Abbot Peter (Meshcherinov) wrote: “And finally, we need to touch on the sensitive topic of marital relations. Here is the opinion of one priest: “A husband and wife are free individuals, united by a union of love, and no one has the right to enter their marital bedroom with advice. I consider any regulation and schematization (“schedule” on the wall) of marital relations to be harmful, including in the spiritual sense, except for abstinence the night before communion and the asceticism of Lent (according to one’s strength and mutual consent). I consider it completely wrong to discuss issues of marital relations with confessors (especially monastics), since the presence of an intermediary between husband and wife in this matter is simply unacceptable and never leads to good.”

There are no small things with God. As a rule, the devil often hides behind what a person considers unimportant and secondary... Therefore, those who want to improve spiritually need, with God’s help, to put things in order in all areas of their lives, without exception. Communicating with familiar family parishioners, I noticed: unfortunately, many in intimate relationships behave “inappropriately” from a spiritual point of view or, simply put, sin without even realizing it. And this ignorance is dangerous for the health of the soul. Moreover, modern believers often master such sexual practices that some secular womanizers’ hair can stand on end from their skill... I recently heard how one woman, who considers herself Orthodox, proudly declared that she paid only 200 dollars for “super” educational sexual trainings -seminars. In all her manner and intonation one could feel: “Well, what are you thinking about, follow my example, especially since married couples are invited... Study, study and study again!..”.

Therefore, we asked the teacher of the Kaluga Theological Seminary, candidate of theology, graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Dimitry Moiseev, to answer the questions of what and how to study, otherwise “teaching is light, and the unlearned are darkness.”

Is intimacy in marriage important for a Christian or not?
- Intimate relationships are one of the aspects of married life. We know that the Lord established marriage between a man and a woman to overcome the division between people, so that the spouses would learn, by working on themselves, to achieve unity in the image of the Holy Trinity, as St. John Chrysostom. And, in fact, everything that accompanies family life: intimate relationships, raising children together, housekeeping, simply communicating with each other, etc. - all these are means that help a married couple achieve a measure of unity accessible to their condition. Consequently, intimate relationships occupy one of the important places in married life. This is not the center of shared existence, but at the same time, it is not something that is not needed.

On what days should Orthodox Christians not have intimacy?
- The Apostle Paul said: “Do not separate from one another, except by agreement to practice fasting and prayer.” It is customary for Orthodox Christians to abstain from marital intimacy on fasting days, as well as on Christian holidays, which are days of intense prayer. If anyone is interested, take the Orthodox calendar and find the days where marriages are not celebrated. As a rule, during these same times, Orthodox Christians are advised to abstain from marital relations.
- What about abstinence on Wednesday, Friday, Sunday?
- Yes, on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday or major holidays and until the evening of this day you need to abstain. That is, from Sunday evening to Monday - please. After all, if we marry some couples on Sunday, it means that in the evening the newlyweds will be close.

Do Orthodox Christians enter into marital intimacy only for the purpose of having a child or for satisfaction?
- Orthodox Christians enter into marital intimacy out of love. In order to take advantage of this relationship, again, to strengthen the unity between husband and wife. Because childbearing is only one of the means in marriage, but not its final goal. If in the Old Testament the main purpose of marriage was procreation, then in the New Testament the priority goal of the family is to become like the Holy Trinity. It is no coincidence, according to St. John Chrysostom, the family is called the small church. Just as the Church, having Christ as its head, unites all its members into one Body, so the Christian family, also having Christ as its head, should promote unity between husband and wife. And if God does not give children to some couples, then this is not a reason to abandon marital relations. Although, if the spouses have reached a certain measure of spiritual maturity, then as an exercise in abstinence they can move away from each other, but only by mutual consent and with the blessing of the confessor, that is, a priest who knows these people well. Because it is unreasonable to take on such feats on your own, without knowing your own spiritual state.

I once read in an Orthodox book that one confessor came to his spiritual children and said: “God’s will is for you to have many children.” Is it possible to say this to a confessor, was this really the will of God?
- If a confessor has achieved absolute dispassion and sees the souls of other people, like Anthony the Great, Macarius the Great, Sergius of Radonezh, then I think the law is not written for such a person. And for an ordinary confessor, there is a decree of the Holy Synod prohibiting interference in private life. That is, priests can give advice, but do not have the right to force people to fulfill their will. This is strictly prohibited, firstly, St. The Fathers, secondly, by a special resolution of the Holy Synod of December 28, 1998, which once again reminded confessors of their position, rights and responsibilities. Therefore, the priest can recommend, but his advice will not be binding. Moreover, people cannot be forced to take on such a heavy yoke.

So, the church does not encourage married couples to have many children?
- The Church calls on married couples to be God-like. Whether you have many children or few children depends on God. Anyone who can contain anything, yes, he can. Thank God if a family is able to raise many children, but for some people this can be an unbearable cross. That is why, in the fundamentals of the social concept, the Russian Orthodox Church approaches this issue very delicately. Speaking, on the one hand, about the ideal, i.e. so that the spouses completely rely on the will of God: as many children as the Lord gives, so many will he give. On the other hand, there is a caveat: those who have not reached such a spiritual level should, in a spirit of love and benevolence, consult with their confessor about issues in their lives.

Are there limits to what is acceptable in intimate relationships among Orthodox Christians?
- These boundaries are dictated by common sense. Perversions are naturally condemned. Here, I think, this question comes close to the following: “Is it useful for a believer to study all kinds of sexual techniques, techniques and other knowledge (for example, the Kama Sutra) in order to save a marriage?”
The fact is that the basis of marital intimacy should be the love between husband and wife. If it is not there, then no technology will help with this. And if there is love, then no tricks are needed here. Therefore, for an Orthodox person to study all these techniques, I think it is pointless. Because spouses receive the greatest joy from mutual communication under the condition of love between each other. And not subject to the presence of some practices. In the end, any technology gets boring, any pleasure that is not associated with personal communication becomes boring, and therefore requires more and more intense sensations. And this passion is endless. This means that you should strive not to improve some techniques, but to improve your love.

In Judaism, you can enter into intimacy with your wife only a week after her menstrual period. Is there something similar in Orthodoxy? Is it permissible for a husband to “touch” his wife these days?
- In Orthodoxy, marital intimacy is not allowed on the critical days themselves.

So this is a sin?
- Certainly. As for a simple touch, in the Old Testament - yes, a person who touched such a woman was considered unclean and had to undergo a purification procedure. There is nothing like this in the New Testament. A person who touches a woman these days is not unclean. Can you imagine what would happen if a person traveling on public transport, on a bus full of people, began to figure out which women to touch and which ones not to. What is this, “whoever is unclean, raise your hand!..,” or what?

Is it possible for a husband to have an intimate relationship with his wife if she is pregnant and there are no restrictions from a medical point of view?
- Orthodoxy does not welcome such relationships for the simple reason that a woman, being in a position, must devote herself to caring for the unborn child. And in this case, you need to try to devote yourself to spiritual ascetic exercises for a specific limited period, namely 9 months. At least abstain in the intimate sphere. In order to devote this time to prayer and spiritual improvement. After all, the period of pregnancy is very important for the formation of the child’s personality and his spiritual development. It is no coincidence that the ancient Romans, being pagans, forbade pregnant women from reading books that were morally unhelpful and attending entertainment. They understood perfectly well: a woman’s mental state is necessarily reflected in the condition of the child who is in her womb. And often, for example, we are surprised that a child born from a certain mother of not the most moral behavior (and left by her in the maternity hospital), subsequently ending up in a normal adoptive family, nevertheless inherits the character traits of his biological mother, becoming over time the same depraved, drunkard, etc. There seemed to be no visible influence. But we must not forget: he was in the womb of just such a woman for 9 months. And all this time he perceived the state of her personality, which left its mark on the child. This means that a woman in a position, for the sake of the baby, his health, both physical and spiritual, needs to protect herself in every possible way from what may be permissible in normal times.

I have a friend, he has a large family. It was very difficult for him as a man to abstain for nine months. After all, it’s probably not healthy for a pregnant woman to even caress her own husband, since it still affects the fetus. What should a man do?
- Here I am talking about the ideal. And whoever has any infirmities has a confessor. A pregnant wife is not a reason to have a mistress.

If we may, let us return again to the issue of perversion. Where is the line that a believer cannot cross? For example, I read that from a spiritual point of view, oral sex is generally not encouraged, right?
- It is condemned as well as sodomy relations with one’s wife. Handjob is also condemned. And what is within the boundaries of the natural is possible.

Nowadays petting is in fashion among young people, that is, handjob, as you said, is it a sin?
- Of course, this is a sin.

And even between husband and wife?
- Well, yes. Indeed, in this case we are talking specifically about perversion.

Is it possible for a husband and wife to engage in affectionate activities during fasting?
- Is it possible to smell sausage during fasting? The question is of the same order.

Isn't erotic massage harmful to the soul of an Orthodox Christian?
“I think if I come to the sauna and a dozen girls give me an erotic massage, then my spiritual life will be thrown very, very far away.

What if from a medical point of view, the doctor prescribed it?
- I can explain it any way I want. But what is permissible with a husband and wife is impermissible with strangers.

How often can spouses have intimacy without this care for the flesh turning into lust?
- I think each married couple determines a reasonable measure for themselves, because here it is impossible to give any valuable instructions or guidelines. In the same way, we do not describe how much an Orthodox Christian can eat in grams, drink in liters per day of food and drink, so that caring for the flesh does not turn into gluttony.

I know one believing couple. Their circumstances are such that when they meet after a long separation, they can do “this” several times a day. Is this normal from a spiritual point of view? How do you think?
- For them, maybe it’s normal. I don't know these people. There is no strict norm. A person himself must understand what place he is in.

Is the issue of sexual incompatibility important to a Christian marriage?
- I think the problem of psychological incompatibility is still important. Any other incompatibility arises precisely because of this. It is clear that a husband and wife can achieve some kind of unity only if they are similar to each other. Different people initially get married. It is not the husband who must become like his wife, nor the wife her husband. And both husband and wife should try to become like Christ. Only in this case will incompatibility, both sexual and any other, be overcome. However, all these problems, questions of this kind arise in a secular, secularized consciousness, which does not even consider the spiritual side of life. That is, no attempts are made to solve family problems by following Christ, through working on oneself, and correcting one’s life in the spirit of the Gospel. In secular psychology there is no such option. This is where all other attempts to solve this problem arise.

So, the thesis of one Orthodox Christian woman: “There should be freedom in sex between husband and wife” is not true?
- Freedom and lawlessness are two different things. Freedom implies choice and, accordingly, voluntary restrictions for its preservation. For example, in order to continue to remain free, it is necessary to limit myself to the Criminal Code in order not to go to prison, although theoretically I am free to break the law. Also here: putting the pleasure of the process at the forefront is unreasonable. Sooner or later, a person will get tired of everything possible in this sense. And then what?..

Is it acceptable to be naked in a room where there are icons?
- In this regard, there is a good joke among Catholic monks, when one leaves the Pope sad, and the second cheerful. One asks the other: “Why are you so sad?” “Well, I went to the Pope and asked: can I smoke when I pray? He answered: no, you can’t.” - “Why are you so cheerful?” “And I asked: is it possible to pray when you smoke? He said: it’s possible.”

I know people who live separately. They have icons in their apartment. When a husband and wife are left alone, they naturally become naked, but there are icons in the room. Isn't it a sin to do this?
- There's nothing wrong with that. But you shouldn’t come to church in this form and you shouldn’t hang icons, for example, in the toilet.

And if, when you wash, thoughts about God come to you, is that not scary?
- In the bathhouse - please. You can pray anywhere.

Is it okay that there are no clothes on the body?
- Nothing. What about Mary of Egypt?

But still, perhaps, it is necessary to create a special prayer corner, at least for ethical reasons, and fence off the icons?
- If there is an opportunity for this, yes. But we go to the bathhouse wearing a cross on our body.

One grandmother told me about this that when you go to the bathhouse, don’t take off the cross, but take a piece of paper and cover it. Moreover, she said: “Never take off the cross, only if it is with your head.” This, of course, is folk art, but still? What do you say to this?
- This is, indeed, some kind of folk art. Of course, you shouldn’t go to pray and read the rule naked. But here, again, if I am naked and I want to pray, then I can recite the Jesus Prayer. And, of course, I will not perform worship in this form.

Is it possible to do “this” during Lent if it’s completely unbearable?
- Here again is a question of human strength. As far as a person has enough strength... But “this” will be considered intemperance.

Recently I read from Elder Paisius the Holy Mountain that if one of the spouses is spiritually stronger, then the strong one must yield to the weak one. Yes?
- Certainly. “So that Satan does not tempt you through your intemperance.” Because if the wife fasts strictly, and the husband is unbearable to such an extent that he takes a mistress, the latter will be worse than the former.

If a wife did this for her husband, should she come to repent for not keeping the fast?
- Naturally, since the wife also received her own measure of pleasure. If for one it is condescension to weakness, then for another... In this case, it is better to cite as an example episodes from the life of hermits who, condescending to weakness, or out of love, or for other circumstances, could break the fast. We are talking, of course, about food fasting for monks. Then they repented of this and took on even greater work. After all, it is one thing to show love and condescension towards the weakness of one’s neighbor, and another thing to allow some kind of indulgence for oneself, which one could easily do without due to one’s spiritual constitution.

Isn’t it physically harmful for a man to abstain from intimate relationships for a long time?
- Anthony the Great once lived for more than 100 years in absolute abstinence.

Doctors write that it is much more difficult for a woman to abstain than for a man. They even say it's bad for her health. And Elder Paisiy Svyatogorets wrote that because of this, ladies develop “nervousness” and so on.
- I doubt this, because there are quite a large number of holy wives, nuns, ascetics, etc., who practiced abstinence, virginity and, nevertheless, were filled with love for their neighbors, and not at all with malice.

Isn’t this harmful to a woman’s physical health?
- They also lived for quite a long number of years. Unfortunately, I am not ready to approach this issue with numbers in my hands, but there is no such dependence.

Communicating with psychologists and reading medical literature, I learned that if a woman and her husband do not have a good sexual relationship, then she has a very high risk of gynecological diseases. This is an axiom among doctors, so does it mean it is wrong?
- I would question this. As for nervousness and other such things, a woman’s psychological dependence on a man is greater than that of a man on a woman. Because the Scripture also says: “Your desire will be for your husband.” It is more difficult for a woman to be alone than for a man. But in Christ all this can be overcome. Hegumen Nikon Vorobyov said it very well: a woman has a more psychological dependence on a man than a physical one. For her, sexual relationships are not so important as the fact of having a close man with whom she can communicate. The absence of such is more difficult for the weaker sex to bear. And if we don’t talk about Christian life, this can lead to nervousness and other difficulties. Christ is able to help a person overcome any problems, provided that the person’s spiritual life is correct.

Is it possible for the bride and groom to have intimacy if they have already submitted an application to the registry office, but have not yet officially registered?
- Once you submit your application, they can take it away. Still, the marriage is considered concluded at the moment of registration.

What if, say, the wedding is in 3 days? I know a lot of people who fell for this bait. A common phenomenon is a person relaxing: well, there’s a wedding in 3 days...
- Well, Easter is in three days, let's celebrate. Or I bake Easter cake on Maundy Thursday, let me eat it, it’s Easter in three days anyway!.. Easter will happen, it’s not going anywhere...

Is intimacy between husband and wife permitted after registration at the registry office or only after the wedding?
- For a believer, provided that both believe, it is advisable to wait until the wedding. In all other cases, registration is sufficient.

And if they signed in the registry office, but then had intimacy before the wedding, is this a sin?
- The Church recognizes state registration of marriage...

But do they need to repent of the fact that they were close before the wedding?
- Actually, as far as I know, people who are concerned about this issue try not to make it so that the painting is today, and the wedding is in a month.

And even after a week? I have a friend, he went to arrange a wedding in one of the Obninsk churches. And the priest advised him to postpone the painting and wedding for a week, because a wedding is a drinking session, a party, and so on. And then this deadline was postponed.
- Well I do not know. Christians should not have drinking at a wedding, but for those for whom any occasion is good, there will be drinking even after the wedding.

That is, you can’t space out the painting and wedding for a week?
- I wouldn't do that. Again, if the bride and groom are church people and are well known to the priest, he may well marry them before the painting. I will not marry people unknown to me without a certificate from the registry office. But I can marry well-known people quite calmly. Because I trust them, and I know that there will be no legal or canonical problems because of this. For people who regularly visit the parish, this is usually not a problem.

From a spiritual perspective, are sexual relationships dirty or pure?
- It all depends on the relationship itself. That is, the husband and wife can make them clean or dirty. It all depends on the internal structure of the spouses. Intimate relationships themselves are neutral.

Just like money is neutral, right?
- If money is a human invention, then this relationship was established by God. The Lord created people this way, who did not create anything unclean or sinful. This means that in the beginning, ideally, sexual relations are pure. But man is capable of desecrating them and does so quite often.

Is shyness in intimate relationships acceptable among Christians? (And then, for example, in Judaism many people look at their wife through the sheet, because they consider it shameful to see a naked body)?
- Christians welcome chastity, i.e. when all aspects of life are in their place. Therefore, Christianity does not provide any such legalistic restrictions, just as Islam forces a woman to cover her face, etc. This means that it is not possible to write down a code of intimate behavior for a Christian.

Is it necessary to abstain for three days after Communion?
- The “Teaching News” tells how one should prepare for Communion: to refrain from being close to the day of the day before and the day after. Therefore, there is no need to abstain for three days after Communion. Moreover, if we turn to ancient practice, we will see: married couples received communion before the wedding, got married on the same day, and in the evening there was intimacy. Here's the day after. If you took communion on Sunday morning, you dedicated the day to God. And at night you can be with your wife.

Should anyone who wants to improve spiritually need to strive for bodily pleasures to be secondary (unimportant) for him? Or do you need to learn to enjoy life?
- Of course, bodily pleasures should be secondary for a person. He should not put them at the forefront of his life. There is a direct correlation: the more spiritual a person is, the less some bodily pleasures mean to him. And the less spiritual a person is, the more important they are to him. However, we cannot force a person who has just come to church to live on bread and water. But the ascetics would hardly eat the cake. To each his own. As he grows spiritually.

I read in one Orthodox book that by giving birth to children, Christians thereby prepare citizens for the Kingdom of God. Can the Orthodox have such an understanding of life?
- God grant that our children become citizens of the Kingdom of God. However, for this it is not enough just to give birth to a child.

What if, for example, a woman becomes pregnant, but she does not know about it yet and continues to enter into intimate relationships. What should she do?
- Experience shows that while a woman does not know about her interesting situation, the fetus is not very susceptible to this. A woman, indeed, may not know for 2-3 weeks that she is pregnant. But during this period the fetus is protected quite reliably. Moreover, if the expectant mother takes alcohol, etc. The Lord arranged everything wisely: while the woman does not know about it, God Himself takes care, but when the woman finds out... She must take care of this herself (laughs).

Truly, when a person takes everything into his own hands, problems begin... I would like to end with a major chord. What can you wish, Father Dimitri, for our readers?
- Don’t lose love, which is already so scarce in our world.

Father, thank you very much for the conversation, which let me end with the words of Archpriest Alexei Uminsky: “I am convinced that intimate relationships are a matter of personal internal freedom for each family. Often, excessive asceticism is the cause of marital quarrels and, ultimately, divorce.” The shepherd emphasized that the basis of the family is love, which leads to salvation, and if it is not there, then marriage is “simply an everyday structure, where the woman is the reproductive force, and the man is the one who earns his bread.”

Question for the priest.
Relationships between spouses

Is oral sex between spouses acceptable in marriage?
Answered by Fr. Andrey.
-This is an intimate question; the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers say nothing about this. Do not cheat on each other or become perverted, but decide for yourself how you will caress each other. God bless you!
http://hramnagorke.ru/question/page-20

Hieromonk Macarius (Markish) wrote an interesting article “In Defense of Marital Secrets,” which provides an excerpt from a letter from one woman: “My husband and I have been married for almost six years, we have two children. During our intimacy, he wants me to cast aside my stiffness (according to him, completely inappropriate), to behave less uptight, and I fulfill his wishes. But before my marriage, older parishioners had already managed to enlighten me on this issue, what and how to do in the marital bedroom. As a result, it turns out that in fact, nothing is possible from what is happening in our family. My husband is dear to me, but I live in a constant feeling of sin, repeating the same thing over and over again in confession...”

To this Father Macarius replies: “In intimate married life, the same basic Christian principle applies: to give oneself. Not to “satisfy desire”, “enjoy” or “satiate passion” - such attitudes only lead to the extinction of a full-fledged sex life, both in men and women - namely, to give oneself, to subordinate one’s intimate desires to one’s wife (husband), to direct one’s will not for oneself, but for the joy and happiness of another. This is well known to doctors and marriage hygiene specialists - and unconditionally fits into the Christian concept of marriage.
Now some practical considerations:
Repent for the fact that “older parishioners, what and how you can do in the bedroom” interfered with the secret of your married life - and learn (and teach others) to henceforth put reliable protection in the way of other people’s harmful curiosity.
Change your relationship with your husband little by little. At the same time, you don’t need to indulge in any discussions (especially in the evening...), but just make sure that he feels good with you: think about it, take care of it - and not only in an intimate sense, but in all the rest - especially since the “intimate meaning” in a true marriage is inseparable from “everything else.” And in the process of such caring restructuring, guide your husband along the same path in relation to himself.
Take your spiritual life seriously, eradicate prejudices, superstitions, and ignorance. You need to find a priest with whom you will have complete mutual understanding, so that the sacrament of confession will become for you a real source of enlightenment and direction towards perfection.
Your marital relationship, as it develops, should be a stairway to Heaven for both of you. Remember: a family is a small Church.”

Is modern man able to fulfill the various and numerous church instructions of carnal abstinence in his marital relationships?

Why not? For two thousand years, Orthodox people have been trying to fulfill them. And among them there are many who succeed. In fact, all carnal restrictions have been prescribed to a believer since Old Testament times, and they can be reduced to a verbal formula: nothing too much. That is, the Church simply calls us not to do anything against nature.

- However, nowhere does the Gospel speak of a husband and wife abstaining from intimacy during Lent?

The entire Gospel and the entire church tradition, going back to apostolic times, speak of earthly life as preparation for eternity, of moderation, abstinence and sobriety as the internal norm of Christian life. And anyone knows that nothing captures, captivates and binds a person like the sexual area of ​​his existence, especially if he releases it from under internal control and does not want to maintain sobriety. And nothing is more devastating if the joy of being with a loved one is not combined with some abstinence.

It is reasonable to appeal to the centuries-old experience of the existence of a church family, which is much stronger than a secular family. Nothing preserves the mutual desire of a husband and wife for each other more than the need to abstain from marital intimacy from time to time. And nothing kills or turns it into lovemaking (it is no coincidence that this word arose by analogy with playing sports) than the absence of restrictions.

- How difficult is this kind of abstinence for a family, especially a young one?

It depends on how people approached marriage. It is no coincidence that previously there was not only a social disciplinary norm, but also church wisdom that a girl and a boy abstained from intimacy before marriage. And even when they got engaged and were already connected spiritually, there was still no physical intimacy between them. Of course, the point here is not that what was undoubtedly sinful before the wedding becomes neutral or even positive after the Sacrament is performed. And the fact is that the need for the bride and groom to abstain before marriage, with love and mutual attraction to each other, gives them a very important experience - the ability to abstain when it is necessary in the natural course of family life, for example, during the wife’s pregnancy or in the first months after the birth of a child, when most often her aspirations are not directed towards physical intimacy with her husband, but towards caring for the baby, and she is simply not very physically capable of this. Those who, during the period of grooming and the pure passage of girlhood before marriage, prepared themselves for this, acquired a lot of essential things for their future married life. I know young people in our parish who, due to various circumstances - the need to graduate from a university, obtain parental consent, gain some kind of social status - went through a period of a year, two, even three before marriage. For example, they fell in love with each other in the first year of university: it is clear that they cannot yet start a family in the full sense of the word, nevertheless, over such a long period of time they walk hand in hand in purity as a bride and groom. After this, it will be easier for them to abstain from intimacy when it turns out to be necessary. And if the family path begins, as, alas, it happens now even in church families, with fornication, then periods of forced abstinence without sorrows do not pass until the husband and wife learn to love each other without physical intimacy and without the supports that she gives. But you need to learn this.

Why does the Apostle Paul say that in marriage people will have “tribulations according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 7:28)? But don’t the lonely and monastics have sorrows in the flesh? And what specific sorrows are meant?

For monastics, especially novice monastics, the sorrows, mostly mental, that accompany their feat are associated with despondency, despair, and doubts about whether they have chosen the right path. The lonely people in the world are perplexed about the need to accept the will of God: why are all my peers already pushing strollers, and others are already raising grandchildren, while I am still alone and alone or alone and alone? These are not so much carnal as spiritual sorrows. A person living a lonely worldly life, from a certain age, comes to the point that his flesh calms down, pacifies, if he himself does not forcibly inflame it through reading and watching something indecent. And people living in marriage do have “sorrows according to the flesh.” If they are not ready for inevitable abstinence, then they have a very difficult time. Therefore, many modern families break up while waiting for the first baby or immediately after his birth. After all, having not gone through a period of pure abstinence before marriage, when it was achieved exclusively by voluntary deed, they do not know how to love each other with restraint when this has to be done against their will. Whether you want it or not, the wife has no time for her husband’s wishes during certain periods of pregnancy and the first months of raising a baby. This is where he begins to look the other way, and she begins to get angry at him. And they do not know how to pass this period painlessly, because they did not take care of this before marriage. After all, it is clear that for a young man it is a certain kind of grief, a burden - to abstain next to his beloved, young, beautiful wife, the mother of his son or daughter. And in a sense it is more difficult than monasticism. Going through several months of abstinence from physical intimacy is not at all easy, but it is possible, and the apostle warns about this. Not only in the 20th century, but also to other contemporaries, many of whom were pagans, family life, especially at its very beginning, was depicted as a kind of chain of continuous pleasures, although this is far from the case.

Is it necessary to try to observe fasting in a marital relationship if one of the spouses is unchurched and not ready for abstinence?

This is a serious question. And, apparently, in order to answer it correctly, you need to think about it in the context of the broader and more significant problem of a marriage in which one of the family members is not yet a fully Orthodox person. Unlike previous times, when all spouses were married for many centuries, since society as a whole was Christian until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, we live in completely different times, to which the words of the Apostle Paul are more applicable than ever that “the unbeliever the husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband" (1 Cor. 7:14). And it is necessary to abstain from each other only by mutual consent, that is, in such a way that this abstinence in marital relations does not lead to an even greater split and division in the family. Under no circumstances should you insist here, much less put forward any ultimatums. A believing family member should gradually lead his partner or life partner to the point that they will someday come together and consciously to abstinence. All this is impossible without serious and responsible churching of the whole family. And when this happens, then this side of family life will take its natural place.

The Gospel says that “a wife has no authority over her body, but the husband; and likewise, the husband has no authority over his body, but the wife” (1 Cor. 7:4). In this regard, if during Lent one of the Orthodox and church-going spouses insists on intimate intimacy, or does not even insist, but simply gravitates toward it in every possible way, and the other would like to maintain purity to the end, but makes concessions, then should he Should we repent of this as if it were a conscious and voluntary sin?

This is not an easy situation, and, of course, it should be considered in relation to different conditions and even to different ages of people. It is true that not every newlywed who got married before Maslenitsa will be able to go through Lent in complete abstinence. Moreover, keep all other multi-day posts. And if a young and hot spouse cannot cope with his bodily passion, then, of course, guided by the words of the Apostle Paul, it is better for the young wife to be with him than to give him the opportunity to “get excited.” He or she who is more moderate, self-controlled, more able to cope with himself, will sometimes sacrifice his own desire for purity so that, firstly, something worse that happens because of bodily passion does not enter the life of the other spouse, secondly, in order not to give rise to schisms, divisions and thereby not to jeopardize family unity itself. But, however, he will remember that one cannot seek quick satisfaction in one’s own compliance, and in the depths of one’s soul rejoice at the inevitability of the current situation. There is an anecdote in which, frankly, far from chastity advice is given to a woman who is being raped: firstly, relax and, secondly, have fun. And in this case, it’s so easy to say: “What should I do if my husband (or less often my wife) is so hot?” It’s one thing when a woman goes to meet someone who cannot yet bear with faith the burden of abstinence, and another thing when, throwing up her hands - well, since it can’t be done otherwise - she herself does not lag behind her husband. When yielding to him, you need to be aware of the extent of the responsibility you have assumed.

If a husband or wife, in order for the rest to be peaceful, sometimes has to give in to a spouse who is weak in bodily aspiration, this does not mean that they need to go to all lengths and completely abandon this kind of fast for themselves. You need to find the measure that you can now accommodate together. And, of course, the leader here should be the one who is more abstinent. He must take upon himself the responsibilities of wisely building bodily relationships. Young people cannot keep all the fasts, so let them abstain for a fairly noticeable period: before confession, before communion. They can’t do the whole of Lent, then at least the first, fourth, seventh weeks, let others impose some restrictions: on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, so that in one way or another their life would be tougher than in ordinary times. Otherwise there will be no feeling of fasting at all. Because then what is the point of fasting in terms of food, if the emotional, mental and physical feelings are much stronger, due to what happens to the husband and wife during marital intimacy.

But, of course, everything has its time and timing. If a husband and wife live together for ten, twenty years, go to church and nothing changes, then the more conscious family member needs to be persistent step by step, even to the point of demanding that at least now, when they have lived to see their gray hairs, Children have been raised, grandchildren will soon appear, a certain measure of abstinence should be brought to God. After all, we will bring to the Kingdom of Heaven what unites us. However, what will unite us there will not be carnal intimacy, for we know from the Gospel that “when they rise from the dead, then they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), otherwise , which we managed to cultivate during family life. Yes, first - with supports, which is physical intimacy, which opens people to each other, makes them closer, helps them forget some grievances. But over time, these supports, necessary when the building of a marital relationship is being built, should fall away, without becoming scaffolding, because of which the building itself is not visible and on which everything rests, so that if they are removed, it will fall apart.

What exactly does the church canons say about at what time spouses should abstain from physical intimacy and at what time not?

There are some ideal requirements of the Church Charter, which should determine the specific path facing every Christian family in order to informally fulfill them. The Charter requires abstinence from marital intimacy on the eve of Sunday (that is, Saturday evening), on the eve of the celebration of the Twelfth Feast and Lenten Wednesday and Friday (that is, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening), as well as during multi-day fasts and days of fasting - preparation for receiving the Saints of Christ Tain. This is the ideal norm. But in each specific case, a husband and wife must be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, except by consent, for a time, to practice fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, , I said this as a permission, and not as a command" (1 Cop. 7:5-6). This means that the family must grow to a day when the measure of abstinence from physical intimacy adopted by the spouses will in no way harm or diminish their love and when the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without the support of physicality. And it is precisely this integrity of spiritual unity that can be continued in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, what is involved in eternity will be continued from a person’s earthly life. It is clear that in the relationship between husband and wife, it is not carnal intimacy that is involved in eternity, but what it serves as a support. In a secular, worldly family, as a rule, a catastrophic change of guidelines occurs, which cannot be allowed in a church family, when these supports become cornerstone.

The path to such growth must be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps. Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year of marriage, can be told that they must spend the entire Nativity Fast in abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this with harmony and moderation will reveal a deep measure of spiritual wisdom. And for someone who is not yet ready, it would be unwise to place burdens that are unbearable on the part of a more temperate and moderate spouse. But family life is given to us in a temporary extent, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although a certain measure of abstinence from each other “for the exercise of fasting and prayer,” the family must have from the very beginning.

For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, a husband and wife avoid marital intimacy not out of fatigue or busyness, but for the sake of greater and higher communication with God and each other. And from the very beginning of marriage, Great Lent, except for some very special situations, should strive to be spent in abstinence, as the most crucial period of church life. Even in a legal marriage, carnal relationships at this time leave an unkind, sinful aftertaste and do not bring the joy that should come from marital intimacy, and in all other respects detract from the very passage of the field of fasting. In any case, such restrictions should be present from the first days of married life, and then they need to be expanded as the family grows older and larger.

Does the Church regulate the methods of sexual contact between a married husband and wife, and if so, on what basis and where exactly is this stated?

Probably, in answering this question, it is more reasonable to first talk about some principles and general premises, and then rely on some canonical texts. Of course, by sanctifying marriage with the Sacrament of Wedding, the Church sanctifies the entire union of a man and a woman - both spiritual and physical. And there is no sanctimonious intention disdainful of the physical component of the marital union in the sober church worldview. This kind of neglect, the belittling of the physical side of marriage, its relegation to the level of something that is only tolerated, but which, by and large, must be abhorred, is characteristic of a sectarian, schismatic or extra-church consciousness, and even if it is ecclesiastical, it is only painful. This needs to be very clearly defined and understood. Already in the 4th-6th centuries, the decrees of church councils stated that one of the spouses who deviates from physical intimacy with the other due to abomination of marriage is subject to excommunication from Communion, and if he is not a layman, but a cleric, then deposed from the rank. That is, the suppression of the fullness of marriage, even in the canons of the church, is clearly defined as improper. In addition, these same canons say that if someone refuses to recognize the validity of the Sacraments performed by a married clergyman, then he is also subject to the same punishments and, accordingly, excommunication from receiving the Holy Mysteries of Christ if he is a layman, or defrocking if he is a cleric . This is how high the church consciousness, embodied in the canons included in the canonical code by which believers must live, places the physical side of Christian marriage.

On the other hand, the church consecration of a marital union is not a sanction for indecency. Just as the blessing of a meal and prayer before eating is not a sanction for gluttony, for overeating, and especially for drinking wine, the blessing of marriage is in no way a sanction for permissiveness and feasting of the body - they say, do whatever you want, in whatever way you want. quantities and at any time. Of course, a sober church consciousness, based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, is always characterized by the understanding that in the life of a family - as in human life in general - there is a hierarchy: the spiritual must dominate over the physical, the soul must be above the body. And when in a family the physical begins to take first place, and the spiritual or even mental are given only those small pockets or areas that remain from the carnal, this leads to disharmony, spiritual defeats and major life crises. In relation to this message, there is no need to cite special texts, because, opening the Epistle of the Apostle Paul or the works of St. John Chrysostom, St. Leo the Great, St. Augustine - any of the Fathers of the Church, we will find any number of confirmations of this thought. It is clear that it was not canonically fixed in itself.

Of course, the totality of all bodily restrictions for a modern person may seem quite difficult, but the church canons indicate to us the measure of abstinence that a Christian must achieve. And if in our life there is a discrepancy with this norm - as well as with other canonical requirements of the Church, we, at least, should not consider ourselves calm and prosperous. And not to be sure that if we abstain during Lent, then everything is fine with us and we can not look at everything else. And that if marital abstinence takes place during fasting and on the eve of Sunday, then we can forget about the eves of fasting days, which would also be good to come to as a result. But this path is individual, which, of course, must be determined by the consent of the spouses and by reasonable advice from the confessor. However, the fact that this path leads to abstinence and moderation is defined in the church consciousness as an unconditional norm in relation to the structure of married life.

As for the intimate side of marital relations, although it does not make sense to discuss everything publicly on the pages of the book, it is important not to forget that for a Christian those forms of marital intimacy are acceptable that do not contradict its main goal, namely, procreation. That is, this kind of union of a man and a woman, which has nothing to do with the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were punished: when physical intimacy occurs in that perverted form in which procreation can never occur. This was also said in a fairly large number of texts, which we call “pravilniks” or “canons”, that is, the inadmissibility of this kind of perverted forms of marital communication was recorded in the Rules of the Holy Fathers and partly in church canons in the later Middle Ages, after Ecumenical Councils.

But I repeat, since this is very important, the carnal relationship of husband and wife in itself is not sinful and as such is not considered by the church consciousness. For the Sacrament of marriage is not a sanction for sin or some kind of impunity in relation to it. In the Sacrament, that which is sinful cannot be sanctified; on the contrary, that which is in itself good and natural is raised to a degree that is perfect and, as it were, supernatural.

Having postulated this position, we can give the following analogy: a person who has worked a lot, has done his job - no matter whether it is physical or intellectual: a reaper, a blacksmith or a soul catcher - when he comes home, he certainly has the right to expect from a loving wife a delicious lunch, and if the day is not fast, then it can be a rich meat soup or a chop with a side dish. It will not be a sin to ask for more and drink a glass of good wine after righteous labors, if you are very hungry. This is a warm family meal, looking at which the Lord will rejoice and which the Church will bless. But how strikingly different this is from those relationships that have developed in the family when husband and wife choose instead to go somewhere to a social event, where one delicacy replaces another, where the fish is made to taste like poultry, and the bird tastes like avocado, and so that it doesn’t even remind you of its natural properties, where guests, already satiated with various dishes, begin to roll grains of caviar across the sky in order to get additional gourmet pleasure, and from the dishes offered by the mountains they choose an oyster or a frog’s leg in order to somehow tickle their dull taste buds with other sensory sensations, and then - as has been practiced since ancient times (which is very characteristically described in the feast of Trimalchio in Petronius's Satyricon) - habitually causing a gag reflex, empty the stomach in order not to spoil your figure and be able to Indulge in dessert too. This kind of self-indulgence in food is gluttony and sin in many respects, including in relation to one’s own nature.

This analogy can be applied to marital relationships. What is a natural continuation of life is good, and there is nothing bad or unclean in it. And that which leads to the search for more and more new pleasures, one more, another, third, tenth point, in order to squeeze out some additional sensory reactions from one’s body, is, of course, improper and sinful and something that cannot be included in life of an Orthodox family.

What is acceptable in sexual life and what is not, and how is this criterion of acceptability established? Why is oral sex considered vicious and unnatural, since highly developed mammals leading complex social lives have this kind of sexual relationship in the nature of things?

The very formulation of the question implies the contamination of modern consciousness with such information, which it would be better not to know. In previous, in this sense more prosperous, times, children were not allowed into the barnyard during the mating period of animals, so that they would not develop abnormal interests. And if we imagine a situation, not even a hundred years ago, but fifty years ago, could we find at least one in a thousand people who would be aware that monkeys engage in oral sex? Moreover, would he be able to ask about this in some acceptable verbal form? I think that drawing knowledge about this particular component of their existence from the life of mammals is at least one-sided. In this case, the natural norm for our existence would be to consider polygamy, characteristic of higher mammals, and the change of regular sexual partners, and if we take the logical series to the end, then the expulsion of the fertilizing male, when he can be replaced by a younger and physically stronger . So those who want to borrow the forms of organization of human life from higher mammals must be prepared to borrow them completely, and not selectively. After all, reducing us to the level of a herd of monkeys, even the most highly developed, implies that the stronger will displace the weaker, including in sexual terms. Unlike those who are ready to consider the final measure of human existence as one with that which is natural for higher mammals, Christians, without denying the naturalness of man with another created world, do not reduce him to the level of a highly organized animal, but think of him as a higher being.

It is not customary to talk openly about certain functions of the reproductive organs, unlike other physiological functions of the human body, such as eating, sleeping, and so on. This area of ​​life is especially vulnerable; many mental disorders are associated with it. Is this explained by original sin after the Fall? If yes, then why, since original sin was not fornication, but was a sin of disobedience to the Creator?

Yes, of course, original sin consisted primarily of disobedience and violation of God’s commandments, as well as unrepentance and impenitence. And this combination of disobedience and unrepentance led to the falling away of the first people from God, the impossibility of their further stay in paradise and all those consequences of the Fall that entered into human nature and which in the Holy Scriptures are symbolically called wearing “leather garments” (Gen. 3:21 ). The Holy Fathers interpret this as the acquisition of fatness by human nature, that is, bodily fleshiness, the loss of many of the original properties that were given to man. Soreness, fatigue and much more entered not only our mental, but also our physical composition in connection with the Fall. In this sense, human physical organs, including organs associated with childbirth, also became open to disease. But the principle of modesty, concealment of the chaste, namely chaste, and not sanctimonious-puritanical silence about the sexual sphere, primarily comes from the Church’s deep reverence for man as the image and likeness of God. Just like not showing off what is most vulnerable and what most deeply connects two people, what makes them one flesh in the Sacrament of Marriage, and gives rise to another, immeasurably sublime union and therefore is the object of constant enmity, intrigues, distortion on the part of the evil one . The enemy of the human race in particular fights against that which, in itself being pure and beautiful, is so significant and so important for the inner correct existence of a person. Understanding the full responsibility and severity of this struggle that a person wages, the Church helps him by maintaining modesty, keeping silent about what should not be spoken about publicly and which is so easy to distort and so difficult to return, for it is infinitely difficult to convert acquired shamelessness into chastity. Lost chastity and other knowledge about yourself, no matter how hard you try, cannot be turned into ignorance. Therefore, the Church, through the secrecy of this kind of knowledge and the inviolability of it to the human soul, strives to make him uninvolved in the many perversions and distortions invented by the evil one of what is so majestic and well-ordered by our Savior in nature. Let us listen to this wisdom of the two-thousand-year existence of the Church. And no matter what culturologists, sexologists, gynecologists, all kinds of pathologists and other Freudians tell us, their names are legion, let us remember that they tell lies about man, not seeing in him the image and likeness of God.

In this case, what is the difference between chaste silence and sanctimonious silence? Chaste silence presupposes inner dispassion, inner peace and overcoming, what St. John of Damascus spoke about in relation to the Mother of God, that She had extreme virginity, that is, virginity in both body and soul. The sanctimonious-puritanical silence presupposes the concealment of what the person himself has not overcome, what is boiling in him and with what, even if he fights, it is not with an ascetic victory over himself with the help of God, but with hostility towards others, which is so easily extended to other people, and some of their manifestations. While the victory of his own heart over the attraction to what he is struggling with has not yet been achieved.

But how can we explain that in the Holy Scripture, as in other church texts, when the Nativity and virginity are sung, the reproductive organs are directly called by their proper names: the loins, the womb, the gates of virginity, and this in no way contradicts modesty and chastity? But in ordinary life, if someone said something like that out loud, either in Old Church Slavonic or in Russian, it would be perceived as indecency, as a violation of generally accepted norms.

This just means that in the Holy Scripture, which contains these words in abundance, they are not associated with sin. They are not associated with anything vulgar, carnally exciting, or unworthy of a Christian precisely because in church texts everything is chaste, and it cannot be otherwise. For the pure, everything is pure, the Word of God tells us, but for the unclean, even the pure will be unclean.

Nowadays, finding a context in which this kind of vocabulary and metaphors could be placed without damaging the soul of the reader is very difficult. It is known that the largest number of metaphors of physicality and human love is in the biblical book of Song of Songs. But today the worldly mind has ceased to understand - and this did not even happen in the 21st century - the story of the love of the Bride for the Groom, that is, the Church for Christ. In various works of art since the 18th century we find the carnal aspiration of a girl for a young man, but in essence this is a reduction of Holy Scripture to the level of, at best, just a beautiful love story. Although not in the most ancient times, but in the 17th century in the city of Tutaev near Yaroslavl, an entire chapel of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ was painted with scenes from the Song of Songs (these frescoes are still preserved). And this is not the only example. In other words, back in the 17th century, what was pure was pure for the pure, and this is further evidence of how deeply man has fallen today.

They say: free love in a free world. Why is this particular word used in relation to those relationships that, in the church’s understanding, are interpreted as prodigal?

Because the very meaning of the word “freedom” has been distorted and it has long been interpreted as a non-Christian understanding, which was once accessible to such a significant part of the human race, that is, freedom from sin, freedom as freedom from the low and vile, freedom as the openness of the human soul to eternity and to Heaven , and not at all as his determination by his instincts or the external social environment. This understanding of freedom has been lost, and today freedom is understood primarily as self-will, the ability to create, as they say, “what I want, I do.” However, behind this is nothing more than a return to the realm of slavery, submission to one’s instincts under the pitiful slogan: seize the moment, take advantage of life while you are young, pick all the permitted and unlawful fruits! And it is clear that if love in human relationships is the greatest gift of God, then to pervert precisely love, to introduce catastrophic distortions into it, is the main task of that original slanderer and parodist-perverter, whose name is known to everyone reading these lines.

Why are the so-called bed relationships of married spouses no longer sinful, but the same relationships before marriage are called “sinful fornication”?

There are things that are sinful by nature, and there are things that become sinful as a result of breaking the commandments. Suppose it is sinful to kill, rob, steal, slander - and therefore this is prohibited by the commandments. But by its very nature, eating food is not sinful. It is sinful to enjoy it excessively, which is why there is fasting and certain restrictions on food. The same applies to physical intimacy. Being legally sanctified by marriage and placed in its proper course, it is not sinful, but since it is prohibited in another form, then if this prohibition is violated, it inevitably turns into “prodigal incitement.”

From Orthodox literature it follows that the physical side dulls a person’s spiritual abilities. Why then do we have not only a black monastic clergy, but also a white one, obliging the priest to be in a marriage union?

This is a question that has long troubled the Universal Church. Already in the ancient Church, in the 2nd-3rd centuries, the opinion arose that the more correct path was the path of celibate life for all the clergy. This opinion prevailed very early in the western part of the Church, and at the Council of Elvira at the beginning of the 4th century it was voiced in one of its rules and then under Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (11th century) it became prevalent after the fall of the Catholic Church from the Universal Church. Then compulsory celibacy was introduced, that is, compulsory celibacy of the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church has taken a path, firstly, more consistent with the Holy Scriptures, and secondly, more chaste: not treating family relationships only as a palliative against fornication, a way not to become overly inflamed, but guided by the words of the Apostle Paul and considering marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the image of the union of Christ and the Church, it initially allowed marriage for deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Subsequently, starting from the 5th century, and in the 6th century, finally, the Church forbade marriage for bishops, but not because the marriage state was fundamentally inadmissible for them, but because the bishop was not bound by family interests, family concerns, concerns about his own and his own so that his life, connected with the entire diocese, with the entire Church, would be completely given to it. Nevertheless, the Church recognized the marital state as permissible for all other clergy, and the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, the Gandrian Council of the 4th century and the Trullo Council of the 6th century directly stated that a cleric who evades marriage due to abuse should be prohibited from serving. So, the Church views the marriage of clergy as a chaste and abstinent marriage and most consistent with the principle of monogamy, that is, a priest can only be married once and must remain chaste and faithful to his wife in the event of widowhood. What the Church treats with condescension in relation to the marital relations of the laity must be fully realized in the families of priests: the same commandment about childbearing, about the acceptance of all children whom the Lord sends, the same principle of abstinence, preferential deviation from each other for prayer and post.

In Orthodoxy, there is a danger in the very class of the clergy - in the fact that, as a rule, the children of priests become clergy. Catholicism has its own danger, since the clergy is constantly being recruited from outside. However, there is an advantage to the fact that anyone can become a cleric, as there is a constant influx from all walks of life. Here, in Russia, as in Byzantium, for many centuries clergy were actually a certain class. There were, of course, cases of tax-paying peasants entering the priesthood, that is, from the bottom up, or vice versa - representatives of the highest circles of society, but then, for the most part, into monasticism. However, in principle it was a family-class affair, and it had its own shortcomings and its own dangers. The main untruth of the Western approach to celibacy of the priesthood is its very disdain for marriage as a state that is permissible for the laity, but intolerable for the clergy. This is the main untruth, and the social order is a matter of tactics, and it can be assessed differently.

In the Lives of the Saints, a marriage in which husband and wife live as brother and sister, for example, like John of Kronstadt with his wife, is called pure. So, in other cases, the marriage is dirty?

A completely casuistic formulation of the question. After all, we also call the Most Holy Theotokos Most Pure, although in the proper sense only the Lord is pure from original sin. The Mother of God is Most Pure and Immaculate in comparison with all other people. We also talk about a pure marriage in relation to the marriage of Joachim and Anna or Zechariah and Elizabeth. The conception of the Most Holy Theotokos, the conception of John the Baptist are also sometimes called immaculate or pure, and not in the sense that they were alien to original sin, but in the fact that, in comparison with how this usually happens, they were abstained and not fulfilled excessive carnal aspirations. In the same sense, purity is spoken of as a greater measure of chastity of those special callings that were in the lives of some saints, an example of which is the marriage of the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt.

- When we talk about the immaculate conception of the Son of God, does this mean that in ordinary people it is flawed??

Yes, one of the provisions of the Orthodox Tradition is that the seedless, that is, immaculate, conception of our Lord Jesus Christ occurred precisely so that the incarnate Son of God would not be involved in any sin, for the moment of passion and thereby distortion of love for one’s neighbor is inextricably linked with the consequences of the Fall, including in the generic area.

- How should spouses communicate during their wife’s pregnancy?

Any abstinence is then positive, then it will be a good fruit, when it is not perceived only as a negation of anything, but has an internal good filling. If spouses during their wife’s pregnancy, having given up physical intimacy, begin to talk less to each other and watch TV more or swear in order to give some outlet to negative emotions, then this is one situation. It’s different if they try to pass this time as wisely as possible, deepening spiritual and prayerful communication with each other. After all, it is so natural, when a woman is expecting a child, to pray more to herself in order to get rid of all those fears that accompany pregnancy, and to her husband in order to support his wife. In addition, you need to talk more, listen more carefully to the other, look for different forms of communication, and not only spiritual, but also spiritual and intellectual, which would encourage the spouses to be together as much as possible. Finally, those forms of tenderness and affection with which they limited the intimacy of their communication when they were still bride and groom, and during this period of married life should not lead to a worsening of the carnal and physical in their relationship.

It is known that in case of some illnesses, fasting in food is either completely canceled or limited; are there such life situations or such illnesses when the spouses’ abstinence from intimacy is not blessed?

There are. Just don’t need to interpret this concept very broadly. Now many priests hear from their parishioners who say that doctors recommend that men with prostatitis “make love” every day. Prostatitis is not a new disease, but only in our time is a seventy-five-year-old man prescribed to constantly exercise in this area. And this is in years when life, worldly and spiritual wisdom should be achieved. Just as some gynecologists, even with a far from catastrophic illness, a woman will definitely say that it is better to have an abortion than to bear a child, so other sex therapists advise, no matter what, to continue intimate relationships, even non-marital ones, that is, morally unacceptable for a Christian , but, according to experts, necessary to maintain bodily health. However, this does not mean that such doctors should be obeyed every time. In general, you should not rely too much on the advice of doctors alone, especially in matters related to the sexual sphere, since, unfortunately, very often sexologists are open bearers of non-Christian worldviews.

The doctor’s advice should be combined with advice from a confessor, as well as with a sober assessment of one’s own physical health, and most importantly, with internal self-esteem - what a person is ready for and what he is called to. Perhaps it is worth considering whether this or that bodily ailment is allowed to occur for reasons that are beneficial to a person. And then make a decision regarding abstinence from marital relations during fasting.

- Are affection and tenderness possible during fasting and abstinence?

Possible, but not those that would lead to a bodily revolt of the flesh, to kindling a fire, after which the fire needs to be poured with water or a cold shower must be taken.

- Some say that Orthodox Christians pretend there is no sex!

I think that this kind of idea of ​​an external person about the view of the Orthodox Church on family relationships is mainly explained by his unfamiliarity with the real church worldview in this area, as well as a one-sided reading of not so much ascetic texts, which almost do not talk about this at all, but texts either modern parachurch publicists, or unfamous devotees of piety, or, what happens even more often, modern bearers of secular tolerant-liberal consciousness, distorting the church interpretation on this issue in the media.

Now let's think about what real meaning can be put into this phrase: the Church pretends that there is no sex. What does this mean? That the Church puts the intimate area of ​​life in its appropriate place? That is, it does not make of it that cult of pleasures, that only fulfillment of being, which you can read about in many magazines with shiny covers. So, it turns out that a person’s life continues insofar as he is a sexual partner, sexually attractive to people of the opposite, and now often of the same sex. And as long as he is such and can be in demand by someone, there is meaning in living. And everything revolves around this: work to earn money for a beautiful sexual partner, clothes to attract him, a car, furniture, accessories to furnish an intimate relationship with the necessary surroundings, etc. and so on. Yes, in this sense, Christianity clearly states: sexual life is not the only fulfillment of human existence, and puts it in an adequate place - as one of the important, but not the only and not the central component of human existence. And then refusal of sexual relations - both voluntary, for the sake of God and piety, and forced, in illness or old age - is not considered as a terrible catastrophe, when, in the opinion of many sufferers, one can only live out their lives, drinking whiskey and cognac and looking on TV something that you yourself can no longer realize in any form, but that still causes some impulses in your decrepit body. Fortunately, the Church does not have such a view of a person’s family life.

On the other hand, the essence of the question asked may be related to the fact that there are certain kinds of restrictions that are supposed to be expected from people of faith. But in fact, these restrictions lead to the fullness and depth of the marital union, including fullness, depth and happiness, joy in intimate life, which people who change their companions from today to tomorrow, from one night party to another, do not know. And the complete completeness of giving themselves to each other, which a loving and faithful married couple knows, will never be recognized by collectors of sexual victories, no matter how much they swagger on the pages of magazines about cosmopolitan girls and men with pumped up biceps.

- What is the basis for the Church’s categorical rejection of sexual minorities and its dislike for them?

It’s impossible to say: the Church doesn’t love them... Its position should be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating sin from the person committing it, and not accepting sin - and same-sex relations, homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism are sinful at their very core, as is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Old Testament - the Church treats the person who sins with pity, for every sinner leads himself away from the path of salvation until he begins to repent of his own sin, that is, to move away from it. But what we do not accept and, of course, with all the measure of harshness and, if you like, intolerance, what we rebel against is that those who are the so-called minorities begin to impose (and at the same time very aggressively) their attitude to life, to the surrounding reality, to the normal majority. True, there are certain areas of human existence where, for some reason, minorities accumulate to form a majority. And therefore, in the media, in a number of sections of contemporary art, on television, we continually see, read, and hear about those who show us certain standards of modern “successful” existence. This is the kind of presentation of sin to the poor perverts, unhappily overwhelmed by it, sin as a norm that you need to be equal to and which, if you yourself can’t do it, then at least should be considered as the most progressive and advanced, this is the kind of worldview, certainly unacceptable for us.

Is it a sin for a married man to participate in the artificial insemination of a stranger? And does this amount to adultery?

The resolution of the anniversary Council of Bishops in 2000 speaks of the unacceptability of in vitro fertilization when we are not talking about the married couple themselves, not about the husband and wife, who are infertile due to certain ailments, but for whom this kind of fertilization may be a way out. Although there are limitations here too: the resolution deals only with those cases where none of the fertilized embryos are discarded as secondary material, which is for the most part impossible. And therefore, practically it turns out to be unacceptable, since the Church recognizes the fullness of human life from the very moment of conception - no matter how and when it happens. When this kind of technology becomes a reality (today they apparently exist somewhere only at the most advanced level of medical care), then it will no longer be absolutely unacceptable for believers to resort to them.

As for the participation of a husband in the impregnation of a stranger or a wife in bearing a child for some third party, even without the physical participation of this person in fertilization, of course, this is a sin in relation to the entire unity of the Sacrament of the marriage union, the result of which is the joint birth of children, for the Church blesses a chaste, that is, integral union, in which there is no defect, there is no fragmentation. And what more can disrupt this marriage union than the fact that one of the spouses has a continuation of him as a person, as the image and likeness of God outside this family unity?

If we talk about in vitro fertilization by an unmarried man, then in this case, the norm of Christian life, again, is the very essence of intimate intimacy in a marital union. No one has canceled the norm of church consciousness that a man and a woman, a girl and a boy should strive to preserve their bodily purity before marriage. And in this sense, it is impossible to even think that an Orthodox, and therefore chaste, young man would donate his seed in order to impregnate some stranger.

What if newly married newlyweds find out that one of the spouses cannot have a full sex life?

If an inability to cohabitate in marriage is discovered immediately after marriage, and this is a kind of inability that can hardly be overcome, then according to church canons it is grounds for divorce.

- In the case of impotence of one of the spouses due to an incurable disease, how should they behave with each other?

You need to remember that over the years something has connected you, and this is so much higher and more significant than the small illness that exists now, which, of course, should in no way be a reason to allow yourself some things. Secular people admit the following thoughts: well, we will continue to live together, because we have social obligations, and if he (or she) cannot do anything, but I still can, then I have the right to find satisfaction on the side. It is clear that such logic is absolutely unacceptable in a church marriage, and it must be cut off a priori. This means that it is necessary to look for opportunities and ways to otherwise fill your married life, which does not exclude affection, tenderness, and other manifestations of affection for each other, but without direct marital communication.

- Can a husband and wife turn to psychologists or sexologists if something is not going well for them?

As for psychologists, it seems to me that a more general rule applies here, namely: there are such life situations when the union of a priest and a church-going doctor is very appropriate, that is, when the nature of mental illness gravitates in both directions - and towards spiritual illness, and towards the medical. And in this case, the priest and the doctor (but only a Christian doctor) can provide effective assistance to both the entire family and its individual member. In cases of some psychological conflicts, it seems to me that a Christian family needs to look for ways to resolve them within themselves through the awareness of their responsibility for the current disorder, through the acceptance of the Church Sacraments, in some cases, perhaps, through the support or advice of a priest, of course, if there is a determination on both sides, husband and wife, in case of disagreement on one issue or another, rely on the priestly blessing. If there is this kind of unanimity, then it helps a lot. But running to the doctor for a solution to what is a consequence of the sinful fractures of our soul is hardly fruitful. The doctor will not help here. As for assistance in the intimate, genital area by the relevant specialists who work in this field, it seems to me that in cases of either some physical disabilities or some psychosomatic conditions that interfere with the full life of the spouses and require medical regulation, it is necessary just see a doctor. But, however, of course, when today they talk about sexologists and their recommendations, then most often we are talking about how a person, with the help of the body of a husband or wife, lover or mistress, can extract as much pleasure as possible for himself and how to adjust his bodily composition so that the measure of carnal pleasure becomes greater and greater and lasts longer and longer. It is clear that a Christian, who knows that moderation in everything - especially in pleasures - is an important measure of our life, will not go to any doctor with such questions.

But it is very difficult to find an Orthodox psychiatrist, especially a sex therapist. And besides, even if you find such a doctor, maybe he only calls himself Orthodox.

Of course, this should not be just a self-name, but also some reliable external evidence. Here it would be inappropriate to list specific names and organizations, but I think that whenever we talk about health, mental and physical, we need to remember the gospel word that “the testimony of two people is true” (John 8:17), that is, we need two or three independent certificates confirming both the medical qualifications and ideological closeness to Orthodoxy of the doctor to whom we are turning.

- What contraceptive measures does the Orthodox Church prefer??

None. There are no such contraceptives that would bear the seal - “with the permission of the Synodal Department for Social Work and Charity” (it is he who deals with the medical service). There are no and cannot be such contraceptives! Another thing is that the Church (just remember its newest document “Fundamentals of a Social Concept”) soberly distinguishes between methods of contraception that are absolutely unacceptable and those allowed due to weakness. Abortive contraceptives are absolutely unacceptable, not only the abortion itself, but also that which provokes the expulsion of a fertilized egg, no matter how quickly it occurs, even immediately after conception itself. Everything connected with this kind of action is unacceptable for the life of an Orthodox family (I will not dictate lists of such means: those who do not know are better off not knowing, and those who know have already understood). As for other, say, mechanical methods of contraception, then, I repeat, without approving and in no way considering contraception a norm of church life, the Church distinguishes them from those that are absolutely unacceptable for those spouses who, due to weakness, cannot bear complete abstinence during those periods of family life, when, for medical, social or other reasons, childbearing is impossible. When, for example, a woman after a serious illness or due to the nature of some treatment during this period, pregnancy is extremely undesirable. Or for a family that already has quite a lot of children, today, due to purely everyday conditions, it is unbearable to have another child. Another thing is that before God, abstinence from childbearing must always be extremely responsible and honest. Here it is very easy, instead of considering this interval in the birth of children as a forced period, to indulge ourselves, when sly thoughts whisper: “Well, why do we need this at all? Again, the career will be interrupted, although such prospects are outlined in it, and here again a return to diapers, to lack of sleep, to seclusion in our own apartment" or: "We have just achieved some kind of relative social well-being, we began to live better, and with the birth of a child we will have to give up a planned trip to the sea, a new car, etc. "there are some things there." And as soon as this kind of crafty arguments begin to enter our lives, it means we need to stop them immediately and give birth to the next child. And we must always remember that the Church calls on Orthodox Christians who are married not to consciously refrain from bearing children, either because of distrust of God’s Providence, or because of selfishness and the desire for an easy life.

- If the husband demands an abortion, even to the point of divorce?

This means that you need to part with such a person and give birth to a child, no matter how difficult it may be. And this is exactly the case when obedience to your husband cannot be a priority.

- If a believing wife, for some reason, wants to have an abortion?

Put all your strength, all your understanding into preventing this from happening, all your love, all your arguments: from resorting to church authorities, the advice of a priest, to simply material, life-practical, any kind of arguments. That is, from carrot to stick - everything, just to avoid it. allow murder. Clearly, abortion is murder. And murder must be resisted to the last, regardless of the methods and ways in which this is achieved.

Is the attitude of the Church towards a woman who, during the years of godless Soviet power, had an abortion, not realizing what she was doing, the same as towards a woman who is now doing it and already knows what she is doing? Or is it still different?

Yes, of course, because according to the Gospel parable about the slaves and the steward, known to us all, there were different punishments - for those slaves who acted against the will of the master, not knowing this will, and for those who knew everything or knew enough and nevertheless did it . In the Gospel of John, the Lord says about the Jews: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin” (John 15:22). So here is one measure of guilt of those who did not understand, or even if they heard something, but internally, in their hearts, did not know what untruth there was in it, and another measure of guilt and responsibility of those who already know that this is murder ( It’s hard to find a person today who doesn’t know that this is so), and perhaps they even recognize themselves as believers if they then come to confession, and yet they do it anyway. Of course, not before church discipline, but before one’s soul, before eternity, before God - here is a different measure of responsibility, and therefore a different measure of pastoral and pedagogical attitude towards someone who sins in this way. Therefore, both the priest and the entire Church will look differently at a woman who was raised as a pioneer, a Komsomol member, who, if she has heard the word “repentance,” then only in relation to stories about some dark and ignorant grandmothers who curse the world, even if she has heard of The Gospels, then only from a course on scientific atheism, and whose head was filled with the code of the builders of communism and other things, and to that woman who is in the current situation, when the voice of the Church, directly and unequivocally testifying to the truth of Christ, is heard by everyone.

In other words, the point here is not a change in the Church’s attitude towards sin, not some kind of relativism, but the fact that people themselves have varying degrees of responsibility in relation to sin.

Why do some pastors believe that marital relations are sinful if they do not lead to childbearing, and recommend abstaining from physical intimacy in cases where one spouse is not a church member and does not want to have children? How does this relate to the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not turn away from one another” (1 Cor. 7:5) and with the words in the wedding ceremony “marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled”?

It is not easy to be in a situation where, say, an unchurched husband does not want to have children, but if he cheats on his wife, then it is her duty to avoid physical cohabitation with him, which only indulges his sin. Perhaps this is exactly the case that the clergy are warning about. And each such case, which does not imply childbearing, must be considered very specifically. However, this in no way abolishes the words of the wedding ceremony, “the marriage is honest and the bed is undefiled,” it’s just that this honesty of marriage and this cleanliness of the bed must be observed with all restrictions, warnings and admonitions if they begin to sin against them and deviate from them.

Yes, the Apostle Paul says that “if they cannot control themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Cor. 7:9). But he undoubtedly saw in marriage more than just a way to channel his sexual desire into a legitimate channel. Of course, it is good for a young man to be with his wife instead of fruitlessly getting excited until the age of thirty and earning himself some kind of complexes and perverted habits, which is why in the old days they got married quite early. But, of course, not everything about marriage is said in these words.

If a 40-45 year old husband and wife who already have children decide not to give birth to any more children, does this not mean that they should give up intimacy with each other?

Starting from a certain age, many spouses, even churchgoers, according to the modern view of family life, decide that they will not have any more children, and now they will experience everything that they did not have time to do when they were raising children in their younger years. The Church has never supported or blessed such an attitude towards childbearing. Just like the decision of most newlyweds to first live for their own pleasure and then have children. Both are a distortion of God’s plan for the family. Spouses, for whom it is high time to prepare their relationship for eternity, if only because they are now closer to it than, say, thirty years ago, again immerse them in physicality and reduce them to something that obviously cannot have a continuation in the Kingdom of God . It will be the duty of the Church to warn: there is danger here, here the traffic light is, if not red, then yellow. Upon reaching adulthood, putting what is auxiliary at the center of your relationships certainly means distorting them, maybe even ruining them. And in specific texts of certain shepherds, not always with the degree of tact as we would like, but in essence absolutely correctly, this is said.

In general, it is always better to be more abstinent than less. It is always better to strictly fulfill the commandments of God and the Church Rules than to interpret them condescendingly towards oneself. Treat them condescendingly to others, but try to apply them to yourself with the full measure of severity.

Are carnal relationships considered sinful if the husband and wife have reached an age when childbearing becomes absolutely impossible?

No, the Church does not consider those marital relationships when childbearing is no longer possible as sinful. But he calls on a person who has reached maturity in life and either retained, perhaps even without his own desire, chastity, or, on the contrary, who has had negative, sinful experiences in his life and wants to get married in his twilight years, it is better not to do this, because then he It will be much easier to cope with the impulses of your own flesh, without striving for what is no longer appropriate simply due to age.

Maxim Kozlov, archpriest
Based on the brochure "The Last Fortress. Conversations about family life"
Moscow. Publishing house of the Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana, 2004.

44. Is modern man able to fulfill the various and numerous church instructions of carnal abstinence in his marital relationships? Why not? For two thousand years, Orthodox people have been trying to fulfill them. And among them there are many who succeed. In fact, all carnal restrictions have been prescribed to a believer since Old Testament times, and they can be reduced to a verbal formula: nothing too much. That is, the Church simply calls us not to do anything against nature. 45. However, the Gospel nowhere speaks of a husband and wife abstaining from intimacy during nocma?

The entire Gospel and the entire church tradition, going back to apostolic times, speak of earthly life as preparation for eternity, of moderation, abstinence and sobriety as the internal norm of Christian life. And anyone knows that nothing captures, captivates and binds a person like the sexual area of ​​his existence, especially if he releases it from under internal control and does not want to maintain sobriety. And nothing is more devastating if the joy of being with a loved one is not combined with some abstinence.

It is reasonable to appeal to the centuries-old experience of the existence of a church family, which is much stronger than a secular family. Nothing preserves the mutual desire of a husband and wife for each other more than the need to abstain from marital intimacy from time to time. And nothing kills or turns it into lovemaking (it is no coincidence that this word arose by analogy with playing sports) than the absence of restrictions.

46. How difficult is this kind of abstinence for a family, especially a young one?

It depends on how people approached marriage. It is no coincidence that previously there was not only a social disciplinary norm, but also church wisdom that a girl and a boy abstained from intimacy before marriage. And even when they got engaged and were already connected spiritually, there was still no physical intimacy between them. Of course, the point here is not that what was undoubtedly sinful before the wedding becomes neutral or even positive after the Sacrament is performed. And the fact is that the need for the bride and groom to abstain before marriage, with love and mutual attraction to each other, gives them a very important experience - the ability to abstain when it is necessary in the natural course of family life, for example, during the wife’s pregnancy or in the first months after the birth of a child, when most often her aspirations are not directed towards physical intimacy with her husband, but towards caring for the baby, and she is simply not very physically capable of this. Those who, during the period of grooming and the pure passage of girlhood before marriage, prepared themselves for this, acquired a lot of essential things for their future married life. I know young people in our parish who, due to various circumstances - the need to graduate from a university, obtain parental consent, gain some kind of social status - went through a period of a year, two, even three before marriage. For example, they fell in love with each other in the first year of university: it is clear that they cannot yet start a family in the full sense of the word, nevertheless, over such a long period of time they walk hand in hand in purity as a bride and groom. After this, it will be easier for them to abstain from intimacy when it turns out to be necessary. And if the family path begins, as, alas, it happens now even in church families, with fornication, then periods of forced abstinence without sorrows do not pass until the husband and wife learn to love each other without physical intimacy and without the supports that she gives. But you need to learn this.

47. Why does the Apostle Paul say that in marriage people will have “sorrows according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 7:28)? But don’t the lonely and monastics have sorrows in the flesh? And what specific sorrows are meant?

For monastics, especially novice monastics, the sorrows, mostly mental, that accompany their feat are associated with despondency, despair, and doubts about whether they have chosen the right path. The lonely people in the world are perplexed about the need to accept the will of God: why are all my peers already pushing strollers, and others are already raising grandchildren, while I am still alone or alone? These are not so much carnal as spiritual sorrows. A person living a lonely worldly life, from a certain age, comes to the point that his flesh calms down, pacifies, if he himself does not forcibly inflame it through reading and watching something indecent. And people living in marriage do have “sorrows according to the flesh.” If they are not ready for inevitable abstinence, then they have a very difficult time. Therefore, many modern families break up while waiting for the first baby or immediately after his birth. After all, having not gone through a period of pure abstinence before marriage, when it was achieved exclusively by voluntary deed, they do not know how to love each other with restraint when this has to be done against their will. Whether you want it or not, the wife has no time for her husband’s wishes during certain periods of pregnancy and the first months of raising a baby. This is where he begins to look the other way, and she begins to get angry at him. And they do not know how to pass this period painlessly, because they did not take care of this before marriage. After all, it is clear that for a young man it is a certain kind of grief, a burden - to abstain next to his beloved, young, beautiful wife, the mother of his son or daughter. And in a sense it is more difficult than monasticism. Going through several months of abstinence from physical intimacy is not at all easy, but it is possible, and the apostle warns about this. Not only in the twentieth century, but also to other contemporaries, many of whom were pagans, family life, especially at its very beginning, was depicted as a kind of chain of continuous pleasures, although this is far from the case.

48. Is it necessary to try to observe fasting in a marital relationship if one of the spouses is unchurched and not ready for abstinence?

This is a serious question. And, apparently, in order to answer it correctly, you need to think about it in the context of the broader and more significant problem of a marriage in which one of the family members is not yet a fully Orthodox person. Unlike previous times, when all spouses were married for many centuries, since society as a whole was Christian until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, we live in completely different times, to which the words of the Apostle Paul are more applicable than ever that “the unbeliever the husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband” (1 Cor. 7:14). And it is necessary to abstain from each other only by mutual consent, that is, in such a way that this abstinence in marital relations does not lead to an even greater split and division in the family. Under no circumstances should you insist here, much less put forward any ultimatums. A believing family member should gradually lead his partner or life partner to the point that they will someday come together and consciously to abstinence. All this is impossible without serious and responsible churching of the whole family. And when this happens, then this side of family life will take its natural place.

49. The Gospel says that “the wife has no power over her body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:4). In this regard, if during Lent one of the Orthodox and church-going spouses insists on intimate intimacy, or does not even insist, but simply gravitates toward it in every possible way, and the other would like to maintain purity to the end, but makes concessions, then should he Should we repent of this as if it were a conscious and voluntary sin?

This is not an easy situation, and, of course, it should be considered in relation to different conditions and even to different ages of people. It is true that not every newlywed who got married before Maslenitsa will be able to go through Lent in complete abstinence. Moreover, keep all other multi-day posts. And if a young and hot spouse cannot cope with his bodily passion, then, of course, guided by the words of the Apostle Paul, it is better for the young wife to be with him than to give him the opportunity to “get fired up.” He or she who is more moderate, self-controlled, more able to cope with himself, will sometimes sacrifice his own desire for purity so that, firstly, something worse that happens because of bodily passion does not enter the life of the other spouse, secondly, in order not to give rise to schisms, divisions and thereby not to jeopardize family unity itself. But, however, he will remember that one cannot seek quick satisfaction in one’s own compliance, and in the depths of one’s soul rejoice at the inevitability of the current situation. There is an anecdote in which, frankly, far from chastity advice is given to a woman who is being raped: firstly, relax and, secondly, have fun. And in this case, it’s so easy to say: “What should I do if my husband (less often my wife) is so hot?” It’s one thing when a woman goes to meet someone who cannot yet bear with faith the burden of abstinence, and another thing when, throwing up her hands - well, since it can’t be done otherwise - she herself does not lag behind her husband. When yielding to him, you need to be aware of the extent of the responsibility you have assumed.

In other words, it is very important not to make the mistake that people often make in relation to food fasting. Let's say, in some situations - during travel, some infirmities - a person cannot fully observe fasting. He has to drink milk or eat some quick foods, and the evil one immediately whispers to him: what kind of fast are you on? Since there is no fasting, then eat everything recklessly. And the traveler begins to eat cutlets, and chops, and barbecue, and drink wine, and allow himself all sorts of sweets. Although, in fact, why is this so necessary? Well, due to certain conditions, you have to eat cheese or yogurt for breakfast, since there is nothing else, but this does not mean that you can allow yourself to drink a hundred grams of vodka at dinner. So it is in terms of bodily abstinence: if a husband or wife, in order for the rest to be peaceful, sometimes has to give in to a spouse who is weak in bodily aspirations, this does not mean that they need to go to all lengths and completely abandon this kind of fast for themselves. You need to find the measure that you can now accommodate together. And, of course, the leader here should be the one who is more abstinent. He must take upon himself the responsibilities of wisely building bodily relationships. Young people cannot keep all the fasts, so let them abstain for a fairly noticeable period: before confession, before communion. They can’t do the whole of Lent, then at least the first, fourth, seventh weeks, let others impose some restrictions: on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, so that in one way or another their life would be tougher than in ordinary times. Otherwise there will be no feeling of fasting at all. Because then what is the point of fasting in terms of food, if the emotional, mental and physical feelings are much stronger, due to what happens to the husband and wife during marital intimacy. But, of course, everything has its time and timing. If a husband and wife live together for ten, twenty years, go to church and nothing changes, then the more conscious family member needs to be persistent step by step, even to the point of demanding that at least now, when they have lived to see their gray hairs, Children have been raised, grandchildren will soon appear, a certain measure of abstinence should be brought to God. After all, we will bring to the Kingdom of Heaven what unites us. However, what will unite us there will not be carnal intimacy, for we know from the Gospel that “when they rise from the dead, then they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven” (Mk. 12, 25), but what we managed to cultivate during family life. Yes, first - with supports, which is physical intimacy, which opens people to each other, makes them closer, helps them forget some grievances. But over time, these supports, necessary when the building of a marital relationship is being built, should fall away, without becoming scaffolding, because of which the building itself is not visible and on which everything rests, so that if they are removed, it will fall apart.

50. What exactly does the church canons say about at what time spouses should abstain from physical intimacy and at what time not?

There are some ideal requirements of the Church Charter, which should determine the specific path facing every Christian family, so that they are not formally fulfilled. The Charter requires abstinence from marital intimacy on the eve of Sunday (that is, Saturday evening), on the eve of the celebration of the Twelfth Feast and Lenten Wednesday and Friday (that is, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening), as well as during multi-day fasts and days of fasting - preparation for receiving the Saints of Christ Tain. This is the ideal norm. But in each specific case, a husband and wife must be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, except by consent, for a time, to practice fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, I said this as permission, and not as a command” (Cor. 7:5-6). This means that the family must grow to a day when the measure of abstinence from physical intimacy adopted by the spouses will in no way harm or diminish their love and when the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without the support of physicality. And it is precisely this integrity of spiritual unity that can be continued in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, what is involved in eternity will be continued from a person’s earthly life. It is clear that in the relationship between husband and wife, it is not carnal intimacy that is involved in eternity, but what it serves as a support. In a secular, worldly family, as a rule, a catastrophic change of guidelines occurs, which cannot be allowed in a church family, when these supports become cornerstone. The path to such growth must be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps. Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year of marriage, can be told that they must go through the entire period of abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this with harmony and moderation will reveal a deep measure of spiritual wisdom. And for someone who is not yet ready, it would be unwise to place burdens that are unbearable on the part of a more temperate and moderate spouse. But family life is given to us in a temporary extent, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although the family must have a certain measure of abstinence from each other “for the exercise of fasting and prayer” from the very beginning. For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, a husband and wife avoid marital intimacy not out of fatigue or busyness, but for the sake of greater and higher communication with God and each other. And from the very beginning of marriage, Great Lent, except for some very special situations, should strive to be spent in abstinence, as the most crucial period of church life. Even in a legal marriage, carnal relationships at this time leave an unkind, sinful aftertaste and do not bring the joy that should come from marital intimacy, and in all other respects detract from the very passage of the field of fasting. In any case, such restrictions should be present from the first days of married life, and then they need to be expanded as the family grows older and larger.

51. Does the Church regulate the methods of sexual contact between a married husband and wife, and if so, on what basis and where exactly is this stated?

Probably, in answering this question, it is more reasonable to first talk about some principles and general premises, and then rely on some canonical texts. Of course, by sanctifying marriage with the Sacrament of Wedding, the Church sanctifies the entire union of a man and a woman - both spiritual and physical. And there is no sanctimonious intention disdainful of the physical component of the marital union in the sober church worldview. This kind of neglect, the belittling of the physical side of marriage, its relegation to the level of something that is only allowed, but which, by and large, must be abhorred, is characteristic of a sectarian, schismatic or extra-church consciousness, and even if it is ecclesiastical, it is only painful. This needs to be very clearly defined and understood. Already in the 4th - 6th centuries, the decrees of church councils stated that one of the spouses who deviates from physical intimacy with the other due to abomination of marriage is subject to excommunication from Communion, and if he is not a layman, but a cleric, then deposed from the rank. That is, the suppression of the fullness of marriage, even in the canons of the church, is clearly defined as improper. In addition, these same canons say that if someone refuses to recognize the validity of the Sacraments performed by a married clergyman, then he is also subject to the same punishments and, accordingly, excommunication from receiving the Holy Mysteries of Christ if he is a layman, or defrocking if he is a cleric . This is how high the church consciousness, embodied in the canons included in the canonical code by which believers must live, places the physical side of Christian marriage.

On the other hand, the church consecration of a marital union is not a sanction for indecency. Just as the blessing of a meal and prayer before eating is not a sanction for gluttony, for overeating, and especially for drinking wine, the blessing of marriage is in no way a sanction for permissiveness and feasting of the body - they say, do whatever you want, in whatever way you want. quantities and at any time. Of course, a sober church consciousness, based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, is always characterized by the understanding that in the life of a family - as in human life in general - there is a hierarchy: the spiritual must dominate over the physical, the soul must be above the body. And when in a family the physical begins to take first place, and the spiritual or even mental are given only those small pockets or areas that remain from the carnal, this leads to disharmony, spiritual defeats and major life crises. In relation to this message, there is no need to cite special texts, because, opening the Epistle of the Apostle Paul or the works of St. John Chrysostom, St. Leo the Great, St. Augustine - any of the Fathers of the Church, we will find any number of confirmations of this thought. It is clear that it was not canonically fixed in itself.

Of course, the totality of all bodily restrictions for a modern person may seem quite difficult, but the church canons indicate to us the measure of abstinence that a Christian must achieve. And if in our life there is a discrepancy with this norm - as well as with other canonical requirements of the Church, we, at least, should not consider ourselves calm and prosperous. And not to be sure that if we abstain during Lent, then everything is fine with us and we can not look at everything else. And that if marital abstinence takes place during fasting and on the eve of Sunday, then we can forget about the eves of fasting days, which would also be good to come to as a result. But this path is individual, which, of course, must be determined by the consent of the spouses and by reasonable advice from the confessor. However, the fact that this path leads to abstinence and moderation is defined in the church consciousness as an unconditional norm in relation to the structure of married life. As for the intimate side of marital relations, although it does not make sense to discuss everything publicly on the pages of the book, it is important not to forget that for a Christian those forms of marital intimacy are acceptable that do not contradict its main goal, namely, procreation. That is, this kind of union of a man and a woman, which has nothing to do with the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were punished: when physical intimacy occurs in that perverted form in which procreation can never occur. This was also stated in a fairly large number of texts, which we call “rulers” or “canons”, that is, the inadmissibility of this kind of perverted forms of marital communication was recorded in the Rules of the Holy Fathers and partly in church canons in the later Middle Ages, after the Ecumenical Councils.

But I repeat, since this is very important, the carnal relationship of husband and wife in itself is not sinful and as such is not considered by the church consciousness. For the Sacrament of marriage is not a sanction for sin or some kind of impunity in relation to it. In the Sacrament, that which is sinful cannot be sanctified; on the contrary, that which is in itself good and natural is raised to a degree that is perfect and, as it were, supernatural. Having postulated this position, we can give the following analogy: a person who has worked a lot, has done his job - no matter whether it is physical or intellectual: a reaper, a blacksmith or a soul catcher - when he comes home, he certainly has the right to expect from a loving wife a delicious lunch, and if the day is not fast, then it can be a rich meat soup or a chop with a side dish. It will not be a sin to ask for more and drink a glass of good wine after righteous labors, if you are very hungry. This is a warm family meal, looking at which the Lord will rejoice and which the Church will bless. But how strikingly different this is from those relationships that have developed in the family when husband and wife choose instead to go somewhere to a social event, where one delicacy replaces another, where the fish is made to taste like poultry, and the bird tastes like avocado, and so that it doesn’t even remind you of its natural properties, where guests, already satiated with various dishes, begin to roll grains of caviar across the sky in order to get additional gourmet pleasure, and from the dishes offered by the mountains they choose an oyster, a frog’s leg, in order to somehow tickle their dull taste buds with other sensory sensations, and then - as has been practiced since ancient times (which is very characteristically described in the feast of Trimalchio in Petronius's Satyricon) - habitually causing a gag reflex, empty the stomach in order not to spoil your figure and be able to Indulge in dessert too. This kind of self-indulgence in food is gluttony and sin in many respects, including in relation to one’s own nature. This analogy can be applied to marital relationships. What is a natural continuation of life is good, and there is nothing bad or unclean in it. And what leads to the search for more and more new pleasures, one more, another, third, tenth point, in order to squeeze out some additional sensory reactions from one’s body - this, of course, is improper and sinful and something that cannot be included in life of an Orthodox family.

52. What is acceptable in sexual life and what is not, and how is this criterion of acceptability established? Why is oral sex considered vicious and unnatural, since highly developed mammals leading complex social lives have this kind of sexual relationship in the nature of things?

The very formulation of the question implies the contamination of modern consciousness with such information, which it would be better not to know. In previous, in this sense more prosperous, times, children were not allowed into the barnyard during the mating period of animals, so that they would not develop abnormal interests. And if we imagine a situation, not even a hundred years ago, but fifty years ago, could we find at least one in a thousand people who would be aware that monkeys engage in oral sex? Moreover, would he be able to ask about this in some acceptable verbal form? I think that drawing knowledge about this particular component of their existence from the life of mammals is at least one-sided. In this case, the natural norm for our existence would be to consider polygamy, characteristic of higher mammals, and the change of regular sexual partners, and if we take the logical series to the end, then the expulsion of the fertilizing male, when he can be replaced by a younger and physically stronger . So those who want to borrow the forms of organization of human life from higher mammals must be prepared to borrow them completely, and not selectively. After all, reducing us to the level of a herd of monkeys, even the most highly developed, implies that the stronger will displace the weaker, including in sexual terms. Unlike those who are ready to consider the final measure of human existence as one with that which is natural for higher mammals, Christians, without denying the naturalness of man with another created world, do not reduce him to the level of a highly organized animal, but think of him as a higher being.

53. It is not customary to talk openly about certain functions of the reproductive organs, unlike other physiological functions of the human body, such as eating, sleeping, and so on. This area of ​​life is especially vulnerable; many mental disorders are associated with it. Is this explained by original sin after the Fall? If yes, then why, since original sin was not fornication, but was a sin of disobedience to the Creator?

Yes, of course, original sin consisted primarily of disobedience and violation of God’s commandments, as well as unrepentance and impenitence. And this combination of disobedience and unrepentance led to the falling away of the first people from God, the impossibility of their further stay in paradise and all those consequences of the Fall that entered into human nature and which in the Holy Scriptures are symbolically called putting on “leather vestments” (Gen. 3:21 ). The Holy Fathers interpret this as the acquisition of fatness by human nature, that is, bodily fleshiness, the loss of many of the original properties that were given to man. Soreness, fatigue and much more entered not only our mental, but also our physical composition in connection with the Fall. In this sense, human physical organs, including organs associated with childbirth, also became open to disease. But the principle of modesty, concealment of the chaste, namely chaste, and not sanctimonious-puritanical silence about the sexual sphere, primarily comes from the Church’s deep reverence for man as the image and likeness of God. Just like not showing off what is most vulnerable and what most deeply connects two people, what makes them one flesh in the Sacrament of Marriage, and gives rise to another, immeasurably sublime union and therefore is the object of constant enmity, intrigues, distortion on the part of the evil one . The enemy of the human race in particular fights against that which, in itself being pure and beautiful, is so significant and so important for the inner correct existence of a person. Understanding the full responsibility and severity of this struggle that a person wages, the Church helps him by maintaining modesty, keeping silent about what should not be spoken about publicly and which is so easy to distort and so difficult to return, for it is infinitely difficult to convert acquired shamelessness into chastity. Lost chastity and other knowledge about yourself, no matter how hard you try, cannot be turned into ignorance. Therefore, the Church, through the secrecy of this kind of knowledge and the inviolability of it to the human soul, strives to make him uninvolved in the many perversions and distortions invented by the evil one of what is so majestic and well-ordered by our Savior in nature. Let us listen to this wisdom of the two-thousand-year existence of the Church. And no matter what culturologists, sexologists, gynecologists, pathologists and other Freudians tell us, their names are legion, let us remember that they tell lies about man, not seeing in him the image and likeness of God.

54. In this case, what is the difference between chaste silence and sanctimonious silence?

Chaste silence presupposes inner dispassion, inner peace and overcoming, what St. John of Damascus spoke about in relation to the Mother of God, that She had extreme virginity, that is, virginity in both body and soul. The sanctimonious-puritanical silence presupposes the concealment of what the person himself has not overcome, what is boiling in him and with what, even if he fights, it is not with an ascetic victory over himself with the help of God, but with hostility towards others, which is so easily extended to other people, and some of their manifestations. While the victory with his own heart over the attraction to what he is struggling with has not yet been achieved.

55. But how can we explain that in the Holy Scripture, as in other church texts, when the Nativity and virginity are sung, the reproductive organs are directly called by their proper names: the loins, the womb, the gates of virginity, and this in no way contradicts modesty and chastity? But in ordinary life, if someone said something like that out loud, either in Old Church Slavonic or in Russian, it would be perceived as indecency, as a violation of generally accepted norms.

This just means that in the Holy Scripture, which contains these words in abundance, they are not associated with sin. They are not associated with anything vulgar, carnally exciting, or unworthy of a Christian precisely because in church texts everything is chaste, and it cannot be otherwise. “To the pure, all things are pure,” the Word of God tells us, “but to the unclean, even the pure will be unclean.”

Nowadays, finding a context in which this kind of vocabulary and metaphors could be placed without damaging the soul of the reader is very difficult. It is known that the largest number of metaphors of physicality and human love is in the biblical book of Song of Songs. But today the worldly mind has ceased to understand - and this did not even happen in the 21st century - the story of the love of the Bride for the Groom, that is, the Church for Christ. In various works of art since the 18th century we find the carnal aspiration of a girl for a young man, but in essence this is a reduction of Holy Scripture to the level of, at best, just a beautiful love story. Although not in the most ancient times, but in the 17th century in the city of Tutaev near Yaroslavl, an entire chapel of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ was painted with scenes from the Song of Songs. (These frescoes are still preserved). And this is not the only example. In other words, back in the 17th century, what was pure was pure for the pure, and this is further evidence of how deeply man has fallen today.

56. They say: free love in a free world. Why is this word used in relation to those relationships that, in the church understanding, are interpreted as prodigal?

Because the very meaning of the word “freedom” has been distorted and it has long been interpreted as a non-Christian understanding, which was once accessible to such a significant part of the human race, that is, freedom from sin, freedom as freedom from the low and vile, freedom as the openness of the human soul to eternity and to Heaven , and not at all as his determination by his instincts or the external social environment. This understanding of freedom has been lost, and today freedom is understood primarily as self-will, the ability to create, as they say, “what I want, I do.” However, behind this is nothing more than a return to the realm of slavery, submission to one’s instincts under the pitiful slogan: seize the moment, take advantage of life while you are young, pick all the permitted and unlawful fruits! And it is clear that if love in human relationships is the greatest gift of God, then to pervert precisely love, to introduce catastrophic distortions into it, is the main task of that original slanderer and parodist-perverter, whose name is known to everyone reading these lines.

57. Why are the so-called bed relationships of married couples no longer sinful, but the same relationships before marriage are called “sinful fornication”?

There are things that are sinful by nature, and there are things that become sinful as a result of breaking the commandments. Suppose it is sinful to kill, rob, steal, slander - and therefore this is prohibited by the commandments. But by its very nature, eating food is not sinful. It is sinful to enjoy it excessively, which is why there is fasting and certain restrictions on food. The same applies to physical intimacy. Being legally sanctified by marriage and put on its proper course, it is not sinful, but since it is prohibited in another form, if this prohibition is violated, it inevitably turns into “prodigal incitement.”

58. From Orthodox literature it follows that the physical side dulls a person’s spiritual abilities. Why then do we have not only a black monastic clergy, but also a white one, obliging the priest to be in a marriage union?

This is a question that has long troubled the Universal Church. Already in the ancient Church, in the 2nd - 3rd centuries, the opinion arose that the more correct path was the path of celibate life for all the clergy. This opinion prevailed very early in the western part of the Church, and at the Council of Elvira at the beginning of the 4th century it was voiced in one of its rules and then under Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (11th century) it became prevalent after the fall of the Catholic Church from the Universal Church. Then compulsory celibacy was introduced, that is, compulsory celibacy of the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church has taken a path, firstly, more consistent with the Holy Scriptures, and secondly, more chaste: not treating family relationships only as a palliative against fornication, a way not to become overly inflamed, but guided by the words of the Apostle Paul and considering marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the image of the union of Christ and the Church, it initially allowed marriage for deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Subsequently, starting from the 5th century, and in the 6th century, finally, the Church forbade marriage for bishops, but not because the marriage state was fundamentally inadmissible for them, but because the bishop was not bound by family interests, family concerns, concerns about his own and his own so that his life, connected with the entire diocese, with the entire Church, would be completely given to it. Nevertheless, the Church recognized the marital state as permissible for all other clergy, and the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, the Gandrian Council of the 4th century and the Trullo Council of the 6th century directly stated that a cleric who evades marriage due to abuse should be prohibited from serving. So, the Church views the marriage of clergy as a chaste and abstinent marriage and most consistent with the principle of monogamy, that is, a priest can only be married once and must remain chaste and faithful to his wife in the event of widowhood. What the Church treats with condescension in relation to the marital relations of the laity must be fully realized in the families of priests: the same commandment about childbearing, about the acceptance of all children whom the Lord sends, the same principle of abstinence, preferential deviation from each other for prayer and post.

In Orthodoxy, there is a danger in the very class of the clergy - in the fact that, as a rule, the children of priests become clergy. Catholicism has its own danger, since the clergy is constantly being recruited from outside. However, there is an advantage to the fact that anyone can become a cleric, as there is a constant influx from all walks of life. Here, in Russia, as in Byzantium, for many centuries clergy were actually a certain class. There were, of course, cases of tax-paying peasants entering the priesthood, that is, from the bottom up, or vice versa - representatives of the highest circles of society, but then, for the most part, into monasticism. However, in principle it was a family-class affair, and it had its own shortcomings and its own dangers. The main untruth of the Western approach to celibacy of the priesthood is its very disdain for marriage as a state that is permissible for the laity, but intolerable for the clergy. This is the main untruth, and the social order is a matter of tactics, and it can be assessed differently.

59. In the Lives of the Saints, a marriage in which husband and wife live as brother and sister, for example, like John of Kronstadt with his wife, is called pure. So, in other cases, the marriage is dirty?

A completely casuistic formulation of the question. After all, we also call the Most Holy Theotokos Most Pure, although in the proper sense only the Lord is pure from original sin. The Mother of God is Most Pure and Immaculate in comparison with all other people. We also talk about a pure marriage in relation to the marriage of Joachim and Anna or Zechariah and Elizabeth. The conception of the Most Holy Theotokos and the conception of John the Baptist are also sometimes called immaculate. or pure, and not in the sense that they were alien to original sin, but in the fact that, compared to how this usually happens, they were self-controlled and not filled with excessive carnal aspirations. In the same sense, purity is spoken of as a greater measure of chastity of those special callings that were in the lives of some saints, an example of which is the marriage of the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt.

60. When we talk about the immaculate conception of the Son of God, does this mean that in ordinary people it is flawed?

Yes, one of the provisions of the Orthodox Tradition is that the seedless, that is, immaculate, conception of our Lord Jesus Christ occurred precisely so that the incarnate Son of God would not be involved in any sin, for the moment of passion and thereby distortion of love for one’s neighbor is inextricably linked with the consequences of the Fall, including in the generic area.

61. How should spouses communicate during their wife’s pregnancy?

Any abstinence is then positive, then it will be a good fruit, when it is not perceived only as a negation of anything, but has an internal good filling. If spouses during their wife’s pregnancy, having given up physical intimacy, begin to talk less to each other and watch TV more or swear in order to give some outlet to negative emotions, then this is one situation. It’s different if they try to pass this time as wisely as possible, deepening spiritual and prayerful communication with each other. After all, it is so natural, when a woman is expecting a child, to pray more to herself in order to get rid of all those fears that accompany pregnancy, and to her husband in order to support his wife. In addition, you need to talk more, listen more carefully to the other, look for different forms of communication, and not only spiritual, but also spiritual and intellectual, which would encourage the spouses to be together as much as possible. Finally, those forms of tenderness and affection with which they limited the intimacy of their communication when they were still bride and groom, and during this period of married life should not lead to a worsening of the carnal and physical in their relationship.

62. It is known that in case of some illnesses, fasting in food is either completely canceled or limited; are there such life situations or such illnesses when the abstinence of spouses from intimacy is not blessed?

There are. Just don’t need to interpret this concept very broadly. Now many priests hear from their parishioners who say that doctors recommend that men with prostatitis “make love” every day. Prostatitis is not a new disease, but only in our time is a seventy-five-year-old man prescribed to constantly exercise in this area. And this is in years when life, worldly and spiritual wisdom should be achieved. Just as some gynecologists, even with a far from catastrophic illness, a woman will definitely say that it is better to have an abortion than to bear a child, so other sex therapists advise, no matter what, to continue intimate relationships, even non-marital ones, that is, morally unacceptable for a Christian , but, according to experts, necessary to maintain bodily health. However, this does not mean that such doctors should be obeyed every time. In general, you should not rely too much on the advice of doctors alone, especially in matters related to the sexual sphere, since, unfortunately, very often sexologists are open bearers of non-Christian worldviews.

The advice of a doctor should be combined with advice from a confessor, as well as with a sober assessment of one’s own physical health, and most importantly, with internal self-assessment - what a person is ready for and what he is called to. Perhaps it is worth considering whether this or that bodily ailment is allowed to occur for reasons that are beneficial to a person. And then make a decision regarding abstinence from marital relations during fasting.

63. How to behave with an unchurched husband after Communion, since this should also be a day of abstinence?

Same as before. This path had already been found, since the opportunity to receive communion arose. This means that the same technique can be applied on the day of the reception of the Holy Mysteries of Christ.

64. Are affection and tenderness possible during nocma and abstinence?

Possible, but not those that would lead to a bodily rebellion of the flesh, to kindling a fire, after which the fire needs to be poured with water, or a cold shower must be taken.

65. Some say that Orthodox Christians pretend there is no sex!

I think that this kind of idea of ​​an external person about the view of the Orthodox Church on family relationships is mainly explained by his unfamiliarity with the real church worldview in this area, as well as a one-sided reading of not so much ascetic texts, which almost do not talk about this at all, but texts either modern parachurch publicists, or unfamous devotees of piety, or, what happens even more often, modern bearers of secular tolerant-liberal consciousness, distorting the church interpretation on this issue in the media. Now let's think about what real meaning can be put into this phrase: the Church pretends that there is no sex. What does this mean? That the Church puts the intimate area of ​​life in its appropriate place? That is, it does not make of it that cult of pleasures, that only fulfillment of being, which you can read about in many magazines with shiny covers. So, it turns out that a person’s life continues insofar as he is a sexual partner, sexually attractive to people of the opposite, and now often of the same sex. And as long as he is such and can be in demand by someone, there is meaning in living. And everything revolves around this: work to earn money for a beautiful sexual partner, clothes to attract him, a car, furniture, accessories to furnish an intimate relationship with the necessary surroundings, etc. and so on. Yes, in this sense, Christianity clearly states: sexual life is not the only fulfillment of human existence, and puts it in an adequate place - as one of the important, but not the only and not the central component of human existence. And then refusal of sexual relations - both voluntary, for the sake of God and piety, and forced, in illness or old age - is not considered as a terrible catastrophe, when, in the opinion of many sufferers, one can only live out their lives, drinking whiskey and cognac and looking on TV something that you yourself can no longer realize in any form, but that still causes some impulses in your decrepit body. Fortunately, the Church does not have such a view of a person’s family life.

On the other hand, the essence of the question asked may be related to the fact that there are certain kinds of restrictions that are supposed to be expected from people of faith. But in fact, these restrictions lead to the fullness and depth of the marital union, including fullness, depth and happiness, joy in intimate life, which people who change their companions from today to tomorrow, from one night party to another, do not know. And the complete completeness of giving themselves to each other, which a loving and faithful married couple knows, will never be recognized by collectors of sexual victories, no matter how much they swagger on the pages of magazines about cosmopolitan girls and men with pumped up biceps.

66. What is the basis for the Church’s categorical rejection of sexual minorities and its dislike for them?

It’s impossible to say: the Church doesn’t love them... Its position should be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating sin from the person committing it, and not accepting sin - and same-sex relations, homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism are sinful at their very core, as is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Old Testament - the Church treats the person who sins with pity, for every sinner leads himself away from the path of salvation until he begins to repent of his own sin, that is, to move away from it. But what we do not accept and, of course, with all the measure of harshness and, if you like, intolerance, what we rebel against is that those who are the so-called minorities begin to impose (and at the same time very aggressively) their attitude to life, to the surrounding reality, to the normal majority. True, there are certain areas of human existence where, for some reason, minorities accumulate to form a majority. And therefore, in the media, in a number of sections of contemporary art, on television, we continually see, read, and hear about those who show us certain standards of modern “successful” existence. This is the kind of presentation of sin to the poor perverts, unhappily overwhelmed by it, sin as a norm that you need to be equal to and which, if you yourself can’t do it, then at least should be considered as the most progressive and advanced, this is the kind of worldview, certainly unacceptable for us.

67. Please comment on the situation of gay weddings that took place in Nizhny Novgorod.

This situation can be commented on quite simply with the words of the famous Russian proverb: “There is a black sheep in a family.” This was a cleric of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, who committed some actions in relation to two male persons. And no matter how he justifies himself and no matter what he says now, this is, of course, a church-wide and extra-church outrageous temptation. He was immediately banned from serving in the priesthood. The rigidity of the canonical attitude towards him is immutable and unambiguous. It should be a lesson to other crazy people too, so that nothing like this will ever happen in our Church again. Of course, what happened is a canonical crime of only one criminal, which cannot in any way influence or in any way indirectly influence the position of the entire Russian Orthodox Church.

68. What is the position of our Church regarding the fact that today Protestants and even Catholics have a lenient attitude towards these problems and same-sex marriages are no longer uncommon there?

Let us remember which Churches remained carriers of historical Christianity and did not deviate in the main from the foundations of the canonical system, from evangelical ethics and an adequate reading of the Holy Scriptures. First of all, the Orthodox Church and with it the Ancient Eastern Churches: Armenians, Copts, Syrians, as well as the Roman Catholic Church. It is they who, in their approach to homosexuality, are based on the Holy Scriptures and on the church tradition, which considers it as one of the mortal sins. And there is no more compromise or tolerance towards this phenomenon in church teaching in the 21st century than in the 1st century, that is, there is simply no such thing. Most Protestant denominations, often already very conventionally considered Christian, now allow and turn a blind eye to, or even sanction, same-sex unions of people, based on the so-called free reading of the text of Holy Scripture. They, relying on their own cultural and ideological premises, isolate in the text of the Holy Scripture what can and should (from their point of view) be considered unchangeable and eternal, and what relates to the cultural and religious views of the era. Of course, such an attitude towards the Word of God did not exist in the historical Church. Protestants today allow this, thereby revealing the extent of their distance from the gospel truth and from the historical path of Christianity. We are pointed out that similar phenomena have been and are taking place within the boundaries of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And we do not hide the fact that such cases exist even among the clergy, even among monastics. But what does not and cannot exist in the Orthodox Church is for someone who commits such a sin to consider himself morally justified, so that he can say: I am doing something that is good, permissible and not reprehensible. In any case, even if he is in the power of this passion and, being possessed by it, allows himself to continue his priestly service and at the same time sins so terribly, so mortally, nevertheless he knows that this is a sin with which he is unable to cope. And this is a completely different approach than when sin is morally justified.

69. Is it a sin for a married man to participate in the artificial insemination of a stranger? And does this amount to adultery?

The resolution of the anniversary Council of Bishops in 2000 speaks of the unacceptability of in vitro fertilization when we are not talking about the married couple themselves, not about the husband and wife, who are infertile due to certain ailments, but for whom this kind of fertilization may be a way out. Although there are limitations here too: the resolution deals only with those cases where none of the fertilized embryos are discarded as secondary material, which is for the most part impossible. And therefore, practically it turns out to be unacceptable, since the Church recognizes the fullness of human life from the very moment of conception - no matter how and when it happens. When this kind of technology becomes a reality (today they apparently exist somewhere only at the most advanced level of medical care), then it will no longer be absolutely unacceptable for believers to resort to them. As for the participation of a husband in the impregnation of a stranger or a wife in bearing a child for some third party, even without the physical participation of this person in fertilization, of course, this is a sin in relation to the entire unity of the Sacrament of the marriage union, the result of which is the joint birth of children, for the Church blesses a chaste, that is, integral union, in which there is no defect, there is no fragmentation. And what more can disrupt this marriage union than the fact that one of the spouses has a continuation of him as a person, as the image and likeness of God outside this family unity? If we talk about in vitro fertilization by an unmarried man, then in this case, the norm of Christian life, again, is the very essence of intimate intimacy in a marital union. No one has canceled the norm of church consciousness that a man and a woman, a girl and a boy should strive to preserve their bodily purity before marriage. And in this sense, it is impossible to even think that an Orthodox, and therefore chaste, young man would donate his seed in order to impregnate some stranger.

70. What if newly married newlyweds find out that one of the spouses cannot have a full sex life?

If an inability to cohabitate in marriage is discovered immediately after marriage, and this is a kind of inability that can hardly be overcome, then according to church canons it is grounds for divorce.

71. In the case of impotence of one of the spouses due to an incurable disease, how should they behave with each other?

You need to remember that over the years something has connected you, and this is so much higher and more significant than the small illness that exists now, which, of course, should in no way be a reason to allow yourself some things. Secular people admit the following thoughts: well, we will continue to live together, because we have social obligations, and if he (or she) cannot do anything, but I still can, then I have the right to find satisfaction on the side. It is clear that such logic is absolutely unacceptable in a church marriage, and it must be cut off a priori. This means that it is necessary to look for opportunities and ways to otherwise fill your married life, which does not exclude affection, tenderness, and other manifestations of affection for each other, but without direct marital communication.

72. Is it possible for a husband and wife to turn to psychologists or sexologists if something is not going well for them?

As for psychologists, it seems to me that a more general rule applies here, namely: there are such life situations when the union of a priest and a church-going doctor is very appropriate, that is, when the nature of mental illness gravitates in both directions - and towards spiritual illness, and towards the medical. And in this case, the priest and the doctor (but only a Christian doctor) can provide effective assistance to both the entire family and its individual member. In cases of some psychological conflicts, it seems to me that a Christian family needs to look for ways to resolve them within themselves through the awareness of their responsibility for the current disorder, through the acceptance of the Church Sacraments, in some cases, perhaps, through the support or advice of a priest, of course, if there is a determination on both sides, husband and wife, in case of disagreement on one issue or another, rely on the priestly blessing. If there is this kind of unanimity, then it helps a lot. But running to the doctor for a solution to what is a consequence of the sinful fractures of our soul is hardly fruitful. The doctor will not help here. As for assistance in the intimate, genital area by the relevant specialists who work in this field, it seems to me that in cases of either some physical disabilities or some psychosomatic conditions that interfere with the full life of the spouses and require medical regulation, it is necessary just see a doctor. But, however, of course, when today they talk about sexologists and their recommendations, then most often we are talking about how a person, with the help of the body of a husband or wife, lover or mistress, can extract as much pleasure as possible for himself and how to adjust his bodily composition so that the measure of carnal pleasure becomes greater and greater and lasts longer and longer. It is clear that a Christian, who knows that moderation in everything - especially in pleasures - is an important measure of our life, will not go to any doctor with such questions.

73. But it is very difficult to find an Orthodox ncuxuampa; especially a sex therapist. Besides, even if you find such a doctor, maybe he only calls himself Orthodox.

Of course, this should not be just a self-name, but also some reliable external evidence. Here it would be inappropriate to list specific names and organizations, but I think that whenever we talk about health, mental and physical, we need to remember the gospel word that “the testimony of two people is true” (John 8:17), that is, we need two or three independent certificates confirming both the medical qualifications and ideological closeness to Orthodoxy of the doctor to whom we are turning.

74. What contraceptive measures does the Orthodox Church prefer?

None. There are no contraceptives that bear the seal “with the permission of the Synodal Department for Social Work and Charity” (it is he who deals with the medical service). There are no and cannot be such contraceptives! Another thing is that the Church (just remember its newest document “Fundamentals of a Social Concept”) soberly distinguishes between methods of contraception that are absolutely unacceptable and those allowed due to weakness. Abortive contraceptives are absolutely unacceptable, not only the abortion itself, but also that which provokes the expulsion of a fertilized egg, no matter how quickly it occurs, even immediately after conception itself. Everything connected with this kind of action is unacceptable for the life of an Orthodox family. (I will not dictate lists of such means: those who do not know are better off not knowing, and those who know, understand without it.) As for other, say, mechanical methods of contraception, I repeat, I do not approve and in no way Considering birth control to be the norm of church life, the Church distinguishes them from those that are absolutely unacceptable for those spouses who, due to weakness, cannot endure complete abstinence during those periods of family life when, for medical, social or some other reasons, childbearing is impossible. When, for example, a woman after a serious illness or due to the nature of some treatment during this period, pregnancy is extremely undesirable. Or for a family that already has quite a lot of children, today, due to purely everyday conditions, it is unbearable to have another child. Another thing is that before God, abstinence from childbearing must always be extremely responsible and honest. Here it is very easy, instead of considering this interval in the birth of children as a forced period, to indulge ourselves, when crafty thoughts whisper: “Well, why do we need this at all? Again, the career will be interrupted, although such prospects are outlined in it, and here again a return to diapers, to lack of sleep, to seclusion in our own apartment” or: “Only we have achieved some kind of relative social well-being, we began to live better, and with the birth of a child we will have to refuse a planned trip to the sea, a new car, or some other things.” And as soon as this kind of crafty arguments begin to enter our lives, it means we need to stop them immediately and give birth to the next child. And we must always remember that the Church calls on Orthodox Christians who are married not to consciously refrain from bearing children, either because of distrust of God’s Providence, or because of selfishness and the desire for an easy life.

75. If the husband demands an abortion, even to the point of divorce?

This means that you need to part with such a person and give birth to a child, no matter how difficult it may be. And this is exactly the case when obedience to your husband cannot be a priority.

76. If a believing wife for some reason wants to have an abortion?

Put all your strength, all your understanding into preventing this from happening, all your love, all your arguments: from resorting to church authorities, the advice of a priest, to simply material, life-practical, any kind of arguments. That is, from carrot to stick - everything just to prevent murder. Clearly, abortion is murder. And murder must be resisted to the last. Regardless of the methods and ways in which this is achieved.

79. If a 40-45 year old husband and wife who already have children decide not to give birth to any more children, does this not mean that they should give up intimacy with each other?

Starting from a certain age, many spouses, even churchgoers, according to the modern view of family life, decide that they will not have any more children, and now they will experience everything that they did not have time to do when they were raising children in their younger years. The Church has never supported or blessed such an attitude towards childbearing. Just like the decision of most newlyweds to first live for their own pleasure and then have children. Both are a distortion of God’s plan for the family. Spouses, for whom it is high time to prepare their relationship for eternity, if only because they are now closer to it than, say, thirty years ago, again immerse them in physicality and reduce them to something that obviously cannot have a continuation in the Kingdom of God . It will be the duty of the Church to warn: there is danger here, here the traffic light is, if not red, then yellow. Upon reaching adulthood, putting what is auxiliary at the center of your relationships certainly means distorting them, maybe even ruining them. And in specific texts of certain shepherds, not always with the degree of tact as we would like, but in essence absolutely correctly, this is said.

In general, it is always better to be more abstinent than less. It is always better to strictly fulfill the commandments of God and the Church Rules than to interpret them condescendingly towards oneself. Treat them condescendingly to others, but try to apply them to yourself with the full measure of severity.

80. Are carnal relationships considered sinful if the husband and wife have reached an age when childbearing becomes absolutely impossible?

No, the Church does not consider those marital relationships when childbearing is no longer possible as sinful. But he calls on a person who has reached maturity in life and has either maintained, perhaps even without his own desire, chastity, or, on the contrary, has had negative, sinful experiences in his life and wants to get married in his twilight years, it is better not to do this, because then he will it is much easier to cope with the impulses of one’s own flesh, without striving for what is no longer appropriate simply due to age.

81. What is reasonable leniency between spouses towards each other?

When tension arises in a marital relationship, the first step is to pray. In every situation, it is necessary to be guided by the principle - how to benefit, or at least not harm the soul of your neighbor. In this regard, there may be completely different external models of behavior, which depend on the nature of the relationship, on the degree of spiritual depth of two specific people, on their coincidences. In some cases, you need to stand firm, without indulging in weaknesses or agreeing to compromises. And thanks to such firmness and intransigence, we can help those who are close to us to overcome the tendency to sin or to some other weaknesses. In other cases, in order not to alienate or create a wall between you and your neighbor, you need to show reasonable leniency and, while caring about the main thing, compromise on the little things. There is no single scheme that could be dictated to all people once and for all. Prayer and remembering the benefits for the soul of another person are two criteria, two wings.

Comments on the opinion were expressed that this position is rigid. I would like to know your opinion.

Hieromonk Job (Gumerov) answers:

In spiritual matters there must be complete clarity in definitions. It is unacceptable to replace one with the other and confuse two different subjects: the spiritual meaning of fasting as abstinence (not only for the stomach, but for the whole person) and pastoral oikonomia - leniency and considerations of practical benefit when resolving issues of the spiritual life of individual members of the Church.

The fact that the period of fasting is a time of marital abstinence is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, except by consent, for a time, for exercises in fasting and prayer , and [then] be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you through your intemperance" (1 Cor. 7:5).

To understand this passage, let us turn to the patristic interpretation. I will give the explanation of St. Theophan the Recluse. His method of interpretation is distinguished by an important feature for us: it is based on the entire exegetical experience of the holy fathers that preceded it. His exegesis is conclusive. Secondly, it is close to us in time. The spiritual issues he solves are not much different from ours. Having cited the verse we quoted, the saint writes: “He commands to abstain during fasting for the most fervent prayer: this may apply to all church fasts, especially to fasting... It is clear that the apostle would like abstinence to be kept as if it were a law, but to come together only yielding to extreme necessity , which is determined not by wishes, but by nature, and not even by nature, but by prudence" ( Feofan the Recluse, saint. Interpretation of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul: First Corinthians. M., 2006. P. 322).

The Apostle Paul says: “I speak these things by counsel, not by command” (1 Cor. 7:6). Saint Gregory the Theologian, to whom there was a link in one of the comments, only repeated this thought: “I ask only one thing: accept the gift as a fence, and bring purity to the gift for the time being, while the days set for prayer continue, which are more honorable than the working days , and then by mutual condition and agreement (see: 1 Cor. 7: 5). For we do not prescribe the law, but we give advice and we want to take something from yours for you and for your general safety" ( Gregory the Theologian , saint. Creations. M., 2007. T. 1. P. 469).

Unlike food, marital abstinence concerns a very subtle and fragile area of ​​​​the relationship between two people, who often (as experience convinces) differ from each other in their spiritual development. Therefore, there is no direct canonical prescription (hence, penance) of abstinence, but it is still a spiritual and moral norm, non-compliance with which, in the absence of an appropriate reason, is a sin that must be confessed.

We must sacredly adhere to the teaching of the Church on fasting as a necessary school, without which we are unlikely to bear spiritual fruit. “Abstinence does not consist in avoiding foods that are insignificant in themselves, the consequence of which is the lack of mercy of the body condemned by the Apostle (see: Col. 2:23), but in the complete renunciation of one’s own desires” (St. Basil the Great). The whole life of a Christian should be a constant striving for a high ideal, the achievement of which is impossible without a certain feat. If we look in the rules for some opportunities to live outside of the saving feat, then we will gradually become equal to the Protestants, who have long abolished fasting and are doing everything to meet fallen human nature.

Everything that has been said not only does not cancel, but, on the contrary, requires pastoral sensitivity and leniency in each specific case when it comes to the fasting of spouses, if one of them is still spiritually weak.

To the statement made in one of the comments that I bless the breakup of families, it is not difficult for me to answer with facts. We have an archive of personal letters. Over three years and three months, we sent 11,873 letters. I also had to answer questions about marital abstinence. I will give the advice that I gave.

“Dear Dionysius! I really sympathize with you. If your spouse does not yet understand the meaning of Christian life, including abstinence during Lent, then do not abstain, but give in. Peace in the family is necessary. There will be no sin. The most important thing is to show the fruits of your Christianity: peace, joy, patience, love, etc. Be attentive to your wife."

“Dear Anastasia! Relationships with your husband during fasting must be built wisely and sensitively. If he is not yet ready for fasting, then you can give in, but gradually lead him to life according to the holy rules.”

“Dear Oleg! I understand the difficulty of your position. Since peace in the family comes first, in order not to strain the relationship, give in to your wife. At the same time, do not forget to reproach yourself and repent.”

"Dear Elena! I congratulate you on the beginning of the saving Great Lent. Keep a fast when it comes to food, but for the sake of peace in the family (since the husband has not yet joined the church), you must give in to your spouse. This way you will lead him to the Church faster. He will see your wisdom and love for him. Make up for the incompleteness of physical fasting with spiritual fasting: abstinence of the tongue, non-irritability, non-judgment, etc.”

I won’t bore you with further extracts. From the above extracts it is clear that there is no “rigorism”. But I emphasize that this is a different topic. Unfortunately, some priests who participated in the discussion of the problem of abstinence replaced one issue with another. In spiritual life this always leads to serious mistakes.

Good afternoon, our dear visitors!

Today, in the section, we will consider the following questions: What exactly does the church canons say about at what time spouses should abstain from physical intimacy and at what time not? When does the statute require abstinence from marital intimacy?

Archpriest Maxim Kozlov answers:

“There are some ideal requirements of the Church Charter, which should determine the specific path facing every Christian family in order to informally fulfill them.

The Charter requires abstinence from marital intimacy on the eve of Sunday (that is, Saturday evening), on the eve of the celebration of the Twelfth Feast and Lenten Wednesday and Friday (that is, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening), as well as during multi-day fasts and days of fasting - preparation for the reception of the Saints of Christ Tain. This is the ideal norm.

But in each specific case, a husband and wife must be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, except by consent, for a time, to practice fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, I said this as permission, and not as a command” (1 Cor. 7:5-6).

This means that the family must grow to a day when the measure of abstinence from physical intimacy adopted by the spouses will in no way harm or diminish their love and when the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without the support of physicality. And it is precisely this integrity of spiritual unity that can be continued in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, what is involved in eternity will be continued from a person’s earthly life.

It is clear that in the relationship between husband and wife, it is not carnal intimacy that is involved in eternity, but what it serves as a support. In a secular, worldly family, as a rule, a catastrophic change of guidelines occurs, which cannot be allowed in a church family, when these supports become cornerstone. The path to such growth must be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps.

Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year of marriage, can be told that they must spend the entire Nativity Fast in abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this with harmony and moderation will reveal a deep measure of spiritual wisdom. And for someone who is not yet ready, it would be unwise to place burdens that are unbearable on the part of a more temperate and moderate spouse.

But family life is given to us in a temporary extent, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although the family must have a certain measure of abstinence from each other “for the exercise of fasting and prayer” from the very beginning.

For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, a husband and wife avoid marital intimacy not out of fatigue or busyness, but for the sake of greater and higher communication with God and each other.

And from the very beginning of marriage, Great Lent, except for some very special situations, should strive to be spent in abstinence, as the most crucial period of church life.

Even in a legal marriage, carnal relations at this time leave an unkind, sinful aftertaste and do not bring the joy that should be from marital intimacy, and in all other respects detract from the very passage of the field of fasting.

In any case, restrictions of this kind should be present from the first days of married life, and then they need to be expanded as the family grows older and larger.”