Marital relations in an Orthodox family. Fasting and marital relations

ABOUT THE MOST SECRET
Candidate of Theology, graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest Dimitry Moiseev answers the questions.

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.”

— Are intimate relationships in marriage important for a Christian or not?
— Intimate relationships are one of the parties 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, just communicating with each other, etc. - all these are means to 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 greatest joy spouses receive from mutual communication under the condition of love between themselves. 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 critical days. 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. Is this, “Whoever is unclean, raise your hand!..,” or what?

- Is it possible for a husband to have intimate relations with his wife? if she's in a position and from a medical point of view there are no restrictions?
- 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 to read books that were morally unhealthy and to attend 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 foster 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 perversions. 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 just like sodomy 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, masturbation, 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 affection during fasting?
— Is it possible to smell sausage during fasting? The question is of the same order.

— Isn’t it harmful to the soul of an Orthodox Christian? Erotic massage?
“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 concern 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 problem of sexual incompatibility important for 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 between husband and wife in sex” 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 your 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.

— Is it possible to do “this” during fasting 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.

“I recently 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 for himself, the latter will be worse than the former.

- If a wife did this for her husband, then 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 well 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 it, because there are enough 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 for 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. Abbot Nikon Vorobyov said this very well, that a woman has more psychological dependence from a man than physical. 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 marriage...

- But 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 in 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.

— So 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.

— Are sexual relationships dirty or pure from a spiritual point of view?
— 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.

— For someone who wants to improve spiritually, should he 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 relationship: what more spiritual person, 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 doesn’t 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 has arranged everything wisely: while the woman does not know about it, God Himself cares, but when a woman finds out... She should 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.”

Bishop of Vienna and Austria Hilarion (Alfeev).

Marriage (the intimate side of the issue)
Love between a man and a woman is one of the important themes of biblical evangelism. As God Himself says in the Book of Genesis, “A man will leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and the two will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). It is important to note that marriage was established by God in paradise, that is, it is not a consequence of the Fall. The Bible tells of married couples who had a special blessing from God, expressed in the multiplication of their offspring: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel. Love is glorified in the Song of Solomon - a book that, despite all the allegorical and mystical interpretations of the Holy Fathers, does not lose its literal meaning.

The first miracle of Christ was the transformation of water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee, which is understood by patristic tradition as a blessing of the marriage union: “We affirm,” says St. Cyril of Alexandria, “that He (Christ) blessed marriage in accordance with the economy by which He became man and went... to the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11).”

History knows of sects (Montanism, Manichaeism, etc.) that rejected marriage as supposedly contrary to the ascetic ideals of Christianity. Even in our time, we sometimes hear the opinion that Christianity abhors marriage and “allows” the marriage union of a man and a woman only out of “condescension for the infirmities of the flesh.” How wrong this is can be judged at least by the following statements of the hieromartyr Methodius of Patara (IV century), who, in his treatise on virginity, gives a theological justification for childbirth as a consequence of marriage and, in general, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman: “... It is necessary that a person ... acted in the image of God... for it is said: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). And we should not disdain the definition of the Creator, as a result of which we ourselves began to exist. The beginning of the birth of people is the immersion of a seed into the bowels of a woman’s womb, so that bone from bone and flesh from flesh, having been received by an invisible force, are again formed into another person by the same Artist... This, perhaps, is indicated by the sleepy frenzy induced on the primordial ( cf. Gen. 2:21), prefiguring the pleasure of a husband during communication (with his wife), when, in the thirst for childbirth, he goes into a frenzy (ekstasis - “ecstasy”), relaxing with the soporific pleasures of childbirth, so that something rejected from his bones and flesh, formed again... into another person... Therefore, it is rightly said that a person leaves his father and mother, as if he suddenly forgets about everything at the time when he, united with his wife in the embrace of love, becomes a participant in fruitfulness, allowing the Divine Creator to take a rib from him in order to the son to become the father himself. So, if even now God forms man, is it not impudent to avert procreation, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to perform with His clean hands?” As St. Methodius further states, when men “cast semen into the natural female passages,” it becomes “participated in the divine creative power.”

Thus, marital communication is viewed as a divinely ordained creative action performed “in the image of God.” Moreover, sexual intercourse is the way in which God the Artist creates. Although such thoughts are rare among the Fathers of the Church (who were almost all monks and therefore had little interest in such topics), they cannot be passed over in silence when presenting the Christian understanding of marriage. Condemning “carnal lust,” hedonism, leading to sexual immorality and unnatural vices (cf. Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9, etc.), Christianity blesses sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within the framework of marriage.

In marriage, a person undergoes transformation, overcomes loneliness and isolation, expands, replenishes and completes his personality. Archpriest John Meyendorff defines the essence of Christian marriage this way: “A Christian is called - already in this world - to have the experience of a new life, to become a citizen of the Kingdom; and this is possible for him in marriage. Thus, marriage ceases to be merely a satisfaction of temporary natural impulses... Marriage is a unique union of two beings in love, two beings who can transcend their own human nature and be united not only “to each other”, but also “in Christ.” .

Another outstanding Russian pastor, priest Alexander Elchaninov, speaks of marriage as a “dedication”, a “mystery” in which there is “a complete change in a person, an expansion of his personality, new eyes, a new sense of life, birth through him into the world in a new fullness.” In the union of love between two people, there is both a revelation of the personality of each of them, and the emergence of the fruit of love - a child, turning a two into a trinity: “... In marriage, complete knowledge of a person is possible - a miracle of sensation, touch, vision of someone else's personality... Before marriage, a person glides above life , observes it from the side, and only in marriage does it plunge into life, entering it through another person. This enjoyment of real knowledge and real life gives that feeling of completeness and satisfaction that makes us richer and wiser. And this fullness deepens even more with the emergence from us, merged and reconciled, of the third, our child.”

Attaching such exceptionally high importance to marriage, the Church has a negative attitude towards divorce, as well as second or third marriage, unless the latter are caused by special circumstances, such as, for example, a violation of marital fidelity by one or the other party. This attitude is based on the teaching of Christ, who did not recognize the Old Testament regulations regarding divorce (cf. Matt. 19:7-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18), with one exception - divorce for “fornication” (Matt. 5:32). In the latter case, as well as in the event of the death of one of the spouses or in other exceptional cases, the Church blesses the second and third marriage.

In the early Christian Church there was no special wedding rite: the husband and wife came to the bishop and received his blessing, after which the two of them received communion at the Liturgy of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. This connection with the Eucharist can also be traced in the modern rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, which begins with the liturgical exclamation “Blessed is the Kingdom” and includes many prayers from the rite of the Liturgy, the reading of the Apostle and the Gospel, and a symbolic common cup of wine.

The wedding is preceded by an engagement ceremony, during which the bride and groom must testify to the voluntary nature of their marriage and exchange rings.

The wedding itself takes place in the church, usually after the Liturgy. During the sacrament, those getting married are given crowns, which are a symbol of the kingdom: each family is a small church. But the crown is also a symbol of martyrdom, because marriage is not only the joy of the first months after the wedding, but also the joint bearing of all subsequent sorrows and suffering - that daily cross, the weight of which in marriage falls on two. In an age when the disintegration of the family has become commonplace and at the first difficulties and trials spouses are ready to betray each other and break their union, this laying of martyr's crowns serves as a reminder that a marriage will only be lasting when it is not based on the immediate and fleeting passion, but on the willingness to give his life for another. And a family is a house built on a solid foundation, and not on sand, only if Christ Himself becomes its cornerstone. The troparion “Holy Martyr,” which is sung during the three-time circumambulation of the bride and groom around the lectern, also reminds us of suffering and the cross.

During the wedding, the Gospel story about the marriage in Cana of Galilee is read. This reading emphasizes the invisible presence of Christ at every Christian marriage and God’s blessing of the marriage union. In marriage, the miracle of the transfusion of “water” must take place, i.e. everyday life on earth, in “wine” there is a constant and daily celebration, a feast of love from one person to another.

Marital relations

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

Why not? Two thousand years. Orthodox people try 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, the Gospel does not say anywhere about 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 being, 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 unconditionally 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 directed not to physical intimacy with her husband, but to 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 in our parish such young people who, due to various circumstances - the need to graduate from a university, obtain parental consent, gain some kind of social status- there was 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 “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 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 “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 with complete abstinence Lent. 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 is 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 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, it will not be carnal intimacy that will unite us there, 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 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 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 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.

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

Probably, when answering this question, it makes more sense 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 not everything makes sense to be discussed 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 “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 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 have a delicious lunch, and if the day is not fast, then it can be a rich meat soup, and a chop with a side dish. It would 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 allowed in sex life, and what is not, and how is this admissibility criterion established? Why is oral sex considered vicious and unnatural, because highly developed mammals, leading complex social life, is 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.

in the rules, recommendations of the Church and church teachers there are TWO specific and CATEGORICAL prohibitions - on 1) anal and 2) oral sex. The reasons can probably be found in the literature. But I personally didn't look for it. For what? If it’s not possible, then it’s not possible. As for the variety of poses... There seem to be no specific prohibitions (with the exception of one not very clearly stated place in the Nomocanon regarding the “woman on top” pose, which, precisely due to the ambiguity of the presentation, may not be classified as categorical). But in general, Orthodox Christians are recommended to even simply eat food with the fear of God, thanking God. One must think that any excesses - both in food and in marital relations - cannot be welcomed. Well, a possible dispute on the topic “what to call excesses” is a question for which there are no rules, but there is a conscience in this case. Think for yourself without guile, compare: why are gluttony (immoderate consumption of excessive food that is not necessary to saturate the body) and laryngeal insanity (passion for exquisitely tasty dishes and viands) considered a sin? (this is the answer from here)

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 deep reverence of the Church 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 through 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 with 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? And in ordinary life If someone had said something like this out loud, whether in Old Church Slavonic or in Russian, it would have been 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, carnal, 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 a level in which best case scenario, 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 have still been 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 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.”

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 acceptable 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 compared to 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 the 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 not so much of ascetic texts, in which this is almost not mentioned at all, but of texts either by modern parachurch publicists, or unglorified ascetics of piety, or, what is even more often the case , modern bearers of secular tolerant-liberal consciousness, distorting the church’s 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 point the question asked may be due to the fact that there are certain kinds of restrictions that are 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 that complete completeness of giving of 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.

It’s impossible to say: the Church doesn’t love them... Its position should be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating the sin from the person committing it, and not accepting the 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 unmarried man, then in this case, the norm of Christian life, again, is the very essence of 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.

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 prevent full life spouses and need medical regulation, you just need to consult 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 the 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” (he is the one who is involved in 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, then, 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 that 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 this, 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 that does not imply childbearing must be considered very specifically. However, this does not in any way abolish 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 abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to become 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's good young man to be with your wife instead of being fruitlessly inflamed until the age of thirty and earning yourself 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 has either preserved, perhaps even without 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 it will be much easier for him to cope with the impulses of his own flesh, without striving for what is no longer appropriate simply due to age.

Why didn’t the Holy Fathers leave us strict and clear canons regarding the abstinence of spouses from physical intimacy during one-day and multi-day fasts? The first and main reason is that physical fasting between husband and wife is a very intimate and delicate area. If you introduce harsh canons and prohibitions on this matter, many spouses may stumble: not everyone is able to bear the burden of fasting. And therefore, the Church, condescending to the weakness of one of the spouses, calls for understanding towards his half: “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 turn away from each other, except by consent for a time, to practice fasting and prayer” (1 Cor. 7: 4-5).

But marital fasting is a generally accepted church practice, a rule that must be observed, like other rules and traditions of the Church. The rules for performing a wedding tell us about it (which, by the way, are also not canons), because these instructions have only one purpose - to marry spouses on those days when marital intimacy is allowed. Because both in the days of Bright Week and on Christmastide, it is quite possible to arrange feasts and indulge in festive fun. By the way, the rules about weddings are observed very strictly. If any priest were to marry couples, for example, during Lent, this would immediately entail severe punishment from the ruling bishop. Such a priest will first be given a stern warning, and then, if he continues to practice weddings during Lent, he will be banned altogether.

Keeping fasts in intimate relationships should be a matter for spouses mutual consent. There can be no violence against the will of another, as the Apostle Paul tells us. Both in apostolic times and in our time, this is equally relevant, for both then and now there are many marriages where one of the spouses accepted Christianity and lives the life and traditions of the Church, while the other does not yet. And to preserve peace and love, it is recommended to be forgiving of the weakness of another. The priest, when accepting confession, must treat this with understanding. Here is another reason why there are no strict canons and penances on this matter. After all, there would be a great temptation for some overly stern confessors to show excessive severity here.

But no one has canceled marital fasting, and a church wife does not need to relax and secretly rejoice in the fact that her still infirm husband cannot bear the burden of fasting. Having yielded to him for the sake of peace in the family, she must intensify her prayer for him and refrain from doing something else, and watch herself more strictly. She should hope that her husband will one day be able to fully fast with her.

Of course, no one can be forced to fast. But people who deny fasting (including marital fasting), oddly enough, deprive themselves of a lot. They see fasting as complete restrictions and fetters on their freedom, not suspecting that fasting is an excellent means for improvement, including in family life. The Church very wisely established the days marital fast. Yes, sometimes it is not easy to bear, especially for young people, the burdens of fasting, but spouses who are not church members and who do not fast have another, much greater, problem in the intimate sphere - satiety, cooling in physical relationships. Priests have to hear about this problem during confession. Some young people tell in confession what excesses they indulge in with their spouse in order to somehow diversify their intimate life. Naturally, they break the fast. I advise such spouses to strictly observe fasting, and then their physical relationships will not lose their spice and attractiveness.

And how many adulterous affairs happen due to cooling off in married life! Men are especially guilty of this. Even if the wife has a very bright, impressive appearance, after a while the husband, who is not accustomed to abstinence, becomes fed up with her, intimate life becomes insipid, and here all sorts of perversions in marital relations can begin, and then it can come to adultery.

A satiated person always wants something new and hot. In Ancient Rome, homosexuality, pedophilia, and other perversions became the norm precisely because people were completely fed up and no longer knew what else to want. So in intimate life, quantity does not at all turn into quality, but even vice versa. Dale Carnegie has a not very well-known book about family and marriage, published after his death. So, he writes in it that spouses, in order to maintain the freshness of the relationship, need to have sexual intercourse less often than they want.

Any spouse somehow regulates their physical relationships, so why not use the days that the Church specifically established for abstinence for this? By the way, both priests and psychologists know that Orthodox abstinent people have much fewer intimate problems and sexual disorders than non-church people.

Of course, physical relations between spouses are a very important component of a family union. It is an expression of their love for each other. It is not for nothing that a child is called the “fruit of love.” Elder Paisios of Athos says: “A man feels a natural attraction to a woman, and a woman to a man. If it weren’t for this urge, no one would ever decide to start a family. People would think about the difficulties that subsequently await them in the family and are associated with raising children and other family matters, and therefore would not dare to get married.” If there is no physical relationship between a husband and wife for a long time (of course, not because of any special feat), this is a very alarming symptom, indicating that their relationship is in crisis. After all, physical relationships are only the visible part of intimacy.

It all starts with spiritual understanding, attention of spouses to each other. And for all its importance, intimate relationships do not play the main role in marriage. Fasting greatly helps not only to maintain the freshness of physical relationships (spouses after abstinence will always be pleasant and desirable for each other), but also helps to strengthen mental and spiritual intimacy. The relationship between husband and wife, when they do not communicate physically, moves to a different plane. They begin to show their feelings differently, this is expressed in attention, understanding, communication. Fasting is an examination of what really connects us: spiritual, emotional or only physical intimacy; have we managed to build something, become one body and one soul, or are we connected only by carnal attraction? During the period of fasting, we begin to see our soul mate in a different light, from the other, human, friendly side, without the admixture of carnal passion.

Another important point: fasting develops the will and teaches moderation and abstinence. After all, there always comes a time in the life of spouses when physical communication stops. For example, due to illness, pregnancy, etc. If the spouses are not accustomed to abstinence, it will be very difficult for them to bear all this. Thus, the time of fasting and abstinence is a very good opportunity for spouses to cultivate not carnal, but true spiritual love and intimacy. “Carnal love unites worldly people externally, only as long as they possess [the necessary for such love] worldly qualities. When these worldly qualities are lost, carnal love separates people and they slide into destruction. But when there is real precious spiritual love between spouses, then if one of them loses his worldly qualities, this not only will not separate them, but will unite them even stronger. If there is only carnal love, then the wife, having learned, for example, that her life partner looked at another woman, splashes sulfuric acid in his eyes and deprives him of his sight. And if she loves him with pure love, she experiences even greater pain for him and subtly, carefully tries to return him to the right path again,” writes Elder Paisius.

Fasting is an excellent training of the will. It is very important in family life to accustom yourself to discipline, to learn to control your instincts. After all, when a person does not know how to do this, how can he refrain from immodest glances, flirting, and then betrayal, in our world overflowing with temptations?

I asked a few questions on the topic of marital fasting to a practicing family psychologist Irina Anatolyevna Rakhimova. Irina Anatolyevna heads the Orthodox Family Center and has been working in the field of family psychology for more than 20 years.

– Irina Anatolyevna, tell me, is it useful for spouses to temporarily abstain from physical communication during Lent from the point of view of family psychology?

– I consider the periods of fasting established by the Church, when physical marital relations cease, to be a very reasonable and necessary rule. In life, including family and marital life, there are public and unspoken rules. It happens in family life when spouses are forced to refrain from physical contact.

People who have already started living with each other before marriage often come to me for consultation in order, as it seems to them, to check whether they are suitable for each other or not. I explain to them why they need to abstain before marriage: to learn to abstain in marriage. The premarital period, preparation for marriage, is the time of study. And in family married life it is very important to be able to curb the flesh, cultivate your feelings, will, and not allow yourself everything. It is very difficult for a dissolute person, not accustomed to abstaining, to remain faithful.

– Yes, if people already live before marriage and have intimate relationships, I recommend checking your feelings in this way: for a while (say, two months) stop physical relations. And if they agree to this, then, as a rule, there are two options: either they break up, if they were connected only by passion, or they get married, which was my practice. Abstinence allows them to take a fresh look at each other, to fall in love without the admixture of passion and the play of hormones.

– Who has more problems in their intimate life: Orthodox Christians or non-church people who do not observe fasts?

– The theme of newness in relationships is very relevant in family life. Lent very symbolically ends in the spring, when nature blossoms and spouses re-enter physical relationships. And after a period of fasting, joy opens up in them, and their feelings are renewed after winter. This helps keep the relationship fresh and romantic. And it is much easier for Orthodox people to maintain this: they have fasting.

There is a very big misconception that abstinence is harmful. It is believed that everyone (including outside of marriage) should have a regular sex life and satisfy their needs: without this, they say, there will be illnesses, neuroses and mental disorders. This is a big trap. All neuroses and disorders are in the head, in a person’s mood, in what he has inspired in himself. I believe that there is great truth in the theory of sublimation. If a person does not get hung up on the topic of bodily functions and lives abstinently, he can use unspent energy to realize himself in creativity, work, scientific activity, and other areas.

I believe that a Christian, both in family life and in any other life, is always a warrior of Christ, accustomed to working on himself, a person of strong will. And fasting and abstinence help us a lot with this. But our faith will become impoverished if we give ourselves slack and think about how to make our Christian life easier.

Orthodox Christians of past centuries could not even imagine that during Lent one could indulge in carnal marital pleasures. This idea could only arise in our time, when people are cut off from the traditions and traditions of the Church.

In conclusion, I want to say about one danger that awaits modern Orthodox Christians. When in Soviet time The Church was in persecution; the Orthodox man, willy-nilly, was in opposition to the outside world. He understood perfectly well that it was under no circumstances possible to live as non-Christians and non-Orthodox Christians live.

“He who is not with Me is against Me (Luke 11:23),” said the Savior. Nowadays the temptation to be like everyone else is very great. After all, today many call themselves believers and Orthodox, which does not prevent them from having abortions, cheating on their spouses, and cohabiting outside of marriage.

I note with regret that many of those who came to the Church in post-perestroika times and were zealous Orthodox Christians were very much imbued with the spirit of the times. For example, not long ago I was talking with one of my friends (he regularly goes to church and receives communion) about family life. And this man quite seriously argued that it is quite normal for a man and a woman to cohabit before marriage, because this way they can get to know each other better! Adultery and divorce have become more frequent even in Orthodox families. This is all very sad. What kind of Orthodox are we after this, if we indulge the spirit of this evil age, become infected with it, as the famous song says: “we cave in to the changing world”? We, on the contrary, must lead people, preach the truth with our lives, show that Orthodox families are strong with their traditions bequeathed to us from the holy fathers and our ancestors. Then the world will “bend under us.”

Good afternoon, our dear visitors!

Discussion: 6 comments

Hello Father, is it necessary to repent at confession, for intemperance during Lent, if my wife (we are married, there is spiritual communication with the priest, confessor of our parish and brotherhood, he married us, but I am embarrassed to ask such a question so as not to confuse, not possibly disturb it spiritual state) I don’t fast and I’m not ready for a long time without intimacy and I’m giving in to peace in the family... And in this regard, I want to ask if I need to repent in confession every time if intimate relationships are repeated, is this imputed to me and my wife in Sin??? God bless the Father for the answer. R.B Evgeniy.

Answer

1. Hello, Evgeniy!
   Yes, you need to talk about this in confession every time, since this, although a small one, is a sin, and your confessor must know your weaknesses in order to pray for you, help you and give you good and good advice. Your confessor will not violate his spiritual state, and your spiritual state will be beneficial. When you are in confession, say with humility and repentance that you have to break your fast, then over time the Lord will help you mutually abstain, this has been tested by experience.
   Peace and God's blessing to you!

   Answer

Hello! It is written in many places (not in church literature) that abstinence in married life leads to impaired health in a certain area of ​​the body. Allegedly, infections, stagnation, etc. accumulate. and so on.
I have developed some problems in this well-known area of ​​my body. Not because of abstinence!!! Probably age and sedentary work. I saw a doctor and treatment is ongoing.
After intimacy with my wife, it seems to become easier. (For obvious reasons, I won’t go into detail).
The Nativity Fast is now underway. I'm in deep thought: Should I ask the doctor about fasting? I don’t think he would have understood me, and it didn’t even occur to me then. Don’t make an appointment for this question. Should I ask the priest? It’s possible, of course, but being in the temple the determination disappears, it seems to me that this is a trifle unworthy of attention, a personal question, etc.
I understand that now a lot is written about the harmfulness of fasting. Some famous figures paint a picture of the uselessness of fasting. I admit that about the accumulation of infection, about stagnation of blood, all this may also turn out to be untrue. But it’s easier for me after intimacy with my wife!!!
Sorry for writing so much here. Perhaps this is an awkward question. But he worries me and I think that I still need to ask.
Thanks in advance for your answer!!!

Answer

1. Good evening, Novel!
   Indeed, medicine literally insists on the idea that abstinence in marital relations has a harmful effect on human health. Medicine also insists on the harmfulness of fasting in general. That is, he considers restrictions on dairy products, eggs and healthy chicken unacceptable. Otherwise, the body will not receive the necessary proteins and calories.
   But if you and I look into the book “Lives of the Saints”, we will see facts that are amazing for medicine: many holy fathers who fasted to one piece of bread and half a glass of water a day did not get sick at all and lived up to 90-100 years!..
   The same applies to abstinence in married life, which is obligatory for every Christian during fasting and fasting days.
   The spiritual essence of your problem is that your soul is weak, and, as a consequence, your body is weak. You must strengthen your prayer, churchize your life (you can read an article about this on our website “

There are very different opinions on the issue of marital intimacy. Priest Andrei Lorgus speaks about it this way: “There is no doubt that the first people had to continue their family... But from the most ancient times (however, not in the Jewish world), the understanding of this commandment ran into an insurmountable aversion to that method of conception and even birth, which we, the heirs of Adam, know. This disgust was created in different ways. On the one hand, through philosophical spiritualism, which abhorred the flesh; on the other hand, through the monastic struggle with passions.

Many Church Fathers could not admit the idea that even in paradise people could copulate with the flesh to give birth to offspring. Virginity reigned in paradise. When death entered the world, Adam knew his wife. “Be fruitful and multiply” does not mean the multiplication that occurs through copulation. For God could have spread our race in another way... but foreseeing sin, God created man and woman(John of Damascus, Rev. Exact summary Orthodox faith. Book 4. Ch. 24).

There is no mention of marriage in heaven... Marriage was not necessary. After sin came marriage. This is mortal and slave clothing, for where there is death, there is marriage... He (God) would have taken care of a way to increase the human race... Why is marriage not before deception, why is copulation not in heaven, why is the sorrow of birth not before damnation? (St. John Chrysostom)...

As we see, patristic thought was looking for another way to fulfill the commandment given to Adam and Eve about reproduction. And it really remains a mystery how Adam's descendants would have continued. However, the Church also had another voice, asserting that the first people would not have copulated and given birth if they had not sinned; what else does it assert, if not that human sin is necessary for the reproduction of saints? (St. Augustine). The Lord, forming Eve from Adam, showed that copulation and the birth of children, in accordance with the law, are free from all sin and condemnation (Caesarea Nazianzen).

These are the opposing views on the method of birth in a paradise family, and this is understandable, for the consciousness of the Orthodox thinker did not rest on the Manichaean rejection of carnal intercourse, nor on everyday frivolity, mistaking lust for a natural passion...” (20: 205, 206).

Holy Fathers on married life

St. John Chrysostom

There is no guilt in marital intimacy, and abstinence should be in moderation and only by mutual consent. For this reason, spouses are given to each other to observe chastity: “She who abstains against the will of her husband will not only lose the reward for abstinence, but will also give an answer for his adultery, and an answer more severe than he himself. Why? Because she, depriving him of legal intercourse, casts him into the abyss of debauchery. If she does not have the right to do this and a short time without his consent, then what forgiveness can she receive by constantly depriving him of this consolation? (13, part 6, § 48); “In view of the fact that many abstain and have pure and chaste wives, and abstain beyond what is due, so that abstinence becomes a pretext for adultery, in view of this the Apostle Paul says: let everyone use his wife(cf.: 1 Cor. 7:2). And he is not ashamed, but enters and sits on the bed day and night, embraces husband and wife and unites them to each other, and calls out loudly : do not deprive each other, only by consent(1 Cor. 7:5). Do you observe abstinence and do not want to sleep with your husband, and he does not take advantage of you? Then he leaves home and sins, and, in the end, his sin is caused by your abstinence. Let him sleep with you better than with a harlot. Cohabitation with you is not prohibited, but cohabitation with a harlot is prohibited. If he sleeps with you, there is no guilt; if with a harlot, then you have destroyed your own body... That is why you (wife) have a husband, and that is why you (husband) have a wife, to maintain chastity. Do you want to have abstinence? Convince your husband of this, so that there are two crowns - chastity and harmony, but so that there is no chastity and battle, so that there is no peace and war. After all, if you abstain, and your husband is inflamed with passion, and yet adultery is prohibited by the Apostle, then he must endure storm and excitement. But do not deprive each other, only by consent(1 Cor. 7:5). And, of course, where there is peace... there abstinence is crowned; and where there is war, chastity is undermined. So, strive (in abstinence) as much as you want; When you become weak, take advantage of marriage, so that Satan does not tempt you. Everyone have their own wife(1 Cor. 7:2). Here are three ways of life: virginity, marriage, fornication. Marriage is in the middle, fornication is at the bottom, virginity is at the top. Virginity is crowned, marriage is commended in proportion, fornication is condemned and punished. So, observe moderation in your abstinence, depending on how much you can curb the weakness of your flesh. Do not strive to exceed this measure, lest you fall below every measure.”

St. Tikhon Zadonsky

In a family, it is necessary to abstain from each other with common consent: “There is a custom for some husbands to leave their wives, and for wives to leave their husbands under the guise of abstinence, but this matter is very dangerous, because instead of abstinence a grave sin of adultery may follow, either in one or both faces. When a husband leaves his wife, and the wife sins with another, then the husband will also be guilty of the same sin, as if he gave his wife a reason to sin; Likewise, when a wife leaves her husband and the husband sins with someone else, then the wife is guilty of the same sin for the reason described above. For this reason, when separation occurs for the sake of abstinence, it must be with the consent of both persons, and for the time until they test themselves whether they can bear this burden. When they can, it’s good: let them remain. When they cannot, let the packs come together as one; not everyone has been given everything” (quoted from: 53 with reference to: “The Works of St. Tikhon. 6th ed. 1899, Vol. 5, p. 174”).

Elder Paisiy Svyatogorets

The problem of marital relations does not have the right to regulate one of the spouses; this must be done by mutual agreement. Moreover, marriage is given not only for carnal pleasures: “You ask me about the marital relations of married priests, as well as laity. Why don’t the holy fathers give completely precise definitions? This means that there is something indefinable, because all people cannot live according to the same pattern. The Fathers leave a lot to our prudence, spiritual intuition, capabilities and efforts of everyone.

To be more clear, I will give examples from the lives of married priests and laymen who are still alive and whom I know. Among them there are those who, having entered into a marriage, gave birth to one, two, three children, and then live in purity. Others enter into marital intimacy only during childbirth, and the rest of the time they live as brother and sister. Others abstain from intimacy only during the period of fasting, and the rest of the time they have close relationships. Some people fail to do even that. There are those who have fellowship in the middle of the week in order to be clean for three days before Divine Communion and three days after Divine Communion. Some stumble here too, for the reason that Christ, appearing to the Apostles after the Resurrection, immediately said: As the Father sent Me, so I send you... receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; whoever you leave it on will stay on it(John 20:21-23).

The goal is for everyone to strive with reasoning and diligence, in accordance with his spiritual strength.

At first, of course, youth gets in the way, but over time the flesh weakens, the spirit strengthens, and even married people begin to enjoy a little of Divine pleasure. Then people - in a natural way - are distracted from bodily pleasures, which become insignificant in their eyes. This is how married people strive - they come to heaven along a calm road with turns, while monks ascend there by climbing rocks and climbing to peaks.

You must keep in mind that the problem of marital relations is not only your problem and that you do not have the right to regulate it alone; you can do this only by mutual agreement, as the Apostle Paul commands (see 1 Cor. 7:5). When this happens by mutual agreement, prayer is again required. And the strong must enter into the position of the weak. It often happens like this: one half agrees to abstain so as not to upset the other, but suffers internally. This most often happens to wives who have little fear of God and mobile flesh. Sometimes some pious husbands, hearing words of agreement from their wives, foolishly extend the period of abstinence, and then the wives suffer: they become nervous and so on. Husbands believe that their wives have become stronger in virtue and want to live more purely by entering into relationships over longer periods, and this causes the wives to be tempted and try to get along with someone. And when a fall occurs, they are tormented by remorse. However, husbands still try to live more purely, although they see that their wives are not inclined to do so. Thus, husbands believe that their wives have achieved spiritual success and do not desire physical success. But the physical cause is sometimes irremovable, and female selfishness is justified, as is the jealousy experienced by the weaker. The wife, seeing that her husband wants to live a spiritual life, makes efforts on herself, wanting to get ahead of him.

Of great importance is how similar both spouses are in physical build. When one is meek and sickly, and the other is very alive, it is necessary for the stronger to sacrifice himself to the weaker. And gradually the weak, with the help of the strong, becomes healthy, and when both are healthy, they can move forward.

As I said at the beginning, the sanctification of a married person requires prudence, diligence and asceticism. I believe that it is wrong to marry only to drink, eat, sleep and have carnal pleasures, for all this is carnal, and man is not only flesh, but also spirit. The flesh should help sanctify the soul, and not ruin the soul.

God sees the diligence of every Christian and knows the strength that He has given to a Christian, and asks accordingly” (19. Chapter “About Spouses”).

M. Grigorevsky

Neither spouse should independently avoid physical intimacy: “United by marital ties, husband and wife do not have the right to refuse to fulfill those requirements that are contained in the concept of the marriage union and its purpose. Explaining the words of St. Apostle: the husband show his wife due favor: likewise the wife does the same to her husband(1 Cor. 7:3), Chrysostom asks what proper love means? “The wife has no power over her body, but she is both a slave and at the same time the mistress of her husband.” If you deviate from due service, you offend God (Conversation 19 on 1 Cor., p. 324). That's why it is said: do not deviate from each other except by consent(1 Cor. 7:5). Just as a wife, according to the meaning of these apostolic words, should not abstain against the will of her husband, so a husband should not abstain against the will of his wife, since great evil comes from such abstinence; this resulted in adultery, fornication and domestic disorders, even if one of the spouses abstained for moral reasons, out of a desire, for example, to achieve greater purity through abstinence from carnal cohabitation, his abstinence would not matter. The party that does not want to abstain, experience proves, even if it does not indulge in adultery, it will grieve, worry, be irritated and angry. “What is the use of fasting and abstinence when love is violated” (6: 145, 146).

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh

Bodily unity is the completeness of mutual relations, a sacrament that directly emanates from God and leads to it: “... We must remember, we must firmly know that the bodily unity of two loving friend a friend of people is not the beginning, but the completeness and limit of their mutual relations, that only when two people have become united in heart, mind, spirit, their unity can grow, open up in a bodily connection, which then becomes no longer the greedy possession of one another, not passive giving of one to another, and sacrament, that is, such an action that directly comes from God and leads to Him. One of the Church Fathers in ancient times said that the world cannot exist without the sacraments, that is, without some states, some relationships being super-earthly, heavenly, miraculous; and, he continues, marriage as the unity of two in a fragmented world is such a sacrament, a miracle, surpassing All natural mutual relations, all natural states. And physical marriage, also according to the teaching of one of the Church Fathers, appears as a sacrament, similar to the Eucharist, the communion of believers. In what sense? In the sense that in the Eucharist, by the power of God, the miracle of uniting faith and love, the believer and Christ are made one. And in marriage (of course, on a different level and in a different way) thanks to mutual faith and mutual love two people outgrow all discord and become a single being, one personality in two persons. This is simultaneously the fullness of a mental-spiritual-physical marriage and the fullness of chastity, when two people treat each other as a shrine and transform all their relationships, including physical ones, into a sacrament, into something that transcends the earth and ascends to eternity” (136: 475).

Iliy Shugaev

Conception is not associated with any evil: “The question of whether marital union is something bad arose already among the first Christians. The Apostle Paul writes in one of his letters: “Marriage... is honorable and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13: 4). Of course, this refers to the bed of legitimate spouses, and not the bed of fornicators or traitors. Another evidence, now from the fourth century. At that time, people appeared who said that a priest should not have conjugal communication with his wife, and some even refused to receive communion from such priests. In response to this error, the Church again clearly testified at the Gangra Council that those who abhor married priests, believing that marriage defiles them, are themselves excommunicated from the Church as heretics...

The fact that conception is not associated with any evil can be seen from the following. The Orthodox Church even has holidays that are dedicated to conception. For example, the feast of the conception of the Mother of God in the womb of Her mother, Righteous Anna, or the conception of John the Baptist in the womb of Righteous Elizabeth. Indeed, this is a holiday. Man has not yet been born, but we know that he already exists.

There are even icons of holidays associated with conception. Of course, in the icon we see not a bed scene, but a conventionally chaste image of marital intimacy. The Spouse, and these are the righteous Joachim and Anna, the parents of the Most Holy Theotokos, stand next to each other in a movement reminiscent of a chaste, modest kiss. All! This is quite enough to indicate the bodily unity of the spouses at conception.”

For necessity conjugal continence during the days of Great Lent, the 40th article of the “Nomocanon” under the Great Breviary indicates: “The laity should abstain from their wives throughout the holy Great Lent. If someone falls with his wife during holy fasting, he should not receive communion even on Easter, since he has dishonored the entire fast. For the laity must abstain from their lawful wives, as it is said, during the entire fast.”

The 59th chapter of the book “The Helmsman” speaks about the same thing in the 2nd answer of John, Bishop of Crete, “On avoiding their wives during the Week and on Lent”: “Those who, even on the evening of the Lord’s day, do not want turning away from your wives, as the apostle said, in order to spend time in prayer, should be corrected by prohibitions in moderation; Likewise, on Holy Pentecost, more than on other days, one must keep oneself clean from spouses.”

Now let us turn to the canonical questions of His Holiness Patriarch Mark of Alexandria and the answers given to them by the famous Byzantine interpreter of church rules, His Holiness Patriarch Theodore Balsamon of Antioch. “Question 52: If during the Fourty Days of Fasting the spouses do not abstain, will they receive the Divine Mysteries on the world-saving holiday of Great Easter or not?” Answer: “If we are taught to abstain even from eating fish and not simply allow fasting during the entire Holy Pentecost, as well as on Wednesdays and Fridays, then even more so spouses are forced to abstain from carnal intercourse. Therefore, those spouses who committed such an illegality and exchanged the saving repentance for satanic intemperance, which comes from fasting and removal from carnal lusts (as if a whole year was not enough for them to satisfy their carnal lusts), are not only not honored with Holy Divine Communion on the Holy Day Great Easter, but also corrected by penances.”

About six centuries after Balsamon, another famous Greek canonist and interpreter of the rules, the Monk Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, speaks about the same thing. The name of St. Nicodemus in the Greek Church is more authoritative than in Russia, since he is the author of the “Pidalion” - a set of conciliar and patristic rules of the Orthodox Church with extensive interpretations and numerous notes by St. Nicodemus, which were compiled by him based on the interpretations of Byzantine canonists and the teachings of the holy fathers . Clerics of the Greek Church use "Pidalion" as practical guide.

So, let's turn to the note of St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain to the 69th canon of the holy apostles (this rule defines: “Whoever is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or a subdeacon, or a reader or a singer, does not fast on the Holy Pentecost before Easter, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, except obstacles due to bodily weakness: let him be cast out. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated." St. Nicodemus writes: “If the fast of Wednesday and Friday is equal to the fast of Pentecost, then it is clear that just as weddings are not celebrated on Pentecost, according to the 52nd Rule of the Laodicean Council, so they should not be celebrated on Wednesday and Friday. In this case, it is also clear that it is not appropriate for spouses to enter into a carnal relationship on these days for the sake of holiness and honor of fasting, just as it is not appropriate for spouses to enter into a relationship on Lent. For it is inappropriate, on the one hand, not to break these days of fasting in relation to food, and on the other hand, to break them with carnal union and pleasure. Consequently, on these days one should fast, abstaining equally from foods prohibited during fasting and from carnal lust. So the prophet Joel secretly spoke about the fact that during fasting spouses should be chaste: “Sanctify the fast, preach celibacy... so that the groom may come from his bed and the bride from her palace” (Joel 2:15-16). The Divine Apostle Paul already says directly that spouses by consent must abstain from carnal union in order to remain in fasting and prayer (see: 1 Cor. 7:5), that is, they must abstain, as we said, both during fasting and during the time when they pray and prepare for communion of the Divine Mysteries, as well as on Saturday and Sunday, according to the 13th rule of Timothy of Alexandria, and in general on all holidays, when a spiritual sacrifice is offered to God. See also the 1st note to the 13th Rule of the VI Ecumenical Council and the note to the 3rd rule of Dionysius. See also the 50th answer of Balsamon to Mark, in which he says that spouses who did not abstain on Great Pentecost should not only be prohibited from receiving communion on Easter, but also be assigned penance for correction. Pay attention also to the following statement of John Chrysostom (“The Sermon on Virginity”), citing as evidence the mentioned passage from the prophet Joel: “If newlyweds, whose love passion is at its height, youth is blooming and lust is uncontrollable, they should not enter into a relationship during fasting and prayers, then all the more other married couples who are not subjected to such violence of the flesh should not unite.”

Let us consider the 1st note to the 13th Rule of the VI Ecumenical Council, to which St. Nicodemus. In this note he says the following: “Note that when the patriarch, Mr. Luke, was asked how many days a person intending to receive communion should abstain, he conciliarly declared that not only initiates, but also married laymen should not touch their wives for three days. If the Lord commanded the Jews not to approach their wives for three days, so that the Jews would accept the Old Law: “Be prepared, and for three days you shall not go in among the women” (Exodus 19:15), then how much more appropriate is it to observe these words for those who are about to go through the Divine The Eucharist takes into itself not the law, but God the Lawgiver Himself. Even if the bishop Abimelech (or Abiathar), intending to give the showbread to David and his people, asked them if they were clean from wives, and they answered that they had abstained from intercourse with their wives for three days - “And David answered the priest and said to him: and We abstained from wives yesterday and the third day” (1 Sam. 21:5), then how is it not appropriate for those who intend to partake of the Lord’s Body to be clean from wives for three days? But those who are going to get married should also confess together with their brides, fast, prepare in advance and get married before the Divine Liturgy. After they are married, let the Divine Liturgy begin, after which let them begin the Communion of the Divine Mysteries. And on the night after Communion they must refrain from intercourse, as this most holy custom and order was observed and is observed to this day by true Christians who want to be saved. Therefore, according to Balsamon, the above-mentioned Mr. Luke imposed penance on those newlyweds who copulated on the same day after Holy Communion. Based on this, we deduce from the greater the lesser and say: if three days of abstinence from carnal intercourse is sufficient to prepare for Communion, then three days of fasting is even more sufficient. And although none of the divine rules establishes fasting before communion, those who are able to fast before it for a whole week do well.” Let's see what the Rev. says. Nicodemus, in a note to the 3rd rule of Dionysius of Alexandria, defines this rule: “Those who are married should also be sufficient judges for themselves. For they heard from the writings of the Apostle Paul that they should abstain from each other by consent for a while, in order to practice fasting and prayer, and then be together again, from the writings of the Apostle Paul” (see: 1 Cor. 7:5). To this note, Rev. Nicodemus also sends us away by interpreting the 69th Apostolic Canon: “The following confusion may arise: since the Apostle says, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17), and those who are married need to abstain from intercourse during prayer, according to the same Apostle Paul and the prescription of this rule, does this mean that they always need to abstain and never engage in sexual intercourse? However, this perplexity is most satisfactorily resolved by two canons of Timothy of Alexandria, 5th and 13th, which say that by times of prayer the apostle means liturgical meetings and liturgy. They were performed at that time mainly on Saturdays and Sundays, and on these days abstinence was required from the spouses in order to partake of the Divine Mysteries. This means that this rule of Dionysius makes it clear to any reasonable listener that it directly answers Basilides’ question about whether spouses should abstain from each other when they intend to take communion, because it answers: to this the spouses themselves are sufficient judges for themselves, that is, for them one must abstain during Communion. Although Zonara and Balsamon did not interpret this rule in this sense (I don’t know why), they believed that we are talking about the most diligent prayer, which should be accompanied by suffering and tears. Note also that, as the apostle adds, along with the time of prayer, spouses must also abstain during the fasts established by the Church.”

About the same St. Nicodemus also speaks in his other work - “Exomologitarion”. This book is addressed to both confessors and the confessors themselves. In it St. Nicodemus gives the following instructions: “It should also be noted that just as it is appropriate to fast on Wednesdays, Fridays and Lent in relation to food, so it is necessary to observe fasting in relation to carnal pleasures.”

Let us cite the instructions of St. John Chrysostom on abstinence during Great Lent and how to correctly understand the words of the Apostle Paul. In “A Sermon on Virginity” he writes: “...The following also deserves research: if “marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4), then why does the apostle not allow them during fasting and prayer? Because it would be very strange: even if the Jews, for whom everything had the imprint of the flesh, who were even allowed to have two wives, to cast out some and take others, so protected themselves in this matter that, preparing to listen to the word of God, they refrained from legal intercourse, moreover, not one day or two, but several days (Ex. 19), then it would be strange if we, who received such grace, accepted the Spirit, died and were buried in Christ, were worthy of adoption, elevated to such honor, after so many and such great benefits, they did not apply the same zeal to these children. If someone were to ask again why Moses himself rejected the Jews from marriage, I would say that marriage, although honest, can only achieve that which does not defile the person living in it, and it alone is not able to impart holiness , - this is no longer a matter of his strength, but of virginity. And it was not only Moses and Paul who proclaimed this; listen to what Joel says: “sanctify the fast, preach celibacy, gather (people, sanctify) the church, choose elders” (Joel 2, 15, 16). But perhaps you want to know where he advised abstaining from his wife? “Let the bridegroom come out from his bed,” he says, “and the bride from her palace” (v. 16). This is even greater than the Mosaic commandment. If the bride and groom, whose passions run high, whose youth blossoms, whose lust is uncontrollable, should not communicate during fasting and prayer, then isn’t it much more so for those for whom there is no such need for communication? One who prays and fasts properly must renounce all worldly lust, all care and distraction, and, having completely concentrated within himself in all respects, in such a state approach God. Therefore, fasting is good because it eliminates the worries of the soul and, stopping the drowsiness that oppresses the mind, turns all thoughts to it itself. Paul alludes to this when he deviates from copulation, and uses a very precise expression. He did not say: “Let not you be defiled,” but: “Let you abide,” that is, exercise yourself in fasting and prayer; since communication with a wife does not lead to impurity, but to lack of exercise (in these matters). If now, after such precautions, the devil tries to hinder us during prayer, then, having caught the soul relaxed and pampered from addiction to his wife, what will he not do, entertaining our mental eyes here and there? So that we do not tolerate this and do not turn to God with vain prayer, especially when we try to incline Him to mercy on us, the Apostle then commands us to move away from the (marriage) bed. If those who come to kings, what do I say - to kings? - even to lower superiors, and slaves who resort to their masters, either having suffered an insult from others, or needing some kind of benefit, or hastening to tame the anger aroused against them, begin to explain with these persons, fixing their eyes and all their thoughts on them , and at the slightest absent-mindedness they not only do not achieve what they want, but also leave, having received some kind of trouble; if those who want to calm the anger of people act with such care, then what will happen to us, the unfortunate ones, if we approach the Lord of all God with carelessness, subjecting ourselves to much greater anger from Him? Neither a servant will irritate his master, nor a subject of a king, the way we anger God every day. Explaining this, Christ called sins towards one's neighbor denarii, and sins towards God - one's talent (Matthew 18:23, 24). Therefore, when we resort to Him in prayer with the intention of calming such anger and appeasing Him, so angered by us every day, the Apostle rightly turns us away from the mentioned pleasure and seems to say: “Beloved, we are talking about the soul, extreme danger lies ahead.” ; we need to tremble, fear and lament; we approach the formidable Lord, who has been repeatedly insulted by us, who has great accusations against us and for great sins; now is not a time for embraces or pleasures, but for tears and bitter lamentations, kneeling, careful confession, diligent contrition, and many prayers.” It will be good for the one who, having approached God with such zeal and fallen to God, softens His anger - not because our Lord was cruel and unyielding - on the contrary, He is very meek and loving of mankind - but the excessiveness of our sins does not allow even the Good, The Meek and the Most Merciful will soon forgive us. Therefore, the apostle says: “Let you continue in fasting and prayer.” What could be more deplorable than that slavery? I would like to succeed in virtue, ascend to heaven, and wash away the impurity of my soul through constant exercise in fasting and prayer; and meanwhile, if my wife does not want to bow to this intention of mine, I am forced to slavishly submit to her intemperance. That is why at first he said: “It is good for a man not to touch his wife.” That’s why the disciples said to the Lord: “If a man and his wife are guilty of this, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10).”

In conclusion, let us cite the teaching on abstinence from marital relations during fasting by another great teacher of the Church, St. Basil, in agreement with St. John: “Fasting also sets the measure in marital affairs, restraining from immoderation even in what is permitted by law: by agreement, it sets aside time for that , let them continue in prayer (1 Cor. 7:5).”