About marriage and lust

The anti-Pelagian essay “On Marriage and Lust” was written by Bl. Aurelius Augustine in 420. The treatise is devoted to the issue of original sin and the Sacrament of Marriage. Blzh. Augustine considers questions about the essence of marriage, the conditions of its authenticity, the possibility of dissolution, polygamy and polyandry, the relationship between the carnal and the spiritual in marriage. The treatise is presented in chapters 4-12. *The title of the work in Latin is De nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium. Contents Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI Chapter VII Chapter VIII Chapter IX Chapter X Chapter XI Chapter XII The natural benefit of marriage. Every union by its nature avoids a deceiving participant. What kind of marital chastity is true? Virginity and chastity are not true unless they are based on true faith The union of a man and a woman to produce children is a natural benefit of marriage. But this benefit is used badly by those who use it in an animal way, so that their desire is aimed at satisfying the thirst for bodily pleasures, and not the desire to procreate. In some animals that do not have intelligence, as well as in many birds, something similar to a matrimonial union is observed: the mating art of nesting, and alternately sitting on eggs, and searching for food; Moreover, it is obvious that when they mate, they are most likely engaged in the matter of procreation, and not satisfying their lust. Of these two matters, the one similar to the human in the animal is the one that is similar to the animal in the human, that is, the matter of procreation. I have already said that it is part of the nature of marriage that a man and a woman join in a union for the sake of the birth of offspring, while they do not deceive each other, since any union, by definition, does not have the goal of deceiving its allies. Even people who are not adherents of the Christian faith have this most obvious benefit of marriage; however, using this benefit not on the basis of true faith, they rush towards evil and sin. Consequently, only marital union, and moreover, the union only of adherents of the Christian faith, turns to the benefit of piety that base lust, through which the flesh passionately “desires what is contrary to the spirit” (Galat. V, 17). For only adherents of the Christian faith have the original intention of reproducing themselves in posterity in this way, so that the sons born in their family would be reborn as sons of God. That is why those who give birth to sons not with that desire, that will, that goal, so that they turn from the flesh of the first man into the flesh of Christ, namely, parents who do not adhere to the true faith and boast of their offspring who do not believe in Christ, are deprived of true marital chastity, even if they are in a marriage union and copulate for the purpose of producing children. For since chastity is a virtue, in relation to which its opposite, that is, vice, is debauchery, and all virtues, even those that are exercised through the body, reside in the soul; then how can true reason recognize the body as chaste, if the very spirit contained in it, although it comes from the true God, indulges in depravity, denying its Creator! This debauchery is condemned in the sacred psalm, where it is said: “For behold, those who remove themselves from You perish; You destroy everyone who departs from You” (Ps. 72:27). Consequently, chastity, whether married, widowed, or maiden, can be called true only when it comes from true faith. For since, according to correct reasoning, sacred virginity precedes marriage, is there any Christian who, being in sober mind, will not give preference to devout Christian girls preparing to marry, not only over the Vestals, but also over the heretical virgins? This is the extent to which faith is strong, about which the Apostle says: “whatever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23), and about which also in the Epistle to the Hebrews there are the following words: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. XI: 6). Condemning the thirst for pleasure is not the same as condemning marriage. Why did shame arise in relation to the human body? Adam and Eve were not created blind. What is eye opening in first parents Since this is so, those who believe that since carnal attraction is condemned, then marriage should also be condemned, are indeed mistaken, as if this painful attraction of the flesh comes from marriage, and not from sin. Isn’t it true that those first spouses, whose marriage God glorified, saying: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), were naked and were not ashamed of it? So, to the question: why after the Fall people began to be ashamed of their naked bodies, one should answer: because that obscene movement arose, which would not have existed in marriage if the first parents had not sinned. Or perhaps, as some believe (because they do not pay enough attention to what they read), men were first created blind like dogs, and, what is still more absurd, acquired sight not like dogs as a result of growth, but through the commission of sin? God forbid you believe this! But what motivates those who think this way? Probably those famous words of Scripture: “And she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave it also to her husband, and they ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3, 6–7). Based on this, people with little understanding believed that at first the eyes of the first people were closed and that they were opened later, which, in their opinion, is evidenced by the divine Scripture. But was it really true that Hagar, Sarah's servant, who, when her son was thirsty and wept bitterly, opened her eyes and saw a well (Gen. 21:19), had her eyes closed before? Or those two disciples who, after the resurrection of the Lord, walked along the road and about whom the Gospel tells that “their eyes were opened, and in the breaking of bread they recognized him” (Luke 24, 31, 35), were their eyes closed before that? So, what is written about the first people: “the eyes of both of them were opened” (Gen. 3:7) - we must understand that their eyes focused on observing and learning about the new things that began to happen in their body: especially because the naked body that was open to their eyes aroused their lust. Otherwise, that is, if the eyes of the first man were closed before the Fall, how could Adam have given names to all the animals brought to him, both living on the earth and those flying above the earth, except by doing so by recognition; Adam would not have been able to recognize them if he did not have sight? Finally, how was the woman herself, that is, Eve, shown to him when he said: “Behold, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23)? After all, if someone were stubborn to such an extent that he would say: “Adam could discern not by sight, but by touch,” then what can he say about what is written there, that is, in the Holy Scriptures, about the tree from which the woman intended to take food and which is very “pleasant to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6)? So, “they were... naked... and not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25); not because they did not see, but because in the bodies that they saw, they did not perceive anything that could be ashamed. After all, it is not said: “They were both naked and were in ignorance,” but it is said: “they were not ashamed.” For because they had not previously done anything illegal, they had nothing to be ashamed of. Man is justly rewarded for the fact that his flesh does not obey him. Disobedience of the flesh causes modesty After man transgressed the original law of God, he was given another law, prescribing a different attitude towards the flesh, a law contrary to its base desires. And a completely deserved reward for disobedience of the flesh is the torment of a person suffering because of his disobedience to the law. After all, it is obvious that when the serpent, seducing the first parents, promised them the opening of their eyes, then he wanted to open to them something that it would be better for them not to know at all. And of course, it was clear to the person what he had done: he then separated evil from good; but this did not happen in such a way that he abandoned evil, but in such a way that, on the contrary, he succumbed to it. But it would be unfair if the slave, that is, the flesh, obeyed one who himself does not obey his Lord! Well, what is it that the eyes, lips, tongue, arms, legs, curves of the back, neck and chest are in our power when it is necessary to set them in motion to perform actions according to the purpose of each of them, provided that we have a body free from obstacles and healthy; when it comes to copulation, the members created for procreation do not obey the will, but wait until lust, with its power, prompts them to do so? Sometimes she does not do this, although the spirit desires it, and sometimes she does it, although the spirit does not desire it. Is it not shameful for the freedom of human will that, due to neglect of God who commands, it has lost power over its members? Where else could it be shown that human nature is corrupted through disobedience, if not from these disobedient members, through which, through procreation, the human race continues? It is for this reason that these parts of the body are called reproductive parts. So this movement of the copulating organs is obscene precisely because it does not obey the human will; when the first people recognized this obscene movement of the flesh and were ashamed of their nakedness, they covered their bodies with fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). People overwhelmed by shame wanted to hide their private parts, which had been aroused against their will; and since the first people were ashamed of their indecent desire, they covered themselves and did the right thing. The evil of voluptuousness does not destroy the good of marriage Since it is absolutely impossible for marriage to cease to be a good thing because of the evil of voluptuousness inherent in it, then, based on this, ignorant people believe that voluptuousness is also not something bad, but refers to the mentioned good. And not only refined reason, but also ordinary common sense recognizes that lust was present in our ancestors, and that at present it persists among married people. What they do in marriage for the purpose of procreation is the benefit of marriage; however, the same thing is hidden before marriage, since it is a shameful vice of lust, which everywhere, wherever, avoids being seen, and, ashamed, seeks to retire to a secluded place. Therefore, marriage should be glorified, for it makes a certain good out of the vice of lust; but at the same time the marriage feels a sense of shame, since it cannot exist without the above-mentioned act. Just as, for example, if someone with a disfigured leg, limping, were nevertheless to achieve something good, then this arrival cannot be considered an evil because of the disease of lameness, and the lameness cannot be declared a good because of the benefit of this arrival; neither should we condemn marriage for the vice of voluptuousness, nor glorify voluptuousness because of the good nature of marriage. The painful passion of lust in marriage is not inherent in love, but in necessity. Marriage must contain the love of adherents of the true faith. About whom it should be said that, when entering into a carnal relationship, he is not overcome by the vice of lust. How once upon a time the Holy Fathers had carnal communication with their spouses Of course, this lust is a painful attraction, about which the Apostle speaks even to true believing spouses: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication; so that each of you knows how to keep his vessel in holiness and honor, and not in the passion of lust, like the pagans who do not know God” (1 Thess. 4:3-5). So, a truly believing spouse would not only not use someone else’s vessel, as those who covet other people’s wives do, but he would also know that he should not even possess what belongs to himself, being in the grip of the disease of bodily lust. This should be understood not as if the Apostle forbade conjugal, that is, permissible and worthy of respect, love affair, but so that he demanded that it be cohabitation, which in no way had the character of painful passion. However, this would have been possible if free will had not lost its power due to original sin; and now cohabitation inevitably has the character of a disease inherent not in love, but in necessity; at the same time, without this need for sons to be born, love itself cannot be achieved. He who has such a desire of heart observes his vessel, that is, his spouse, in holiness and honor, just like the adherents of the true faith who trust in God; but, without a doubt, he who is in a state of morbid desire does not keep his vessel, just like the pagans who do not know God. Of course, a person, entering into a carnal relationship, is not defeated by the vice of lust only when he curbs and humbles the flaming lust, accompanied by disordered and obscene movements; and, caring for the continuation of the race, this lust softens and uses only in order to carnally bring into the world those who must be spiritually reborn, and not in order to doom the spirit to slavish service to the body. Thus, none of the Christians should doubt that the Holy Fathers from Adam to Abraham, to whom God gave a covenant pleasing to him, had wives; and as for the fact that some of them were even allowed for one husband to have many wives, this was allowed not because of the desire for a variety of pleasures, but because of the desire to multiply offspring. Why is it permissible for a husband to have many wives, while a woman is never allowed to have many husbands? Nature strives for unity of origins If God, who is our Father, would have liked such a large number of wives among our forefathers only because the latter were tormented by a more abundant desire, then even holy women, and each of them, would have belonged to many men. If any of them did this, then what, other than the unbridledness of lust, would prompt her to have many men, because because of this debauchery she does not have more sons? However, the very first marriage union of spouses created by the divine will sufficiently testifies that the good of marriage relates not to the connection of one man and many women, but of one and one, so that marriage arises from where one can rely on the most favorable example. As the human race continues, good women enter into intimate relationships with good men, and many women with one man. But it is obvious that in the first case, that is, when one man and one woman unite, their union can achieve a high degree of dignity if moderation reigns in it, but in the second case, that is, when one man has many women, nature allows this only for the sake of abundant childbearing. Moreover, it seems more natural for one to rule over many than for many to rule over one. And it cannot be doubted that, according to the order of nature, men are better masters over women than women are over men. The Apostle, observing this, says: “the head... is the husband of the wife” (1 Cor. 11:3); and “Wives, be subject to your husbands” (Colossians 3:18); and the Apostle Peter: “So Sarah,” he says, “obeyed Abraham, calling him master” (1 Peter 3:6). This is allowed, since nature loves the unity of rulers, but we would rather see plurality in subordinates: however, many women would never have been legally married to one husband, if this had not produced many sons. If one woman lies with many men, then she cannot be called a wife, but only a harlot, because from this she will not have an increase in offspring, but only an increase in voluptuousness. The sacrament of marriage. Indissoluble marital bonds. The world's divorce law is different from the gospel law Since truly spouses, adherents of the faith of Christ, are endowed not only with fertility, the result of which is present in offspring, and not only with chastity, the bond of which is faith, but also with a certain sacrament of marriage, about which the Apostle says: “Husbands, love your wives, as... Christ loved the Church” (Eph. 5:25); then, undoubtedly, the essence of this sacrament is that a man and a woman, bound by marital ties, continue to live inseparably until death; and it is not permitted to dissolve a marriage except on the grounds of adultery (Matthew 5:32). For it is protected by Christ and the Church that a living person, as long as he is alive, can never be separated from his wife by any divorce. “In the city of our God, on His holy mountain” (Ps. 47:2), that is, in the Church of Christ, all true believing spouses, who, undoubtedly, are from the body of Christ, are given such a rule of this sacrament that, although women marry, and men marry for the sake of giving birth to children, the highest law does not allow leaving a childless spouse and taking another woman as a wife - a fertile one. If someone did this, that is, left a childless wife and married another woman, then he, just like a woman if she married another man, would be guilty of adultery according to the law of the Gospel, but would not be guilty according to worldly law; for the secular law is that after the dissolution of a marriage (even if no criminal adultery has been committed) either spouse is allowed to marry the other spouse; and even, as the Scripture says, the Lord declared that Saint Moses allowed the Israelites, due to their hardness of heart, to “divorce their wives” (Matthew 19:8). Among people who have at least once entered into a marriage union, it retains such force that those who no longer live together are more likely to be considered spouses than those who cohabit without marriage. Of course, if Christian marriage did not have such power, then cohabitation with others would not be called adultery. Only if the husband with whom there was a true marriage has died, is a true marriage possible with the one with whom there was former adultery. So, between living spouses, marriage bonds are preserved, which cannot be destroyed either by the separation of the spouses or by the connection of one of the spouses with someone else. The marriage bond remains legal even if one of the spouses commits criminal adultery, if the marriage is formally preserved; just as the soul of an apostate, having renounced marriage with Christ, even having lost faith, is not deprived of the Sacrament of faith, that is, it does not cease to be Christian, because through the rite of baptism it once and for all received the opportunity to return to faith *. For if the apostate were deprived of this Sacrament (which, however, is impossible), then, without a doubt, it would be returned to the one who returned to the faith. The one who apostatized from the true faith receives punishment, and not a reward that must be earned. A vow of mutual abstinence does not dissolve a marriage. There is a true marriage between Mary and Joseph. How is Joseph the father of Christ? In the marriage of Mary and Joseph there were all the blessings of marriage If some spouses, by mutual consent, wish to completely abstain from carnal intercourse, this does not mean that the marriage bond between them will be severed: on the contrary, it will be stronger if they conclude agreements with each other, which they must observe not on the basis of base pleasures delivered by carnal intercourse, but thanks to the spontaneous aspirations of their souls. After all, without deceit, the Angel said to Joseph: “Do not be afraid to accept Mary your wife” (Matthew 1:20). She was called his wife by betrothal, but Joseph did not cohabit with her and did not intend to do so; however, Mary did not lose the title of wife, and this title was not false, although there was no, and no carnal connection was supposed between her and Joseph. And this virgin delighted her husband all the more sacredly and miraculously because even having conceived without him and being unequal to him in regard to the child, she was nevertheless equal to him in faith. Therefore, the parents of Christ, and not only his mother, but also his father, since he is the husband of his mother, both deserved to have their marriage called strong; Moreover, both of them are spouses according to the soul, and not according to the flesh. Both Joseph, who is the father of Christ in the soul, and Mary, his mother in the soul and in the flesh, despite this parenthood, were in a state of humility, but not greatness, weakness, but not divinity. For the Gospel does not deceive, where it is said: “And His father and mother marveled at what was said about Him.” And in another place: “Every year His parents went to Jerusalem.” There, a little further: “And His Mother said to Him: Child! what have you done to us? Behold, Your father and I have been looking for You with great sorrow.” And he, to show that he himself has a Father instead of them, who gave birth to him to a greater extent than his mother, answers them: “Why did you look for Me? or did you not know that I must be concerned with the things that belong to My Father?” But, on the other hand, so that no one would think that these words indicate that Jesus turned away from his parents, the Evangelist further adds: “And they did not understand the words that He spoke. And He went with them, and came to Nazareth; and was in subjection to them” (Luke II:33, 41, 48–51). The question is, who is obedient, if not the parents? Who exactly was in obedience if not Jesus Christ, who, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God? So, why was he in obedience to those who are much lower than the image of God, if not because “he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6-7), to which image his parents were also involved? But although Jesus was not conceived by Joseph, but was only born by Mary, of course, both parents would not have been involved in Christ the servant if they had not been united to each other by marital ties, although there was no carnal union in their marriage. This is the only reason why the series of births from David to Joseph was completed - the parents of Christ, according to Scripture, close the chain of successors of the family of David (Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23) - so that both spouses, Joseph and Mary, would be equal in relation to their Son, and there would be no offense and injustice to the male sex, which is more preferable in marriage, because it was predicted that Christ would come from the family of David. The prediction would have come true even without this, for Mary herself belonged to the family of David. So, in the parents of Christ, marriage was filled with all the blessings: offspring, fidelity and sacrament. We know that the descendant of Mary and Joseph is the Lord Jesus himself; fidelity exists because there was no adultery in this marriage; sacrament - because there was no dissolution of marriage. Anyone born from carnal cohabitation is sinful flesh In the marriage of Mary and Joseph there was not only carnal cohabitation, because in the flesh the Son could not have been born without lust, and this shameful carnal lust is impossible without sin. But he who intended to be without sin wished to be conceived not in sinful flesh, but only “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. VIII, 3). It is also said here that he taught that everyone born from carnal cohabitation is sinful flesh, since only one flesh is not sinful flesh, which is not born from vile cohabitation. Nevertheless, carnal cohabitation in marriage, with the goal of procreation, is not a sin, because the good will of the spirit motivates the obedient body, and does not itself obey the exciting lust of the flesh; and in marriage, the will of a person is not enslaved by the sin of carnal intercourse, since it is fair that the need to procreate reduces the damage caused by sin. Carnal lust, which causes this damage, dominates in the abominations of adultery and debauchery, as well as in any other dishonor and filth; This same lust in marriage is completely subordinated to the need to procreate. Carnal intercourse is the master there, that is, in adultery, which is condemned for immorality, but it is also the servant here, that is, in a virtuous marriage that is ashamed of it. So, this lust is not the blessing of marriage, but a necessity for procreation, a shameful stain of marriage, the obscenity of sinners, the fire of debauchery. As a result of this, will not those who, by mutual agreement, cease carnal cohabitation remain spouses; After all, Joseph and Mary were spouses who did not enter into carnal relations? The name of Aurelius Augustine is one of the most significant in the Western European cultural tradition, both from a literary and from a philosophical and theological point of view. The ideas of this Father of the Church determined the development of Western thought until the 13th century, but subsequently, including in the 20th century, they did not lose their significance. Augustine was born in the city of Tagaste, in the African province of Numidia, on November 13, 354 AD. His father, an impoverished Roman patrician, was a pagan; mother, Monica, is a Christian (she was later canonized by the Catholic Church). Around 365, Augustine went to the city of Medavra, where he received an education in Latin literature and grammar. In 370, when his father died, Augustine began the study of rhetoric in Carthage, a major commercial and administrative center of the time. The treatise of the Roman orator and writer of the 1st century made a great impression on the young Augustine. AD Cicero’s “Hortensius” (now lost), which prompted him to doubt the significance of worldly, sensual pleasures and benefits and turn to philosophy. Initially, Augustine was not satisfied with the illogical, from his point of view, ideas of Christianity and he turned to Manichaeism. This is a religious and philosophical doctrine that arose in the 3rd century AD. and which became widespread from China to Spain, proclaimed the existence of two world principles: being and non-being, good and evil, light and darkness, between which there is a constant struggle. This unceasing struggle also occurs in man, for his soul is involved in the light origin, and his body is involved in the dark one. The Manichaean teaching turned out to be attractive in the eyes of Augustine because it gave a clear answer to the question of the origin of evil in the world and man, while Christianity, proclaiming the good God as the only Creator of everything that exists, could not, in Augustine’s opinion at that time, logically explain what is the source of evil. In 374, Augustine opened a rhetoric school in Carthage. In 383 he moved to Rome, where he continued teaching rhetoric. Gradually there is a disappointment in Manichaeism, within the framework of which Augustine could not resolve a number of problems, for example, questions of the criterion of the reliability of human thinking, the source of the incessant struggle between good and evil principles, etc. Having delved into philosophy, Augustine joins skepticism. In 384, he moved to Milan, where, under the influence of the famous Christian bishop Ambrose of Milan, as well as as a result of studying Neoplatonic writings, he changed his negative attitude towards Christianity. He begins to read the New Testament again, and is especially impressed by the letters of the Apostle Paul. In 386 Augustine converted to Christianity, and in 387 he was baptized. A year later, he left Italy and returned to his hometown of Tagaste, where he founded a small monastic community. Augustine is engaged in both literary and church activities, writing essays against his former allies - skeptics and Manichaeans. In 396 he was elected Bishop of Hippo, and he remained in this post until his death in 430. For the last thirty years of his life, Augustine led the fight against the heresies of the Donatists and Pelagians. The Donatists did not recognize the sacraments performed by priests who betrayed Christianity during the period of persecution, and even formed their own independent church. The Pelagians denied the inheritance of original sin; they considered the main thing for achieving salvation not the grace of God, but the moral efforts of man himself, his moral choice. Among Augustine's anti-Pelagian works is the treatise “On Marriage and Lust,” written in 420. It is devoted to the issue of original sin and the sacrament of marriage. Augustine’s formulation and solution of the problems of the essence of marriage, the conditions of its authenticity, the possibility of dissolution, polygamy and polyandry, the relationship between the spiritual and the carnal in marriage largely determined the content of ideas about marriage and sexual relations in the Western European Christian cultural tradition. Thus, marriage between living spouses cannot be eliminated - neither by separation nor by union with another. But such a connection will continue to exist as a punishment for sin, and not as a covenant connection, just as the soul of an apostate leaves the connection with Christ, but the loss of faith does not free one from the Sacrament of Faith, since this ablution of rebirth was accepted. – Translation of “The ABCs of Faith”.