Theology of the Body: A difficult question of intimacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Primitive
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Primitive

Guest
This question is not so much about sexuality (the act) as it is the intimate bond between man and woman and how it relates to God/Heaven…
We are taught by the church about the purpose of sexuality given to us by God and how it is to be treated by us as faithful Catholics whether we are single or married.
Within each man/woman there is a desire to be with a member of the opposite sex not so much just within the context of the sexual union itself, but also a deep attraction for a certain affection that only a husband or wife can give to/receive from their spouse because of the fact that they are of the opposite sex.
I personally look at Jesus just as I would a fellow soldier in battle, one who I love dearly, and pray I would give my life for provided it was God’s will. I have heard the quote that there is no bond stronger than that of brothers. That being said, how is a chaste male to understand eternity with Jesus when he still feels like he desires that feminine affection that only a wife can provide yet knows that Jesus is a male.
Why is it that women are sometimes called a “Spouse of Christ” but I (at least not to my knowledge) have heard men called that unless generally so when we say the church is the “Spouse of Christ”. Though we do not yet fully understand the whole meaning behind the scriptures speaking of no marriage Heaven, is there anything that discusses our intimacy with Jesus…and is it wrong (or selfish) for a celibate male (a priest or religious even) to hope for a wife in Heaven even though the relationship desired would be one like the Holy Family (Chaste) just because of simple things like an embrace or a gentle kiss that God is still present through (the Holy Spirit)…
Perhaps there is some saints who have wrote on this? I don’t mean to say that we will need a spouse other than God in Heaven for most likely our understanding of love is going to be similar yet overwhelmingly different. I assume that we take this and try to form it to God instead (offer it up in prayer).
Basically, we are souls but unlike angels we have bodies…for whatever reason, God has given them to us and for some other reason, he gives them to us in Heaven (glorified bodies)…so there must (perhaps) be some sort of human affection there in Heaven???..
Perhaps this sounds a little confusing, but that is why it is open for discussion…and if I think anyone has the wrong idea of what I am trying to ask, I will be more than happy to moderate:)
 
I don’t know if this is the best answer, but as a male and how to relate to Christ is to try to mirror Christ relationship to his Church. Sure it’ll be imperfect, but it to try. If your married then it’ll be your spouse, if your single then the church one way or another. Which the nice thing about being single is that one can give a fuller committement to the general good of all. Married to the good of the family, or maybe in the case of no children to a certain cause.

But then another relationship is the male will be apart of the church that is the body with it’s head as Christ. So in that relationship Christ gives the love, the church receives it.

In yet another relationship the father gives the love to the son and the son returns it.
 
I can’t say much as to how any of that would apply to a male, since I’m not one. 😛 But, as a woman with natural desires, I can relate. I have had a difficult time with understanding that there will be no marriage in heaven. Part of that is because I have only recently come to a better understanding of relationships, sexuality and above all God. In the last three months, my boyfriend and I started dating (for the second time, I’ve known him for almost 2 years), and I believe fully that God sent him to me so that I could come to know Him. I had no faith and no desire for faith for about 10 years. My boyfriend has most definitely been instrumental, to say the least, in opening my heart and answering God’s call. But, on top of that, in the many relationships I’ve had, never has one been truly based on love.

Those two things, God’s love and my boyfriend’s love, have enabled me to understand my own sexuality. I’ve not read Pope John Paul II’s writings on the Theology of the Body yet, but I plan to. However, in the 10 years that I was agnostic, nothing was ever able to fulfill that desire. Nothing. I always wanted more, and to go without for long lengths of time was an impossible idea. But now, that has changed. I don’t feel an unrestrained desire as I used to. And I’ve tried to apply that thought to heaven. I truly hope that “intimacy” will be one of the many joys we will have in heaven. But, I also have finally realized that if we do not, God will remove that need, or fulfill it some other way. No matter what, I have to have faith in Him that I won’t be missing out on anything in heaven. Faith has allowed me to let go of the question. It took a lot of thinking and asking before that happened though. :rotfl:
 
I hope I am on the right track with you on this…
I believe that Mary offers the feminine role in our sacramental lives. I know many saints have appealed for Our lady’s help when it comes to chastity. (Im no Saint but I pray to Mary for help with this)
As for all of us in the committed state, we are encouraged to transform our sexual energies into other activities as for heaven I dont know what our sexual dimensions will be.
I don’t think we will have 19 virgins as the muslims believe. It is an interesting point you raise and I wait to see what others have to say
lets hear it for the boy…
 
Well, I like what MistyF says about how God will remove the need (I can only hope :)), but also CreosMary 's point of transforming it into something else make sense too.
I guess my confusion really is what I said about us still having bodies (and still being male and female also).
The angels in heaven are purely spiritual…so I can’t understand why God would make them like that and then give us bodies…and even let us keep them…if God wanted us to not have human intimacy/affection in Heaven, wouldn’t he then make us like the angels…but instead we are told that on Judgement Day, we will arise with our bodies and give account of our lives (the Quicumque vult)…if it was all spiritual, then the bodies wold not be necessary.
I do understand the Virgin Mary can give the affection of a woman (motherly), however, there is still a romantic (non-“sexual”) way that only a husband and wife interact.
This also reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote wher he said “you do not have a soul, you ARE a soul…you HAVE a body”.
I have also heard it said in scripture I believe tht a woman is the glory of man…in other words, for a man to have a woman, is greater than all other creation.
I must say I can only relate from the side of a man, and I can’t tell you how many times I find myself coming back to Jesus saying something like “My dear Jesus…there’s this girl I think is pretty…” Even if Jesus told me that I was not to be married, I (and most men) would still desire to have a wife, even if it was to live with her chastely, and only to take care of her like a precious gem.
Also, I should add that I don’t believe in the “16 virgins” or whatever like the Muslims do…there should only be one man, and one woman in each relationship 🙂
 
There is going to be no marrying in heaven, as Jesus Himself said. This said, people will keep memories from earth. However, there isn’t going to be a problem with the fact that someone might have had several spouses in his life. Everyone is supposed to have with everyone a bond deeper even than that which only spouses can share on this earth.

Further still, human sexuality is tied to procreation. That is not necessary in heaven, therefore the whole strictly sexual, genital dimension must be absent or would serve no purpose. The unitive aspect remains the only one that counts. There is no lust, no jealousy, no envy, nothing. Souls aren’t stripped of a male or female character but there is not really any purpose for special bilateral unions.

Even this said, however, there is the controversy around marriage defined as “consortium totius vitae” or “consortium omnis vitae” and both have been given in Canon Law. For all I know, currently, it’s “omnis”. “Totius vitae” would be for whole life, on this earth. “Omnis vitae” logically includes eternal life. However, no teaching of the Church can deny what Jesus expressly said – they won’t marry or be given in marriage in the kingdom of heaven.

I suppose, there is some special remembrance tied with lasting results, but this is still something compatible with the idea of remarriage on earth after the death of a spouse. I remember thinking, “what if someone doesn’t remarry after the spouse dies?”, but marriage ends when one of the spouses dies. Not at the moment of remarriage.

As for priests, a priest in heaven or purgatory won’t come down and absolve you or say a mass for you. Revelations include the idea of mass being said in the afterlife, including one by Saint John. The Apostles were special, but would they be so special as to preserve their priestly character alone and not that of any other priest in history? However, in heaven, God is already there and sins are not. There is no need to repent unless on the part of those still on earth or in purgatory, and communion with God must be an uninterrupted continuous state for a holy soul in God’s kingdom – and only holy souls are there.

If you want to compare priesthood to marriage, Christ would have to be the one taking the male role, while the priest would be in the female role, as is the Church. On the other hand, a priest’s male “energy” is quite of use in the Church. Still, there is nothing sexual here and one needs to remember that celibacy is discipline. It can be dispensed and a married man can be ordained, even an ordained man can marry with a dispensation. There is no contradiction between priestly orders and marriage with a woman.

Now, marriage is different from priesthood in many aspects, even though the two sacraments are being compared incessantly with each other and analogies multiplied ad infinitum. Strictly speaking, there is nothing to suggest that priestly character is extinguished by death. Even more strictly speaking, there is nothing to suggest that marriage leaves no lasting results except that the covenant between the man and the woman has been fulfilled, there is no entering into marriage in heaven and there can be more than one marriage on earth with previous spouses having died. We don’t know much more. At least I don’t.
 
After a little consideration and reading these responses, I thought of somethig else.
God created Adam and placed him in Paradise…Before Adam sinned, God created Eve to keep him company because God knew it was not good for man to be alone.
This is why I question this so much…It is the company of the woman…there is a special bond between a man and a woman as husband and wife that is different than any other intimate relationship. Even without the act of the sexual union, the intimacy is still there. It is different than man’s closeness to his friends, parents of kin.
To be honest, it can even happen with two virgins, take for example The Virgin Mary, and St. Joseph.
I can see how in Heaven we would be intimate with everyone, however is it possible that maybe there is still a closeness between one man and one woman, that is not a marriage as we know it on earth (in the world), but still there. Someone for example that we “share” Jesus with.
 
Hmmm… theoretically, the problem of mutual completion is present. However, the procreative motive is non-existent and completion exists even in brother-sister relationships which are not necessarily one-on-one, although they can still be. Maybe I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the idea, but I still find it hard to imagine a one-on-one male-female kind of relationship in heaven, especially in the light of what Jesus said about a woman who had seven brothers for husbands. Maybe there’s going to be some special bond – after all, revelations suggest that blood relations are preserved and still special. Perhaps marriage on the earth has a similar effect in heaven as a blood relationship? Memories are preserved, so souls “know”, anyway. Maybe there’s simply no need for an exclusive union of the male-female kind anymore.

You raise an interesting point claiming that marital union seems to precede sex in Genesis, as present already before Adam and Eve were told to populate the earth. Theologians could argue that the relationship in the garden of Eden could be described as a brother and sister one, but I agree with you on this one. This still creates a problem on the clash with the impediment of impotency in canon law whereby it’s impossible to enter into marriage for person(s) incapable of sexual intercourse. The bond transcends sexuality in the strict sense, but whatever is between a man and a woman that can’t happen within one gender tends to be sexual in the broad sense. In the broad sense, there is no such thing as an asexual relationship between a man and a woman unless a family type one.
 
40.png
chevalier:
Hmmm… theoretically, the problem of mutual completion is present. However, the procreative motive is non-existent and completion exists even in brother-sister relationships which are not necessarily one-on-one, although they can still be. Maybe I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the idea, but I still find it hard to imagine a one-on-one male-female kind of relationship in heaven, especially in the light of what Jesus said about a woman who had seven brothers for husbands. Maybe there’s going to be some special bond – after all, revelations suggest that blood relations are preserved and still special. Perhaps marriage on the earth has a similar effect in heaven as a blood relationship? Memories are preserved, so souls “know”, anyway. Maybe there’s simply no need for an exclusive union of the male-female kind anymore.

You raise an interesting point claiming that marital union seems to precede sex in Genesis, as present already before Adam and Eve were told to populate the earth. Theologians could argue that the relationship in the garden of Eden could be described as a brother and sister one, but I agree with you on this one. This still creates a problem on the clash with the impediment of impotency in canon law whereby it’s impossible to enter into marriage for person(s) incapable of sexual intercourse. The bond transcends sexuality in the strict sense, but whatever is between a man and a woman that can’t happen within one gender tends to be sexual in the broad sense. In the broad sense, there is no such thing as an asexual relationship between a man and a woman unless a family type one.
Click to expand...
But there is still the affection between a man and a woman even without intercourse. Also, marriage is our best way of understanding it, however marriage is not something that is in Heaven in the way we understand it. The things of Heaven are beyond our understanding…for some reason, not only did God create man and woman, but in heaven, they remain man and woman. We know this because of Jesus remaining man, and because our Blessed Mother had remained woman. In other words, there is something to our masculinity/feminity that would seem to be important in Heaven somehow. If not, why would God have us reamin that way?
If there is a man who can not be “married” while on earth because he has something preveting it, however, that is that man’s dream to have a wife to “have and to hold”…he still has that longing for a woman different than that of a mother sister or daughter…yet, it is still there. Jesus is our absolute EVERYTHING in Heaven, but that should be true on earth as well.
In the same respect, there are couples who can’t have children, wouldn’t it be possible in Heaven (this is all theoretical of course) that they could somehow raise a child?
The thing is that this is all part of our human nature and while we will be our full selves in Heaven, we are still “human” and not like the angels.
I was at my friends house last night and met their new daughter. She is about 4 months old and I got to hld her for a little while. I could not help but marvel and the little child and the life that God gave to her. This is still that same sort of affection but in a different way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top