St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary - Events - Summer Institute 2004

2004 Summer Institute
Preparatory reading

Sexuality, Marriage and Covenant Responsibility
Fr John Breck

Chapter 2 of The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics (SVS Press, 1998), pp. 55-125. Published on this website by permission.

Husband and wife are one body in the same way as Christ and the Father are one.

If we regulate our households by seeking the things that please God, we will also be fit to oversee the Church, for indeed the household is a little Church. Therefore it is possible for us to surpass all others in virtue by becoming good husbands and wives.

Whenever you give your wife advice, always begin by telling her how much you love her.

-St. John Chrysostom

How we assess the morality of abortion, assisted reproduction and the manipulation in vitro of human gametes depends on our understanding of the place and purpose of sexuality within human experience. Is the primary aim of sexuality procreation, pleasure, or something still more basic, more profound? Is the desire of a couple to bear children a God-given one, or is it merely the expression of some evolutionary instinct that drives us toward preserving our genetic heritage by reproducing offspring from our own DNA? The way we answer questions such as these will determine whether abortion on demand is an option for us, and to what extent we may turn to reproductive technologies to facilitate conception.

The "Sexual Revolution"

Our understanding of the place and purpose of sexuality has changed so radically in recent times that it should prove useful to begin by evoking something of the sexual mood that prevails in American society at the threshold of this new millennium. While sexual experimentation among teenagers is hardly new, the number of teens who are "sexually active" has increased dramatically in the past three decades. Homosexuality, once a taboo subject that evoked reactions from twisted humor to revulsion, is now a common topic of discussion in the media and in school sex-ed. curricula. Partly because of the AIDS crisis, but also because of the pressure to affirm "gay pride" and concomitant "gay rights," serious scientific study is being devoted to the origins of homosexuality; to determine the relationship between "nature" and "nurture" in the phenomenon itself. Is it a matter of conditioning, susceptible to modification, or is sexual orientation inscribed in our genes, suggesting that it is unalterable? In any case, homosexuality has "come out of the closet," and a certain number of pastors and theologians are among those who defend it as God-given and God-willed, and therefore to be protected along with other legally sanctioned rights and privileges.

To many people, including many Christians, this entire transformation in our country's sexual ethos is to be applauded. They consider sexual liberation to be a vital item on our cultural agenda, analogous to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Just as the churches of that period took the lead in interracial marches and other demonstrations, some churches today are playing a major role in the movement toward sexual liberalization by producing position papers and more formal declarations that treat extramarital (especially premarital) sexual encounters, together with homosexual relations, as normal and even desirable. Many initiatives of this kind, taken by various leaders within the mainline Protestant churches, express nevertheless what is definitely a minority opinion. This is evident from the general hostility that greeted the recent Lutheran and Presbyterian declarations on human sexuality, both of which were withdrawn under withering criticism.

How do most Orthodox Christians view this entire development? Clearly, with no little misgiving. To make the point, the following represents what might be considered a typical Orthodox assessment.

Since the early 1970s the United States has declared itself to be a "sexually liberated" society. Gone are the Victorian restraints that to the minds of many people produced both sexual repression and patriarchalist sexism. Things have changed and changed swiftly—and often for the good. Women are receiving more equitable treatment in the workplace, sexual abuse of all kinds is being recognized and condemned, and spouses feel less obliged to remain in what are in effect disastrous marriages. Over the years, however, pastoral experience as well as the newspapers have made it clear that the sexual revolution introduced into American society more confusion than freedom, more license than liberty. Once television came into its own and manufacturers began to appreciate just how powerful a tool sex can be in selling products, the way was open for massive social reeducation concerning sexual values, and this led to a significant restructuring of traditional sexual roles. A major consequence was the breakdown of long-standing taboos regarding pornography, extramarital sex, and "illegitimate" children. From the fairly innocent, flirtatious playfulness that characterized (public) male-female relations during the first half of this century, we have moved on to cyberporn, militant "acting out," and an epidemic of teen-age pregnancies.

In balance, it seems that the "revolution" has not brought much in the way of progress. Instead it has created an atmosphere of sexual fixation and exploitation that imposes a requisite licentiousness—a cheap and seductive sleaziness—on everything in all media. "R" and even some "PG-13" rated films now depict sexual acts with a degree of explicitness that would have had them "X" rated just a few years ago. Scatological and sexually explicit language has become mandatory, even in prime time. Condoms are more available to adolescents today than cigarettes, while educators, counselors and pastors encourage our young people, male and female, not to leave home without one. Much of this perverse indoctrination (that in our schools goes by the euphemism of "sex education") is excused and justified by reference to the AIDS epidemic—without acknowledging that there would be no such epidemic if our society had not come to condone what in former generations was regarded as grossly immoral behavior.

In other words, our threshold of tolerance toward sexual explicitness and exploitation has been lowered dramatically. Yet ironically, at the same time that we encourage sexual saturation of the media and of the culture in general, we are coming to recognize and condemn the horrendous abuse so many women and children have endured, from harassment on the job and "acquaintance rape" to pedophilia. On the one hand, we condemn forms of "acting out" that infringe on people's rights, yet on the other hand, we encourage an atmosphere of abuse and exploitation because it serves so well the economic bottom line. But a society that lives with this kind of ambivalence, to the point of moral schizophrenia, simply cannot endure. Over a million and a quarter convenience-abortions each year, the appalling frequency of child sexual abuse, the nearly 50% divorce rate coupled with the generally accepted practice of "living together," homosexual "marriages," and the overly hyped but nevertheless factual breakdown of the modern family as our basic social unit: these are consequences of a sexual revolution gone awry, consequences whose impact on the quality of American life is at least as powerful and detrimental as the continuing spread of AIDS.

The spiritual and psychological toll exacted by this situation is incalculable. Young adolescents are experimenting with sex, often against their desires and better judgment, because "it's cool," it's the thing to do to be accepted by their peers. If films and TV depict couples in bed together on their first date, if canned laughter greets sitcom allusions to genitalia and oral sex, if active homosexuality passes under the approving label "gay" and is accepted as "a viable alternative life style," then it is no wonder that an unbridgeable chasm appears to separate biblical morality from the "do your own thing" ethic of our times. As a result, Christian young people seem as vulnerable as any others to bewilderment, despair and suicide. Their elders, at home and in the Church, too often greet their sexual experimentation either with indifference or with outrage. Neither helps, because neither heals. Both reactions tend to push our children ever farther into patterns of behavior that are inherently destructive, to themselves (promiscuity, STDs) and to others (abortions).

Because of the environment in which they have grown up, these young people tend to dismiss biblical morality, especially as it concerns sexuality, as quaint, outmoded, and repressive. Madison Avenue has taught us that this is a "feel-good" age; the legal profession has convinced us of the primacy of rights over responsibilities; and pop therapy has led us on a relentless ego-trip whose destination is "self-realization," meaning usually the fulfillment of our basest desires. Our god is Mammon, our goal is "the good life," and the motor for achieving it is aggressive competition. We're on a junket rather than a pilgrimage, lusting after instant gratification rather than longing for eternal consolation. In such an atmosphere the biblical imperatives of faithfulness, self-sacrifice and struggle against sin could only sound quaint, irrelevant and intrusive-and nowhere more so than in the realm of sexuality, since "sex" is one of the very few pleasures people can still count on in today's turbulent and apparently meaningless world.

While most Orthodox Christians would not express themselves quite so vehemently, this is more or less the way they experience their own and their children's cultural ethos. It is an analysis accompanied by a feeling of frustration and helplessness. The "moral majority," if there ever was one, seems to have been reduced to a silent minority, whose traditional values have been simply overwhelmed by the bumper sticker ethic, "If it feels good, do it!" Yet despite the odds against receiving a serious hearing, the Orthodox Church continues to affirm its traditional teaching on sexuality. It is a teaching that reflects the conservative values of most "traditional" believers, whatever their confessional affiliation. Orthodoxy, however, grounds its understanding of sexuality in its particular theological vision, not in Puritan moralism. This is a crucial point that must be understood if we are to grasp the uniqueness of the Orthodox stance.

Sexuality is not an option in our experience. It is a fundamental "drive" which expresses an elementary need that every person knows: a need for affection, understanding, compassion, tenderness, and love. Sexuality embraces far more than genital activity. It touches the whole person, mind, body and soul. Given by the Creator as a defining mark of our humanness (we shall come back to this point), gender distinction and its sexual expression provide us with a capacity for the deepest, most intimate relationships we can know. When sexuality is cheapened and distorted, those relationships, too, are cheapened and distorted. When self-gratification becomes more important than self-sacrifice out of love and respect for another, the very notion of "relationship"-implying willing mutuality-is severely compromised. As a result of the sexual revolution, we are experiencing the results of this compromise to a degree unprecedented in our history. It is therefore more important than ever that we hear and proclaim the "voice of the Church": the revealed wisdom about who we are and how we are to relate appropriately to one another.

Marriage as Covenant

What, then, does the Orthodox Church teach about human sexuality and its attendant responsibilities? To address the question, we need to rely on both Scripture and patristic teachings, since the two are complementary elements in the complex of Holy Tradition.'

Most recent Orthodox studies on the subject of sexuality focus either on Christian marriage and its sacramental character, or on the sensitive issue of gender and its implications for the Church's ordained ministry. Although a systematic study of sexuality from an Orthodox perspective is very much needed, my purpose here is rather different and much more modest. I want first to demonstrate the essential goodness of sexuality in human life and relationships, then to draw some conclusions regarding specific sexual practices, both within and outside the context of marriage.

Discussions on sexuality usually focus on the relation between its procreative and "unitive" functions. Is the primary purpose of sexuality to beget children? Or is it to deepen the conjugal bond through mutual nurturing, including the delight of shared sexual experience? The debate is an old one. Rather than enter into it directly, however, I would prefer to look at the matter in a somewhat different way by considering it from the point of view of "covenant responsibility." Only when we come to appreciate that the bond between husband and wife is properly one of mutual commitment based on a covenant relationship, can we understand the place within that relationship of procreation and sexual pleasure.

The Covenant which the Lord God seals with Israel engages each party in mutual responsibility and mutual commitment. God commissions the first man and woman to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it," thereby granting them dominion over God's own creation. As Psalm 8 indicates, this commission confers both blessing and responsibility, the basic components of "covenant." Throughout Israel's history the Lord establishes various covenantal relationships with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. Each involves his unconditional commitment to fulfill a promise or an obligation that has enduring value. To Noah, and through him to "every living creature," God promises to preserve creation forever from the waters of primeval chaos (Gen 9:1-17). He promises to give Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan to be their possession for all time (Gen 15), sealing that promise with the command for circumcision by which Israel demonstrates its own commitment to the covenant relationship. Moses is the recipient of the covenant that God forms with his people at Sinai, one which is to be preserved by means of appropriate ethical behavior and cultic observance. Through the prophet Nathan the Lord declares regarding David, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever; I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Sam 7:13-14). Thereby God promises that from David's lineage there will come forth the savior-king of the elect people. The tragic circumstances surrounding the prophet Hosea in his marriage to the harlot Gomer graphically portray the Lord's faithfulness to these covenant commitments and Israel's betrayal of them. Finally, the Church, as the true "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) that unites Jew and Gentile into the one Body of Christ, is the inheritor of "a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:6). This is the new covenant or "new testament" in the blood of Christ, which is poured out for the life of the world^s In each case, the two parties of the covenantal bond commit themselves to unconditional faithfulness toward the fulfillment of a pledge or promise that will last forever.

Thus the Covenant which the Lord establishes with Israel and with the Church engages each party in mutual responsibility and mutual commitment. If Israel "goes a-whoring" and commits adultery by turning to idols or "other gods," the covenant bond can only be reestablished through the people's repentance and God's forgiveness. If members of Christ's Body turn from their Head in sinful abandon, they too can only be restored by repenting and receiving divine forgiveness. Election involves both God and ourselves in an eternal commitment, one in which God remains unconditionally faithful. While we can betray that commitment through acts of sinful rebellion or wanton negligence, and the covenant bond can be broken, it is nonetheless intended by God to endure into eternity.

Within the Church, the clearest and fullest expression of that covenantal commitment is the sacrament of marriage. (It is, of course, implicit in other sacramental actions, particularly baptism and ordination.) The very purpose of marriage is to provide between two parties-two persons-a bond of covenant responsibility and faithfulness that represents and reactualizes the eternal bond established by God with his chosen people. It is this perspective that allows the apostle to declare that marriage is a "great mystery which refers to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:21-33, the Epistle reading for the Orthodox wedding service). The covenantal bond within which God works out our salvation is in essence a nuptial bond. And conversely, the nuptial relationship achieves its true purpose and attains to its true fullness only insofar as it is based upon an eternal covenantal commitment.

Sexual expression properly belongs only within that covenantal bond. Orthodoxy affirms that the only place "genital sexuality" can be exercised to a good and fitting end is in the context of a monogamous, heterosexual, blessed, conjugal union. Each of the adjectives is significant. "Monogamous," because God is a jealous God, his commitment to his people is total and uncompromising; therefore marriage itself requires the exclusive and total commitment of two persons to each other as an iconic reflection of the uniqueness and faithfulness of Christ's commitment to the Church. "Heterosexual," because "he created them male and female" with the express purpose of providing for procreation: continuing his work of creation by joining two lives in a loving embrace that will normally, in the words of the marriage ceremony, produce "the fruit of their bodies, fair children." "Blessed," because from the beginning God blessed man and woman with both the capacity and the calling to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28), and he alone, by his blessing, can create life in the womb. And "conjugal," because the union to which God calls man and woman represents a "new creation," making of the two "one flesh" by which to bring forth children, fulfill one another in love, and work out their mutual salvation.

The transfiguring, creative dynamic inherent in such a blessed conjugal union is poignantly captured by St. Andrew of Crete in his penitential canon:

Marriage is to be honored by all, and husbands and wives must be faithful to each other, for Christ blessed them by his presence at the marriage in Cana. There he ate and changed water into wine, performing this, the first of his miracles, that you, my soul, might likewise be transformed. (Ode 9)

For the soul to be transformed from water into wine, for the human person to become what it was created to be as both the image and the likeness of God, it must preserve in its relation to Christ the same quality of faithfulness that Christ's blessing of marriage makes necessary between husband and wife. Nuptial union, once again, images the union between Christ and the soul, between Christ and the Church. Therefore nuptial union, with its sexual expression, finds its proper place only within the ecclesial community. Blessed within the Church, it exists to serve the Church by continuing God's creative work through procreation, by imaging the eternal love of God for the Church and through the Church for the world, and by creating a loving witness between spouses that can direct and accompany them both toward eternal life.

That love, however, expressed through the entire spectrum of conjugal experience, is in its purest form self-transcending. Ultimately its purpose is to lead beyond the experience of the flesh and to center wholly on God. Erotic love has as its telos, its end and fulfillment, the love of genuine erosThis is a love no less passionate, yet no less self-denying and self-transcending, than human conjugal love at its most pure and most perfect. It is a love that responds to God's prior love (cf. 1 Jn 4:10). It is the deepest movement of the soul, impossible for us to produce or sustain. Rather, it is initiated and maintained by the passionate love of God, acting within the human soul or totality of the human person. "God is love," the apostle declares. The Church Fathers understood this to refer to ontology: to God's very being or nature. From the depths of that boundless love God reaches out to embrace his fallen human creatures, to lift them up and free them from the powers of sin, death and corruption. He fills the soul with his saving, redeeming love, granting it the capacity to love in return. His "erotic" love, his profound desire to be eternally reunited with his human creatures, inspires within the soul an "erotic" response, an intense longing for God that tears express better than words. Embracing all that is signified by the term agape (disinterested, self-giving love), eros the "unitive love" that draws the soul into an eternal communion with God. Beginning with the passion of desire or fervent longing, it ends in the blissful joy of "dispassion" (apatheia). In this state, the soul finds itself in utter surrender, consumed by the object of its deepest longing.

In the words of St. Maximus the Confessor, "The soul is made perfect when its powers of passion have been completely directed toward God."

This sublime quality of passionate/dispassionate love is the subject of a great deal of ascetic literature destined primarily for those in monastic life. But to a limited extent such love can be known as well by married couples. St. Paul's observation that the married man is "anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife," (1 Cor 7:33) is of course true. Those concerns, however, should not preclude a quest for authentic erắi, anymore than they should preclude prayer or acts of charity. To everyone, celibate or married, God offers the possibility to exercise what is known as the "appetitive aspect of the soul" (to epithymitikon) in such a way as to transform passion into dispassion, the erotic into erᬼo:p>

It is often said that the monk directs his passionate love directly toward God, whereas the married person expresses love for God through love for the spouse. This is misleading. The passionate love of the married person, no less than the dispassionate love of the monk (for self, others, the creation), is only true to its ultimate purpose, and not idolatrous, when it is directed through created beings toward the Creator. To the extent that its end and fulfillment is God himself, conjugal love, together with its sexual aspect, bears the potential to transcend itself, to transform lust into genuine eros. Insofar as it achieves this transformation-all the while preserving the intimacy and joy of conjugal sexual relations-it makes of the marital union an image of "Christ and the Church." Thereby conjugal love assumes a profoundly ecclesial character that makes of the Christian home what St. John Chrysostom calls "a little church."

This transforming movement is captured by St. Maximus in a remarkable passage:

When a man's intellect is constantly with God, his desire grows beyond all measure into an intense longing for God and his incensiveness [passionate feeling, anger] is completely transformed into divine love. For by continual participation in the divine radiance his intellect becomes totally filled with light; and when it has reintegrated its passible aspect, it redirects this aspect towards God, ...filling it with an incomprehensible and intense longing for Him and with unceasing love, thus drawing it entirely away from worldly things to the divine.

It is well known that Maximus, following St. Gregory of Nyssa, rejects the idea that sexual desire is an element of human nature. Much of what he says suggests that all expressions of human sexuality are to be rejected or at least overcome if the soul is to attain perfection. Although he can declare that sensual desire must be "extinguished," he means rather that desire is to be detached from what is bodily and transformed into "a noetic yearning for heavenly blessings."" As the above passage indicates, human desire (passion) is to be "completely transformed into divine love." This is a common theme in the ascetic writings, stemming as they do from monastic sources. When Maximus thinks of marriage, he means primarily "the marriage of the soul with the Logos," which is the only source of true and lasting pleasure.

Yet even he can affirm that "we are not commanded to live as virgins (or) to abstain from marriage." Like evangelical poverty and the call to solitude, chastity (and the monastic vocation as such) is a gift, bestowed by God upon those who can bear it. Nevertheless, with much of the ascetic tradition Maximus considers sexual pleasure to be a cause of sin if not inherently sinful. Consequently, sexuality will be properly directed toward procreation alone and not toward the satisfaction of personal desires, which amount to concupiscence or lust. St. Gregory the Great (604) is a typical representative of this opinion:

The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bounds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights.

Other Orthodox Fathers, however, together with the Church's marriage service, stress the positive, sacramental character of conjugal love. A friend and correspondent of St. Maximus, the Libyan abbot Thalassius, states: "An all-embracing and intense longing for God binds those who experience it both to God and to one another." Here Thalassius is speaking of Christian love in general rather than of conjugal love as such. The point is, however, that every expression of genuine love is rooted in a deep-seated yearning for union with God: human eros which responds to the divine. In his "Homily XX on Ephesians," St. John Chrysostom declares, "There is no relationship between human beings so close as [the love] of husband and wife, if they are united as they ought to be." He continues, "This love (eros) is deeply planted within our inmost being. Unnoticed by us, it attracts the bodies of men and women to each other, because in the beginning woman came forth from man, and from man and woman other men and women proceed."

Here as elsewhere in Chrysostom's writings, the bodily, physical aspect of conjugal love is acknowledged to be essential and affirmed to be inherently good. Sexuality belongs to the procreative process and is therefore blessed by God-but, once again, only when the desire that motivates it is ultimately directed toward another: toward the spouse and toward God. As the above quotation from St. Thalassius suggests, the love that binds husband and wife in "one flesh" is rooted in and reflective of a more profound, "intense longing for God." Yet this "other-directed" love of husband and wife is merely their human response to God's prior, boundless love, that seeks to embrace in an eternal communion with himself all those who bear his divine image.

In his poem "In Praise of Virginity," St. Gregory of Nazianzen allows a married couple to speak of their vocation in these terms: "United in the flesh, one in the spirit, they urge each other on by the goad of their mutual love. For marriage does not remove from God, but brings all the closer to him, for it is God himself who draws us to it." Conjugal love thus acquires a sacramental quality, and attains to the perfection for which it was created, by pointing beyond sexual gratification to God, who is the object of the soul's deepest longing. Pleasure and sexual desire are not to be eliminated. They are to be "transferred" or redirected from the self to the other. This is, of course, no easy achievement, especially in a culture where conjugal love has been reduced to "having sex," and conjugal commitment has been replaced by no-fault divorces and prenuptial contracts. It requires that marriage be assumed as a genuine vocation, a "calling" to reproduce within conjugal life the same covenant bond of faithfulness and self-sacrifice that the Lord God concluded with his people Israel and the Son of God sealed with the Church.

Christ's love for the members of his Body has both a sacramental and an eschatological dimension. By his personal self-offering Christ seeks to "present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27), that is, in perfect purity and integrity, cleansed of anything that would separate his Beloved from the eternal love of the Father. This sacred intention serves as a model for conjugal love. For man and woman to become "one flesh" in the sense intended by God, they need to assume toward one another the same kind and quality of faithfulness and self-sacrifice that Christ assumed and continues to assume on behalf of his people. This requires that the couple accept an ongoing, ascetic struggle, not to eliminate sexual desire or repress it, but to purify and perfect it by directing it toward the other: to accompany, hear, serve and embrace the other with tenderness and devotion. In this way-being faithful in the "little things" of married life-the couple creates of their union a "mystery" of crucified and saving love, whose ultimate end is mutual participation in the life of God's Kingdom.

From this perspective, the ultimate purpose of the conjugal relationship is neither procreation nor personal fullfillment, but the working out of the spouses' mutual salvation. This is an aspect of the covenant bond of marriage that has generally been neglected, even by elements of the patristic tradition. St. John Chrysostom can insist that marriage is a remedy to eliminate fornication," and St. John of Damascus, taking up a familiar theme of Gregory of Nyssa, will argue that "marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children." Yet we need to keep in mind that these great teachers were speaking to particular issues that shaped. their views in significant ways. In his "Sermon on Marriage," for example, Chrysostom the pastor is concerned with the problem of married men committing adultery; and the purpose of John of Damascus is to praise the supe­ior virtues of virginity. Their observations concerning the power and subtlety of sexual temptation are correct, and their intention to defend chastity, both within and apart from the conjugal state, is laudable. It is true, though, that their focus tends to obscure the biblical witness that identifies the true end and purpose of marriage within God's providence. That purpose is to transfigure fallen sexuality into an act of worship-an offering of praise, thanksgiving and intercession-by which the union of husband and wife prefigures and prepares their eternal communion with God.

Addressing the Corinthians' question, whether a woman who has become a Christian may divorce her pagan husband, St. Paul expresses willingness to accept such a divorce if it is initiated by the unbeliever (1 Cor 7:13-15). Yet he ends his reflection with a pair of rhetorical questions: "Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?" If the apostle admonishes couples to remain united in the bond of marriage, it is because that bond has a profoundly "covenantal" character, in which the believing spouse is to bear witness to the unbeliever, so that both might be saved.

Gender and Sexuality

If biblical and patristic tradition appears to hold sexuality and sexual pleasure in disfavor, it is due to its awesome power and propensity for leading us into sin, not because sexuality as such is inherently sinful or evil. Hebrew law, for example, prescribes harsh punishments for various sorts of sexual activity that were considered aberrant or unnatural. These include adultery, incest, homosexuality and bestiality (cf. Lev 18). Each of these threatens both family and society because each is motivated by self-centered lust. Procreative activity, on the other hand, is understood to be blessed by God, even to the extent that he provides levirate marriage to ensure the preservation of a deceased man's name and lineage (Dt 25:5-6; cf. Gen 38:8; Mt 22:23ff and parallels). Then again, the psalmist can cry, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps 50/51:5). As the plural "sins" (hamartiais) of the Septuagint indicates, this does not refer to "original sin"-the guilt of Adam transmitted by the sexual act (St. Augustine). It means rather that every person is born into a fallen world marked by the tragedy of sin and alienation from God. (Thus it follows logically upon what precedes is "I know my transgression and my sin is ever before me.") Conception and sin are closely linked, but not causally. No judgment is cast on the procreative act itself.

In a similar vein, the Church's liturgical texts warn repeatedly of the temptations and possible corruption associated with sexual behavior, yet it never condemns sexuality per se. Consider these two random examples. In the prayer before the Great Entrance of the eucharistic Liturgy, the priest acknowledges: "No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw near or to serve Thee, O King of Glory...." This concerns any attachment to worldly affairs that might lead to idolatry, the worship of false gods, but it may be interpreted as speaking particularly to sexual temptations. The Compline "Prayer to our Lord" implores God to "preserve us from the gloomy slumber of sin and from the dark passions of the night. Calm the impulses of carnal desires, quench the fiery darts of the evil one which are craftily directed against us. Still the rebellions of the flesh, and put far from us all anxiety and worldly care." The allusion to sexual lust here is dear. The passage is remarkably candid and realistic about the struggle needed to preserve chastity, whether in marriage or in monastic life. Yet just as in the preceding petition, it simply underscores the power of sexual temptation to lead to sinful behavior; it does not condemn sexuality as such.

This raises the question as to whether sexuality and gender are elements of God's original creative act, and therefore reflect the divine image, or whether they are attributable to the Fall and should be relegated to the sphere of passions and bodily needs that eventually pass away.

There is a fascinating debate currently going on among Orthodox theologians that touches directly on this point. It concerns the origins of gender and sexuality: whether they are essential aspects of our humanity and thus reflective of the image of God, or whether they are concessions to our fallen state and thus postlapsarian phenomena that possess no inherent spiritual or ontological significance. Because of the importance of this question for our attitude toward the human body, including procreation and health care, it would be worthwhile considering the debate a little more fully.

The most common reply to the question of the origin of gender and sexuality is the one we have represented here: that gender differentiation is an aspect of God's good creation. It interprets Genesis 1:26-27 as meaning that "maleness" and "femaleness" are inscribed in human nature as an expression of God's will. St. Paul's declaration in Galatians 3:28, that in Christ "there is neither male nor female" (literally, "nor is there male and female," placing the accent on the gender distinction itself rather than on the persons) is interpreted to mean that incorporation into the Body of Christ through baptism allows the couple in the Church to transcend the culturally conditioned differences-with their sociological and psychological consequences-between Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women.

A similar interpretation is usually given to Jesus' teaching concerning life in the resurrection: when they rise from the dead, men and women are "like angels (h១ngeloi) in heaven" (Mk 12:25; Mt 22:30; Luke 20:36 reads "they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels [isangeloi] and sons of God..."). This means that in the resurrection men will not marry and women will not be given in marriage, because the marital bond established in this life is eternal, and because genital functioning will have no place in the Kingdom, since there will be no need for procreation, and all love will be ultimately directed toward God .

According to this view, gender distinction and sexuality are elements of God's good creation and intrinsic to human nature. In the resurrection it is not gender distinction that is abolished, but the various consequences of that distinction, including sexual activity and relationships of dominance and submission. To use our modern categories, in Christ and in the Kingdom there is no longer an imbalance of power and consequent domination of Jew over Greek (as within early church communities), of freemen over slaves, or of men over women. Galatians 3:28, in other words, concerns sociology, not ontology. It proclaims equality between the sexes, and not the obliteration of gender.

Other Orthodox theologians give a very different interpretation to these passages. Following St. Maximus, who bases his reflection on St. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Creation of Man," they deny that either sexuality or gender differentiation is an essential component of human nature, and hold that they arise only in consequence of the Fall. Valerie Karras, for example, has made an interesting and well crafted case for this view. She interprets patristic teaching to mean that the human body in its fallen state does not reflect the image of God. The Fathers, she holds, "distinguish among the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of our fallen bodies, especially our gender, and the ultimate genderless nature of the human soul." She continues: "Beyond physical sex, gender itself is seen by all of the Fathers as an element added to our humanity only because of God's foreknowledge of man's fall." This leads her to conclude: "But if the image of God in humanity does not extend to human sexuality, and if humanity was neither intended to include gender nor will be sexually differentiated in the resurrection, then there is no spiritual dimension, no ontological significance, to gender."

Aside from introducing an intolerable body-soul dualism into Orthodox anthropology, this argument also confuses gender with sexuality and "body" with "flesh." Partial support for her view can be found in Maximus' thesis that all divisions within creation will ultimately be overcome, including the distinction between male and female. To Maximus' mind, however, that distinction is not evil per se, nor is it a consequence of the Fall. Like the four other distinctions (between paradise and the inhabited world, heaven and earth, the intelligible and sensible, the uncreated and created), gender differentiation is a given of the created order. It is susceptible to sin, and that susceptibility expresses itself in fallen sexuality. Sexual procreation became necessary as a consequence of human sin and its "wages," which are death or mortality. Commenting on Maximus' Ambigua 41, Lars Thunberg states the issue quite succinctly:

[S]ince Maximus presupposes that God had prepared another form of human multiplication and fertility for man the non-sinner, this negative perspective on sexuality does not carry the implication that the generative force of man is altogether evil. It may be used in a positive and spiritual way. The masculine and feminine elements are not destined to disappear, only to be subsumed effectively under the principle (logos) of the common human nature.

The point to note here is that the division between man and woman which is healed by the dual mediation of Christ and man concerns sexuality, not gender. Similarly, when Maximus speaks of aspects that "were not originally created as elements of human nature," he names "pleasure and distress, desire and fear, and what follows from them."' Again, he is referring to passions, sexual and other, rather than to gender.

Attempting to demonstrate that virtually all of the Fathers (and not merely Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor) teach that gender is "an element added to humanity only because of God's foreknowledge of man's fall," Dr. Karras refers to the view of St. John Damascene in his treatment of virginity and the married life: "John of Damascus sums up the whole of patristic tradition by stating that God, in His foreknowledge, created humanity with gender for procreative purposes."^" St. John does hold that virginity was an original and innate quality of human nature in its prelapsarian state. Only after death had been introduced as a consequence of human sin did sexual procreation become necessary, in order to preserve the human race. It is also true that St. John holds virginity in far higher esteem than he does conjugal life. But once again, this concerns sexuality. It says nothing about gender distinctions which he, with most patristic witnesses, assumes are given with the creation of the first man and woman in their pre-fallen condition. Indeed, in the same chapter the Damascene affirms that marriage is "good" (even though virginity is "better"), citing Jesus' blessing of marriage (at Cana, Jn 2), together with the injunction of Hebrews 13:4, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled." Even here the emphasis is on purity and appropriate chastity in conjugal relations. Consequently, St. John can conclude that "marriage is good" insofar as "lawful intercourse" prevents "the madness of desire" from being inflamed into acts that are unnatural or against nature (anomos)."

Nothing here supports the view that gender appeared only after the Fall or that it is not an inherent element in human nature. Sexuality, on the other hand, in the mind of many patristic writers, is clearly postlapsarian, a point they stress to avoid the notion that concupiscence and other passions are expressions of created nature, which is inherently "good." Yet even this does not mean that sexuality is evil or that sexual activity is inherently sinful. Speaking against "Jewish fables" and Old Testament notions of purity and impurity, St. John Chrysostom declares: "all things are pure. God made nothing unclean, for nothing is unclean, except sin only. For that reaches to the soul and defiles it... You see how many varieties of uncleanness there are [from a human point of view]. Yet God made child-birth, and the seed of copulation." To Chrysostom's mind, it is not the biological functioning which is sinful, but its misuse. In the same homily, therefore, he can declare that the fornicator and the adulterer are unclean, "not on account of the intercourse (for according to that reasoning a man cohabiting with his own wife would be unclean), but because of the wickedness of the act, and the injury done to his neighbor in his nearest interest." The intentions of the heart and the circumstances surrounding the act are what render fornication and adultery evil, not intercourse itself.

In any case, no reasonable exegesis of the biblical passages cited earlier (Gal 3:28; Mk 12:25 and parallels) can conclude that gender per se will be eliminated in the resurrection, any more than Genesis 1:26-27 can bear the interpretation that gender was not an essential or "natural" aspect of human creatures before the Fall (what, after all, does it mean to affirm that "he created them male and female"?). The same is true with the notion that gender distinction existed before the Fall only because God foreknew that man would sin and bring death upon himself, and therefore sexual procreation would be required in order to preserve the human species. This is not simply a non-issue in the biblical texts. It is clearly contradicted by the Genesis creation account, which includes gender identity and differentiation in the "good" creative activity of God, as it is by Jesus' blessing of the marriage at Cana, and by St. Paul's teaching that the body is a "member of Christ" (1 Cor 6:15), which even in its fallen (and gender-specific) state is capable of sanctification (1 Thess 5:23). Still more decisive is Jesus' statement that unequivocally confirms the goodness of gender and its place within the divine economy: "From the beginning of creation `God made them male and female,'" so that in marriage "they are no longer two but one flesh" (Mk 10:6-8).

Gender, then, is not an after-thought, nor is it a concession to human weakness. In the words of Thomas Hopko, "Gender-differentiation for human beings is an essential element in their ability to reflect and participate in God's divine being and life whose content is love... And it is exactly as men and women, and in their intercommunion together, that human beings find and fulfill themselves as creatures made in God's image and likeness..."

A persistent confusion between "flesh" and "body seems in large measure responsible for the quasi-Gnostic opinion that the body-and with it, gender-has "no spiritual dimension, no ontological significance." This opinion is based on the view that the fallen, physical body does not reflect the image of God, and therefore gender is not an essential aspect of our humanity. I have tried to indicate why I believe this is a non sequitur. It presupposes a body-soul dualism that is foreign both to Scripture and to Orthodox tradition. What Dr. Karras terms "the body in its postlapsarian state" is in reality that fallen orientation of the body which St. Paul identifies as "the flesh" (sarx) or "the old Adam." "Flesh" refers basically to the superficial aspect of our being, the seat of the passions, which is constantly susceptible to temptation and sin. As such it is contrasted in St. Paul's thought, not with the "body," but with the "spirit." Although biblical and patristic language is fluid, the term "body" (soma) generally denotes the entire being: heart, mind, flesh and spirit (or soul). In the resurrection the body will certainly be changed: transformed from a "physical body to a "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44)-but it will remain a unique "body," a unique hypostasis, in total continuity with its personal earthly existence. (Consider, for example, Jesus' resurrectional appearances to Mary Magdalene and to his disciples: John 20, Luke 24, etc. Although at first he is not recognized, once he reveals himself by word or "in the breaking of bread," he is perceived and welcomed as precisely who he is in his unique personal identity: the risen Lord is one with Jesus of Nazareth.)

It is true that the ascetic literature often speaks of the body in very negative terms. It addresses, after all, the struggle monks must assume in maintaining chastity and purity of thought. Yet when the Fathers use the expression "body" in this context they are usually referring to the Pauline notion of "flesh," the locus of spiritual warfare. "Flesh" and "body' are not separate components of the human person that oppose or stand in tension with the "soul," any more than "flesh" and "spirit" denote different parts or aspects of our being that constantly wage war against each other. This is the popular view, and it arises in part from the fact that neither Scripture nor the patristic writings use the terms in a wholly consistent and systematic way. "Sarx" (flesh) and "soma" (body) properly signify the totality of the person, but viewed from different perspectives. Similarly, when the terms "flesh" and "spirit" are used together in the context of St. Paul's ethical dualism, each refers to the whole person: "flesh" to man as fallen, "spirit" to man as redeemed. The Pauline expressions "mind of the spirit" and "mind of the flesh" thus refer to a specific orientation of the whole be ing: toward life and peace, or toward death (Rom 8:5-6).

"Flesh," then, refers to the orientation of the human person that leads to sin and death, since the "mind of the flesh" is set on things of this world rather than on God. The term "body," on the other hand, can be used in several ways. It can refer to the physical or psychological aspect of our being, and in this sense it is nearly synonymous with "the flesh." Or it can signify the whole person, capable by grace of transfiguration and resurrection in the image of Christ. The former usage occurs in St. Paul's anguished reflection on the "body of death," where the self is "carnal, sold under sin" (Rom 7:14-25). The latter, more normative usage is found in his appeal to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God" (Rom 12:1) and in his admonition to the Corinthians: "Shun immorality!... Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own, you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:18-20). A combination of the two meanings appears in 1 Cor 15: 38-39, where sarx appears to be the equivalent of soma. Finally, the normative usage recurs unambiguously in the following passage (15:44): in the resurrection, the earthly physical body (soma psychikon) will be transformed into a celestial spiritual body (soma pneumatikon). Here the apostle refers not only to the flesh, but to the total person, one's whole being.

These reflections lead to the conclusion that humanity (that is, the "body" in its prelapsarian state) was indeed intended to include gender, and that gender distinction, as an essential aspect of bodily existence, will be preserved in the resurrection. Gender specificity is innate in human nature, having been bestowed by the Creator "from the beginning." Consequently, we cannot accept the thesis that gender possesses "no spiritual dimension, no ontological significance."

As an essential function of human nature, gender permits procreation which "from the beginning," and not merely as a consequence of the Fall, is blessed by God as the means whereby persons bearing his image can participate in his creative activity (Gen 1:28; 2:23-24, both of which are "prelapsarian"). If we avoid confusing gender with (fallen) sexuality, then it is evident that gender does indeed possesses both "ontological significance" and a profoundly "spiritual dimension." It enables man and woman to fulfill the divine command to "multiply and fill the earth," and to fulfill each other through their complementary expressions of love.

Quite apart from the question whether it images in any way particular qualities or characteristics of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, gender as a function of bodily existence is given by God and blessed by him in his original act of creation. Thus its significance properly extends beyond physical pleasure and even beyond procreation. For ultimately, gender which expresses itself in human sexual love is intended to serve as an image or icon of the nuptial bond that unites Christ with all those who adhere to him in faith. Yet it can do so only within the context of Christian marriage, what we have qualified as "a monogamous, heterosexual, blessed, conjugal union." This is the only context that allows gender and its sexual expression to assume an authentic sacramental quality. The uniting of man and woman to create "one flesh" is a profound mystery (mysterion, sacramentum), the apostle declares, and it refers to the mystical, sacramental union of self-giving love between Christ and his Body, the Church. Christos Yannaras expresses this sacramental aspect in these terms:

In the mystery of marriage, the Church intervenes to give sexual love its full dimensions, to free the loving power in man from its subjection to natural necessity, and to manifest in the unity of man and wife an image of the Church and the gift of true life.

Accordingly, Orthodox Christianity views marriage as essentially a Christian vocation, a union in and with Christ. The ultimate end of that vocation is the same as that of monasticism: theosis or eternal participation in the life of God. Like monasticism, Christian marriage requires a continual askesis: a spiritual struggle, grounded in ongoing repentance. In Yannaras's words, "True virginity and true marriage are reached by a common road: the self-denial of the cross, and ascetic self-offering." This Way of the Cross is symbolized in the Orthodox marriage ceremony by the nuptial crowns, which are crowns of victory but also crowns of martyrdom, of saving witness one to the other and to the world. "O Holy Martyrs," the Church sings during the nuptial procession, who have fought the good fight and have received your crowns, entreat ye the Lord that he will have mercy on our souls!"

Christian marriage engages the couple in ceaseless spiritual warfare at every level of their common life. Through continual repentance and the seeking of forgiveness, obstinate pride resolves into tender affection, and self-centered lust into self-sacrificing devotion. Beyond that, however, the couple's struggle unites them in a common "priestly" ministry, as they offer themselves and each other to God as a "sacrifice of praise." The telos or ultimate end of conjugal union, then, is the salvation of the other, the beloved, with whom one is eternally united in a covenant bond of faithfulness and self-giving love.

Given the trivialization of marriage today, even among Christian couples, this is certainly a "hard teaching." Many people, without doubt, would greet it with ridicule. But it needs to be affirmed in our churches if it is to be confirmed in our experience. And with it there need to be affirmed as well the consequences of this teaching for all aspects of sexual behavior, including premarital, extra-marital and homosexual relations, together with masturbation and the use of pornography. In the following section I would like to consider briefly the moral implications of each of these.

Extended Note

Regarding Dr. Karras' argument that gender distinction will not exist in the resurrected life of the Kingdom, it is necessary to examine the context in which various supporting quotations are found. She cites several passages from St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzus to defend the view that "the Fathers deny that the physical body reflects the image of God." "Basil," she states, "is adamant in distinguishing between the outer person and the inner one. The real man is the inner one; the outer is not the true man, but simply belongs to the inner man." [Op. cit., p. 115; emphasis hers.] Then she adds a quotation from St. Gregory: "O nature of woman overcoming that of man in the common struggle for salvation, and demonstrating that the distinction between male and female is one of body not of soul!" [Oration 8,14; PG 35:805B, quoted from an article by V. Harrison.]

Her concern is to demonstrate that ontologically-on the level of the soul-men and women are created equal. This is a point well taken, one that is beyond dispute both in the Scriptures and in the Church Fathers. But an illicit jump occurs in this reasoning, from the essential, ontological equality of men and women to the double conclusion that the body does not reflect the image of God and that therefore gender distinction will disappear in resurrected existence. The argument presupposes a dualism between the "outer man" (the body) and the "inner man" (the soul), that tends to distort both biblical and patristic thought.

In drawing a sharp distinction between the "outer" man and the "inner" man (literally, the "manifest" man, anthropos phainomenon, and the "inward" or "interior" man, anthrnpos eso) ["On the Origin of Man," Homily 1,7; Sources chretiennes (SC) 160 (Paris: Cerf, 1970), p. 182.], St. Basil is referring to the apostle Paul's distinction in 2 Cor 4:16, "Though our `outward' or `external self' exo anthropos) is wasting away, our `inward' or `internal self' eso hemon) is being renewed day by day." These images of "outer" and "inner" man do not refer to "body" as contrasted with "soul." The apostle (taking up into a Christian context a theme familiar from Platonic, Neo-Platonic and Stoic philosophy) draws a contrast rather between the inner life of the person-filled and guided by the Spirit-and the dimension of the "flesh," which is subject to sin and temptation, but in the context of 2 Cor 4 alludes to physical deterioration due to persecution and the wear and tear imposed by Paul's apostolic ministry.

The "inner man," in other words, is the "new creation" in Christ, the human person as filled with the Spirit and strengthened through faith (cf. Eph 3:14-19; Col 3:10!). The "outer man," on the other hand, is the "old Adam": the visible, vulnerable aspect of human existence, subject to sin and wasting away." The tension here is not dualistic (soul-body), but eschatological. It concerns the ongoing transformation of the whole person from old creation to new (2 Cor 5:17) and from "glory to glory" (2 Cor 3:18), which will culminate in the resurrection. It is through this Spirit-bestowed transformation, Paul declares, that the coming Savior, Jesus Christ, "will change our lowly body (soma) into the likeness of his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). This eschatological metamorphosis, as he makes dear, involves the "body," meaning the total person in its original "hypostatic," gender-specific identity.

St. Basil follows St. Paul by distinguishing "two men" (duo gnorizo anthropous): one who is manifest, and the other hidden, invisible. In some respects, he maintains, we are "double" or "dual" (diploi), but in fact we are (essentially, we might say) an "inward" being (endon esmen). The duality concerns what is essential: the "inner" life of the "new creation in Christ," as contrasted with what passes away: the hand, the (physical) body, the passions. What abides is the "soul" (psyche), he adds, meaning the human reason that is included as an aspect of the image of God. [Homily 1,7-8.]

Confusion is introduced because St. Basil, like most of the Greek Fathers, shifts back and forth between biblical and philosophical language and images. Taken in isolation, this passage can well be read as Dr. Karras proposes, suggesting a fundamental dualism in Basil's thought between the body and the soul. The expression "body" can indeed be used to refer to the corruptible aspect of human existence (although this would be more precisely termed the "flesh"). Farther on in this same homily (1,6), for example, Basil reverts to a usage-familiar from Plato, Philo and Origen-that limits soma (body) to the transitory, changing aspect of man that, he says explicitly, does not reflect the image of God: "we do not possess the image (of God) in bodily form. For the form of the body is subject to corruption." The subject here is "form" (morphe), and the "bodily form" indeed passes away insofar as Basil identifies it with that which is corruptible (e.g., growth, aging, good or bad health, as well as the passions). In this sense, once again, "body" approximates "flesh." Elsewhere Basil uses the term soma with its broader, more normative meaning to refer to the person in his or her totality. [Cf. I:2, where the "body" is equivalent to "myself," which, as I:2,20 indicates, reveals the greatness of the Creator and implies that in some sense the soma-ego does reflect the divine image. Contrast further I:6,1-5; I:7,15; and II:3; II:5; with II:2,20f, where body refers to the whole person, created in the divine image. Even in the former references, where Basil seems to present a body-soul dualism, the context is moral, not ontological. In I:7:15, for example, the virtues of the soul in its growth toward perfection are manifested in and through the body, which is the "instrument" of the soul, not its ontological antithesis.]

Dr. Karras also quotes St. Gregory the Theologian (who lauds the spiritual feats of his sister Gorgonia) to affirm that "the distinction between male and female is one of body not of soul" [art. cit., 115]. Her aim is to point out Gregory's conviction that women's moral virtues are equal to or greater than those of men. The soul is the seat of the virtues, which men and women share alike, women being in some respects superior. Again, however, this says nothing that would imply that gender is strictly physical and disappears in resurrected existence. Her laudable concern to stress the "ontological equality" between men and women nevertheless leads her to the unfounded reasoning that because a woman can surpass a man in spiritual exploits, and because the verb andrizo ("to be manly") can be used to describe women saints, therefore gender differences are obliterated in the resurrection.

In fact, all that can be said here is what she herself affirms, that andrizo in patristic usage "is meant specifically to transcend traditional gender distinctions." This is true if we mean by "traditional gender distinctions" not ontology, but stereotypes of women as morally or spiritually (or even physically) inferior to men. If we understand by this, however, that gender per se will not be a distinguishing characteristic of the resurrectional body (the soma pneumatikon of 1 Cor 15:44), then we have lapsed into a non sequitur. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

The same must be said for another quotation drawn from a funeral oration pronounced by St. Gregory upon the death of his brother, St. Caesarius. [Or. 7,23; PG 35:785C.] Combining Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11, St. Gregory states that we are one in Christ, "that we might no longer be male and female, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free (which are identifying marks of the flesh, ta tes sarkos gnorismata), but might bear in ourselves only the form of God" (ton theion charaktera: the "divine stamp"-as Christ himself is the very "stamp" of the Father's nature or being, Heb 1:3). We should note that this is a funeral sermon, in which Gregory speaks of the mystery of death and the glorious hope of resurrection. In this life, he declares, we are connected with both the flesh (sarkos) and the spirit (pneumatos). "I must be buried with Christ, be raised with Christ, be a co-heir with Christ, to become a son of God, even God himself" (huion genesthai theou, theon auton).

It is in this eschatological perspective, once again, that we need to understand what follows, including the reference to Gal 3:28. Gregory is distinguishing between what is earthly and heavenly, mortal and immortal, lowly and exalted (VII: 23,6). In this specific funerary context he laments the transitory character of earthly existence. Yet he also expresses gratitude that the calamity of Caesarius' death has led him to recall the essence of his faith, since it has made him "all the more eager to depart from this life." His focus is on unity in Christ, where all earthly distinctions will be overcome, including those that separate or divide the sexes, ethnic groups and social classes. That is, the emphasis is on the elimination of what divides, not on the ontological particularity of the persons involved. Given this focus and this context, it is misleading to use this passage (and the same must be said for the quotations from St. Basil) to affirm either that "the body" does not bear or reflect the image of God or that gender will not characterize personal existence in the Kingdom of God. [Similar criticisms of Dr. Karras' position have been made by David Ford, Women and Men in the Early Church. See esp. p. 148, n. 2, reflecting on another Karras article that puts forth the argument that according to St. John Chrysostom gender will not exist in resurrected existence. Prof Ford refers to Chrysostom's "firm conviction that marriages forged on earth will continue in some way in Heaven," and concludes on the basis of his own research into Chrysostom's thought that "for him gender distinctions will also somehow continue in the heavenly realm. (And surely, we could add, the Theotokos will never cease being the mother of the Son of God.)" In ch. 2 of this study, he offers a detailed overview of Chrysostorns theology of marriage.]

This point is substantiated by a factor that may seem trivial but is not: the fact that Gregory Nazianzus continues to refer to Caesarius as "he"! In the Theologians mind, his deceased brother is no less "male" than when he was alive in the flesh; and nothing suggests that such "maleness" will disappear in the resurrection. Those who grow in theosis, in God-likeness, to the point that they "become God," bear the same personal-and gender-specific-identity that characterized them from conception. They do not become androgynous, nor are they "neutered." This point is not contradicted by Gregory's affirmation that in God we shall "bear in ourselves only the divine stamp" and be so formed and shaped by God that we shall be known or recognized by it alone. For it is the person who attains God-likeness in the growth toward theosis, and gender is an essential mark of personal identity.

Covenant Responsibility and Sexual Behavior

"All sins are attempts to fill voids."

- Simone Weil

Equality of the Sexes.

Within ancient Israel and throughout most of the life of the Church there has been a striking and, to most people's minds, an unjust imbalance with regard to requirements for sexual fidelity and responsibility. The burden has weighed far more heavily on women than on men. This is due in part to a legacy of disproportion that we can call in today's jargon "sexist patriarchalism." Where the wife is considered to be her husband's property (her "ownership" having been transferred from her father), she is expected, under severe penalty, to remain a virgin until marriage, then to remain "faithful" to her husband. With few exceptions, no such restraints are laid upon the man.

In theory, if not in practice, this condition has been done away with by the "great reversal" brought about by Jesus Christ. St. Paul's declaration, "in Christ there is neither male nor female," means that the socially and culturally conditioned inequality between the sexes is abolished: it does not exist in the mind of God and has no place within the church communities. It also means that in Christ men bear equal responsibility with women for upholding a moral ethos which is conducive to preserving the integrity of family life. Consequently, the husband is no less responsible than his wife for preserving familial structure, stability and nurture necessary for the proper raising of their children. The husband is also as responsible as the wife for fulfilling the prescriptions of Ephesians 5. If the wife "submits" herself to her husband as to the Lord, her submission mirrors that of the Church in relation to Christ. Conversely, if the husband exercises headship, he does so by reflecting the actions and attitudes of Christ toward his Body, the Church. (The verb hypotasso is correctly rendered "submit" in this context, not "subject," as in so many English translations. It denotes a voluntary act of love rather than subjection to constraints imposed by the husband or social convention.) The husband is to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" in a sacrificial self-offering of disinterested love. The key to this mutual relationship is provided in Ephesians 5:21, a verse that introduces the entire passage: "Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ." The submission, in other words, is reciprocal. It involves both parties equally yet in different ways: the wife through acceptance of the husband's responsibility for "headship," and the husband through loving service offered to his spouse.

The responsibilities and obligations of the conjugal relationship are mutual and fully equal. Husband and wife exercise different functions within the family, just as the priest and laity do in the "family" of the parish community. Those functions, however, are complementary. They are effective only to the extent they are based on the full and unconditional equality of each party with regard to ontological status and spiritual value.

Authentic hierarchy, in the Holy Trinity or in the Church, presupposes just such equality. Order within the Trinity depends on the origin and function of each Hypostasis: the Father is the unbegotten source, cause or wellspring of the Son and the Spirit, as he is of all created existence; the Son is eternally generated by the Father and serves within the divine economy as Revealer, Redeemer and Savior; the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and, again within the economy, is sent forth by the Father through the Son, to create, inspire, sanctify and sustain the Church. Yet this complementary work is possible only because the Three share a common essence and a common will.

Within the Church, hierarchical relations are also established both by origin: divinely conferred baptism and ordination, and by function: the specific ministry to be assumed respectively by the fourfold hierarchy of bishop, priest, deacon and layperson. The bishop is the chief pastor and guardian of unity, who is called "rightly to define the word of truth"; the presbyter/priest is the immediate "father" of the community and celebrant of the sacramental mysteries; and the laity is "sent forth" to bear life-giving witness in and to the world. While we may speak of ordination as conferring "the grace divine," we also proclaim that such grace "heals what is infirm and supplies what is lacking." It does not confer special ontological status or value. Hierarchy presupposes and in fact requires the essential equality of its constituent members, an equality that derives from the fact that each member is created in the image of God and each one is called in equal measure to attain to the divine likeness.

The same is true within the family. If we can speak of a hierarchical order among husband, wife and children, it can only be with regard to their origin (in this instance, the divine calling addressed to each within the covenantal bond of marriage) which is expressed functionally in terms of the specific roles of father, mother and offspring. As the "house tables" of Eph 5:21-6:4 and Col 3:18-22 indicate, those roles concern duties and responsibilities of those who share equally the new life in Jesus Christ. They in no way suggest that any one role is ontologically or spiritually superior to any other.

Yet those roles are gender specific. Whether or not the husband today is the breadwinner, and whether or not the wife occupies herself with typical domestic chores, they can fulfill their covenantal possibilities and responsibilities only to the degree that they assume respectively paternal and maternal roles within the family. Granted, we are less clear today than ever before about the specific content of those roles. But this is not due to any ambiguity in the divinely ordained functions themselves. It is due rather to the devaluation of gender specificity that has occurred in Western society over the past few decades. If the Church casts a critical eye on "unisexism," it is because it promotes this devaluation and results in a confusion of sexual roles. If our monasteries insist that women wear skirts rather than slacks to services, and if some of our parishes still encourage women to wear a head-covering, it is primarily in the interests of acknowledging and respecting gender specificity and avoiding gender confusion. Within the family as well, the Church calls the couple to fulfill gender-specific roles that have been recognized in all cultures to be "paternal" and "maternal," however difficult it may be to give a precise definition to those terms.

It has been rightly said that the major theological issue of our day concerns gender and sexuality. A great deal of current debate focuses in this regard on the meaning of paternity and maternity, fatherhood and motherhood. Descriptive terms used respectively of the two roles include "active/passive," "self-giving/receptive," "protective/nurturing," and "in the image of Christ/in the image of the Spirit." None of these is really adequate, because it can easily be demonstrated that each expression describes both husband and wife, man and woman. The debate, with its quest for an adequate theological language, is nevertheless necessary and useful. Rather like Justice Potter Stewart's remark concerning pornography, when it comes to gender specificity, we may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it. This, too, confirms an intuition as old as the Genesis narratives: that gender is an essential and enduring element in our human constitution. It is a function of our "personalized" human nature.

If we have insisted so adamantly on this point, it is because of its implications for the realm of sexual behavior. Most basically, if gender and its sexual expression have neither ontological nor spiritual significance, then sexual behavior is limited to earthly life, with no eternal consequences. In such a case, sexual morality would be a psychological or sociological issue, not a theological one. On the other hand, if the sexes are ontologically equal and complementary, sharing a common nature yet reflecting in ways appropriate to their specific gender the beauty and perfection of the divine nature, then sexual conduct impacts directly on the person's growth toward the likeness of God. Orthodox Tradition unquestionably holds the latter to be the case. In addition to stressing the eternal significance of gender, therefore, we have stressed as well the ontological equality that exists between the sexes. This is necessary in order to combat "sexism" and sexual exploitation. But it is just as necessary in order to situate sexual behavior within the framework of the eschatological and sacramental covenant bond that confers upon husband and wife equal responsibility with an equal potential for achieving by grace the deification of their personal existence. Nothing we can say about extra-marital sex or homosexuality-or, for that matter, about abortion and in vitro fertilization-has any theological significance if we cannot affirm from the outset that in the eyes of God men and women are ontologically (by nature) equal and that each gender possesses its own eternal value and meaning.

The Virtue of Chastity.

What, then, is the theological significance of sexual behavior within and outside the union of marriage? In a word, sexuality is the touchstone that determines and reveals our commitment to the covenantal bond God has established with his people. It is in large measure through sexuality that our commitment and faithfulness to that covenantal relationship can be measured. Notice that Jesus' words concerning the unbreakable commitment of marriage are followed by the saying about voluntary celibacy: "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Mt 19:8-12). Two fundamental vocations exist within the Church: not "clerical" and "lay," but consecrated celibacy and blessed conjugal union. Despite the preference for virginity expressed by many patristic writers, Orthodoxy has generally held that these two vocations are equal in spiritual value and in the potential for guiding the person, monk or spouse, to salvation. The Church will call single people to a commitment of celibacy for the same reason it calls some to monastic life: that by the grace of the indwelling Spirit they may transform lust into love, the erotic into eros. Yet the Church teaches that marriage has precisely that same end, when purified and sanctified love is freely offered to the spouse and children.

Sexuality, then, has profound spiritual and theological significance as the crucible in which ascetic struggle leads toward the transcendence of fallen human nature. If apostolic tradition condemns "sins of the flesh," it is because the pathway to the Kingdom is marked out by self-transcending chastity, whether in marriage or in celibate life. Genuine chastity is self-transcending rather than self-denying. As a spiritual discipline, it promotes the wholeness and stability of the person by focusing sexual energy away from the self and its perceived needs, and toward God.

Although it is fully compatible with conjugal sexuality, chastity in marriage will impose limits upon sexual expression (against the hedonistic notion that "anything goes"), while directing the couple's love in such a way as to enfold them both in mutual attentiveness, devotion and joy. Chastity in the form of virginity, on the other hand, is a special vocation that in the first instance reflects the personal purity, self-abandonment and faithfulness to God of the Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary. It is an ecclesial vocation in that it reflects in and to the Church the uncompromising faithfulness demanded of every Christian to the covenant relationship God has sealed with his people. Yet the end of both vocations, married and celibate, is the same: to welcome into the life of the married couple or the solitary monk the love which God expresses as nuptial love.

This explains why the Church's ascetic literature abounds with apparently contradictory images of the spouse whose conjugal commitment and communion with God are deepened through chastity, and of the monk (male or female) who relates to God in what is virtually a nuptial union. The primary image that describes both vocations-conjugal and monastic-is that of marriage: marriage understood as an eternal, covenantal commitment of loving faithfulness between Christ and his Church. Accordingly, the telos or fulfillment of both vocations lies in their eternal participation in the marriage feast of him who is both sacrificial Lamb and Bridegroom (Rev 19:9, 21:2, 22:17).

Premarital Sexuality.

This kind of reflection provides us with a basis for drawing some specific conclusions concerning premarital and extramarital sexual activity, as well as "acted out" homosexuality.

The primary blessing of sexuality lies in procreation, which until very recently was universally recognized as having its proper place within the family unit created by husband and wife. Current pressures to create ersatz families headed by homosexual lovers or single parents violate the Church's most basic understanding of what God calls "family to be: a man and a woman who join as "one flesh" for the deepening of their mutual love by bringing forth "the fruit of their bodies." The unitive value of marriage, therefore, is inextricably linked to its procreative potential. If a husband and wife are unable to conceive for any reason, their conjugal union as such is not diminished. But as the anguish of the typical sterile couple makes clear, marriage and sexuality find their true fulfillment and achieve their true purpose by bringing forth new life.

This is why Orthodoxy, like Roman Catholicism, insists that in every act of sexual intercourse the couple should willingly accept the possibility that conception might occur. In cases where measures are taken to avoid pregnancy, yet conception does occur, then the couple will receive that new life with gratitude and joy. They will embrace it as a gift of God's bounty, to be cherished, protected and nurtured through the entire gestation period. And they will remain aware that any decision to abort that life for reasons of expediency can only be regarded by the Church as the gravest sin, tantamount to murder.

Unlike their Catholic counterparts, Orthodox bishops and priests today usually acknowledge that married couples may need to practice a form of family planning that includes some method of birth control (more properly: conception control). Not all Orthodox agree with this, however. This very disagreement over the issue of contraception testifies to the fact that within Orthodoxy procreation is understood to be the primary aim of and justification for sexual activity. The unitive aspect of sexual love, therefore, is a blessed and joyful corollary to procreation. It is a gift for which we can rejoice and give thanks. It is so, however, only inasmuch as it derives from the more fundamental purpose of Christian marriage, which is to participate directly in God's creative work through the bearing and raising of children.

Premarital and extramarital (adulterous) sexual relations violate the covenantal commitment that marriage is intended to establish. Apart from violent criminal activities such as rape and incest, premarital sex takes the two forms of casual encounters between acquaintances, and deeper, more committed relations between two people who plan to marry. In the former instance the sole purpose of engaging in sex is for pleasure-for fun or gratification-with the focus on the self and one's own needs and desires. Because it is void of personal commitment, and therefore of personal responsibility, it amounts to exploitation of another person, even when the desire is mutual. Therefore it can only be considered, in Catholic parlance, a "moral evil." To the mind of the Church, in other words, sex without commitment is sin.

The case of two intended spouses who engage in sexual relations is more difficult to address. This is not because the Church's attitude toward it is ambivalent, but because there is such a high incidence in contemporary society of unmarried couples "living together," whether or not they consider the arrangement to be a trial marriage. In the wake of this phenomenon, an engaged couple very understandably want to express their love and their commitment sexually. Why should they be obliged to wait, especially if financial or other considerations do not permit to be married immediately? Why can they share virtually everything as an engaged couple, but may not enjoy the pleasures of sex, particularly in this day and age when contraception is so easy and effective?

The question answers itself. There where openness to procreation is systematically rejected, sexuality cannot fulfill its God-given purpose. The same is true within a marriage where the couple refuses to have any children at all. We are not talking about situations where a couple may delay child bearing for a certain period of time, or even where, following the birth of several children, the parents may decide to use contraception indefinitely in order to hold their family to a manageable size. It is where procreation is rejected in principle, whether within or outside the conjugal union, that the true purpose of sexuality is frustrated. By its very nature that rejection is sinful. Its intentionality makes of it a moral and not merely an "ontic" evil.

With regard to intended spouses, there is a basic theological issue that needs to be addressed. In 1 Corinthians 7, St. Paul advises couples who cannot assume the struggle of abstinence to marry, "since it is better to marry than to burn [with lust]." The reluctant tone of this concession can only be understood in light of the apostle's conviction that the parousia, the second coming of Christ in glory, is at hand. Thus it is better for everyone to remain in his or her present state, whether married or single, slave or free. Today, tragically, we have all but lost that eschatological hope. Consequently, the period of engagement can seem intolerably burdensome when it is accompanied by a decision on the couple's part to abstain from sexual relations.

Nevertheless, the whole of Christian existence, including sexuality, needs to be held in this eschatological perspective. This is why St. Paul links his various admonitions concerning sexual purity-the rejection of fornication, adultery, homosexuality and all else implied by porneia-with the appeal to assume the new life in Christ and in the Spirit.

Let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness (koitas kai aselgeiais, referring to sexual depravity), not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires (or lust, epithymias). (Rom 13:13-14)

But I say, walk by the Spirit and do not gratify the desires (epithymian) of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh... Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication (porneia), impurity (akatharsia), licentiousness (aselgeia)... (Gal 5:16-19)

Within this eschatological framework, marriage has theological import as a witness to the new creation wrought by Christ and sustained by the Holy Spirit. There can be only one answer to the question, "Why wait until marriage to enjoy sexual relations?" It is because sexuality is the way in which the sacramental, covenantal bond of "one flesh" is constituted. It is the unique sign of that bond and the unique mode by which it is sealed, just as eucharistic celebration is the sign and primary expression of priesthood. As a sacrament of the Church, marriage must be publicly and communally performed. It must be celebrated as a witness to the grace bestowed both on the couple and on the community of faith. For the sacrament of marriage, like that of priesthood, initiates committed persons into a life of loving commitment and sacrificial service; and it does so both in and for the life and ministry of the Church as a whole.

Contractual language, typical of Western wedding services, has done a great deal to obscure the essentially sacramental character of marriage. It has also turned attention away from the covenantal dimension of the conjugal vocation. As sacrament and covenant, marriage must be realized by means of the Church's liturgical ritual, since it is through the service itself that the couple's mutual commitment is publicly expressed and their union is sealed by the blessing of God.

This blessing alone creates a true marital union, which provides the only context in which genital sexuality can be exercised in accordance with the will of God. Unmarried people who engage in sexual relations are analogous to our children who delight in "playing priest." The children can read through the service book, perform every gesture, and consume bread and wine. Yet they are not priests and their game is not a sacrament, since they are not ordained and the ecclesial dimension is missing. For the priestly ministry to be not just "valid" but real, the Church must receive and sanction the one called to be ordained, and provide the sacramental context within which God has chosen to bestow his saving grace. The same is true for those called to a life of conjugal union. Apart from that context and that sacramental blessing, there is neither priesthood nor marriage. There is at best play-acting, and at worst, blasphemy.

The parallel often drawn between sexual intercourse and eucharistic celebration is neither overly romantic nor frivolous. Both actions presuppose sacramental consecration and culminate in consummation, which achieves communion with the beloved. In addition, both actions are predicated on sacrifice which seals the covenant relationship: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ made accessible in the Eucharist, and the sacrifice of the couple, symbolized by the nuptial crowns, as they offer themselves in loving service to each other and to God. Just as one can not authentically participate in Holy Communion without being baptized, and the priest can not celebrate a true Liturgy without being ordained, so a couple can not enjoy the grace God offers through sexual union unless their relationship is blessed by him in the way prescribed and traditionally practiced by the Church. Their love may be deep and their commitment to one another genuine. But without the grace conferred through the sacrament of marriage, there can be no true communion between the two. Their sexual relations simply feed "the desires and pleasures of the flesh," and they are unable to attain to the eternal communion and ineffable joy of divinely bestowed, self-transcending girds that unites them with God as well as with one another.

If the priest must be ordained, thereby receiving the "grace divine" to accomplish his ministry, a man and a woman who desire to live as "one flesh" must be married in order to fulfill their specific calling. Otherwise they live a lie, in which pregnancy is a regrettable accident and the divinely inspired commitment that works out mutual salvation is non-existent. It is only within the context of a blessed conjugal union, then, that sexuality itself can be blessed as a primary means of fulfilling God's will for the life and salvation of the couple.

How, then, are young people to deal with the normal tensions associated with adolescent sexuality? This is an especially difficult question, since marriage is so often delayed today until the couple has reached their late twenties or early thirties. On the other hand, the capacity to procreate, like the sexual drive itself, exists from puberty. This raises the question concerning acceptable expressions of sexuality while dating or during the period of engagement.

Certain cultures attempt to avoid the problem by prohibiting dating and imposing "arranged marriages." Depending on the cultural ethos, this can be more or less successful. Some Orthodox Christians in the United States, understandably troubled by sexual pressures and promiscuity, have also attempted to keep their children from "getting mixed up in the dating game." Occasionally, this too has had a positive outcome. The danger, though, is that it may isolate the young people from their peers and from the culture as a whole. Rather than prohibiting dating altogether or attempting to control its every aspect by adult supervision, a more effective approach would be to teach our children from childhood the real meaning of sexuality, while inculcating in them a sense of respect and responsibility in all their personal relationships. In any case, attempts by adults to control their teenagers' dating habits and sexual behavior-as opposed to directing and guiding them-are doomed to failure, except in the rare cases where the children really want such control. The motivation for responsible conduct needs to come from within the young person. It cannot be artificially imposed by others, including parents, without creating resentment and alienation.

One of the most difficult decisions a dating or engaged couple needs to make is "where to draw the line?" When young people begin to think about the question, they usually have a number of specific behaviors in mind that can extend from holding hands, through kissing and petting, to intercourse. Their concern might be to determine in advance just what level of sexual involvement they will allow themselves. In light of what we have said about the nature and purpose of sexuality, however, this is a very inadequate approach. In the first place, precise limits can rarely be established beforehand, other than to determine certain "off limits." The couple, for example, may decide that they do not want to engage in intercourse, and that sexual play that causes arousal should therefore be avoided. Emotions tend to be so volatile, though, that very quickly the passions dominate reason, and the proposed boundary is crossed. This simply "ups the ante" until one of the two persuades the other to stop, or else capitulates to internal desires and external pressures. It is in just such circumstances that there occurs the all-too-frequent abuse-and crime-known as "date rape."'

It sounds quaint today, but the only moral guideline that conforms to the Church's teaching on premarital sexuality is that of abstinence. Virginity possesses an emotional and spiritual value that has always been recognized and treasured among Christians, as among Jews and others of strong religious commitment. Many young people today, it seems, are rediscovering that value. Their struggle definitely needs to be acknowledged and supported by the parish as well as by their families. (Unfortunately, with few exceptions the public schools cannot be expected to offer any encouragement or assistance in this area. It is easier to distribute condoms than to deal with the moral and psychological issues that arise over adolescent fascination with sex. In any case, concerned teachers are confronting the awesome fact that well over half of all boys and girls in this country have engaged in intercourse by the time they are eighteen.)

The only hope, then, for helping our children to preserve their virginity, or even to protect themselves effectively against AIDS, is to encourage them to abstain from sexual relations until they marry. This kind of encouragement can be reasonably effective when it takes the form of educational programs sponsored by the parish community, programs for which the priest is ultimately responsible. Such programs should involve parents to the fullest extent possible, by teaching them the deeper meaning of sexuality and urging them to transmit that teaching to their children, beginning in the earliest school years.

Part of that training will include sensitizing young people to the importance of redirecting sexual energy from the self to others and particularly to God. Transforming the erotic into eros is not simply a monastic exercise. It involves the proper use of sexuality by every Christian, man or woman, married or single. Therefore, a rule of thumb both for dating and for the period of engagement would be to refrain from activity that might produce a level of sexual arousal that can lead to orgasm. As two people come to know, enjoy and cherish each other, it is quite natural that they move from timid gestures of affection to kissing and caressing. They should always keep in mind, however, that the "natural" is fallen, and-particularly in the realm of sexuality-it is constantly open to the demonic. Rationalization, or "rationalized" passions, can very easily lead from one degree of intimacy to another, until the best of intentions are left in the dust and the couple has given in to fornication. As many young people admit in confession: when this happens, they feel dirty and cheapened, not because of the sex itself, but because an ideal has been shattered and, all too often, someone has been irreparably hurt. Needless to say, pastoral sensitivity at such moments is indispensable. It should include firmness, but it should also convey forgiveness and compassion.

It is all but impossible to impose limits-concrete answers to the question, "Where do we draw the line?"-simply because it is so difficult to observe those limits when they appear to be legalistic and arbitrary. Rather than urge our young people to draw a line and swear they won't cross it, another approach would be more fruitful. That is to encourage them, from preadolescence onward, to think and talk about the meaning of their life as children of God, as bearers of his image, and as persons whose only true value and meaning come from faithfulness to God and responsible stewardship offered in his Name to other people. It is within this framework that sexuality can be approached, frankly and openly, with full respect for its power as well as for its beauty and creative potential.

Adultery.

These conclusions regarding premarital sexual relations hold a fortiori for extra-marital relations, which constitute adultery. The term "adultery" generally refers to sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner of the opposite sex who is not his or her spouse. The concept needs to be broadened, however, to include any genital sexuality shared with someone other than one's marriage partner, including homosexual relations. A married man, for example, who engages in homosexuality is no less an adulterer than one who has sex with a woman other than his wife.

Scripture is unambiguous about the matter of adultery, from the seventh commandment to Jesus' own teachings. One of the great "antitheses" of the Sermon on the Mount makes the point that sexual lust involves the mind and heart as much as it does the flesh.

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery' [Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18]. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Mt 5:27-28)

This is in essence a call to refrain from idolatry. By its very nature lust is obsessive. It focuses the attention in an unhealthy (today we would say "dysfunctional") way on a person who is thereby reduced to an object. The obsessive or compulsive element creates an "idol" of that object. Like every idol, it is unreal, the imaginary product of fantasizing. Yet its hold on the mind and heart is such that it turns both from the true God and his unique claim on human life and thought (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-5).

Lust that leads to adultery violates to the core the covenantal bond created between spouses by the sacrament of marriage. Therefore Jesus follows his word about adulterous lust with the rigorous advice that it is better to "cut off" an offending member than to have the whole body go into Gehenna or hell (Mt 5:29-30). The conjugal bond can only endure if it is built on trust, commitment and faithfulness. Because adultery so thoroughly undermines those values, Jesus (according to Matthew's tradition) allows the famous "exception" to his absolute prohibition of divorce: "I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (porneia), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (5:31; 19:9).

Whether porneia in this context is to be understood as referring explicitly to adultery, or whether it signifies a broad range of sexual offenses, the point is clear. When it is misused-that is, exercised apart from the conjugal union itself-sexual activity destroys the intimate bond of trust, commitment and faithfulness that is the sine qua non of marriage. It irreparably violates the covenant relationship between spouses and alienates the offender from God. And it does so because God is the ultimate source and end of that relationship. Therefore the Lord of the Old Covenant condemns idolatry as a form of adultery, just as Jesus condemns adultery as the ultimate rejection of God's purpose in making of man and woman "one flesh" (cf. Mk 10:4-9).

The canons of the Church often prescribe periods of excommunication for adultery, both as punishment and as a way of leading the penitent to become cognizant of the gravity of the act. The Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314), for example, prescribes a penalty of seven years' penance for the adulterous husband or wife. Even living with an adulterous wife is sufficient to bar a layman from the priesthood and to cause a cleric to be deposed. For his part, St. Basil includes adulterers with murderers and sodomites (homosexuals), and proposes for them a similar punishment. His Canon 58 (Third Canonical Epistle) stipulates, "The adulterer shall be four years a mourner, five a hearer, four a prostrator, two a co-stander," before being allowed to receive Holy Communion.

The lure of extramarital sex is especially strong where there is loneliness and frustration, particularly in connection with the "midlife crisis." Apart from divorced and separated men, the typical client of a prostitute is a middle-aged white male who is "happily married" and reasonably affluent. If he pays for sex, it is usually to compensate for the perception that his wife can no longer satisfy his desires, or that his career has become either unbearably humdrum or dog-eat-dog. The clergy, of course, are not immune to these feelings and disappointments. Insofar as they allow themselves to fall into fornication, particularly with a married woman, they undermine the trust of the souls for whom they are responsible, and thereby they betray their very vocation. Therefore Apostolic Canon 25 declares: "If a bishop, presbyter or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed." And the first canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea (early fourth century) states flatly, "If a presbyter marries, let him be removed from his order; but if he commits fornication or adultery, let him be altogether cast out [excommunicated] and put under penance." There is something particularly heinous about members of the clergy destroying marital relationships by committing adultery, and the canons reflect that fact.

What of the pastoral issue involved? Does this mean that a woman who comes to her priest with the claim that her husband has committed adultery should be encouraged to seek a divorce? Does it mean that any sexual misconduct (porneia) on the part of one of the spouses irretrievably destroys the covenant bond between them?

On the scale of moral values, adultery is obviously more serious than premarital sexual activity, precisely because it violates an existing marital covenant: the bond of love, trust and commitment between two persons. Nevertheless, neither premarital nor extramarital sex amounts to an unforgivable sin. In the case of adultery, a couple is left with only one means for reconciliation: repentance on the part of the offender, with forgiveness offered by the spouse. There may be no other situation that challenges the emotional and spiritual resources of a couple more than when one of them engages in an adulterous relationship. The offended spouse, wife or husband, tends to feel betrayed, rejected, humiliated and shamed. Those are powerful emotions that need to be faced, expressed and worked through-often with appropriate third-party counseling-if healing is to occur.

But adultery, like any other sin, concerns not only the persons most immediately involved. It also concerns the Church community. We are "members one of another," bound together in a Body, of which Christ is the Head. We have a responsibility toward each member, to bring about reconciliation and peace whenever possible. To preserve confidentiality, the priest may have to represent the parish community by himself, as he tries to move the couple toward reconciliation and healing. But all those who are aware of the situation-the spouse and friends, as well as the priest-can and should participate in that process by means of unceasing prayer offered on behalf of everyone concerned.

In cases of sexual misconduct, it is crucial that the priest, and any others who are aware of the circumstances, preserve confidentiality to the fullest extent possible, particularly when it involves a penitent's confession. There are rare cases, nevertheless, which may require that confidentiality be broken, primarily those that involve pedophilia, incest or rape. Whether the priest is obliged to divulge his knowledge to legal authorities, or to confront the perpetrator while he comforts the victim and his or her family, he must take every precaution to preserve confessional confidentiality. Apart from situations where the confessed sin places other lives in jeopardy-as with pedophilia, serial rape or intended homicide-that confidentiality must remain absolute. (Fr. John of Kronstadt and other holy priests may have elicited healthy public confessions, but such exceptions are extremely rare, and in today's psychological climate, practically nonexistent. Besides, in such cases the penitent voluntarily confesses within the church body; the priest does not divulge what was spoken to him in secret.) The priest may find that he has to deal with the matter alone. If counseling seems necessary, then he should be prepared to make appropriate referrals. It may also be possible for him to network with others within or outside the parish who know the couple and can be trusted to provide sensitive and confidential support. In any case, the aim should be to seek genuine repentance on the part of the offending spouse and to elicit willing forgiveness from the marriage partner. Insofar as the third party is accessible and open to such a process, the priest is to offer him or her appropriate pastoral care as well.

Although the priest's main concern may be with the offender (particularly if the offender is a friend or another priest), he needs to be especially sensitive to the needs and feelings of the injured party. Too often the temptation is to recuperate the offender while neglecting the spouse, to bring back the prodigal while ignoring the older brother. Both of them require pastoral care, one no less than the other. And the issue is all the more complex, demanding all the more pastoral discernment and sensitivity, when the third party is also a member of the parish community. Priority should be given to preserving and strengthening the family unit as a whole, especially when it includes children. Usually that means the priest must encourage the adulterous spouse to "share the secret" with the other-to open the wound so that it can be treated-and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that he or she receives healing through repentance and appropriate counseling.

In addition to pastoral counseling once the offense has occurred, the priest should make clear the Church's traditional stance regarding sexuality in general and sexual sins in particular, through his sermons and other teaching opportunities. It is important, however, to avoid moralizing by emphasizing the theological and spiritual values that sexuality properly embodies. This will include a focus on the importance of askesis or ascetic struggle in the life of faith. The objective, after all, is not merely to avoid committing sexual sins. It is to engage in the spiritual warfare that leads to transfigured life.

The struggle against lustful thoughts, like that against sexual "acting out," has to be understood as a profoundly spiritual one. If Jesus and the Scriptures in general condemn sexual misconduct so vehemently, it is because of its potential to destroy human relationships and to reduce the person to a caricature of authentic humanity. Sexuality, once again, must be held in an eschatological perspective. For ultimately, sexual morality is only justified-in our overcharged sexual atmosphere it only makes sense-insofar as it charts the pathway that leads through covenant fidelity toward the Kingdom of God."

Pornography.

From this perspective it is clear where the Church stands on the question of pornography. The phenomenon is big business in the United States, and efforts to control it as detrimental to the public welfare have had little success. Part of the problem is that it is so difficult to define. Sexual imagery reflects different values in different cultures. The French, for example, are quite accepting of partial or even total nudity on television and on their beaches; but most would be offended by the cheap salaciousness-sexual gags and innuendo-that is standard fare on American prime time. Nevertheless, there are certain universal intuitions about the subject ("we know it when we see it") that enable us to make some distinctions and suggest some guidelines.

The first distinction is between "hard-core" and "soft-core" pornography. The former, including sadomasochistic images and "kiddie-porn," amounts to exploitation and abuse of the worst kind. Because it is inherently destructive, every effort should be made by concerned parents, educators and the public in general to eradicate it altogether. This includes boycotting and, where possible, bringing legal action against the perpetrators, as well as those who profit from their activities. Hard-core porn is a scourge that no civilized society should tolerate. Its widespread presence and enormous economic influence in this country tend unfortunately to confirm Georges Clemenceau's mordant observation, that the United States is the only nation in history to go from barbarity to decadence without passing through a period of civilization....

For a quick review of the prevalence and impact of hard-core pornography on the American ethos, it is enough to glance through the February 10, 1997, issue of U.S. News & World Report. Against the image of a popular porn film star, the cover announces that "America is by far the world's leading producer of porn, churning out hard-core videos at the astonishing rate of about 150 new titles per week." The cover story offers statistics: "A well-run strip club makes $5 million a year"; "Top porn stars earn $20,000 a week dancing"; "Some $8 billion was spent on porn last year"; the number of hard-core-video rentals rose from 75 million in 1985 to 665 million in 1996, at a cost of over $8 billion; "dial-a-porn" is called up nearly 200 million times each year; and so forth. The report begins by featuring the top porn-film producer in the country, whose company, appropriately enough, is named "Evil Angel Videos." Its basic point is that the industry has reduced women to dehumanized objects of other people's obsessive desires. It is a remarkable chronicle of depravity that most readers, presumably, scanned with a smile and a shrug. And the exploitation goes on relentlessly.

Soft-core pornography is so rampant that we hardly recognize its presence anymore. From the rather benign Victoria's Secret catalogs to the more explicit sex magazines and videos, soft-core porn fills our homes and workplaces as well as our schools. Here, too, there is a problem of definition. Is explicit intercourse in an "R" rated shower scene "hard" core or "soft"? And does it really matter? The question is, what are the effects of the medias saturation and the public's obsession with sex? What becomes of the minds and sensibilities of those who watch soap operas every day, or sex-oriented talk shows? What is the impression made on our children when sex and violence are systematically linked in their Saturday morning cartoons?

According to most researchers, there is still no conclusive evidence that pornography leads to an increase in sex crimes. Yet its prevalence in the homes of those who perpetrate rape, child abuse and other violent sexual acts gives strong support to the theory that it stimulates and reinforces deviant behavior. What is beyond doubt is the fact that pornography violates and degrades those it depicts, whether men, women or children. It detaches the most intimate human behavior from any sense of love, faithfulness or responsibility, and it objectifies and cheapens sex by focusing on an image-a fantasy-that by definition has no substance, no reality. (Those sex manuals that encourage the couple to fantasize that their partner is a more alluring someone else are doing nothing other than inciting to adultery.) Thereby it degrades and depersonalizes sexuality in a way that can only be described as abusive. Given this influence, it is difficult to see how reasonable, morally healthy people can claim that pornography, particularly hard-core, should be protected under the First Amendment.

The German atheistic philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach declared, "Man ist was man isst!": "We are what we eat!" Fr. Alexander Schmemann turned this phrase brilliantly, demonstrating that our true purpose in life is to consume the Holy Eucharist and thereby to "become eucharistic." Iconography exists in the Church precisely to feed the mind and soul with heavenly food, the food of purity, blessedness and sanctity. Pornography is demonic iconography. It infests the mind with corrupt images that produce corruption in the depths of the soul. Pornography is addictive. Those who rely on it whether to relieve tension and anxiety, or to increase a self-induced sexual "high"-inevitably need to increase the dosage to maintain the same effect. Finally, pornography is abusive. As an industry it exploits and manipulates those who depend on it for their livelihood, and it leads to th