Autoeroticism and the fathers

[Constantinos]

Apologies if this is in the wrong forum. Newbie and all.

As a recent intellectual convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (should become a catechumen soon), I am deeply interested in the teaching of the Church on various matters. One issue upon which I have not found much reliable information is masturbation. The sources I have read typically agree it is regarded as sin within the Orthodox Church, and provide decent intellectual reasoning thereupon, but I am all too well aware that for every argument there is a counter. I am uneasy about accepting a vague, "well, everybody says so" approach. I am looking for something authoritative and concrete.

Therefore: What did the Early Church Fathers have to say about masturbation? Since I am still relatively new to the Tradition business, quotes would be greatly appreciated. I am looking for specifics on the topic, not more general commentaries on the issue of human sexuality e.g. Chrysotom.

As an aside, since I believe in healthy dissent, I am particularly interested in hearing about any writers in the early Church who did not believe masturbation was sin, and their reasoning therefor.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Constantinos,

Welcome to the Community. You might wish to read the rather lengthy Orthodoxy and Sexuality (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1480) thread, which, if memory serves, addresses this topic. Let us know if you have additional questions, or if that discussion doesn't address what you're looking for.

INXC, Matthew

[Constantinos]

Matthew,
I have read the thread in question. While it certainly proved an interesting and well-reasoned intellectual exercise, there was much "I think" and extrapolation from more general principles of sexuality, and very little about what the Fathers actually said about masturbation. That's not bad as far as it goes, but I am, as previously stated, looking for something more concrete.

In addition, as I mentioned, it interests me to know whether anyone ever took the "pro" side of this issue.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Even including the most modern holy fathers and mothers you will find very little on this topic beyond their guidance that such things are included among sins of the flesh and hence are sinful and to be avoided.

I used to think that this relative silence about specific types of sins of the flesh was based mainly on modesty. But now I wonder if it also has to do with the fact that in past times such sins were all dealt with under the common theme of lust rather than as seperate sins. We don't find treatises for example by the Holy Frs on adultery or homosexuality. Only in recent times have these things begun to be dealt with seperately in writing as they have become more serious problems.

This doesn't at all mean that such sins were not dealt with in their own right throughout the history of the Church- it just means that the main way they were addressed was through private counsel & confession. Which is perhaps another reason why the Holy Fathers rarely if ever adopted a 'treatise' approach in treating these sins- they wrote in general but for specific sins they dealt on the personal level face to face. Certainly there is some kind of wisdom in this which we are not entirely aware of nowadays

You can be absolutely confident no holy father or person who is trustworthy in the Church has ever written 'for' such sins. To sum up the problem of such sins- they are sinful because they are based on lust first of all, then an abuse of imagination or feelings in a way related to pornography. There is in all of this a perversion of oneself when we should be a temple of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


You can be absolutely confident no holy father or person who is trustworthy in the Church has ever written 'for' such sins. To sum up the problem of such sins- they are sinful because they are based on lust first of all, then an abuse of imagination or feelings in a way related to pornography. There is in all of this a perversion of oneself when we should be a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Just following on this, the point-for-point response to sin has generally been understood, especially within Christianity's ascetical consciousness, as part of the pastoral application of its teachings. The teachings themselves generally deal in the broadest terms -- love, hate, lust, anger, etc. Since, as Fr Raphael says elsewhere in his post, most of the 'particulars' are understood as specific ways of focusing these passions; so adultery, as an example, is understood as a way that lust is focused, and/or selfishness.

Part of the reason that compendious handbooks on dealing with precise, specific sinful acts, have never been as popular in the East as in the West, is that tomes on vice and virtue have been preserved largely within an ascetical context, rather than as independent reference volumes.

XB, Matthew

[Constantinos]

Thank you for your response, Father. If what you say is correct, perhaps I should search for the component "pieces" and try to assemble a more complete picture. Along those lines--not to get off topic, but I feel it relevant--what is the specific Orthodox definition of lust?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for your response, Father. If what you say is correct, perhaps I should search for the component "pieces" and try to assemble a more complete picture. Along those lines--not to get off topic, but I feel it relevant--what is the specific Orthodox definition of lust?


I'm sure there are many Orthodox definitions of what lust is. But I would say it is a perverse attraction of the appetitive aspect of the soul (ie the soul's desiring power) towards the sensual.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Constantinos]

I think I would agree with that response. That said, where lies the dividing line between natural and perverse?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think I would agree with that response. That said, where lies the dividing line between natural and perverse?

I would say that one of the main purposes of our life in the Church is gradually discovering the differences between the two. After all one of the main reasons we sin is because we are drawn to this as if it is natural. In the Holy Spirit however what was once natural for us now becomes something which begins to repel us. So we learn about what is perverse not only externally by accepting the instruction of others on faith but also we learn this internally.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

On this general topic, I've come across some interesting texts on-line. As Fr Raphael and I both have mentioned above, there is bound to be very little 'from the fathers' on this specific topic, which most patristic sources would have considered simply a subset of 'lust' and a distortion of 'love'; but there are a fair number of materials that deal with it specifically in other contexts.


Concerning lust and self-abuse (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx) - Orthodoxinfo's text on this and related issues. This will probably be the most helpful resource for you, as it contains a collection of articles, including a letter of one Church father (Macarius) who does deal directly with questions of combatting lust that leads to personal passion.
Autoeroticism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam (http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/autoe.htm) - A collection of documents from various perspectives.
The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on autoeroticism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba10.htm) - An interesting little excursus on the RC catechism's teachings on the topic. (You can read the actual relevant sections of the catechism here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm).)


I hope some of these resources are helpful.

INXC, Matthew

[Christophoros]

A good offline resource is the "Exomologetarion: A Manual of Confession," by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, published by Uncut Mountain Press. Pages 229-232 deal specifically with this sin.

In Christ,
Chris

[Michael Stickles]

Also, there is an article at orthodoxinfo.com which deals with this issue, entitled A Collection of Articles Concerning Lust & Self-Abuse (Masturbation) (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx). The one excerpt where Archbishop Chrysostomos makes specific mention of teachings from the Fathers is:



St. Nicodemos calls this sin a snare and points out that, according to other Fathers, those who are caught in its net have great difficulty extricating themselves and thus imperil their souls. (See Pedalion, Athens, 1982, pp. 704-705.) Indeed, the eighth canon of St. John the Faster assigns to a layman who falls to this sin, in addition to exclusion from Holy Communion, one hundred prostrations daily for forty days, along with a diet of nothing but bread and water. St. John's tenth Canon imposes a suspension of one year on any Priest who falls to self-abuse and, should he continue in such a sin two or three times, deposition. Moreover, St. Paul's famous and unequivocal statement in I Corinthians 6:9-10, that those who practice sodomy and who are "effeminate" cannot inherit "the kingdom of God," St. Nicodemos observes, can also be interpreted to apply to those who practice self-abuse: a sin which "damages" the soul (ibid.).

Aside from attributing to self-pollution various negative physical effects, St. Nicodemos rightly stresses that this sin opens the mind and soul to demonic influence. It is a path to self-seduction and the complete distortion of the meaning of human sexuality and, of course, the pure image to which the human being seeks to be restored in the spiritual life.

[Max Percy]

I think I would agree with that response. That said, where lies the dividing line between natural and perverse?

Also, because all creation and nature are fallen, I don't know it this is necessarily much of a distinction

[Peter S.]

Also, because all creation and nature are fallen, I don't know it this is necessarily much of a distinction

Of course there is a distinction, but it is not easily seen, if you are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Sin is in the world but it is not natural. Christ lived a natural life because he had a spirit that always did the will of the Father.

Peter

[Alec Lowly]

Of course there is a distinction, but it is not easily seen, if you are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Sin is in the world but it is not natural. Christ lived a natural life because he had a spirit that always did the will of the Father.

Peter

Well, all the theologizing aside, it is difficult to understand how anything that exists within nature could be "unnatural" ... homosexuality, to take one example, indubitably exists within the animal kingdom in certain situations as a natural occurrence ... that doesn't mean it's right (morally correct) for human beings in any situation, but it doesn't mean it's "unnatural" ... frankly, I wonder whether theology has the chops to deal with many questions having to do with the nature of nature or with basic issues of epistemology ...

[Kornelius]

Well, all the theologizing aside, it is difficult to understand how anything that exists within nature could be "unnatural" ... homosexuality, to take one example, indubitably exists within the animal kingdom in certain situations as a natural occurrence ... that doesn't mean it's right (morally correct) for human beings in any situation, but it doesn't mean it's "unnatural" ... frankly, I wonder whether theology has the chops to deal with many questions having to do with the nature of nature or with basic issues of epistemology ...

I have heard before this same argument you present in your post from gay people. It is offered as supportive to the "natural" side in the nature vs nurture. In other words the precedent of homosexuality in the animal kingdom serves as "proof" that homosexuality is natural, instead of acquired through life (nurture).

To such argument I have answered that this is simply a red herring logical fallacy. First, for a human it is not proper to imitate animals or beasts if that is the case that they show homosexual inclinations. We are trying to imitate God not animals. If animals do something perverse, that does not all of a sudden make it alright for us to do the same abominable act among each other.

Second, animals and creation in general when created by God in the beginning were not the same as they are now. Since sin entered the world through us, the rest of the creation suffered corruption and decay. Therefore, when you say that homosexuality happens in some cases in the animal kingdom, you must realize that this is not natural, but the tragic outcome of sin that permeated and influenced not just us humans but the entire creation.

Fortunately for us, we have logic and spirit that through God rise above the animalistic instincts. Christ already redeemed us with His Glorious Death and Resurrection. It is time for us to elevate creation - the same creation that suffers unjustly because of us - back to Eden, not for creation to pull us back to nothingness.

Third, since you prefer to address this issue rather epistemologically, I would like to point out that since Freud the scientific world has supported the thesis that nurture not nature is the case with homosexuality. (Please refer to my previous post on homosexuality for more details).

It is only lately that due to the overwhelming narcissistic and hedonistic values of our world, this abominable act is not only justified but exalted as a better alternative. "If it pleases you than go ahead and try it" is the new age motto of our society. Not any different from Aleister Crowley's motto: "Do as thou shall willt" (the most essential commandment of the satanic bible).

We Orthodox Christians must know better. We live in this world but we are not of this world.

[Alec Lowly]

I have heard before this same argument you present in your post from gay people. It is offered as supportive to the "natural" side in the nature vs nurture. In other words the precedent of homosexuality in the animal kingdom serves as "proof" that homosexuality is natural, instead of acquired through life (nurture).

To such argument I have answered that this is simply a red herring logical fallacy. First, for a human it is not proper to imitate animals or beasts if that is the case that they show homosexual inclinations. We are trying to imitate God not animals. If animals do something perverse, that does not all of a sudden make it alright for us to do the same abominable act among each other.

Second, animals and creation in general when created by God in the beginning were not the same as they are now. Since sin entered the world through us, the rest of the creation suffered corruption and decay. Therefore, when you say that homosexuality happens in some cases in the animal kingdom, you must realize that this is not natural, but the tragic outcome of sin that permeated and influenced not just us humans but the entire creation.

Fortunately for us, we have logic and spirit that through God rise above the animalistic instincts. Christ already redeemed us with His Glorious Death and Resurrection. It is time for us to elevate creation - the same creation that suffers unjustly because of us - back to Eden, not for creation to pull us back to nothingness.

Third, since you prefer to address this issue rather epistemologically, I would like to point out that since Freud the scientific world has supported the thesis that nurture not nature is the case with homosexuality. (Please refer to my previous post on homosexuality for more details).

It is only lately that due to the overwhelming narcissistic and hedonistic values of our world, this abominable act is not only justified but exalted as a better alternative. "If it pleases you than go ahead and try it" is the new age motto of our society. Not any different from Aleister Crowley's motto: "Do as thou shall willt" (the most essential commandment of the satanic bible).

We Orthodox Christians must know better. We live in this world but we are not of this world.

Kornelius, I am not defending the practuce of homosexuality; that is not what my post was about. Would you please explain to me how it is possible for an animal to do anything "perverse" or contrary to its nature? You believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are actual history, actual biology, actual cosmology? In other words, you take them literally?

[Peter S.]

Well, all the theologizing aside, it is difficult to understand how anything that exists within nature could be "unnatural" ... homosexuality, to take one example, indubitably exists within the animal kingdom in certain situations as a natural occurrence ... that doesn't mean it's right (morally correct) for human beings in any situation, but it doesn't mean it's "unnatural" ... frankly, I wonder whether theology has the chops to deal with many questions having to do with the nature of nature or with basic issues of epistemology ...

Can you explain what you mean with the nature of nature? The natural- scientific wiew on nature that doesnt believe in such thing as fallen nature or in the orthodox wiew of Gods creation? Sin is unnatural, to take the best example. That we are sinners is part of the spiritual world too. How can philosophy and science copy and deal with that reality, if they dont accept the spiritual world as orthodox christians see it? Theology is reality based on belief and not just empty theologizing and empty words.

Peter

[Nina]

How can philosophy and science copy and deal with that reality, if they dont accept the spiritual world as orthodox christians see it? Theology is reality based on belief and not just empty theologizing and empty words.
Peter

Elder Paisios writes along these same lines when he speaks about the help contemporary people seek outside the Church for dealing with stress and depression.

[Kornelius]

Kornelius, I am not defending the practuce of homosexuality; that is not what my post was about. Would you please explain to me how it is possible for an animal to do anything "perverse" or contrary to its nature? You believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are actual history, actual biology, actual cosmology? In other words, you take them literally?

I previously said that animals and creation in general, when created by God in the beginning, were not the same as they are now. Since sin entered the world through us, the rest of the creation suffered corruption and decay. Therefore, when you say that homosexuality happens in some cases in the animal kingdom, you must realize that this is not natural, but the tragic outcome of sin that permeated and influenced not just us humans but the entire creation. In order to understand the theology of this change because of sin, one has to engage, as you quite well put it, in an investigation of Genesis. Therefore, please hang in there with me! You too moderator! There is a point in here to be made that is relevant to this thread.

The true knowledge of the chapters of Genesis is possible only though Revelation. Not through history, biology or cosmology. Why is that? For the very reason that the set of laws used to create the Universe during the Hexaemeron, which continued to operate until the fall of Man, were entirely different from the set of physical laws that govern the universe today. Therefore conventional science is impotent to investigate accurately the origins of creation using "keys" that are irrelevant. The new key (cosmology, biology) does not fit the keyhole (Hexaemeron) anymore.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that scientific ideologies that oppose creationism - different from our conventional wisdom - are not based on scientific facts at all, but rather on philosophic speculations. Neither creation nor evolution can be conclusively proved, although evolutionists do so regardless of proof. The philosophical roots of evolutionism are to be found in the natural not Divine philosophy of Bacon and Descartes, and the philosophy of progress during the Enlightenment. I will elaborate more on the philosophy of progress later on.

Another thing that we are never told is the ongoing resistance against evolutionism within scientific circles, from rather very prominent scientists. One of them, Pierre P. Grasse, one of the world's greatest living biologists and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, in his L'Evolution du Vivant condemns evolution by exposing its pseudo-scientific claims.

He writes: "Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case." (p.202 of the English translation)

In other words there is an inner circle of pseudo-scientists that is hoodwinking (pun intended) not only non-scientists but even the generations of scientists. Don't forget, whoever sits in the board of trustees controls the curriculum, and whoever controls the curriculum controls the information and consequently the perception of reality.

Nonetheless, there are innumerous scientists who not only oppose this pseudo-science, but some of them even embrace the patristic view of creation. Most recently, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells has defended the teachings of the Holy Fathers on creation (see his article "Abusing Theology," in Origins & Design, vol. 19, no. 1, 1998), or British creation scientist Malcom Bowden (see his 1998 book True Science Agrees with the Bible).

Christ condemned the fig tree because of its fruits or rather lack thereof, which brings us to the question: what are the fruits of evolutionism? In his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, twentieth century French metaphysician Rene Guenon explained how the elimination of traditional spiritual principles has led to a drastic degeneration of humanity. Reducing everything to an exclusively quantitative level, has corrupted man's conception of true knowledge and confined his vision to what is temporal and material.

This materialistic isolation gives birth to narcissistic and hedonistic values, of which I spoke briefly previously. Ultimately, however, the scope of evolutionism is much larger and darker then we think.

Hieromonk Damascene of St. Herman of Alaska Monastery writes:

"It was the chialistic [the belief in the inevitability of progress and in the perfectibility of this fallen world]/evolutionary thought-pattern that had produced such politico-religious movements as international socialism (globalism) and ecumenism. All such movements share the same chialistic goal: a coming 'new order' in which all previous standards, seen as relative to a particular stage in a process, will be entirely changed. Just as all distinctions between organisms are blurred in the idea of biological evolution - as the organisms change into one another over millions of years - so too all distinction between nations and religions are blurred in the chialistic 'new world order.'"

These words are related to the philosophy of progress we mentioned earlier, being one of the tenets of Darwinism. The term progress is nothing else but the overly speculated holy grail. The definition of the holy grail is not to be found in the smoke screen book of Dan Brown. Grail implies a gradual change or progress. The individuals behind this operate by means of Hegelian dialectics and the Ordo ab Chaos principle (Order out of Chaos) that is, destruction of the old order (Christianity) and the establishment of the new order (instead of Christianity). Darwinism was part of the process too and was proposed long before Charles Darwin by his grandfather Erasmus. It is the same type of individuals in this century, who posses the same "beehive" mindset, that stand behind the pseudo-science of the homosexual gene, nymphomania and kleptomania gene and so forth.

It is crucial to know the philosophical origins of evolutionism. It enslaves us to the material and temporal, and without the spiritual in the equation we can never achieve our full potential, our full personhood. We become like the animals you described in your post. I hope it is somehow clearer now for you to understand why these animals, their tendencies and creation in general are not the same as they were created by God.

God saw His creation and it was good!