Sexual Ethics

MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL

Human beings are sexual; human bodies are places where love, affection, and respect are often accompanied by physical desire; places, therefore, of both great joy and struggle. Orthodoxy recognizes the tension which often exists between love, desire, and respect. Questions of sexual ethics are dependent on an understanding of the human person as participating in an ongo­ing transformation into the likeness of God, one that includes joy and blessing as well as sin and repentance As unique, irreducible, and dynamic spiritual realities, personhood and relationship cannot be reduced to mat­ters of “natural” or civil law. The pertinent questions for ethical decision-making are who am I/we becoming and how does a particular relationship, sexual behavior, or action enable me/us to be more like God; that is, to better love God and neighbor.

Modern Orthodox sexual ethics must honestly confront an ambiguous past his­tory. While the written tradition has known outspoken defenders of the body and the value of sexual relations in the context of marriage, it has produced many detractors as well. Nor can we ignore the fact that while both men and women are ostensibly called to the same standards of virtue and sexual integrity, double standards existed and still exist which uncritically accepted preexisting cultural assumptions about women’s weak­ness and supposedly greater struggle for virtue, which over-sexualized women and meted out harsher penalties for wrongdo­ing. This imbalance has not gone unnoticed by the tradition, but the misogyny pervasive in Late Antique and Byzantine cultures nonetheless affected the development and application of much Orthodox canon law, theology, and pastoral care. This is espe­cially important to bear in mind as Ortho­doxy now makes its home in western cultures and encounters feminist insights regarding the shared dignity of men and women, and new opportunities for articu­lating gender roles and responsibilities. Reenvisioning such roles must grapple with the difficulty engendered by phrases such as the “Manly-woman of God,” some­thing that was meant as a compliment in Late Antique discourse but which is completely lost on women today.

Discerning pastoral care is increasingly important in the Orthodox Church to modify rhetorically extreme views of sex and the body. It is increasingly important to move beyond a dominant monastic frame of discourse and acknowledge loving marital relationships as God-given and potentially deifying. Comparing the early with the late works of both Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom evinces this shift from an initial idealization of virginity to a recognition of the life-giving potential of faithful, married intercourse. The early work of these fathers begins in the ascetic abstract ideal, but new-found pastoral involvements faced them with the grief and life-giving joy that marriage brought to their congregants. Consequently their attitudes shifted. It is paradigmatic of attitude changes Orthodoxy needs to artic­ulate again.

Orthodox canon law regarding sexual behavior was developed mainly to address problematic behavior. It is not a manual of good practice, therefore, but an indication of appropriate boundaries. Further, given the contextual nature of the canons, their application in varying social contexts and relationships requires the careful exercise of discernment and compassionate applica­tion by all parties involved (the tradition of oikonomia).

Sexual expression is a way of one child of God relating to another, and the same criteria for Christian relationships (that is, the treating one another as “neighbor,” granting love, dignity, respect, and joy to the other) govern sexual behavior. Pornog­raphy, prostitution, domestic abuse, and sexual exploitation of any kind deny and deface the image of God in another person. Sexual relations are best entered into, articulated, and sustained through relationships committed to all these ele­ments. Orthodoxy always presumes a faithful marriage as the place of settlement where all this happens under a covenantal blessing.

Marriage is intended as a means to deification. Families are characterized as a “domestic church.” Children are a blessing and parenthood is a respected and vital task. This ethos of respect underlies Ortho­dox critiques of social movements and sys­tems which denigrate, or make difficult, motherhood or fatherhood. Traditionally, contraception has been forbidden by Orthodox teachers; not only because of the value of children and the issue of love’s openness to life, but because in Antiquity contraceptives were largely synonymous with abortofacients. Non-abortofacient contraception, possible today, allows for discerning family planning. Couples who choose to plan or limit their families are unfortunately often still characterized as selfish by some Orthodox theologians; but even so oikonomia respects that many factors contribute to the decision and abil­ity to bear or adopt children.

The church holds that life begins at con­ception. Modern science recently has greatly contributed to the understanding of the process of human life’s development, but does not indicate when personhood is granted by God and the community to the child. Abortion has been consistently rejected by Orthodox tradition, and is fre­quently referred to as murder for which canon law prescribes a period of excommu­nication as penance. However, the church also recognizes that threats to the life of the mother, abject poverty, and the helplessness of women often complicate the ethical dimensions of what many portray as a simple issue. Orthodox pastoral practice is widely experienced on the individual level as being compassionate to parents who have been involved with abortions and repent of it. Further, modern Orthodoxy recognizes that social circumstances often aggravate beginning-of-life decisions, and advocates for the creation of conditions that protect parenthood, encourage adoption, and generally address dire circumstances of life, of which abortion is a symptom, not a cause.

The cultural androcentrism of Ortho­doxy is particularly evident in some liturgi­cal practices, especially those for miscarriage and the churching of infants. Traditionally, miscarriage has been attrib­uted to a mother’s sinfulness and forgive­ness is requested on her behalf. Likewise the rite of the forty-day presentation of a newborn prays for the restoration of purity to the mother, strongly implying that the birth process renders her unclean and defiled. The longstanding dispute regarding women not receiving the Eucha­rist during menses reflects an ancient social context in which blood and purity held significantly different meanings to those they have today. Many priests now modify prayers to remove elements which impute sin or project shame or wrongdoing on women and parents involved in these moments, and some priests church male and female babies identically: either bring­ing both of them, or neither of them, into the altar area. The 20th century has seen increased conversation among the Orthodox regarding the whole issue of women’s place in the church’s ministries, and the related issues of how sexuality and gender stand in need of extensive reconsid­eration in the church today, in the light of how different philosophical and social conditions illuminate in new ways the ancient yet ever fresh and responsive Ortho­dox tradition of the appropriation of the gospel.

SEE ALSO: Bioethics, Orthodoxy and; Chas­tity; Deaconess; Deification; Ethics; Fasting; Humanity; Original Sin; Repentance; Women in Orthodoxy

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Council of Russian Bishops (2000) The Orthodox Church and Society: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Guroian, V. (2002) Incarnate love: Essays in Orthodox Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.