www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Should I ask a question on sexuality and viagra

Dear Joe,

I came across this, (since it's not really a subject I would be interested in), and I will add that the greatest saint of Russia, (and probably one of the greatest saints that ever lived), Saint John Kronstadt; had a spiritual marriage.

When Saint John Kronstadt was basically 'forced' to marry, he immediately made it a spiritual marriage to the chagrin of his wife. Can true holiness ever be achieved otherwise?

For one to understand the true extent of Saint Kronstadt's gifts and teachings, Father Arseny, a holy prist of the Gulag said that had the Russian nation followed Saint John, Russia would not have become communist. Thousands followed him wherever he went, but I guess it was not enough.

Zenovia

It is very important to understand St John of Kronstadt's choice -- otherwise, his actions are misunderstood. There is a fantastic book (written by a ROCOR priest's daughter) called The Prodigal Saint. St John did not choose a celibate marriage out of any disdain for sexuality, etc. Nor did he ever propose that his spiritual children should make the same choice. It was a personal decision that he made with Elizabeth (his wife) because of his sense of call to minister to the entire city of Kronstadt. He believed, rightly, that having his own children would keep him from ministering to the entire city and would keep him from a universal ministry. It was part of his charism to be a universal pastor (leaving at 3am in the morning and coming home after midnight, etc.) Had he lived a normal life with his own normal family he could never have lived his special calling. But, and once again this is so important, did he ever recommend this way of life to any of his spiritual children or (for that matter) to other priests.

Perhaps Orest would like to explain his statement. I do not think that he intended to be offensive.

I remind everyone that the written word can often be harsh, because of the lack of personal give and take, and the facial expressions which spoken conversations have. Let's try to be more diplomatic and careful in chosing our words, and remember that generalizations ultimately hurt someone on this diverse forum who is lumped into that category.

On the other hand, let's also try to not be offended so easily. I can remember quite a few times when the Orthodox were condemned and generalized about on this forum a few years ago--a time when there were not only no Orthodox priests or Moderators here, but hardly any Orthodox posters either! I was the token Orthodox (and a woman to boot). Instead of chosing to be offended, I tried to be objective, and in doing so, I had to honestly agree with some of the assertions being made. When I couldn't, I used the forum to politely state my objection.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

P.S. Not to sound like a school teacher ( ), but I really am impressed with how this thread is going...and even more so, because the subject matter had the potential for trouble.

RE: Can anyone achieve sanctity or enter a high state of Grace, unless they become celibate?

I am confused by your question: Why is celibacy a prerequisite for sanctity or a higher state of grace? Our tradition knows of many married saints who attained great heights of sanctity. Also, according to our tradition, the essential ingredients of holiness are humility and selfless love. What better place to learn these than in a married state?

One of my most-favorite (poor English, I know, but it expresses what I mean to say) sayings is that of the holy Russian priest Fr Elchaninov who asserted that the heights of grace reached by married people is "equal to that of the saintly hermits".

Having intercourse in a blessed marriage does not cause one to lose grace and it does not lessen one's opportunities to know God and to be known of Him -- after all, Scripture says that the marriage bed is holy and undefiled. Selfishness and self-centered lust (which are by no means peculiar sins only to the married state) separate us from each other and from God.

Can true holiness every be achieved without making ones wife chagrined?

I think not!

Dear Alice:

Thank you for a very thoughtful and balanced post. While I agree that it was probably not Orest's intention to cause offense, one need not have the intention to produce the effect. To me, when he stated "They seem to be beyond undertanding economia", that is like suggesting that former Protestants are hopeless causes. Such statements could also have the effect of causing former Protestants or Protestants contemplating conversion either to Orthodoxy or Catholicism to conclude that both current and former Protestants are not welcome.

I am a former Protestant and I am the only member of my family of birth who is not Protestant. The majority of my close friends are Protestant. The same could be said of many Orthodox or Catholic Christians who converted from Protestantism. We sometimes have to deal with doubts as to whether we made the right choice. There may be feelings of guilt that are the result of thinking that you have abandoned the faith that was passed on to you by your parents and grandparents. I could continue, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make. We have enough difficulties to work through without having to add insults from cradle Orthodox or cradle Catholics to the mix.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Well said, PrJ!

I would assert that intercourse itself is a form of covenant renewal within the married state - it is eucharistic and thus "life giving" and sacramental. Is it any wonder that Our Lord has identified Himself as the Bridegroom, consumating His union with His bride through the self-emptying kenosis of the Cross? The fruit of that union is the sonship of the beloved disciple.

The marriage bed thus becomes the altar of sacrifice in the priestly calling of marriage, hence the application of priestly language in calling it to be kept undefiled. Years ago I read about a theologian who even asserted that the consumation of marriage and the breaking of the hymen mirrors the priestly entry into the Holy of Holies and the blood sacrifice! Even the word "revelation" (apocalypsis) has sexual undertones. It signifies the "uncovering" in the tent of consumation. The fact that man and woman in creation were commanded to be fruitful and multiply in paradise indicates the pattern of redemption as well - a fruitful covenant marriage between God and His people.

God bless,

Gordo

Well put Gordo!

That's why you just don't give it away to anyone and everyone.

The way you put it makes it much more attractive and much more fearsome than is presented on Desperate Housewives.

Actually, I have never seen the show, I've only heard in passing what goes on. (My wife says I don't get to have cable until we own a house! And our TV only gets 2 clear channels and 3 fuzzy ones!)

I note the importance of Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical that explores these themes --- at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Of special note are the following two paragraphs:

"By their own inner logic, these initial, somewhat philosophical reflections on the essence of love have now brought us to the threshold of biblical faith. We began by asking whether the different, or even opposed, meanings of the word �love� point to some profound underlying unity, or whether on the contrary they must remain unconnected, one alongside the other. More significantly, though, we questioned whether the message of love proclaimed to us by the Bible and the Church's Tradition has some points of contact with the common human experience of love, or whether it is opposed to that experience. This in turn led us to consider two fundamental words: eros, as a term to indicate �worldly� love and agape, referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. The two notions are often contrasted as �ascending� love and �descending� love. There are other, similar classifications, such as the distinction between possessive love and oblative love (amor concupiscentiae � amor benevolentiae), to which is sometimes also added love that seeks its own advantage.

"In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love�agape�would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love �eros�would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape�ascending love and descending love�can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to �be there for� the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34)."

It is this statement -- Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to �be there for� the other -- that I find most lacking in the current "hard-line" approaches to sexuality manifested by Fr Josiah Trenham (and others). They fail to see that eros (as, for example, St Gregory of Nyssa asserted) can be salvific. Most of the anti-sexuality writings that I have read treat immature eros as the only possible expression of eros and fail to see that true eros (as the holy Father maintains) leads to agape.

This is why a long-term monogamous relationship (i.e., marriage) is so vitally important in the believer's life. Only a long-term monogamous relationship has the potential to connect eros with agape. I note, however, that to connect eros and agepe both are necessary. Fr Josiah's writings imply that there can be no mature eros--that eros is always immature--and that in "mature individuals and relationships" the erotic disappers (hence his negative comments about viagra). I believe that this is unhealthy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the positive role assigned to erotic love in our tradition.

I agree with the general consensus here, that sexuality is not something fundamentally negative. In fact, I find Gordo's comments on sex as sacramental intriguing. This is why I want to study this further. I do think, though, that rigorists such as Father Josiah are in keeping with a strict reading of the fathers (St. John Chrysostom and St. Clement of Alexandria excluded).

I was also once told by a couple (they were OCA) that it was expected that married couples cease sexual relations at some point after the woman passes the child bearing age. That one of the graces of old age is relief from concupiscience. Interestingly enough, this was the general view of the ancients, pagan and Christian. I am afraid that the problem with our tradition is that the fathers were overly influenced by the Stoics and the Platonists and did not stay in touch with the healthier Jewish tradition of family. Perhaps, what is going on in recent years is a re-evaluation of the role of sex within marriage; a re-evaluation that takes into account the generally positive view of sexuality in the Bible. BTW, does anyone know when the Church first, explicitly, began calling marriage a sacrament? God bless.

Joe