Holy Communion analogy

[Cailte]

Just to say - I am well aware, and have already stated that I know about ‘mystical marriage’ and the many, many references to this in the scriptures. The problem I have is with stepping outside of that and making it a corporeal marriage and claiming that our relationship with God is just that. The marriage act is a human act - given to us by God - but it does not involve our relationship with God, just with each other. No one is saying that the marriage act is ‘dirty’ - in fact I think that is where the issue falls down. Everyone runs for the exists when sexuality is even questioned, even as regards God, because no one wants to be put in that box.

Anyway I just picked up a copy of “The Theology of the Body Explained” - a commentary on Pope John Paul’s work and Christopher West states that :

God is *not *a sexual being.The mystery of love and generation in the Trinity is infinitely beyond that of human love and generation. Thus the Eucharist as we have described it is certainly not a “sexual encounter”. …We are made in God’s image not He in ours. The Catechism states this clearly: In no way is God in man’s image".

That answers it for me. And I still think that Sri overstepped the line by suggesting otherwise.

 

[agapewolf]

The marriage act is a human act - given to us by God - but it does not involve our relationship with God, just with each other. e.

This is not true by any means. This doesn’t make sense at all.

The sexual act DOES most definitely involve our relationship with God. If it didn’t, then there would be no morality about it.

This is the whole point…its a renewal of wedding vows…marriage is supposed to get us to heaven.

God is the creator of people, and that happens through sex…so he has to be a part of it.

 

[Cailte]

This is not true by any means. This doesn’t make sense at all.

The sexual act DOES most definitely involve our relationship with God. If it didn’t, then there would be no morality about it.

This is the whole point…its a renewal of wedding vows…marriage is supposed to get us to heaven.

God is the creator of people, and that happens through sex…so he has to be a part of it.

I think you know what I meant - maybe you are being deliberately abstruse just to make your point. Of course all things come from God. Read my post over - we do not relate to God one on one, nor He to us, in a sexual way - that is my point and Christoper West agrees as I show in my quotation from him.

 

[agapewolf]

I think you know what I meant - maybe you are being deliberately abstruse just to make your point. Of course all things come from God. Read my post over - we do not relate to God one on one, nor He to us, in a sexual way - that is my point and Christoper West agrees as I show in my quotation from him.

No , I quoted exactly your statement.

And you are mistaking what Christopher is saying here.
He said “sexual encounter”… which is talking about specific genital event.

However, we do indeed love God as a man or a woman. We are sexual beings all the time, that doesn’t mean we are always engaged in genital activity. But I always love as a woman… to any person, as well as loving God…as a woman.

What Sri is talking about is that in the physical sense— complete with EROS and AGAPE united, we take Jesus into our bodies. This isn’t a genital activity with God, but rather a communion with him, that parallels husband and wife. There is nothing to be offended about.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Well I have no problem with the conjugal act being made holy by the church - which is the order of things and I understand its place within sacred marriage. But I do have a problem with God being turned sexual.

I don’t think God is being turned sexual. I think the point is that in the marriage the two become one. We are united together in a special way. When we receive the Eucharist, likewise, we are united with God in a special way. Nothing sexual about it. It is about intimacy and union. It’s not about some depraved carnal act of pleasure–though that is what our society seems intent on making it–even within the bounds of marriage. Don’t confuse “sex” with the “marriage act”.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[jpjd]

Sri uses this analogy because the unitive aspect of the sexual union is the only thing that comes close to the unitive aspect of Communion with our Lord. Communion with our Lord is not sexual, it is spiritual, but its unity and intimacy is analogous to the unity and intimacy of the sexual union.

They are both very beautiful unions and nothing to be upset by or offended at.

 

[Warrenton]

Love, either romantic ("my soul panteth after Thee, my Lord’) or marital (“the Church is the bride of Christ”) has been used as an anology for divine love for thousands of years. However, to say that Holy Communion is “like” intercourse is misleading for a few reasons.

The host is a sacrificial victim, and there is nothing sacrificial in the nature of intercourse.

Second, while love is eternal, Christ makes it absolutely clear that intercourse is not. Christ revealed the lawyers as fools when they even tried to suggest such a thing:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)

On the other hand, the Lamb of God, which we see on earth in the form of the Blessed Sacrament, is eternal, and will be seen in heaven, as Revelation tells us in Chapter 5:1.

To mix the temporal with the eternal is to sow confusion.

Worse, however, is where this confusion likely leads. If people develop the notion that the eucharist is “like” intercourse, they will draw the analogy that as the eucharist is holy in all circumstances (nothing can make the sanctified host unholy), so also intercourse is holy in all times and places. This is a grave, and one must say, sophomoric, error.

 

[Cailte]

To mix the temporal with the eternal is to sow confusion.

Worse, however, is where this confusion likely leads. If people develop the notion that the eucharist is “like” intercourse, they will draw the analogy that as the eucharist is holy in all circumstances (nothing can make the sanctified host unholy), so also intercourse is holy in all times and places. This is a grave, and one must say, sophomoric, error.

Thank you for this. I couldn’t agree more. It leads to places that it ought not to. And certainly at our parish the Sri statement in his book about the ‘marriage act’ has caused upset and confusion.

To say that the marriage act is ‘like’ Holy Communion is not at all the same as suggesting - as Sri and others have suggested - that therefore Holy Communion is ‘like’ the marriage act. That is my issue with what some of these guys are saying. They are incorrectly inverting the logical line of the analogy.

 

[jps23430]

it is the same analogy used by Christ and Paul so why the upset?

the reception of Holy Communion is not being compared to the marriage act.

all the speakers cited are repeating the teaching of Christ himself that marriage, specifically the marriage act which makes marriage possible, is an icon or type of the union between Christ and the Church, his bride, not the other way around. That is why heaven is called the wedding supper of the Lamb in the communion rite of the Mass.

disgust with the analogy reveals some disgust about the marriage act, and a disregard of its sacramental nature, which originates as do all the other sacraments in the Eucharist.

I have no response to this, it was just so well said that i wanted to quote it so it would be posted again

 

[Cailte]

I have no response to this, it was just so well said that i wanted to quote it so it would be posted again

It’s also a misunderstanding about what is being discussed - read the posts above.

The issue is NOT what is marriage like - the issue is what is Holy Communion like. The analogy question is about Holy Communion NOT a marital sex analogy - hence my thread title. Different issue entirely - if you can follow this through.

 

[MarkInOregon]

The host is a sacrificial victim, and there is nothing sacrificial in the nature of intercourse.
The host is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is Christ giving himself totally to us. “I am the bread of life.” “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” The Eucharist is about Christ giving himself to us that we might be united with him and have eternal life. The marital embrace is about us totally giving ourselves to our spouse and uniting with our spouse and becoming one with our spouse–that is a beautiful thing. And in some respects mirrors Christ giving himself to us. Sure its imperfect but any time we try to describe anything about God–human words and analogies are imperfect.

When it is referred to as “intercourse” and divorced from its proper place–treating it like a scientific term describing a physical act that any old mammal engages in – well then yes.

Everytime “intercourse” produces a child there is some sacrifice involved–lost sleep, lost time for self, etc. It is a sacrifice that is well worth it but we still end up sacrificing for our Children. Is that Christs sacfrice? Of course not–no sacrifice we make on earth is. Total giving of self (which is what the marital embrace is) implies sacrifice, makes one vulnerable. I guess in a society where “sex” is distorted and viewed as seeking and getting pleasure and not as a giving of oneself–I can see how one might have a hard time with the analogy.

Second, while love is eternal, Christ makes it absolutely clear that intercourse is not. Christ revealed the lawyers as fools when they even tried to suggest such a thing:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)

On the other hand, the Lamb of God, which we see on earth in the form of the Blessed Sacrament, is eternal, and will be seen in heaven, as Revelation tells us in Chapter 5:1.

To mix the temporal with the eternal is to sow confusion. God is neither male nor female–yet we describe God in terms of a father. We describe Jesus as a “lamb” – are you suggesting that this will sow confusion and that people, since Jesus is always holy, will come to the conclusion that all lambs are holy–or worse yet that since Jesus is God that all lambs are God? No one is making that mistake so what makes you think that when it comes to the marital embrace–people will suddenly lose all reason and jump to the conclusion you fear below? I don’t think anyone is talking about “intercourse” in the abstract–but in the context of marriage where we freely give all of ourselves to each other–not some carnal act where we are taking something for ourselves. If there is a danger in the analogy–it is that, maybe, people do not understand the true nature of sex and have abused it. Of couse in this society many have abused fatherhood–and society has done a number on fatherhood and what it really means to be a father–of course we haven’t stopped describing God in terms of a father.

Worse, however, is where this confusion likely leads. If people develop the notion that the eucharist is “like” intercourse, they will draw the analogy that as the eucharist is holy in all circumstances (nothing can make the sanctified host unholy), so also intercourse is holy in all times and places. This is a grave, and one must say, sophomoric, error.

I think if we define our terms correctly and make sure everyone knows what we are talking about-- the risk of confusion you are worried about is small. Of course if our only vision of intercourse–is that of Charlie Sheen on 2 1/2 Men–then yes we have got a problem–given our society–it may be better to stay away from some terms–though I think we should fight to restore those terms to there authentic meaning.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Warrenton]

The Eucharist is about Christ giving himself to us that we might be united with him and have eternal life.

Correct. But, you continued:

The marital embrace is about us totally giving ourselves to our spouse and uniting with our spouse and becoming one with our spouse–that is a beautiful thing. And in some respects mirrors Christ giving himself to us.

When you look at your two statements, you will see the difference clearly. In the first quote, you correctly perceive that the purpose is to obtain life everlasting.

In the second statement, the purpose is not to have eternal life. It is to express marital affection and beget children.

There are some similarities, but there are more differences.

Everytime “intercourse” produces a child there is some sacrifice involved–lost sleep, lost time for self, etc. It is a sacrifice that is well worth it but we still end up sacrificing for our Children. Is that Christs sacfrice? Of course not–no sacrifice we make on earth is.

Again, correct. The kind of sacrifice made was different - the exertions we make for our children are more in the nature of the work of life. The sacrifice of Christ was extraordinary.

Total giving of self (which is what the marital embrace is) implies sacrifice, makes one vulnerable.

Perhaps, but I cannot say. There may be some romanticizing of the marital act here. The sacrifice of Christ, however, was perfect and remains perfect whenever it is re-created in the mass.

God is neither male nor female–yet we describe God in terms of a father. We describe Jesus as a “lamb” – are you suggesting that this will sow confusion and that people, since Jesus is always holy, will come to the conclusion that all lambs are holy–or worse yet that since Jesus is God that all lambs are God?

First, God is a Father, and we know this by revelation. He has told us so Himself.

Regarding the Lamb, we need to be careful because this is an image that comes directly from scripture itself. St. John sees the lamb in his vision. Christ appears in that form. It’s not a mere manner of speaking.

I don’t think anyone is talking about “intercourse” in the abstract–but in the context of marriage where we freely give all of ourselves to each other–not some carnal act where we are taking something for ourselves. If there is a danger in the analogy–it is that, maybe, people do not understand the true nature of sex and have abused it.

Again, I cannot speak to whether the act is more or less freely given than at other times. I suspect that often, whether in marriage or not, intercourse remains essentially a carnal act where we get something for ourselves. It is certainly not engaged in, so far as I have ever heard, as an atonement for sin. There lies another problem with the analogy. It is unrealistic. As you correctly observe, sex is frequently abused. Perhaps it is mostly abused.

The mass is not absused, certainly not as a matter of routine. That is why the Lamb, which in olden times actually was sacrificed as a sin offering, is more fitting.

 

[MarkInOregon]

When you look at your two statements, you will see the difference clearly. In the first quote, you correctly perceive that the purpose is to obtain life everlasting.

In the second statement, the purpose is not to have eternal life. It is to express marital affection and beget children. If you would look at my stmt you will notice that I said “in some respects” I didn’t claim it perfectly mirrored it. There are always short comings in any analogy. The relevant analogies here were that of total giving of self and of being united–becoming one. Of course both are also life giving.

Again, correct. The kind of sacrifice made was different - the exertions we make for our children are more in the nature of the work of life. The sacrifice of Christ was extraordinary. Of course its different–I made that clear in my post. The analogy was with sacrifice and as I made clear no sacrifice that we can make is like Christs sacrifice–still there is an analogy.

Perhaps, but I cannot say. There may be some romanticizing of the marital act here. The sacrifice of Christ, however, was perfect and remains perfect whenever it is re-created in the mass. There is no romanticizing–its stating what marriage and the marriage act are susposed to be. That we make it less and refuse to acknowledge what it truly is says a lot about us and our fallen nature. More below since your next statement is related to this also.

Again, I cannot speak to whether the act is more or less freely given than at other times. I suspect that often, whether in marriage or not, intercourse remains essentially a carnal act where we get something for ourselves. It is certainly not engaged in, so far as I have ever heard, as an atonement for sin. There lies another problem with the analogy. It is unrealistic. As you correctly observe, sex is frequently abused. Perhaps it is mostly abused.

\

It is not unrealistic. We can live this with the help of Christ through grace. I suggest reading paragraphs 1601 through 1658 of the CCC. Here are some highlights:

1603: “The intimate community of life and live which constitutes the married state has been established by the creator and endowed with its own proper laws…God himself is the author of marriage.”…These differences shoul not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics…

1604: …For man is created in the image and likeness of God who himself is love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation…

1605: …The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the creator had been from the beginning”: So they are no longer two but one flesh.

It seems to me that the Church teaches something very special about the union we are susposed to have with our spouse. The original meaning of marriage has been restored. In the orginal post the OP was upset by the authors comparison with the “marital act” which I posit is much different that comparing it to “intercourse” or the “sexual act” --which are the terms the OP then used to refer to the “marital act”. Authentic marriage, and by extension the marital act, give us a foretaste of the union to come with God. (cf: CCC 1605; CCC 1642)

If anything maybe this analogy should call us to examine our understanding of marriage in general and of the marital embrace in particular. Again I encourage all to read the full CCC on marriage cited earlier as well as the section on the Eucharist CCC paragraphs 1322 though 1419. I know I found the exercise very fruiful.

God Bless,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Continued:

1607: According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman , nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin…

1608: Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed…

1609: In his mercy God has not forsaken sinful man…After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorbtion, egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.

1613: …She [the Church] sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence.

1615: …By coming to restore the original oder of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

1616: This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.”

1621: …In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself forever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body in Christ.”

1639: …The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: “Authentic married love is caught up into the divine love.”

Continued

 

[MarkInOregon]

Continued:

1640: Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consumated between baptized persons can never be dissolved…

1641: …By this grace they “help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children.”

1642: Christ is the source of this grace…In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb…

1643: “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”

1644: The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They "are called to grow continually in theri communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving. This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

1646: …The “intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and requires and unbreakable union between them”

1653: The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education…

It seems to me that the Church teaches something very special about the union we are susposed to have with our spouse. The original meaning of marriage has been restored. In the orginal post the OP was upset by the authors comparison with the “marital act” which I posit is much different that comparing it to “intercourse” or the “sexual act” --which are the terms the OP then used to refer to the “marital act”. Authentic marriage, and by extension the marital act, give us a foretaste of the union to come with God. (cf: CCC 1605; CCC 1642)

If anything maybe this analogy should call us to examine our understanding of marriage in general and of the marital embrace in particular. Again I encourage all to read the full CCC on marriage cited earlier as well as the section on the Eucharist CCC paragraphs 1322 though 1419. I know I found the exercise very fruiful.

God Bless,
Mark

 

[Warrenton]

It seems to me that the Church teaches something very special about the union we are susposed to have with our spouse.

Yes. It’s all quite inspiring.

But, catechism or no, the fact is that men and women live in a pragmatic way, and have done so, since, well, Adam and Eve.

By your reasoning, one could analogize Christ to a criminal, on the ground that if the criminal read all the stuff in the catechism and if he were through some miracle graced to live it perfectly, the criminal would be like Christ.

You said it all when you observed that all analogies are imperfect - quite true. We might add that some analogies are more imperfect than others.

The marriage act, no matter how we scrub it, remains what it is in practice, in this world, by real men and women. If we try to sanitize it by adding all the catechismal piety about the ideal marriage, we’re no longer making an anaology, we’re sermonizing.

Or, we’re stretching a point.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yes. It’s all quite inspiring. Do I detect sarcasm? In reality it should be inspiring in that it points out what our marriages can and should be and what we should work to make them. I don’t think it should be disposed of out of hand as not practical.

But, catechism or no, the fact is that men and women live in a pragmatic way, and have done so, since, well, Adam and Eve. Is that how we’re called to live? That is news to me. I thought I was called to attempt to live the Gospel even if it wasn’t practical–or should I say beneficial in secular society.

By your reasoning, one could analogize Christ to a criminal, on the ground that if the criminal read all the stuff in the catechism and if he were through some miracle graced to live it perfectly, the criminal would be like Christ. Could you elaborate on this please as I don’t follow this at all.

You said it all when you observed that all analogies are imperfect - quite true. We might add that some analogies are more imperfect than others. No argument here.

The marriage act, no matter how we scrub it, remains what it is in practice, in this world, by real men and women. If we try to sanitize it by adding all the catechismal piety about the ideal marriage, we’re no longer making an anaology, we’re sermonizing.

Or, we’re stretching a point.

Apparently, your experience of the “marriage act” is quite different from mine and I will grant that mine has been limited to my wife in the context of our marriage. All I am trying to suggest is that maybe the person who wrote the book suggesting the analogy has a different vision of the act than the OP and that if you read the CCC regarding marriage–possibly the analogy when properly understood isn’t as revolting as the OP found it. We shouldn’t let a characature(sp) of marriage and the marriage act become the reality.

Quite possibly, since so many, even on this site, apparently have a view of marriage and the marriage act that is different enough from what I find in the CCC–it is an analogy that would be better left unused until a time–when we have restored the true meaning of marriage and the marriage act in the minds of more people.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

The marriage act, no matter how we scrub it, remains what it is in practice, in this world, by real men and women. If we try to sanitize it by adding all the catechismal piety about the ideal marriage, we’re no longer making an anaology, we’re sermonizing.

Or, we’re stretching a point.

I guess I am currious. What do most practicing devout catholics on these forums think the marital act is in practice in this real world? How do you view it? In my, albeit limited experience, it is much closer to the “sanitize(d)” view with all the “catechismal peity” which seems to be dismissed out of hand above. Heck when I look at my parents marriage I see something more akin to it also.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[jlhargus]

Well - I have tried to start a thread before but somehow it never worked so I am trying again.

I have a serious question about some comments I have recently heard from Catholic ‘scholars’. My church ran a course by Edward Sri on the Mass - “A Biblical Walk through the Mass”. It is was a simple enough formula of reading his book and watching a video of a lecture and then sitting in a group answering some set questions.

My problem is this - when it came to the section on the Eucharist Sri quite blatantly compared the experience of receiving communion to the ‘marriage act’ yes, to the intercourse between bride and groom, husband and wife. I was deeply offended and said so in the group - there was a mixed reaction of some people actually saying that for them comparing Communion to the sexual act was fine.

Now, previously I have heard Scott Hahn say the same thing in reference to receiving Communion - that it is lke him inserting himself into his wife [his words]. He said this on EWTN with his wife sitting next to him.

I know that mystical marriage is an old symbol in the old and new testaments - but the corporeal marriage act is just a leap way too far for me. Has this now become an acceptable part of the narrative around Communion?

I am a conservative, traditionalist - I know this. But surely this is offensive language to use to the most important part of Cathodic worship? Could someone help me deal with this please. It is very upsetting to me.
Thanks.

JL: Yes I have used that analogy before. A ProtestantI once said Christ is present where two or three are gathered. Christ is present in us by the indwelling Holy Spirit. So why do we need the Eucharist? My answer in a nut shell. There are different kinds of presents. When in love with someone. They are present with us while apart in our thoughts all day. When walking and holding hands they are present in a more intimate way. In the marriage bed they expirience the most intimate presents possible. So it is with communion we are united with Christ in the most intimate way possible this side of heaven. The analogy is valid I guess the words used could be offensive to some.

 

[Warrenton]

All I am trying to suggest is that maybe the person who wrote the book suggesting the analogy has a different vision of the act than the OP and that if you read the CCC regarding marriage–possibly the analogy when properly understood isn’t as revolting as the OP found it. We shouldn’t let a characature(sp) of marriage and the marriage act become the reality.

I think that the marriage act means the sexual act, practiced by married persons. I further suggest that within or without of marriage, the sexual act remains often, if not most often, an act of desire. See 1 Cor. 7:8.

This does not negate the catechism’s description of the ideal marriage, but it places it in a broader context.

COLOR=#0000ff]Quite possibly, since so many, even on this site, apparently have a view of marriage and the marriage act that is different enough from what I find in the CCC–it is an analogy that would be better left unused until a time–when we have restored the true meaning of marriage and the marriage act in the minds of more people.

I agree with this - and I remembered a statement from Blessed Pope John Paul II from the early 1980s: he said that husbands and wives ought not lust after each other (I’m paraphrasing and simplifiying here). This statement provoked rather predictable reactions -from incredulity to derision. Why? Because it struck many, many people as totally outside their experience.

Will marriage ever be restored to the vision appearing in the catechism? Personally, I doubt it. This is because the carnal passions are hard to control. The desert fathers and mothers explain it in graphic detail.

It is best to select metaphors that are widely understandable and that do not shock the sensibilities, especially when we are describing very holy things like the mass.

One might say, in an abundance of enthusiasm, that the marriage act ought to be offrered like the eucharist (though I would not). One should be very reluctant, however, to offer the analogy the other way around.