Marital intimacy during Lent and more. Listening out loud about the secret

Marital intimacy during Lent and more. Listen out loud about the secret

This topic comes up in one form or another with each new post. And no wonder - the topic is important and very delicate. Archpriest Vladimir Puchkov discusses marital intimacy and destructive extremes in this matter.

The topic of marital relationships during Lent is far from new. Any parish priest is well aware that the obviousness of the statement that everything has been clear with this issue for a long time is apparent. At the same time, any attempt to raise this issue, for example, on the Internet or in print, causes such a violent reaction from a certain circle of church people that the initiator either falls silent in embarrassment, or is even forced to apologize.

However, the ability to hide from problems has not yet solved a single problem. Pious silence is always commendable, especially during Lent, but it is not always appropriate. However, any attempts to understand this topic will lead to nothing if it is discussed in isolation from another, no less important, topic - the attitude of the Church to marital intimacy as such.

Photo: forumnov.com

Over the past three decades, several models of attitude towards marital intimacy have been formed in the church environment, from the extremely strict “allowed only for childbearing” to the quite moderate “intimacy is the norm of marital relations.” As for the opinion that intimacy is tolerable and acceptable only in the context of procreation, it usually prevails among people who live by the principle “forgive me, Lord, that I am not a monk.”

Any attempts to understand this topic will lead to nothing if it is discussed in isolation from another, no less important, topic - the attitude of the Church to marital intimacy as such.

Only the lazy do not speak about the absence of ascetic literature for the laity in the Church today; here, precisely, we are dealing with a direct consequence of this absence. A view formed by literature written by monks for monks will inevitably see marital intimacy as something, if not completely unnecessary, then certainly tolerable only for the sake of extreme necessity. The centuries-old and rather amicable silence of the fathers and teachers of the Church on this topic can serve to form the deceptive belief that besides the monks there is no one else and nothing more to say on this topic. And therefore, intimacy should be infrequent, if possible, bashful, and, if the spouses did not set themselves the goal of conceiving a child, then march to confession.

Photo: pressa.tv

And who cares that the benefit and value of ascetic labors lies not in the ability to combine a monastic worldview and a secular way of life, but, first of all, in the invaluable experience of struggling with passions and resisting sin? Or to the point that none of the authors of ascetic works consistently developed the concept of “intimacy only for childbearing.” It was developed by those who tried to build a spiritual life according to the monastic model while living in the world.

It is no secret, after all, that many, many, misunderstanding the same Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, strive for literally everything in their lives to be “according to the fathers,” and what cannot be substantiated “from the fathers” and supported by the appropriate quotation, they are ready to demolish the trash heap right now. Go find something from fathers about marital intimacy! And if you do find it, it won’t be much, and certainly not systematically and without details!

Over the past three decades, an absurd tradition has formed of devoting the confessor to such details of family life that cannot even have an indirect relation to the issue of saving the soul.

The solution suggests itself: about what the holy fathers do not have, let us ask the simple fathers, that is, the confessors.

On the part of the parish, in the overwhelming majority, family clergy, not the slightest interest in this topic has traditionally been observed. Moreover, for trying to reveal the details of what is happening in the marital bedroom, you can often run into a harsh, but quite fair beating. And so delicate questions rained down on the heads of the monks. At the same time, the fact that monks, by definition, cannot have knowledge about family life, and even more so, its hidden sphere (the knowledge of those who had the experience of an unsuccessful marriage before monasticism is of very dubious value), is taken into account , of course, no one accepted.

Photo: pravoslavie.ru

As a result, over the past three decades, an absurd tradition has formed of devoting the confessor to such details of family life that cannot even have an indirect relation to the issue of saving the soul. Further more. Now, individual would-be confessors themselves unceremoniously invade places where they are not asked, extort piquant details even from those who come to confession for the first time, and even scatter penances left and right for things that they have no need to know about.

Clarifying for yourself the question of the place of marital intimacy in family relationships is as easy as shelling pears - just open the Bible.

And this is all despite the fact that clarifying for yourself the question of the place of marital intimacy in family relationships is as easy as shelling pears - you just need to open the Bible. Already from the first chapters we learn that from the point of view of Scripture in marital intimacy there is nothing shameful, nasty, tolerated only for the sake of procreation. “Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen. 4:25). That’s right, intimacy between spouses in the language of the Bible is knowledge. The closest, deepest, on the level not only of the soul, but also of the body. Therefore, it is natural for marriage and permissible only in marriage, when any other knowledge is already an accomplished fact.

Of course, one can argue about biblical terms, but the undeniable fact is that marital intimacy as such is not presented anywhere in the pages of Scripture as a cause of the wrath of God or simply as something unclean and vicious. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul contrasts “marriage...honest and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4) only with fornication and adultery.

And, mind you, no analysis of details.

From the point of view of Scripture, there is nothing shameful, nasty, or tolerated in marital intimacy only for the sake of procreation.

One can, of course, see sin in the very fact of carnal attraction between spouses. But, excuse me, for this you need to be, at a minimum, wiser than King Solomon, who, no less, moved by the Spirit of God, used this very attraction as one of the images in the book of Song of Songs, metaphorically depicting the love of God for His people, for His Church .

What have we finally come to?

So, first : marital intimacy is the norm of family relationships. Not “acceptable” or “tolerable”, but natural and self-evident. Moreover, it can be determined solely by the need for procreation only by entering into a discussion with the same Apostle Paul, who said “to avoid fornication - that is, at least, not only for childbearing - each one have his own wife, and each one have her own husband” (1 Cor 7 :2).

Second : the centuries-old silence of the Church on the topic of marital intimacy is not due to the agreement that only ascetic writers can speak on this topic, but to the wisdom of the church tradition, which does not allow public discussion of the sacred.

Third : in the marital bedroom, the confessor is the third wheel. Whoever disagrees, give me at least one example when the intervention of a clergyman in such a non-spiritual sphere brought anything but harm, both for his own soul and for the relationship of the unlucky spouses.

Photo: varsoba.ru

Well, now about the main thing.

Fasting is a time of abstinence and curbing desires. Not sinful desires, they need to be fought not only by fasting, but normal and natural ones. Hence, abstinence from marital intimacy looks as natural as abstinence from fast food. Moreover, abstinence from marital intimacy as a type of asceticism is found on the pages of Scripture. “And Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, Be ready for the third day; do not touch women” (Ex. 19:14 – 15). Consequently, refusal of marital intimacy during periods associated with other restrictions, in food, in entertainment, etc., is completely justified.

However, we should not forget that fasting as a phenomenon has undergone a certain evolution over the centuries, and the fasting about which church authorities of the 4th–7th centuries wrote and spoke so much is not at all similar to what we call fasting now. Fasting in the biblical understanding and in the consciousness of the ancient Church is a complete refusal of food and water for the whole day. Those who fasted ate food only in the evening, and some even not every day.

The task of the fasting person is to force and limit himself, and the meaning here is more important than the form.

Our modern Lenten practice, no matter how much anyone complains about the severity of fasting, in comparison with the ancient one looks like one big relaxation. And at some point, a person’s weakness in relation to fasting became so obvious to the Church that it not only allowed this relaxation, but recorded it as the norm. That is, no rigorism, so familiar to us today (remember who has encountered: “fasting is established by the Church, the priest has no right to bless the indulgence”, “pregnancy does not relieve the sin of breaking the fast”, “even if the indulgence was blessed, it’s all the same you need to confess"), the Church does not show fasting. The task of the fasting person is to force and limit himself, and the meaning here is more important than the form.

Photo: twitter

The Church, in this regard, does not say anything about marital intimacy, which, as we already know, is not at all surprising - due to its delicacy, this topic is not particularly popular among church preachers, fathers and teachers. And if discussions on such topics are found in church writing, then with their condescension they can surprise not only rigorists, but also obvious liberals.

For example, “The Questioning of Kirikovo,” a monument of Russian church writing from the 12th century, contains the following reasoning: “If a priest serves on Sunday, and will serve again on Tuesday, is it possible for him to have intercourse with his wife? Having examined it, the bishop (St. Niphon of Novgorod) said that if he is young and abstinence is difficult for him, then do not forbid it. If he holds on, that’s better. But one should not prohibit it by force, this is a greater sin.”

It should be understood that marital abstinence is significantly different from abstinence in food. If the first is feasible for everyone who is more or less healthy, then the second is more difficult the younger the spouses.

Of course, our time is not the 12th century. The Church of Christ is a living organism and ascetic practice is not a dogmatic teaching. For our time, abstaining from marital intimacy during multi-day fasts has become the norm. But, at the same time, it should be understood that marital abstinence is significantly different from abstinence in food. If the first is feasible for everyone who is more or less healthy, then the second is more difficult the younger the spouses. Which is essentially what is said in the above excerpt from “Kirikov’s Questioning”.

Photo: zen.yandex.com

The attraction between young spouses is often so strong that “to withdraw from fellowship by consent,” as the Apostle Paul writes (1 Cor. 7:5) becomes downright impossible. And on the contrary, the older the spouses, the less fervor there is in the relationship and it is incomparably easier for them to control themselves.

While we clearly call for marital abstinence during Lent, we must still understand that it is impossible to approach everyone with the same standard.

Therefore, while clearly calling for marital abstinence during Lent, we must still understand that it is impossible to approach everyone with the same standard. In the end, even the current charter of fasting regarding food is not followed by the entire church in the form in which it is given in the calendar.

Yes, what can I say, even calendars published with the blessing of bishops and sold in church shops sometimes disagree with one another and all with the Typikon. And this doesn't bother anyone. What do we want from young spouses, whose attraction to each other (natural and not at all vicious, as we have already noted) is difficult to fit into any framework, much less our usual schedule of holidays and fasts.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to give such couples the opportunity to determine for themselves, by mutual consent, what their marital abstinence will be? After all, in the end, mutual awareness of the need for feasible abstinence as such is much more important and valuable than traditional marital fasting under pressure.

Quotes

So that no one thinks that I am saying “gag,” I will write here what any Orthodox family man should base his opinion on.

Apostle Paul:

“The husband show his wife due favor; likewise is a wife to her husband. The wife has no power over her body, but the husband does; Likewise, the husband has no power over his body, but the wife does. Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, to practice fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance.” (Epistle to the Corinthians).

Rule 4 of Saint Dionysius of Alexandria:

“Those who marry must be their own dominant judges. For they heard Paul writing that it is proper to abstain from each other, by consent, for a time, in order to practice prayer, and then again in life.”

Saint John Chrysostom:

“A wife should not, he says, abstain against the will of her husband, and a husband should not abstain against the will of his wife. Why? Because great evil comes from this abstinence; this often resulted in adultery, fornication and domestic disorder.”

From cycles of distance to cycles of proximity

But here's the rub: when men feel disconnected, they often try to achieve physical intimacy through recreational intimacy (“let's do something fun and maybe end up in bed”), while women, feeling disconnected, trying to achieve emotional intimacy through intellectual intimacy (“let’s talk about something and maybe we’ll end up pouring out our feelings”). Both spouses feel a loss of unity, but try to solve the problem backwards. To complicate matters further, men are often reluctant to talk and share their feelings unless they receive physical intimacy. And women do not want physical intimacy if they do not feel closeness in the emotional sphere.

As a result, couples quickly fall into periods of distance after another, increasingly demanding that their needs be met before they meet the needs of their partners. It is in such situations that the Christian's commitment to love others, even when it is difficult (John 13:34-35; Gal. 5:13; 6:2; Eph. 4:2, 32; 1 Pet. 4:8-10), can help a couple move from cycles of distance to cycles of togetherness if they, motivated by love, put the needs of the other above their own.

Caring for our spouse in these areas, even when we ourselves are not feeling the connection, is the key to achieving true, deep and lasting union. This kind of togetherness does much more than just give us a warm and fuzzy momentary feeling. It helps us to take root in the intimate love of the One in whom our unity is eternal and unshakable - in the love of God himself.

Donate Last: 07/05. Thank you!

Subscribe: Telegram • Facebook • • • Twitter • Instagram • Youtube

Conclusion

The Church has never established laws prohibiting the marriage bed of spouses; the most that we find in Scripture and rules is advice and calls to piety.

A. P. Ryabushkin, “On a Visit,” 1896. Source: hudojnik-peredvijnik.ru

But if someone tells you that on such and such a day the Church prohibits marital intimacy, then you can safely inform the person about his mistake. The Church does not prohibit; the Church only advises abstinence sometimes by mutual consent.

God bless everyone!

Tags: moral principles, marriage relationships, Orthodoxy, sex, sexual relationships

How does sex affect relationships?

Scientists have long been looking for evidence of whether regular sex is important in family relationships. The majority were confident that intimate intimacy strengthens mutual understanding, increases self-esteem, and makes men and women satisfied with life.

Psychologist Andrea Meltzer conducted a study in which it was found that unconsciously partners give a greater appreciation to their relationships when there is constant sex in them. On the other hand, intimacy cannot completely compensate for quarrels or omissions.

Surveys show that sex and orgasm after any conflict are indeed much more vivid, since adrenaline and passion simply go through the roof. After reaching the highest point of bliss, devastation sets in if the partner’s attitude remains detached or the essence of the conflict has not been resolved.