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

One more source that I need to get a hold of. I haven't read this, yet. But it looks interesting and relevant.

LEYERLE, BLAKE. Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John
Chrysostom's Attack on Spiritual Marriage. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2001

A "spiritual marriage" was a marriage where husband and wife gave up marital relations and lived as brother and sister. It was generally encouraged by the early Church fathers and considered superior to a marriage that involved conjugal relations. Perhaps St. John Chrysostom and St. Clement of Alexandria should both be proclaimed the patron saints of married couples.

I agree with this statement very, very much.

Regarding the views of the celibate fathers on this topic, I think they were mostly wrong because they were mostly out of their element. They were monks, and, as such, they are supposed to be celibate in order to be more spiritual. So, they certainly have much credibility on matters of asceticism and spirituality, but on sex and marriage ? I don't think so . . .

But not all of them got it wrong. I'm glad that St. John Chrysostom got it right. I think his essay "On Marriage and Family Life" should be required reading in marriage preparation classes.

-- John

Perhaps some of you could benefit from reading JPII's Theology of the Body .

As far as the CA forum, there was an ongoing thread on sexual practices on the "Eastern Church" section, that seemed to have a good amount of Orthodox repliers, both laity and religious.

Actually, I do plan on doing a study of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. I'm familiar with Love & Responsibility and some of his other writings. It is very interesting, and enlightening, philosophy. But, I do think that the late Holy Father is taking Christian sexuality and marriage in a direction that is different from the thinking of the early Church (which may be a good thing). That is my tentative assessment anyway.

Several years ago, I attended a conference on the thought of John Paul II at Marquette University. One of the talks was on the Pope's theology of sexuality. The presenter pointed out that the one weakness in the current thinking on sexuality and marriage was a lack of recourse to the patristic tradition. He thought that someone needed to do patristic work that would compliment Pope John Paul II's philosophical/theological work. The problem is, as he recognized, that the fathers of the Church did not have the positive view of marriage and sexuality promoted by the Catholic Church since Vatican II and Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae was really a rather liberal document in that it recognized that the unitive purpose of the sexual act was a proper end and equal to the procreative act and that one did not have to intend to procreate to engage in the marital act. Prior to that, most theologians and teachers would have said that to engage in marital relations without the intention of procreation was at least venially sinful and mortally sinful if one used means to avoid procreation. The acceptance of natural family planning by the Church is a relatively modern phenomenon. Up until Pius XII, it was expected that married couples would completely abstain from relations if they had concerns about getting pregnant. Pius XII was the first to say explicitly that it may be permissible to use the infertile periods to avoid pregnancy, but even then, he said in a locution to a meeting with midwives. It was not official encyclical teaching. It was really humanae vitae that, for the first time, made it official doctrine that one could use the infertile periods to avoid pregnancy and not sin. Peace in Christ,

Joe

RE: To be honest, most of the ancient stoics and christians would have agreed.

I have to respectfully disagree. There is a fascinating book written by a Coptic priest outlining St Athanasios' approach to marital sexuality. One of the things he points out is that Athanasios talked about sexuality differently depending on the group to whom he was speaking. When St Athanasios was speaking to monks, he reiterated the standard monastic line about celibacy, sexuality, etc. But interestingly, when St Athanasious is speaking to laypeople in his role as Bishop, his tone changes and he becomes much more positive. Synaxis Press has published a short volume by George Gabriel illustrating the same tendency in the writings of St John Chrysostom.

I think it is also interesting to note a difference in emphasis between Greek and Slavic writings. For example, it has been noted that St Seraphim (of Sarov) used the Ecclesiastes quote ("Spread your bread upon the waters ...") when discussing sexual issues with one of his married spiritual sons! I also think that Pope John Paul II's theology of the body is especially important in this regard. Perhaps because he was influenced by the more open Slavic tradition (my words, not his), he recognized an important unitive role for sexuality within marriage.

It also seems to me that many of the writings about sexuality in our tradition (perhaps because they almost all come from celibate men) do not appreciate the perspectives of married women. They assume that the issue is male lust and thus give advice as to how to curb that lust by denying oneself, etc. But, as many married men know, in marriage there is more to sexual relations than male lust. Married men are sometimes called to accept the ascetic labor of making love to their wives to meet the relational and emotional needs of their wives. (I think you have to be married for many years to understand this.) This is why I find the above-mentioned comments about viagra to be harmful. If 1 Corinthians 7 is correct (and if St John Chrysostom is correct about the necessity of husbands pleasing their wives -- see Gabriel for quotes), then it may be an act of love for a man to use viagra. (Remember, it is not always "old age" that creates the need for viagra. For example, if a man is on massive pain killers because of a bad back, etc, he may need to use viagra to show love to his wife.)

The key is love and self-denial. As someone who has been involved in a lot of marital counseling, I have seen marriages deeply wounded by (in my opinion) over-zealous spiritual fathers giving counsel to men to cut off (what they perceived to be) "lust" by avoiding sexual intimacy with their wives. Meanwhile, their wives feel unloved, unwanted, etc.

Personally, I think we have to be VERY careful when discussing sexuality not to allow ourselves to be influenced by our modern preoccupation with sex (either positively or as a knee-jerk reaction). This is why I appreciate the Slavic hesistancy to give counsel in this area. (For an historical approach to this subject, I encourage you to read Eve Levin's book.) There is a deep mystery to a relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. Part of this mystery certainly has to do with the couple becoming one flesh (and part of this, at least, refers to the sexual union). Within the broad guidelines of the Gospel's teaching about love, I think each married couple has to find their own way to understand this mystery by practicing mutual self-denial, affirmative asceticism while fully embracing the other as unique and loveable.

For an interesting take on the issue, Kosher Sex [mechon-mamre.org]

RE: But, I do think that the late Holy Father is taking Christian sexuality and marriage in a direction that is different from the thinking of the early Church (which may be a good thing). ... the one weakness in the current thinking on sexuality and marriage was a lack of recourse to the patristic tradition.

This illustrates an important hermeneutical question confronting the Orthodox and Catholic in the English speaking world. The Tractarian Movement in the 19th century and the Neo-Patristic movement in the middle to late 20th century (for example) have emphasized the role of the Patristic Fathers in theology, ethics, etc. This emphasis has raised the question of the development of dogma (this is discussed at length in the 19th century by John Henry Cardinal Newman and mentioned in the 20th century in the writings of Fr Sergius Bulgakov and Fr Pavel Florensky among others). This question has taken various forms, etc. In terms of some contemporary "Orthodox" examples, I note the questions over the "Dogma of Redemption" in which a more "psychological understanding" (in tune with our more psychologically focussed age) of the atonement was presented. I also note that even someone as "traditional" as Fr Seraphim Rose encouraged his spiritual children to read the "modern" fathers first before engaging the patristic fathers, thereby implying that one cannot simply jump from today back into the time of the fathers ...

So for the sake of the argument, let us assume that Joe is correct in stating that the fathers are not "positive" towards sexuality in marriage. Does this mean that "a new direction" (assuming once again, that this is a new direction) is wrong? Or, can there be an understanding of the way in which the Church understands her dogma that allows for development?

Is this "emphasis" on the unitive nature of marital sexuality a deviation from or a legitimate offspring of the Church's teaching?

P.S. Sometimes I wonder if Protestant converts to Eastern Christanity have not substituted a "Sola Patristica" for their previous "sola Scriptura".

[quoteP.S. Sometimes I wonder if Protestant converts to Eastern Christanity have not substituted a "Sola Patristica" for their previous "sola Scriptura".] [/quote]

Good comment. Can I quote you!
I think you are absolutely right. They have idolized the written word and seem to be beyond understnding of "economia."

Beyond? I am not certain they ever approached 'economia'. Might as well be a foreign language.

Forgive if I'm wrong, but I'm starting to sense some hostility towards converts from Protestantism. As a former Protestant, it's a bit offensive.
Ryan

Ryan I apologize, I didn't mean anything offensive by that statement. In fact I was expanding my thought on it, and deleted it as I too am a convert from Southern Baptist.

God used a word, that I had never heard or imagine existed 'mortification'. I did a lot of digging to find out what it meant. To die to ones self...humm, never thought of that as a Protestant. Never knew I needed to die to myself to live in Christ.

So there is definately a difference in vocabulary just as there are many Protestant terms that we Catholics/Orthodox have never used or heard.

Again, I apologize for any offence, I should have continued to explain myself a bit.

Dear Pani Rose:
It was not so much your particular post, as it was the previous one that had me upset. In any case, thank your for your clarification and for your apology-even though it wasn't necessary.
Ryan

I should clarify -- I too was raised a Protestant. There is no hostility towards Protestantism or Protestants, just an acknowledgement that it takes a long time to outgrow the basic Protestant mentality and worldview. It is very easy for Protestants to bring hermeneutical baggage with them when they convert to the East. I see this very clearly in the attempt to use the "Patristic Fathers" as a new source of absolute authority in theological disputes. It is the same "sola scriptura" attitude - only now Scriptue is bigger with more texts that can be quoted. But the idea of the Church as a living, Spirit-breathed organism that not only has been given the truth but is itself truth-telling is difficult to understand. I also see this in the opposition of many Protestant converts to Orthodoxy who continue to express Protestant anti-Papal rhetoric.

But I am very sorry to have offended. Forgive me.

I have been Ruthenian Byzantine for 27 years now. It is truly a tough transistion, but one well worth it. This statment by PrJ: But the idea of the Church as a living, Spirit-breathed organism that not only has been given the truth but is itself truth-telling is difficult to understand. Very true, I think it is one of those things the only the Holy Spirit can reveal and bring you into understanding of. Humanly it is not possible to conceive that notion in it's fullness.

It was not your specific post that offended me. It was the next post, specifically the following: "They have idolized the written word and seem to be beyond understanding of 'economia.'"
Ryan