Fantasy

Someone’s preoccupation with the ‘World of Warcraft’ has led us to think about fantasy and the religious consciousness. We talked about ‘Second Life’ in this post, and ‘World of Warcraft’ seems to be ‘Second Life’ with a pre-defined narrative in which the ‘user’ or game-player participates. That is, in ‘Second Life’ you make up your own ‘story’ as you go along, but in ‘World of Warcraft’ you enter into an already-made-up story. It’s as if, instead of watching ‘Star Trek’ on television, you could enter into the ‘Star Trek’ series, becoming a new character and interacting with Dr Spock in real time. Or ‘Firefly’, perhaps you could actually become the mechanic. Or, instead of watching an endless soap like ‘Dallas’ or ‘The Sopranos’, you could enter into the soap, becoming one of the main characters. From the point of view of money and entertainment, this would seem to be the wave of the future. (You read it here first.) Perhaps this is what reality television is all about, we don’t know; we’ve managed not to see any reality television.

We will ignore the fact that the ‘interior decor’ of these video games is somewhere between ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarves’ and a bad dream.

But what about the players of such games? From the point of view of their spirituality? Let us suppose that someone watches ‘classic’ television 10 hours a day. Or is on the Internet 10 hours a day. Now such a person is not living in his or her own particular reality. He or she is living in a fantasy world. We suppose the same would be true of someone who read 10 hours a day, although in all these things much depends on what it is you are watching, surfing or reading.

Now let us suppose that a person with such a fantasy habit gets interested in religion, whatever that is. The most likely thing is that such a person will treat religion as a psychological extension of whatever it is he or she is spending his time on, all day long.

‘Star Trek’? Religion will be something like Dr Spock’s ears.

‘Firefly’? Religion will be something like the spirituality espoused in the ‘School for Courtesans’, i.e. hokey yoga.

‘Dallas’? Good question. ‘The Sopranos’? Even better question. Perhaps in the case of ‘Dallas’ religion will be an external morality combined with wealth-consumerism, and in the case of ‘The Sopranos’, an external ritualism, we don’t know.

‘World of Warcraft’? Well here’s where the fun begins because here we have a story-line that includes sorcerers. In other words, religion will probably present itself to a player of ‘World of Warcraft’ as a mythic pagan fairy tale where accomplished practitioners of religion have certain mystical powers, like the Jedi.

Now no one is on the Internet 24 hours a day, so there must be some period of time when the players of ‘World of Warcraft’ are walking around reality. But they are going to cart this idea of religion around with them.

Now let us suppose that they encounter institutional religion. They are, perhaps without realizing it, going to measure that institutional religion against the criterion of their ‘World of Warcraft’ generated ‘icon’ of religion as training whereby you develop all kinds of ‘mystical’ powers. Perhaps that is why far Eastern religions have such an appeal to these people.

Let us now look at this matter from the point of view of the Hesychastic doctrine of purification from the passions. As we are sure all our readers know, the Orthodox Christian tradition treats fantasy not as an expression of religion but as a temptation, as an impediment to genuine religious experience. All that fantasy can bring you to is delusion. Hence, from the Orthodox Christian point of view, the worlds of all these long-running television series and group-participatory Internet games are fantasy worlds that takes you further from God, even if, as in ‘World of Warcraft’, you have an avatar that is a sorcerer or even a sorcerer’s apprentice or even a monk or even a pagan priest.

This Orthodox understanding of fantasy is grounded in a deep understanding of human psychology. Fantasy is the world of images and dreams that draw their force from our passions. As we have remarked, our passions are our emotional tendencies to sin. Fantasy is the world of images and dreams provoked by our passions. Indulgence in these images and dreams stimulates the passion further. And recall that there are eight passions, not just the obvious one.

Moreover, at the risk of alienating some of our more Westernized readers, the demons are the disembodied intelligences with a hatred for God (whatever those demons say and teach) that both provoke the images and dreams by stimulating our passions and teach us false doctrine.

The danger when you are spending 10 hours a day playing a video game like ‘World of Warcraft’ is that you are going to start acting out your fantasies ‘big-time’—big-time from the point of view of your own psychological condition and evolution. This long-term acting-out of your fantasies is going to strengthen the hold the demons have on you through your passions. Put in a more humanistic way, the long-term acting out of your fantasies is going to increase the hold over you of your id impulses, to the detriment of your contact with reality.

There is a principle in Orthodox Christian psychology: if you feed your passions by indulging them, they grow; if you starve them by refusing to satisfy them, they wither (although in neither case does this happen in a day).

In the long run, acting out your fantasies in an intense, long-term way is going to put you on a downhill road to delusion. This might even manifest itself clinically. This is not something that happens over a week, but over a few years. One step leads to another and down we go.

Now the point of intersection of ‘World of Warcraft’—and we are using it as just a random example of the sort of thing we have in mind—with the Orthodox Church is the ritual in the Orthodox Church. In other words, there is a danger that someone who has a criterion of religion that is based on a mythic pagan fairy-tale fantasy will respond not to the substance of Orthodoxy but to the ritual that we have in our religion. This is not to suggest that we purge Orthodoxy of its ritual but to point out that someone who approaches Orthodoxy from the point of view of an intense fantasy life of role-playing that includes demons and sorcerers is going to have a lot of growing to do before he or she encounters true Orthodoxy.

Let us look at this matter from the point of view of how we might encounter the Cross, since today is the Feast of the Veneration of the Cross, the Third Sunday of Great Lent. From the point of view of a sterile intellectualism, we might have a theory about how the Cross has redeemed us, perhaps juridically, from sin, perhaps original sin. There is room for the intellectual, and for intellectual theology, in the Orthodox Church although the Fathers do not ever remain in a sterile intellectualism, going beyond it to the spiritual. We do not want to deny the relevance to us and to our spiritual growth of a proper intellectual understanding of our faith.

Or we might cultivate an individualistic, pietistic emotional response to the ‘sufferings of Our Lord on the Cross’ in an attempt to generate in ourselves an emotional state of reverence for the Cross. This is something that is foreign to Orthodoxy although we certainly esteem both our Lord and his sufferings on the Cross.

This is one of the reasons why the liturgical arts in Orthodoxy are never considered venues for self-expression: neither liturgical chant, if it is properly done, nor iconography is a place for us to ‘express ourselves’ as we rise to ‘higher and higher’ emotional states. The cantor is not an opera singer; the iconographer not Picasso or even Matisse. The great cantor is not someone who expresses more emotion more refinedly; the great iconographer is not someone who creates the most florid expressions of his inner life. Leave this sort of thing to Post-Renaissance Western liturgical art starting with Michelangelo. Our goal in the spiritual life is not to raise ourselves to some sort of emotional ecstasy of ‘adoration’ of the Cross and of Christ himself.

Or we might have a fantasy response to the Cross. We might conjure up a world of intrigue surrounding the Crucifixion involving various characters playing various roles. This might go way beyond whatever is warranted by the historical narrative of the Gospel. Theologically it might go way beyond whatever is warranted by the Gospel or endorsed by the Church. It is here we might adopt an occult interpretation of Christ on the Cross. In other words, having been primed by our spending all our time for several years role-playing in a fantasy world-game, we might interpret the Gospel in terms of the psychological criteria embedded in the narrative of that game. We might recast, perhaps without realizing it, the narrative of the Crucifixion as a narrative in ‘World of Warcraft’. And in the real world the closest thing to that narrative might turn out to be some sort of occult or New-Age interpretation. We are lost. Our salvation has come to a dead end. We are victims. We have succumbed to delusion.

What is the correct way to encounter the Cross?

We receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism. This ‘connects’ us to Christ. In order to be able to experience this connection consciously we have to purify ourselves from our passions, from our fantasy. This is not to adopt a sterile intellectualism, nor is it, God forbid, to adopt an attitude of exaggerated emotional response.

The Orthodox way takes us away from fantasy, including spiritual fantasy, and leads us to encounter consciously the connection we have to Christ in the Holy Spirit. Our road is through the purification of the passions in us. This is coupled with an increase in us of the virtues. Not in a formalistic, external way but ultimately as given to us by the Holy Spirit itself.

One of the virtues cultivated by the Hesychast is Eros. We have pointed out that we do not cultivate an exaggerated emotional response to Christ and that we do not remain in a sterile intellectualism. We do, however, remain in a spiritual orientation that includes an ardent love for our Lord. This ardent love—Eros—is perhaps most easily understood in the homily of St Ephraim the Syrian read during Orthros of Holy Wednesday (in some Churches, on the evening of Holy Tuesday). It is a meditation by St Ephraim on the Gospel narrative of the woman who anoints Jesus with nard before his Crucifixion, conflated by St Ephraim with the story of the woman of the city who washes his feet with her tears. That is how we should be in our relationship to our Lord.

Another way to look at Eros is to consider the icon of the ‘Man of Sorrows’. There is nothing sentimental about it. Jesus is portrayed in great strength and great suffering, very differently from the emotionally exaggerated Western renderings of Jesus in the Garden. Yet who in the Orthodox Church is not moved by this icon?

Another way to look at Eros is to consider the troparia of Holy Week, properly chanted. Who is not moved by a proper rendering of these troparia, especially if he understands what is being chanted? Who is not pierced to the heart?

But we are here far from Eros in the carnal sense, far from fantasy, far from emotional exaggeration. We are here in a state of prayer touched by our ardent love for the Lord who died for us.

Reply to Deacon Gregory

Deacon Gregory Wassen, who is a seminarian at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, New York, of the Orthodox Church in America, and who indicates on the discussion page of the Evagrius Ponticus article on Wikipedia that he is working on a MDiv dissertation on Evagrius Ponticus (344 – 399), has posted the following the comment on our post ‘Apokatastasis’:

Father,

A few thoughts if I may:

Evagrius was not condemned at the Fifth Council - there is no such document belonging to the council itself. It is "hearsay" at best from Cyril of Scythopolis or perhaps part of Cyril's rhetorical strategy in defense of his monastic heroes (who had been associated with adherents of Theodore of Mopsuestia and were thus opposed by "the Origenists" (see D. Hombergen, "The Second Origenist Controversy" in the Studia Anselmiana series).

Also the 15 anathemas belong to a letter written by Justinian the Great circulated among the Bishops in Constantinople awaiting the convocation of the Fifth Council - it was never part of the Council and does not belong to its decisions. The only anathema directed at Origen or Origenism is the 11th anathema where Origen's name appears at the end of a traditional list of heretics of a Christological category. But even this is a disputed fact - and no absolute agreement exists whether or not Origen's name was added by the Council or by later (anti-Origenist) copyists.

After all the Sixth Ec. Council discovered all kinds of fraudulent additions to the acts of the Fifth Council and anathematized the ones responsible for it. The sixth Council did not investigate the question concerning Origen because it's concern was christological (monothelitism, monoenergism) but it is not at all implausible Origen's name is a latter addition to seal the fate of "Origenism" after the Fifth Council.

To conclude this message: Neither Origen nor Evagrius taught the kind of doctrine condemned in the 15 anathemas of Justinian this much is clear from the work of Fr. John Behr ("The Way to Nicea") and Mark Edwards ("Origen against Plato") together with that of Frs. Gabriel Bunge, Jeremy Driscoll and Luke Dysinger. Whatever kind of Origenism is being condemned in the 15 anathemas is way beyond both Origen and Evagrius and without question heretical indeed.

My two cents ...

Fr. Dn. Gregory

A full reply would require a very long development, Deacon Gregory.

Let us start with the conscience of the Orthodox Church. Would you please go to the Lenten Triodion and read the text of the Profession of Orthodoxy that is appointed to be read next Sunday during Orthros of the Sunday of Orthodoxy? Do you not have a problem going against the mind of the Orthodox Church—especially given that a number of the ‘scholars’ that you mention in defense of your thesis are NOT members of the Orthodox Church and given that your thesis goes against the recorded views of saints of the Orthodox Church (see below; there are others not discussed below)? This is not to dispute your right in a secular context to academic freedom—but the Church itself corporately believes certain things and we profess those beliefs as members of the Orthodox Church, whatever we want to do as scholars and students in a theology program.

Next, your thesis that Evagrius[1] was never condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod is not the traditional one—the standard Collections of the Ecumenical Synods contain the 15 Condemnations against Origenism of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, discovered, we believe, in the 19^th Century. Neither is it the position of all the Catholic scholars you cite, and of other Catholic scholars you don’t cite. Their positions on this point are all over the map. The point about saying ‘Catholic’ here is that the Roman Catholics have always had a very uneasy relation to the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, given that it condemned a Pope. If they are willing, some of them, to accept that the Fifth actually pronounced the 15 Condemnations against Origenism, then it certainly isn’t an outré point of view. This is not to deny that the saved records of the deliberations of the Fifth are silent on the Condemnations against Origenism.

Next, what do you make of the reiteration (i.e. in the sense of endorsement) of the Condemnations against Origenism, and of the personal condemnations of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Synods and by the Council in Trullo? Forgeries? Errors? Be careful as a member of the Orthodox Church how much error you assign to an Ecumenical Synod (although in Trullo is not normally considered an ecumenical synod). Moreover, although the Sixth discovered all sorts of forgeries, as you mention, it did reiterate the 15 Condemnations against Origenism of the Fifth not only as having transpired, but as being entirely doctrinally sound. Wouldn’t they have hesitated—given their bitter experience with hoaxers—if they had any doubt about the authenticity of the Condemnations against Origenism of the Fifth, rather than endorse them, simultaneously stating that Origen, Didymus and Evagrius were condemned by name?

Moreover, you have to deal with the issue that the Condemnations against Origen of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, whatever their provenance, have verbatim quotations from Evagrius’ masterwork, the Kephalaia Gnostica. That somehow has to be talked away by the modern authors you mention—how the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which drafted the Condemnations, didn’t understand Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostica, whereas we moderns understand that work better, that it is completely orthodox. While a Roman Catholic might be able to support this opinion, it is impossible for an Orthodox to support it. That is why it is necessary for you to ‘prove’ that the Fifth Ecumenical Synod never issued the Condemnations. So we have to believe Deacon Gregory over the testimony of the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Synods.

Next, what do you make of the statements of Sts Barsanuphios and John (Questions 600 – 607 of Sts Barsanuphios and John, here, here and here)? Are they also politically motivated fellows who for political reasons said what they said? Were they made saints by ecclesiastical politicians? Were their charisms of prophecy and discernment hoaxes? Or is it only Cyril of Scythopolis—disciple of some of the most respected saints of Palestinian monasticism in the Orthodox Church—who is a hoaxer?

Not all of the modern authors you mention take all of the positions that you yourself take; in your dissertation you will have to be clear what the position of each of the modern authors you mention is on the issues you discuss, and on what evidence he supports his position.

We would be happy to attend your oral defence of your dissertation, but what with our dog sled on the kaput it would be difficult for us to get down to Crestwood. Are there such things are anonymous virtual oral examiners?

You’re way off the deep end, Deacon Gregory.

Orthodox Monk

---

[1] We have noticed an oversight on our part: we originally wrote ‘Origen’ instead of ‘Evagrius’ here. The precise sequence is as follows. In 553 the Fifth Ecumenical Synod issues the 15 Condemnations against Origenism. In the form that they have come down to us, they do not mention Origen, Didymus the Blind or Evagrius Ponticus by name, although they have verbatim quotations from Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostica and explicitly state that anyone who holds these views is anathematized. The Sixth Ecumenical Synod, in endorsing the Condemnations against Origenism of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, treats the Fifth as having condemned Origen, Didymus and Evagrius by name, although it is true that the Condemnations, as they have come down to us, are silent on the names of the three men. This endorsement by the Sixth is repeated by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, including the personal condemnations, and also by the (non-ecumenical) Council in Trullo.

Some Remarks on Juliana's Response

We would like to make some remarks on Juliana’s response. They are inset after her own remarks.

Dear Father,

Thank you for your heart-warming response. When I referred to my triple commitment and affirmation, I was alluding to the service for catechumens...

...

I wrote hoping only for a reading list, which you have generously supplied, but I also received personal compliments, a gift of translation, and advice intended to protect (helpless female) me from danger.

One might ask, Why so much concern for me when all I wanted was some book titles?

This is a common practice on the part of ‘Orthodox Monk’, Juliana.

There are several points we wish to address in this regard.

First, many people blog as a means of social networking: they engage in activities like ‘simultaneous blog topic of the week’; they add links on their blog to friends and to what in olden days would have been called pen pals. This is one step away from social networking in ‘Second Life’. We don’t do social networking, Juliana.

Our goal on this blog is somewhat different, Juliana: when we respond to the comment of one of our readers we are looking to speak ‘to the ages’ just as an essayist would. We are writing for eternity (in several senses, including in the sense that we are cognizant that we will be judged for what we write). Hence, if we choose to respond to Juliana’s comment, we think that there is something there that is spiritually important not only for Juliana but for all of our readers.

More along these lines, when we write we have the thought that it would be nice if this blog were published one day as a book. That hasn’t happened (where are our readers who are involved in publishing?) but it sets the tone and style and orientation of our composition.

Next, it took us an hour to translate and post the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Yes, it was a gift, Juliana, but let’s not get ‘uppity’: it was easy, and, moreover, we want to post as many translations of key theological and religious and biblical texts as we can on this blog. If you will go to the post ‘Apokatastasis’, you will see that in addition to a 1300 word response to a question from an unknown man named ‘Simon’, we posted 6,000 words of translation of Questions 600 – 607 of Sts Barsanuphios and John (here, here and here). For you we posted 200 words of translation in addition to 1800 words of response. Why did we act the way we did with ‘Simon’? Because we wanted to get into the fellow’s pants? No. The issue he raised was interesting and we thought that the texts of Sts Barsanuphios and John were important and worth posting on the Internet by means of this blog. Similarly for your own question, Juliana.

As for the advice intended to protect you, the ‘helpless female’. Since we are not clairvoyant, we do not have an image of you before our mind’s eye; we do not know you. However, your original comments raised in our mind the issue of risk: there is genuine danger, Juliana, on the Internet—let us be so bold as to say: more than you realize. You are not the only person whom we have cautioned about the Internet. We have made pretty much the same remark in about five posts. Notably, someone using a pseudonym asked us what monastery he should become a monk in. We were a little cautious because we were worried that possibly we were being baited—being set up for entrapment by a person who wanted to find a stick to hit us over the head with—but again we cautioned him that he should be discussing his vocation with his confessor, not over the Internet. Similarly with you, Juliana.

When we wrote about Second Life, we made some very strong remarks about the dangers attendant on letting one’s children have access to the Internet in private with a web-cam—this might be relevant to you since you are married.

I think I know.

We don’t know.

I was less than clear about my background, but I will try to respond to these personal offerings with clarity, since I wish to become more transparent.

First, your unlooked-for gifts inspire me to trust in prayer to the saints, because they must be far more loving than you.

Somewhere we heard the following story: Someone visited the cell of Elder Paisios (1924 – 1994) on Mt Athos, the one where he lived at the end of his life. The monk who now has the cell, a disciple of Elder Paisios, spoke with the visitor. The visitor remarked: I came to see Elder Paisios when he was still alive about a serious problem. It struck me that he was even more concerned than I about solving that problem.

Second, I am willing to receive your comments in the spirit in which they were offered, and I recognize that the form which love takes from the strong to the weak is the form of protection.

I learned a little Old English. Our word love comes from leof, which was a form of address meaning dear or beloved. It was how a wife addressed her husband, but more importantly (for that culture) how a warrior addressed his chief. We could choose to believe that the women were oppressed by the insistance on loyalty above romance, or see that the vassal system (in which loyalty in arms was given in return for protection, gifts, and feasting) was built on ties of close affection. When the Venerable Bede caused the Bible to be translated for the people, leof was used for Lord. (As in the prophecy of Hosea 2:16 "You will no longer call me 'master' but 'husband'.") This one word makes more sense to me than most of what I've read about eros. The Anglo-Saxons linguistically took the female perspective as the one that best characterizes everyone's relationship with God and accepted without embarrassment their enjoyment of God's unlooked-for gifts.

This is a very impressive piece of writing which brings forth two comments, Juliana. First, when people say that they ‘learned a little Old English’, we expect to find out that they are Professors of English. Your writing is polished; you are a professional wordsmith. There is nothing chance about your style, although we did have a quibble with your diction in your third-to-last paragraph (that begins ‘This is all to say that...’).

As for the substance, the heart of our response to your comment was that the female perspective—which perspective is obviously used in Scripture for the relationship of all souls to God and which perspective is found across cultures—is particularly important to the female. After all, the normal female would probably not be too taken by the martial imagery of the ‘soldier of Christ’ that St Paul uses, or his image of the ‘athlete of Christ’; these are things that the male of the species would more relate to.

This is all to say that I am gladdened by your efforts to protect me from the wild, wild internet and bring me safely into the feast hall. But look! I returned home (to the Church) and received some chrism for my lamp, and I don't need to go wandering around the internet marketplace looking for something to burn and being sold kerosene or rubbing alcohol.

Here, Juliana, it is important for you to study the Parable of the Ten Virgins. All of the virgins were baptised; in chrismation they had all received the ‘Seal of the Holy Spirit’. But five of the virgins were wise and five were foolish. The problematic that God is advancing in this parable is repeated in the monastic tonsure: ‘You have chosen a good work but only if you bring it to completion.’ The problem with the five foolish virgins—and, as we are sure you realize, the ten virgins represent all souls, both of men and of women—was not that they had not been baptized but that they had not spent their lives accumulating oil in their vessels, so that after they fell asleep (died) and awoke in the General Resurrection and were called to come forth to meet the Groom, they would then have enough oil for their lamps to enter into the marriage feast.

There are a variety of interpretations as to what the oil is that the virgins should have provided themselves with. That is where we sent you to St John Chrysostom.

It is not enough to be baptized. You have to make sure that you accumulate oil in your vessel throughout your lifetime. St Seraphim of Sarov has his own interpretation.

I was just attempting to find out more about the upcoming marriage since you seem to be a friend of the Groom.

Lastly, I see that I should be very careful when I visit a men's monastery. Maybe I should act mean, deceitful, and silly, and give my name as Hilda.

When we first read this last line we didn’t grasp that you had introduced a construction parallel but inverse to our own where we said that you seemed to be ‘very kind, sincere and serious’. Quite a turn, Juliana. Congratulations. But Hilda? At first we thought that Hilda was a generic term for the ‘dark Juliana’, but then the Abbess of Whitby came before our mind. To give your name as Abbess Hilda, however, you would have to be dressed as a nun.

Or at least stick close to my husband.

This seems to suggest that you might be at risk. Here we are somewhat offended. After we read this we looked carefully at our own post. There is nothing in it that would justify this salacious innuendo, Juliana.

Have a fruitful Lent. You'll not hear more from me. I need to limit my electronic reading, and discussing erotic love with a monk is definitely not how I should be spending my time.

Well, yes, that is why you should talk these issues over with your confessor and not over the Internet.

But you are missing a point. While it is certainly not proper for you to discuss with a monk other than your confessor your marital relations, you certainly have to recognize that the issue of Eros in the spiritual life is something that transcends the matrix of domestic connubial life.

That is why we would suggest that you read St Ephraim the Syrian. He is the one who composed the homily read on Holy Wednesday about the woman of the city who goes to the marketplace to buy myrrh to anoint Jesus. We are sure you know it.

I'll go to all the services I can and see my confessor as soon as possible.

Thanks again.

Juliana

We are indeed impressed, Juliana. You are very intelligent. Our remarks here, however, are designed to justify our continued presence on the Internet: if it were thought that we were acting salaciously, there would be a serious issue with our own conscience and with our confessor.

With best wishes—

Orthodox Monk

Juliana's Response

Juliana has replied to our post. Here is her reply:

Dear Father,

Thank you for your heart-warming response. When I referred to my triple commitment and affirmation, I was alluding to the service for catechumens, which contains the following dialog:

Priest: Do you unite yourself to Christ?

Catechumen: I do unite myself to Christ. (This is repeated three times.)

Priest: Have you united yourself to Christ?

Catechumen: I have united myself to Christ. (This is repeated three times.)

When I was married, I was joined to my husband thrice with a ring and thrice with a crown, but I don't say that I was married six times. Sorry for the confusion.

I wrote hoping only for a reading list, which you have generously supplied, but I also received personal compliments, a gift of translation, and advice intended to protect (helpless female) me from danger.

One might ask, Why so much concern for me when all I wanted was some book titles? I think I know.

I was less than clear about my background, but I will try to respond to these personal offerings with clarity, since I wish to become more transparent.

First, your unlooked-for gifts inspire me to trust in prayer to the saints, because they must be far more loving than you.

Second, I am willing to receive your comments in the spirit in which they were offered, and I recognize that the form which love takes from the strong to the weak is the form of protection.

I learned a little Old English. Our word love comes from leof, which was a form of address meaning dear or beloved. It was how a wife addressed her husband, but more importantly (for that culture) how a warrior addressed his chief. We could choose to believe that the women were oppressed by the insistance on loyalty above romance, or see that the vassal system (in which loyalty in arms was given in return for protection, gifts, and feasting) was built on ties of close affection. When the Venerable Bede caused the Bible to be translated for the people, leof was used for Lord. (As in the prophecy of Hosea 2:16 "You will no longer call me 'master' but 'husband'.") This one word makes more sense to me than most of what I've read about eros. The Anglo-Saxons linguistically took the female perspective as the one that best characterizes everyone's relationship with God and accepted without embarrassment their enjoyment of God's unlooked-for gifts.

This is all to say that I am gladdened by your efforts to protect me from the wild, wild internet and bring me safely into the feast hall. But look! I returned home (to the Church) and received some chrism for my lamp, and I don't need to go wandering around the internet marketplace looking for something to burn and being sold kerosene or rubbing alcohol. I was just attempting to find out more about the upcoming marriage since you seem to be a friend of the Groom.

Lastly, I see that I should be very careful when I visit a men's monastery. Maybe I should act mean, deceitful, and silly, and give my name as Hilda. Or at least stick close to my husband.

Have a fruitful Lent. You'll not hear more from me. I need to limit my electronic reading, and discussing erotic love with a monk is definitely not how I should be spending my time. I'll go to all the services I can and see my confessor as soon as possible.

Thanks again.

Juliana

We’re impressed.