O God, look down with mercy and loving-kindness on our dear brother, afflicted with sickness unto death; give him perfect resignation to Thy divine will, and graciously enable him to suffer, without complaining, whatever Thou art pleased to appoint. O compassionate Lord Jesus Christ, support and comfort him. O Most Holy Theotokos, and all ye blessed saints, intercede for him, that he may acquire much virtue in passing through this time of trial and be purified thereby from the smallest stain, so that at the moment of his departure from this valley of tears, he may enter into the joys which God has prepared for those who love and serve Him, through our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, together with His unoriginate Father, and His Most Holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
ORTHODOX MISCELLANY- History, Ecclesiology, Spirituality, and the Struggle Against Ecumenism
An Independent Orthodox Christian Blog. The views of the administrator do not necessarily coincide with the contents of all posts.
Sunday, May 10, 2026
The Rule of Prayer for Deliverance from Evil Thoughts
Through the prayers of the Holy
Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Glory to Thee, our God, glory to
Thee.
Heavenly King, O Comforter, the
Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, O Treasury
of every good and Bestower of life: come and dwell in us, and cleanse
us from every stain, and save our souls, O Good One.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy
Immortal, have mercy on us. (3x)
Glory to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
All-holy Trinity, have mercy on
us. Lord, be gracious unto our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One,
visit and heal our infirmities for Thy Name's sake.
Lord, have mercy. (3x)
Glory to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
Our Father, Who art in the
Heavens, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on
earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread. And forgive us our
debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver
us from the evil one.
Through the prayers of the Holy
Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Lord, have mercy. (12x)
Glory to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
O come, let us worship and fall
down before our King and God.
O come, let us worship and fall
down before Christ, our King and God.
O come, let us worship and fall
down before Him, Christ the King and our God.
PSALM III
O Lord, why are they multiplied
that afflict me? Many rise up against me. Many say unto my soul: There is no
salvation for him in his God. But Thou, O Lord, art my helper, my glory, and
the lifter up of my head. I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me
out of His holy mountain. I laid me down and slept; I awoke, for the Lord will
help me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people that set themselves
against me round about. Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God, for Thou hast smitten
all who without cause are mine enemies; the teeth of sinners hast Thou broken.
Salvation is of the Lord, and Thy blessing is upon Thy people.
Glory to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia,
Glory to Thee, O God. (3x)
Our Hope, O Lord, glory be to
Thee.
PRAYER I
O Master, Lord my God, in Whose
hands is my fate, help me according to Thy mercy, and forsake me not to perish
in mine iniquities, neither be it Thy will that I should follow the desires of
the flesh against the spirit. I am Thy creature, despite not the work of Thy
hands, for I am feeble; for I am come seeking refuge in Thee, my God and
Protector: heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee. Save me for Thy
mercy's sake, for I was cast on Thee from my youth: let them be put to shame
that seek to turn me away from Thee, by impure deeds, by foolish thoughts, by
unprofitable memories. Drive from me every impurity, the excess of malice; for
Thou alone art holy, Thou alone art mighty, Thou alone art immortal, having in
all things power beyond compare, and by Thee is the power to withstand the
devil and his hosts granted unto all. For to Thee belongeth all glory, honor
and worship, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and
ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
PRAYER II
May thine ill return upon thine
own head, and let thy slander come down upon thee, O crafty and wicked demon:
for I worship the Lord my God, and never will I speak blasphemy against Him.
For how is it possible for me to vex, or blaspheme Him Whose glory I proclaim
day and night, and at every hour, with all my strength and mind? But my
doxology is indeed thine abuse; thou shalt see wherein thou slanderest Him, and
as an apostate thou speakest against God.
PRAYER III
The Lord Who came into the world
by the Most Pure and Holy Virgin and truly the Theotokos, unto the salvation of
the world for the sake of us sinners, forbideth thee, O most crafty spirit, the
devil. Cursed art thou and all thy wicked thoughts, whether at night or in the
day. I exorcize thee by the name of the Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity,
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: depart from me, the servant of
God [name], put not thine evil thoughts into my heart, but depart unto a
deserted land, without water, that the Lord visiteth not. I exorcize thee, O
impure and blasphemous spirit, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither to
flatter nor to trouble me with abusive thoughts as I make my prayer unto the
Lord my God, but let all thy slanderous thoughts be upon thy head in the day of
judgment: for I serve the Lord my God, and to Him alone I send up my prayers in
the day and the night, to Him that abolisheth thee, yet hath mercy on me, and
strengtheneth me, and forgiveth me, in His great goodness and mercy, all my
sins. Get thee behind me Satan, and be thou cursed, with all thy wickedness and
opposing power, for blessed and glorified is the most honorable name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages
of ages. Amen.
PRAYER IV, TO THE MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS
O my most holy Lady Theotokos,
through thy holy and all-powerful prayers banish from me, thy lowly and
wretched servant, despondency, forgetfulness, folly, carelessness, and all
filthy, evil, and blasphemous thoughts from my wretched heart and my darkened
mind. Quench the flame of my passions, for I am poor and wretched, and deliver
me from many and cruel memories and deeds, and free me from all their evil
effects. For blessed art thou by all generations, and glorified is thy most
honorable name unto the ages of ages. Amen.
More honorable than the Cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, thee who without corruption
gavest birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, thee do we magnify.
Glory to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
Lord, have mercy. (3x)
Through the prayers of the Holy
Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Various Prayers to the Theotokos
When
offended
At all times try
to silently endure reproaches… Pray:
"O Queen of
Heaven, save us sinners, and suffer us not to fall into the abyss. I know, O
Lady, that all these sorrows are profitable unto our soul. But, O Lady, Thou
seest how feeble we are, and how greatly we have attached unto the life that is
earthly. Grant unto us patience to bear our cross, and forsake us not, sinners,
of Thy heavenly consolation."
And thus, if you
act in this way throughout your entire temporal life on earth, the Lord will
not forsake you together with His Mother, and at times will give you such inner
consolations as no earthly pleasure or comfort can be compared with…
Prayer
of Venerable Macarius of Optina, read during carnal warfare
O Mother of the
Lord, my Creator! Thou art the root of virginity and the unfading flower of
purity. O Bearer of God! Help me, who am weak from carnal passion and in
affliction, for in Thee alone, and through Thee in Thy Son and God, I have
protection. Amen.
Prayer
for neighbors
Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God, by prayers of the Theotokos and of all the saints, send peace,
well-being, and blessings to Thy servants: [names].
Prayers
to the Most Holy Theotokos for our neighbors or the people around us whom we
wish to help
Some people of
high spiritual life, when they wished to help a person met on their life’s path
but, due to various circumstances, could not do so, prayed thus:
“Most Holy Lady our
Theotokos, take Thou this soul (name or names), and do with it what Thou
willest, what I would wish to do with it, but cannot. I entrust him (or them
– names) to Thy maternal care and protection.”
Prayer
1
O Most Holy Lady
Theotokos! Raise us, the servants of God (names), from the depths of sin
and deliver us from sudden death and from every evil. Grant, O Lady, unto us
peace and health, and enlighten our mind and the eyes of our heart unto
salvation, and make us, Thy sinful servants, worthy of the Kingdom of Thy Son,
Christ our God; for His dominion is blessed with the Father and His Most Holy
Spirit.
Prayer
2
Most Holy Virgin,
Mother of the Lord, show upon me, the poor one, and the servants of God (names)
Thy former mercies: send down the spirit of understanding and piety, the spirit
of mercy and meekness, the spirit of purity and righteousness. Yea, O Most Pure
Lady! Be merciful to me here and at the Dread Judgment. For Thou art, O Lady,
the glory of the heavenly and the hope of the earthly. Amen.
Prayer
3
O Most Holy Lady
Theotokos! Look down from the height of Thy holiness upon us, the servants of
God (names), and help us who are weak; calm our sorrows, guide us on the
right path; heal our afflicted hearts, grant us to spend the remaining time of
our life in peace and repentance; grant a Christian end, and at the Dread
Judgment of Thy Son appear to us as an intercessor of mercy, that we may always
glorify Thee with all who have pleased God unto the ages of ages.
Source: Сборник редких молитв ко Пресвятой
Богородице [Collection of Rare Prayers to the Most Holy Theotokos],
published by Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2013.
Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/molitva/sbornik-redkih-molitv-ko-presvjatoj-bogoroditse/
Did Fr. Seraphim Cover Up Abuse?
On the truth about Fr. Seraphim and the alleged cover
up of the sins of Herman Podmosenky.
Silouan Wright
With the prospect of his
glorification, accusations have resurfaced that Fr. Seraphim Rose knowingly
covered up the sexual misconduct of his co-founder, Gleb Podmoshensky (later
"Fr. Herman"). Blog posts and Substack articles repeat the claims as
settled fact.
Here are 12 points to consider.
1. The entire argument against
Fr. Seraphim Rose relies on the testimony of Reader Daniel Everiss and Fr.
Alexey Young. Both men explicitly exonerated Fr. Seraphim and remained devoted
to him until the end. The accusers cannot make their case without contradicting
their own witnesses.
2. Reader Daniel Everiss is the
star witness against Fr. Herman. He maintained the blog (which is still online)
that excoriated, criticized, and named those in ROCOR who protected and
justified what Fr. Herman Podmoshensky did. Reader Daniel was among 4-6
accusers who gave sworn, signed testimonies kissing the Gospel and Cross before
Archbishop Anthony, in the presence of two or three priests. [1] He was himself
a personal victim of Podmoshensky:
"He [Fr.
Herman] harmed many souls, myself included. He drove me away from his Platina
Monastery. He drove only God knows, how many wounded souls, especially of young
men, from the Church, even from God."
Fr. Herman Podmoshensky in
response blacklisted him:
"'That scum
Everiss!' — this he repeated over many years to many."
Reader Daniel endured forty
years of isolation for telling the truth. He died in 2023, having never
recanted a word.
3. Reader Daniel Everiss was extremely
critical of almost everyone BUT Fr. Seraphim Rose. The entire argument
against Fr. Seraphim requires using the very words of Reader Daniel while completely
dismissing the same man's glowing endorsement of Fr. Seraphim. Reader
Daniel wrote:
"I KNOW
such was not the case! Fr. Seraphim and Herman Podmoshensky were/are two, VERY
different people. Fr. Seraphim was the true self-abnegating ascetic, and poor
Fr. Herman... just playing his own pompous deluded/in prelest, 'Holy Starets'
role."
And again from Reader Daniel:
"Furthermore,
I have hard evidence, gathered from different sources, that Fr. Seraphim was
not guilty of the sins of his brother, as some foolish people who did not know
him, have wrongly imagined. Fr. Seraphim was an angel in the flesh."
And again:
"I saw
absolutely no signs at all, that he [Fr. Seraphim Rose] led any secret
unspiritual life-style, though as it proved to be later on, Fr. Herman
...did."
All who continue to use the name
and arguments of Reader Daniel have to explicitly contradict him.
4. Reader Daniel Everiss, who
bluntly critiqued ROCOR for not acting, called Fr. Seraphim Rose "an angel
in the flesh." How can one use Reader Daniel's testimony against Fr.
Seraphim Rose and completely ignore whom Reader Daniel himself said was
responsible and accountable for not acting? Credibility is not selective.
Either a witness is credible or he is not. The Pokrov Truth Substack (which
everyone is deferring to in the pursuit of slandering Fr. Seraphim Rose) itself
calls Reader Daniel "a courageous truthspeaker" whose "validity
and sincerity as a reliable source is unquestioned," and then it
immediately uses his testimony to argue the exact opposite of what Daniel
intended and believed.
5. The documentary record rules
out a long-term coverup. Fr. Seraphim's last surviving letter (early June 1982,
three months before his death) mentions Fr. Herman casually and
collaboratively. [13] Across 617 pages of published letters spanning twenty
years of correspondence, not a single letter hints at knowledge of misconduct.
Fr. Alexey Young's Russian-language memoir places the moment Fr. Seraphim
learned something alarming approximately six months before his death: a novice
reported that Fr. Herman had approached him and said things "that cannot
be repeated." [7] Fr. Alexey describes Fr. Seraphim as devastated by this
news: "His illness probably opened up because of this terrible news. After
all, this meant the end of the monastery. The monastery would simply be closed
if such news had reached the bishop." [7] His language is that of a fresh
wound, not of a man who has been managing a known secret for years. The
"long-term coverup" narrative has no documentary support whatsoever.
6. Hieromonk Damascene's
biography documents that "every evening after services, Fr. Seraphim
remained in church to hear the brothers unburden their souls privately to
him." [2] The brothers did revelation of thoughts with Fr. Seraphim four
to five times weekly. Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, whose rule governed this
practice, explicitly called it "confession." [3] Thus: if Fr.
Seraphim learned about the matter of Fr. Herman, it is very likely that he
learned about it under the seal of confession. Those who demand he should have
"spoken up" are demanding that he commit a canonical crime. The
canons are explicit: a confessor may not divulge the sins confessed to him; if
he does so and the penitent denies it, the confessor's testimony carries no weight;
and a priest who breaks the seal faces suspension or outright deposition from
the priesthood. [4]
St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite:
"Nothing else remains after confession, Spiritual Father, except to keep
the sins you hear a secret, and to never reveal them, either by word, or by
letter, or by a bodily gesture, or by any other sign, even if you are in
danger of death." [5] Saint Paisios the Athonite: "Is it ever
permitted to reveal the confession of another? Absolutely not!" [6]
Fr. Seraphim could not reveal
what was confessed to him, even if his very life was in danger. He did what he
could within the bounds of the canons: Fr. Seraphim "forbade this novice
to be alone with Fr. Herman." [7] according to Fr. Alexey Young. The
accusers are asking us to condemn a man for obeying the Holy Canons.
7. What exactly do critics expect
Fr. Seraphim to have done? Write a newspaper article? Publish it in a book? Fr.
Herman was the abbot of the monastery, officially appointed as Superior by
Archbishop Anthony himself in 1975. [2] In monastic life, nothing happens
without the blessing of the superior. A monk cannot act independently against
his own abbot; the only proper course of action was to bring the matter to the
bishop above them both. And we already know what happened when Archbishop
Anthony received exactly that kind of testimony from multiple sworn witnesses
after Fr. Seraphim's death: he "did not want to believe them and did not
press these particular charges." [8] Anthony showed the testimonies to Fr.
Herman, who "swore on the Bible that it was untrue." Anthony believed
him. He gave Fr. Herman more than two years before suspension while the Synod
wanted him defrocked earlier. So even if Fr. Seraphim told Archbishop Anthony
everything, the result would have been the same. The full answer to everything
these critics demand is already in the historical record, and it indicts the
hierarchy, not Fr. Seraphim.
Further, we must consider how
many assumptions the accusation requires. We must assume Fr. Seraphim did not
tell Archbishop Anthony. We must assume he did not direct those who confessed
to him to approach the archbishop themselves. We must assume the two men never
discussed the matter. We must assume the information came outside the seal of
confession. Every one of these assumptions contradicts the available evidence
or cannot be verified. And against all of them stands one documented fact: when
Archbishop Anthony did receive sworn testimony from multiple witnesses after
Fr. Seraphim's death, he still dragged his feet and believed Fr. Herman's
denial. The accusation requires a tower of unproven assumptions; the defense
rests on what actually happened.
8. The double standard among
those who repeat these accusations is staggering. The ROCOR Ecclesiastical
Court's own published decision praised Archbishop Anthony's delay as pastoral
patience: "he did not rush to proceed with an Ecclesiastical Court, so as
to give Fr. Herman time for repentance." [9] Anthony's obituary in Orthodox
Life contained three eulogies praising his humility; the Podmoshensky
affair was never mentioned. No ROCOR Synod resolution ever criticized Anthony
for delay or leniency. The institution commended his inaction as virtue and
eulogized him without qualification. Archbishop Anthony himself, on Forgiveness
Sunday in the Novi Sobor in San Francisco, wept and bowed to the congregation,
asking them to "forgive me for my not being a good or wise bishop" in
regards to Herman and Platina. [1] Even the bishop admitted he failed. Worse:
Reader Daniel reveals that Archbishop Anthony issued "an order of
temporary silence" to the witnesses themselves. [11] The bishop received
the sworn testimonies, acknowledged the problem, and then ordered the victims
to stay quiet. And yet a dying hieromonk with no canonical authority, whose
star witness calls him "an angel in the flesh," is the one these
slanderers choose to put on trial and insult. The Pokrov Truth blog, at least,
is consistent in critiquing ROCOR's institutional failures. But the vast
majority of people sharing these accusations do not. They will not critique the
bishop because critiquing a hierarch carries actual institutional consequences.
They will critique a dead hieromonk because it costs them nothing, and because
Fr. Seraphim spoke against them in his writings.
9. Fr. Seraphim Rose had
absolutely no motive to protect Fr. Herman. About six months before his death,
he said "he was never happier than when Fr. Herman was off on one of his
many trips," for then, he said, "we have peace, quiet, and order at
the Skete." [8] According to Reader Daniel, Fr. Seraphim said that if he
survived another year, he would leave Fr. Herman. When Fr. Herman openly told a
group at a St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage that homosexuality was "commonly
accepted" in Orthodox village life, Fr. Seraphim left the lecture in
obvious and open disgust. [1] Fr. Alexey Young, who knew both men personally,
writes in his memoir: "He [Fr. Seraphim] touched other people only when he
blessed, and never again. Father Herman, on the contrary, immediately tried to
grab the interlocutor into his arms when they met." [7] These were two
fundamentally different men. And this was a volatile situation: when the
accusations finally came, Fr. Herman reportedly threatened to shoot Archbishop
Anthony, a claim corroborated independently by the academic record. [14] This
is the unstable man Fr. Seraphim was living under. These critics, from the
safety of their keyboards, presume to judge a monk trapped in a remote
monastery with a dangerous superior and a bishop who would later admit he
failed.
Further, those who have read Fr.
Seraphim Rose know that he was without fear. In his writings he criticizes
GOARCH, ROCOR, the OCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Serbians, the Antiochians,
the Old Calendarists, the Paris school, the World Council of Churches, and
modernist Orthodox seminaries. He critiqued Patriarch Athenagoras, Archbishop
Iakovos, Metropolitan Nikodim (Patriarch Kirill's own mentor), Fr. Alexander
Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, Fr. Panteleimon of Boston, and his own ROCOR
bishops by name. He called institutional compliance "spiritually
illegitimate" [10] and "slavery to men." [11] He even said of
Archbishop Anthony himself: "a 'quencher of the spirit'... He is an
excellent 'peacemaker,' but he crushes every good initiative." [12]
Therefore: a man planning to
leave his own monastery, who called obedience to corrupt institutions slavery,
who spoke critically of Fr. Herman and of his own bishop, who called out
jurisdictions and notable persons, has zero motive to cover up anything for
institutional self-preservation.
10. The circulating "full
story" against Fr. Seraphim Rose links rely on the testimony of a
schismatic Old Calendarist "archbishop" (Gregory Abu-Asaly of the
self-created "Genuine Orthodox Church of America"). [15] Consider
what this man actually says in the video that Pokrov Truth promotes as "a
valid source to take into consideration":
He renders the deathbed words as
"I curse you" (30:44), a version found in no written source. The
documented words, per Fr. Alexey Young, are "I'm finished with you. Damn
you!" [8] He repeats his version three times in the video. He then
fabricates the entire deathbed scene: in his telling, Fr. Seraphim "comes
out of a coma, sees Father Herman, says 'I curse you, get away from me,' fell
back into a coma and died" (30:36-31:04). The documented reality, per both
Hieromonk Damascene and Fr. Alexey Young, is a man with tubes passed into his
mouth, arms spread apart and tied to the bed, needles of IV drips in his veins,
unable to move or speak. [27]
He insinuates that Fr. Seraphim's
fatal intestinal illness was caused by his pre-conversion homosexuality:
"And is it because of his past incontinence, we don't know, but he had a
pain there" (28:45-29:01). Fr. Seraphim came to the faith from a sinful
past, as many of us have. He repented. He converted. Everyone who knew him,
including Reader Daniel, the star witness against Fr. Herman, testifies that
Fr. Seraphim became wholly ascetic, wholly dispassionate: "an angel in the
flesh." The Orthodox Church has many saints who committed grave sins
before their conversion. St. Mary of Egypt lived in sin for decades. Abu-Asaly
is drawing a crude connection between the location of the illness and the
nature of the pre-conversion sin. Imagine a female saint who lived in sin
before her conversion and later died of cancer. Imagine a man going on camera
and insinuating that the cancer was connected to the sins she used to commit.
That is what this man is doing. He is not a clairvoyant. He has no medical
knowledge. He has no spiritual authority. He sat in a room, thought about the
past sexual sins of a dead man, formed a crude anatomical theory, and published
it on the internet. The Holy Fathers condemn this as gossip, and anyone who
repeats these insinuations shares in it.
This is the same man who declared
Fr. Seraphim "in prelest" because he did not comb his beard. He is
not insulting a layman. He is insulting a hieromonk of the canonical Church, a
priest and monk who showed no signs of his former life after conversion, a man
every witness calls completely dispassionate, and one who will soon (God
willing) be glorified as a saint.
In the same video, he claims,
without any source, that Fr. Herman intercepted letters from Fr. Seraphim's
"former lover" and planned to publish them to expose him (39:48). He
claims the teaching of the aerial toll houses is "Gnostic" and
"condemned by the ecumenical councils" (23:50), a teaching attested
by St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St.
Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Climacus, St. Mark of
Ephesus, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Theophan the Recluse, St. John of
Shanghai, and many others, hymned in the liturgical texts of the Church, and
given comprehensive treatment in St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery's
volume The Departure of the Soul.
This is the man the accusers
cite. Anyone who shares the opinions of this schismatic and treats him as a
credible witness has no interest in truth, accountability, or Orthodoxy.
The author of the Pokrov Truth
Substack writes under the pseudonym "The Grand Inquisitor." In his
own post endorsing the video, he acknowledges that Abu-Asaly's
"fundamentalist views about baptism, ecumenism and who is, and is not a
heretic, are not in accordance with established, mainstream positions of the
canonical Orthodox Churches." He writes this, and then in the very next
sentence calls him "a valid source to take into consideration." He
knowingly promoted the video of a schismatic who fabricates deathbed quotes,
insinuates that a hieromonk's fatal illness was divine punishment for sins he
repented of decades earlier, and contradicts the consensus of the Fathers.
11. So we must ask: why are these
accusations coming forward? The evidence does not support the accusation. The
star witness contradicts it. The canons explain the silence. The hierarchy
bears the documented responsibility. When someone persists despite all of this,
the question is no longer about evidence. It is about motivation. You can see
it plainly: they quote nothing else Reader Daniel said. Not his decades of
posts naming those who protected Fr. Herman. Not his indictment of Archbishop
Anthony's foot-dragging. Not his account of being blacklisted, shunned, and
driven into isolation for telling the truth. Not his explicit exoneration of
Fr. Seraphim Rose. They extract one fragment and discard the rest. Reader
Daniel himself saw it coming. He wrote that Fr. Herman "even has caused
some to disparage Fr. Seraphim, who himself was a sincere true ascetic and
priest." [1] The pattern speaks for itself: they do not want Fr. Seraphim
Rose glorified. They do not care about Fr. Herman. They care about what Fr. Seraphim
Rose himself stood for: uncompromising Orthodoxy that spared no institution, no
hierarch, and no theological fashion from criticism. That is what they cannot
tolerate, and Fr. Herman's sins are merely the instrument they have found to
use against him.
12. The aftermath proves that Fr.
Seraphim did not enable Fr. Herman; he restrained him. Reader Daniel, who was
present at the all-night vigil over Fr. Seraphim's coffin, writes that Fr.
Herman:
"was
totally out of his mind with remorse and guilt and weeping and self-accusation,
kneeling down many times at night, in front of the coffin and trying to tell
Fr. Seraphim that he was sorry." [1]
That is the behavior of a man who
knew his brother disapproved, who felt accountable to him, and who lost the one
person keeping him in check. Within two years of Fr. Seraphim's death, Fr.
Herman was suspended from the priesthood. Within six years, he was defrocked.
He then fled to the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Pangratios Vrionis, a Greek
priest defrocked by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in December 1970
after pleading guilty to sodomizing two 14-year-old boys; Pangratios was
arrested again in April 2002 for the alleged 1999 sexual assault of another
14-year-old boy. [14] That is who Fr. Herman chose to align with once Fr.
Seraphim's restraining influence was gone. Sixteen years of partnership
produced a brotherhood; six years without Fr. Seraphim produced a defrocked
priest sheltering under a convicted pedophile. The accusation that Fr. Seraphim
enabled Fr. Herman has the evidence exactly backwards.
If these people cared about the
victims, they would be talking about what the victims talked about. For them,
the victims are simply tools to be used to achieve their aims of
slandering a saint under the guise of "seeking accountability."
I would encourage the faithful,
whenever they see these accusations repeated against Fr. Seraphim Rose, to
share this post (you have permission) and to ask the accusers to address the
evidence presented here. Let us not allow the memory of our saints and elders
to be defamed without answer.
---
1. Reader
Daniel Everiss. Sworn testimonies and personal account: blog post, December 7,
2012, https://readerdanielsharing.blogspot.com/.../not-of-this... "Angel in the flesh,"
"hard evidence," and "'That scum Everiss!'": blog post,
July 1, 2014, https://readerdanielsharing.blogspot.com/.../death-of-fr.... "I KNOW such was not the
case" and "I saw absolutely no signs at all": "In Fr.
Seraphim's Defense," https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/.../in-fr...
2. Hieromonk
Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, ch. 66,
"Brothers."
3. Life
of Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, quoted in Damascene, p. 529.
4. Canon 132
(141 in the Pedalion) of Carthage; Canon 34 of St. Basil the Great;
Canon 27 of St. Nikephoros the Confessor. Together they establish the principle
that a confessor may not reveal what is confessed to him. The penalty of
deposition is stated by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite in his commentary on the
practice (Exomologetarion, Ch. 12).
5. St.
Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Exomologetarion, Ch. 12: "That the
Spiritual Father Is Not to Reveal Sins," trans. George Dokos (Uncut
Mountain Press, 2006), p. 107. The same chapter records the incident under
Patriarch Nektarios of Constantinople (381-397), when a spiritual father
revealed a woman's confession and the faithful were so scandalized they refused
to confess at all. St. John Chrysostom personally witnessed the fallout and
labored to convince the people to return to the sacrament.
6. Elder
Paisios the Athonite, Spiritual Counsels, Vol. 3: Spiritual Struggle, p.
297.
7. Fr.
Alexey Young, Russian-language memoir, recorded August 20-21, 1998, posted
2007. https://seraphim-rose.livejournal.com/7683.html
8. Fr.
Alexey Young, review of Not of This World, Orthodox America, Vol. XIV,
Issue 126-127. https://roca.org/.../from-the-bookshelf-not-of-this.../
9. Orthodox
Life, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1993), Ecclesiastical Court excerpt, pp. 44-45; Orthodox
Life, Vol. 50, No. 5 (2000), Archbishop Anthony obituary eulogies.
10. Letters
of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 125.
11. Letters
of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 322.
12. Letters
of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 128.
13. Letters
of Fr. Seraphim Rose, Letter #326, early June 1982 (the last surviving
letter).
14. D.
Oliver Herbel, Turning to Tradition: Converts and the Making of an American
Orthodox Church (Oxford University Press, 2013), Chapter 3; Phillip Charles
Lucas, "Enfants Terribles: The Challenge of Sectarian Converts to Ethnic
Orthodox Churches in the United States," Nova Religio 7, no. 2 (November
2003), reposted by ROCOR Studies: https://www.rocorstudies.org/.../enfants-terribles-the.../. See also New York Post, April 19,
2002: https://www.culteducation.com/.../4691-bishops-unholy-act...
15. Gregory
Abu-Asaly, "Father Seraphim Rose," YouTube (GOC America channel),
August 5, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMb94cGW0w. Timestamps cited in text. Pokrov
Truth endorsed this video on April 27, 2026: https://pokrovtruth.substack.com/.../video-fr-seraphim...
Source: posted and shared on the author’s Facebook account,
May 9, 2026.
Saturday, May 9, 2026
A Pastoral View of Marriage and Marital Problems
by Archpriest Sergei Shukin
A talk given at Holy
Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY,
May 17/30, 1975.
Introduction
By way of introduction I would like to cite to you one case
from the life of the Russian Orthodox Church which some of you possibly already
have heard about.
This happened about a hundred years ago. There lived in
Moscow a student of philology, Constantine Sederholm. He was Lutheran and even
the son of a Lutheran pastor in Moscow. One day he was invited to an Orthodox
wedding and was present at the ceremony in the church. As a philologist, he
understood Slavonic well and he was quite surprised that in the marriage rite
marriage is compared to the struggles of the martyrs, and that God's help is
implored for the spouses, who are likened to "Noah in the ark" and
"the three children in the fiery furnace" and so on. The explanations
of the Moscow priests did not satisfy him, but someone advised him to go to the
renowned Optina Hermitage and speak with the elders there. Sederholm became
acquainted with the Elder Macarius, who interpreted for him the Orthodox
meaning of salvation and marriage.
When he finished university and entered diplomatic service
in the Near East, he visited Mt. Athos, the Holy Land and many monasteries in
the Balkans. Finally, after about a year, he resigned and came back to Optina,
where he converted to the Orthodox Church and shortly after took monastic vows
with the name of Clement. At Optina he worked on translations of the writings
of the Holy Fathers. He died in 1878 and was buried at Optina.
In relating this I would like to point out that in the
Orthodox Church we have the most profound and complete teaching concerning
Christian marriage compared with all other faiths.
1. Entering into Marriage
Until recently, in pre-revolutionary Russia for example,
choosing a spouse was a matter for the whole family and their priest. People
approached marriage judiciously, sensibly, without hurrying, and the question
was discussed previously among the closest relatives. Young people took their
opinion into account.
Now, in America, getting married is considered a purely
personal matter, and young people rarely seek the advice of anyone, let alone
the pastors of the Church. The results of this are extremely sad -- twenty-five
percent of marriages are divorced in the first three years.
The greatest evil involved with these marriages is that they
are premature and hasty. Most newlyweds are green youth, unprepared for family
life and guided only by feelings. If they do not turn to a priest for advice of
their own accord, then pastors must point out the right path to them on their
own initiative.
In their sermons, in talks, during confession and during
church school, pastors must explain to young people that entering marriage
requires more than just physical maturity. Psychological or spiritual maturity
is just as essential -- that is to say, being prepared for independent life,
for taking the responsibility for one's future family and for choosing one's
future companion in life sensibly. Feeling alone beforehand or romantic
emotions are not enough to guarantee that a marriage will be lasting, because
the most important thing in marriage is the inner unity of husband and wife.
Initial feelings soon pass, and if the young couple does not have a common and
lofty outlook on life and mutual understanding, they will find themselves
estranged from each other. Quarrels and disagreements will arise, and then --
unfaithfulness and jealousy, leading to a divorce. And divorces cause the
couple themselves, their children, and all their relatives to suffer.
In former times people did not marry with such lightning
speed -- within two or three months. Between the engagement and the wedding
there was still time for couples to come to know each other better and think
more deeply about how compatible their opinions and tastes might be. Here the
religious views of the couple are of vital importance. Ultimately it is
precisely religious belief which constitutes that main foundation of human
life. Therefore, the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever cannot be enduring
and happy. When the Church crowns newlyweds, she prays that the couple will
have "unity of thought" -- that is to say, identical views on all the
principal questions: on life and death, on the obligations of wife and husband,
on the birth and upbringing of children, and so on. That is why the Church
insists as a prime condition that the bride and groom have the same faith, for
it will be the principal foundation of their lives.
Still less desirable are marriages between people of
different religions. Although the Church does marry people of other faiths to
Orthodox Christians in exceptional cases, only marriages between Orthodox are
normally accepted.
Priests must instill this attitude into their parishioners
and especially into the youth. In marriage, Christians must serve God: firstly,
by building up an Orthodox family, as the "church which is in their
house" a little cell of Orthodoxy; and secondly, by bringing up their
children in the spirit of Orthodoxy, as a future member of the Church. But can
this be achieved in a family where the parents attend different churches and
cannot give their children unified religious instructions? Experience shows that
the children of mixed marriages grow up either as total unbelievers, or only
formally Orthodox, or as Catholics or Protestants.
All the other religions have come to the same conclusion,
considering that mixed marriages have a negative influence on the family's
religious life. Even after the death of a non-Orthodox husband or wife, the
Orthodox party cannot have a panikhida (memorial service) served for him
or her, or in some cases even be buried in the same cemetery, as the deceased
party dies in heresy certainly knowingly, if having been married to an
Orthodox.
The reader will find more details about mixed marriages in
my pamphlet On Marriages with the Heterodox, published by Holy Trinity
Monastery in 1962 (in Russian).
Even if both parties are nominally Orthodox, however, this
does not necessarily imply that they clearly understand the true significance
of a Christian marriage. In America today a purely pagan attitude towards
marriage is so widespread that even many Orthodox young people think of it as
one of the "good things" of personal life, which husband and wife are
given without any particular obligations on their part. This irresponsible
approach to marriage is what gives rise to a whole host of misfortunes and catastrophes
in family life.
Furthermore we know that the demands made upon the Orthodox
by a really Christian marriage go further than just making use of the joys
which marriage affords: much patience, self-sacrifice and abstinence are also
required -- in a word, there is a kind of asceticism in marriage also,
as in other aspects of life. Without this, the marriage will be utterly pagan,
worldly or speaking in the language of the New Testament, of the flesh.
The word of God draws a sharp distinction between the man of
the spirit and the man of the flesh. One lives for God and eternity; the other,
for himself and for temporal life on earth alone. Thus St. Paul writes:
"They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
that are after the things of the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be
carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: They
that are (live) in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 5.6-8). All this
can be applied to marriage, which was established by the Creator not for
personal pleasure but to enable man and woman to preserve a pious life
together. Thus marriage was established for a whole lifetime, and of it Christ
said, "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder." The Church Fathers teach that a pious marriage is as pleasing in
God's eyes as a celibate monastic life.
Thus in people's lives there can be only two paths: either
celibacy, an ascetic life principally in the monastic state, or a Christian
marriage, which also requires a considerable degree of asceticism. Both of
these paths consist of serving God, not serving one's own passions and lusts.
It is not without reason that the Holy Scriptures see a certain mystical aspect
in marriage when they liken it to the union of Christ with the Church, that
"bride of the Lamb" (Colossians 5.32).
This is why it is so essential that every couple entering
into marriage should know and understand the great responsibility involved. Of
course, one cannot understand the whole essence of Christian marriage all at
once, because this is revealed gradually, in accordance with one's spiritual
growth. Usually the husband and wife learn this as they grow "into the
full stature of Christ" over the course of their whole lives together, if
they are truly living members of the Church.
In speaking of entering marriage, it is essential to mention
two abnormal phenomena that are very widespread among contemporary youth --
premarital liaisons and children born out of wedlock.
A priest rarely finds out about premarital liaisons. If he
does, it is his duty to admonish the guilty parties in every way. His aim must
be to persuade them either to enter into a lawful marriage or to put an end to
their sinful union. When marriage is not possible, the pastor must insist that
relations be broken off completely, and also that they repent, employing all
possible means: involving the parents, public opinion in the parish, and
penances, even to the forbidding of Communion. Usually liaisons of this kind do
not last long and are soon broken off.
Sometimes such liaisons result in extra-marital pregnancy.
In such cases the priest must determine the couple's intentions: is a lawful
marriage possible or will the child remain illegitimate? If for some reason
lawful marriage is impossible, then all the priest's attention must be focused
upon the victim of the liaison -- the future mother.
In our contemporary unspiritual society the usual decisions
are either abortion or, at best, to let the child be born and then have it
adopted by others. However, the priest must convince the unmarried mother that
both these recourses are sinful and that a truly Christian mother is obliged
both to preserve her child and to bring it up herself, thereby redeeming her
sin as far as possible.
In old Russia it was very hard for an unmarried mother to
bring up her child by herself, and in addition, the child was deprived of
certain rights, as one "born illegitimately." Furthermore he was
despised by society to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, there were girls
who resolved to raise an illegitimate child themselves. In my family, for
example, I had an aunt, my mother's sister, who did just that, because she had
firm Orthodox convictions, which she acquired in an orphanage. As a simple
school mistress, she brought up her son, my cousin, by herself and she gave her
maiden name as his surname. Our family greatly respected this self-denying
aunt.
In contemporary America women have gained more rights, and
having an illegitimate child is not as disgraceful as in former times.
Previously, in such cases girls had recourse to abortions or adoption because
it was difficult not only to get married, but even to find a decent job. Of
course, this was not Christian, and even led to suicides. We have a beautiful
example of a purely Christian attitude toward such a mother in the life of the
Elder Ambrose of the Optina Hermitage. A girl who had been deceived by her
fiance was expecting a child and although her parents were Orthodox, they
simply threw her out of the house in accordance with the customs of those
times. Taking the advice of some good people she went to Optina to see Fr.
Ambrose. He advised her not to return to her parents but to go to the
neighboring town and wait for her child to be born; in addition, then and there
he gave her some money to live on. When her son was born, the Elder continued
to help her materially and spiritually, and helped her bring up her son. They
often visited the Elder until his very death, and the boy greatly loved Fr.
Ambrose.
I remember another case, in our own times, when I was in a
parish in England. An Orthodox Greek with a university degree had made the
acquaintance of a girl, also Greek, in a refugee camp in Germany and had had an
affair with her.
When he found out that she was pregnant he panicked and left
for England where he found a good job. Meanwhile, the girl had given birth to a
son and was appealing to him to return. He wavered for a long time but under
the influence of certain believing people he returned to her in Greece two
years later. As he left, he came to me for confession and told me all about it.
A year later he sent me a photograph of himself with his wife and two children.
He wrote that he was very happy with his wife.
Here again, a believing girl saved her child and brought her
loved one back. This could hardly have happened if she had had an abortion or
had her son adopted.
Therefore, a priest must try not only to save the child's
life and the unmarried mother's soul, but also to help her either to find a
husband or to bring up her child on her own in an Orthodox manner.
2. The Conditions for a Beneficial
Orthodox Marriage
Any marriage requires a certain mutuality of interests and
opinions. Admittedly, in our times there is the widespread opinion that the
chief element is the feeling of love, and that it is upon this that a marriage
should be built. This opinion is based upon the idea that the most important
element of married life is the sexual. Experience shows otherwise: closeness of
soul or a shared outlook on life do far more to bind a marriage together.
Usually, sensuality gradually cools as the couple come to know each other more
closely in the course of everyday life. If they then suddenly discover that
they have no common outlook and that there is no mutual understanding between
them, the husband lives by his interests, the wife by hers, and both begin to
feel an inner dissatisfaction. This does not mean that they separate at
once, but flowing from their basically sensuous values, it can lead to taking
an interest in others of the opposite sex and infidelity often arises... A
situation like this already threatens to destroy the family.
We have already said that this lack of understanding arises
very frequently in mixed marriages, but this does not mean that it cannot
happen to Orthodox couples. The devil, like a “roaring lion,” is walking about
trying to destroy the marriages even of Orthodox couples.
Now, I do not mean to imply that a certain cooling of
feelings always destroys a marriage. Fortunately, God did not create people
only for sexual life; He also placed other aspirations within them, thanks to
which even marriages which are not completely "successful" from the
worldly point of view can be bound together more strongly.
First among these aspirations we must place the raising of
children. Someone has correctly said that children are cement for a marriage,
and indeed, children really do bring new interests and new aims into the
couple's life. Then marriage loses a certain monotony and, I would say, its
purely egoistic aspect. Petty arguments and quarrels come to an end, since the
marriage acquires a wider meaning.
All thinkers agree that the appearance of children
strengthens any marriage, and the Church considers that this is also a
fulfillment of one of the main purposes of marriage. Therefore, deliberately to
avoid having children is a dangerous perversion, amounting to a kind of
"mutual egoism," which often leads to a feeling of emptiness and to
the destruction of the marriage itself.
Of course, some marriages are naturally childless due to the
infertility of one of the partners. Such marriages can be quite durable if the
characters of the husband and wife are suited to each other. But it renders the
marriage unfulfilled, as it were, and this often leads to divorce or coldness
and indifference. Nevertheless, for the Church, the absence of children is not
a ground for divorce; the marriage is considered to be blessed and indissoluble
just as is any other marriage, although some contemporary secular laws regard
childlessness as such ground.
In passing, it must be pointed out that the Church allows
childless families to adopt orphans or children from poor families. In America
this is a very widespread practice among childless couples and in those cases
where the wife cannot give birth to normal children. From my personal
experience in Canada I recall three instances when my spiritual children
thought about adoption. As you may know, in the U.S. there are special agencies
or state institutions which arrange adoptions, but in Canada a special division
of the Ministry of Social Services is concerned with this. Parish priests are
included among those who can recommend suitable adoptive parents. In two cases
I recommended the young couples, each of whom received two children: now they
are already grown. In the third case the couple was refused, as they were
already middle-aged.
The second factor which binds a marriage more firmly is,
strange as it may seem, simply being used to each other. Pushkin referred to
this in Eugene Onegin when describing the Larin family:
Habit is given us from above
To take the place of happiness.
This has a psychological explanation in that, with the
passage of time, the couple become so accustomed to their situation that even a
marriage which is not altogether satisfactory will be preserved for a lifetime
as they do not wish to run the risk of looking for anything better. Although
there may be quarrels and misunderstandings, still a total separation does not
occur.
What has been said so far concerns marriage in general. An
Orthodox marriage has deeper foundations which we will find in the Holy
Scriptures. Of the many passages which refer to marriage, I will touch on only
a few from the Epistles.
1). Ephesians 5:22-33.
Here the Apostle depicts marriage in the image of Christ and
the Church. "As Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He
might sanctify it with the washing of water by the word" ... so must
husbands love their wives. Here the Apostle is raising conjugal love to the
highest level -- putting this ideal before every married couple.
"So ought men to love their wives as their own
bodies... for no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church."
Here he is indicating that the husband's love must strive to
protect his wife both physically and spiritually -- i.e., the couple must
"work out their salvation" together.
The last verse, 33, emphasizes that conjugal love should be
in fulfillment of God's commandment of love:
"Let every one of you in particular so love his wife
even as himself"; thus it is not fleshy egoism that we should find in
marriage, but an implementation of the second of God's principal commandments.
Of course, this love is not achieved at once, but gradually, over the course of
one's entire married life.
2). I Corinthians 7:2-5.
Here the Apostle considers it necessary for every man to
have his own wife and every woman to have her own husband, but he explains this
necessity on practical grounds: to avoid fornication (v. 2). We all know
how people become debauched and perish from a blind and unrestrained use of
sexuality. We can see how many sufferings and crimes arise from this if we
acquaint ourselves with police records and criminal statistics. I will mention
only the chief ones: broken homes, abortions, venereal diseases, women's and
childen's diseases, nervous disorders, murders and suicides... The normal
marriage, blessed by God, was instituted to oppose all these perversions and
abuses.
"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband" (v. 3). In this way the
husband and wife maintain their love and at the same time create the right
conditions for their children to be born and brought up normally.
Let us take a look at verse five: "Deprive ye not one
another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to
fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinence."
It appears that Christian spouses must also have periods
of abstinence. This is an important commandment of spiritual life, which
the Apostle confirms in another epistle: "That every one of you should
know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor. Not in the lust of
concupiscence, even as the Gentiles (pagans) which know not God" (I Thess.
4:4-5). This tells us that married couples must learn to master their
instincts, so that their bodies submit to their spirit. In addition to
abstinence that is required for natural reasons, the Church appoints days of
abstinence for fasting and prayer.
I recall an incident of my youth which made an immense
impression on me. My best friend at school had a sister, very beautiful, who
married and went to live in a neighboring town. About a year later she reposed
quite unexpectedly and my friend went to her funeral. He returned in a state of
furious indignation against her husband, who had been the cause of her death.
She was expecting a child, but her husband had not refrained from having sexual
intercourse with her. As a result she gave birth prematurely, caught an
infection of the blood and died. Thus an eighteen year old girl perished, and
her husband was her murderer.
In another case I know of, a husband, due to his
incontinence, let his wife have three pregnancies almost without any interval.
As a result of this she developed tuberculosis and died, leaving him three
little orphans.
3). The last passage I would like to look at is from I
Peter 3:1, 2, 7.
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own
husbands; that if any obey not the word (i.e., Christian teaching), they also
may be won without the word by the conversation of their wives; while they
behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear" (v. 1-2).
The Apostle is emphasizing the possibility of the wife's
influencing her husband if he is not religious enough. We know that not only
can a husband save his unbelieving wife, but also a wife can influence her
husband if he is indifferent to religion. Thus, in some cases, a difference of
opinion between spouses can be corrected by the believing one.
Verse 7: "Likewise, ye husbands dwell with them
according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,
and as being heirs together in the grace of life; that your prayers be not
hindered."
Here the Apostle is saying that it is essential to treat
one's wife sensitively and considerately, in accordance with her psychology. We
know that women are more vulnerable and sensitive than men and always expect
men to be kind, considerate and protective. In the family life of Christians
this is strengthened by their spiritual proximity, since the husband and wife
are made one in Christ, fellow participants in the life of grace -- in the
common life blessed by God. The Apostle adds: "that your prayers be not
hindered." This is because in their spiritual lives the couple must
constitute a "church at home" -- must turn to God together and serve
Him together. How great is the loss to a Christian family if the husband and
wife do not pray together! Common prayer unites them and restores all breaches
in their mutual relationship.
From the texts we have cited we see that the Apostles see
the main purpose of Christian marriage not in personal satisfaction, nor even
in childbirth, but in the spouses helping each other to lead a pious Christian
life. A union of this kind, based on a common faith, also creates the
conditions essential for the other aims of marriage: both for healthy
childbirth and for correct upbringing up one's children.
In Russian there is a wonderful word which hardly has any
equivalent in English: zhalet.* In married life there is often not
enough of this quality. Russian peasants in former times used to say, "He
loves his wife, but he doesn't spare her" (i.e., he overburdens her with
work, frequent pregnancies and so on). Of other husbands they would say
"He loves his wife and he spares her..." This meant that the husband
struggles with his male egoism and treats his wife kindly and considerately. It
seems to me that the Apostle Peter is speaking of precisely this attitude,
"according to knowledge", on the husband's part, of this considerate,
protective love, which a woman values even more than sexual intimacy.
3. Childbirth and Bringing Up
Children
The Roman Catholics consider that having children is the
primary function of marriage, while Orthodoxy gives first place to its
spiritual purpose -- leading a pious life. St. John Chrysostom writes that
"giving birth to children is a matter of nature. Far more important is the
parents' task of educating their children's hearts in virtue and piety."
Consequently, only a spiritually healthy marriage ensures that one's offspring
will have a healthy upbringing.
How many children there should be in a family is one of the
most hotly disputed questions of our times. The complexity of contemporary city
life makes it difficult to have and bring up a large number of children.
Consequently, a great deal of consideration is now being given to methods of
limiting childbirth.
Different faiths hold different positions on this question.
Catholicism advocates large families, and so forbids abortions and all
contraceptives. The Protestants give parents a great deal of freedom and allow
them to decide these questions for themselves -- sometimes they even allow
abortions to be performed. But here the Protestant communions are basing their
ideas mainly on humanitarian and social considerations.
Proceeding to the Orthodox viewpoint, I will not touch on
abortions at all, as they are obviously contrary to God's commandments. When we
speak of contraceptives, we must first examine the grounds for limiting
childbirth. They can be of a personal, family or social nature.
Personal
reasons can be purely self-centered, such as when couples do not want to have
any children at all so as not to complicate their married life. Such an outlook
is unacceptable for us, as it rejects the spiritual aim of marriage. In
addition, such marriages are often short-lived.
Family
reasons can be more well-founded as, for instance, when parents try to limit
the number of their children for the good of the whole family and so they can
raise the children they have in the best possible way. Sometimes this is
connected with the wife's state of health -- normal deliveries are not always
possible.
The parents' responsibility for their children's upbringing
and health also weighs against the Catholic view. Numerous pregnancies and
anxieties for a large family often reflect on the mother's health and spiritual
state. Orthodox views approach the question of the number of children more
carefully, asserting that a Christian family is obliged to be more concerned
about the quality of children than the quantity of them.
On the other hand, experience shows that small families
cannot guarantee a good upbringing. It is well known that a single child in a
family will grow up spoiled and egotistical and there is little to ensure that
he will be well-behaved towards his parents. Generally speaking, large families
accustom children to being concerned about the family, to sensitivity and a
family spirit.
How many children should be considered sufficient? Nobody
can give a precise indication, as the actual conditions of a given family have
to be taken into account -- the parents' health, the family's material
situation, whether there is a grandmother who can help the mother, and so on.
Generally speaking, from a spiritual point of view one should try to have a
large family, so that it will be durable and full of love, with all its members
bearing the burdens of life together. Therefore, two or three children cannot
be taken as the limit.
The other side of this problem is the question of
contraception.
The Roman Catholic Church categorically forbids all methods
of contraception except the "rhythm method" (using the periods when
one's wife cannot conceive). At present there are many other purely artificial
contraceptives; I do not consider that an analysis or critique of these is part
of my task. Today I would like to mention that Christians may use the following
natural methods for preventing further childbirth:
a) Total cessation of sexual activity ("He who can
receive it, let him receive it");
b) Limiting sexual relations to a minimum;
c) Using the rhythm method.
These are the "ascetical" methods of avoiding
childbirth which Orthodox couples can use without burdening their consciences.
Going on to the question of artificial prevention of
pregnancy, we shall say that there must be serious reasons if the
aforementioned natural methods are somehow unacceptable. One can only begin to
think about them when the physical or moral well-being of the family demands
it. For example, when further childbirth threatens the mother's health, or when
healthy children cannot be born, or if the family's material circumstances
cannot ensure normal birth or upbringing for the baby. Here it is impossible to
give general rules. The question must be decided by the parents' conscience,
and it is extremely desirable that their spiritual father should be involved in
the discussion.
As a not uncommon example, I can point to cases in which a
doctor concludes that a wife cannot be sure of giving birth in the normal way,
but only by operation (a Caesarean section), which threatens the wife's health
and even her life. A husband who spares his wife must think over the situation
very carefully.
However, in talking about using artificial methods of
contraception, we must bear in mind one factor about which people do not often
speak. I want to emphasize the fact that none of these methods gives a 100
percent guarantee. A recent widespread investigation conducted by American
doctors established that all these methods have a failure rate of between five
and twenty-five per cent. Consequently, one has to bear in mind that pregnancy
is possible. Then the family is faced with the question as to whether the fetus
should be preserved. Ordinary American families which are not bound by any
religious restrictions have recourse to abortion in such cases, but in an
Orthodox family this decision is inadmissible.
Here we are approaching an evaluation of the "family
planning" which is so widespread in America. "Rationally
thinking" parents believe that they are quite independent as far as having
children is concerned. But in reality it happens that God adds a corrective
factor of his own and sends a child even when the parents do not want one. From
the religious point of view, it is the Supreme Will which is here intervening
in the life of man. In former times, when parents knew nothing about contraceptives,
they relied exclusively on God's will. Children were born and they accepted the
last one just as they had the first, saying "God gave the child, He will
also give what we need for the child". Such was the faith of our ancestors
in God's Providence, and it often happened that the last child proved to be the
best or most necessary for the family.
If it is now difficult to expect all parents to be so
completely resigned to God's will, yet, in a case of unexpected pregnancy they
should see the intervention of God's Providence, and accept this child as a
gift from above. Amazingly enough, I have observed God's real goodness in such
cases, for such children are truly a blessing for the family -- either richly
gifted or the most considerate, real protectors in the parents' old age.
I will briefly cite two vivid examples. In the Soviet Union
a mother of three children lost her husband, a priest, who was exiled for ten
years. All her neighbors advised an abortion, since it was very difficult to
survive with four children at that time. However, the believing matushka
refused an abortion and had her baby. It is true that she had to have her
daughter fostered by a single woman, but five years later the war began and the
matushka found herself in Germany with her two younger daughters. This last
daughter was the more faithful and affectionate towards her both in Germany and
in the United States, until she buried her mother in the cemetery at
Novo-Diveyevo.
The other instance was also with a refugee family. The
mother insisted on letting her third child, a girl, be born when this could
have been forestalled. During the war the husband ended up abroad with the
older children, but the youngest daughter alone remained with her in the Soviet
Union and looked after her in her old age.
4. Reasons Why Marriages Fail
The reasons for this are very numerous. I will dwell only on
the most important.
A. The couple grow cool towards one another. American
psychologists consider that marriages go through their most critical period in
the first three years and then in the tenth year. Statistics show that fifty
per cent of all divorces occur in the first three years. We can assume that
this occurs with those marriages that are contracted too early or hurriedly.
The fact that fifty per cent of all marriages contracted before the age of
twenty end in divorce also points to this. The older people are when they marry,
the lower the percentage of divorces.
Obviously, we are dealing here with the causes of which we
spoke in the first part: people who get married under the influence of passion
or first impressions more often than not become disillusioned with one another.
This is also the case with marriages where sexual relations are supposed to be
most important. A marriage cannot last long on this alone, because there should
also be other common interests between the husband and wife. Women in
particular cannot be satisfied by sexuality alone. Surveys have shown that in
marriage a woman seeks first of all emotional love; secondly, security;
thirdly, friendship; fourthly, a home and family; fifthly, a place in society
and only in last place -- physical intimacy with her husband. If a man does not
understand this feature of his wife's psychology, then his marriage will be
short-lived.
A priest cannot do much to help in such cases. Therefore he
should concentrate on trying to avert early marriages, pointing out their risks
and consequences.
A priest can help more in subsequent years, when even more
natural marriages are threatened with divorce. In these cases it is necessary
first of all to determine the fundamental cause that is destroying the
integrity of the marriage. Most frequently it is one of those listed below.
B. Difference of opinions. Here we encounter inner
disagreements, about questions of religion, for example, or the methods of
bringing up children -- about the purposes of marriage in general. Mixed
marriages suffer most often from discord of this kind, since there is no unity
over the question of the children's religious upbringing.
The situation is the same when the couple belong to the same
faith but are not on the same spiritual level. Here the pastor should advise
the more indifferent spouse to leave the upbringing of the children to the
other -- usually the mother, insofar as women are more religious than men. The
same method can be used in a mixed marriage, where the guidance of the
children's religious upbringing should remain in the Orthodox mother's hands.
This is motivated by the children's interests, so as to avoid a duality in
their religious upbringing.
The most difficult cases of disagreement in marriage occur
when the husband, say, is a total unbeliever. If there are children in such
cases, then the wife must have a great deal of support from the pastor, who
must defend her rights to bring up her children in her own religion. If this
does not succeed, a serious conflict may arise. If there are no children, then
all attention must be transferred to the wife, to help her bear her heavy cross
patiently. Here she needs deep faith and great humility. According to American
law, a divorce is possible here, but from the Church's point of view it is
inadmissible.
C. Unmatched character. This includes purely
external, day to day, domestic disagreements. Often the temperaments of the
couple suffer from these deficiencies of character. This falls heavily on the
mother, and also on the children. In these cases the pastor has a large field of
action for reconciliation and pacification of their family life. Without taking
sides, the pastor should try to influence both -- to make one more restrained
and peaceable, and the other more patient and humble. He must emphasize the bad
influence that quarrels have on the children and how inadmissible they are in a
Christian family. If the family is not very religious he must insist that they
attend church more regularly and prepare for Communion more often.
Sometimes close relatives, such as the parents of the
husband or wife, are mixed up in these family discords. In such cases, the
priest must influence them also, pointing out how essential peace and concord
are in an Orthodox family.
D. Unfaithfulness. This is hardly ever encountered in
happy, pious families, but in unsuccessful families -- those suffering from one
of the types of discord mentioned above -- one can always expect
unfaithfulness, which can finally destroy a marriage. Therefore, a priest must
pay closer attention to such families, so as to avert this, if possible.
We have already noted that absence of children, disagreement
between husband and wife or cooling of feelings between them create the danger
that they will be tempted to seek other attachments.
We must also make a distinction between incidental
unfaithfulness and a serious feeling for another person, one that has acquired
a lasting nature. If it is a chance case, the pastor must try to incline the
deceived party towards forgiveness and reconciliation, and to restore mutual
trust. If the infidelity comes to light at confession, then the matter can be
limited to repentance and a penance, and telling the other party about it. If
one party knows or suspects unfaithfulness, then it is best if the priest acts
as an intermediary to reconcile them. Also, if the unfaithfulness was caused by
some abnormality in the couple's relationship, it is essential to discuss it
with them so as to remove the cause of infidelity for the future.
Often infidelity results from a long absence on the part of
the husband, or from his being overburdened with work and so unable to pay
sufficient attention to his wife and children. Here ways must be found to stop
the wife from feeling neglected, albeit with a certain reduction in the
husband's earnings. Similarly, the wife must not be so engrossed in her cares
as a mother and housekeeper that she forgets about her husband.
The matter becomes more complicated when the wife gives
birth to another man's child. Here the pastor must make every effort to ensure
that things do not end in abortion. It is essential not only to preserve the
child's life, but also to persuade the husband to accept him into the family.
The moral basis for this is as follows: the child is not to blame that he came
into the world through adultery, so it is better to accept him into the family
than to leave him without a father or mother and thus ruin his life. If the
baby is refused, the mother will grieve and suffer torments of conscience. But
if the child remains in the family, then the mother will not only be calm, but
she will also feel gratitude and respect towards her husband.
In pre-revolutionary Russia such cases were frequent when
husbands were away for four or five years on military service. Usually,
especially among the peasantry, husbands would accept such a child so as not to
destroy the family. This was regarded as a good Christian act. I know of such
instances from my own experience, and in large families this fact passed quite
unnoticed by the other children. Nevertheless, the pastor must exhort the
husband to take a perfectly normal attitude towards a child of this sort and
never to reveal his birth.
It is harder to reconcile a childless couple when a child is
born in this way. In my experience I have not had an instance of this sort, but
I have heard that some husbands have accepted such a child in order not to
distress the wife who, of course, had offered repentance for her infidelity.
In all cases cited above, the pastor's main aim has been to
preserve the family and prevent divorce. It must be remembered that it is
always the deceived party and, of course, the children who suffer from a
divorce. Sometimes the party guilty of infidelity suffers too. Therefore,
preserving even a marriage which is not entirely successful must be considered
a great success on the part of the priest, who is preserving the children from
the loss of a family, and the parents -- from the severe consequences of loneliness.
To this end the pastor must make use of all the methods of
pastoral exhortation and also of prayer for couples that are at enmity. In the
event of a reconciliation a moleben (service) of thanksgiving can be
served, with the addition of prayers for the reconciliation of those at enmity,
which are to be found in the Book of Needs.
5. Divorce
In this part I will be brief, as the divorce procedure is of
formal nature and has an established order. Of course, even here the priest
must try to dissuade both parties from divorce and reconcile them.
From the Orthodox point of view, a divorce is confirmed if a
marriage blessed by the Church is destroyed. If it cannot be restored then it
must be declared non-existent and the couple freed from the vows they have
taken.
In accordance with the Church's canons, divorces are allowed
in the following three cases: 1) If adultery has been committed; 2) If one of
the spouses is absent without trace for more than three years; and 3) If the
husband is incapable of conjugal cohabitation.
Divorce is within the competence of the ruling bishop. A
petition for divorce is given to the bishop, who assigns an experienced priest
to carry out an investigation of the matter -- to check the facts, gather
testimony from witnesses, demand an explanation from the accused party, and so
on. If possible, a last attempt at reconciliation is made, especially if there
are children. After this the matter enters the Spiritual Court of the diocese,
which can either confirm the divorce or return it for the gathering of
supplementary data. Finally, the decision of the Spiritual Court is confirmed
by the bishop.
It should be borne in mind that in the United States and
Canada an ecclesiastical divorce is effectual only after a civil divorce has
been obtained. Therefore, attempts at reconciliation must be made until the
civil divorce is completed.
A divorced husband or wife, if not guilty of infidelity, can
immediately enter into a new Christian marriage. But the guilty party can marry
a second time only after the penance for adultery has been lifted.
* Zhalet means something between "to take pity on", “to take care of”, and "to spare". Here we have translated it as "to spare" for want of a better word. (Trans.)
Source: Orthodox Life, Volume 25, No. 5 (Sep.-Oct.
1975), pages 17-26, and Volume 25, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1975), pages 22-28. Minor
typos corrected.
Prayer for Someone When Recovery is Hopeless
O God, look down with mercy and loving-kindness on our dear brother, afflicted with sickness unto death; give him perfect resignation to Thy...
-
Concerning the new Saint Dionisie of Kolitsou Nikolaos Mannis | September 1, 2025 Today the Patriarchate of Constantinople rec...
-
[FWIW: Response from OpenAI’s ChatGPT-5.2, generated January 7, 2025.] [Additional text generated January 9, 2025 below] Short an...
-
by Bishop [Metropolitan] Photii of Triaditza Former Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Sofia, Bulgaria Source: Orthodox Trad...