Sexuality in the Fathers

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Tue 18 March 2003 12:30 am

Paradosis wrote:
I would suggest, based on my admittedly lacking knowledge of patristic anthropology, that the human soul is "infused". Consider, for example, the teaching that human beings were originally (before the fall) suppose to reproduce through means other than sexual relations. There is no speculation--from what I've read--as to exactly how this reproduction would have happened, but it seems to me that this belief would favor infusion of the soul rather than an actual physical act somehow generating the soul.
Justin

I am confused by this statement. So you mean that God never intended his creation to reproduce sexually?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 19 March 2003 10:16 am

Logos,

Yes, that is the understanding of not a few Greek Church Fathers (I'm unsure about what exactly the western Fathers thought of this, but considering Augustine's stance on sexuality and the fall, I'd think that the west--who seem to follow Augustine on a lot--would have similar views). I will dig up some quotes ( @Nicholas lol) and post them later.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 19 March 2003 2:12 pm

"Precisely what the phrase 'he shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2:24) implied before the fall, to what form and quality of union or marriage it led, we do not know, since we do not know preceisely what the human body was like before the fall... For the same reason we do not know how the prelapsarian 'increase and multiply' (Gen. 1:28) was realised. St Maximos speaks in a general manner about the 'spiritual increase' of the human race. (Ambigua, PG 91, 1341C) The holy Fathers confine themselves to stating that the 'forms of corruption'--pleasurable attraction, sexual union and biological birth--did not exist before the fall. Since, however, their intention is not to provide an answer to a purely speculative question, they refuse to give positive support to any specific view about the prelapsarian state. We have here an application of the apophatic method to anthropology." - Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person, (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 72-73

Here are a few quotes...

"When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for him. But even this marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for sexual intercourse and conception and pangs and childbirth and every form of corruption were alien to their soul... what should be observed now is that marriage was not necessary to God in order to mutiply men on earth." - John Chrysostom, On Virginity, 14

"Observe when this [ie. Gen. 4:1] took place--after the act of disobedience, after the fall from paradise; that is when he began to cohabit with Eve. For before the act of disobedience they imitated the angelic life and there was no question of sexual union." John Chrysostom, On Genesis, 18, 4

"But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Wed 19 March 2003 3:26 pm

Thank you for the quotes Paradosis. I don't know if I accept the teachings of the holy fathers here. I mean there is no way one can know unless the specifically ask God about this, and even then God may not deem it important for us to know. To be blunt, I don't how this helps anyone in the salvation of their soul. The thing is, I may be wrong about this, but the holy fathers seem to take a strong stand against sex. It almost seems like the consider sex as coming from the devil and something that God never intended us to do. The thing is all things come from God but some of these things have become corrupted as a result of our fall. I guess I am confused over this whole issue of sexual reproduction and whether God intended us to do it.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 19 March 2003 6:05 pm

It's not from the devil, but it wasn't God's original intention either. It's ok to have sex, and even enjoy sex, but the western mind's view of sex is not that of the Church Fathers. All of the Church Fathers. None of the early Fathers would be "liked" for their views on sexuality. It's only lately (in th 20th century among Orthodox theologians) that sexuality has been looked at the way most of us westerners are taught to look at it. The Orthodox Church does not teach that sexuality is "dirty," but what it does teach is no more agreeable to most westerners.

I don't how this helps anyone in the salvation of their soul.

You said: "I don't know if I accept the teachings of the holy fathers here". Do you see how it can now have salvific consequences? The Fathers weren't Anglicans, who tried to focus on some artificially constructed list of "essentials for salvation". All of tradition is of a salvific nature, even the parts that some don't agree with, or would throw out: this is because how you approach Tradition--even those aspects you don't understand--means a lot to your life in Christ.

The Fathers teach, in essence, that sexual relations are for 1) procreation, and 2) keeping the passions under control. Very few early Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, might add a third or fourth reason, though these reasons always come back to our salvation, and usually relate to reasons 1 and 2 listed above (e.g., Saint John Chrysostom does mention a sort-of "spiritual connection" between a couple, but guess what acts as the connection in the typical marriage? A child! The child acts as a bridge, St. John says. Saint John elsewhere makes an allowance for those who are unable to have children, saying that they too can have a spiritual connection, but even this great saint, the most "moderate" of the Fathers, sees the "spiritual connection" concept, so abused and corrupted by Orthodox theologians today, in a normal marriage, being directly intertwined with procreation.) Some Fathers, such as the moderate Saint John, do indeed say that it's ok to enjoy sexual relations: this [ie. pleasure] can never be the sole reason for having sexual relations, though, and neither can "having a spiritual attachment" be the sole reason. They can't even be major reasons, and neither can the other reasons that people have sexual relations today (e.g., it's natural, etc.).

This is indeed a hard topic for us, especially in the west. But the, salvation isn't an easy road, it's a steep and rugged ascent!

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Wed 19 March 2003 6:22 pm

Thank you for explaining this Paradosis. Please forgive me my ignorance as I am still learning about my faith. I don't know as much as some of the posters do on this board. I agree that this is not easy topic for us in the west, especially in the times that we live in. Procreation has been separated from sex so much I don't know if there is anyway to go back. The thing is what is one to do in this sea of carnality? You say that Orthodox theologians lately have picked up western views on sexuality, who are these theologians? Here is another thing, what about marriage as a pathway to holiness? I know many fathers encouraged the route of celibacy as being the better pathway than marriage in terms of salvation, yet there are married saints present in the church.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 19 March 2003 7:08 pm

logos

The thing is what is one to do in this sea of carnality?

What the Priest told me this morning: fast and pray! One of the passages from the Church Fathers that I quoted earlier today might also be helpful to keep in our memory (I find myself especially in need of keeping Isaac of Nineveh's words in mind).

You say that Orthodox theologians lately have picked up western views on sexuality, who are these theologians?

Unfortunately, many of the Priests and even Bishops today. Now please understand before I say anything further, that I am not questioning the Orthodoxy of anyone, or saying that they are outside Orthodoxy, or anything like that! Still, I think many (most, in some jurisdictions) have lapsed on this general issue. Even something as wonderfully refreshing as Fr. John Schroedel's text/site seems to be off on certain points, IMO, and he represents the stance that is about as conservative as you can get in some jurisdictions. I asked him via email how his work had been received, and he said, in part: "I have found many others who are sympathetic, many who don't want to hear too much about it." (I don't think Fr. John would have a problem posting what I did from the email). An easy way to tell where a theologian stands on this issue (and if you can't tell, I'm trying very hard, in the spirit of Lent, not to negatively mention any particular theologians by name ) is to determine where they stand on contraception. There are of course variations, but by-in-large, the more moderate (or dare I say, in some cases, liberal) the person or group regarding contraception, the further they have lapsed. I don't question the good-will or sincerity of the Orthodox clergy that I've talked to, but I've talked to more than one via email that tried to pass off the authentic teaching of the Fathers as "extreme teachings of rigorist monks" (ie. teachings we should ignore). Obviously, I respectfully disagree

Here is another thing, what about marriage as a pathway to holiness? I know many fathers encouraged the route of celibacy as being the better pathway than marriage in terms of salvation, yet there are married saints present in the church.

Yes, marriage can definately be a pathway to holiness... but sexuality is just one aspect of that path. Many saints (relatively speaking) were indeed married, but if you look at their Lives, you'll also see that many mutually decided to be celibate within marriage. Some were celibate from the start (uh oh, I was talking about this on another thread and decided not to go back, why am I bringing the subject up again! lol) Anyway, marriage is indeed a path to holiness, and salvation (in fact, I thought that this emphasis--on marriage as a path to salvation--is probably the best part of Fr. John Mack's teaching information .. though if I remember correctly, he didn't come right out and say what the Orthodox Church's position was, but left it vague enough so that each parish Priest could fill in the gaps as he--or his jurisdiction--saw fit).

Sexuality can be a part of this path to holiness, that's definately true. The problem is when we blow it out of proportion and start talking about some "mystical spiritual bond" as being a primary reason for having sex. The Fathers never taught that, they taught that the bonds of the daily living of life together, praying together, etc. were what formed the "spiritual bond" (or at the least, a child was seen as the bond). There are only a few directly relevant passage in the Bible that could be of use here: in one of them Paul says, basically, that we stop having sexual relations when we want to focus on the spiritual bond (ie. we fast from sex so we can concentrate on prayer, as he says in 1 Cor. 7); in the other passage, in Tobit (I'm sorry that I can't provide a reference, I don't have a Bible handy), Tobiah and Sarah fast from sexual relations on their honeymoon night and devote themselves to prayer so as to conquer a demon. I guess what I'm trying to say is: sex is great, and sex is enjoyable, and there's nothing "dirty" about proper sexual relations within a marriage, but at the same time, we shouldn't place sex up their with fasting, prayer, alms giving, etc. as aspects of our life in Christ that lead to salvation. This can be seen by how rarely the Church Fathers mention the salvific benefits of sexuality, while they constantly talk about other aspects of the life in Christ.

These are all just my fallible thoughts, this I admit. If it means anything at all to you though, my wife and I have struggled with this issue because of a very unique context that we are in (please don't ask for info ), and we've thought long and hard about it, and studied it as best we have been able to up to this point (I'm still trying to get ahold of a copy of Noonan's foundational text on the subject... no one seems to have it... maybe I'll have better luck here in Pittsburgh ).