Archbishop Lazar Puhalo's Perspective on Marriage and Monasticism
By Dr. Andrew J. Sopko, on the The Theo-Anthropology of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
For Puhalo, even in contemporary culture, marriage between a man and a woman remains the greatest form of prophecy concerning the unity between Christ and the Church. The recognition in modern societies of “civil unions” between partners of the same sex cannot infringe upon this reality for these unions do not reflect the Church’s understanding of marriage. Within the boundaries of traditional marriage itself, the increasing incidence of divorce and multiple marriages can be seen as evidence of the toll the fallen order has taken in corrupting the relationship between the sexes. In the past, divorce often occurred simply by a man telling a woman that the marriage was over. Although in today’s egalitarian culture, the woman has far more “rights,” marriage has been reduced more than ever to basically a social and sexual function.50 From Puhalo’s perspective, the belief that even Christian marriage is nothing more than some sort of “legal or magical ritual for making sexual relations moral” can only be considered disastrous. More than anything, marriage should be considered the union of a man and a woman who, as “helpmates,” work out their own salvation together.51 Even so, the “mystery of marriage” should be accepted as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Committed love “bestows upon us our humanity and relates us to the Divine,” according to Puhalo.53 In Orthodox Christianity, it is not said that a couple is married in the Church but that their marriage is crowned by the Church. In other words, marriage takes place first in the hearts of the two who love one another. In the
Church, they ask that their commitment be crowned by the Holy Spirit.54 In emphasizing commitment rather than just love at the beginning of a marriage, Puhalo has a very practical viewpoint:
Marriage instructs the couple concerning Christ and the Church not through abstract concepts but through “an actual living experience.”57 Just as Christ came to redeem us and to regenerate us through the mystery of co-suffering love, so in marriage, the couple possesses the possibility of a comparable experience.58 When marriage is called a form of martyrdom, this illuminates the fact that the marital commitment is all about the replacement of the ego and selflove with love for the other.59 The creation of man and woman as opposites has made this all the more difficult but
Puhalo’s high regard for marriage in no way implies that celibacy cannot also be sanctifying and salvific. Certainly the Apostle Paul felt this (1 Cor. 7:4-7) although he himself seemed to have an even higher regard for celibacy.64 Of course, celibacy can be practiced even within marriage as has been the case with husbands and wives who have lived as brother and sister. Some Christian feminists have regarded the virginity of the celibate life as a form of asexuality. From the Orthodox perspective, however, it instead could be said that “sexuality is present in pure masculine and feminine forms in male and female celibates.”65 For Puhalo, the avoidance of preconceptions concerning sexuality should remain paramount.
Ultimately, the most virtuous expression of sexuality for all of us lies in the realization of co-suffering love. George S. Gabriel, a member of Lazar Puhalo’s theological circle has summed this up rather succinctly:
Source: Dr. Andrew J. Sopko, For A Culture of Co-Suffering Love: The Theo-Anthropology of
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (Los Osos: Archive Publications, 2004) 49-52
Notes:
50. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning of Love and Marriage” in The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxis Press, 1996), 98.
51. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 97.
52. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning.” 99,
53. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 92.
54. L. Puhalo, Meleti (Spiritual Talks) (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxis Press, 2000), 13.
55. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 94.
56. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 95.
57. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 96.
58. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning.” 102.
59. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 97.
60. L. Puhalo, Meleti (Spiritual Talks), 7.
61. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 108-9.
62. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 110.
63. L. Puhalo, “Gender as Prophecy,” 16.
64. G.S. Gabriel, “You Call My Word Immodest,” 87.
65. D. Belonick, Feminism in Christianity, 40, n. 66.
66. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 100.
67. L. Puhalo, Scriptural Basis and Meaning of Orthodox Christian Monasticism (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxix Press, n.d.), 15.
68. G.S. Gabriel, “You Call My Words Immodest,” 86-7.
By Dr. Andrew J. Sopko, on the The Theo-Anthropology of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
For Puhalo, even in contemporary culture, marriage between a man and a woman remains the greatest form of prophecy concerning the unity between Christ and the Church. The recognition in modern societies of “civil unions” between partners of the same sex cannot infringe upon this reality for these unions do not reflect the Church’s understanding of marriage. Within the boundaries of traditional marriage itself, the increasing incidence of divorce and multiple marriages can be seen as evidence of the toll the fallen order has taken in corrupting the relationship between the sexes. In the past, divorce often occurred simply by a man telling a woman that the marriage was over. Although in today’s egalitarian culture, the woman has far more “rights,” marriage has been reduced more than ever to basically a social and sexual function.50 From Puhalo’s perspective, the belief that even Christian marriage is nothing more than some sort of “legal or magical ritual for making sexual relations moral” can only be considered disastrous. More than anything, marriage should be considered the union of a man and a woman who, as “helpmates,” work out their own salvation together.51 Even so, the “mystery of marriage” should be accepted as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Spiritually, with the help of Christ and the Holy Spirit, man must rebuild paradise in his heart or rather struggle to allow the Holy Spirit to manifest it there [in illumination and deification]. For the Kingdom must live in us now if we hope to abide in it for eternity. Thus, for the Orthodox Christian, every step, every aspect of life is a holy mystery.52Still, a committed marriage provides an especially conducive environment to work out the mystery of one’s salvation because one is not alone but has a partner.
Committed love “bestows upon us our humanity and relates us to the Divine,” according to Puhalo.53 In Orthodox Christianity, it is not said that a couple is married in the Church but that their marriage is crowned by the Church. In other words, marriage takes place first in the hearts of the two who love one another. In the
Church, they ask that their commitment be crowned by the Holy Spirit.54 In emphasizing commitment rather than just love at the beginning of a marriage, Puhalo has a very practical viewpoint:
Love is a “growth situation.” No one actually “falls in love.” People may like each other deeply and be strongly attracted to one another but love comes only from a longterm commitment....Love pertains not only to the things we find positive and attractive in a person but also to the negative aspects of their personality and the things we discover about them over the years that we find unattractive. That is why actual love is not instantaneous. It is a process of growth and maturity.55Hopefully, a couple will develop not just with one another but because of one another. When marriage is entered into, it should be realized that mutual spiritual growth and development provide a fundamental reason for the union.56
Marriage instructs the couple concerning Christ and the Church not through abstract concepts but through “an actual living experience.”57 Just as Christ came to redeem us and to regenerate us through the mystery of co-suffering love, so in marriage, the couple possesses the possibility of a comparable experience.58 When marriage is called a form of martyrdom, this illuminates the fact that the marital commitment is all about the replacement of the ego and selflove with love for the other.59 The creation of man and woman as opposites has made this all the more difficult but
When you realize that God has given you the privilege of being a living revelation and that you yourselves become living prophets through marriage, in that the woman reveals the nature of the Church and the husband reveals the relationship of Jesus Christ with the Church, you begin to understand the mystery of human gender and the true mystery of love...A truly Christian marriage is a form of the Gospel and you become holy prophets not only to your children and to each other but to the world around you.60Puhalo’s remark concerning children should not be misconstrued to mean that procreation is the reason for marriage. In both the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, it must be admitted that very little is said about marriage and procreation. And, while children are considered a blessing from God, not all marriages produce them. A marriage that has manifested itself as a family already has a widening channel of love for the couple. But even a childless marriage (as well as one with children) should become a vehicle for a love that extends outward. This love must go beyond the relatives as well and towards anyone who is “a neighbor.”61 Of course, even marriages entered into with the best intentions sometimes break down due to the difference in the growth and development of love between the partners.62 Although Christ himself permitted divorce only for reasons of adultery, Puhalo demonstrates that this can be interpreted in a spiritual as well as carnal sense. In a marriage where love has vanished in at least one of the partners, a “spiritual adultery” may occur that may be as harmful as anything carnal.63
Puhalo’s high regard for marriage in no way implies that celibacy cannot also be sanctifying and salvific. Certainly the Apostle Paul felt this (1 Cor. 7:4-7) although he himself seemed to have an even higher regard for celibacy.64 Of course, celibacy can be practiced even within marriage as has been the case with husbands and wives who have lived as brother and sister. Some Christian feminists have regarded the virginity of the celibate life as a form of asexuality. From the Orthodox perspective, however, it instead could be said that “sexuality is present in pure masculine and feminine forms in male and female celibates.”65 For Puhalo, the avoidance of preconceptions concerning sexuality should remain paramount.
When human sexuality becomes imprisoned in stereotypes and moralistic bonds, then it is held back from rising to its true purpose and that purpose itself is obscured in blind negatives...It is fascinatingly simple and pure while at the same time, one of the most complex, baffling and vulnerable aspects of our inter-human relations. These contradictory qualities are the conflict between the passions of the fallen nature and the purpose of the creation of human sexuality.66Although Puhalo has written concerning monasticism, he fails to place the same emphasis on co-suffering love within its context, principally because he holds marriage in such high esteem. Nonetheless, he does see them as of equal value while denying that monasticism can ever be perceived as a form of anti-marriage. In actuality, the prophetic character found in the intensity of the community life of monks and nuns makes equal demands towards the attainment of co-suffering love. Within monasticism, there even exists a “helpmate” of sorts in the spiritual director (elder) who guides monastics for “God has ordained that no man climb the mountain alone.”67 Also in the monastic life, there are those who withdraw from community life and become hermits. It legitimately might be asked how anyone living alone, monastic or not, could attain co-suffering love. As a fruit of purification, illumination and deification, co-suffering love is available even to the solitary. Often in monasticism, the hermit will return from his or her solitude and take up the life of the spiritual director, putting to practical use the fruits of co-suffering love that have been acquired in solitude.
Ultimately, the most virtuous expression of sexuality for all of us lies in the realization of co-suffering love. George S. Gabriel, a member of Lazar Puhalo’s theological circle has summed this up rather succinctly:
Every human being, married or single, monk or nun, is called to the denial of self and of self-will. Every man is commanded to “love his neighbor as himself” (Mk. 12:33). The nature of the “love that seeketh not its own” is the same in the cloister, in the community and in marriage and the family.68
Source: Dr. Andrew J. Sopko, For A Culture of Co-Suffering Love: The Theo-Anthropology of
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (Los Osos: Archive Publications, 2004) 49-52
Notes:
50. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning of Love and Marriage” in The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxis Press, 1996), 98.
51. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 97.
52. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning.” 99,
53. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 92.
54. L. Puhalo, Meleti (Spiritual Talks) (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxis Press, 2000), 13.
55. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 94.
56. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 95.
57. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 96.
58. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning.” 102.
59. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 97.
60. L. Puhalo, Meleti (Spiritual Talks), 7.
61. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 108-9.
62. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 110.
63. L. Puhalo, “Gender as Prophecy,” 16.
64. G.S. Gabriel, “You Call My Word Immodest,” 87.
65. D. Belonick, Feminism in Christianity, 40, n. 66.
66. L. Puhalo, “Mystery and Meaning,” 100.
67. L. Puhalo, Scriptural Basis and Meaning of Orthodox Christian Monasticism (Dewdney, Canada: Synaxix Press, n.d.), 15.
68. G.S. Gabriel, “You Call My Words Immodest,” 86-7.
