A recent screed directed against Fr Seraphim Rose (which I will not link here, as I do not wish to feed the trolls — I’m sure you can find it if you really want to) calls for an honest response, so I’ll attempt to give one here that does justice to the complexity of the specific history involved, and responds, in addition, to the underlying problems — of course, from my own perspective.
Christianity is supposed to be unnatural in many regards. Christ's death is natural; His resurrection and Ascension are unnatural. Sacraments all have unnatural components; it's what separates Baptism from merely washing one's brow. The whole of Christianity rests on the realness of the unnatural parts of human existence. If humans were meant to be only natural in all things, then what purpose would the Divine serve?
Even atheists, like Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene,' can recognize forces that motivate humans away from purely natural, genetic coding. Whatever that something is, it isn't clear that it's natural, nor is it clear being unnatural would make it maladaptive.
Regardless of one's view of celibacy and/or asceticism, calling something "unnatural" isn't a sound argument against the thing, especially when it comes to Christianity.
On the contrary, I would argue (with Fr Alexander Schmemann) that for example, baptism is not a "supernatural" washing; it is the revelation of the reality of water. The Eucharist is not ontologically supernatural, a breach in the world; it is the revelation of the reality of food. Thus with all the sacraments. They are precisely revelations of the heart of nature, not an irruption of some heteronomous reality. There are things that move towards the revelation of reality, and things that move away from it. I would say a culture of renunciation applied as a rule for all, which is pretty much what the tradition is in this area, since laypeople are treated essentially as second-class monks who can only do some of what monks do, is unnatural in the sense that it further obfuscates reality, rather than revealing it.
Fr Alexander Schmemann seems to be taking a humanist & materialist interpretation of sacraments, rather than a Christian one. The physical components of the rituals are supposed to reveal something more to us, yes, but that something more isn't limited to materialism. In the New Testament, the Early Church were quite clear about the presence of the Holy Spirit, not merely the material reality, in their most important practices.
> They are precisely revelations of the heart of nature
They are precisely revelations of grace: the beyond-natural God sharing God's life in our lives, therefore inviting our humanness to something more than "natural" in the materialist sense.
> There are things that move towards the revelation of reality
Agreed, but reality is more than "natural" in the materialist sense.
This is really two essays from my perspective. Good job on the first regarding Fr. Rose, but the second which seems to imply there is no Divine Eros is problematic. There are deeply embodied and fully intimate modes of experiencing divinity and sacredness which are based on renunciation. There is no reason a christian ascetic should't also be able experience a kinda of preview of the unity with God. The ramifications of glorification involving the full body are not as developed in christian asceticism as they should be. Yet, the eros that allowed St. Symeon to say that "Christ is my penis" (I'm not kidding), is not to be brushed off as mere repression but rather a completion of the meaning of eros:
"""
For while we become many members He remains one and indivisible, and each part is the whole Christ himself. 160 And so thus you well know that both my finger and my penis are Christ. Do you tremble or feel ashamed? But God was not ashamed to become like you, yet you are ashamed to become like Him? “I am not ashamed to become like Him. 165 But in saying He is like a shameful member I suspect that you speak blasphemy.” So then, you suspected badly, for there are no shameful members! They are hidden members of Christ, for they are covered, and on account of this they are more revered than the rest, (1 Cor 12.23) 170 as hidden members of Him Who is hidden, they are unseen by all, from Whom seed is given in divine communion, (1 Jn 3.9) awesomely deified in the divine form, from the whole divinity itself, for He is God entire, He Who is united with us, oh spine-chilling mystery! 175 And thus it truly becomes a marriage, unutterable and divine: He unites with each one, and again I shall say these things for pleasure, and each is made one with the Master. And so if you will put the whole Christ on your entire flesh, (Rom 13.14) then you shall understand everything that I say and have no cause for shame.
"""
If only monasticism was understood as aimed at this kind of deep eros with Christ! More than that, this kind of 'body positivity' certainly would be good to apply when thinking of sexuality in general. Also I want to point out the renunciation can indeed also be done in a body-positive way. You seem to paint it as inherently negative towards the body.
So while I agree that orthodoxy needs to emphasize spiritual eros more and understand that physical eros (eros expressed sexually) is a REAL mode of participation in divine eros, I also think you are flat out wrong to state that it is a form of non-christian repression to be ascetical. This is very harmful to spread. When a person is filled with this kind of joy, there is no sense of lack, the body is indeed involved in an embodied pervasion of the Spirit which mimics perichoresis. This is TOTAL eros of mind, spirit, and body, not a mere suppression or repression of the body. It is a fulfillment of what sex participates in (and note as I write below that sex also has a 'high ceiling' of potential). This exists, I know of it, I know of other people who know of it, and it is not 'sexual' in the normal sense of the word. It is supra-sexual.
To reiterate, this is not a denigration of marriage either. Sexuality can also participate fully in this kind of experience as well, but this means it must be elevated beyond the merely physical again to include the full perichoresis participating in the union of Christ and his Church (i.e. ALL reality).
So the way forwards as I see it is NOT to decide renunciation is for self-loathing and world-loathing gnostics, but to bring renunciation fully into its true meaning which is embarrassing for the many, but true nonetheless: marriage with Christ in all its implications. Marriage of ALL of one's being including the body (nonsexual, non-lustful eros). Then renunciates are simply those who focus on this only, whereas those who get married focus on union with each and union with Christ. Those in marriage are participating in 'theosis with world and Christ' which is critical as well since the World Song includes all of creation united in a beautiful whole. Those renunciates are focusing on 'theosis with Christ' and letting their 'theosis with the world' develop as the result of it rather than so to speak 'developing concurrently'. So, I agree we don't denigrate marriage either. Can you agree to stop denigrating renunciates?
If it were totally free, unrelated to any social pressures, for example, I could see a place for renunciation. But the fact is that the tradition upholds renunciates as almost the only spiritual exemplars. This says something. Basically there is a subtext in the tradition. I don't deny that it's possible to construct a version of the tradition that does what you say -- valorizes renunciation without devalorizing marriage and more specifically, sexuality, and even more specifically, sexual pleasure, and more broadly, sensual pleasure tout court. I can construct that -- I think Olivier Clement has done a good job of constructing it in several of his works.
But this is at a high level of abstraction. Whatever is *said,* the entire structure of the Church -- from monastic bishops, to the vast preponderance of ascetics among the saints given to us as models and for veneration, to the intensity of the ascetic teachings we imbibe e.g. through Lenten hymnography and through traditional Lenten reading, such as the "Ladder" -- forces renunciation forward as the "real" form of spirituality, and embodied life as a pale second-best, a grudging concession. And it gives no wisdom or guidance about how to engage with embodied life and sensual experience in a constructive way that's oriented to the Kingdom -- just "do your best to imitate the monks." Enough!
I don't deny that renunciation can produce ecstasies. But so can BDSM. I am not being tongue-in-cheek. Many, many different experiences can be fodder for wisdom, for ecstatic realization. Maybe this is the lens to see it through -- renunciation as an upaya, as a lifelong shamanic exercise, like a kind of perpetual fasting. But *most people are not suited to this,* and to have a religious culture than relentlessly teaches people -- often tacitly, but often explicitly, if they are to read the sources -- that this renunciation is the model they must approximate, produces monsters. It produces sexual abusers, because *it is itself a form of abuse.*
Now, if that reality and that history and that wound could be healed -- and perhaps it is, in the lives of individual ascetics -- well and good. But it is past time for the Church to offer non-renunciates bread instead of stones.
I believe Timothy Patisas said “orthodoxy is paradoxy.” I think we have to be willing to identify and uphold the ideal while acknowledging our inability to attain it in this fallen world. And then to offer ourselves the mercy that God offers us in the knowledge that we are weak and undeserving! No one deserves our unconditional love because of their merits. They deserve it because they embody Christ! Imperfectly.
"marriage with Christ in all its implications. Marriage of ALL of one's being including the body (nonsexual, non-lustful eros)"
"emphasize spiritual eros more and understand that physical eros (eros expressed sexually) is a REAL mode of participation in divine eros"
But Christ was incarnated. The bread and the wine are incarnated. I.E. there is no spritual eros, but eros is spiritual.
Lust is "the other" that is also you, to show you that you are not God, and it becomes "spiritual" in the incarnated personal version of the joining of heaven and earth (with your wife)
The ascetic life is like a gold medal for everyone, not just the winners. If you aren't doing it in order to have more time and focus to teach others about Christ then it's not it. You learn alot during exile, things that you can never learn otherwise, but in the end the realities are conversational and first of all it's a conversation between you and your brothers, and of your love is strong enough even between you and your enemies. But if you can't love your wife ("if one says he loves God but doesn't love his brother [...]") then what are you even going on about?? ("you"as in 3rd person) The romantic love and the lust that is it's cherry on top is the most real love, one who refuses that should not be formulating dogmas and scaring farmers and peons about hellfire.
I disagree completely that there is no 'spiritual eros'. Spiritual/Divine eros is definitely found in the writings of St. Symeon for example, and is experienced in many spiritual traditions, not just orthodoxy. As to your response generally I'm not sure which of my other points you are responding. If you would like my response then please clarify what you disagree with (it looks like you disagree with other things, but I'm not sure what).
I mean an experience of it. In the end there is only you and God, and your experiences including experiences with other people. What someone writes isn’t true if you have not experienced it.
Very well put. I think in overly focusing on actual Eros of the kind between a man and a woman, this article overlooks the vaster and macrocosmically-analog-yet-not-identical Divine Eros. It’s like the kind of Being which God has is of a type which renders the Being that we participate in a mere shadow. That’s not to say we aren’t actually participating in Him by participating in Being. However, the Being we participate in participates in His meta-being.
Thank you for sharing so honestly. I think this is a very important and under discussed topic. You might like The Ethics of Beauty by Dr Timothy Patitsas. It’s primarily an attempt to reclaim an approach to ethics that is centred on beauty, but it is also an extended meditation on the centrality of Eros. He defines Eros much more broadly than sexual desire, but I think you might find his work interesting:
“Eros is the beginning of human moral life, and Beauty in art and literature are oftentimes more effective than religion in awakening eros within us. Religion can just seem like God coming down at us, scolding us, telling us to stay where we are, but just do better. But real religion must awaken the movement in the other direction, must make us come out of ourselves and move towards him, fall in love with him. It’s about the beginning of an adventure, becoming a pilgrim, an exile, a lover.”
I might be way off base here but I’ve wondered if the hostility to Eros is connected somehow to the hostility to any idea of the Divine Feminine. I’ve always struggled with understanding how women are made in the image of God when our conceptual framework of God relies on male terminology. I guess the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be genderless, but that still leaves an absence of the Feminine within the Trinity as usually conceived. I can’t quite put into words how Eros and the Divine Feminine are somehow bound up together, but my intuition is that they are.
Thanks for the reminder of that book — it has been recommended to me more than once and I need to get to it.
I agree wholly about the missing divine feminine in traditional Christian theology. For what it’s worth, there are some interesting rabbit holes to go down deep in the tradition. For example, the Holy Spirit was feminine in early Syriac Christianity (since the word itself is grammatically feminine in Semitic languages), and some of those authors actually referred to the Spirit as “God the Mother.” There is also the work of Margaret Barker on first-temple Judaism, worth delving into, and then to get further out, there is the work e.g. of Raphael Patai on the ancient Hebrew goddesses. In short there is no absence of the divine feminine in the roots of the tradition, but it has certainly been occluded over time and only “breaks out” in devotion e.g. to the Mother of God, the subterranean cultus of Mary Magdalene, etc., but often in those later developments it’s all framed in a fundamentally male-centric way. Personally I feel this as a gaping wound in the tradition.
As a married man myself, I've always looked up to and admired the celibates. In the best of cases, they have a single-minded devotion to God that I wish I had the discipline to possess in my present state. I think especially of people like St. Therese of Liseuex.
I guess there is the flip side that the corruption of the best is the worst, and it recalls that the gift of continence is quite rare in human beings for obvious reasons.
I don’t think it was worth your time to respond to that trash.
Anyway, you should check out Octavio Paz’s book *The Double Flame*. Really, it’s more like triple: animal-level general sexuality, human-level eroticism fused with imagination, and individual-level romantic love fused with personhood. The idea is that each level is alchemically intensified and refined from the previous one.
Thank you for helping to set the record straight regarding Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Regarding whether and how much he knew of Fr. Herman's sins, obviously we will never know. But I would push back on the notion that Rose had any material knowledge of them. Why? Because I simply cannot imagine someone of Rose's sensitivity, holiness and integrity continue to produce essays and books of such discernment, spiritual depth and beauty, all while his conscience would have been hounding him over his knowledge of what Fr. Herman had done and was continuing to do.
Also, while Fr. Seraphim Rose did exemplify the practice of considering himself the greatest sinner and others angels; nonetheless, he had discernment and prudence as well as a good amount of common sense: It is one thing not to judge Fr. Herman for his sins. Its another entirely to allow him near children and near minors again and again over many years. I don't believe that Rose's grace and meekness would have allowed him to take such a naïve posture in the face of such knowledge. Meek, yes; naïve? not to that degree. And again, the spiritual depth of his writings make it difficult for me to believe that he would have been capable of that level of spiritual teaching all the while turning a blind eye to grievous sin being committed against innocents by his co-struggler.
So, that is my fact-free defense of Rose in that regard.
I agree with you completely. If he knew anything, I think he knew of Fr Herman's inward struggles, but not his sins, for exactly the reasons you state.
I don't see any possible way of developing a healthy relationship in regards to sexuality in a Christian context if we are speaking of homosexually. You are correct that the Church has taken a very negative view on all sexuality since the beginning but 90% of the scandals involve homosexuals specifically. So the problem is more homosexuals in the church than a negative attitude to sexuality in general. That story about your confession is ridiculous and I would have reacted exactly as you did but that incident is really not comparable to what is going on the monasteries with young men and gay monastics.
Have you read Variations on the Song of songs by Christos Yannaras? An absolutely phenomenal text! I don’t recall who did the translation from Greek to French but O. Clement introduces the French translation. I would love to hear your take on it. Also, a personal thank you for bringing Corps de mort et de gloire to my attention, one of a handful of Clément’s books I had not yet read until I encountered your translation.
Catholic here. I'm unfamiliar with the Fr. Seraphim case (or your writing—happy to have stumbled on this post!), but found your reflections here interesting. I think you'd be interested in my book The Way of Heaven and Earth, specifically the chapters dealing with discipline/pleasure and rigor/relaxation. I'd be happy to send you a review copy (shoot me a message). I might need to pen a longer response, but in brief, I think the dysfunction is not in the pursuit of discipline/rigor, but in pursuing them at the expense of their earthly counterparts, with a disgust toward the human and bodily. Should we reject asceticism, celibacy, self-discipline because of their abuse? Abusus non tollit usum: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! Regarding the Fathers, Chrysostom's homily 12 on Colossians (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230312.htm) is often raised as a striking counter-example, though your point is well taken: the ancient world was marked by what I've termed a stark "heavenward" resistance to the earthly (Platonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism), and the early Christians weren't immune to these ways of thinking. Regarding your search for a more holistic anthropology and sexuality, I think you might be interested in Pope Saint John Paul II's theology of the body.
Thanks for this considered response. I'm also troubled by the dark side of asceticism. An Orthodox bishop once said in my hearing that if fasting doesn't make you ill, you're not doing it right. Thankfully my priest doesn't agree. I also am very concerned about the psychological effects of sleep deprivation. The attitude that sees getting enough sleep as self-indulgence is ironically an attitude that doesn't credit the Creator with any wisdom in the urges he bestowed us with. It's almost as if the Fathers had an attitude that would have been more appropriate to evolutionary belief than to the Creationism they professed: that whole thing where everything you naturally desire is animal and has to be renounced.
Incarnation may be about that, but remember Christ, St Paul and such examples , they didn't marry. In my case, my guess is that such a monastery life is impossible. I don't judge if it is correct, or if other people are stronger and can live it. I prefer to be honest here and say, I can't
I do have questions about Jesus. (1) It was extremely unusual for a first-century Palestinian rabbi not to be married; why does no one comment on this in the Gospel narratives? (2) Who was the bridegroom at the wedding at Cana, and how did the Mother of God have the authority to tell the servants what to do at the feast? (3) When St Paul was justifying his own celibate state, why did not appeal to Jesus' example, if Jesus had also been celibate?
Now you are making the thinking machine roll! But start there and we will be questioning about Jesus' offspring and secret societies and a sacred bloodline
This has left me with a lot to think about. When I was a catechumen, the advice my priest offered me was “never confess at a monastery” because you just never know what kind of penance the confessor will ask of you or how strictly they’ll enforce the canons.
A difficult topic with difficult questions which it is commendable to bring up. I'll not try to provide any answers here, only two clarifications which I think make the problems discussed even more stark. (1) The New Testament, especially the teaching attributed to Jesus and Paul both, are essentially negative about sex in general as well as marriage. There is a fundamental difference between the OT (in general) and the NT here, not continuity. (2) To view sexual pleasure/desire/activity as inherently good, something that can be engaged in innocently, undermines the system of restrictions around sex in Christianity which (despite apologetics to the contrary) is inherently based on the idea that sex (as desire and pleasure) is an undesirable, filthy, polluting thing, which is "allowed" with restrictions either (a) as condescension for weakness or (b) because we retain the OT (but again, there is a schizophrenia in this topic between OT and NT, not a clarifying relationship).
Whatever path forward Christianity and Orthodoxy in particular takes on this matter, it is necessary in thinking through the issues that we recognize our tradition is either fundamentally incoherent on sex or that it is coherent, but it's coherence points towards the total denial of sex.
I have, but many years ago. I remember being unsatisfied with it at the time, IIRC because of the Platonism that underlies his perennialist sympathies. But I can’t remember more than that.
Ok interesting. I read once but will have to to take another look. ‘The Rape of Man and Nature’ and ‘Human image World Image’ have been important books to me.
> Sexual renunciation is unnatural.
Christianity is supposed to be unnatural in many regards. Christ's death is natural; His resurrection and Ascension are unnatural. Sacraments all have unnatural components; it's what separates Baptism from merely washing one's brow. The whole of Christianity rests on the realness of the unnatural parts of human existence. If humans were meant to be only natural in all things, then what purpose would the Divine serve?
Even atheists, like Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene,' can recognize forces that motivate humans away from purely natural, genetic coding. Whatever that something is, it isn't clear that it's natural, nor is it clear being unnatural would make it maladaptive.
Regardless of one's view of celibacy and/or asceticism, calling something "unnatural" isn't a sound argument against the thing, especially when it comes to Christianity.
On the contrary, I would argue (with Fr Alexander Schmemann) that for example, baptism is not a "supernatural" washing; it is the revelation of the reality of water. The Eucharist is not ontologically supernatural, a breach in the world; it is the revelation of the reality of food. Thus with all the sacraments. They are precisely revelations of the heart of nature, not an irruption of some heteronomous reality. There are things that move towards the revelation of reality, and things that move away from it. I would say a culture of renunciation applied as a rule for all, which is pretty much what the tradition is in this area, since laypeople are treated essentially as second-class monks who can only do some of what monks do, is unnatural in the sense that it further obfuscates reality, rather than revealing it.
Fr Alexander Schmemann seems to be taking a humanist & materialist interpretation of sacraments, rather than a Christian one. The physical components of the rituals are supposed to reveal something more to us, yes, but that something more isn't limited to materialism. In the New Testament, the Early Church were quite clear about the presence of the Holy Spirit, not merely the material reality, in their most important practices.
> They are precisely revelations of the heart of nature
They are precisely revelations of grace: the beyond-natural God sharing God's life in our lives, therefore inviting our humanness to something more than "natural" in the materialist sense.
> There are things that move towards the revelation of reality
Agreed, but reality is more than "natural" in the materialist sense.
Willingly walking into one's own execution is also arguably not a "natural" thing to do.
This is really two essays from my perspective. Good job on the first regarding Fr. Rose, but the second which seems to imply there is no Divine Eros is problematic. There are deeply embodied and fully intimate modes of experiencing divinity and sacredness which are based on renunciation. There is no reason a christian ascetic should't also be able experience a kinda of preview of the unity with God. The ramifications of glorification involving the full body are not as developed in christian asceticism as they should be. Yet, the eros that allowed St. Symeon to say that "Christ is my penis" (I'm not kidding), is not to be brushed off as mere repression but rather a completion of the meaning of eros:
"""
For while we become many members He remains one and indivisible, and each part is the whole Christ himself. 160 And so thus you well know that both my finger and my penis are Christ. Do you tremble or feel ashamed? But God was not ashamed to become like you, yet you are ashamed to become like Him? “I am not ashamed to become like Him. 165 But in saying He is like a shameful member I suspect that you speak blasphemy.” So then, you suspected badly, for there are no shameful members! They are hidden members of Christ, for they are covered, and on account of this they are more revered than the rest, (1 Cor 12.23) 170 as hidden members of Him Who is hidden, they are unseen by all, from Whom seed is given in divine communion, (1 Jn 3.9) awesomely deified in the divine form, from the whole divinity itself, for He is God entire, He Who is united with us, oh spine-chilling mystery! 175 And thus it truly becomes a marriage, unutterable and divine: He unites with each one, and again I shall say these things for pleasure, and each is made one with the Master. And so if you will put the whole Christ on your entire flesh, (Rom 13.14) then you shall understand everything that I say and have no cause for shame.
"""
If only monasticism was understood as aimed at this kind of deep eros with Christ! More than that, this kind of 'body positivity' certainly would be good to apply when thinking of sexuality in general. Also I want to point out the renunciation can indeed also be done in a body-positive way. You seem to paint it as inherently negative towards the body.
So while I agree that orthodoxy needs to emphasize spiritual eros more and understand that physical eros (eros expressed sexually) is a REAL mode of participation in divine eros, I also think you are flat out wrong to state that it is a form of non-christian repression to be ascetical. This is very harmful to spread. When a person is filled with this kind of joy, there is no sense of lack, the body is indeed involved in an embodied pervasion of the Spirit which mimics perichoresis. This is TOTAL eros of mind, spirit, and body, not a mere suppression or repression of the body. It is a fulfillment of what sex participates in (and note as I write below that sex also has a 'high ceiling' of potential). This exists, I know of it, I know of other people who know of it, and it is not 'sexual' in the normal sense of the word. It is supra-sexual.
To reiterate, this is not a denigration of marriage either. Sexuality can also participate fully in this kind of experience as well, but this means it must be elevated beyond the merely physical again to include the full perichoresis participating in the union of Christ and his Church (i.e. ALL reality).
So the way forwards as I see it is NOT to decide renunciation is for self-loathing and world-loathing gnostics, but to bring renunciation fully into its true meaning which is embarrassing for the many, but true nonetheless: marriage with Christ in all its implications. Marriage of ALL of one's being including the body (nonsexual, non-lustful eros). Then renunciates are simply those who focus on this only, whereas those who get married focus on union with each and union with Christ. Those in marriage are participating in 'theosis with world and Christ' which is critical as well since the World Song includes all of creation united in a beautiful whole. Those renunciates are focusing on 'theosis with Christ' and letting their 'theosis with the world' develop as the result of it rather than so to speak 'developing concurrently'. So, I agree we don't denigrate marriage either. Can you agree to stop denigrating renunciates?
If it were totally free, unrelated to any social pressures, for example, I could see a place for renunciation. But the fact is that the tradition upholds renunciates as almost the only spiritual exemplars. This says something. Basically there is a subtext in the tradition. I don't deny that it's possible to construct a version of the tradition that does what you say -- valorizes renunciation without devalorizing marriage and more specifically, sexuality, and even more specifically, sexual pleasure, and more broadly, sensual pleasure tout court. I can construct that -- I think Olivier Clement has done a good job of constructing it in several of his works.
But this is at a high level of abstraction. Whatever is *said,* the entire structure of the Church -- from monastic bishops, to the vast preponderance of ascetics among the saints given to us as models and for veneration, to the intensity of the ascetic teachings we imbibe e.g. through Lenten hymnography and through traditional Lenten reading, such as the "Ladder" -- forces renunciation forward as the "real" form of spirituality, and embodied life as a pale second-best, a grudging concession. And it gives no wisdom or guidance about how to engage with embodied life and sensual experience in a constructive way that's oriented to the Kingdom -- just "do your best to imitate the monks." Enough!
I don't deny that renunciation can produce ecstasies. But so can BDSM. I am not being tongue-in-cheek. Many, many different experiences can be fodder for wisdom, for ecstatic realization. Maybe this is the lens to see it through -- renunciation as an upaya, as a lifelong shamanic exercise, like a kind of perpetual fasting. But *most people are not suited to this,* and to have a religious culture than relentlessly teaches people -- often tacitly, but often explicitly, if they are to read the sources -- that this renunciation is the model they must approximate, produces monsters. It produces sexual abusers, because *it is itself a form of abuse.*
Now, if that reality and that history and that wound could be healed -- and perhaps it is, in the lives of individual ascetics -- well and good. But it is past time for the Church to offer non-renunciates bread instead of stones.
I believe Timothy Patisas said “orthodoxy is paradoxy.” I think we have to be willing to identify and uphold the ideal while acknowledging our inability to attain it in this fallen world. And then to offer ourselves the mercy that God offers us in the knowledge that we are weak and undeserving! No one deserves our unconditional love because of their merits. They deserve it because they embody Christ! Imperfectly.
"marriage with Christ in all its implications. Marriage of ALL of one's being including the body (nonsexual, non-lustful eros)"
"emphasize spiritual eros more and understand that physical eros (eros expressed sexually) is a REAL mode of participation in divine eros"
But Christ was incarnated. The bread and the wine are incarnated. I.E. there is no spritual eros, but eros is spiritual.
Lust is "the other" that is also you, to show you that you are not God, and it becomes "spiritual" in the incarnated personal version of the joining of heaven and earth (with your wife)
The ascetic life is like a gold medal for everyone, not just the winners. If you aren't doing it in order to have more time and focus to teach others about Christ then it's not it. You learn alot during exile, things that you can never learn otherwise, but in the end the realities are conversational and first of all it's a conversation between you and your brothers, and of your love is strong enough even between you and your enemies. But if you can't love your wife ("if one says he loves God but doesn't love his brother [...]") then what are you even going on about?? ("you"as in 3rd person) The romantic love and the lust that is it's cherry on top is the most real love, one who refuses that should not be formulating dogmas and scaring farmers and peons about hellfire.
I disagree completely that there is no 'spiritual eros'. Spiritual/Divine eros is definitely found in the writings of St. Symeon for example, and is experienced in many spiritual traditions, not just orthodoxy. As to your response generally I'm not sure which of my other points you are responding. If you would like my response then please clarify what you disagree with (it looks like you disagree with other things, but I'm not sure what).
I mean an experience of it. In the end there is only you and God, and your experiences including experiences with other people. What someone writes isn’t true if you have not experienced it.
Yes, I've experienced what I consider spiritual eros. That's why I challenge loup so directly.
Very well put. I think in overly focusing on actual Eros of the kind between a man and a woman, this article overlooks the vaster and macrocosmically-analog-yet-not-identical Divine Eros. It’s like the kind of Being which God has is of a type which renders the Being that we participate in a mere shadow. That’s not to say we aren’t actually participating in Him by participating in Being. However, the Being we participate in participates in His meta-being.
Thank you for sharing so honestly. I think this is a very important and under discussed topic. You might like The Ethics of Beauty by Dr Timothy Patitsas. It’s primarily an attempt to reclaim an approach to ethics that is centred on beauty, but it is also an extended meditation on the centrality of Eros. He defines Eros much more broadly than sexual desire, but I think you might find his work interesting:
“Eros is the beginning of human moral life, and Beauty in art and literature are oftentimes more effective than religion in awakening eros within us. Religion can just seem like God coming down at us, scolding us, telling us to stay where we are, but just do better. But real religion must awaken the movement in the other direction, must make us come out of ourselves and move towards him, fall in love with him. It’s about the beginning of an adventure, becoming a pilgrim, an exile, a lover.”
I might be way off base here but I’ve wondered if the hostility to Eros is connected somehow to the hostility to any idea of the Divine Feminine. I’ve always struggled with understanding how women are made in the image of God when our conceptual framework of God relies on male terminology. I guess the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be genderless, but that still leaves an absence of the Feminine within the Trinity as usually conceived. I can’t quite put into words how Eros and the Divine Feminine are somehow bound up together, but my intuition is that they are.
Thanks for the reminder of that book — it has been recommended to me more than once and I need to get to it.
I agree wholly about the missing divine feminine in traditional Christian theology. For what it’s worth, there are some interesting rabbit holes to go down deep in the tradition. For example, the Holy Spirit was feminine in early Syriac Christianity (since the word itself is grammatically feminine in Semitic languages), and some of those authors actually referred to the Spirit as “God the Mother.” There is also the work of Margaret Barker on first-temple Judaism, worth delving into, and then to get further out, there is the work e.g. of Raphael Patai on the ancient Hebrew goddesses. In short there is no absence of the divine feminine in the roots of the tradition, but it has certainly been occluded over time and only “breaks out” in devotion e.g. to the Mother of God, the subterranean cultus of Mary Magdalene, etc., but often in those later developments it’s all framed in a fundamentally male-centric way. Personally I feel this as a gaping wound in the tradition.
As a married man myself, I've always looked up to and admired the celibates. In the best of cases, they have a single-minded devotion to God that I wish I had the discipline to possess in my present state. I think especially of people like St. Therese of Liseuex.
I guess there is the flip side that the corruption of the best is the worst, and it recalls that the gift of continence is quite rare in human beings for obvious reasons.
I don’t think it was worth your time to respond to that trash.
Anyway, you should check out Octavio Paz’s book *The Double Flame*. Really, it’s more like triple: animal-level general sexuality, human-level eroticism fused with imagination, and individual-level romantic love fused with personhood. The idea is that each level is alchemically intensified and refined from the previous one.
ordering immediately
Thank you for helping to set the record straight regarding Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Regarding whether and how much he knew of Fr. Herman's sins, obviously we will never know. But I would push back on the notion that Rose had any material knowledge of them. Why? Because I simply cannot imagine someone of Rose's sensitivity, holiness and integrity continue to produce essays and books of such discernment, spiritual depth and beauty, all while his conscience would have been hounding him over his knowledge of what Fr. Herman had done and was continuing to do.
Also, while Fr. Seraphim Rose did exemplify the practice of considering himself the greatest sinner and others angels; nonetheless, he had discernment and prudence as well as a good amount of common sense: It is one thing not to judge Fr. Herman for his sins. Its another entirely to allow him near children and near minors again and again over many years. I don't believe that Rose's grace and meekness would have allowed him to take such a naïve posture in the face of such knowledge. Meek, yes; naïve? not to that degree. And again, the spiritual depth of his writings make it difficult for me to believe that he would have been capable of that level of spiritual teaching all the while turning a blind eye to grievous sin being committed against innocents by his co-struggler.
So, that is my fact-free defense of Rose in that regard.
I agree with you completely. If he knew anything, I think he knew of Fr Herman's inward struggles, but not his sins, for exactly the reasons you state.
I don't see any possible way of developing a healthy relationship in regards to sexuality in a Christian context if we are speaking of homosexually. You are correct that the Church has taken a very negative view on all sexuality since the beginning but 90% of the scandals involve homosexuals specifically. So the problem is more homosexuals in the church than a negative attitude to sexuality in general. That story about your confession is ridiculous and I would have reacted exactly as you did but that incident is really not comparable to what is going on the monasteries with young men and gay monastics.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevenberger/p/on-sexuality?r=1nm0v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Have you read Variations on the Song of songs by Christos Yannaras? An absolutely phenomenal text! I don’t recall who did the translation from Greek to French but O. Clement introduces the French translation. I would love to hear your take on it. Also, a personal thank you for bringing Corps de mort et de gloire to my attention, one of a handful of Clément’s books I had not yet read until I encountered your translation.
Catholic here. I'm unfamiliar with the Fr. Seraphim case (or your writing—happy to have stumbled on this post!), but found your reflections here interesting. I think you'd be interested in my book The Way of Heaven and Earth, specifically the chapters dealing with discipline/pleasure and rigor/relaxation. I'd be happy to send you a review copy (shoot me a message). I might need to pen a longer response, but in brief, I think the dysfunction is not in the pursuit of discipline/rigor, but in pursuing them at the expense of their earthly counterparts, with a disgust toward the human and bodily. Should we reject asceticism, celibacy, self-discipline because of their abuse? Abusus non tollit usum: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! Regarding the Fathers, Chrysostom's homily 12 on Colossians (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230312.htm) is often raised as a striking counter-example, though your point is well taken: the ancient world was marked by what I've termed a stark "heavenward" resistance to the earthly (Platonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism), and the early Christians weren't immune to these ways of thinking. Regarding your search for a more holistic anthropology and sexuality, I think you might be interested in Pope Saint John Paul II's theology of the body.
Thanks for this considered response. I'm also troubled by the dark side of asceticism. An Orthodox bishop once said in my hearing that if fasting doesn't make you ill, you're not doing it right. Thankfully my priest doesn't agree. I also am very concerned about the psychological effects of sleep deprivation. The attitude that sees getting enough sleep as self-indulgence is ironically an attitude that doesn't credit the Creator with any wisdom in the urges he bestowed us with. It's almost as if the Fathers had an attitude that would have been more appropriate to evolutionary belief than to the Creationism they professed: that whole thing where everything you naturally desire is animal and has to be renounced.
Yes, the sleep thing is something I've noted as well! Agree wholeheartedly with your comment.
Incarnation may be about that, but remember Christ, St Paul and such examples , they didn't marry. In my case, my guess is that such a monastery life is impossible. I don't judge if it is correct, or if other people are stronger and can live it. I prefer to be honest here and say, I can't
I do have questions about Jesus. (1) It was extremely unusual for a first-century Palestinian rabbi not to be married; why does no one comment on this in the Gospel narratives? (2) Who was the bridegroom at the wedding at Cana, and how did the Mother of God have the authority to tell the servants what to do at the feast? (3) When St Paul was justifying his own celibate state, why did not appeal to Jesus' example, if Jesus had also been celibate?
Now you are making the thinking machine roll! But start there and we will be questioning about Jesus' offspring and secret societies and a sacred bloodline
I know, I know… le sigh (I have never read that book or its predecessors…)
I'll take yout word 🤫
This has left me with a lot to think about. When I was a catechumen, the advice my priest offered me was “never confess at a monastery” because you just never know what kind of penance the confessor will ask of you or how strictly they’ll enforce the canons.
A difficult topic with difficult questions which it is commendable to bring up. I'll not try to provide any answers here, only two clarifications which I think make the problems discussed even more stark. (1) The New Testament, especially the teaching attributed to Jesus and Paul both, are essentially negative about sex in general as well as marriage. There is a fundamental difference between the OT (in general) and the NT here, not continuity. (2) To view sexual pleasure/desire/activity as inherently good, something that can be engaged in innocently, undermines the system of restrictions around sex in Christianity which (despite apologetics to the contrary) is inherently based on the idea that sex (as desire and pleasure) is an undesirable, filthy, polluting thing, which is "allowed" with restrictions either (a) as condescension for weakness or (b) because we retain the OT (but again, there is a schizophrenia in this topic between OT and NT, not a clarifying relationship).
Whatever path forward Christianity and Orthodoxy in particular takes on this matter, it is necessary in thinking through the issues that we recognize our tradition is either fundamentally incoherent on sex or that it is coherent, but it's coherence points towards the total denial of sex.
Bookmarking to read later.
Have you read the Phillip Sherrard book on the subject, ‘Christianity and Eros’?
I have, but many years ago. I remember being unsatisfied with it at the time, IIRC because of the Platonism that underlies his perennialist sympathies. But I can’t remember more than that.
Ok interesting. I read once but will have to to take another look. ‘The Rape of Man and Nature’ and ‘Human image World Image’ have been important books to me.