Psychology: between practical benefit and spiritual harm. The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the main world religions

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

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

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

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

Is intimacy in marriage important to a Christian or not?
- Intimate relationships are one of the aspects of married life. We know that the Lord established marriage between a man and a woman in order to overcome the division between people, so that the spouses would learn, by working on themselves, to achieve unity in the image of the Holy Trinity, as St. John Chrysostom. And, in fact, everything that accompanies family life: intimate relationships, joint upbringing of children, housekeeping, just communication with each other, etc. are all means to help a married couple achieve the degree of unity available to their condition. Consequently, intimate relationships occupy one of the important places in married life. It is not a center of coexistence, but at the same time, it is not a thing that is not needed.

On what days are Orthodox Christians not allowed to have intimacy?
- The Apostle Paul said: "Do not move away from each other, except by agreement for the exercise in fasting and prayer." It is customary for Orthodox Christians to refrain from marital intimacy during fasting days, as well as on Christian holidays, which are days of intense prayer. If anyone is interested, take the Orthodox calendar and find the days where it is indicated when the marriage is not performed. As a rule, during these same times, Orthodox Christians are advised to abstain from marital relations.
- And what about abstinence on Wednesday, Friday, Sunday?
- Yes, on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday or major holidays and until the evening of this day, you need to abstain. That is, from Sunday evening to Monday - please. After all, if we marry some couples on Sunday, it is understood that in the evening the newlyweds will be close.

- Orthodox enter into marital intimacy only for the purpose of having a child or for satisfaction?
Orthodox Christians enter into marital intimacy out of love. In order to take advantage of these relationships, again, to strengthen the unity between husband and wife. Because childbearing is only one of the means in marriage, but not its ultimate goal. If in the Old Testament the main purpose of marriage was childbearing, then in the New Testament the priority task of the family becomes likening the Holy Trinity. It is no coincidence that, according to St. John Chrysostom, the family is called a small church. Just as the Church, having Christ as its head, unites all its members into one body, so the Christian family, which also has Christ as its head, should promote unity between husband and wife. And if God does not give children to any couples, then this is not a reason to refuse marital relations. Although, if the spouses have reached a certain measure of spiritual maturity, then as an exercise in abstinence, they can move away from each other, but only by mutual agreement and with the blessing of the confessor, that is, a priest who knows these people well. Because it is unreasonable to take on such feats on your own, not knowing your own spiritual state.

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

- So, the church does not call for married couples to be sure to have large families?
— The Church calls married couples to be God-like. And having many children or having few children - it already depends on God. Who can accommodate what - yes it accommodates. Thank God if the family is able to raise many children, but for some people this can be an unbearable cross. That is why the fundamentals of the ROC's social concept approach this issue very delicately. Speaking, on the one hand, about the ideal, i.e. so that the spouses completely rely on the will of God: as many children the Lord gives, so many will give. On the other hand, there is a reservation: those who have not reached such a spiritual level should, in the spirit of love and benevolence, consult with the confessor about the issues of their lives.

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

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

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

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

— I have a friend, he has a large family. It was very difficult for him as a man to abstain for nine months. After all, it is not useful for a pregnant woman, probably, even to caress her own husband, since this still affects the fetus. What is a man to do?
I'm talking about the ideal here. And whoever has some infirmities - there is a confessor. A pregnant wife is not a reason to have a mistress.

- If possible, let's return to the question of perversions. Where is the line that a believer cannot cross? For example, I read that spiritually, oral sex is generally not welcome, right?
- He is condemned as well as sodomy with his wife. Masturbation is also condemned. And what is within the boundaries of the natural is possible.

- Now petting is in fashion among young people, that is, masturbation, as you said, is this a sin?
“Of course it's a sin.

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

Is it possible for a husband and wife to caress during fasting?
Is it possible to smell sausage during fasting? Question of the same order.

- Is erotic massage harmful to the soul of an Orthodox?
- I think if I come to the sauna and a dozen girls give me erotic massage, then my spiritual life in this case will be thrown very, very far away.

- And if from a medical point of view, the doctor prescribed?
- I can explain it any way I want. But what is permissible with a husband and wife is not permissible with strangers.

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

— I know one believing couple. They have such circumstances that when they meet after a long separation, they can do this several times a day. Is this normal from a spiritual point of view? How do you think?
“Maybe it’s okay for them. I don't know these people. There is no strict rule. A person himself must understand what is in what place for him.

— Is the problem of sexual incompatibility important for Christian marriage?
- I think the problem of psychological incompatibility is still important. Any other incompatibility is born precisely because of this. It is clear that a husband and wife can achieve some kind of unity only if they are similar to each other. Initially, different people enter into marriage. It is not the husband who is to be likened to his wife, and not the wife to her husband. And both husband and wife should try to become like Christ. Only in this case will incompatibility, both sexual and any other, be overcome. However, all these problems, questions of this plan arise in the secular, secularized consciousness, which does not even consider the spiritual side of life. That is, no attempts are made to solve family problems by following Christ, by working on oneself, by correcting one's life in the spirit of the Gospel. There is no such option in secular psychology. This is where all the other attempts to solve this problem come from.

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

- Is it permissible to be naked in a room where there are icons?
- In this regard, there is a good anecdote among Catholic monks, when one leaves the Pope sad, and the second - cheerful. One of the other asks: "Why are you so sad?". “Yes, I went to the Pope and asked: can I smoke when you pray? He replied: no, you can't. “Why are you so funny?” “And I asked: is it possible to pray when you smoke? He said: you can.

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

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

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

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

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

—Recently, I read from Elder Paisios the Holy Mountaineer that if one of the spouses is spiritually stronger, then the strong must yield to the weak. Yes?
- Of course. "Lest Satan tempt you because of your intemperance." Because if the wife strictly fasts, and the husband becomes unbearable to such an extent that he takes a mistress, the latter will be bitterer than the former.

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

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

- Doctors write that it is much more difficult for a woman to abstain than for a man. They even say it's bad for her health. And the elder Paisios Svyatogorets wrote that because of this, ladies develop “nervousness” and so on.
– I doubt it, because there are quite a large number of holy wives, nuns, ascetics, etc., who practiced abstinence, virginity and, nevertheless, were filled with love for their neighbors, and by no means with malice.

- Isn't it harmful for a woman's physical health?
“They also lived for quite a long time. Unfortunately, I am not ready to approach this issue with numbers in hand, but there is no such dependence.

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

- Is it possible to have intimacy with the bride and groom if they have already submitted an application to the registry office, but have not yet been officially scheduled?
- As they filed an application, they can pick it up. Still, the marriage is considered concluded at the time of registration.

- And if, say, the wedding is in 3 days? I know many people who have fallen for this trap. A common phenomenon - a person relaxes: well, what is there, after 3 days the wedding ...
- Well, in three days Easter, let's celebrate. Or on Maundy Thursday I bake Easter cake, let me eat it, it’s still Easter in three days! .. Easter will come, it won’t go anywhere ...

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

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

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

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

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

Are sexual relationships dirty or clean from a spiritual point of view?
“It all depends on the relationship itself. That is, the husband and wife can make them clean or dirty. It all depends on the internal arrangement of the spouses. Intimacy itself is neutral.

— Just like money is neutral, right?
— If money is a human invention, then these relationships are established by God. The Lord created such people, Who did not create anything unclean, sinful. So, in the beginning, ideally, the sexual relationship is pure. And a person is able to defile them and quite often does it.

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

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

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

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

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

- Indeed, when a person takes everything into his own hands, problems begin ... I would like to end with a major chord. What can you wish, Father Demetrius, to our readers?

- Do not lose love, which is so little in our world.

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

Bishop of Vienna and Austria Hilarion (Alfeev).

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

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

History knows sects (Montanism, Manichaeism, etc.) that rejected marriage as supposedly contrary to the ascetic ideals of Christianity. Even in our time, one sometimes hears the opinion that Christianity abhors marriage and "permits" the marriage union of a man and a woman only out of "condescension to the infirmities of the flesh." How untrue this is, one can judge at least from the following statements of the Hieromartyr Methodius of Patara (4th century), who in his treatise on virginity, gives the theological justification for childbearing as a consequence of marriage and, in general, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman: “... It is necessary that a person ... acted in the image of God ... for it is said: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). And we should not disdain the definition of the Creator, as a result of which we ourselves began to exist. The beginning of the birth of people is the casting of the seed into the bowels of the female womb, so that bone from bone and flesh from flesh, having been perceived by an invisible force, were again formed into another person by the same Artist ... This may be indicated by a sleepy frenzy directed at the primordial ( cf. Gen. 2:21), prefiguring the pleasure of a husband in communication (with his wife), when he, in a thirst for procreation, goes into a frenzy (ekstasis - “ecstasy”), relaxing with the hypnotic pleasures of procreation, so that something that is torn away from his bones and flesh, again formed ... into another person ... Therefore, it is rightly said that a person leaves his father and mother, as suddenly forgetting everything at a time when, having united with his wife in the embrace of love, he becomes a participant in fruitfulness, leaving the Divine Creator to take a rib from him so that from son to become a father himself. So, if even now God forms man, is it not bold to turn away from childbearing, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to perform with His pure hands? As Saint Methodius further states, when men "throw the seed into the natural female passages," it becomes "participant in the divine creative power."

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

In marriage, a person is transformed, overcoming loneliness and isolation, expanding, replenishing and completing his personality. Archpriest John Meyendorff defines the essence of Christian marriage in this way: “A Christian is called—already in this world—to have the experience of a new life, to become a citizen of the Kingdom; and it is possible for him in marriage. In this way, marriage ceases to be just the satisfaction of temporary natural impulses… Marriage is a unique union of two beings in love, two beings who can transcend their own human nature and be united not only “with each other” but also “in Christ.” .

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

Attaching such exceptionally high importance to marriage, the Church has a negative attitude towards divorce, as well as a second or third marriage, unless the latter are caused by special circumstances, such as adultery by one or the other party. This attitude is based on the teachings of Christ, who did not recognize the Old Testament regulations regarding divorce (cf. Mt. 19:7-9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18), with one exception - divorce through "the fault of fornication" (Matthew 5:32). In the latter case, as well as in the event of the death of one of the spouses or in other exceptional cases, the Church blesses the second and third marriages.

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

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

The wedding itself takes place in the church, as a rule, after the Liturgy. During the sacrament, crowns are placed on those who are married, which are a symbol of the kingdom: each family is a small church. But the crown is also a symbol of martyrdom, because marriage is not only the joy of the first months after the wedding, but also the joint bearing of all subsequent sorrows and sufferings - that daily cross, the burden of which in marriage falls on two. In an age when the breakup of the family has become commonplace, and at the first difficulties and trials, the spouses are ready to betray each other and break their union, this laying on of martyrdom crowns serves as a reminder that marriage will only be lasting when it is not based on momentary and fleeting passion, but on the readiness to lay down one's life for another. And the family is a house built on a solid foundation, and not on sand, only if Christ Himself becomes its cornerstone. Suffering and the cross are also reminiscent of the troparion "Holy Martyr", which is sung during the triple circumambulation of the bride and groom around the lectern.

During the wedding, the gospel story about marriage in Cana of Galilee is read. This reading emphasizes the invisible presence of Christ in every Christian marriage and the blessing of God himself on the marriage union. In marriage, the miracle of the transfer of “water” must take place, i.e. everyday life on earth, into "wine" - an unceasing and daily holiday, a feast of the love of one person for another.

marital relationship

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

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

However, nowhere in the Gospel does it say about the abstinence of a husband and wife from intimacy during fasting?

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

It is reasonable to appeal to the centuries-old experience of being a church family, which is much stronger than a secular family. Nothing preserves the mutual desire of husband and wife for each other so much as the need at times to refrain from marital intimacy. And nothing kills like that, does not turn it into making love (it is no coincidence that this word arose by analogy with playing sports), as the absence of restrictions.

How hard is it for a family, especially a young one, to have this kind of abstinence?

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

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

For monastics, especially novice ones, sorrows, mostly spiritual, accompanying their feat, are associated with despondency, with despair, with doubts about whether they have chosen the right path. For the lonely in the world, this is a bewilderment about the need to accept the will of God: why are all my peers already rolling wheelchairs, and others are already raising their grandchildren, and I am all alone and alone or alone and alone? It is not so much carnal as spiritual sorrows. A person living a lonely worldly life, from a certain age, comes to the fact that his flesh subsides, dies, if he himself does not forcibly inflame it through reading and watching something indecent. And people living in marriage do have “sorrows according to the flesh.” If they are not ready for the inevitable abstinence, then they have a very difficult time. Therefore, many modern families break up while waiting for the first baby or immediately after his birth. After all, without going through a period of pure abstinence before marriage, when it was achieved exclusively by a voluntary feat, they do not know how to love each other temperately when this has to be done against their will. Like it or not, and the wife is not up to the desire of her husband during certain periods of pregnancy and the first months of raising a baby. It was then that he begins to look to the side, and she gets angry at him. And they do not know how to painlessly pass this period, because they did not take care of this before marriage. After all, it is clear that for a young man it is a certain kind of grief, a burden - to abstain next to his beloved, young, beautiful wife, the mother of his son or daughter. And in a sense, it is more difficult than monasticism. It is not at all easy to go through several months of abstinence from physical intimacy, but it is possible, and the apostle warns about this. Not only in the 20th century, but also to other contemporaries, many of whom were from pagans, family life, especially at its very beginning, was drawn as a kind of chain of solid amenities, although this is far from being the case.

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

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

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

This is not an easy situation, and, of course, it should be considered in relation to different states and even to different ages of people. It is true that not all newlyweds who get married before Shrovetide will be able to go through Great Lent in complete abstinence. All the more keep and all other multi-day posts. And if a young and ardent husband cannot cope with his bodily passion, then, of course, guided by the words of the Apostle Paul, it is better for the young wife to be with him than to give him the opportunity to "ignite". He or she who is more moderate, temperate, more able to cope with himself, will sometimes give up his own desire for purity in order, firstly, that the worst that occurs due to bodily passion does not enter the life of another spouse, firstly secondly, in order not to give rise to splits, divisions and thereby not to endanger family unity itself. But, however, he will remember that it is impossible to seek quick satisfaction in his own compliance, and in the depths of his soul rejoice at the inevitability of the current situation. There is an anecdote in which, frankly, far from chastity advice is given to a woman who is being abused: firstly, relax and, secondly, have fun. And in this case, it’s so easy to say: “What should I do if my husband (rarely wife) is so hot?” It's one thing when a woman goes to meet someone who cannot yet bear the burden of abstinence with faith, and another thing when, spreading her arms - well, if it doesn't work out otherwise - she herself does not lag behind her husband. Yielding to him, you need to be aware of the measure of responsibility assumed.

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

But, of course, there is a time and place for everything. If a husband and wife live together for ten, twenty years, go to church and nothing changes, then here a more conscious member of the family needs to persevere step by step, even to the point of demanding that even now, when they have lived to gray hair, children have been raised, soon grandchildren will appear, some measure of abstinence to bring to God. After all, we will bring to the Kingdom of Heaven that which unites us. However, it will not be carnal intimacy that will unite us there, for we know from the Gospel that “when they rise from the dead, then they will neither marry nor give in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), otherwise that managed to grow during family life. Yes, first - with props, which is bodily intimacy, opening people to each other, making them closer, helping to forget some grievances. But over time, these props, necessary when the building of marital relations is built, must fall away without becoming scaffolding, because of which the building itself is not visible and on which everything rests, so that if they are removed, it will fall apart.

What exactly does the church canon say about when spouses should refrain from physical intimacy, and at what time not?

There are some ideal requirements of the Church Charter, which should define the specific path that each Christian family faces in order to fulfill them informally. The Charter presupposes abstinence from marital intimacy on the eve of Sunday (that is, Saturday evening), on the eve of the triumph of the twelfth feast and Lenten Wednesday and Friday (that is, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening), as well as during many days of fasting and fasting days - preparation for the reception of the Saints of Christ Mystery. This is the ideal norm. But in each specific case, the husband and wife must be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, for exercise in fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, I said this as a permission, and not as a command” (1 Kor. 7, 5-6). This means that the family must grow to the day when the measure of abstinence taken by the spouses from bodily intimacy will in no way harm and reduce their love, and when all the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without props of physicality. And it is precisely this integrity of spiritual unity that can be continued in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, from the earthly life of a person, that which is involved in eternity will be continued. It is clear that in the relationship of husband and wife, it is not carnal intimacy that is involved in eternity, but that which it serves as an aid to. In a secular, worldly family, as a rule, there is a catastrophic change of orientation, which cannot be allowed in a church family, when these props become the cornerstone.

The path to such an increase must be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps. Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year of their life together, can be told that they must go through the entire Nativity fast in abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this in harmony and moderation will reveal a profound measure of spiritual wisdom. And on the one who is not yet ready, it would be imprudent to place burdens unbearable on the part of a more temperate and moderate spouse. But after all, family life is given to us in a temporary extension, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although a certain measure of abstinence from each other "for the exercise in fasting and prayer," the family must have from the very beginning. For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, a husband and wife turn away from marital intimacy, not out of fatigue or busyness, but for the sake of more and higher in communion with God and with each other. And Great Lent should, from the very beginning of marriage, except for some very special situations, strive to pass in abstinence, as the most crucial period of church life. Even in legal marriage, carnal relations at this time leave an unkind, sinful aftertaste and do not bring the joy that should be from marital intimacy, and in everything else detract from the very passage of the field of fasting. In any case, such restrictions should be in place from the first days of married life, and then they must be expanded as the family matures and grows.

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

Probably, when answering this question, it is more reasonable to first talk about some principles and general premises, and then rely on some canonical texts. Of course, by consecrating marriage with the Sacrament of the wedding, the Church sanctifies the whole union of a man and a woman - both spiritual and bodily. And there is no hypocritical intention, dismissive of the bodily component of the marital union, in a sober church worldview. This kind of neglect, belittling precisely the physical side of marriage, reducing it to the level of what is only allowed, but which, by and large, should be shunned, is characteristic of the sectarian, schismatic or extra-church consciousness, and if it is ecclesiastical, then only painful. This needs to be very clearly defined and understood. As early as the 4th-6th centuries, the decrees of church councils said that one of the spouses who avoids bodily intimacy with the other because of the abhorrence of marriage is subject to excommunication from Communion, but if this is not a layman, but a cleric, then deposition from the dignity. That is, the disdain of the fullness of marriage, even in the canons of the church, is unequivocally defined as improper. In addition, the same canons say that if someone refuses to recognize the validity of the Sacraments performed by a married clergyman, then such a person is also subject to the same punishments and, accordingly, excommunication from receiving the Holy Mysteries of Christ, if he is a layman, or deprivation of dignity, if he is a cleric. . This is how high the church consciousness, embodied in the canons included in the canonical code, according to which believers must live, places the bodily side of Christian marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

This analogy can be extended to marital relations. What is a natural continuation of life is good, and there is nothing bad or impure in it. And what leads to the search for more and more pleasures, one more, another, third, tenth point in order to squeeze out some additional sensory reactions from your body - this, of course, is improper and sinful and that cannot be included in the life of an Orthodox family.

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

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

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

It is not customary to speak openly about certain functions of the reproductive organs, unlike other physiological functions of the human body, such as food, sleep, and so on. This area of ​​life is especially vulnerable, many mental disorders are associated with it. Is this due to original sin after the fall? If yes, then why, because original sin was not prodigal, but was a sin of disobedience to the Creator?

Yes, of course, original sin mainly consisted in disobedience and violation of God's commandment, as well as in impenitence and impenitence. And this totality of disobedience and impenitence led to the falling away of the first people from God, the impossibility of their further stay in paradise and all those consequences of the fall that entered human nature and which in the Holy Scripture are symbolically referred to as putting on “leather robes” (Gen. 3, 21 ). The Holy Fathers interpret this as the acquisition by human nature of stoutness, that is, bodily flesh, the loss of many of the original properties that were given to man. Sickness, fatigue, and many other things entered not only into our spiritual, but also into our bodily composition in connection with the fall. In this sense, the physical organs of a person, including organs associated with childbearing, have become open to diseases. But the principle of modesty, the concealment of the chaste, namely the chaste, and not the hypocritically puritanical silence about the sexual sphere, first of all comes from the deep reverence of the Church for man as before the image and likeness of God. Just like not showing off what is most vulnerable and what most deeply binds two people, which makes them one flesh in the Sacrament of marriage, and gives rise to another, immeasurably sublime connection and therefore is the object of constant enmity, intrigues, distortion on the part of the evil one. . The enemy of the human race, in particular, fights against that which, being pure and beautiful in itself, is so significant and so important for the inner correct being of a person. Understanding all the responsibility and gravity of this struggle that a person is waging, the Church helps him through keeping modesty, silence about what should not be spoken about publicly and what is so easy to distort and so difficult to return, because it is infinitely difficult to turn acquired shamelessness into chastity. Lost chastity and other knowledge about oneself, with all the desire, cannot be turned into ignorance. Therefore, the Church, through the secrecy of this kind of knowledge and the inviolability of it to the soul of a person, seeks to make him uninvolved in the multitude of crafty contrived perversions and distortions of what is so majestic and well-organized by our Savior in nature. Let us listen to this wisdom of the two-thousand-year existence of the Church. And no matter what culturologists, sexologists, gynecologists, all kinds of pathologists and other Freudians tell us, their name is legion, let us remember that they tell lies about a person, not seeing in him the image and likeness of God.

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

But how to explain that in Holy Scripture, as in other church texts, when the Nativity, virginity is sung, then the reproductive organs are directly called by their proper names: the loins, the bed, the gates of virginity, and this in no way contradicts modesty and chastity? And in ordinary life, say someone like that aloud, that in Old Slavonic, that in Russian, it would be perceived as indecent, as a violation of the generally accepted norm.

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

Today it is very difficult to find a context in which this kind of vocabulary and metaphor could be placed and not harm the soul of the reader. It is known that the largest number of metaphors of physicality and human love in the biblical book of the Song of Songs. But today, the worldly mind has ceased to understand - and this did not even happen in the 21st century - the story of the love of the Bride for the Bridegroom, that is, the Church for Christ. In various works of art since the 18th century, we find the carnal aspiration of a girl for a boy, but in essence this is a reduction of Holy Scripture to the level, at best, just a beautiful love story. Although not in the most ancient times, but in the 17th century in the city of Tutaev near Yaroslavl, a whole chapel of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ was painted with the plots of the Song of Songs. (These frescoes are still preserved.) And this is not the only example. In other words, back in the 17th century, the clean was clean for the clean, and this is another evidence of how deeply man has fallen today.

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

Because the very meaning of the word “freedom” is perverted and it has long been invested in a non-Christian understanding that was once accessible to such a significant part of the human race, that is, freedom from sin, freedom as unbound by the low and base, freedom as the openness of the human soul for eternity and for Heaven. , and not at all as its determinism by its instincts or the external social environment. Such an understanding of freedom has been lost, and today freedom is primarily understood as self-will, the ability to create, as they say, "what I want, I turn back." However, behind this is nothing more than a return to the realm of slavery, subjugation to your instincts under the miserable slogan: seize the moment, enjoy life while you are young, pluck all the permitted and illicit fruits! And it is clear that if love in human relations is the greatest gift of God, then to pervert love, to introduce catastrophic distortions into it, is the main task of that original slanderer and parodist-perverter, whose name is known to each of those who read these lines.

Why are the so-called bed relations of married spouses no longer sinful, and the same relationship before marriage is referred to as “sinful fornication”?

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

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

This is a question that has long troubled the Universal Church. Already in the ancient Church, in the II-III centuries, an opinion arose that the more correct path was the path of a celibate life for all the clergy. This opinion prevailed very early in the western part of the Church, and at the Council of Elvira at the beginning of the 4th century it was voiced in one of its rules, and then under Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (XI century) it became predominant after the falling away of the Catholic Church from the Church Ecumenical. Then obligatory celibacy was introduced, that is, obligatory celibacy of the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church took the path, firstly, more in line with Holy Scripture, and secondly, more chaste: not regarding family relationships, only as a palliative from fornication, a way not to inflame beyond measure, but guided by the words of the Apostle Paul and considering marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the image of the union of Christ and the Church, she originally allowed marriage for deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Subsequently, starting from the 5th century, and in the 6th century already completely, the Church forbade marriage to bishops, but not because of the fundamental inadmissibility of the marriage state for them, but because the bishop was not bound by family interests, family cares, concerns about his own and his own. so that his life, connected with the whole diocese, with the whole Church, would be completely devoted to it. Nevertheless, the Church recognized the state of marriage as permissible for all other clerics, and the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, the Gandrian 4th century and the 6th century Trull, directly state that a clergyman who avoids marriage due to abhorrence should be prohibited from serving. So, the Church looks at the marriage of clerics as a marriage of chastity and abstinence and the most consistent with the principle of monogamy, that is, a priest can be married only once and must remain chaste and faithful to his wife in the event of widowhood. What the Church treats with condescension in relation to the marriage relations of the laity should be fully realized in the families of priests: the same commandment about childbearing, about accepting all the children whom the Lord sends, the same principle of abstinence, predominantly avoiding each other for prayer and post.

In Orthodoxy, there is a danger in the very estate of the clergy - in the fact that, as a rule, the children of priests become clergymen. There is a danger in Catholicism, since the clergy are always being recruited from the outside. However, there is an upside to the fact that anyone can become a cleric, because there is a constant influx from all walks of life. Here, in Russia, as in Byzantium, for many centuries the clergy were actually a certain class. There were, of course, cases of taxable peasants entering the priesthood, that is, from the bottom up, or vice versa - representatives of the highest circles of society, but then for the most part into monasticism. However, in principle, it was a family business, and there were flaws and dangers here. The main falsehood of the Western approach to the celibacy of the priesthood lies in the very abhorrence of marriage as a state that is condoned for the laity, but intolerable for the clergy. This is the main lie, and the social order is a matter of tactics, and it can be assessed in different ways.

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

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

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

Yes, one of the provisions of the Orthodox Tradition is that the seedless, that is, immaculate, conception of our Lord Jesus Christ happened precisely so that the incarnated Son of God would not be involved in any sin, for the moment of passion and thereby distortion of love for one's neighbor is inextricably linked with the consequences of the fall, including in the ancestral region.

How should spouses communicate during the wife's pregnancy?

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

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

There are. Only it is not necessary to interpret this concept very broadly. Now many priests hear from their parishioners who say that doctors recommend men with prostatitis to “make love” every day. Prostatitis is not the newest disease, but only in our time a seventy-five-year-old man is prescribed to constantly exercise in this area. And this is in such years when life, worldly and spiritual wisdom should be achieved. Just as other gynecologists, even with a far from catastrophic illness, women will definitely say that it is better to have an abortion than to bear a child, so other sex therapists advise, in spite of everything, to continue intimate relationships, even if they are not marital, that is, morally unacceptable for a Christian , but, according to experts, necessary to maintain bodily health. However, this does not mean that such doctors should be obeyed every time. In general, one should not rely too much on the advice of only doctors, especially in matters related to the sexual sphere, since, unfortunately, very often sexologists are frank carriers of non-Christian worldviews.

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

Are affection and tenderness possible during fasting and abstinence?

Possible, but not those that would lead to a bodily uprising of the flesh, to kindling a fire, after which you need to fill the fire with water or take a cold shower.

Some say that the Orthodox pretend that there is no sex!

I think that such an idea of ​​an external person about the view of the Orthodox Church on family relations is mainly due to his unfamiliarity with the real church worldview in this area, as well as a one-sided reading, not so much of ascetic texts, in which this is almost not mentioned at all, but of texts either modern near-church publicists, or unglorified ascetics of piety, or, what happens even more often, modern bearers of secular tolerant-liberal consciousness, distorting the church's interpretation of this issue in the media.

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

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

It cannot be said that the Church does not love them... Its position must be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating sin from the person who commits it, and not accepting sin - and same-sex relationships, homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism are sinful in their very essence, which is clearly and unequivocally mentioned in the Old Testament - the Church refers to a person who sins with pity, for every sinner leads himself away from the path of salvation until such time as he begins to repent of his own sin, that is, to move away from it. But what we do not accept and, of course, with all the measure of rigidity and, if you like, intolerance, what we rebel against is that those who are the so-called minorities begin to impose (and at the same time very aggressively) their attitude to life, to the surrounding reality, to the normal majority. True, there is a certain kind of area of ​​human existence where, for some reason, minorities accumulate to the majority. And therefore, in the media, in a number of sections of contemporary art, on television, we now and then see, read, hear about those who show us certain standards of modern "successful" existence. This is the kind of presentation of the sin of the poor perverts, unfortunately overwhelmed by it, sin as a norm, which you need to be equal to and which, if you yourself fail, then at least you need to consider it as the most progressive and advanced, this kind of worldview, definitely unacceptable for us.

Is the participation of a married man in the artificial insemination of an outside woman a sin? And does this amount to adultery?

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

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

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

And if newlyweds who have just married find out that one of the spouses cannot live a full sexual life?

If an incapacity for marital cohabitation is discovered immediately after marriage, moreover, this is a kind of inability that can hardly be overcome, then according to church canons it is the basis for divorce.

In the case of impotence of one of the spouses, which began from an incurable disease, how should they behave with each other?

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

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

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

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

Of course, this should not be a single self-name, but also some reliable external evidence. It would be inappropriate to list specific names and organizations here, but I think that whenever it comes to health, mental and bodily, you need to remember the gospel word that “the testimony of two people is true” (John 8, 17), that is, we need two or three independent testimonies confirming both the medical qualifications and the ideological closeness to Orthodoxy of the doctor we are addressing.

What methods of contraception does the Orthodox Church prefer?

None. There are no such contraceptives on which there would be a seal - “by permission of the Synodal Department for Social Work and Charity” (it is he who is engaged in the medical service). There is no and cannot be such contraceptives! Another thing is that the Church (suffice it to recall its latest document "Fundamentals of the Social Concept") soberly distinguishes between methods of contraception that are absolutely unacceptable and allowed out of weakness. Absolutely unacceptable are abortive contraceptives, not only the abortion itself, but also that which provokes the expulsion of a fertilized egg, no matter how quickly it happens, even immediately after the conception itself. Everything that is connected with this kind of action is unacceptable for the life of an Orthodox family. (I will not dictate lists of such means: whoever does not know is better not to know, and who knows, he understood without that.) As for other, say, mechanical methods of contraception, then, I repeat, I do not approve and in no way considering contraception as the norm of church life, the Church distinguishes them from those absolutely unacceptable for those spouses who, due to weakness, cannot bear total abstinence during those periods of family life when, for medical, social, or some other reasons, childbearing is impossible. When, for example, a woman, after a serious illness or due to the nature of some kind of treatment, it is during this period that pregnancy is highly undesirable. Or for a family in which there are already quite a lot of children, today, according to purely everyday conditions, it is unacceptable to have another child. Another thing is that before God, refraining from childbearing every time should be extremely responsible and honest. It is very easy here, instead of considering this interval in the birth of children as a forced period, to descend to pleasing ourselves, when sly thoughts whisper: “Well, why do we need this at all? Again, the career will be interrupted, although such prospects are outlined in it, and then again a return to diapers, to lack of sleep, to seclusion in our own apartment "or:" Only we have achieved some kind of relative social well-being, we began to live better, and with the birth of a child we will have to give up a planned trip to the sea, a new car, some other things.” And as soon as this kind of crafty arguments begin to enter our lives, it means that we need to immediately stop them and give birth to the next child. And one must always remember that the Church calls on Orthodox Christians who are married not to consciously refrain from having children, neither because of distrust of God's Providence, nor because of selfishness and desire for an easy life.

If the husband demands an abortion, up to a divorce?

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

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

Put all your strength, all your understanding into preventing this, all your love, all your arguments: from resorting to church authorities, the advice of a priest to simply material, practical, whatever arguments. That is, from a stick to a carrot - everything, just not to. allow murder. Definitely, abortion is murder. And murder must be resisted to the last, regardless of the methods and ways in which this is achieved.

Is the attitude of the Church towards a woman who, during the years of godless Soviet power, had an abortion, unaware of what she was doing, the same as towards a woman who is now doing and already knows what she is getting into? Or is it still different?

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

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

Why do some pastors believe that marital relations are sinful if they do not lead to childbearing, and recommend abstaining from physical intimacy in cases where one spouse is non-church and does not want to have children? How does this compare with the words of the Apostle Paul: “do not deviate from one another” (1 Cor. 7:5) and with the words in the rite of marriage “marriage is honorable and the bed is not filthy”?

It is not easy to be in a situation where, say, an unchurched husband does not want to have children, but if he cheats on his wife, then it is her duty to avoid bodily cohabitation with him, which only indulges his sin. Perhaps this is exactly the case that the clergy warn about. And each such case, which does not involve childbearing, must be considered very specifically. However, this does not in any way abolish the words of the wedding rite “marriage is honest and the bed is not bad”, just this honesty of marriage and this badness of the bed must be observed with all restrictions, warnings and admonitions, if they begin to sin against them and retreat from them.

Yes, the apostle Paul says that “if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Cor. 7:9). But he saw in marriage undoubtedly more than just a way to direct his sexual desire in a legitimate direction. Of course, it’s good for a young man to be with his wife instead of fruitlessly inflaming up to thirty years and earning himself some kind of complexes and perverse habits, therefore, in the old days, they got married quite early. But, of course, not everything about marriage is said in these words.

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

Starting from a certain age, many spouses, even those who are churched, according to the modern view of family life, decide that they will not have any more children, and now they will experience everything that they did not have time when they raised children in their younger years. The Church has never supported or blessed such an attitude towards childbearing. Just like the decision of a large part of the newlyweds to first live for their own pleasure, and then have children. Both are a distortion of God's plan for the family. Spouses, for whom it is high time to prepare their relationship for eternity, if only because they are closer to it now than, say, thirty years ago, again immerse them in corporeality and reduce them to what obviously cannot have continuation in the Kingdom of God . It will be the duty of the Church to warn: there is danger here, if not a red, then a yellow traffic light is on here. Upon reaching mature years, to put in the center of your relations that which is auxiliary, of course, means to distort them, perhaps even destroy them. And in the specific texts of certain pastors, not always with the measure of tact as one would like, but in fact quite correctly, this is said.

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

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

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

For our self-willed, self-loving nature, with its attachments directed at some people, hatred towards others and with its indifference to the rest, the commandment of Christ seems difficult and impossible to fulfill: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If there is a category of people who are capable of loving to the point of self-sacrifice of some of the elect, then there are much more numerous people who love no one but themselves, do not strive for anyone, do not yearn for anyone and resolutely do not want to lift a finger for anyone.

The category of people who really love their neighbors look at every decisive person as if they were their neighbor, as the merciful Samaritan looked at a Jew beaten by robbers - the category of such people is extremely small.

Meanwhile, the Lord, wanting to affirm this view of people on each other, wanting to spread this all-encompassing love among people, spoke a word that reveals the greatest meaning of this love, giving it such a meaning, such a height that would make people educate it in themselves in every possible way.

Describing the Last Judgment, the Lord speaks of the conversation that will take place there between the formidable Judge and the human race.

Calling to Himself the good part of humanity, those who actually embodied this all-forgiving, tender, warm, caring love for people, the Lord will say to them:

“Come, bless my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Get hungry, and give Me food, get thirsty, and drink Me; strange beh, and introduce Mene. Naked and clothed Me, sick and visiting Me, in prison beh and come to Me.

They will ask when they saw the Lord in such a position and served Him. And He will answer: “Amen, I say to you: inasmuch as you create one of these my least brethren, do it to me.”

So, the Lord says that He Himself accepts everything that we do for people, thus putting Himself in the place of every unfortunate, sick, prisoner, weak, suffering, offended and sinful person, in the place of every person whom we pity with the impulse of our hearts and to whom we will help. It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the Lord did not say: “Because you did it to one of these little ones in My name, you did it to Me.” He says only one thing: that everything done for man, He accepts as done directly for Him.

Such an all-encompassing height He gives to the feat of love, mutual human help and favor ... This is how He facilitates this feat by prompting us, as it were: “When you have a person in front of you who needs help, no matter how little you are attracted to him, no matter how no matter how unpleasant and disgusting he seemed to you, say to yourself: “Before me lies Christ, helpless, unhappy, requiring help; may I not give this help to Christ.”

And if we force ourselves to look at every person we approach in this way, then, firstly, the world, overflowing with people with their endless shortcomings, will seem to us inhabited by Angels and our heart will always be full of quiet, concentrated happiness in that feeling, that at every step of our life we ​​serve, help, console, relieve suffering directly to Christ.

One could see that the commandment that one must love one's neighbor as oneself caused outbursts of discontent.

I love individual people, many say, but I cannot love and I do not understand love for humanity. I love by choice, by indefinite inclinations, by commonality of views, by those qualities that win me over in people, by their nobility ... but how can I love such a many-sided huge being as humanity? Can I look like a brother, treat me like a personally dear being, someone who arouses in me disgust, a disgusting feeling that I can only despise and hate ... not to mention the fact that more some people didn't even exist for me. I love a few, I hate others, I am completely indifferent to the rest, and more cannot be demanded of me.

But let a person who thinks like this ask himself, are there such traits in his character that he would be as pleasing to God as some of the people he has chosen are pleasing to him personally? What would happen if the Lord would reason towards him the way he reasoned towards the majority of people, what would happen if the Lord treated him with hatred that he deserved, perhaps, or only with indifference?

The Lord, whatever he is, showed towards him an equally great work of His immortal love.

The Lord, who equalized everyone in His love, the Lord, illuminating with the rays of His sun, sending His gifts to both the good and the graceless, the Lord, commanding us to seek those perfections with which He Himself shines - the Lord expects us to look at other people just as He looks at them Himself.

There is some kind of wild horror in the fact that we, sinful, disgusting creatures, cannot treat people with at least a small fraction of the indulgence with which he treats us and all of them. He is the source of perfection, the most radiant Holy ...

* * *

And above all, the wrongness of our relationship to people lies in our constant condemnation. This is perhaps the most common and the worst of the flaws in human relationships.

The horror of condemnation consists, first of all, in the fact that we appropriate new rights that do not belong to us, that we, as it were, are piled up on that throne of the Supreme Judge, which belongs only to the Lord - “Vengeance is mine and I will repay.”

And let there not be a single judge in the world, except for the terrible, but also the merciful Judge - the Lord God! .. How can we judge, who do not see anything, do not know and do not understand? How can we judge a person when we do not know with what heredity he was born, how he was brought up, in what conditions he grew up, what unfavorable circumstances he was surrounded by? We don’t know how his spiritual life developed, how the conditions of his life embittered him, what temptations his circumstances tempted him, what speeches the human enemy whispered to him, what examples acted on him - we don’t know anything, we don’t know anything, but we undertake to judge!

Examples of such persons as Mary of Egypt, the mother and source of debauchery, as repentant thieves, starting with the one who hung at the right hand of Christ on the cross and before whom the doors of paradise were first opened wide, and ending with those numerous thieves who now shine in the crowns of holiness: all these people show that it is terrible to pronounce your premature and blind erroneous judgment on people.

He who condemns people shows his disbelief in Divine grace. The Lord, perhaps, for this reason allows people to sin, who will later be great righteous men and His great glorifiers, in order to protect them from the worst evil - spiritual pride.

There is a story about a quarrel between two monastery elders. Both are already frail, having lived a life close to seclusion, they could not squabble in person, and, having quarreled over something, one sent his cell-attendant to the other. The attendant, despite his youth, was full of wisdom and meekness.

It happened that an elder would send him with an order: “Tell that elder that he is a demon.”

The cell-attendant will come and say: “The elder greets you and ordered me to tell you that he considers you an Angel.”

Irritated by such a soft and affectionate greeting, that elder will say: “And you tell your elder that he is a donkey.”

The cell-attendant will go and say: “The elder is grateful to you for your greetings, mutually greets you and calls you a great sage.”

Thus, replacing the words of scolding and condemnation with words of meekness, peace and love, the young sage finally achieved that the malice of the elders completely disappeared, as if melted away, scattered, and they reconciled with each other and began to live in exemplary love.

So it is with us: by condemnation, abuse, ridicule, rude treatment of people, we will not do anything, but only harden them, while quiet, kind words, treating the sinner as a great righteous man, will soon bring the most inveterate person to repentance, will cause a saving revolution.

There was such a person who breathed love, indulgence, forgiveness - the Sarov elder Seraphim. He was so affectionate that when he saw people approaching him, he first beckoned them to him with words, then suddenly, not mastering the pressure of the holy love that overwhelmed his soul, he quickly went towards them with a cry: “Come to me, come.”

He saw in every person the Son of God standing behind him, honored, perhaps, barely smoldering, but still invariably present in every person a spark of the Divine, and when he bowed to everyone who came at the feet, kissed the hands of those who came to him, he bowed to them as children of God, for whom the Lord shed His blood, as for the great purpose of the Lord's sacrifice...

Without judging people himself, Father Seraphim did not tolerate condemnation in others either. And when, for example, he heard that children began to condemn their parents, he immediately closed the mouth of these condemners with his hand.

Ah, if only we could adhere to the same holy rules of love and indulgence in mutual relations!

Why is this not so? Look at our manners.

Here is someone sitting there. They are friendly, affectionate with him, trying in every possible way to show him that he is pleasant and even necessary for these people. They say that they miss him and ask him to return as soon as possible. And as soon as he went out the door, his most severe condemnation begins. They often invent, slander him with various fables, which they themselves do not believe, drag others in here, and when one of these others appears, they will exclaim:

Oh how we are glad to see you! Just ask Ivan Petrovich - now they remembered you! ..

But as they recalled, this, of course, they will not say.

A person enters into some large society: how many suspicions about him, how many sidelong glances directed at him! Does anyone succeed in life: "This man takes his impudence, an amazing climber." Does anyone in life sit in his place, not moving and not rising: “What a mediocre person. It is clear that he is unlucky, who needs such people!

Wait, you who kill people with the word - "Who needs him?" He is needed by God, Who suffered for him and shed His blood for him. You need it so that, avoiding a terrible sentence for the mortal sin of your condemnation, you can show other feelings on him and, instead of condemning, pity him and help him.

It is needed in the general plan of God's economy. The Lord created him, and it is not your business to condemn the One who called him to life and who endures him, just as He endures you, perhaps a thousand times more worthy of condemnation than this person.

The heart boils with indignation when you see how distorted our mutual relations are, how we can do nothing in the simplicity of thought and in the nobility of Christian love.

Look at how many different measures this person has for meeting, talking and addressing people, how many different tones, ranging from sugary, searching, as if he is crawling in front of who he is talking to, to arrogant, rude and imperative.

I was told about one official, who considered himself a liberal, that he said to his boss, to whom he owed a lot: “You know, because you got me to this place, I owe you so much that I am ready to do anything you want. I assure you - if you asked me to clean your boots, I would do it with pleasure.

To the faces he was looking for, he was surprisingly sweet, flattering them as best he could; he treated people he did not need with boorish self-confidence; to persons who needed him, he was rude and arrogant.

Meanwhile, we should have only two tones, two attitudes: a filial-slave, enthusiastic, reverent attitude towards Christ and an even, gentle, alien to flattering, on the one hand, arrogance and arrogance, on the other, indifferent to all people.

There is a lofty concept in England, which in Russia is understood in a completely different way than in this country of remarkable development of character. This is the term "gentleman". In English, "gentleman" is a person who deliberately does not do anything to another that could hurt this other, cause him any harm or trouble. On the contrary, this is a man who will do everything he can to everyone, and to the extent that he can.

It is in this concept of gentlemanship that, of course, lies true Christian attitudes towards people. To meet with a person in order to give him, at least embarrassing himself, help and sympathy; and if you do not do him a favor, then at least look at him kindly and with disposition - this is an act that is truly a gentleman.

And the Englishman will return, hurrying somewhere, from his road, to show the way to you, a visiting foreigner; he will stand for a long time and give you the explanations that you ask him, take on the trouble of checking in the baggage of the lady you meet - in a word, as they say, he will be torn to pieces in order to serve you.

And whether you are rich, noble, beautiful and interesting, or whether you are bad, poor, no one needs - his treatment of you will be equally even and pleasant.

* * *

Often the good that we do to people requires a feat from us, requires the exertion of our strength, requires that we deprive ourselves of something for these people. But a good person, besides this hard-to-perform kindness, will find many cases to apply his kindness where this kindness, having brought a very significant benefit to a person, does not require any work from him, any hardships.

We heard about some very profitable enterprise, which we ourselves, perhaps, could not enter into, and we told about this enterprise to a person who has sufficient funds for it - so we helped the person without bothering at all.

Is there any merit in such a thing? Yes, of course there is. This merit lies in that good will, in the care with which we treated a person, in our determination to be useful to him.

Imagine that a person has entered a large, unfamiliar society of people who are higher than him. If this person is also shy, he goes through extremely unpleasant moments for him. And there will be someone who will notice how he is constrained, how uneasy he is, and will approach him, speak affectionately to him - and then the constraint of the person disappears, and he is no longer so afraid.

After the first one, the second one will come up to him - and the ice that he felt in this society seemed to crack. It may be the other way around. There may not be a single sympathetic person, and a newcomer to this society will feel unpleasant, embarrassed and false until the end of his stay in it.

Often even one kind look, an approving smile, a casually thrown word is extremely helpful to a person who is embarrassed by something. But not all people understand the importance of mutual assistance, mutual favors and approval. And some people, who consider themselves almost righteous, snap when they need to render even the slightest service to another.

I once had to be present at a quarrel between two spouses of different spiritual moods, who did not suit each other at all and who soon had to disperse.

It was in the huge Pavlovsk park, where it is so easy for the unknowing to get lost. The couple were walking when a panting lady came up to them and asked:

How can I get to the train station? I only have twenty minutes before the train. I'm terribly afraid of being late.

The young husband, who knew the park perfectly, realized that if you start explaining to her in words, she will certainly go astray and you have to walk with her for about five minutes to lead her to a place where a straight and clear road lies. He immediately said to the lady:

Allow me to accompany you, - and quickly went with her.

His wife, who constantly made scenes for him, indignantly raised her eyes to heaven, and when he returned five minutes later, having led the lady to the right place, she began to reproach him for leaving her, having treated her extremely impolitely and disrespectfully.

She saw her husband twenty-four hours a day and found that spending five minutes with a person in a difficult position meant treating her with disrespect... a peculiar and, of course, a wrong look.

* * *

It is strange that in childhood there are some manifestations of senseless, sophisticated cruelty. How much they take out, for example, from comrades, the so-called "newcomers." Indelicate questions, all kinds of injections, kicks, pinches on the hand under the guise of trying matter with questions “how much did they buy”, and the same bitterness of the tormentors, whether the boy answers the swearing with swearing or shyly presses against the wall, not daring to resist his tormentors.

But even in this environment of little villains, there are children with a noble natural character who have managed to make themselves a position in the class and who stand up for the unjustly persecuted beginners.

Of course, such noble boys will continue to show the same nobility in life.

There are still such characters who are cruelly offended and excited by any violence of a person against a person. These people were worried about the injustices and abuses of the landlords over the peasants in the days of serfdom. These people, with weapons in their hands, will rush to defend the rights of an entire people, trampled on by another, stronger people. Such was the attitude of Russia towards the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula for several centuries, since the Balkan states grew up, one might say, on the Russian blood shed for their freedom.

In the very power of man over man there is something deeply dangerous for the soul of the man who has this power.

Not without reason the best people of all ages were afraid of this power and often refused it. Those Christians who set their slaves free when imbued with Christ's covenants, of course, realized how much it was wrong to command other people, and themselves, like the great merciful Peacock, Bishop of Noland, themselves preferred to become slaves than to keep others in slavery. .

In the days of serfdom, many flagrant iniquities were committed. Many unheard-of, most cruel insults were suffered by the peasants from other landlords, who, intoxicated with their power, reached some kind of bestiality and often even (the height of sinful depravity) found pleasure in torturing and torturing their serfs.

Blessed be the name of that tsar who, with a warm heart, understood the terrible torments of the Russian peasantry and, freeing them from serfdom, at the same time freed the landowners from the terrible temptation - power over human souls, the right to use free labor.

The easiest way is to feel sorry for those people whose sufferings are happening before us with our own eyes. If we see a person who is trembling in the cold, barely covered with rags; if we hear a voice escaping with difficulty from this stiff body; if timid, hopeless eyes are directed at us, it will be strange that our heart is not touched by this voice, that we do not try to help this person in some way ... But a higher mercy consists in foreseeing such grief, which we do not we see, to go towards such suffering, which still does not climb into our eyes.

This is precisely the feeling inspired by the actions of people who found hospitals, shelters, almshouses; after all, these people have not yet seen those suffering and in need of their help, who will use the houses of mercy founded by them, and, so to speak, pity them in advance.

Frosty. Deep evening over quiet Ukraine. In the city of Belgorod, everything was hidden from the cold in the houses. Trees with mangy branches shine, drenched in the silvery rays of the moon. In the frosty air, the quiet tread of a man dressed as a commoner is heard. But when the moon shines on his face, one can immediately guess that this person is of high birth. He approaches the poor huts, carefully looks around to see if anyone sees him, and then, quickly placing on the windowsill or a bundle of linen, or something from provisions, or money wrapped in paper, knocks to attract the attention of people inside , and quickly disappears.

This is Bishop Joasaph of Belgorod, the future great miracle worker of the Russian land, makes a secret tour of the poor before the feast of the Nativity of Christ, so that they meet this holiday in joy and satiety.

And the next day, firewood will be brought to some poor people from the market - this saint secretly sends heating to those who are freezing from poverty from the cold in unheated huts.

* * *

Great mercy towards people, a caring attitude towards them does not in the least exclude wise firmness and the application of punishment measures where a person sins. Some researchers of the life of the same great saint Joasaph are at a dead end before the fact that, despite the extremely developed mercy in him, with the most tender and touching manifestations of it, he, on the other hand, was severe with the guilty. But there is nothing strange and inexplicable in this. The saint preferred that a person suffer punishment better on earth than in heaven, so that the sufferings suffered in the form of punishment would purify his soul and relieve him of responsibility in eternity.

How much wiser was the view of the saint in this regard than the modern view of crime, which is now expressed very often by judges of conscience.

Recently, crimes have become extremely frequent - among other things, because retribution for them has become extremely insignificant, and because proven crimes very often remain without any punishment.

That person with common sense, who recently had to be a juror, was simply horrified at the sight of the extent to which we reach leniency towards a criminal. There are absolutely outrageous cases, in which the jury definitely pushes the people they justify to new crimes.

I had to be present at a hearing in one case where several healthy guys were accused of having robbed an old woman under seventy, attacking her in her room, and cutting out of her skirt one and a half thousand rubles, accumulated by her life's work and representing the only the source of her existence.

A whole gang was organized here, which tried to move her from the house where she used to live and where it was not so convenient to commit a crime, to a den where an attack could promise good luck. The attackers were wearing masks. All the crime was led by a scoundrel, who was in connection with the robbers.

The sight of this helpless ancient old woman, dressed in an old-fashioned way, with a tattered reticule in her hands, inspired the most ardent, burning regret. And you can imagine that, despite the proven crime, the villains were acquitted.

The sacred name of love was ruffled there, and the eloquent lawyer argued that the robbers were hypnotized by a woman who, by the way, was not found, and acted in a frenzy of love.

In general, this is one of the tricks of modern advocacy - to say that a person acted under the influence of love and therefore irresponsible. In the same session of the jury, another egregious case began, but was postponed due to the lack of the necessary important witness.

One artel worker, who worked in a large bank, appropriated and squandered something about ten thousand rubles. An artel worker, a capable man, who was in military service, about forty years old, was married in the village and had children. In the city, he was in connection with a person who was present at the case as a spectator in an elegant dress and an incredibly large hat. There were rumors that the spent money was used by him to buy this lady a dacha at one of the stations along the Finnish Railway.

As always happens with embezzlement in artels, the amount spent was supplemented by contributions from all other artels, all married and multi-family people. You can imagine that among the jury voices were heard that he could hardly be found guilty, since he also acted under the influence of love for this person.

* * *

The question of retribution belongs to one of the main questions. Christianity does not know forgiveness without the guilt being mitigated by appropriate punishment. When the first man fell, God could have forgiven his guilt before Himself, but He did not.

Having established the unshakable truth, His indisputable laws, the Lord did not want to violate this truth. And in order for a person to be forgiven, it was necessary to make a sacrifice, outlined, perhaps, before the creation of the worlds. The incarnate God, our Lord Jesus Christ, had to make a sacrifice on the cross in order to remove from a person the curse under which he brought himself into sin. Understand only the full power of these words, that Almighty God could not violate the law of retribution established by Him. And since the fall into sin was so great that by no measure, by any suffering, a person could make amends for the crime he had committed, in order to make amends for this crime, the sufferings of the Divine were needed. The weight of the scales of justice could not rise upward without the greatest burden, the burden of earthly life, humiliation, the burden of suffering and the death of the Son of God, being placed on another cup.

It seems terrible and incredible, the following phrase seems unpronounceable: the Lord could not forgive a person without demanding an appropriate reward for this, but it is true: he could not.

When a certain crime is committed, an appropriate retribution must be brought for it. This is the establishment of God's law, against which one cannot go, which cannot be violated. And the punishment must be in accordance with the suffering that this crime inflicts on another person.

Imagine that some scoundrel encroached on the honor of a young girl or a child who has not yet developed: crimes that, precisely because of their low punishability, are currently encountered with amazing frequency.

In the morning, the mother let go of her cheerful, joyful, healthy child, and a few hours later, at the whim of a scoundrel, a tormented half-corpse returns to her, with a crumpled, wounded soul, with an indelible shame on herself, with a painful memory until the end of her days.

How can you cry out for mercy to such a person? How can a mother's feeling, in comparison with the destruction of her daughter's fate, come to terms with the fact that this person, politely put in the dock, will be politely interrogated and then, perhaps, announced that he acted in the heat of passion, especially if he was intoxicated .

I think that kind but just people would demand the most severe punishment for such a person, from whom, as they say, the blood would freeze in the veins, so that the person who made the unfortunate girl and her loved ones suffer so madly would suffer even worse.

I think that there would be fair, virtuous, but severe in their truth people who would gladly drive nails into the body of a scoundrel with their own hands, so that, as they say, it would be disrespectful to others, in order to protect other girls from such horrors with the horror of punishment. assassination attempts and other villains from such violence.

Nowadays, the crimes of dousing with sulfuric acid are terribly common. That is a young student, the only son of a millionaire engineer, doused in the face with sulfuric acid by an old chorus girl, who bothered him with her pestering, and the unfortunate man was left mutilated, with an eye barely and half saved, and with another dead. That interested groom, who was refused by a rich bride after she exposed his low soul, pours her over to blindness. Then the clerk, who serves at a rich merchant and made a marriage proposal to his daughter, a young student, and was refused, douses this girl with sulfuric acid, and at the same time, along with her, her sister.

Let us now see whether the petty modern punishments for such horrendous crimes are proportionate to the misfortune they cause.

Personally, I would rather be executed than doused with sulfuric acid. Just imagine: a girl at the best time of her life, rich in hopes, striving for knowledge - suddenly blind, helpless, unnecessary to anyone, with a face that a few days ago shone with beauty, and now is a solid ulcer, which the nearest people cannot look at without a shudder .

And he, after a polite judgment with him, will serve several years in prison: five - six - ten, - and will again return to life full of strength, with the opportunity to create a happy existence for himself.

Where is the justice? And this easy responsibility only encourages others to engage in the same abominations. And it would seem that the way to appease these incredible crimes would be very simple.

It suffices to establish a law that a person who pours sulfuric acid on another person is subjected to the same operation in the same parts of the body. Do you really think that this law will have to be applied? Once or twice, and this crime will be rooted out, because no matter how vicious such scoundrels are, they tremble above all for their own skin, and the prospect of being left without eyes or mutilated will undoubtedly take away their ferocity.

When we go crazy with such crimes, we commit the greatest evil by spreading crimes. As was the case with the robbery of an old woman by hefty robbers, we deliberately forget about the helpless victim of the crime, the honest, working victim, pitying the frantic scoundrels, parasites and dirty tricks.

* * *

There is a good that must be given the strange name of "harmful good."

This is the kind of good that we agree to out of pity for a person, and we are not able to subordinate this regret to the voice of reason, and it only brings harm to a person.

First of all, the pampering of people belongs to the category of such goodness - whether it will be the pampering of a small child, a teenager, an adult man, an empty lady who begs her husband for money that he cannot give according to his means, for those excessive outfits that she demands from empty and dangerous female swagger.

In one family, a two-year-old girl was over-indulged. She had a lot of elegant dresses, all kinds of shoes, an innumerable number of hats, umbrellas, not to mention toys. They did not know at home how and with what to please her, they fulfilled her every whim.

Several times a day, the girl was capricious and cried - this happened neatly with every dressing - after sleep, as well as when going to bed in the evening.

She was not relieved otherwise than if she was given sweets or something was given to her. Looking at this madness, I was involuntarily horrified that her parents were spoiling her in the future. First, they undermined her nervous system with these repeated weeping and whims a day, with which she earned, so to speak, the constant fulfillment of her fantasies. And most importantly, they prepared for her the saddest fate in the future.

Already now, in these infantile years, she was the manager of the whole house, in the morning she prescribed what dress she would wear in the morning and what she would change into later. She got absolutely everything she wanted. And in such pampering she had to spend all the years of her life in her parents' house, not knowing anything was denied.

But after all, then that real life was to come, which is rather too cruel than soft, which gives nothing for nothing, in which everything comes from the battle and which in most cases destroys our best dreams one by one.

What terrible sufferings later threatened the life of this utterly spoiled creature! How could one hope that her fantasies would all be fulfilled in life just as exactly as their unreasonable parents fulfilled? How could one be sure that everything she wanted in life would come true? How could one guarantee that she would be given everything to which she stretched her hands? And who could promise that if she loved someone, she would be answered with the same love?

This one circumstance, so important in a woman's life, threatened her with the greatest complication.

In general, it was crazy on the part of the parents to indulge her in everything, instead of affirming her in the thought of everyday struggle, of the trials ahead of her, of how rarely fate delivers to a person what he dreams of, no matter how sometimes these dreams may seem simple, easily attainable, legal.

To accustom a child to struggle, to accustom him to refuse what he wants from higher considerations, and from the same considerations to be able to do what he does not want and what is extremely unpleasant for him, is the main task of correct education.

Breaking character, helping to make everything later in life seem shrouded in dark clouds, and all people seem to be personal enemies - this is what the reckless pampering of children and indulging them in everything leads to ...

And here is another example of how dangerous it is without reasoning to fulfill all sorts of requests from people.

It is well known that the Russian youth has lately taken on a disgusting habit of living above their means.

Before an officer has time to serve in the regiment for several months on a salary quite sufficient to keep himself in line with his rank, he already has large debts.

In the regiments of the guards, where expenses are higher, parents usually give young people a monthly allowance in addition to the salary they receive. But, sufficient for a prudent life, it is negligible for the expenses that young people begin to afford.

Do you know, - says one of these officers, - how much was the last time I had dinner in a good restaurant with my friend, they charged me for a small bowl of fruit? Twenty-five rubles, and the whole bill came out at sixty.

Meanwhile, this young man received from his father, who had no other means than seven or eight thousand salaries, fifty rubles a month in allowance, which was already hard for the father, since he had three more adult children in his arms and all of them. helped.

With such an inappropriate expense, the son fell into debt, which the family paid off for him twice - something about three and a half thousand.

In addition, he borrowed right and left from his acquaintances, from richer comrades. At the same time, he was very dishonest.

Some acquaintance, who lives by his own labor and has nothing superfluous, will give him thirty or forty rubles against his sworn promise that tomorrow he will receive pay and that he will return everything from this pay tomorrow evening. Or he will beg a friend, when he does not have money, to borrow for him.

It will take a day, but you will have to pay yourself.

To the horror of his family, he became friends with one of those ladies who live at the expense of others, and this increased his expenses. He was not embarrassed with government sums and once arrived early in the morning to a comrade with the pleasant news that he had squandered the money of recruits entrusted to him, that his immediate superior had already asked him several times to present this money and that he finally ordered him to present them that same morning, in nine o'clock. If he had not done this, then there would have been a major service scandal.

At that time, the comrade did not have money at home, he had to borrow from several people at such an early hour in order to cover this crime.

Several close acquaintances, after a few days, were discussing this, and one of them, an elderly man, distinguished by a big heart, but also by strict definite views, said:

I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you shouldn’t have helped him out ... According to everything that I know about him, he is an incorrigible person, and those constant services that all his acquaintances render to their own detriment , only give him the opportunity to burrow deeper and deeper. A great catastrophe in the form of expulsion from the service, in which, however, he is completely useless, alone could bring him to reason. He would have realized at last that it was no longer possible to live like this and that he had to make a sharp turn. As a capable person, able to work well, if he doesn't run wild, he could still get on his feet.

In the end, this officer had to leave the military service and accept a modest place in the civil service. He broke with his family when his lady forced him to marry her, and went completely out of the circle in which he was born.

Fate, as they say, told fortune to a man. He bore a good honorable name, had good abilities, influential kinship and acquaintances, was pleasant in conversation and, prominent in himself, had sufficient support for service in the guard, for his simple disposition he was loved by the comrades of the privileged institution where he was brought up ... And what did all this serve? I am sure that the first extra ruble that his parents gave him when he began to beg from them against the monthly money due to him, the first piece of paper he borrowed from acquaintances, while he always had enough, had a fatal significance in his life. to support yourself with dignity.

It is in Russia that parents should be especially strict about themselves in the matter of pampering children. It happens that all the children are hard-working and modest, and one was on a binge, and before they have time to look back, he has already made debts. And then, in order to save, as they say, family honor, to pay off these debts, shamelessly increased by usurers, the family property goes, the sisters' dowry is spent, the whole life of the family changes ... Why? Why should many suffer because of the madness of one?

As if, in a Christian way, they took pity on one, but at the same time offended many and, in essence, crowned vice and shamelessness, punishing virtue.

* * *

In the broad question of our relationship to our neighbors, an important side is our relationship to the lower ones.

There is nothing more disgusting than if a person is seriously convinced that he, being nobler and richer than another, is much higher than this other person; can be impolite with him, can command and dispose of them.

First, these people are digging themselves, so to speak, a hole. For if I make such a distinction between myself and a person below me, how can I expect another person to make the same difference between me and myself, standing above me by as much as I consider myself above that other, the person I despise.

Thus, I must inspire myself in advance that people who are much higher than me should already consider me for the most complete scum and insignificance ...

How flattering this is for me!

In our country, especially in Russia, as a relic of serfdom, some kind of attitude towards the lower people has been preserved, which can only be called boorish.

In foreign lands, the servant does not allow you to talk to yourself the way we talk to her. There is no such custom to speak with the lower people on "you".

Let us recall here, by the way, the remarkable opinion of the elder Seraphim of Sarov on this important issue. In general, he found that it was impossible and unnecessary for people to say “you” to each other, that this was a violation of the Christian simplicity of human relations. But after all, Elder Seraphim assumed and considered it natural that all people would begin to speak “you” - and the servant would say “you” to the master, and the commoner would say “you” to the nobleman ... But with us it is just the opposite.

A foreigner who came to America allowed himself to speak rudely to a servant he had hired and received a firm rebuke from him.

Let me advise you, - said the servant, - since you do not know American customs, do not treat servants in America in this way. Otherwise, you will not find anyone who would agree to serve you for a long time ... If you do not know or do not want to do what you invited me to help you with, if I agree to this help for you, then I think you should just be grateful for this and treat me with care... It's a pity that you in Europe look at it differently.

This lesson of the American servant would not hurt us all to kill on our noses.

Indeed, what a service all these cooks, maids, lackeys render us, and the extent of this service is visible with your own eyes when suddenly you, even if for a day, will be left without them: then everything goes topsy-turvy, and you are helpless.

Meanwhile, how do we treat them!

Their personality does not exist for us - a sad remnant of the views of those times when people were considered tens, hundreds and thousands of "souls".

Nowhere, as in Russia, people are not so badly placed. In Europe, not a single servant will fit in the kitchen. There is no custom in large houses to set aside cellars for servants. In England, in rich mansions, the upper floor is allotted for them. They have, like gentlemen, their own baths, they do not eat on the go, in the meantime, but strictly fixed hours are set for their meals. They sit down decorously at a table covered with a white tablecloth, with crockery of an unscattered service, and it would never occur to any of the masters to disturb them during this meal, just as the masters themselves do not have the custom of disturbing their guests during their meal.

In addition to holidays, they have the right to go out in the evenings.

It seems to be insignificant. But this is a brilliant example of the Christianization of human relations.

In general, our attitude towards people subordinate to us cannot but cause bitterness in the souls of those just people who are witnesses of such treatment. These compassionate and just people firmly remember the words of Christ that the Angels of these humiliated people always see the face of the Heavenly Father. Let us add from ourselves that, probably, these Angels retell to God about the grievances that these lower ones suffer because of the cruelties of these higher ones.

Elder Seraphim of Sarov, a contemporary of the abuses of serfdom, deeply mourned the grief of serfs. Knowing that one general had poor managers and abandoned peasants, the elder persuaded the same Manturov, who had become impoverished to build the Diveevo Church, to go to this estate as a manager. And Manturov in a short time raised the welfare of the peasants.

The elder reprimanded the landowners for their heartless and rude attitude towards the peasants, and on purpose, in the presence of the gentlemen who came to him with their servants, treated the serfs with tenderness, affection, sometimes turning away from the masters themselves for this.

In today's disagreements between masters and servants, the servants are also to blame. The fragrant type of the former devoted faithful servants, who love the family they serve and live in the interests of this family, disappears almost without a trace.

Remember Savelich, the good nurse and friend of Grinev's mischievous youth, the groom of the "Captain's Daughter"; Evseich - the glorious tutor Bagrov-grandson of S. T. Aksakov, Natalya Savishna from "Childhood" of Count L. N. Tolstoy, the nanny of Tatyana Larina from "Eugene Onegin"; the ascetic nanny Agafya from Turgenev's "Noble Nest", who formed in her pet, Lisa Kalitina, her noble, harmonious, integral worldview.

How far these fragrant images are from contemporary Russian reality!

What an abyss separates this nanny Agafya with her important thoughts about eternity, with her stories about how the martyrs of Christ shed their blood for the faith and how wonderful flowers grew on this blood of theirs: what an abyss separates these Agafies, Savelyichs, Yevseichs from the current brunchy, irritable and unhappy servants.

What a plague it is - this dishonesty of theirs, with which the owners must be in constant struggle, be constantly on their guard. They cheat in the most blatant way. When they are convicted of theft, they swear by such oaths that it’s just scary to listen: “God strike me, but don’t leave this place if I was self-interested in your penny ... so that I don’t see the light of God ... they swear on their heads relatives” - and obviously lie at the same time.

The servant does not value his place at all, not at all taking root in the family - not taking root in the house, as even the most crafty, ungrateful and vile of domestic animals - cats take root.

They change jobs not because they are dissatisfied, not because the work was unbearable or the owners are unbearably demanding and capricious, but simply because they lived a long time.

What! Healed: that's the whole explanation for you.

For people with common sense it would seem certain that if you have lived in one place for a long time, you should live like that ... But no.

Again, you need to look at foreign lands. There, the servants value places so much - especially in France - that they often consider changing a place not only a misfortune, but also a disgrace. There, people very often live in the same family for decades and die in the same families where they began their service.

With a patriarchal life, a healthy and modest life, devoid of any frills, the servants generally feel much happier: the difference between their way of life and the life of masters is not particularly sharp.

But where life has been turned into a continuous frantic holiday, incredibly expensive, where a woman spends thousands and tens of thousands of rubles on her outfits alone, where many thousands are thrown away on any one evening to throw dust in the eyes of society, where they eat on gold and the master's car for the departure is daily decorated with fresh flowers - there this way of life, this sinful and criminal luxury fills the lower ones with great envy. The servants begin to foolishly imitate the masters in their squandering, and the secondary servant, whose monthly salary does not exceed twelve rubles, begins to sew silk dresses with tails.

I once heard a conversation, on the one hand - funny, but on the other hand - tragic in its senselessness, in the perversion of people of sound concepts.

An ugly village girl lived with one lady, asking her for a salary in advance during the sixth week of Great Lent, and at the same time constantly asking her to "go to the dressmaker."

What is it, Dunya, - asked the lady, - you have such big business with the dressmaker?

But what about: I’m sewing a dress for myself for communion, I’ll go to fast.

Yes, you have a light dress, and a very good one.

Yes, is it possible to join in a worn dress! After all, I will hang out with my friends. There will be our fellow guys who live here locally. They will laugh if one of us in an old dress appears.

And the dress was sewn: some kind of awkward, with a long train, while Easter was early, and there was nowhere to go from the sticky mud on the streets.

The fuss with the dressmaker is all that this poor girl will take out of her shit, and even a new dress with a long tail.

But if this seems wild to you, then after all, what is better than the ladies themselves, with the only difference that their dresses are more luxurious, more expensive and there is more fuss, but the same attitude towards that Sacrament that requires complete concentration of the spirit.

The gentlemen are scouring the cars - now give the servants a car. Many maids now make it a condition for their fiancés that there must be a taxi for the bride - otherwise she won’t go to church.

And so it is in everything: the masters set a bad example, and the servants follow this example.

If servants steal, it is mainly because their old age is not at all secured.

Some positions, like the position of a cook, have a devastating effect on health, as they stand by a hot stove for several hours in cold air blowing through an open window, because otherwise it is difficult for her to breathe - this has a devastating effect on health, shortens life, causes incurable rheumatism .

And what should a servant who has no relatives do when she grows old - how not to beg!

It would be fair for families that use the work of servants to be subject to at least a light tribute - for example, one ruble per month and more or less, depending on the salary paid to the servants, and thus constituted an inviolable capital, from which the person who lost the ability to work servants could receive a pension or be kept in an almshouse.

Sometimes people seem decent and well-mannered to you, just as a sudden dash of them in relation to the servants breaks your assumption.

A company was sitting in one rich house, talking about various interesting issues ... They were drinking tea. The landlady's son, who had recently arrived, an officer of a smart regiment stationed in the vicinity of the capital, rudely interrupted a young lackey, who gave him something not as he wished.

Donkey, bastard, - he angrily missed under his sleek mustache.

I noticed how one very well-mannered man, who had great influence, grimaced with displeasure. An hour later, we simultaneously descended the stairs with him.

That's how he was brought up, - he said thoughtfully. - I thought that Marya Petrovna's children were brought up differently.

This young officer later had to serve under the command of this gentleman. They said that he somehow does not give him a move. At the same time, I have more than once recalled that fleeting scene in which this influential man with a subtle soul noticed an unbearable rudeness for him in this seemingly polished, but in essence rude and impudent young fellow. And since this gentleman equally hated both rudeness and servility - and these two traits are almost always inseparable from one another - he looked with understandable distrust, as an unreliable person, this two-faced one - polite before some and impudent before those. who could not resist him - a man ...

* * *

In the question of the relationship between superiors and inferiors, the question of workers and employers cannot be bypassed.

Human nature pushes a person who is looking for work to ask for this work as expensive as possible, just as it pushes a person who hires another for work to offer him this work at the lowest possible price. And usually an average figure is set, which is not unprofitable for both.

But the force, in most cases, is on the side of the employer, and it is easy for him, as they say, to "squeeze" the employee.

In the village, these people are called "kulaks".

A "fist" is a person who takes advantage of a person's unfortunate circumstances to enslave him.

Someone needs grain for sowing: he will lend him grain, but with the fact that he returns this grain to him from the harvest in double quantity. For these loans, the money will be forced to work twice and three times against the prices existing in that area.

To the category of these people belong those worthless individuals who take advantage of social disasters for their own gain: anticipating an imminent famine, they stealthily buy up stocks of grain in order to resell it later at a terribly expensive price.

Of course, such abuses, such exploitation of human calamity for one's own gain, is the gravest of crimes. About these people, we can say that they drink human blood.

Against all such people, the apostle James thunders with terrible threats, and horror penetrates the soul when you think about these threats:

“Listen, you rich people: weep and wail for your calamities that come upon you.

Your wealth is rotten, and your clothes are moth-eaten.

Your gold and silver have corroded, and their rust will be a testimony against you and will eat your flesh like fire: you have stored up for yourselves treasure in the last days.

Behold, the wages you withheld from the laborers who reaped your fields cry out; and the cries of the reapers reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

You lived in luxury on earth and enjoyed; nourished your hearts as if for the day of the slaughter.”

"Let others live" - ​​this is the motto that Christianity gives for the relationship - the owner and the worker.

One cannot live looking at the labor force of living people as some kind of impersonal mechanical force. No matter how great the undertaking, a Christian employer must see a living soul in each of his many thousands of workers, must treat them with sympathy and modesty.

In one French novel, I happened to see the perfectly noticed movement of the soul of one rich man. A young millionaire from Paris takes an overnight train to the seaside city of Le Havre, where he must board his own yacht for an extended voyage across the seas with the woman he loves.

He doesn't sleep well. In the early morning, long before dawn, crossing the area with coal mines, he sees many black figures of miners heading into the mines to work, and when he compares his life, full of all kinds of pleasures, carefree, beautiful, with the limited, working life of these people, who are in constant danger of being crushed and suffocated by collapses of coal and gas developing in mines, this, in essence, not bad, a person becomes uneasy ...

Some kind of remorse gnaws at him. He feels that at that moment he would have been ready to do a lot for these people, but the impulse passes, and his life flows in the same selfishness.

And there are, however, people who put into practice - in varying degrees - active assistance to the workers who depend on them.

Of course, you have heard of various auxiliary institutions, superbly equipped in various factories, which arose from the idea of ​​the owners of the factories and were carefully maintained by them. There is also a magnificent hospital, a nursery for children, where working mothers can rent their little children who need care for the whole working day, and artel shops where you can get everything at a cheaper price and better quality, and reading rooms with light paintings. which can provide such healthy entertainment to the workers and contribute to replenishing their meager knowledge, and an almshouse for single workers who have lost the opportunity to work, and free schools that prepare from the children of workers knowledgeable specialist workers with a high price for their work, and a funeral fund that facilitates the worker's family in difficult days at the death of the head of the family, and various other institutions that the warm heart and resourceful mind of a person who seeks to alleviate the situation of a working brother can invent for the benefit of the working people.

To establish a society of sobriety in the working environment, to help an outstanding, inventive boy with a living spark of talent in him to receive a higher technical education, to build his own church for a factory remote from the villages: there are innumerable ways for a hearty entrepreneur to serve his workers.

There are bosses whom the workers call "fathers"... What a lofty name, what happiness for the owner to earn this title from his workers!

But, unfortunately, such a humane attitude of the owner towards the workers is far from being the rule, but a rare exception. And we see such cases of the attitude of entrepreneurs towards workers, from which the blood runs cold.

Thus, it is impossible without a shudder to recall the history of Lena, where the Lena Gold Industrial Association, bathed in gold, forced the workers to go on strike with their heartless attitude, which ended in the beating of innocent workers to death.

The attitude of this association towards the workers is one of the greatest, most insolent mockeries of human rights that has ever been seen. And to this partnership, more than to anyone else, a terrible curse is attached, which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of the apostle, brings down on ruthless and unscrupulous owners.

In the eyes of the partnership, which received fabulous incomes, the workers were some kind of cattle, not people, and they were treated worse than cattle.

They lived in incredible conditions, in disgusting damp dugouts. This area is a lost corner, cut off from the rest of the world for a significant part of the year. The workers were forced to buy provisions at a price set by the partnership from the shops of the partnership, which also profited from this and bought for a pittance obviously rotten, rotten and spoiled goods, so that for a high price, as they say - with a knife to the throat, to force them to buy its workers located in in a hopeless situation, since nowhere, as in the shops of the partnership, you can not get anything there.

In the eyes of feeling and thinking people, this comradeship will forever remain spattered with the blood of the Russian worker, an immortal monument to human abomination and criminal greed.

And if our society were Christian, it would make the life of the criminal leaders of this society impossible. Everyone would turn away from them, in spite of, or rather, precisely because of this money they stole, this work sweat and blood turned into gold. They would not have been given a hand, they would have been spit in their eyes, they would have been loudly called thieves and murderers.

The terrible power of man over man. Once it was the unlimited power of the master over the worker. Now it is no less heavy economic dependence; its forms are endless, just as the abuses of this heavy power are endless.

The exhaustion of strength from a worker during unemployed time, the fall of a woman into severe poverty, bought by a rich voluptuary, they said that the wives and daughters of Lena workers had to satisfy the whims of local employees - all sorts of rudeness, insults, injustices: all this merges into one terrible ocean of tears, violence , bullying, in which the working people choke. And terrible will be the hour of reckoning. Terrible is the moment when, at the Last Judgment, these offended, driven, humiliated people, in the crown of their suffering and their patience, will point to their oppressors, robbers, offenders and murderers - to that all-seeing Judge, before Whom all excuses and those pitiful excuses that these the enemies of the people were justified before the personable judges of men.

You can buy this book

Why is the Orthodox Church so sharply negative about homosexuality? I'm not talking about gay parades, I don't understand it myself, although I live with a woman. How are we different? Why are we more sinful than everyone else? We are the same people as everyone else. Why are we treated like this? Thank you.

Hieromonk Job (Gumerov) answers:

The Holy Fathers teach us to distinguish between sin and a person whose soul is sick and needs treatment from a serious illness. Such a person evokes compassion. However, it is impossible to heal the one who is in blindness and does not see his disastrous state.

Holy Scripture calls any violation of the Divine law a sin (see 1 John 3:4). The Lord the Creator endowed a man and a woman with spiritual and bodily features so that they complement each other and thus constitute a unity. The Holy Bible testifies that marriage as a permanent life union between a man and a woman was established by God at the very beginning of human existence. According to the Creator's plan, the meaning and purpose of marriage is in joint salvation, in common work, mutual assistance and bodily union for the birth of children and their upbringing. Of all earthly unions, marriage is the closest: will be one flesh(Gen. 2:24). When people have sexual life outside of marriage, they pervert the Divine plan for a blessed life union, reducing everything to a sensual-physiological principle and discarding spiritual and social goals. Therefore, the holy Bible defines any cohabitation outside of family ties as a mortal sin, for the Divine institution is violated. An even more serious sin is the satisfaction of sensual needs in an unnatural way: “Do not lie with a man as with a woman: this is an abomination” (Lev.18: 22). This applies equally to women. The Apostle Paul calls this shameful passion, shame, lasciviousness: “Their women replaced natural use with unnatural; likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the female sex, were inflamed with lust against one another, men doing shame against men, and receiving in themselves the due punishment for their error” (Rom. 1: 26-27). People living in Sodomite sin are deprived of salvation: “Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malacia, nor homosexuals nor thieves, nor covetous men, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor predators, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

There is a sad repetition in history. Societies that go through periods of decline are afflicted, like metastases, by some especially dangerous sins. Most often, sick societies are engulfed in mass self-interest and depravity. The offspring of the latter is the sin of Sodom. Mass depravity corroded Roman society like acid and crushed the power of the empire.

To justify the sin of Sodom, they try to bring "scientific" arguments and convince that there is an innate predisposition to this attraction. But this is a typical myth. A helpless attempt to justify evil. There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuals are genetically different from other people. We are talking only about a spiritual and moral illness and the inevitable deformation in the field of the psyche. Sometimes the cause may be childish depraved games that a person forgot, but they left a painful trace in the subconscious. The poison of unnatural sin that has entered a person can manifest itself much later if a person does not lead a correct spiritual life.

The Word of God, sensitive to all manifestations of human life, not only says nothing about innateness, but calls this sin an abomination. If it depended on certain neuroendocrine characteristics and sex hormones, which are associated with the physiological regulation of the reproductive function of a person, then the Holy Scriptures would not speak of the unnaturalness of this passion, it would not be called shame. Isn't it blasphemous to think that God can create some people with a physiological disposition to mortal sin and thereby doom them to death? The facts of mass distribution of this type of debauchery in some periods of history testify against the attempt to use science as an excuse. The Canaanites, the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities of Pentagrad (Adma, Seboim and Sigor) were infected with this filth without exception. Defenders of Sodomy dispute the notion that the inhabitants of these cities had this shameful passion. However, the New Testament directly says: “As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around, like them, committed fornication and who went after other flesh having undergone the punishment of eternal fire, set as an example, so it will be with these dreamers who defile the flesh ”(Jude 1: 7-8). This is also evident from the text: “They called Lot and said to him: Where are the people who came to you at night? bring them to us; we shall know them” (Gen. 19:5). The words “let us know them” have a very definite character in the Bible and indicate carnal relationships. And since the angels who came had the appearance of men (see: Gen. 19: 10), this shows what disgusting depravity all (“from young to old, all the people”; Gen. 19: 4) inhabitants of Sodom were infected with. The righteous Lot, fulfilling the ancient law of hospitality, offers his two daughters, “who did not know a man” (Gen. 19: 8), but the perverts, inflamed with vile lust, tried to rape Lot himself: “Now we will deal worse with you than with them "(Gen. 19: 9).

Modern Western society, having lost its Christian roots, is trying to be "humane" in relation to homosexuals, calling them the morally neutral word "sex minority" (by analogy with the national minority). In fact, this is a very cruel attitude. If a doctor, wanting to be "kind", inspired a seriously ill patient that he was healthy, only by nature he was not like others, then he would not differ much from a murderer. Holy Scripture indicates that God “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, having condemned them to destruction, turned into ashes, setting an example for the future wicked” (2 Pet. 2: 6). It speaks not only of the danger of losing eternal life, but also of the possibility of being healed of any, even the most serious and rooted spiritual illness. The Apostle Paul not only severely rebuked the Corinthians for shameful sins, but also strengthened their hope with examples from their own midst: “And such were some of you; but they were washed, but they were sanctified, but they were justified by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

The Holy Fathers point out that the center of gravity of all passions (including carnal ones) is in the realm of the human spirit - in its damage. The passions are the result of man's separation from God and the resulting sinful depravity. Therefore, the starting point of healing must be the determination to “leave Sodom” forever. When the angels were leading Lot's family out of this city of vile debauchery, one of them said: “Save your soul; do not look back” (Gen. 19:17). These words were a moral test. A parting glance at the corrupted city, to which God's judgment had already been pronounced, would testify to sympathy for him. Lot's wife looked back, because her soul had not parted from Sodom. We find confirmation of this idea in the book of wisdom of Solomon. Speaking of wisdom, the author writes: “At the time of the destruction of the wicked, she saved the righteous, who escaped the fire that descended on five cities, from which, as evidence of wickedness, there remained a smoking empty earth and plants that did not bear fruit in due time, and a monument wrong souls - a standing pillar of salt (Wisdom 10: 6-7). Lot's wife is called an unfaithful soul. Our Lord Jesus Christ warns his disciples: “On the day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all… Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:29, 32). Not only those who have looked into the abyss with their experience, but also all those who justify this vice, one must constantly remember Lot's wife. The path to a real fall begins with the moral justification of sin. One must be horrified by the eternal fire, and then all liberal speeches about the “right” to what the Lord said through the lips of the sacred writers will seem false: “The depraved one is an abomination before the Lord, but fellowship with the righteous” (Prov. 3: 32).

It is necessary to enter into the fertile experience of the Church. First of all, it is necessary (without delay) to prepare for the general confession and go through it. From this day on, we must begin to fulfill what the Holy Church has prescribed for its members for centuries: regularly participate in the sacraments of confession and communion, go to feast and Sunday services, read morning and evening prayers, observe holy fasts, be attentive to oneself in order to evade sin. ). Then the all-powerful help of God will come and heal you completely from a serious illness. “He who knows his weakness from many temptations, from bodily and spiritual passions, will also know the infinite power of God, delivering those who cry out to Him with prayer from the bottom of their hearts. And his prayer is already sweet. Seeing that without God he can do nothing, and fearing a fall, he tries to be relentless with God. He is surprised, thinking about how God delivered him from so many temptations and passions, and thanks the Redeemer, and with thanksgiving receives humility and love, and no longer dares to despise anyone, knowing that as God helped him, so He can help everyone, whenever he wants” (St. Peter of Damascus).

Psychology is becoming more popular every day. Now this is not just one of the sciences, it is one of the most relevant practical and applied disciplines that enter our lives: journals on psychology are published, books on near-psychological topics are sold in increasing numbers, many get used to visiting a psychologist regularly. Increasingly, questions about psychology are being asked to our site. We want to acquaint readers with the answers to some of them.

Recently, I have become interested in books on psychology, I would like to know the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards this science.

Hello Igor!

In the Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted by the Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000, we read: “XI.5. The Church considers mental illness as one of the manifestations of the general sinful damage of human nature. Highlighting the spiritual, mental and bodily levels of its organization in the personal structure, the holy fathers distinguished between illnesses that developed “from nature” and illnesses caused by demonic influence or resulting from passions that enslaved a person.

In accordance with this distinction, it seems equally unjustified both to reduce all mental illnesses to manifestations of possession, which entails the unjustified performance of the rite of exorcism, and to attempt to treat any spiritual disorders exclusively by clinical methods. In the field of psychotherapy, the most fruitful combination of pastoral and medical care for the mentally ill, with a proper delimitation of the areas of competence of the doctor and the priest.

That is, the Church is for fruitful cooperation with psychology and psychotherapy, provided that the methods of influence and areas of competence are adequately distinguished in accordance with the situation of each person.

Hello, father! In practical psychology, there is a method of directed visualization. When the client presents various images that the psychologist offers. This should improve the client's well-being. Most often these are natural images: to feel the cool water of a stream, the smell of flowers, imagine yourself as a flying butterfly, etc. But it also happens that it is proposed to imagine, for example, a waterfall of light, how it warms, soothes, and then you need to thank this waterfall for help. In my opinion, this is in conflict with Orthodox teaching. Could you explain to what extent the use of this method is justified. Thank you in advance.

Ekaterina, child psychologist.

Christ is Risen!

Your doubts about the legality of using directional visualization in the dialogue option are quite justified. The danger is too great that the spiritual answer to the search in such a state will be given from outside. And precisely from the side of the infernal forces of evil. Although the method itself is very powerful and allows you to deal directly with the subconscious, it is better to use it, especially in children, without dialogue.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Many of my acquaintances are passionate about a psychological theory called “Reality Transurfing”, this is a powerful technique that gives the power to create things that are impossible from an ordinary point of view, namely, to control fate at your own discretion. (Quote from the book) But besides this, they also consider this theory close to the Orthodox faith. Our fights are heated. I would like to know your opinion about such teachings, stating that a person can do anything. And also advise me, please, literature on this issue. Thank you in advance. Maria

Hello Maria! The magical methods and presentations of Vadim Zeland's books, in my opinion, have nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Rather, the doctrine of energies, pendulums and the like is closer to occult mysticism. The described visions also have nothing to do with Orthodoxy. As for the preaching of human omnipotence, we read from the Apostle Paul: “I can do everything in Jesus Christ who strengthens me". (Philippians 4:13) There is no place for Christ in the theory of transurfing. And the ideas of human omnipotence without Christ are not only outside Orthodoxy, but are clearly anti-Christian in nature. Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Tell me, please, is Luula Viilm's book “I Forgive Myself” harmful? If yes, please tell me why! Thanks a lot! God bless you! Julia

Hello Julia! Luule Viilma's method only at first glance resembles Orthodox repentance. She considers herself a parapsychologist and clairvoyant. A certain energetic nature of diseases is affirmed. There is no place for God in her concept of forgiveness. Man forgives everything to himself. This is a hidden education of pride and exaltation over others. The danger of this book is that it does not tell lies, but half-truths. The unconditional need for reconciliation with others is elevated to the rank of the pinnacle of spirituality, while Orthodoxy speaks of the need for repentance before God. Of course, this book can also become the first step on the path to true repentance. But, very likely, it can lead to a dead end in energy-parapsychological occult research.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Hello! I work as a teacher at a university, I am interested in the psychology of interpersonal relationships. For personal growth, I visit sometimes. I have a question for you. I was offered to take the training “Dance of Life”, i.e. It is clear from the name that a technique will be applied there with the help of dance to reveal the inner potential and bring to the conscious level what is in the soul. I want to ask: how does Orthodoxy regard this kind of action? Is it possible to go to such a training or is it not from God? Looking forward to your reply, thanks in advance. Tatiana

Hello, Tatyana! The training you have named is part of the direction of body-oriented psychotherapy. This is a very interesting psychological method, but it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Patristic counseling presupposes the path of repentance and prayer. It seems to me much more direct and effective than the methods of modern psychology. At the same time, participation in such a training is not a sin and can bring some benefit if situations that provoke unchaste thoughts are not allowed during the training.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Hello father, I have a question for you: Do you know such a book “Learning to speak in public” written by Vladimir Shahidjanyan? My brother is completely engrossed in this so-called work. As a sister, I worry about him, especially since he will soon have a child.

Personally, I found this book highly suspicious. Since in it the teacher teaches young people who read his books, delusional thinking, and making absurd sentences, asking questions to people who do not know the answer to these questions, for example: where to buy a crocodile or how to get to the theater, although he himself knows how to get to him. Svetlana

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

What is the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the works of Abraham Maslow, the founder of modern humanistic psychology? Anthony

Hello Anthony!

The attitude towards this or that phenomenon of the Russian Orthodox Church can be expressed only in the resolutions of the Local, Bishops' Councils or the decrees of the Holy Synod, His Holiness the Patriarch. The teaching of A. Maslow does not apply to such problems of Orthodox counseling, for which there are similar general church definitions. Therefore, the opinions of various representatives of the Church may not completely coincide.

The very fact that in his holistically dynamic concept of personality A. Maslow left Freudianism and put forward the idea of ​​self-actualization as a motive for human development deserves respect. The thesis that the transformation of a person into a full-fledged one is the development of higher forms of motivation inherent in a person is in full agreement with Orthodox anthropology. But V. Frankl already noted that Maslow does not imply for a person to go beyond himself in search of the meaning of life. Whereas in Orthodoxy, without such a way out, spiritual development is basically impossible.

The limitation of Maslow's theory is that the self-expression of a person's authentic motivations cannot be the true meaning of life. It is not enough to express motivation. It must be lived, that is, realized. Without prejudice to his spiritual state and to those around him, a person can realize the highest motivations only in the communion with God commanded to him. And only religion, and Orthodoxy in particular, can help a person in this and save him from the many traps that lie in wait on the way.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Good afternoon, father. Answer, please, how to relate to the mood of Sytin? They write that even astronauts used them, there was a result. Some of my acquaintances (albeit, non-church people) also felt a sense of relief. And I'm afraid of something. Sincerely, Leah.

Hello Leah!

Attitudes, as a method of positive psychology, are used not only by G.N. Sytin, but also by N. Pravdina, Louise Hay and many others. Attitudes are a surrogate for prayer, a kind of persuasion of oneself. It acts as a psychological pain reliever. The danger of such therapy is that the real problem, which often goes back to sin, is not solved, but driven inside.

But the trouble is that it will still manifest itself through another sin, somatic disease or otherwise. Another harm from such a surrogate for an Orthodox person is that he tries to replace prayer with himself, that is, he turns away from the true Physician of our souls and bodies, the Lord Jesus Christ. Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Hello! Father, recently Valery Sinelnikov's books fell into my hands. I have been a church person for over a year now, and I am wary of all non-church literature. In reality, this is quite difficult, because there is still no spiritual experience that would allow one to take it more calmly, so I ask for your help. The fact is that something there is really of interest and can be adopted. But some things cause me doubts, because they do not agree with what I read in church literature. How much attention should be paid to the books of this particular author? Can they be useful? Alexandra

Hello Alexandra!

The danger of the writings of Valery Sinelnikov and other representatives of the school of “positive psychology” (L. Hey, N. Pravdina and others) is that they, like painkillers, drown out spiritual problems with the help of suggestion, without healing their causes, rooted in sins. Instead of saving the soul, a person exalts his pride. Problems are not solved, but driven into the depths of the soul, which then turns into new completely unexpected problems. So they can hardly be spiritually useful to an Orthodox Christian.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Father, hello! Today, a lot of literature on psychology is published (for example, books by Andrey Kurpatov and many others) about the relationship between a man and a woman. Tell me, please, can it be useful both for a married person and for a person who has not yet married? Thank you in advance! Alexandra

Hello Alexandra! Unfortunately, in most of these books, including those of Dr. Kurpatov basis relationship between a man and a woman in marriage is the physiology of intimate relationships. From the Orthodox point of view, the family is created for mutual assistance in the salvation of the soul, in everyday difficulties. The fact that a family is, first of all, a union of love, friendship and mutual respect, and only then an intimate union is completely forgotten by modern psychology.

For all the importance of this area of ​​family life, excessive focusing on it alone can mislead a person when thinking about the motives for the actions of a spouse. They are not always to be found in bed.

Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.

Hello! Marina is writing to you, I am very grateful for your answer and again I turn to you with a question. I am a teacher-psychologist, I work with children from dysfunctional families and orphans. According to my observations, almost all children (and this, of course, has its own reasons) have a very pessimistic outlook on life, they see neither good in the present nor prospects for the future. I would like to help them learn to enjoy life and build positive models for the future. Please tell me how Orthodoxy relates to the techniques of positive thinking, those, of course, that do not have mystical overtones. Thank you in advance!

Hello Marina! The general church judgment, expressed in the documents of the hierarchy, according to the so-called. There is no “positive psychology”, due to the fact that it falls under the concept of modern occultism.

As a specialist, you certainly see that the school of positive psychology, creating its affirmations, parodies prayers, transferring them from the sphere of personal communication between a person and God, to some mystically and occultly understood forces of nature. In addition, instead of solving internal problems rooted in the sin of a person or his parents, she offers a simple consolation, a kind of spiritual pain relief. But spiritual contradictions in such a person, opposing oneself to God and the world by this technique, are only “driven” inside.

It is much more fruitful for children to realize the presence of God and His providence in the world, to gain deep love for Him and humility before His will, albeit incomprehensible to us, but always good. This is more complicated than psychological techniques, but it adapts a person to the world without putting rose-colored glasses on him. Unfortunately, faith cannot be taught, it can only be shown. God grant that your sincere personal faith will help orphans to believe. Pray about it and the Lord will help you. Sincerely, priest Mikhail Samokhin.