OK, so we have gone through syndromes, through the medical side of the arguments. Now it is time to talk about the Church and intersexuals. A lot of the answer will have to do with what are the purposes for marriage. And, does one purpose predominate over all the other purposes? So, let me start out by quoting from the website of the Orthodox Church in America regarding marriage so that you may know what at least one jurisdiction has to officially say about marriage.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not “part in death” but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God. . . . There is no “legalism” in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the “baptizing and confirming” of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church.
According to the Orthodox teaching as expressed in the sacramental rite of marriage, the creation of children, and the care and love for them within the context of the family, is the normal fulfillment of the love of a man and woman in Christ. In this way, marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity which overflows in the creation and care for the world. This conviction that human love, imitative of divine love, should overflow itself in the creation and care for others does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage and the unique and exclusive justification and legitimization of its existence. Neither does it mean that a childless couple cannot live a truly Christian life together. It does mean, however, that the conscious choice by a married couple not to have a family for reasons of personal comfort and accommodation, the desire for luxury and freedom, the fear of responsibility, the refusal of sharing material possessions, the hatred of children, etc., is not Christian, and can in no way be considered as consonant with the biblical, moral and sacramental teachings and experience of the Orthodox Church about the meaning of life, love and marriage.
Please note that the primary reason given for marriage is actually that of the “deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity.” But that love is supposed to somehow image the Trinity and grow into the likeness of the Trinity. In other words, the sacramental part of the marriage is actually that which furthers the growth in theosis of the two people who have been united by the Holy Spirit, so that their human love may transcend each individual and grow into something akin to God’s love. But God’s love in Trinity did not point simply inwardly but also chose to break outward, and God created. This is why procreation is mentioned so often in the Early Church Fathers. It is because they could not imagine the love of marriage not wanting to create just like God created. Thus people who enter into marriage with no desire for children do not have a true Christian love. Nevertheless, as the document above points out, this, “. . . does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage.”
It is here that I differ with some Christians who would try to proclaim that procreation is the end all and be all of marriage. For, if this were true, then no Christian church could marry those older than a certain age, nor could they marry the infertile, etc. But, in fact, no Christian church refuses marriage to those beyond the age of procreation, or the infertile, which is a recognition that procreation is not primary nor the only consideration. (It also points out that some Christians contradict themselves.) And some Christians so focus on the act of procreation that they declare that any sexual activity within marriage that fails to allow the woman to get pregnant is repugnant to God. Frankly, I would like to see one of those Christians get up in front of a room full of couples in their late forties to their fifties to declare that the woman must either be allowed to get pregnant, if possible, or they must live only platonically. I do notice that I have yet to hear of a major priest or preacher teaching platonic Christian marriage after the age of medically safe conception! This does not mean that anything goes in a marriage. (And, no I refuse to get into definitions!)
Nevertheless, the Church Fathers were correct. A love that has no desire to express itself creatively outwardly (children) is no true love. One of the commenters to an earlier blog post pointed to couples who have the desire to have children and would have if they could safely do so, and that this is all that is required. I agree with her. Many who are married older do wish they were younger and were able, but that does not invalidate their marriage. And, the heavy pain of those who find themselves infertile speaks to the trueness of the love they have one for another. When the infertile couple adopts, it presents to the world the image of God the Father, who chose to adopt us as Sons of God and fellow-heirs of His Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ. In fact, any couple who adopts presents the same image, so let me encourage all couples, of an appropriate age and capable of caring adequately for children, to adopt even if they have one or two biological children.
Let me finish this background study with a couple of romantic quotes from St. John Chrysostom as he is speaking about marriage in the context of one of his homilies about the Book of Ephesians. Tomorrow I will continue more specifically with intersexuals:
But rather, first talk with her of your love for her; for there is nothing that so contributes to persuade a hearer to admit sincerely the things that are said, as to be assured that they are said with hearty affection. How then art thou to show that affection? By saying, “when it was in my power to take many to wife, both with better fortunes, and of noble family, I did not so choose, but I was enamoured of thee, and thy beautiful life, thy modesty, thy gentleness, and soberness of mind. . . . whereas I might have married a rich woman, and with good fortune, I could not endure it. And why so? Not capriciously, and without reason; but I was taught well and truly, that money is no real possession, but a most despicable thing, a thing which moreover belongs as well to thieves, and to harlots, and to grave-robbers. So I gave up these things, and went on till I fell in with the excellence of thy soul, which I value above all gold. For a young damsel who is discreet and ingenuous, and whose heart is set on piety, is worth the whole world. For these reasons then, I courted thee, and I love thee, and prefer thee to my own soul. For the present life is nothing. And I pray, and beseech, and do all I can, that we may be counted worthy so to live this present life, as that we may be able also there in the world to come to be united to one another in perfect security. . . . I value thy affection above all things, and nothing is so bitter or so painful to me, as ever to be at variance with thee. Yes, though it should be my lot to lose my all, and to become poorer than Irus, and undergo the extremest hazards, and suffer any pain whatsoever, all will be tolerable and endurable, so long as thy feelings are true towards me. . . .”
For those of you who have ever thought that the Church Fathers were simply dried up old male monks, I hope the quote above will let you begin to look at them in a new light!
Father, I am definately going to have to use that quote from St. John Chrysostom sometime 🙂
But seriously, a wonderdul post. I just recently discovered your blog, and I find it to be a delightful source of information and edification.
Actually reading St. John Chrysostom disabused me of the notion that he is a misogynist. I would find it very exceptional to hear such an outpouring of emotional eloquence from a man in our culture; I think nowadays people would expect (and press for) the woman in a troubled marriage to make that kind of a statement.
I am always happy when adoption is advocated, since that is how I got two very good parents 🙂
Everyone’s situation is different, but I think many of those who opt for expensive fertility treatments (and all of those who go the surrogacy route) because they want “their own child” don’t quite have a full grasp on what it means to love. Blood (or genetic make-up) is most definitely not thicker than water.
As always, I appreciate your writing, Fr. Ernesto.
Dana
“It is because they could not imagine the love of marriage not wanting to create just like God created. Thus people who enter into marriage with no desire for children do not have a true Christian love.”
This certainly reminds me of why I left the church. I’ll offer the example of my aunt and uncle, who were the most loving and devoted couple throughout their 50 plus years of marriage that I have ever known. They truly cared for each other in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer and through hard lives full of sacrifice. The thought that someone would proclaim their marriage “not true Christian love” because they never had or wanted children is deeply offensive to me.
There are a million good reasons why a loving couple might not want children – not least among them the fact that the world is filled to overflowing with unwanted children whose parents apparently couldn’t take care of them but did as the church advises and had them anyway. Why would we want to concern ourselves with whether we’re able to take care of our children and be good parents to them when, no matter what our doubts or concerns, the church advises us to just have them and hope for a miracle? I find the most loving and responsible and truly Christian people in this world are those who consider their actions and their effect on other people and on a world groaning under the weight of starving children whom no one will care for.