a follow up on my last post ... I > realize I did not touch on the aspect of your question on "healthy > self love" ... once again with the caveats in the last post some > reflections and thoughts..... From a psychological perspective we > can distinguish "healthy self esteem" vs "unhealthy". Healthy self > esteem is reality based. It is based on what we do or not do. It is > a recognition of our gifts and weaknesses and emphasizing our > talents. For example for a child with learning disabilities we teach > to his/her strength and remediate and accommodate (as possible) to > their weakness etc. When talking to a child, for example I recommend > teachers and parents tell the child "You did that (Specify the task) > well, now see if you can do this (Specify) a little better." "Good > job." I never recommend telling a child "You are good" etc. This is > a statement of being, is abstract and provides no real information. > Psychologically such statements can lead to irrational and over > evaluations of self worth (spiritually this could lead to pride and > vainglory). Now spiritual factors easily embrace this process. Our > real value is that we are all made in God's image and called to be > like Him. Thus our worth. God loves us. We thank God for the gifts > (talents) He has given us and we use them well .... (as Jesus taught > us in His parables). One holy elder said "All that I do that is good > I attribute to God, all I fail I attribute to myself." We realize we > are creatures, but have been able by our baptism to 'put on Christ.' > The gift to 'put on Christ' to be able to be 'deified' to have God > indwelling in us. Even the unbaptized however are God's sons and > daughters and made in His image and are called to do His Will. All > salvation will comes from God by His Divine Grace. We can judge no > one. Only God can judge. We see the small picture (our limited > human perspective) not the big picture (God's perspective). So we > cannot at times know the worth of His smallest creature. For example > we (humanly) may see a mentally retarded person -------God may see (I > cannot answer-his true worth, like the "widow's mite") ...that His is > vision....but I know from Our Lord, that we have to love that person > (and all, as ourselves) as He loved us. I once heard a homily > wherein it was said "We can only love God to the extent we can love > the most despised, despicable person we confront in our lives" > ....truly a soul searching reflection and only God's Grace can aid us > in this. Thus healthy self love is realistic and God centered both > in attribution and thanksgiving. .... in Christ ...FrGeorge

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Morelli,

Thank you for your extensive and comprehensive response to my questions regarding self-stimulation and love of self.

You write:


One holy elder said "All that I do that is good I attribute to God, all I fail I attribute to myself."

This is also an issue which confuses me, at the level where I am in my spiritual development (btw I agree with Fr Raphael that for Christians, the goal of life in Christ is theosis, not behavioural, or even only moral change; nor, I would suggest, is theosis a psychological event like the resolution of an internal conflict - though it may well bring such resolutions about as part of the whole process). To return to the issue of being made in God's image and aided by His Grace, as the elder in the quotation suggests; if we do ascribe a negative value to ourselves, and conclude that we are only good insofar as we are bearers of His Image or Grace, will this not eventually lead to a sense of human nature as beyond repair, in the manner of Luther? If creation has value in its own right, if it is good and very good, why not consider ourselves, but for our fallenness, at least basically OK, if only as creatures? I sometimes wonder, as I keep repeating how worthless and impure I am in prayer, whether I am doing myself any good on the psychological level...do I really need more guilt and shame in my life?

I know that the spiritual life and psychological development are different, and operate according to a different set of principles; I don't doubt that the holy elder quoted above spoke from a level of humility that the carnal or psychological mind cannot begin to grasp; I trust, also, that there is value in continuing to pray personally and collectively(but surely also in discussing spiritual matters with other Christians, in a discrete format like monachosnet). But must the ordinary sinning Christian walk around with slumped shoulders and a dark cloud over his head (and a demon snapping at his heels)?


"We can only love God to the extent we can love the most despised, despicable person we confront in our lives"

Again, why can't we also apply this profound wisdom, which strikes me as overwhelmingly true, also to our own miserable selves? Can a person who hates himself love God?

Maria, your doctoral research sounds very interesting. One book on sexuality from an Orthodox perspective I can reccommend is Philip Sherrard's "Christianity and Eros". It is a work of speculative philosophy more than Church teaching, but it is interesting and respectful, I feel, of Orthodox beliefs on this issue. You may also find the following website interesting: The Stephanos Project (http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/).

ICXC
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

P.S. Fr Morelli,


When talking to a child, for example I recommend teachers and parents tell the child "You did that (Specify the task) well, now see if you can do this (Specify) a little better." "Good job." I never recommend telling a child "You are good" etc. This is a statement of being, is abstract and provides no real information. Psychologically such statements can lead to irrational and over evaluations of self worth (spiritually this could lead to pride and vainglory).

This is a very good point, and one which as a parent and clinician I can endorse. I wonder, however, if the emphsis on external achievement may also lead to a lack of introspection and an overly goal-oriented attitude to life?

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Byron asks: "To return to the issue of being made in God's image and aided by His Grace, as the elder in the quotation suggests; if we do ascribe a negative value to ourselves, and conclude that we are only good insofar as we are bearers of His Image or Grace, will this not eventually lead to a sense of human nature as beyond repair, in the manner of Luther?"

The answer, of course, is 'no.' This has not happened in Orthodox theology. The reason, perhaps, is because we believe that mankind is still created in the image of God; the likeness of God is what has suffered from our fall.

Byron asks: "I sometimes wonder, as I keep repeating how worthless and impure I am in prayer, whether I am doing myself any good on the psychological level...do I really need more guilt and shame in my life?"

This calls to mind a passage in the 'Unseen Warfare' that I find helpful. It tells us that we are always to combine the thought of our sinfulness with a daring trust in God's forgiveness. Certainly, our liturgical texts from which one would base their prayer routine are replete with language of God's forgiveness for us. For some reason, many people tend to focus on the parts about how worthless we are. Perhaps this is because we live in a society that is generally not open to honest criticism.

Aaron

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron .... Christ is in the midst of us ..Glorify Him! A short caveat > to your quote of my statement above. I have just written what will > by God's grace be a published as a book: "Orthodox Christian > Parenting" ... I also have two Retreats for parents in Powerpoint on > Parenting "Orthodox Christian Parenting" and "Raising Children in a > Secular World" .....basically the theology of raising children is the > theology of creation, marriage, the holy mysteries, the couple by > baptism (and their entry royal priesthood) and the orthodox wedding > prayer and "commission" to the wedded couple "raising Children in > education and fear of God. The home must be a "domestic church" > .....in this context ... the child will see their accomplishments as > God's gift to them (by Christ centered introspection so to speak) and > learn to achieve goals in conformity to God's will for them and > "humbly" acknowledging and respecting and valuing the gifts others > have from God. I hate to say this but my observation is that most > "orthodox homes" are orthodox in name only ...secular values reign. > A total revolution has to take place ... a total 180 degree turn. > "Where your treasure is your heart will be" ...many homes are > Christian in name only .. this must be turned around and done in the > name of God. To go further would require the books 17 chapters .. > much too long for here ...one example: in my Retreat .. I set up a > Family Examination of Conscience....In your home do you "Say morning > prayers as a family?" Yes/No ... to "When the TV news comes on do you > ask the children's view of a story and how it relates to what Our Lord > told us? Yes/No ...etc .....I have hundreds of questions in this > "examination". I hope this helps ...in Christ ..FrGeorge

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

Dear Maria,

Sorry I have not had the opportunity to respond to your insights in several days. I am most grateful for your comments and insights and am very much inspired by your studies.

I am in disagreement with your assessment of Brown and of non-Orthodox academicians in general. I don't find them jaundiced generally, and when they are, I tend to overlook it as I feel that the information they provide to be valuable in understanding the various attitudes and beliefs of the times and places they are speaking of.

In my classes with Fr. Meyendorff, plenty of non-Orthodox writers were read.

It, of course, maybe a cultural thing. I have friends who are from Thessalonika and Crete who live and London and describe the church there as being fundamentally an immigrant one. In the states, our churches are primarily 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation as we struggle to create an American Orthodoxy. We are more apt, therefore, to view things a bit differently, I imagine.

That's my take, at least.

Regarding, self-erotism.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that fantasizing about someone else is a way of exploiting and demeaning them. I think that this is true even of those who allow themselves for whatever reason - to be exploited. The issue, thus, ultimately is an interpersonal one.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,
Just to clarify- my remarks above were meant to be about the role of what is psychological in our spiritual life- not about psychology. The comments were also not meant as a criticism but rather just to try to point out something about our life in Christ. Otherwise Fr George & others have already explained very well about why & how these sexual sins are destructive.

St Theophan the Recluse deals with the psychological aspect of our life in Christ & stresses how this must become a life of the spirit enlivened by the Spirit. In this way he distinguishes between spirit & soul in a way not all of the Holy Fathers do; but nevertheless to distinguish this is crucial if we are to understand what the purpose of our life in Christ is. Another text which points this out beautifully is the Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with Motovilov.
Byron sees what I was trying to point out about the psychological in comparison to the spiritual. For example the psychological is when we feel offended by someone and someone says to us, "don't worry, they probably didn't mean it." There is a whole spectrum of attitudes we can adopt here all the way to having a compassionate attitude: "they were probably having a hard day."

The spiritual however is something beyond this. Here we are talking about forgiveness & love - virtues which come only from Christ. On the other hand to attain these virtues, psychological attitudes probably must come into play in the sense that grace will never come without our human effort to love & forgive. As Fr George has also pointed out there is also environment (his example of an Orthodox home for children). The crucial thing I would wish to point out however is that the psychological in this sense must be part of our effort to combat selfishness in ourselves & not become 'psychological' in a mechanical, coldly therapeutic sense. Put another way, we know we are on safe ground if the psychological leads us to repentance; and we know we are on dangerous ground if it brings us to a mechanical understanding of ourselves; or worse if it leaves us blaming others & feeling sorry for ourselves.

What does any of this have to do with sexual sin? Others have already explained very well how this type of sin is destructive. Even though it's going off on a tangent I just wanted to add another point about what healing means for us, especially as we enter this most Holy Season of Great Lent. Thanks to all for their comments.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Regarding:


fantasizing about someone else is a way of exploiting and demeaning them.

Yes, absolutely. Isn't it also self indulging in fantasy images produced by the fallen self? If so then the physical passion is a mirror image of the passion of the intellect.

Sexuality encompasses so many aspects of the human being besides the obvious physical attraction. There is the emotional & feelings of self-worth. To spot what is fundamentally fallen in this & distinguish it from what is not is so difficult- humans after all are social & deeply communing creatures by nature.

But fallen sexuality of any sort is a distortion of the true relationship of love- and its replacement by selfishness. I have often heard that fallen 'love' will always be carnivorous. In this sense the Church needs to be trusted as to what is 'right' & 'wrong' for it is extremely difficult to discern this without long term struggle. In any case the Orthodox Christian as an ascetic creature of God does not throw out love for others. Rather his/her interactions beome gradually true relationships, true & selfless love that in turn build up others in love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Eugene]

Dear Maria,

Sexual desire is a natural faculty given to us by God, like the desire for food or drink, and there is nothing wrong with them. Our self-love however tends to abuse any natural faculty for the purpose of self-pleasing. Erotism is a way pleasing oneself by exploiting the natural sexual desire. (Eve ate the apple because "it was pleasant".) The way of following Christ is the opposite - it's denying oneself, denying to focus attention on oneself and on one's pleasures, seeing one's self-pleasing self-love as a sin that separates us from God.

[Anthony]

On the subject of 'political correctness',
I have to say that, being Greek, I do not have
any particular reservations on pursuing the
research of a certain issue in ways that might
perhaps be considered 'incorrect' in today's
superficial and hypocritical society.

It is very refreshing to hear this. I am glad to hear that the latest secular version of pharisaism has not yet reached Greece.

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron ..Glory to Jesus Christ! I will try to respond to your question > simply based on my own life and limited human understanding. I think > we have to look at the underlying basis of theosis. "Salvation" is > a total gift [grace]from God. Our contribution, as we are made in > God's image and called to be like Him [summarized by the Fathers as > our Free Will and Intelligence -once again I defer to the theologians > among us Fr. Raphael and Dr Steenberg] is to "cooperate with" His > saving Grace." Unlike the Western Church we cannot merit salvation, > but we can cooperate in God's gift to us by our "free will." One > analogy I heard once is God provides the life preserver we have to > reach out and hold on. As I understand our Church Fathers, because of > our fallenness this clouds our intellect and wills and thus we have to > rely on God ever the more. Because of this fallenness we have our > passions: [in this case pride] which are predispositions to sin. > Pride predisposes us to attribute all to ourselves. Reflecting on our > mere existence however (and how easy it it to take this for granted, > God sustains us and all creation ---God could cease our very being in > a moment); through His gracious mercy and love He chooses not to do > this --but sustains us. Pride predisposes us to attribute > 'accomplishments to ourselves. However if we look at it > realistically...it is God's gift to a person giving a special talent > to one person a different talent to another that is critical in some > "accomplishment". I do not have artistic talent, for example. Someone > else may have this. How beautiful for that person to recognize that > the talent is a gift from God. My 'talents' are in turn His gift to > me. The reason the elders statement is so meaningful to me is I am > predisposed to want simply not to reflect on this talent as a gift but > somehow see it or attribute it as inherent to me. On the other hand > hand when I make a mistake (sin) I am so predisposed to want to blame > the other .... so the elders statement to me is sort of a 'reality > check-examination of conscience' so to speak. My reading of the > Church Fathers seem to point me in this direction. However one of my > favorite Church Father is St. Maximos the Confessor. One of his > counsels I even put in one of my Brochures is: "God is the principle > and the end of all genesis and of all movements of [Human Persons]; > from Him they come, towards Him they move..." So "theosis" is an > ongoing process sustained by God (by His Grace) with our cooperation > (by our free will). We are "ill" but are constantly in the process > of "healing" in movement toward Him. We are not beyond repair that > would be despair, but rather we can be constantly, as St Maximus tells > us "moving toward Him." We are finite, He is infinite so this movement > by God's grace and our cooperation is eternal. On a > clinical-psychological level guilt can be a dead end, if it is the > major focus of our attention. [I even wrote a paper on this for a > medical journal in the early 1970's] Psychologically what we should > be saying and doing is "I am guilty (or responsible), now what can I > do about it." In terms of time analysis and focus 1% responsibility > 99% doing something about it. I also believe this is what the Church > Fathers are telling us when they tell us a "change of heart" a > 'metanoia' ---have mercy on me as sinner ...but change our hearts and > minds and souls and turn it toward God so He indwells in us and we > change our lives. In pastoral-spiritual counseling I so often get > someone who comes to recognize he/she really "messed up" their lives. > I tell them the best way of making up for this is to turn around as > the Prodigal Son did and as Our Lord told the adulterous woman "Sin no > more". "Yes you are guilty, but today is a rebirth .....etc". Once > again because of of fallenness I really think we have to be mindful of > our sinfulness and reflect on our passions. We tend to pride, > covetousness, lust etc. So the Jesus Prayer is so important to keep > us in balance as to who we really are ... a reality check etc. Yes > creation is a "value in its own right" but in us it is possible to be > elevated to higher levels by Grace to a Divine value. I a cannot > think of anything more valuable or elevating. How valuable we must > be in God's eyes that He sent His only Begotten Son for our > Salvation. This is a glimpse of the "infinite of Love of God" so > dimly we perceive.The cloud around us is bright and is God's gift to > us: How realistic we must be however, to see our place as creatures, > dependent on Him, which keeps the cloud bright. It only darkens when > He is removed from the picture... If any of these reflections on your > question are helpful it is really the Holy Spirit doing His work > through His unworthy instrument.. FrGeorge.

[Daniel Jeandet]

I found this text on sexuality in Saint Maximos the confessor's second century on love:

"Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and our conceptual images of them."

I know that some people dont agree with this teaching. They feel there must be more to sex than just the begetting of children. I seem to remember Saint John Chrysostom teaching that the reason sex is pleasurable is because if it wasnt, no-one would want to do it. Perhaps we over-complicate these matters.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that St. Maximos is mainly addressing the sinful way in which sexuality could be approached. He is not attempting to be exhaustive in how he characterises proper sexuality in saying that it has as its purpose "the begetting of children." So I do think that we should obviously include love in the positive aspect of sexuality & I do not think including this (and perhaps other good things) would be doing any violence to St. Maximos' vision.

Note also that St. Maximos refers to "sensual pleasure" in sexuality as being sinful. He does not say pleasure itself is wrong but rather the gratification of sensuality which is different. For example there is & can be something pleasurable & good in the closeness of human company without this being sensual & hence sinful.

Of course though we would do well to take to heart the saint's warnings about what is sinful- sensuality- for one suspects that some of the more extreme defences of sexuality in our times are really an attempted defence of sensuality.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Maria Kouroumali]

Dear All,
apologies for this belated post on the topic,
but my research obligations have taken priority.

I would like to thank everyone who has responded
with their views, comments, suggestions.
Thank you, Byron, for the Sherrard book and
the website. I have just got hold of the former
and will have a look at the latter as soon as
possible. I think I need to clarify that my
doctoral research has nothing to do with the
concept of sexuality or auto-eroticism in Late
Antiquity or Byzantium. On the contrary, I
am working on a historiographical and historical
study of Procopius' of Caesarea's books on the
Gothic campaigns of the Emperor Justinian which
is a very 'secular' topic.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

My question derived from personal discussions
with friends and my inability to formulate a
persuasive Orthodox response. In that context,
I was concerned to discover support from
the Scripture, the Church Fathers and saints on
the subject as well as any serious academic
study from a psychological/psychiatric
perspective.

From that point of view, Anesti, I certainly did
not imply that one should not read non-Orthodox
writers or respect their contributions to
scholarship, but rather that I, personally,
was interested in receiving my arguments from
the Orthodox perspective. However, I still hold
to my academic view of western Late Antique/
Byzantine scholars primarily treating
ecclesiastical and hagiographical literature
with a scholastic and secular mind. Very rarely,
if ever, have I met someone in my faculty here
in Oxford who had even considered reading any
of the readily available introductions to the
Orthodox Church, including Fr Meyendorff's and
Bishop Kallistos' books on the subject. After
all, whether one likes this or not, the modern
Orthodox church is the Byzantine church, not
only in terms of theology and dogma, but also
in terms of historical tradition. Therefore,
I would expect that these academics would have,
at least, perused relevant books in the same
way that if I were to study Judaism or Islam,
I could hardly be expected to do so without
reading their sacred literature and related
introductions on these topics.
Having just returned from a conference here in
Oxford regarding the religion of the others
in Late Antiquity (others meaning, heretics,
Jews, Samaritans) and being subjected once more
to the current, 'trendy', academic views of
how Arians were not really Arians, but branded
so by their opponents, the same applying for
most of the heresies, I do feel there is a
prejudiced, secular view of the Eastern Orthodox
Church. Frankly, I have never understood how
the entire Orthodox Church could have been at
fault in proclaiming the sanctity of St Athanasius of Alexandria, St Cyril of Alexandria,
the three Cappadocian Fathers, not to mention
the target of most western venom, St Constantine
the Great, who, if reading or listening to
contemporary western scholars, were either
deluded, belligerent or scheming individuals
intent on spreading their propaganda and the
only reason people like Arius were termed
heretics is that the above belonged to the side
of the winners. Unfortunately, I fail to see
how this can be the case, but then I have been
called a narrow-minded, confessional Orthodox
Christian (by a fellow Orthodox, I might add,
albeit a convert) in line with both Fr Romanides
and Fr Florovsky (both of whom it would be an
honour for me to be condemned with although
I fail to see how I can achieve their level of
authority and erudition). So perhaps it is a
question of cultural perspective, but I will
maintain my opinion on western academia in
relation to my field of study. A personal
note here to add that several years ago my
supervisor told me that Peter Brown had just
returned from his first visit to Mt Athos (this
being 2001/2) and having met his first holy man
When I asked my supervisor how he had reacted,
he answered:'He was very disconcerned'. I write
this because it is indicative of people who
have spent their lives researching and writing
on issues which they have not explored fully such
as Orthodox asceticism and monasticism which is
very much a living tradition, not only
spiritually, but historically. Brown's famous
article on the rise of the Holy Man in Late
Antiquity views this as a social and political
phenomenon rather than examining the spiritual
implications or contexts. Professor Brown is
a highly erudite scholar, but that does not
preclude him from succumbing to failings.
I do apologise for the lengthy and perhaps
irrelevant digression, but having studied
hagiography as part of my Master's degree and
spending the last nine years here listening to
the prevailing notions of scholarship on these
topics, not to mention discovering that half
the Orthodox saints are either pure inventions
or fictional elaborations of different persons
-I exaggerate when I say half, but, unfortunately
not when I talk about invention - I am somewhat
sceptical about the contribution of western
scholarship to our understanding of the life
of the Late Antique and Byzantine theological
world.

To return to the topic of autoeroticism:is
there anyone with easy access to an Old Testament
(unfortunately I don't have one with me) who
can tell me whether there is a story concerning
Avnan (from whose name derives the Greek
word for masturbation)? I seem to recall once
hearing about this, but have never followed it
up and would be grateful for any help in locating
the passage, if it exists.

Thank you to those who will have the patience
to read this extraordinarily lengthy post!

In Christ,
Maria

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Maria, I was able to grab my Strong's concordance, supposed to cover every word in the KJV English translation, no entry for Avnan. Doesn't ring a bell for me, not sure what story you are looking for.

Gilbert Gandenberger
Illinois USA

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Maria,

I think the OT figure you are referring to is spelt Onan in English. He is found in Genesis 38 ( here (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=38&version=31)), and is famous for having "cast his seed to the ground" rather than making love to his deceased brother's wife as was expected of him by the custom of the day. He received a severe punishment from God for this, which does not bode well for those of us guilty of the sin under discussion!

On a more serious note though, these OT accounts are refreshingly frank on sexual matters, and remind one of a time when the awareness of a link between sexual behaviour and holiness was more conscious than it is today.

As to the Orthodox interpretation of the Onan story, I am personally looking forward to the publication of the Orthodox Septuagint in summer this year, because I have a lot of questions about how we Orthodox understand the OT. I just hope the commentary will be thorough.

ICXC
Byron

[Olga]

To throw a cat among the pigeons, I remember reading an interpretation of the Onan story that the act he performed was the "withdrawal" method. Wonder what the learned people on this forum would make of this, and the implications, given the severity of God's punishment of Onan. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/uhoh.gif

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

Thank you Maria,

You're perspectives are very enlightening to me - and you've brought to the fore realities I were not aware of. I take for granted that academics of such prestige would be more open-minded.

I'm looking into the whole issue of self-erotism - have some ideas on other topics which would relate and may lead to answers.

Anesti

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Dear Christian friends, on the issue of Onan's self fulfillment, let = me note that God did not punish this man for for self-fulfillment, but = for refusing to obey the law of God regarding his brother's wife. Self = fulfillment for singles is a very healthy practice, necessary for the = well being of both men and women. May the Lord bless us as we study =

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Dr. Pound,

Regardless of the secular view, many Fathers of the Holy Orthodox Church teach that self-satisfaction is really no different than adultery, having a sexual relationship with yourself is still having a relationship with someone who is NOT your spouse. I would say that many in the Orthodox Church would have a difficult time referring to this as self "fulfillment."

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Dear Herman, thank you for your kind and informative reply. However, = let me ask you if the Word of God condemns this practice? Sexual = fulfillment produces valuable hormones for the health and well being of = the body. How is self fulfillment contrary to the Word of God? I am = asking because I do not know that it is? Thank you for your kind =

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Dr Pound .... Glory to Jesus Christ! ...I am not a theologian, simply > a priest-psychologist. Once again I defer to the theologians among > us in the group: Fr Raphael and Dr. Steenberg ..... May I just relate > a few reflections. I was at an OCAMPR Conference attended by Bishop > Kallistos (Ware). In commenting on the citations from the Church > Fathers, he said that that the Church finds what is "orthodox" in > their discovery of Our Lord's teaching. Thus a single Church Father > cannot be the source of Orthodoxy, consensus and context must always > be considered. "New" teaching is not made, rather "discovery" of the > true teaching of Christ as He passed them on to the Church is > "made". My understanding of the Church Fathers and tradition of the > Church is the basis of the article I previously posted "Sex is > Holy." This article has a pastoral-didactic practical purpose, namely > to teach parents, teachers and caretakers how to effectively teach > children about the holiness of sexuality and marriage. Sexual > self-satisfaction is not part of God's plan for us as He revealed His > plan to us and is understood by His successors. If one were to > reflect on what Our Lord told the assembled crowd:"You have heard > that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' "But I say to you > that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed > adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28) It would take volumes > to cite the consensus of the Church Fathers on this topic. The > passions, lust, imagination, self-centeredness are topics discussed > and handed down by the Church Fathers. The "Philokalia" is filled > with such and more. As an example to choose the first reference in the > first Volume of the Philokalia (p.78) St. John Cassian tells us: > "Movement occurs in the sexual organs not only of young children who > cannot yet distinguish between good and evil, but also of the smallest > infants still at their mothers breast. The latter, although ignorant > of sensual pleasure, nevertheless manifest such natural movements in > the flesh....I say this not to accuse nature of being the cause of > sin-heaven forbid-! - but to show that the incensive power and desire, > even if implanted in man by the Creator for a good purpose, appear to > to change through neglect from being natural in the body intro > something that is unnatural. Movements in the sexual organs was given > to us by the Creator for procreation and continuation of the species, > not for unchastity...." The Trinitarian Model of sexuality moves it > from 'lust' to 'agape'. As the Person's of the Trinity relate to one > another in Love so does a blessed sexual union. A sexual act devoid > of committed reciprocity (marriage) is therefore adulterous, as Our > Lord told us (adultery in our heart). Christians are a small minority > in a pagan-secular world. Self pleasure, self power, self worship, > self enhancement at any cost: a world without God is the theme of this > pagan-secular world. These are the values "of the world." The average > Television program or commercial more that testifies to these values. > St. Paul told us, however to be "in" but not "of" he world. Other > directed love as witnessed by the Trinity, the Incarnation, the > Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord are to be our values "in" > the world. These are 'divine' values that by our baptism, we are to > carry with us. Jesus tells us: [We] are not of the world, even as I > am not of the world. (Jn 17:16) I will end my few reflections by > quoting St. John's first Epistle (4: 5-8): "They are of the world, > therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to > them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is > not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth > and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another; for love > is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does > not love does not know God; for God is love. This is the basis of my > clinical pastoral counseling and approach to sexuality.....in Christ > ...unworthy priest George

[Maria Kouroumali]

Many thanks to everyone who responded. Indeed the English version of the name is Onan-my mistake. Byron, thanks for the link; I was also sent a link to the Blue Bible by another member which proved exceptionally useful as it has Greek,KJV English and Hebrew text of the OT.

Although I still believe that our carnal sins are severe, I do not think that God will judge us in quite the same way as the OT people for the simple fact that we live in a totally different society. I have often heard, from my spiritual father and other devout people, that many holy fathers of the Church, when asked about the judgement, have said that God will take into account the times in which each one of us lives. This is not to say that sin is not always sin and that we should not, as always, strive to cleanse ourselves of passions, but that God, being merciful, understands better than us the society which we live in nowadays and the distorted perception of many things which it advocates. Indeed, if He didn't, then I don't think many of us would stand a chance.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Today's society is openly materialistic and advertises unrestrained sexual activity, even perversions, as 'natural', 'healthy' expressions of the sexual instinct in direct contravention of Christian law and morality. This is especially apparent to those of us who belong to a younger generation and are often extremely isolated amongst our peers from this point of view. I have always taken comfort in the thought that God realises the temptations which beset us and the weakening of our spirits and gives us strength to rise up again and again as we do each time we participate in confession. However, this does not mean that we should not seek to understand the true purpose of the gifts that He has given us and the appropriate use to which these should be put to or that we should neglect our endeavours to overcome temptation. But I wouldn't worry too much about being cast down dead as, if that were the case, many of us would certainly not be alive today. Many things in the OT also reflect the mentality of the people to which they were addressed to rather than God's will. As I have been taught, the OT mirrors many things which were fulfilled with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, but should not be taken literally in every respect as God tailored his responses to the understanding of the Israelites at the time. I think it is an important point to keep in mind as so often God is portrayed as vengeful and punishing based on a misunderstanding of the OT when, in actual fact, He acquiesced to the demands of His people and their level of understanding. We are the ones who change, God is 'ever-exisitng and eternally the same' and He is a loving God.

further to reading:

I have discovered a book called Eros and Transformation by Fr Basil Zion (William Basil Zion), published in 1992, giving an Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Marriage and Sexuality, including homosexuality and masturbation. I have not read it yet, but would be interested to discover if anyone else has and what they think of it. From the introduction, it appears that Fr Basil was also a trained psychoanalyst and moral theologian before his conversion to Orthodoxy.

any comments are welcome

In Christ,
Maria

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I chanced upon a group called "Axios" on the net, which claims that an actively homosexual lifestyle is not incompatible with being an Orthodox Christian. I read an article On Being Gay and Orthodox Christian (http://axios.net/onbeinggay/onbeinggay.html) which tries to defend this, and found some of the arguments a bit elaborate, and rather 'untidy' theologically. I do understand the way gay people must feel about the attitudes they encounter from religious people who (wrongly) condemn them for their sexuality rather than showing compassion. As a psychologist, I agree with the author of this article that a great deal of suffering and a lot of unhealthy side-effects are usually caused by being told that the way one is is not acceptable, or worse, that it is "unnatural" or even - sadly - some Christians who forget to separate the sin from the sinner and claim that homosexuals are hated by the God of love Himself.

However, the above article claims that even the currently (I believe) mainstream Orthodox teaching that homosexual people are loved by God, but are called to struggle against their fallenness as we all are(and not pursue an actively gay lifestyle) , is itself wrong and unhealthy and impractical.

On the one hand, I can understand this viewpoint too. On the other I am thinking: is there really any sound theological basis for arguing that gay relationships which are characterised by mutual commitment, stability, trust and 'love' as the author claims, are acceptable to the Lord? Is the rite of adelphopoiisis indeed what the author, Mr Zymaris claims it to be?

I look forward to reading responses, particularly from theologians like Fr Raphael and Dr Steenberg, but also from all who want to be compassionate and honest, but also fair and Orthodox in their views.

ICXC
Byron

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron, Glory to Jesus Christ! I believe your question needs a > psychological discussion followed by once again our Orthodox Theology > of Sexuality. As I see it psychologically the issues are varied and > complex. these include: sexual orientation, sexual attraction, > individual differences in sexual attraction, which includes sex > differences and the issue of biological, and cultural influences on > all of the above. Sexual orientation as we know is the sex one is > attracted to. This can either be heterosexual, homosexual or > different degrees of bisexuality. Sexual attraction differers in the > number of individuals one is attracted to and the relative strength of > attraction. In part there are sex differences in this area. > Heterosexual males are more apt to be attracted to multiple females > (e.g. the work of David Buss) while Heterosexual females are more apt > to be attracted to a single strong dominant male. Sexual attraction > also differs along a strong - weak dimension. The influences on > sexual orientation vary from cultural to biological. As I > understand the research, it would be better to speak of > "homosexualities" for example, than a single category of > homosexuality. The subtypes would range from those who choose the > lifestyle because of some socio-cultural factors to those who are > biologically predisposed to be attracted to individuals of the same > sex. From a clinical perspective as in alcoholism, clinical > interventions may differ in terms of the specific subtype of the > individual, if used at all. As I see it the 'fallenness of > individuals' sexually is not exclusively a sexual orientation issue, > but rather along the attraction and strength of attraction issue. > Clinically I have worked with heterosexual males, strongly attracted > to multiple females who indeed "suffer when they are told they cannot > act according to their "nature" (from a human view what they are > naturally inclined to). Of course I have worked with homosexual > individuals as well with the same "issue". We know from the > spiritual church fathers and mothers that our passions due to our > fallenness are inclinations to sin. The types and strength of these > passions differ among us. Spiritually thus the demon of "lust" can > attack both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. We are all > called to chaste in our state of life. Because the sexual act is > God's gift to us and the way we especially 'share in His creation' .. > it is special ... it is "holy" when used according to His will and not > blessed when it is used not according to His will. To be chaste > means following His Will in this regard. To be blessed in marriage > and "become in one flesh" conjugal union is blessed. It is potentially > creative [procreative] (unlike the Latin Church which tends to look at > each individual conjugal act the Eastern Church has tended to look at > the potential for creation (procreation) in the totality of the > marital relationship over time). It is Trinitarian: > committed-relational other directed love [as the Father, Son and Holy > Spirit relate to one another. the Father, the Creator, the Son, the > one who gives Sacrifice and the Holy Spirit who sanctifies---all out > of relational love. A review of the liturgical marriage rite, for > example shows this so clearly (God's faithfulness to unfaithful > Israel etc.) The crowns of joy and sacrifice, the blessing of > "education of children and fear of God". In an uncommitted > relationship all are called to be chaste by celibacy. I believe we > have to accept all are given different gifts and different crosses > (struggles) and different graces. We are not born equal. I believe > Elder Paisios pointed out: God's justice is not human justice. The > laborer in the last hour received the same payment as the laborer who > toiled the whole day. In our human world this makes no sense, but > somehow in God's world it does. Being followers of Christ, we have to > have trust in Him. His justice and mercy not mine. (Did not even [I > cannot believe I am making reference to a psychoanalyist] Adler point > out all are born in some way either morphologically or functionally > inferior) Some have humanly speaking great gifts and talents others, > humanly speaking, great liabilities and disabilities. Yet God loves > all and His grace is sufficient for all. Our task is to respond to > it. Mr Zymaris seems to be picking and choosing certain passages and > word meanings as he interprets them. As I understand it it is not my > or any individual's interpretation which is important but the deposit > of teaching and the Holy Spirit in the Church safeguarding the > teachings of what is God's will for us. The Church is infallible. > The whole of tradition and scripture, the Church Fathers, liturgy, > practice, the understanding of the bishops, priests and people of God > are what is critical to our understanding. As I just mentioned in a > previous post. Bishop Kallistos Ware has pointed out the consensus > and context of the Church Fathers is critical in understanding the > Fathers; not a single Father or single phrase or term. To end on two > clinical examples. Several years ago I had a male, heterosexual > patient. He was humanly very attractive as a male. (literally: tall, > dark handsome). He was blessed with a very high income and position > of power. It was not a question of him seeking females. Very > attractive females aggressively sought him out in may contexts for > sexual encounters. (Biologically he is a perfect example of the very > strong male attraction to multiple females as found by David Buss > mentioned above) He incidently, was a committed parent, struggled > constantly with the passion of lust and was trying to lead a Christian > life. From my experience , he "struggled" and "suffered much" in > dealing with his temptations. Just the other day I had a patient > ask me for some information I said "That is easy you have a computer > just do a Google search" He reflexively responded "No Father"! Porn > .... "Oh" I said, We then went on to discuss the wisdom of his insight > and action. His decision not to use his computer unless his wife was > home was psychologically sound (from the research on Conflict and > Strength of Attraction from the 1930's and 40's (Miller) and the > wisdom the the Spiritual Fathers of the Church, who wrote much on > dealing with temptation. I sincerely believe we are all called to > "theosis" based on our vocation so to speak. Some as heterosexual > chaste (celibate or married) individuals, some as homosexual or > bisexual chaste individuals. There are struggles in any calling. > Did not Our Lord embrace His "Cross" .. "is any servant greater than > his master." Possibly these reflections may be of some use ..... > unworthy priest George

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Rev.Fr.George Morelli Dear Friend and beloved Brother in Christ = Jesus, thank you for your caring and loving reply, I appreciate it very = much and agree with much of what you said. It seems that the entire = theme of these discussions, except for a few points, consists in joining = self-fulfillment with sinful lusts, and if this is the case then I do = agree that it is sinful and wrong. However, I do not find that everyone = who engages in self-fulfillment, does so inorder to fulfill sinful = lusts.

I do find that the normal action of the human body often engages in = these kind of actions, even in an unconscious manner merely for the = physical releases involved without any intention of thinking about any = other person. However the most important point, to me at least, that = you made, is relating to the marriage union of the husband and wife = showing the Trinitarian Union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am = not a Hebrew Spiritualist, though I do love reading from their ancient = writers and commentators, and a Jewish step-father planted within me the = seeds for future Jewish studies. So I do agree that the various forms = of marriage here in this present evil world suggest the union of the = Three in One, and other blessed unions as taught in the Sacred = Scriptures.

I find your reply to be very helpful and richly full of wonderful = Biblical truths. Thank you so very much for sharing these points with = me and others. May the Lord bless you, dear brother; =

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Dear Christian friends, please do not conclude that I am favoring any = kind of sinful actions in any way. However, may I rise to a point of = order on this question and ask why we think the OT Biblical character = engaged in masturbation when he cast or spilt his seed on the ground? = In many cultures birth control is practiced by the man pulling out of = the wife inorder to do this very thing. It is not masturbation, but a = form of birth control.

Another point of order is that the sin was in refusing to raise up = children to the dead brother's wife as the next of kin and/or the = kinsman redeemer often did. Had the person in question refused to place = his seed in his sister in law, and merely went out and milked a goat, = would goat-milking now be considered as a sin? Beyond all doubt had he = merely milked a goat rather than pulling out, it would have been sinful = because this is not what the Lord God said to do. But would that have = made goat-milking sinful?

So in all proper respect I find that there are two questions here that = are not answered, what did the casting of the seed on the ground consist = of, and why was it sinful?=20

Was the casting of the seed on the ground masturbation or merely = pulling out? Was it sinful because he did this, or because he disobeyed = the Lord's command to produce seed unto his brother's name?

While discussing this event with others in the past, I have seen them = using this to try and prove that any form of birth control is sinful. =

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Dr Pound .. Glory to Jesus Christ .... if I may be so bold as to > attempt a reply ...I ask for the backup of Fr Raphael and Dr > Steenberg. As I understand it God's command to Onan in Genesis was > a specific command so his brother Er's wife would not go childless. > Onan specifically waisted his seed and was a deliberate disobedience > of God's command to not allow his brother's wife to go childless. > The descendants were to be the ancestors of Jesus and these would be > the people of the Old Covenant. Thus the sin was specific to this > act of disobedience (although this passage is cited by > fundamentalists to cover masturbation in general). The Orthodox > (people of the New and Everlasting Covenant) understanding comes from > the fuller revelation by Christ to us that marriage is a sacred act > ... as He is the bridegroom and we are bride. Marriage should typify > the the Divine Love and Creation of the Holy Trinity and commitment of > Christ even unto death for His bride, that the married couple now "one > flesh" have for each other. ..... this in my limited view has been the > understanding and tradition of the Church since Our Lord revealed this > to us. The epistles of St. Paul go on to explain this in more detail, > as have the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers frequently describe > sin in two ways: 'as missing the mark' as an arrow missing the > bullseye of a target, and as 'illness'. If sin is "missing the mark" > then surely self satisfaction is lacking. It is not the center of the > target. From a psychological perspective if one were to have an > orgasm free from ideation, say during sleep, or reflexively in some > way then there would not be full consent of the will or sufficient > reflection. Thus an involuntary missing of the mark? The center of > the target is a committed blessed loving conjugal union. We can only > state what the center of the target is. Only God can judge the > "actual" sinfulness of an individual. I surely cannot .. I have to > look at the beams in my own eye and not judge my brother. God > commissioned His Church to teach us what is the center or off center > of the target As masturbation becomes habitual and as some have > described 'quite addicting' ...and whereby someone becomes a slave to > the practice ...it can easily be seen as an illness. I have pastorally > and clinically encountered individuals where masturbation has replaced > conjugal union this is thus self not a loving other centered activity > .... humbly ...FrGeorge

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Dr Pound ... Glory to Jesus Christ ...if I may be so bold again as to > add to my last response. As a priest and as a psychologist I find > the Church Fathers two descriptions of sin (missing the mark and > illness) both pastoral and clinical blessings. The Latin Church use > of the terms mortal and venial are too black and white so to speak, > too juridical and thus pastorally and clinically less useful. Now > be sure all sin of any type is displeasing to God ....but a sin that > misses the mark a little (just off center) is quite different from one > that is say 180 deg. off center .... the ascetical practice, healing > processes, psychospiritual interventions would be so different So also > would be the approach by the Father Confessor or clinician to the > penitent-patient. The illness model also allows for degrees of > illness and individualizing the healing process ........ just a few > reflections .... obviously much more could be said but hopefully > enough for now ...once again humbly in Christ ...FrGeorge

[Eugene]

Just as a comment, it's interesting to note that in Hebrew the root meaning of the word "Torah" (which is translated in English as "the law of God") is "aming the target", and the root meaning of the word "betrothal" is "to be/become holy". Also, concering the sin of Onan, St. Maximos the Confessor mentions the following metaphorical meaning: "pooring the seed of faith and righteousness by faith on the earth of errors and passions like Onan" (Questions and Answers to Thallasios, ch.XXIII).

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Rev.Fr.George Morelli dear beloved brother, another excellent reply. = If I understand you correctly, then I would agree with most of what you = have stated. I find in your spiritual insight a very refreshing love = and concern for truth and persons as well. Thank you dear brother for = sharing with us all, and with me in particular, may the Lord bless you =

[DR. R. E. POUND]

[Rev.Fr.George Morelli Dear Brother, another excellent reply. Among = my Baptist brothers, we call those who take a cement like approach = legalists, much as you describe as a black and white approach in the = Papal Church, I seem to agree with your summation if I understand your = conclusions correctly. Not your lack of ability to communicate, just my = own weakness to comprehend. Thank you for your posts and your points, I = find them to very helpful and they do give hope to sinners, may the Lord =

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Morelli,

Bless, Father! Thank you for your responses, and particularly the lengthy response regarding being gay and Orthodox. I admire the way you effortlessly weave psychological science and theology together in these responses to make sound clinical sense. I feel this is a blessed direction for our discipline of psychology to take, which is otherwise unfortunately so liable to spiritual error, sometimes being at risk of becoming a science without a soul, and sometimes all soul and no spirit.

I feel you are correct in pointing out that all people are called to struggle against the demon of lust, whatever their sexual orientation; also, it is simplistic to talk of "homosexuality" as if human sexuality could be neatly divided into specific categories, as it is naive to speak of "sexual attraction" as if all people experienced this to the same degree and intensity, and therefore as if all face the same struggle. There are people whose sexuality falls in between the common categories, and people who have to struggle with both a stronger libido and / or more deeply-rooted passions (due to their predisposition, spiritually and ethically deprived upbringing, other intrapersonal factors etc) than others. Surely the Lord, Who knows us better than we know ourselves, does not use simple checklists by which to judge us!

Nevertheless, I am still left wondering what I would reply to Mr Zymaris. For his own reasons and - I agree with your evaluation of his essay -in his own idiosyncratic way, he seems to have convinced himself that an active homosexual lifestyle is not only compatible with Orthodox Christianity, but also blessed by the Church in an otherwise misunderstood ritual. Reasonably enough (in worldly terms), extrapolating out from what he is saying, one could argue that as long as the relationship between two men is characterised by love and mutual commitment, then sex between them would be the hallowed bodily expression of their spiritual bond. This is clearly not Orthodox teaching, but an intelligent man like Mr Zymaris probably is would not be satisfied with just being told that. So I'm left wondering how I would in fact respond intelligently and base what I say on sound theological teaching. Your response comes close to that by adding some important major points to the debate, but it seems to me that the crux of the issue remains, so I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more on the issue.

Regarding Onan: in Greek the word "avnanismos" relates to masturbation, as does the English scientific term "onanism". Etymology here suggests that historically Onan is considered to have masturbated. But I do agree with Rev Pound that the nature of the sin seems to be more linked to the non-cooperation with God, rather in the way Eve sinned not because she ate the fruit but because she wanted to become God without God, and acted on her sinful impulse.

Finally Fr Morelli, a question: you mention that the Church is infallible. Is this actual Orthodox teaching regarding the Church? If it is, then how, for example does one account for the mistreatment of someone like St Nectarios by the Church in his own lifetime?

ICXC
Byron

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Byron Glory to Jesus Christ! Thank you for your kind words. Please > attribute any good you may see in integration of body-mind- and spirit > to the action of the Holy Spirit who is behind every good work. I > have mentioned the OCAMPR [Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, > Psychology and Religion, www.ocampr.org (http://www.ocampr.org)] in other postings. This is > a SCOBA organization that has the "interweaving" as you mention as > fundamental to it's goal purpose and spirituality. From your > postings I believe you are a mental health clinician yourself. > Membership is not restricted to the USA. Any Orthodox (health > practicioner or clergy) can apply. "Every good and perfect gift comes > from above, from thee the Father of lights ...." As to your question > regarding my responding to Mr Zymaris. It is quite difficult to > answer. I think you know from my past posts my view is that clinical > interventions be scientifically based. There is a clinical "art" > however to the application of any technique. Being a "hard scientific > clinician" I find myself paradoxically falling back to the great > unknown world of "intuition" in explaining how this art is expressed. > I recall from the time I was a child I had a sense of where a "person > is at". Very hard to put into words. An example would be I had a > sense of what my teachers in school wanted us as students to know, > what they thought was important, what they wanted to hear, how they > would formulate their questions and what they wanted to read as > answers. Each teacher was different. I remember telling my > schoolmates ... something like "it is easy to study, just figure out > 'where' a particular teacher is coming from and give back what they > want to know. It "came natural" to me to apply this clinically and > pastorally as well. In my years of clinically supervising doctoral > psychology students I found some had such a gift in relating to > patients. They could "intuitively" sense a patient's problems, how to > approach them etc. Others, although outstanding "book knowledge" [A+ > scholastically] didn't have a clue as to how to apply it or have a > 'sense' of the person. Possibly the popular idea of a physician's > "bedside manner" is similar to this. Possibly the studies on > effectiveness of psychotherapy indicating the factor of "therapeutic > relationship" across different treatment modalities is related to > this. In the world of Spiritual Direction, the spiritual father or > mother also has this when they have a sense of the "heart" of the > person they are directing. Of course grace building on nature. If > one has such "intuitive" gifts from God, naturally, then by God's > grace .... He may build on this to illumine the spiritual father or > mother to see sense the heart of the other, by the addition of divine > illumination. This is so clear to me as I read the lives and teaching > of our Spiritual Fathers. They truly had a Divine Gift, possibly > building on their 'natural gift' also given by God. A double grace so > to speak. I do not know Mr Zymaris and thus the best way of reaching > him, thus I do not have even a single grace. I believe Elder Paisios > of Mt. Athos said something like: 'attribute any failure to me and any > success to God' ---With this long caveat: even if 'I' reached him and > it were a success it would be God's success. This being said, anyone > heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, strong or weakly sexually > attracted individual at some point has to confront the reality, the > bottom line of God's will. Any intelligent person can justify their > viewpoints so it makes sense in their own minds. I find the world > always makes sense through the eyes of the person who is viewing it. > (As a clinician I attempt to see the world the way my patient does > ---to initiate the healing process). It takes the grace of God to > acquire humility ---to give up justifying themselves and their actions > and to say ... 'Father I will accept what you want for me "not my > will, but thy will be done"'. Justification of actions, in this case > sexual activity is not limited to homosexual behavior .... I have > heard brilliant, human, intelligent justifications for practically > any sexual act that can be imagined .... but the bottom line: does > this pass the God-test. A typical answer may be " ....well in "my" > case God will understand" ... My answer to this is "fine ... you > realize you are placing the view of one person, you, against what Our > Lord has told us and His teaching handed down through the Church for > 2000 years". ----is it worth the gamble? ...What did our Lord tell the > adulterous woman? ::: Sin no more ----- her answer could have been > [perfectly plausible from a human viewpoint] "Well God will > understand, I have to earn a living somehow!" ......Generically I > would try to have Mr Zymaris be open to humility and see that > dependence on his own view is pride. ... then I would try to use > another example different from his problem, initially using his > justifications, but would know this 'other problem' actually viewed > by him in 'God's way'. The Socratic Method is helpful in working > though this. For example if I "knew" he was "not" a pedophile, then I > may (using your words for his) say: "extrapolating out from what he is > saying, one could argue that as long as the relationship between [a > man and a boy (as argued by Man-Boy Love Association MAMBLA)] is > characterized by love and mutual commitment, then sex between them > would be the hallowed bodily expression of their spiritual bond". > ....... follow up on this ..and apply to his own problem ...and > eventually with prayer, cooperation with God's grace, and great > humility, he may accept God's will regarding what is "holy and > blessed sexual behavior". Regarding the Infallibility of the Church. > Once again I invite Fr. Raphael and Dr. Steenberg who are surely more > theologically gifted than I am to answer. My limited view is Christ > founded on Church on sinners and called to be saints. Judas betrayed > Him. Peter denied Him. Except for John all ran away from the cross. > Thomas doubted Him. In the 4th century Arianism was prevailing ...one > bishop St. Athanasius stood steadfast for Orthodoxy and for most of > his life was persecuted. Yet through all this by the protection of > the Holy Spirit as promised by Our Lord, Orthodoxy prevailed. "Is > any servant greater than his master"? If Our Lord would be tortured > and crucified to death ... can we expect anything different .. yet as > He rose from the dead, hidden by time during the three days before the > Resurrection, He conquered death and sin. So to, the Church through > the protection of the Holy Spirit, despite sinfulness and temporary > appearances is safeguarded in Orthodoxy. Our Lord told his Apostles > (as we read on Holy Thursday Evening Passion Gospels): "And I will > pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with > you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot > receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for > he dwells with you, and will be in you. "I will not leave you > desolate"; (Jn 14:16-18) His gift to us came at Pentecost and will > exist until he 'comes again'. A theologian: Fr. George > Mastrantonis:on Infallibility: > > The Orthodox Christian is blessed to be part of the One, Holy, > Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has been preserved intact, by > mercy, the fullness of the Christian Faith. In Holy Orthodoxy, the > interpretation of Scripture and the teachings of the Church have the > unanimous ratification of the Church, with its infallible authority. > It is this interpretation of the teachings of Christ by the infallible > Church that must be first known and understood by the Orthodox > Christian who is admonished by Apostle Peter: > > "/Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to > account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and > reverence."/ (1 Peter 3:15) This Church of Christ has in its nature. > the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and > develop the truths of Revelation; it is to be delved into from time to > time in finding and pronouncing the truths of which the Church is the > Pillar. The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but not God-inspired to > the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and > formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church by nature and > duty from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines > and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the > Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed > points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those > truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as > individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. Their > decisions, however, remain pending for acceptance by the "Conscience > of the Church", which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and > laity. > > The infallibility of the Church does not mean that the Church, in the > assembly of the Fathers or in the expression of the Conscience of the > Church, has already formally expressed all the truths of faith and > norms. The infallibility of the Church is confined to the formulation > of truths in question. This infallibility is not wholly a God-inspired > energy which would affect the participants of the synod to such an > extent that they would be inspired to pronounce all the truths at one > time as a whole system of a Christian catechism. The Synod does not > formulate a system of beliefs encompassing all Christian teachings and > truths, but only endeavors to define the particular disputed truth > which was misunderstood and misinterpreted. > > The Church of Christ and its divine nature, as set forth above, is the > foundation upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to > administer and nourish its faithful, thereby protecting its > fundamental essentials. > I hope this is helpful in some way ..... in Christ ...FrGeorge

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Morelli,

Thank you for your response. I also feel that the clinician's "art" involves intuition, a sense of where someone is 'at', and I would add perhaps a sense of where they may be heading. How much more so must this be true of spiritual direction! Yet even if one is not gifted with profound insight into others, there is much that can be achieved with a little respectful listening and trust in the healing process.

One of the big dangers for intellectuals is definitely pride, and delusion (such as convincing oneself that one has arrived at the right answer) seems to me to be the path leading up to this hubris. Mr Zymaris is definitely not alone in this, and his reasons are more than understandable. I particularly appreciated the way you point out that a reasonable enough argument ('sex is the physical expression of a spiritual bond') can be used to justify any sin, however abhorrent, in the deluded mind.

Regarding the infallibility of the Church, I take it to be a dynamic one, not a static "once for all" formulation of the whole Truth. I must admit that I am, as a psychologist, rather suspicious of groups and mass behaviour in general. Carl Rogers spoke of "the wisdom of the group", but I have personally witnessed its folly more frequently. Groups seem to me to arrive at consensus and work to establish the status quo, but as most wars and election campaigns show, human beings are not very sensitive to the subtler nuances of the truth when operating on a collective level. Of course, the individual is also at risk, perhaps even greater risk, of delusion when operating as an isolated entity out of communion with God and his fellow human beings.

The reason I'm saying all this is because if the Roman Church considers its Pope to be infallible in the way we consider our Church to be infallible, that way lies danger, in my humble opinion. I put my trust in the Holy Spirit, as you remind me to do, in enlightening the minds of our fathers and synods when formulating any truths. And I do believe, that even if the Church as a human and visible presence in the world may at times appear to err, it is nevertheless perfect as the invisible Body of Christ.

Pray for me Fr Morelli to not be deluded into pride.

On the day of the Annunciation to the Holy Mother of God,

ICXC
Byron

P.S. I may look into joining OCAMPR, though I will probably not be able to afford travel to the States for conferences etc.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have been away for the past week so I only had the opportunity of reading through the past week's posts today. I think that Fr George has already addressed this topic wonderfully and also most importantly theologically- that is: what does the Church teach and how is this a reflection of the Life-bearing grace of Christ as it recreates the human being from the Old Adam of sin & death? Isn't this after all what theology really is by an Orthodox definition? This is abundantly witnessed to by the Holy Fathers and thus we read them for guidance. But also essentially what we are getting at is what leads to life & what to death. And as the other Orthodox teaching on theology goes "only the man of prayer theologises". That is: only through a life in Christ, of as deeply as possible dying to our own sense of what wisdom is do we gradually recognise the varying deceits of selfishness and know how through Christ we attain a personal resurrection from this. Thus it is not a reading of the Holy Fathers only that leads to theology but rather a selfless death to oneself. Perhaps this is why the Elder Paisios said words to the effect that we must speak from what comes from within our own hearts when it comes to conveying what the Holy Fathers teach. In any case we have nothing too much to offer from them if we have rejected the very way of life they try to lead us to.

Fr George wrote:


"this pass the God-test. A typical answer may be " ....well in "my" > case God will understand" ... My answer to this is "fine ... you > realize you are placing the view of one person, you, against what Our > Lord has told us and His teaching handed down through the Church for > 2000 years". ----is it worth the gamble? ...What did our Lord tell the > adulterous woman? ::: Sin no more ----- her answer could have been > [perfectly plausible from a human viewpoint] "Well God will > understand, I have to earn a living somehow!"

I think this is a wonderful illustration of the problem we encounter in 'justified lifestyles'. Often our first impulse is to justify our sinfulness by trying to cover it with the cloak of life when really it is covered with the cloak of death. How we know distinguish between the two is what is essential and this relates back to the basic question of whether what we are doing leads to Life or death. If what we are doing is selfish then it will lead to an inner death even if we cannot see the exact threads that lead to this.

Fr. George also wrote:


" Reasonably enough (in worldly terms), extrapolating out from what he is saying, one could argue that as long as the relationship between two men is characterised by love and mutual commitment, then sex between them would be the hallowed bodily expression of their spiritual bond."

Yes that is the essential question for us as Orthodox Christians. I think the whole answer stands or falls on the issue of whether the things we have referred to are really love or are actually a form of false love. As Fr George has already clearly written it is the Holy Trinity which defines what love is. We must also bear in mind that an essential mark of this love will always be selflessness. And on the contrary an essential mark of selfish "love" will always be self-gratification. In other words if the things we have been referring to are sinful and not accepted by the Church then it must be that they are not really loving no matter what the claims. And this is an essential aspect of how they are sinful. I think it is here that as Orthodox Christians we often get the most confused for we often accept the claim of love at face value rather than examining what the Church means by love.
Of course when it comes to the life in Christ we need first of all to trust that what the Church offers is true & life re-creating. But this trust is based on some level of experience of new life in Him. It is in this way precisely that we learn to distinguish between what Christ offers and what the world offers for the first is truly not of this world while the latter is always carnal-minded no matter what sparks of goodness there may be in it. In other words since it does not begin with an attempt at the fullness of life in Christ it always ends in finality and thus ends at death rather than Life. And isn't this where the real problem lies?- that so much is being defined by sexuality rather than a life in Christ.
I think it crucial for us as Orthodox Christians to understand what our true purpose is so that we do not mistake other things for this. Now especially during Great Lent is a wonderful time to read the Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov where the saint explains how the purpose of our Christian life is the aquisition of the Holy Spirit. If we get any sense of what this means then it becomes most certain that the Holy Spirit could never abide among the two things talked about here unless we were repenting of them.
One of the main purposes of Great Lent is so that we would increase in love of God & man. But in order to do this we are first led to the self-knowledge that we are not loving and that what love we have is often carnal minded rather than Christ like. So we learn to repent of what we had accepted at face value as love. And in God's time He fills us with His love and He changes us gradually. Only in this way do we finally begin to learn what love is. But this can only come after much struggle. If we are wondering whether something is really love as God intends it for us then we should read about one of the saints or Elders; for example the life of one of the great Elders of Optina. Would such things be acceptable to such saints? It makes one shudder to even think such a thing. But certainly these same saints in their love for us intercede for us so that we may understand why these things are destructive to us. And they also intercede so that we may find our life in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

I haven't posted to this thread in a while, but I'm wondering again about sexuality and faith, and would like to hear people's thoughts; more specifically, I'm wondering about sex in marriage. It is clear to me from what we've been saying so far that a genuinely loving and unselfish erotic relationship between husband and wife, punctuated by periods of abstinence by mutual consent for the sake of increased spiritual effort (like in Lent), is for us Orthodox as blessed a path to holiness as the angelic celibate life of the monastics. Unless I'm much mistaken, sexuality in marriage is sacred, and it is not only a means of bringing children into the world (though it should be open to the possibility), but it is also a means of union between spouses.

However, I'm wondering about specifics - I have the impression that a lot of married saints chose to give up sexuality and lead essentially chaste lives as brother and sister, sometimes never having "consummated" their marriage in the first place. Is eventual chastity what a Christian couple ought to be aiming towards?

Also, although naturally the Fathers never become unnecessarily graphic, can anyone direct me to a patristic source which nevertheless describes what Christian lovemaking involves? Is the aim of pleasing the other the whole point? Or are there specific acts which are considered impure or unclean, even in "ordinary" heterosexual monogamous lovemaking, acts which a Christian concerned with spiritual life ought to avoid?

ICXC
Byron

[Juliana Lerman]

Hello, I am new to this forum and am presently a catechumin to Orthodoxy. As a wife of a non-Orthodox (he grew up Jewish but is non-practicing) there are great differences in our spirituality and religion. Therefore I feel that the area of the marriage bed is one of compromise. My husband gives me the respect and love to not partake in activities (such as oral sex) that we have previously engaged in before...however he is not happy over my change of mind. I only want to do what is God-pleasing but I also want to show my husband that he is still loved and desired. However, God comes first and this is hard for my husband to accept...he is dismayed at my change of ways. I also think that there is difficulty in some marriages (in regards to sexuality) because many times the husband and wife do not share the same desire for frequency of physical union. Please forgive me if I have been too graphic. But I am very interested in knowing (as Byron Jack Gaist) is, if there are guidelines given by any of the Holy Fathers regarding sexuality in marriage. Thank you for any help.
Lord have mercy me, Juliana Lerman

[Byron Jack Gaist]

It seems there are others who are puzzled and troubled over the "specifics". There is a general discussion of the Eastern Orthodox view of sin (http://www.answers.com/topic/eastern-orthodox-view-of-sin) at this website which I feel is misrepresenting some issues (particularly wrt homosexuality). For example, do we really believe that Adam and Eve did not engage in sexual intercourse before the fall? Is that the belief of the whole Church and all the Fathers? I have heard some Fathers say yes, others no to this question. But surely it is crucial to know what the accepted doctrine on this is . It seems to me to be the "make or break" of sex in this life. Should even married Christians aspire to eventually give it up?

If sex is OK in marriage, and not sinful, and not in any way "less" spiritual than abstinence, then what kinds of sex (unless, of course, the article is correct in saying that we do not standardise sin, and what is sin for one Orthodox may not be sin for another - OK, but how far does this extend? Can I engage in any activity whatever, as long as my heart is pure?)? My own spiritual father has advised me against engaging in acts which are "contrary to nature". But which "nature" are we referring to? What is "natural" in this fallen world is surely not the same as what will be natural in the world to come? So this business of before and after the fall, of what the spiritual body will or will not engage in, seems to me crucial. Are human beings from the Orthodox perspective "not sexual creatures in terms of their essential identity", as the above article suggests? Or is eros an essential part of God's "very good" creation?

Any help from those further along this path and those with theological knowledge would be most welcome here!

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Christ is risen!

Dear Byron:

You mentioned '[your] own spiritual father.' Why not just do what he advises in this situation and let your conscience and heart be at peace?

Aaron

[Elias Young]

I may have referred to this text previously but JND Kelly has a book entitled Early Christian Doctrines which outlines various Fathers as they give an opinion on various matters. It is a great help when seeking to identify who says what about what - which can then perhaps open avenues for further reading. As another member has said, all this seems best done with a priest/spiritual advisor.

"....do we really believe that Adam and Eve did not engage in sexual intercourse before the fall?"

Yes...

"Is that the belief of the whole Church and all the Fathers?"

They seem to approach this topic from varying points of view. Which Fathers are you thinking of? Orthodox Fathers would not tend to consider Augustine as an authoritative voice re: Orthodox anthropology or sexuality.

"Should even married Christians aspire to eventually give it up?"

It seems that even fallen human nature has built into it certain mechanisms which point in this direction.

"...not in any way "less" spiritual than abstinence"

A sexual life between a and a woman IS "less spiritual" than abstinence because the passions of the fallen human body are being generated and nurtured. A number of Fathers advocate this. The monastic life is a "higher" life spiritually.

"Are human beings from the Orthodox perspective 'not sexual creatures in terms of their essential identity', as the above article suggests?"

Human nature in it's pristine state was not sexual...else the Lord Who took on human nature would have had sexual relations. In the next life we shall (by God's Grace and our will) "be as the angels" without sexual distinctions.

"...is eros an essential part of God's 'very good' creation?"

It depends on who you read re: "eros". The meaning of the word as it applies to God, His love for the world, and a like-minded response to Him are different from what is meant in our fallen culture by "erotic". A sincere monk cannot live a lifetime of love and faithfulness to God with this "being in love with the Divine". This energy is known as "eros"...but without the overtly "sexual" content. Unless one is perhaps involved with some of the neo-revivals of the ancient mystery religions.

imo...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At least part of our hesitation to discuss this issue points to a very important way in which we see this as Orthodox Christians and which indeed sets this apart from the attitude found in the world. First there is a question of modesty. There may be some here old enough to remember the attitudes of their grandparents (and indeed possibly even of their parents) to anything sexual. Briefly this attitude could be summed up in one word- modesty- for the mention of such things rarely occured unless one was referring (very discretely) to any indiscretions. Many things now regarded as hypocritical & repressive of the attitudes of that time were more often than not simply a desire to maintain a sense of modesty.

Such hesitancy to speak openly of such matters also came from a Christian understanding that speaking lightly about such things could have a bad affect on one's morals- indeed those speaking too openly about such things were themselves seen as having few morals. Again for us where open proclamation of every thought & feeling is supposed to be a sign of a healthy personality such reticence is seen as being repressed & 'out of touch with our feelings'. But we would do well to remember the Church's advice about the spiritual effect on us of what we think, say & do. In any case more than likely such Christian attitudes did deeply affect the intimate details of how marriage couples related to each other before the present time. More than likely a married realtionship was far less sexually expressed than what is the norm now.

What are the teachings of the Church about the physical expression of sexuality? The Holy Fathers are categorical that Adam & Eve did not have this type of relationship before the Fall. Also we should remember that Christ Himself referred to how after death we will not have a relationship such as is found in earthly marriage but rather shall be like the angels in heaven in regards to each other. Also recall the ascetic life as practiced by the Theotokos, the Holy Apostles and of course Christ Himself of living in virginity which precedes even monasticism. So the ideal of ascetic virginity is woven into the life of the Church from Apostolic times.

On the other hand the Church also blessed marriage from the time of Christ (the wedding of Cana) and in the earliest canon law there are injunctions against those who disparage marriage as inherently sinful.

The Church still keeps to this same balance blessing both marriage and the monastic life. And within marriage itself the Church blesses the relation between husband and wife mentioning this specifically in the prayers during the Marriage service. But at the same time the Church strongly encourages this same couple to fast from physical relations on fast days so that again we find this balance.

How then does the Church view the physical expression of sexuality? First of all it is important to understand that God created us male & female and that this aspect of each of us will be retained into eternity. Some think that because Christ said we become like angels that we become 'generic human souls after death returning to our primal purity'. But that this is not so can easily be seen just by looking at an icon of any saint where they remain male or female. Could anyone imagine the Mother of God not really being a woman? Or Christ not male? So this aspect of us remains and consequently how we would relate to each other also in that transfigured reality of the Kingdom. But of course we are not talking of any physical expression of sexuality or of any manner of relating to each other in which there was anything sinfully passionate. So in the Kingdom we will be in communion with each other also as male & female but this will be free of sinful passion.

Beyond what we can imply from the life of the Church as outlined above the Church seems to be reticent about positive comments concerning the physical expression of sexuality. There is really little to be found in Patristic or monastic writings before our own times. Overwhelmingly the emphasis is advice on the struggle against the passion of lust. The reason for this beyond a basic modesty & desire to be chaste even in what one writes is the danger of inadvertantly encouraging passion when we should be struggling against this. This is something we would do well to keep firmly in mind for the Holy Fathers understood much better than our present generation how tangled together is passion with any attempt at personal communion when it comes to sexuality. Indeed if we recognise that such relations are probably never free of passion then we come to the crucial question of how does this have any place in an Orthodox Christian life & in what sense does the Church bless it?

St Maximos the Confessor says the following about what he calls the natural appetites and pleasures.


Appetites and pleasures which are in accordance with nature are not reprehensible, since they are a necessary consequence of natural appetency. For our ordinary food, whether we wish it or not, naturally produces pleasure, since it satisfies the hunger which precedes a meal. Drink also produces pleasure, since it relieves the discomfort of thirst; so does sleep, since it renews the strength expended in our waking hours; and so, too, do all our other natural functions necessary for maintaining life and conducive to the aquisition of virtue.

Can sexuality be included in the above natural appetites and pleasures? Not as categorically as can be food & sleep for we need these to survive whereas we as individuals can survive without engaging in sexual relations. On the other hand sexuality is so worked into the fabric of human nature that the resultant pleasure he speaks of could then be seen as pertaining to this. In other words implied in what the saint says is consolation about the pleasure to be found in the married state. This addresses the suggestion one hears at times that seems to say that those who keep the Church's ascetic message in mind should find no consolation in the relations of their marriage.
The saint does not leave us with this however for he continues to explain:


But every intellect that is trying to escape from the confusion of sin transcends such passions, lest through them it remains a slave to passions which are subject to our control, contrary to nature and reprehensible; for these have no ground in us other than the activity of the passions which are in accordance with nature, although not on that account destined to accompany us into immortal and everlasting life.

So here again we find that balance in our lives that the Church constantly refers to between the present age and the state of the Kingdom to come. The passionate expression of sexuality results from the Fall but within sexuality itself there is the God created human desire for relationship & communion. In the present age we cannot completely seperate the two. But through the Church and a life that involves an ascetic love this aspect of human nature is blessed so that it foreshadows the transfigured communion of the age to come.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[Elias Young]

Here is a link by Archimandrite Luke of Holy Trinty Monastery (Jordanville) which alludes to a more perhaps traditional view of sex and marriage within the context of Orthodoxy and the modern world.

elias

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/new_age_philosophy.htm

[leandros]

Brother Byron and Sister Juliana,

I advice you to read St. Chrysostom's Homily XIX:

http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF112/NPNF1133.HTM

Your question is showing that you are seeking an answer to a sexual behavior "problem". I am afraid Orthodox Church has no answer in such questions. There is not a list of permitted and not permitted behaviors. You have to see the whole picture of your marriage relationship in order to consider the overall Christian frame that sanctifies it.

What make a marriage to be sanctified are not the actions that the married persons perform. The sanctified persons themselves are the origins of a blessing marriage. Having said that, I point out that by being free to do everything, we are not actually doing everything in a loving relationship. We do not perform actions that transform others into faceless personas, inasmuch such actions would destroy our personal relationship with them.

Most people think that the restrictions that we impose to ourselves for not doing some "non-Christian actions"are related to our self-interest of not loosing paradise, by avoiding not being ourselves according to the "natural law of God". I think this is not the case. We impose restrictions to ourselves for the sake of the other person. We sacrifice our freedom to do everything for the benefit of the person we have the loving relation with. As St. Chrysostom interprets Apostle Paul:

"Now what is the meaning of "the due honor? The wife hath not power over her own body;" but is both the slave and the mistress of the husband. And if you decline the service which is due, you have offended God. But if thou wish to withdraw thyself, it must be with the husband's permission, though it be but for short time. For this is why he calls the matter a debt, to shew that no one is master of himself but that they are servants to each other.

When therefore thou seest an harlot tempting thee, say, "My body is not mine, but my wife's." The same also let the woman say to those who would undermine her chastity, "My body is not mine, but my husband's."

Now if neither husband nor wife hath power even over their own body, much less have they over their property. Hear ye, all that have husbands and all that have wives: that if you must not count your body your own, much less your money.

Elsewhere I grant He gives to the husband abundant precedence, both in the New Testament, and the Old saying, (h apostrofh sou, LXX. Genesis chapter 3, verse 16) "Thy turning shall be towards thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Paul doth so too by making a distinction thus, and writing, (Ephesians chapter 5, verse 25 and Ephesians chapter 5, verse 33) "Husbands, love your wives; and let the wife see that she reverence her husband." But in this place we hear no more of greater and less, but it is one and the same right. Now why is this? Because his speech was about chastity. "In all other things," says he, "let the husband have the prerogative; but not so where the question is about chastity." "The husband hath no power over his own body, neither the wife." There is great equality of honor, and no prerogative. "

The point is that married people, as sanctified persons in being Church members, we freely choose to live a "chastity" married life. Not by abstaining from sexual activities, but by living the bodily experience of "eros" (including sex) as being "bodiless" as long as we no longer own our bodies. This "hand over" of one’s body to another person is the absolute "chastity" practice that the married Christian can perform.

It is not the practice of impersonal relation of human passion that guides a woman to do according her beloved man asks her to perform, in order to share moments of passion and love. It is not the practice of self denial in order to achieve the other person's sexual satisfaction.

It is not the platonic love that denies bodily experiences because the body is inferior to soul.

Love between a christian husband and a christian wife is the most personal bodily experience that humans can experience. We are leaving in Christ such an authentic personal relation with each other that we actually live the kind of experience of St. Paul’s (in human analogy) who said: Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me". This self-identification with the other person is the chastity of the monks, that no longer live a bodily life, as they see their bodies to be the body of Christ. In this context also chastity is lived as a living reality from Christian husband and wife in their sanctified relation. It is an ascetic experience into matrimony.

So in this context husband and wife in Christ by having a body that belongs to the other beloved person, and by living this reality as mutual personal exercise of freedom, we become ONE FLESH. Ephesians 5:31-32 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church".

Finally I have to point out that we are not living to be sanctified, but we are being sanctified to be able to live. Paraphrasing this, I dare to say that we are not having sex to be sanctified, but we are sanctified to be able to have the experience of authentic bodily love.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Thank you for your moving and considerate responses to my queries regarding sex. It is a blessing to be surrounded by so many thoughtful brethren in cyberspace!

Fr Raphael writes:


The passionate expression of sexuality results from the Fall but within sexuality itself there is the God created human desire for relationship & communion. In the present age we cannot completely seperate the two. But through the Church and a life that involves an ascetic love this aspect of human nature is blessed so that it foreshadows the transfigured communion of the age to come.

And Leandros writes:


It is not the practice of impersonal relation of human passion that guides a woman to do according her beloved man asks her to perform, in order to share moments of passion and love. It is not the practice of self denial in order to achieve the other person's sexual satisfaction.

It is not the platonic love that denies bodily experiences because the body is inferior to soul.

Love between a christian husband and a christian wife is the most personal bodily experience that humans can experience. We are leaving in Christ such an authentic personal relation with each other [...] chastity is lived as a living reality from Christian husband and wife in their sanctified relation. It is an ascetic experience into matrimony.

So in this context husband and wife in Christ by having a body that belongs to the other beloved person, and by living this reality as mutual personal exercise of freedom, we become ONE FLESH. Ephesians 5:31-32 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church".

Finally I have to point out that we are not living to be sanctified, but we are being sanctified to be able to live. Paraphrasing this, I dare to say that we are not having sex to be sanctified, but we are sanctified to be able to have the experience of authentic bodily love.

The above paragraphs, so eloquently put, have been particularly helpful in addressing my current condition as a married Christian, though I do take into account everything else that has been said also. It seems, Fr Raphael, I had previously been misled into thinking that some Holy Fathers did believe Adam and Eve engaged in prelapsarian sexual relations; thank you for setting me right on this, as it now makes much more sense, especially wrt being "as angels" towards one another in the future life.

Speaking from my own humble experience, it is very difficult for me to be chaste and personal in sexual love, even towards my beloved wife. Although I agree with Aaron that my own spiritual father is best qualified to help me with this, and I also agree with Fr Raphael that the Holy Fathers and even our relatively recent Christian ancestors (grandparents and great-grandparents) would have been careful in their expression on sexual issues because of modesty and the awareness that even talking about these issues in a manner seeking clarification can inadvertently cause others to fall, it is my definite hope that this is not the result of my discussion of this issue here. It seems the demon of lust is both powerful and subtle; if anyone has seen the recent movie "Kinsey", on the famous researcher Dr Alfred Kinsey (not a film I would reccommend for Christians, it offers no spiritual edification - one scene in fact caused me much nausea, disgust and unrest - but if like myself you are still struggling at the foot of the spiritual mountain to understand some basics re the values and dangers of repression and the history of sexuality in our century, it may have some very small merit), it is obvious in this movie how lust can work its ugly way into human lives, destroying us and depriving us of freedom in the process.

Regarding the issue of "repression", since Freud introduced it, it seems to have become pretty much the central concern of debates on sexual matters in this exploitative society. In the words of the George Michael song: "Sex is natural / Sex is good / Not everybody does it / But everybody should". In a social climate that thinks like this, and is an exact mirror-image of the Victorian puritanism and prudery that preceded it, it is difficult to know what to do anymore. "When in doubt, do nowt", they say in Yorkshire, but that is neither realistic nor considerate for a married person...

If any fellow monachos posters have had the blessing of a chaste personal history and have pure hearts and minds from the Lord, I take this opportunity as a sinner to congratulate their efforts and encourage them to continue; I have gained nothing but impediments from my sins, but I hope that at least this humbling experience may encourage me be merciful to others who have also fallen. Perhaps brothers and sisters who have the prize of chastity can pray for us who are struggling in the world to also recover the pristine Image in ourselves through God's help, in Whom all things are possible.

Forgive my verbosity.

ICXC
Byron

[Juliana Lerman]

Dear All,

I also want to thank everyone for their words of wisdom on such a delicate issue. Please accept my apology if I offended anyone with my unchaste words. New to the one true Church, I feel that I have such a long hard road ahead of me. Especially having lived so long with many of my passions being unchecked. However, this narrow way to our Lord and Savior somehow seems less daunting when supported by fellow christians who also desire to love others truely. May God bless you all!
Juliana

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron, Juliana & all,
I doubt anyone here was offended by the question that was posted. At least I wasn't. I began my response in the way I did because I noticed the hesitancy of many including myself to respond to an issue which we often do respond to on the parish or person to person level. Considering this I felt that part of the answer to the question should also refer to this reticence- not in the sense that we shouldn't talk about such things. But rather pointing to how the underlying Christian motives for being discrete are part of the answer to the question of sexuality. And if this is proper then doesn't it point to the sacredness of the topic at hand? As even secular thinkers have pointed out in recent times- extreme licentiousness in sexuality has taken much of the sacredness out of this aspect of human relationship. If this is so then the answer to restoring its sacredness should then also involve a committed reticence in the dynamic of this relationship. But with modern standards saying that we are only 'real' to the extent that we lose our reticence this is difficult & indeed on coming to the Church takes a whole process of long-term conversion. But this last could be a whole subject of discussion quite seperate from sexuality- now we are talking about the underlying values of our society and how this affects us.
In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[efthymios]

Dear Forum Folks,

Evlogeite!

I was wondering (for my laziness) if anyone could provide (paste?) the texts relevant to sexuality given to human "in light of the Fall"?

I was told I could find the texts in: Saint Gregory Of Nyssa Against Eunomios I 38; On the Making of Man 23; and On Virginity 12.

What Holy Father(s) speak specifically about gender (sexual anatomy) being given "in light of" the Fall of Adam and Zoe (Eve)?

Thank you

[Fr. George Morelli]

Evolgeite .... Christ is in our midst .. I have not found many texts on the human sexual organs among the church fathers. (possibly a helpful sidebar gender and sex are different .. gender is the sexual identity a person has, which could or could not be the same as their sex (their chromsomal makeup) and sex organs. The confusion is an example another example of political correctness gone amuck). I do have one quote from Tertullian which may be somewhat related to your inquiry:

Chapter 32.�Inconsistency of Giving the Soul All the Parts of Sex and Yet No Sex.
For that form of the soul, whether masculine or feminine, which has the distinction of members characteristic of man and woman, being no semblance merely of body, but actual body, is either a male or a female, whether you will or no, precisely as it appears to be a man or a woman. But if your opinion be correct, and the soul is a body, even a living body, then it both possesses swelling and pendent breasts, and lacks a beard, it has a womb, and all the generative organs of a woman, yet is not a woman after all. Will not mine, then, be a statement more consistent with truth: the soul, indeed, has an eye and has a tongue, has a finger, and all other members which resemble those of the body, and yet the whole is the semblance of a body, not a body really? My statement is open to a general test; everybody can prove it in himself, when he brings home to his mind the image of absent friends; he can prove it with certainty when he recalls the figures both of himself and other persons, which have occurred to him in his dreams. On your part, however, no example can throughout nature be produced of such a monstrosity as you have imagined, where there is a woman�s real and living body, but not a woman�s sex.

It can be found on www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org). In Christ ....FrGeorge

[Guest]

Dear Byron,

The Athonite Monastic Elder confessors consider unnatural (key word if you think about it is: 'unnatural') sexual acts within marriage to be GRAVE sin for which a period of medicinal ex-communication is given, according to ancient canons.

Thus, acts which have only become somewhat commonplace in the past decades lead to spiritual death... ( we become *desensitized* into thinking is okay by the demons working through the media and popular culture, just as everything else which we are confronted with and which we foolishly entertain in today's neo-pagan and post-christian world--).

Truly, when one eliminates these acts, one does learn the meaning of chastity within marriage, and one will find that one will no longer have that little lingering doub tin the back of their conscience any more--the doubt that we have all become quite adept at rationalizing away! It liberates one's marriage and conforms it to the beautiful and loving union which God created and intended for married Christian men and women. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Humbly,
A guest

[Efthymios]

"chastity within marriage" is staying WITHIN the confines of the union of that marriage.

I highly suggest reading:
------------------------
"YOU CALL MY WORDS IMMODEST" by Dr. George Gabriel

excerpts:

The on-going revelations of sexual perversions by some in the Roman Catholic priesthood requires that we, as Orthodox Christians who hold the truths of the Holy Faith, explain the proper teachings of Holy Scriptures, and the commentaries of our fathers in the Faith in the apostolic tradition. Dr. Gabriel gives profound and useful insights into their teachings:

[pages 16ff]: "[M]onastic life is called the angelic life because it imitates the bodiless nature of the angels. Nevertheless, God gave to all men the single path to salvation called Chastity, a path traveled by the married AND the unmarried, by virgins and monastics. Virginity and chastity in marriage does not mean marriage without marital relations, although such [may] exist. And it is not the virginity of periodic abstinence from marital sex..It is the virginity of fidelity in marriage, fidelity in the heart and mind, as well as in the body. It is chastity and purity of two who have become one and are chaste as one...

Anyone can commit adultery or fornication spiritually, even if not bodily, with similar but silent results of the sin inwardly. "Fornication is possible without intercourse with another.."(St. John Climicas: The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 15). "The true..chastity is that which is kept first in the heart and mind (St.John Chrysostom's 19th Homily: 1st Corinthians).

Understandably, theological issues can seem theoretical and academic to most people and, therefore, irrelevant to the 'practical" Christian life. But the fact is that theological issues DO exert an enormous force on the lives of Christians. See, for example, the devastating effects of Latin (Roman Catholic) theology on marital relations and the entire relationship in marriage..

[With the Church's experiential knowledge of Christ as Savior,] She rejected efforts..to deny marriage to the clergy. She knew that those efforts proceeded from an extreme zeal for asceticism, a zeal without understanding, and from the influences of pagan philosophy...[As the Apostolic Canon #5 states- from the earliest Council of Apostles in Jerusalem]:

"If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone in the clerical rank abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine out of ABHORRENCE thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good and that God made man, Male and Female,...let him either mend his ways or be deposed from office and expelled from the Church.."(See "Pedalion" for "Apostolic Canons" from earliest church documents)

[The 6th Ecumenical Council warns]: "Since we have learned that in the Church of the Romans it is regarded as tantamount to a canon [not yet a formal teaching until 11th c.] that candidates for ordination to the..presbytery must solemnly promise to have no further intercourse with their wives, we, however continuing in conformity with the ancient canon of Apostolic..orderliness, desire henceforth that the lawful marriages of ordained men BE MADE STRONGER. And we are in no way dissolving their [marital relationships] with their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual relationship and companionship..If any [cleric] expel his wife on the pretext of reverence, let him be excommunicated."

+

[Olympiada]

The linked homily by Leandros made me feel sick and brought up a question in my mind. In Saint John Chrysostom's time, did women ever initiate marriage?

It seems to me when reading the fathers about marriage the implication is that the man initiated the marriage. It seems to be that a marriage initiated by a woman is not legitimate. Is there anything in the church canons written about this?

[Olympiada]

I just started reading through the archives so I apologize if I repeat anything.
Father George Morelli wrote:


The pleasure in the completion of the sexual act is to be viewed as His gift to us for sharing and participating as instruments in His creation.

In the 21st century the completion of the sexual act is not always pleasurable. There are perversions of human sexuality such as sado-masochism.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Written above:


From an old post by Fr George: The pleasure in the completion of the sexual act is to be viewed as His gift to us for sharing and participating as instruments in His creation.

From a new response by Olympiada: In the 21st century the completion of the sexual act is not always pleasurable. There are perversions of human sexuality such as sado-masochism.

One needs to go back and re-read the original thread, as well as re-reading the post again, and its place in that conversation. This is clearly a case of taking a comment entirely out of context. The post's original intent was entirely to show the Church's understanding of sexuality, against which perversions of it are to be read and judged.

We must be careful to align ourselves rightly towards the Church's teaching on our life in the world. It is too easy to find deficiencies in the way the world works in the modern day and decry the teachings as void or inadequate; but the Church does not base its vision of humanity on the deficiencies of sin, but the standard of truth. The Church's standard is perfection (following Christ's 'Be ye perfect...'), the ideal, met out through pastoral, economic, personal guidance ('Is there none who will condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you...').

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Olympiada wrote:


It seems to me when reading the fathers about marriage the implication is that the man initiated the marriage. It seems to be that a marriage initiated by a woman is not legitimate.

Before responding to the question based off of it, can you point to any text from the fathers which indicates or suggests this?

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Dear Matthew Well the basic scripture:


1 Corinthians chapter 7, verse 1 and 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verse 2Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife; and let each woman have her own husband.

Is written to men. I belong to a biblical studies group which I am taking a break from. I have brought up the subject of who Saint Paul is addressing i n his epistles: the men. As is Saint John Chrystostom in his homilies on Marriage and Family Life. Which indicates to me that is the man who initiates marriage and it was *unheard of* for a woman to initiated marriag e in either Saint Paul's time or Saint John's time. On the other hand both of these men were committed to celibacy.

I am quite sure there was no 'feminism' in either Saint Paul's time or Sain t John's time nor were there women initiating marriage.

I will quote from Saint John next.


Wherefore he says, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me." For they had written to him, "Whether it was right to abstain from one's wife, or not:" and writing back in answer to this and giving rules about marriage, he introduces also the discourse concerning virginity: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." "For if," says he, "thou enquire what is the excellent and greatly superior course, it is better not to have any connection whatever with a woman: but if you ask what is safe and helpful to thine own infirmity, be connected by marriage."

Saint John is writing to and for men.

I really do not want to be a feminist but sometimes I can not help it!

In Christ Olympiada

[M.C. Steenberg]

There is something of a tautology in stating that texts like the epistles of St Paul are written 'to men', given the historical circumstances. He was a Jewish convert (i.e. from a deeply patriarchal system) living as a citizen of Rome (another patriarchal system), writing letters, which would by and large always be written to men, since women rarely received an education in letters that would render them capable of reading such an epistle. That being said, Paul is markedly open in his language.


"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: it is good for a man [lit. 'person', anthropos, but clearly a male is implied, given how the text continues:] not to touch a woman; but on account of fornications, let each [man] have his own woman; and let each woman have her own man [lit. 'male', andras]" (1 Cor 7.1, 2)

Yes, it is understood that the actual reader of the letter will be a male; but the actual advice speaks of relationships in both directions.


Which indicates to me that is the man who initiates marriage and it was *unheard of* for a woman to initiated marriage in either Saint Paul's time or Saint John's time.

It doesn't really indicate this. At least in the passage from Corinthians that you cited, the language is explicitly framed in terms of men taking women and women taking men.

What needs to be appreciated is the culture in which the text is written. In Greek culture of the period, reminiscent of much more ancient tribal customs, 'to marry' was something a man did as part of his headship in extending the family; to 'be married' was something a woman did, being joined into another's family (hence in the Greek language, the transitive form of the verb is applied to males, the passive to females). There are vestiges of this still present in modern day societies far from Greece, of course: e.g. the fact that it is still standard custom for women to take their husband's surnames once married, and it is still common custom for men to make the marriage proposal, etc. Of course, neither of these are universal.

But that is part of the point. The customs of society are not now, and have never been, the kind of universal absolutes implied in the phrase "it was *unheard of* for a woman to initiated marriage." Perhaps in a technical sense (it's not even linguistically possible properly to say 'the woman took the man in marriage' in ancient Greek), but the technical 'wrote' is only just that.

If one is to understand the authentic counsel of the fathers on an issue such as marriage and sexuality, one has to be willing to look beyond one's initial reactions to the words, the the truths being addressed.

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Dear Matthew, I had to look up the word tautology. Thank you for teaching me a new word. You elucidated intellectually what I felt instinctually. What I was trying to say is the man takes the woman in marriage, the woman does not take the man in marriage, and there is a theological reason for this. The man has to lead and provide for the woman and the woman has to respect and submit to the man. It would make no sense for the woman to marry the man only to respect and submit to him. To marry puts one in the position of leadership. So I stand by my position that is not Christian for women to marry men, but for men to marry women. I think you may have been influenced by the women's movement. In Christ Olympiada

[Efthymios]

Isn't it true that in the "west" the woman is the "center" of the wedding...yet for the People of God it was (and is) the man; typifying the(then and age to come) coming of the Christ?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Efthymios asked:


Isn't it true that in the "west" the woman is the "center" of the wedding...yet for the People of God it was (and is) the man; typifying the(then and age to come) coming of the Christ?

Perhaps in one sense, or from one perspective. But I think we need to approach the marriage service also (and chiefly) from the perspective of the union wrought there. However one sees the roles of giving, taking, being taken, etc., it is the 'becoming one' of the marriage that is central. Two lives, while remaining two, become one; two beings become 'one flesh'. The approach to salvation is sanctified by God as mutual work. There is in this something of the mystery of the incarnate Christ's uniting human and divine: two realities as one, to the end of working salvation.

It is the husband and wife together who follow the priest around the table in the wedding service -- two as one, being led by Christ (typified in the priest).

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote


Perhaps in one sense, or from one perspective. But I think we need to approach the marriage service also (and chiefly) from the perspective of the union wrought there. However one sees the roles of giving, taking, bein g taken, etc., it is the 'becoming one' of the marriage that is central. Two lives, while remaining two, become one; two beings become 'one flesh'. The approach to salvation is sanctified by God as mutual work. There is in this something of the mystery of the incarnate Christ's uniting human and divine : two realities as one, to the end of working salvation.

Is it possible that two can become one outside the bonds of marriage? What happens when two people are so similar that one is mistaken for the other? Can not the body of Christ produce the same kind of bond? At the same time can not a legal and sectarian marriage not produce this bond? I think not. I am critical and skeptical of this bond being limited t o marriage. Or more specifically I should say I know ***nothing*** about it.

Ok the sexual love is a uniting love. But is that not physical only? What about this whole concept of a soul mate? Despite discussing this with a bishop, I am still not at peace with this term. Despite being told, I think , this was not an Orthodox term, I am still bothered by it. I am bothered by "two becoming one" all around. As I said, does not sexual intercourse make two one? What happens when one has sexual intercourse with one and one and one and one and one and one and one as happens in post modern California? Then who is one one with? Which, incidentally, was also discussed by this bishop, who gave unsatisfactory answers, to me.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.

In Christ Olympiada

[Tim Grass]

"Is it possible that two can become one outside the bonds of marriage? What happens when two people are so similar that one is mistaken for the other?"

"Becoming one" in marriage has nothing to do with being mistaken for somebody who looks like you..... this isn't even in the same ballpark.

"As I said, does not sexual intercourse make two one?"

No.

--tim

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think that Tim, despite perhaps being a little gruff about it, has identified some important points in this discussion. I might expand on them a bit, and leave others to contribute their own.

1) The 'becoming one flesh' of marriage is not only (and perhaps we might say not primarily) a sexual term, as it was taken to be above. This statement has to be understood as conveying a spiritual reality; as was said once by a priest in the Greek Archdiocese in America, 'Marriage unites a man and a woman, incorporating the natural union into the life of the Kingdom, "in the Lord."' Marriage deals chiefly with taking the two persons into sacramental unity within the Church and within the home, drawing together as one the ascetical 'working out of salvation in fear and trembling'. It is not a 'wholly spiritual' reality, debasing that term as if to apply only to inner realities, feelings, etc. - it encompasses the whole of these persons' being in relation, spiritual and physical. But the language of 'becoming one flesh' must not be taken to apply just to sexual union. So the words of St John Chrysostom:


"Why, thou hast no longer a body of thine own, and hast thou money of thine own? After marriage ye are no longer twain, but are become one flesh, and are then your possessions twain, and not one? Oh! this love of money! Ye both are become one man, one living creature; and dost thou still say 'mine own'? Cursed and abominable word that it is, it was brought in by the devil. Things far nearer and dearer to us than these hath God made all common to us, and are these then not common? We cannot say, 'my own light, my own sun, my own water': all our greater blessings are common, and are riches not common?" (From his homily On the Christian home, 6)

Here the union is seen in practical terms (i.e. the commonality of money in a married family); but the imagery is clearly to show that the husband and wife, while always distinct and their own persons, are 'as one' in their union - in all things. There is a union of the flesh in marriage, this is important; but that is a part of the 'becoming one flesh', not the whole. The 'whole' of that union is a deeper reality of the coming together in Christ of two of his creatures as one. So again St John:


"This then is marriage when it takes place according to Christ, spiritual marriage, and spiritual birth, not of blood, nor of travail, nor of the will of the flesh. Such was the birth of Christ, not of blood, nor of travail. Such also was that of Isaac. Hear how the scripture says, 'And it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women' (Gen 18.11). Yea, a marriage it is, not of passion, nor of the flesh, but wholly spiritual, the soul being united to God by a union unspeakable, and which He alone knoweth. Therefore he saith, 'He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit' (1 Cor 6.17). Mark how earnestly he endeavors to unite both flesh with flesh, and spirit with spirit." (On the Christian home, 4)

Note how he uses the phrase 'wholly spiritual', yet also reminds that marriage 'unites both flesh with flesh, and spirit with spirit'. This leads into a second point:

2) Since Christian marriage is that which 'incorporates the natural union into the life of the Kingdom in the Lord', the idea of a bond outside of the Christian ecclesial life, while it might have much going for it in other regards, does not have this. This is why the Church understands marriage as a sacrament, not simply a contract, relationship or commitment. The 'becoming one flesh' of marriage is not a bodily-spiritual act for its own sake, but for the sake of growth in Christ and attainment of the kingdom. As such, the Church can only speak personally of marriage within its own context, since it is intrinsically an ecclesial thing. So the answer to the question:


At the same time can not a legal and sectarian marriage not produce this bond?

...is from the Church's standpoint, 'no'. A legal or sectarian marriage can produce a relationship, even a very good, loving, strong, committed relationship, no doubt whatever; but from the Orthodox perspective, these are again aspects or parts of what marriage is and does. They fit within the whole of becoming one in the Christian life, of 'being joined to the Lord as one Spirit', as St John reads St Paul. So as to a question that bridges these two points:


Does not sexual intercourse make two one? What happens when one has sexual intercourse with one and one and one and one and one and one and one as happens in post modern California? Then who is one one with?

... the answer to the first part is in fact Tim's 'no': sexual intercourse does make two people one in a certain way, but not in the whole sense of what is meant by 'one flesh' in a Christian understanding. And as to the second part, the person who 'has sexual intercourse with one and one and one and one and one...' in fact becomes one with no one; this person demonstrates almost exactly the inadequacy of debasing the idea of 'becoming one flesh' to simply a sexual image.

I look forward to others' comments.

INXC, Matthew

[Efthymios]

Can anyone (please) find the specific texts from:

Saint Gregory Of Nyssa Against Eunomios I 38; On the Making of Man 23; On Virginity 12.

that speak of our Forefather Adam receiving his anatomy "in light of" the Fall?

Evlogeite!.

[Olympiada]

Tim wrote


"Is it possible that two can become one outside the bonds of marriage? What happens when two people are so similar that one is mistaken for the other?"

"Becoming one" in marriage has nothing to do with being mistaken for somebody who looks like you..... this isn't even in the same ballpark.

I was not talking about physical appearance, I was talking about mental appearance. And I did not mean to cement this with becoming one in marriage . I was trying to ask if something similar happened in becoming one in marriage, that two people thought with the same mind, that is all.

And if it is not sexual intercourse that makes two one inside or outside of marriage, than what does?

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote:


Does not sexual intercourse make two one? What happens when one has sexual intercourse with one and one and one and one and one and one and one as happens in post modern California? Then who is one one with?

... the answer to the first part is in fact Tim's 'no': sexual intercourse does make two people one in a certain way, but not in the whole sense of what is meant by 'one flesh' in a Christian understanding. And as to the second part, the person who 'has sexual intercourse with one and one and on e and one and one...' in fact becomes one with no one; this person demonstrates almost exactly the inadequacy of debasing the idea of 'becomin g one flesh' to simply a sexual image.

If this is the truth, then how do you account for this clergyman's thoughts from another public discussion community:


I'm not against the use of "soul mate;" however, I think it's a stretch to liken the rather problematic, but no doubt patristically poetic dwelling of one and same soul in two separate (!!) bodies, with the marriage of an unspecified number of souls (at least) in an unspecified number of bodies. It seems to me the terms are not interchangeable at all any more than a left hand glove is interchangeable with a right hand glove. Our Church nowadays almost routinely (depending on whether one partner can be accused convincingly of the corect sin or correct amount of sins) weds those already become one flesh (which, according to Christ, one must not separate) a second or third time, even if the previously joined section(s) is (are) still alive. Thus our marriage nowadays could be defined as the marriage of one man and one woman at a time, but two or three of each serially.

This is really what I am trying to analyze, this man's thoughts on this matter.

In Christ Olympiada

[Tim Grass]

It's probably better to ask your bishop what he meant by his comments....

[Olympiada]

I am going to have to wait until after the Fast to do that and even then I am not guaranteed a response. Perhaps you could ask him for me.

[Efthymios]

THE MYSTERY AND MEANING OF LOVE AND MARRIAGE

(A series of talks and discussions

for young adults.)

by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/archi ves/012003/pof.html (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/archives/012003/pof.html)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Efthymios,

My many thanks for posting the link to that article on marriage and love. Though aimed at 'young people', it has some markedly 'grown up' discussions.

One or two comments stood out particularly, in light of the above discussion:


"It is a tragedy that the word 'love' is so often used as a metaphor for 'gratification', 'self-fulfilment', or for using another person to fulfil our sexual passions.

"In fact, love gives meaning and purpose to life by spiritually bonding us together with another person (as in marriage), with other people (as in a parish or other extended family), and with God, in a way that gives depth, meaning, permanence, commitment and a positive, creative dimension, to all that we share in life and, indeed, to life itself. Love, for an Orthodox Christian, is above all the dynamic force of salvation, of ascension toward God. Marriage is, first and foremost, a path of salvation."

And then later:


"The Kingdom of God has now been manifested on earth, and henceforth everything that takes place in the Christian life must be viewed in the context of the Heavenly Kingdom. Perhaps mankind has not yet returned to Eden, but paradise, in a spiritual form, has returned to mankind, and all who believe and accept the Kingdom must strive to draw away from the standards and concepts of the fallen world and come into accord with the standards and concepts of the Kingdom of God."

INXC, Matthew

[dimitri marinis]

Normally to most young married couples Love is hidden behind sex and lust in fact they don’t know if there is real Love between them un till later in their lives when the family’s duties are lessen the children leave home and lights go off, the couple find themselves like “unprotected” sitting one opposite the other looking in their eyes thinking well now what, this is the moment when the couple finds out whether there was ever Love, if there was this is the beginning of life of the two become one.
in Christ
dimitri

[Olympiada]

Dear Dimitri While I appreciate your poetry, lust should not exist in a marriage. It can destroy it. The flames of lust are the flames of h... And one should not marry for lust. Nor should one marry for sex. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I would not wait until my children were grown to find ou t if I really 'loved' my husband and God would not want me to wait that long. A person knows if they really love their spouse or not and if they do not they should not remain married, especially if there are children. It is neither good for the adults nor the children. I disagree with your ideology of marriage. I have a very different one. Olympiada

[Father David Moser]

Dimitri,

That sounds rather cynical to me. I would guess that most, if not all, newlyweds have some idea of whether they can love one another and that love for one another is quite obvious all along the way (assuming it continues to grow). You don't have to wait until the kids are gone to see if it's there. The love between two people is obvious in every little interaction they have, including those involved in raising the kids, in fighting, in making up, in paying the bills, in cleaning the dishes, in sweeping the house and mowing the yard. In short, it is present and discernable in every little act of daily living together. If it weren't, no marriage would last past the first fight.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

There are a lot of things that, ideally, should not exist, but in God's Kingdom he takes our fallen nature and uses it for a positive end. Such is the case of sex between couples. The initial attraction must mature, just as an immature faith in God must mature. And what must we make of all of the arranged marriages throughout history? The idea of romantic love binding a couple together in marriage is a rather modern phenomenon.

[Olympiada]

Dear Owen I am glad you bring up the topic of romantic love. What is it? How does it differ from sexual love? What place does it have in marriage? It is my hunc h that romantic love is spiritual love and indeed different from sexual love. And that if one were to marry just for sexual love, one would fail at marriage. And this gets back to my original discussion. I think a man shoul d initiate a marriage, and not a woman. Olympiada

[Olympiada]

Father David wrote:


That sounds rather cynical to me. I would guess that most, if not all, newlyweds have some idea of whether they can love one another and that love for one another is quite obvious all along the way (assuming it continues to grow). You don't have to wait until the kids are gone to see i f it's there. The love between two people is obvious in every little interaction they have, including those involved in raising the kids, in fighting, in making up, in paying the bills, in cleaning the dishes, in sweeping the house and mowing the yard. In short, it is present and discernable in every little act of daily living together. If it weren't, no marriage would last past the first fight.

I have not seen you around for a while. I disagree. I do not think all newlyweds have some idea of whether they can love another. As I have said on another list, sometimes newlyweds marry because the priest compels them to out of pity for the husband. Other times the newlyweds marry because the priest does not want the wife to be single in his parish. I am probably even more cynical than Dimitri.

[Olympiada]

To expand on my point, sexual love is carnal love, and as it has no place i n the Fast is has no place in Orthodox marriage and any priest who was to marry any man and woman for carnal love would be failing as a priest. Therefore it would serve bishops to discern whether or not priests were capable of discerning what ***kind*** of love the infatuated couple was bringing to the altar. If the priest can not discern whether or not it is the ***right*** kind of love, he sends him self, and the couple to h...

So we must all pray for our bishops so that they all can make the right decisions when ordaining priests.

The priest is held responsible by God for the souls of those under his care as is the bishop. Marriage can be damnation and not salvation if not done right.

It is time for a critical assessment of marriage, especially those officiated by priests formed in sectarian Christianity.

[Olympiada]

I have more to add. If a bishop ordains a priest that is married to a woman that had a prior marriage then it follows that this priest may be leading ***any*** couple he marries to ***divorce*** The bishop may exercise 'economia' if he so chooses but he must be very wise in doing so.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


There are a lot of things that, ideally, should not exist, but in God's Kingdom he takes our fallen nature and uses it for a positive end. Such is the case of sex between couples. The initial attraction must mature, just as an immature faith in God must mature. And what must we make of all of the arranged marriages throughout history? The idea of romantic love binding a couple together in marriage is a rather modern phenomenon.

I think this is part of what Mr Marinis was trying to get across in his earlier post. I find Fr David's words compelling, vis-a-vis the possibility of his comments sounding cynical if taken to mean that young newlyweds have no idea whether or not they really love one another, but they are riding emotions/passions until the children leave the nest and they can analyse the situation in maturity; but I don't think this is what Dimitri really meant. Surely there is truth on both sides of the coin. Love is and must be manifested in all actions (or at least, we must strive to realise and manifest love in all our actions), and this love is known in those acts and struggles; but love also matures, as Owen writes, and is brought to a maturity in Christ, such that there is a kind of maturity to the bond of love later in a married life that was not there earlier, occasioned by the growth of the marriage.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

I have not seen you around for a while. I disagree. I do not think all newlyweds have some idea of whether they can love another. As I have said on another list, sometimes newlyweds marry because the priest compels them to out of pity for the husband. Other times the newlyweds marry because the priest does not want the wife to be single in his parish. I am probably even more cynical than Dimitri.

I am not at all certain that it is helpful to raise hosts of hypothetical counter-possibilities to discussions of the Church's understanding of love, marriage and sexuality. There will always be cases of exception, there will always be exigent circumstances and fruitful ground for the wise application of oikonomia; but these do not form the basis of the Church's understanding of love, marriage or sexuality. The Church does not work from the position of numerous variant possibilities taken into consideration and a view formed that accounts for all: it presents the truth, the ideal of perfection for which humanity was created and toward which it is called by Christ, which does not vary based on the preponderance or severity of sin. This is then applied pastorally, person to person, spiritual heart to ailing heart.

To attempt to concoct a view of marriage, love or sexuality based on all the possibilities of what can go wrong, how it can be misappropriated, how it can be abused, is, beyond being out-of-sorts with the way Christianity approaches reality, simply futile. It is a road that leads nowhere, ultimately an indulgence in our own preferences, fears and desires. Our is not to dictate reality based on our likes and dislikes, are agreements and disagreements, but to receive it from Christ and apply it, in obedience and humility, to the perfection of our own lives.

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote


I am not at all certain that it is helpful to raise hosts of hypothe tical counter-possibilities todiscussions of the Church's understanding of love, marriage and sexuality. There will always becases of exception, there will always be exigent circumstances and fruitful ground for the wiseappli cation ofoikonomia; but these do not form the basis of the Church's underst anding of love, marriage or sexuality.The Church does not work from the pos ition of numerous variant possibilities taken intoconsideration and a view formed that accounts for all: it presents the truth, the ideal ofperfection for which humanity was created and toward which it is called by Christ, wh ich does notvary based on the preponderance or severity of sin. This is the n applied pastorally, person toperson, spiritual heart to ailing heart.

I am not raising hosts of *hypothetical counter-possibilties*. I am raising hosts of real occurences using principles before personalities. I will not use personalities out of respect for anonymity.

I am sorry that I do not conform to your standard, but this has been my exp erience and if I can not discuss it here, what is the point of this discuss ion board?

Olympiada

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am not raising hosts of *hypothetical counter-possibilties*. I am raising hosts of real occurences using principles before personalities. I will not use personalities out of respect for anonymity.

This is a misunderstanding based on my lack of clarity. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I should have written, 'I am not at all certain that it is helpful to raise hosts of counter-possibilities to discussions of the Church's understanding of love, marriage and sexuality.' It makes no difference whether they are hypothetical or actual; the point of my comments was that Christianity does not work from the diversity of realised (sinful) experience towards a conception of truth and righteousness, but from the Truth of Christ outward, to the perfection of diverse, realised experience.

It does not matter whether the examples are hypothetical or actual; it is the manner of using such examples in discussion that I wished to address.

My apologies for the lack of clarity.

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote further


To attempt to concoct a view of marriage, love or sexuality based on all the possibilities of what can go wrong, how it can be misappropriated, how it can be abused, is, beyond being out-of-sorts with the way Christianity approaches reality, simply futile. It is a road that leads nowhere, ultimately an indulgence in our own preferences, fears and desires . Our is not to dictate reality based on our likes and dislikes, are agreements and disagreements, but to receive it from Christ and apply it, i n obedience and humility, to the perfection of our own lives.

Is dissidence allowed in this community? I am not attempting to concoct a view of marriage based on all the *possibilities* of what can go wrong. I a m stating a point of view based on the *realities* of what has gone wrong. I do not appreciate being told I am being 'out-of-sorts' with the way Christianity approaches reality. I have been a 'Christian' for 7 years now and I think I know a little something about being a 'Christian'.

I am neither indulging in my preferences, fear nor desires. I am stating my experience, plain and simple. I am sorry it does not conform to your experience. I am not the one who started this thread. I am merely respondin g to it.

I am not 'dictating reality'. I am sharing my experience. I am sorry, again , it does not conform to your experience. You do not have CSB in England? I thought they were an international group.

I am attempting to apply the Christian world view to my life. I am disturbe d that is not obvious to this discussion community.

In Christ Olympiada

[Eleftheria]

Dear All,
Earlier in this thread, Matthew's post 947, related that the bride & groom become one in Christ as they follow the priest around the table during the Mystery of Marriage. The point is 'the Mystery'.

THE MYSTERY OF TWO…

and while you stand
dressed in white
barely breathing before all
crowned!
ribbon-wrapt
‘round your hearts radiant!
dance with robes
golden-book-cuffed
red-wined
ringed!
…BECOME ONE!

I wrote the above some time ago, But the point is evident, we do not become one in marriage without the Church or without Christ.
Wishing everyone, "Kalo Stadio"...
Eleftheria

[Paul Koufalas]

> It's been a while since I read it, but I recommend "Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage", by Fr John Chryssavgis, to all those interested in this subject.

[Bogdan]

First, a side comment on something stated above. To say that the bishop should choose priests due to their ability to judge a relationship between a man and a woman and if they are ready to be joined by God...is incredible at the least. I have never heard of a priest turning down a couple for marriage, at worst I've heard of compulsory marriage counseling for couples who are at risk. Even if he did, they would just go to a different priest who will perform the ceremony. i.e. Our governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich (not for the reasons we're talking about, but the point stands). In any case, I don't believe one judgement by a bishop should be based on the future judgement of the priest he is about to anoint. I think our Grace goes beyond a judgement call one might possibly make in error in the future. If it were any different, nobody would become a priest; only God is without future sins.

Back to the topic,
Olympiada,
I don't think anybody is attempting to attack your world view, your experience or your choice of topic. I think in general we don't know your experience, so we can't really talk about it in detail, without more detail. This is the reason, i believe, that posts have focused on the general truth and mystery of marriage. I hope that this makes sense and that you guide us through your questions in a way that we can answer them so that it satisfies you.

[Olympiada]

Bogdan wrote: \quote { First, a side comment on something stated above. To say that the bishop should choose priests due to their ability to judge a relationship between a man and a woman and if they are ready to be joined by God...is incredible at the least. I have never heard of a priest turning down a couple for marriage, at worst I've heard of compulsory marriage counseling for couples who are at risk. Even if he did, they would just go to a different priest who will perform the ceremony. i.e. Our governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich (not for the reasons we're talking about, but the point stands). In any case, I don't believe one judgement by a bishop shoul d be based on the future judgement of the priest he is about to anoint. I think our Grace goes beyond a judgement call one might possibly make in error in the future. If it were any different, nobody would become a priest ; only God is without future sins. }

Dear Bogdan, Thank you for reading my world view. I do not feel attacked, just misunderstood. What can be misunderstood will be misunderstood. I am trying to practice the principle of anonymity in revealing my experience.

I do have to say I am angry with my bishop for ordaining my former priest which may be fueling my engine. I told my bishop I was angry with him, but I did not tell him the reason.

I do not think it is incredible for a bishop to choose a priest based on hi s ability to judge a relationship between a man and a woman. Then again I probably have a wrong understanding of the role of the priest. He is not a counselor. Some priests are professional counselors. This does not mean the y are competent priests.

Are you so sure a couple who wanted to marry would go to a different priest if their own turned them down? I am not. I tried to go to a monastery to stop my marriage and I still felt compelled to marry. I was told that often priests make couples marry who have fornicated. This is wrong!

And you did not address my point of a priest having a wife that had a forme r husband. I do believe this will ruin his marital counseling.

You speak as if you were a bishop. Well a bishop is a man, not a god, and h e can make mistakes.

So I guess my question has nothing do with orthodoxy and sexuality and more with the fallibility of bishops.

Olympiada

[Bogdan]

Olympiada,

I truly apreciate your opening up and sharing of these new details to the conversation. They make this response much more specific to your question, and easier to form in general. I also thank you for your patience, it is amazing to me when I see someone involve their personal struggles with complete strangers; I hope my candor and response in general will help in any way it can!

Basically, to answer the last thing you said, the fallibility of bishops is equal to the fallability of any soul struggling to find God. Of course you are 100% right in the second to last sentence; they make mistakes. Even if he does make some bad choices, perhaps it would be Orthodox of us to talk to him about our anger towards his decision. I am sure there are many people that are unhappy with decisions I make everyday, fortunately for me though I'm not in charge of anything as serious as the church. Perhaps your anger and approach to this entire subject would be different if you got this 'secret' topic of anger off your chest? Just a suggestion..

I believe it IS incredible for a bishop to pick a priest based on future judgements he might make. It's like saying there is no subjectivity in life, only objective right and wrong. He may pick a man that is not the holliest, or the most capable at that moment, but the Holy Spriit guides bishops in ways we don't understand always. I have seen "perfect" priests end up bad, I have also seen "bad" preists end up great people. I am sure the priest will make a few great decisions in how a relationship should go forward; be it marriage, counseling, or a complete restructuring. He will also marry a couple that to others is obviously unhappy. We are all human. This is why the priest asks for 3 weeks in a row before a marriage if a couple should stay together. If anyone thinks they shouldn't, they don't even have to speak up in church, they just need to contact the priest. This conversation goes right up there next to confession itself and is completely confidential. I don't think it's possible for a human being to be more compitant than this. Individual examples notwithstanding, I hope you realize why this makes sense and must be this way. I say again, if a bishop just ordained a man into the clergy because he felt this man would make the PERFECT decision EVERY time, be it marriage, baptism, communion or any other sacrament...there would be zero priests. ZERO.

Yes, I am sure a couple that wants to marry and is turned down by one priest, would turn to another priest. I have seen countless examples of it, even so far as to go to A Greek, Russian, etc. church..IN ANOTHER STATE! I hope this makes sense. People get dillusional and make choices in blind love, lust, etc. Your individual feelings of compullsion for marriage I feel were based on an unfortunate level of miscommunication with the clergy you deal with. I am heartbroken to read your post and have a visual of such conversations. Correct me if I am extrapolating your experience too far, but from my interactions with such questioning parties, they are told that marriage is the ultimate bond between a man and a woman. To be in love, is to want to get married. So if you are in love, you should be married. Something along these lines I am sure was told to you(whether it was love or one of the other interchangable words, the point is the same: get married!) Oh if you had only understood the truth behind this message. If there is TRUE love and a TRUE bond in God in this relationship, THEN you should get married. I think that in fact, they were telling you to NOT get married, but the Orthodox spirit got "lost in translation" to our human minds and tounges. Fornication falls very easily into this category of priestly council. A priest will say similar things as I have listed, "if you did it, you can get married" That's a brutal subsitute for what he would say, but the point stands. He is in fact saying "Love is not this simple; if you REALLY love this person, marry them" ...I hope that concept makes sense!

As for a wife being divorced/formerly married, I tend in general to disagree. There is the basic concept of forgiveness and penance to think about; if God has forgiven her and a bishop has blessed this bond, then let no man rend it assunder. Yes perhas a man has done it before, but who knows under what circumstances the marriage occured, in what church, and what led to that divorce. To say someone is inherantly incapable of a God centered marriage relationship just because they failed at it before is preposterous in my humble opinion. We all make mistakes; it's how we recover and become better christians that defines our true heart's intentions. When you then consider the fact that this experience would in many ways HELP her husband understand the pain that some church members may be going through in their own divorces. I think in general experience teaches us much and guides our spiritual life; even the worst kind of experiences. If on the other hand it is the PRIEST who gets divorced, well, different rules apply to them. Denying them the option of marrying a woman who has had a previous relationship, is just extreme in my views. Orthodoxy is anything but extreme. Temperance is our motto as far as I know.

Whew, that was long. I apologize once again if I pushed your buttons. Hopefully some of it made sense though!

your brother in XC,
~Bogdan

[Bogdan]

p.s. - Please do not compare my humble ramblings to those of a bishop. I am at my very best a young, lost sunday school teacher looking for guidance from someone as amazing as a bishop is. I beg of you, please do not break my humble spirit with this comparison.

~Bogdan

[Father David Moser]

> I tried to go to a monastery to stop my marriage and I still felt compelled to marry. <

Now this I don't understand at all. To quote Nancy Regan, "Just say no". when the priest asks, "are you here of your own free will", then just say no and the wedding stops. Choose not to show up that day and there can be no wedding. How can you be married against your will - especially in this day and age and in this culture.

> I was told that often priests make couples marry who have fornicated.

I have never heard of a priest *forcing* someone to marry for this reason. He may suggest to the couple that if they can't be continent, perhaps it is better to marry than to burn, but never "making' anyone marry.

Fr David Moser

And no, I am not being sarcastic.

[Olympiada]

Father David wrote:


Now this I don't understand at all. To quote Nancy Regan, "Just say no". when the priest asks, "are you here of your own free will", then just say n o and the wedding stops. Choose not to show up that day and there can be no wedding. How can you be married against your will - especially in this day and age and in this culture.

I did not say I was married against my will. I was married with my will. In other words it was a self willed marriage. Not a God willed marriage. Now d o you understand?

I was told that often priests make couples marry who have fornicated.


I have never heard of a priest *forcing* someone to marry for this reason. He may suggest to the couple that if they can't be continent, perhaps it is better to marry than to burn, but never "making' anyone marry.

Well now you have. As I have told two other groups, my former priest *threw * me on the flames of my ex husband's lust to contain them. He didn't give a hoot about me. I was the expendable fuel, the log as it were. I have no problem being continent. It was my ex that had the problem. In fact my ex ruined me after my Baptism and when I asked my priest, no my whole communit y for help, they *all* turned their back on me. How did this happen? We were living together in a 'discipleship house', run by a 'Christian community'. Approved by the 'priest'. So there. Now you have heard. Never heard of CSB before? No real priests existed under Metropolitan Pangratios. So call him a pseudo priest at the time. Then it will make more sense!

[Bogdan]

Olympiada,

I am completely confused and astounded by that last paragraph. I don't understand how, "no real priests exist" under ANY bishop. It can't make sense if i don't know what a pseudo priest IS exactly.

I am deeply sorry for your harrowing relationship experience. There is much psychological damage there that I can't even begin to understand, so I'm not going to say anything that might just cause more damage.

Please explain what you mean by the bishop and priests comments, and If you get a chance, I would like to hear your response on my lengthy reply above.

~Bogdan

[Kozarezov Artem]

I am attempting to apply the Christian world view to my life. I am disturbed that is not obvious to this discussion community.

Well, let us discuss the Christian view again then, and how it differ from your experience, or rather from how you interpret it.

There is a saying, in Russia at least, about "spoonful of tar in the barrel of honey". You see, even the spoonful of tar can ruine your experience completely. And what to say if you are used to tar from the childhood. You're risking never to have the clean taste again.

In the "Normal Orthodox" community you have been given a good definition of passtion:


Passions would be those things that consume us so that we cannot do anything else or prioritize anything ahead of them. They thus would be considered separating us from God for they occupy us completely. That is a proper definition of passion and defined in that way they are not good. We should note though that the word passion does not always mean sex, and that sex and sexual urges does not have to become a passion.

to which you answer:


Show me one person who is sexually active who is not possessed by the passion of sex. I am thoroughly cynical that anything sexual is passionate. That there is no other way but to have sex be passion. And in terms of marriage, it is just like legalizing marijuana. It is legalizing the drug of sex.

It is understandable how you can't see sexuality outside of passion. In fact, it is a normal condition of our damaged nature, that any good thing tends to overcome us and take the place of God for us, become passion. That is so not only with sexuality, but with many other good things created.

Now, the difference between your world view and that of the Church is that the Church is trying to separate everything that is good, and that is everything created, from the sin. Now, if you'd say that's impossible, you'd be quite right: it's impossible to us. But nevertheless it is achieved by the Church. Not absolutely. But only as the anticipation of the Eighth Day of Creation, sometimes pre-experienced by the Church thru personal theosis.

And your world view is a "practial" one, you'd rather separate the spiritual part of yourself from the physical part altogether, us the physical is the most damaged one in your case.

[Olympiada]

Bogdan, The moderator said my last message to you was personal. Contact me by email and we can talk more openly. The priest that married me was ordained under a pseudo bishop, therefore he was a pseudo priest. He was ordained by a real bishop after I was married and became a real priest. But the damage was already done, the marriage was already performed. Olympiada

[Olympiada]

Artem You are absolutely right and I do not have much hope. Even my former favorite theologian Paul Evodokimov writes against sexual mysticism. That i s Hindu. So I am stuck. My new favorite theologian, Soloyvov, is leading the way for me now. Olympiada

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

I think the following passage might contribute to the discussion. It is taken from Rev. Andreas Michailidis (The Creed: The New and Perfect Revelation of God in Jesus Christ, p.73.


Together with our fall, everything in us fell, and most of all: our inner power. Actually, it is this inner power that we used in order to fall. We used it in order to become gods outside the plan of God for our deification...Therefore it is not the passions that we should fight against but this tendency of ours to want to become gods by violating the plan of God for our deification. Therefore, what we should fight against is not this power that is implanted in us but our pride and our selfishness which draws us down and away from God. "What should we do with our passions then?" one might ask. We should not uproot them as most people say. When we manage to do that, we are left without this power that God enriched us with. We should try to give them a different direction: instead of downwards, we should turn them upwards. If we manage to do that, we have succeeded in our spiritual struggle for perfection.

It seems to me both the body and its natural vigour and vitality are good as created by God. But as Rev. Michailidis suggests, this inner power needs to be directed by an attitude of ascetic self-denial, leading in some to blessed detachment and holiness, and in the rest of us to struggling clumsily at the foot of the spiritual mountain, occasionally getting a chance to look up towards the summit before falling over again flat on our faces (OK, maybe that says as much about me as I'm comfortable with)!

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Artem,

Thank you for your post, above. I appreciated very much your comments vis-a-vis sexuality and passion. Such as:


It is understandable how you can't see sexuality outside of passion. In fact, it is a normal condition of our damaged nature, that any good thing tends to overcome us and take the place of God for us, become passion. That is so not only with sexuality, but with many other good things created.

This does get right to the heart of the matter of passions in this regard, which is one of the themes that has come up in this thread. In some sense, the equation of authentic sexual desire with passion is a good definition of 'lust': a flawed perception, a flawed definition, because one is equating the fallen stature of a thing with the nature of it. This reminds me of the kind of catch-phrases popular today: "It's human nature to lie", etc. In point of fact, the propensity to dishonesty is not part of human nature, but part of the fallen human condition. Equating this fallen condition to the created nature is to enshrine disfiguration as purity - a serious flaw.

So with sexuality and 'passion' in the sense of a consuming power to the sexual appetite. One must distinguish these in order to understand the authentic nature of the human person as sexual creature; as much as one must distinguish them in order to come to terms with the struggles within our own person of their conflation and confusion in our usual perceptions.

INXC, Matthew

[Kozarezov Artem]

So I am stuck. My new favorite theologian, Soloyvov, is leading the way for me now.

Let me decipher this. In "Normal Orthodox", in answer to this statement:


Secondly, God gives different gifts to different people. Some people have a gift for monasticism and some are better suited for marriage. *All* of God's gifts are good.

you wrote:


Huh? Ok, time to recommend my latest essay: Beauty, Sexuality and Love by Vladimir Sergevyich Solovyov in Ultimate Questions by Alexander Schmemann.

It's an Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. In this essay Solovyov says that sometimes people become monastics because of an intense unrequited sexual love. It's either that or commit suicide. I am not sure what kind of gift that is other than preserving one's life. I have seen it happen my self. In fact the girl who gave me the pieces of blessed Seraphim Rose's coffin falls in that category, and she is no longer a monastic. In fact many of Father Herman's flock are no longer monastic. But that's a different subject entirely. I think a lot of people get there vocations mixed up personally, speaking from personal experience *and* observation. However I have been accused of grilling others under the guise of learning so I am going to shut up now.
...
I am sorry, but I am feeling really cynical about marriage. I am going through a divorce. I agree with Solovyov. That's where my thinking is going on sexuality now.

So i take it you're going to turn monastic.

I advise you against making Soloyvov, who was highly influenced by "gnostic" Valentine and German Mystics, to be your favorite theologian. He's not a theologian, he's a philosopher! And his view on love elevation is purely theoretic! I was going to translate and quote him from there:

http://lib.babr.ru/index.php?book=1 945

but i've got disgusted on the way.

He associates God with Divine Feminity! He says, that physical unity with that Divine Feminity is the source of highest pleasure of humans and gods!

That is, he has nothing to do with Christian understanding of love being expressed in different natures, spiritually in the spiritual nature, physically in the physical nature, he tries to stretch the physical love on everything else instead.

He know's not experience of spiritual love of God, or he wouldn't write that physical love is the source of highest pleasure. His writings on the subject is zilch!
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/vo pros/62.html
explains, that Solovyov transfers the physical love to the Trinity itself, after gnostics.

Alexander Schmemann is an excellent theologian, and so he, in his Anthology, most probably have repeated the excellent example of St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, by finding the Orthodox meaning in the most unlikely places. That experience of finding God everywhere thru prophetic grace is in fact what father Alexander himself explains in "Of Water and the Spirit", chapter 3, Prophet.

Speaking of this, i once sent a letter, to quote:


One saint said, that "devil is trying to burn us with the fire of our own".
Protopresbyter Valentine Asmus (http://pokrovahram.narod.ru/asmus.html) in his lectures on Church history (http://orthodoxia.org/lib/1/1/27/3.aspx) says, that monasticism is continuation of the prophetic tradition.

Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (http://www.schmemann.org/) in his Of Water and the Spirit (http://www.cdrm.ru/kerigma/rek-lit/myst/shmem/vd/vd3.htm), says, that prophet is, to whom everything is permeated with God.

Sexual desire is sometimes impossible to fight. But then again, we should outsmart the devil, as Magi had outsmarted the Herod (Matthew 2:12, patristic interpretation is from "Lord's Holidays" of Hierotheos Vlachos).

Prophetic Grace allows us to see the One, Who "all is desire, all is delight" (http://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C+%D0%B5%D1%81%D0% B8+%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%2C+% D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D 0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) behind the most strong of our temptations. The very arrows which lechery demon throws at us might then become a precious resource in our building.

What i meant there, is that monastic life is possible becouse of proper understanding of sexuality achieved with prophetic grace.

Sexuality is not to be explored as a means to achieve unity with God! It won't lead anywhere! But turning sexuality to God is sometimes the only way to handle it, to unite it with the spiritual part of love, and to make the spiritual part of our nature grow.

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote:


So with sexuality and 'passion' in the sense of a consuming power t o the sexual appetite. One must distinguish these in order to understand the authentic nature of the human person as sexual creature; as much as one mus t distinguish them in order to come to terms with the struggles within our ow n person of their conflation and confusion in our usual perceptions.

I take issue with this. I do not think passion is a consuming power of the sexual appetite. I think it is something else. Why even mention sexual appetite. That is sick. Isn't there some other kind of vocabulary we can use? We are speaking about sex divorced from love and that is perverse.

[Tim Grass]

"Why even mention sexual appetite. That is sick. Isn't there some other kind of vocabulary we can use?"

No. Unless you want to abandon perfectly good and ancient terms and understandings just because you don't like them..... which is foolish.

--tim

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Artem and others,

Further to my recent comments, on the conflation of the passionate state of humanity with the authentic nature of humanity, especially vis-a-vis sexual passions, I thought I would post a relevant section of the book Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:

<blockquote> In church we often speak of the fall of man and the death which came as a result of the fall. Spiritual death came first, and bodily death followed. The soul lost the uncreated grace of God, the nous ceased to have a relationship with God and was darkened. It transmitted this darkening and dying to the body. According to St. Gregory of Sinai, man&#39;s body was created incorruptible and &#34;such it will be resurrected&#34;, and the soul was created dispassionate. Since there was a very tenacious link between soul and body because of their interpenetration and communication, both were corrupted. &#34;The soul acquired the qualities of the passions, or rather of the demons, and the body became like irrational beasts due to the condition into which it fell and the prevalence of corruption.&#34; Since the soul and body were corrupted, they formed &#34;one animal being, unreasoning and senseless, subject to anger and lust&#34;. This is how, according to the Scriptures, man became &#34;joined to the beasts and like them&#34;. Through the fall, man&#39;s soul filled with passions, his body became like the beasts. Man wore the skin garments of decay and mortality and became like irrational animals.

This sickness, bondage, impurity and dying of the soul is admirably described in the patristic works. Every sin is a repetition of Adam&#39;s sin, and with every sin we undergo the darkening and dying of the fallen soul. Let us take a closer look at these fallen states of the soul.

When man leaves his senses free and through the senses his nous pours out of his heart, then his soul is taken captive. &#34;The unloosing of the senses lays fetters on the soul.&#34; This bondage is equivalent to darkening. The setting of the sun creates night. And when Christ withdraws from the soul and the darkness of passions lays hold of it, then &#34;the immaterial beasts tear it to pieces&#34;. Man&#39;s soul falls into impenetrable darkness and the demons work on him. He finds himself in a moonless night.

This also constitutes the soul&#39;s disease. St. Thalassios says: &#34;The soul&#39;s disease is an evil disposition, while its death is sin put into action&#34;. The ailing soul is led step by step to death.

Actually the soul&#39;s disease is its impurity. &#34;Impurity of soul lies in its not functioning in accordance with nature. It is because of this that impassioned thoughts are produced in the intellect&#34;. According to St. Maximus, &#34;A soul filled with thoughts of sensual desire and hatred is unpurified&#34;.

Hesychios the Priest describes the way in which the soul sickens and is finally killed. God created the soul simple and good, but it delights in the provocations of the devil, and &#34;once deceived, it pursues something sinister as though it were good&#34;. In this way &#34;its thoughts become entwined in the fantasy provoked by the devil&#34;. Then &#34;the soul assents to the provocation and, to its own condemnation, tries to turn this unlawful mental fantasy into a concrete action by means of the body&#34;.

St. Gregory Palamas, citing passages from Scripture, such as the Apostle Paul&#39;s words: &#34;...even when we were dead in trespasses He made us alive together with Christ&#34; &#40;Eph.2,5&#41;, the words of John the Evangelist: &#34;There is sin leading to death&#34; &#40;1Jn.5,16&#41;, and Christ&#39;s words to his disciple: &#34;Let the dead bury their own dead&#34; &#40;Matt.8,22&#41;, says that although the soul is immortal by grace, nevertheless when &#34;dissipated, abandoned to pleasures and self-indulgent, it is dead even while it lives&#34;. This is the way he interprets the Apostle Paul&#39;s words: &#34;She &#40;the widow&#41; who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives&#34; &#40;1Tim.5,6&#41;. Although the soul is alive, it is dead, since it has not the true life which is the grace of God. When our ancestors withdrew from the remembrance and theoria of God and disregarded His command and took the side of the deathly spirit of Satan, they were stripped of &#34;the luminous and living raiment of the supernal radiance and they too, alas, became dead in spirit like Satan&#34;. This is how it always goes. When someone joins with Satan and does his own will, his soul dies, because Satan is not only a deathly spirit but he also brings death upon those who draw near to him.

When the soul is not working according to nature it is dead. &#34;...when it is not healthy, though it retains a semblance of life, it is dead...When, for instance, it has no care for virtue, but is rapacious and transgresses the law, whence can I tell you that you have a soul? Because you walk? But this belongs to the irrational creatures as well. Because you eat and drink? But this too belongs to wild beasts. Well then, because you stand upright on two feet? This convinces me rather that you are a beast in human form&#34;.

In the teaching of the Apostle Paul the `dead&#39; man is called `carnal&#39; or `unspiritual&#39;. In his letter to the Corinthians he writes: &#34;The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God&#34; &#40;1Cor.2,14&#41;. He also writes: &#34;While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal, and behaving like mere men?&#34; &#40;1Cor.3,3&#41; According to Prof. John Romanides the words used for `unspiritual&#39; &#40;psychikos&#41; and `carnal&#39; &#40;sarkikos&#41; and `behaving like mere men&#39; have the same meaning. In another place in his book he writes: &#34;The carnal and unspiritual man is the whole man, soul and body, who lacks that energy of the Holy Spirit which renders one incorruptible&#34;. &#34;When a man does not follow the Spirit, he is deprived of God&#39;s life-giving energy and is rendered unspiritual&#34;.</blockquote>

INXC, Matthew

[Paul Koufalas]

&#62; Artem wrote: &#34;But turning sexuality to God is sometimes the only way to handle it, to unite it with the spiritual part of love, and to make the spiritual part of our nature grow.&#34;

This reminds me of part of Bp Kallistos Ware&#39;s introduction to The Ladder of Divine Ascent:

&#34;As for the sexual impulse, this too is a divine gift, and has its role to play in the life of the spirit. John is not afraid to take the term for physical love, eros-which has in Greek many of the same associations as the English word &#39;erotic&#39;--and to apply it to our love for God. The erotic impulse is not to be suppressed but redirected:

&#39;I have watched impure souls made for physical love &#40;eros&#41; but turning what they know of such love into a reason for penance and transferring that same capacity for love &#40;eros&#41; to the Lord.&#39;

...John still regards the earthly as a true image of the heavenly:

&#39;Physical love can be a paradigm for the longing of God...&#39;

===

I&#39;ll also take the opportunity to quote &#40;in fragments&#41; Fr Chryssavgis &#40;cited in a previous post&#41;:

&#34;The exercise of sexual powers involves our whole personality, rather than being a mere function of the biological organism. It also involves the personality of another human being. Love implies openness to the other. We are all in need of others...We need them if we are to do anything...to know anything...&#39;for it is not good for man to be alone&#39; &#40;Genesis 2.18&#41;. It is this which gives a sense of freedom in sexual experience, of divine spontaneity and delight in the other, even though it may also contain possiblities of damage and destruction...The real danger...is not not so much that lovers might idolize each other but...love itself rather than the loved one, and erect a self-sufficient system of its own, a fetishism...Yet the real nature of love is to move beyond oneself...Dionysios...employs the word eros to describe this movement, because it denotes the element of &#39;ecstasy&#39;, of self-transcendence...Maximos the Confessor depicts the whole universe as erotically responding to God, as engaged in a ceaseless erotic dialogue with God...It cannot be stressed too much that the omission of the sense of person-to-person relationship in the love between man and woman leads...to its undoing...he or she turns into an object, and hence a victim...love is not mere gratification of hunger. It is, above all, a self-giving. It is a sacrifice...Love as mere lust, as appropriation and exploitation, creates a gulf between man and woman, and leaves both deeply alone...The underlying mind-body dichotomy [in the West]...alien to the Eastern Patristic tradition, had a particularly damaging effect on human relations where sex was concerned...It could not be appreciated for what it was in itself, namely a glorification of God and a meditation on the beauty of God&#39;s creation...Love, communion, consummation, for the sake of God? This is considered lamentable naivete about human motivation! Meanwhile, sex, together with all other human relations, becomes empty. To fill the vacuum is to recover the ultimate, &#39;sacramental&#39; ground of love in self-giving, as Christ gave Himself.&#34;

&#62;

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Community,

During the First Week of the Great Fast preceding Pascha, we saw posted about 3-4 posts on &#39;The Thought of Death&#39; all according to the theme of the First Week liturgically, and certainly Orthodox.

During the same week my inbox was overtaken by &#43;40 posts on &#39;Orthodoxy and Sex&#39;.

What dear members does this indicate? Where exactly were our thoughts during the Great Canon?

Judging, by the numerical calculation noted above is it not rather obvious?

We should cover ourselves with ashes and beat our chests in lamentation.

[Olympiada]

Monk Seraphim I disagree. We are warring with the passion of lust. Please do not judge us . Not all of us have a monastic calling. Olympiada

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Correct me if I am mistaken, was there judgement in my post # 105?

Though I have never insisted my &#39;title&#39; according to our Church is Greatschema Monk, or Schema Monk, or Reverend.

And did I indicate that anyone of us is free from logismoi?

[Kozarezov Artem]

We should cover ourselves with ashes and beat our chests in lamentation.

We should.

I didn't expect there are users of the community who are subscribed to all the messages and whould shun the traffic. I myself had turned off delivery immediately after registering here, and so i receive only the messages of the threads i'm participating in.

If there are question remining, we should discuss these problems somewere else, i think.

[Father David Moser]

Olympiada,

I ask Matthew&#39;s indulgence this one time to make what should probably be a personal comment. I have tried private email, but it doesn&#39;t seem to go through.

&#62; Never heard of CSB before?

I am well aware of CSB, formerly the &#34;Holy Order of MANS&#34; and their chronology and journey - more than you might be yourself. Your association with them explains a lot of your ideas and statements about &#34;Orthodoxy&#34; which are unique &#40;to say the least&#41;. One of the tragedies of the Church in the 80&#39;s and 90&#39;s is that there was a huge influx of American converts received &#34;en masse&#34; from various groups who were not catechized or taught about Orthodoxy in any way. Thank God this tendency is changing &#40;in many cases by the actions of those who were improperly received themselves&#41;. I grieve that you &#40;or anyone for that matter&#41; were caught up in that grand error in judgement, but also rejoice that you &#40;and many others&#41; persist in the bosom of our Holy Mother Church despite the manner of your reception.

Fr David

[Efthymios]

Check out:

THE MYSTERY OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
Vladimir Moss
<font size="+1">

http://uk.share.geocities.com/guild fordian2002/Polemics/TheMysteryofCh ristianMarriage.htm (http://uk.share.geocities.com/guildfordian2002/Polemics/TheMysteryofChristianMarriage.htm)</font>

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Seraphim wrote:


During the First Week of the Great Fast preceding Pascha, we saw posted about 3-4 posts on 'The Thought of Death' all according to the theme of the First Week liturgically, and certainly Orthodox. During the same week my inbox was overtaken by +40 posts on 'Orthodoxy and Sex'. What dear members does this indicate? Where exactly were our thoughts during the Great Canon?

I welcome your reminder of focus. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif But I think there is also something of ascetical endeavour in coming to a right understanding about something that is so regularly a part, a large part, of that fallen condition of which the Fast, especially at its beginning, calls us to become aware, to challenge, and by the grace of God to change. This has been part of the focus of some of the most recent comments: understanding the relationship of false 'sexuality' as passionate captor to the authentic creation of humanity as sexual being; that is, developing a discrimination between true nature and fallen reality. Perhaps, unintentionally, it is a reflection on the same lament issued by St Andrew in a portion of last Monday's reading from the Great Canon (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/andrew_of_crete/great_canon_mon.shtml):


"I have stained the coat of my flesh, and soiled what is in Thy image and likeness, O Saviour. I have darkened the beauty of my soul with passionate pleasures, and my whole mind I have reduced wholly to mud.

"I have torn my first garment which the Creator wove for me in the beginning, and therefore I am lying naked. (Genesis 3:21)

"I have put on a torn coat, which the serpent wove for me by argument, and I am ashamed." (Genesis 3:4-5)

Discussing issues of sexuality simply for the sake of discussing sexuality would, I wholeheartedly agree, not be fitting in a season such as this (or, for that matter, a forum such as this!). But the need to discern and become aware of what is authentically human versus what is merely the 'social norm' of fallen humanity, especially with regard to an issue that is for many at the centre of passionate experience in the world, seems eminently lenten.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Matthew,

I am grateful for your post # 957. However, to be given by Grace and of free volition to accept, either the Sacrament of Marriage or Monasticism, leads one, of necessity, to the multiform, ever-changing nature of ascetic battle.

Which is why, no one, as you know, is canonized before her or his death.

A post was directly aimed my way implying I am free as an angel. I wanted to simply point out that we are all, that is, &#39;not as yet married&#39;, &#39;married&#39;, or &#39;monastic&#39;, subject to logismoi. Whether we accept the thoughts or not is at the core of the ascetic battle, is it not?

Certainly, I did not condemn the majority of the 40 plus posts. Yet certain of them, directly or by inference, went far beyond any Lenten theme.

We need look no further than our Monastic Father, Saint Anthony the Great, amongst countless others, to see the force of this temptation.

[Efthymios]

from the DISCOURSES OF SAINT ABBA DOROTHEOS OF GAZA

St Gregory says, &#39;Let us offer ourselves as first fruits [of the resurrection], that is, let us sacrifice ourselves, let us die to ourselves all the day long, as did all the saints, for the sake of Christ our God. How did they put themselves to death? By not loving the world or what is in the world as it says in the catholic epistles, &#39;By rejecting the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life&#39;, that is, the love of pleasures, the love of money and of vainglory, and taking up the cross and following Christ and crucifying the world to themselves and themselves to the world.. About this the apostle says, &#39;Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.&#39; This is how the saints put themselves to death.

Remember the 1st week of the Great Fast speaks of Creation and the Fall.also cf.
http://romanitas.ru/eng/EROS.htm

[Olympiada]

Dear Schemamonk Seraphim What thoughts are you referring to? Olympiada

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Olympiada,

Look at the topic of this thread, and I believe this will supply the answer to your above post.

Respectfully,

fr. seraphim

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Seraphim wrote:


I wanted to simply point out that we are all, that is, 'not as yet married', 'married', or 'monastic', subject to logismoi. Whether we accept the thoughts or not is at the core of the ascetic battle, is it not?

Certainly, I did not condemn the majority of the 40 plus posts. Yet certain of them, directly or by inference, went far beyond any Lenten theme.

I'm grateful for this contribution. It harks back to a point of discussion in this thread a short while ago, namely the focus with which one approaches such questions within the Church's mindset. I wrote in my post no. 953:


"The Church does not work from the position of numerous variant possibilities taken into consideration and a view formed that accounts for all: it presents the truth, the ideal of perfection for which humanity was created and toward which it is called by Christ, which does not vary based on the preponderance or severity of sin. This is then applied pastorally, person to person, spiritual heart to ailing heart.

"To attempt to concoct a view of marriage, love or sexuality based on all the possibilities of what can go wrong, how it can be misappropriated, how it can be abused, is, beyond being out-of-sorts with the way Christianity approaches reality, simply futile. It is a road that leads nowhere, ultimately an indulgence in our own preferences, fears and desires. Our is not to dictate reality based on our likes and dislikes, are agreements and disagreements, but to receive it from Christ and apply it, in obedience and humility, to the perfection of our own lives."

I do think this really has to be at the heart of any patristic approach to the questions involved in 'Orthodoxy and Sexuality': not just a seeking after answers to questions, but a seeking after the context in which questions are rightly formulated -- of hearing what the Gospel teaches about human nature in its full reality, and applying this 'icon' to our own lives as the pastoral means of transfiguration, rather than taking the experiences of our lives as the building blocks of a new intellectual or psychological tower of babel that some how reaches up to the heavens and defines our reality.

INXC, Matthew

[Efthymios]

We must not artificially isolate ourselves from the reality of todays world; rather, we must learn to use the best things the world has to offer, for everything good in the world—if we are only wise enough to see it—points to God, and we must make use of it. Too many people make the mistake of limiting Orthodoxy to church services, set prayers, and the occasional reading of a spiritual book. True Orthodoxy, however, requires a commitment that involves every aspect of our lives. One is Orthodox all the time every day, in every situation of life—or one is not really Orthodox at all. For this reason we must develop an Orthodox worldview and live it. --- Fr. Seraphim of Platina

&#34;Living an Orthodox World-View&#34;, a lecture given at the St Herman Summer Pilgrimage, Platina, CA, August 1980; Orthodox America, Aug.-Sept. 1982.

[Jake Gale]

So is it a sin to masterbate?

[Herman Blaydoe]

So is it a sin to masterbate?Short answer: In as much as it is simply an act for self-gratification, it "misses the mark", don't you think? Is it not perhaps a symptom of a greater illness? Remember, in Orthodoxy, sin is a sickness to be healed, not a crime to be punished.

[Father David Moser]

So is it a sin to masterbate?

Another short answer - yes. Why? Longer answer - because any act that arouses the passions is sinful. Any act that misuses what God has given is sinful. Masturbation misuses what God has given, it arouses the passions, it is an act of extreme selfishness, it is often accompanied by sinful fantasies.

No less than masturbation - overeating and secret eating are sins. These sins misuse what God has given, they arouse the passions, they are acts of selfishness, etc. One might even consider gourmet eating a similar sin since it is only concerned with arousing the passion for pleasant/unique tastes, it wastes food (choosing only the finest), it arouses pride, it is an act of selfishness, it makes a "god" out of food, cuisine, chef, etc.

Or perhaps lets go to another arena - excessive dress (regardless of the fashion it follows) is sinful in that it arouses the passions; it is selfish; it makes a "god" out of designers, clothing, etc; it breaks the law of God (do not be concerned for what you will wear... Matt 6:25-34)

You see we could go on to any number of the seemingly "normal" parts of our life and find that if "misused" it becomes sin. Sexuality is no different in this respect than eating, drinking, owning possessions, clothing, and so on.

Fr David Moser

[Kusanagi]

Self satisfaction is not how nature or God intended it to be. It was man and woman being married and then becoming one body.
How to be one flesh if homosexual or self satisfying yourself?
Also St Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain in his manual book for confession says the canon for this is saying Psalm 50 and doing 49 prostrations a day for the next 40 days and eating only dry food and water.