Hey, hate to break it to you, but…

27 07 2009

No. 1: Ryan from Athanasius Contra Mundum states the obvious: the Song of Songs isn’t about sex! That’s right, people, deal with it:

The reason is that human love as we know it exists only in this world, and as good as it is, is unfulfilling and lame in comparison to divine love. There is no sex in heaven, there is no marriage in heaven. Those things while good in themselves are also mundane when considered in that light, which is why the mystics viewed the human love as a mere beginning, and someone unable to break out of it as someone who could not advance in the spiritual life. West on the other hand would have you believe they are everything. The principle fallacy of such an approach is that marriage exists in the order of nature, primarily for the procreation and education of children, and secondly as a remedy for concupiscence. The husband has spiritual headship of the family because it is ordered to the family (not his) benefit, essentially the husband rules the family to get it to heaven. In heaven however, people do not rule in the order of nature, but in the order of grace, thus women may rule and have authority in heaven. Our Lady is queen of heaven, and rules over every man, except for her divine Son to Whom her will is always united. In heaven husbands and wives have no common life, because life in heaven exists by the order of grace. The two effects to which marriage is ordered no longer exist. A holy woman of a husband who barely makes it into purgatory will rule, while the husband will be at a lower order. Amidst such a reality, one has a difficult time finding the lofty conception of sex and marriage which West (and it would appear) the late Holy Father find.

No. 2: A friend of mine once told me that you know you are really in the soup when you find that the only purpose of your life may be to serve as a cautionary tale to others. Well, this is one of those moments in my life:

Once again, via the Conservative Blog for Peace, this quote from an Orthodox blogger:

That said, as an Eastern Catholic I reject the idea that Trent is truly ecumenical, and hold instead that its decrees espouse Latin (mainly Scholastic) theological theories, which no one outside the Latin Church is required to accept…

[Comment:] Clearly the concept of “cafeteria” Catholicism is not limited to the Latin Rite. I am slowly coming to the view that many of these people are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. They are Protestants dressed in Byzantine vestments. “I will believe whatever I want to believe.”

I don’t want to bore people with that story again, but I am entirely in agreement. I have to say, at least when it concerns Catholics, such talk is more a demonstration of personal boredom than anything, tinged a bit perhaps with intellectual sloth. They see the state of contemporary American Christianity, and particularly the childish gags of Catholic AmChurch, get discouraged, and start to look for real “ancient piety” elsewhere, all the while bringing their modern sensibilities with them. Carl Jung painted a pretty accurate picture of these people when he wrote:

People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls. They will practice Indian yoga and all its exercises, observe a strict regimen of diet, learn theosophy by heart, or mechanically repeat mystic texts from the literature of the whole world- all because they cannot get on with themselves… the soul has gradually been turned into a Nazareth from which nothing good can come. Therefore, let us fetch it from the four corners of the earth- the more far fetched and bizarre, the better!

Of course, Jung was speaking against the notion of absolute human depravity, and I cannot agree with him in that regard, but I think he is right to criticize the wanderlust that certain “spiritual seekers” have when they approach the traditions and attitudes that are right in front of them. The problem is not the “church you’re in”. The problem is you.



8 responses

28 07 2009
Daniel A.

At least from what I’ve read, Kreeft only says that sexual activity theoretically physically could exist after the resurrection, as we will have bodies. Now, I disagree as there will not be marriage, and sex outside of marriage is wrong, and one can do no wrong in heaven. However, since we do know we will have bodies and we don’t know everything about heaven or God’s plan, it could possibly be that sex, or something like it enough to seem like a glorified version thereof, exists in heaven.

However, I don’t think Kreeft believes sex in heaven to be a likely thing. I think he’s saying something more akin to the fact that it is technically possible to sneak a bag full of Junior Mints into a fine restaurant and eat them instead of the main course, but why would you want to? Again, I do not believe that he is entirely correct, but neither does he posit a a celestial orgy.

28 07 2009
Agostino Taumaturgo

I would tend to agree with Fr. Gregory. A little bit of both person and church, though I’d still lean towards the person.

Not well-read on Kreeft, though (I tend to ignore Neo-Cons nowadays … if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all), but I’m curious as to where he says there’s sexual activity going on in heaven. That certainly wasn’t in the Bible I remember studying in seminary.

27 07 2009
Arturo Vasquez

Yeah, but Peter Kreeft is wrong. Next objection.

27 07 2009

Well, we won’t have bodies in heaven until after the Resurrection, so no sex then; and in the Resurrection we will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Matthew 22:30), so no sex then either.

27 07 2009

Peter Kreeft would beg to differ. He says there IS sex in heaven.

27 07 2009
Jonathan Prejean

BTW, since it was unclear, the “rest of the quote” with the abusive matter was the one from Dr. Gilbert. The coffee apparently hasn’t kicked in yet. 🙂

27 07 2009
Jonathan Prejean

Yep, Todd’s pretty much a glorified Protestant. In fact, he’s one more member of Joseph Photios Farrell’s cult, of which he is the sole bishop.

The rest of the quote was abusive, but this paragraph of Peter Gilbert’s was dead on:
“You are in schism, Mr. Jones. The bizarre little sect you belong to is not the Church of Christ, any more than were the followers of Tertullian in the third century. You speak about me misleading people. Nowhere have I claimed to be an authoritative spokesman for Orthodoxy. I am a student of the fathers, and I think Bekkos is a better reader of the fathers than either you or your namesake, St. Photius the Great. I think his argument as to why the schism happened is essentially correct, and I publish his arguments here out of a desire to see the ancient division end. I admit that openly, and any reader of this blog can figure that out. If the proper ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox Church deem that, because of the opinions I express on this blog, I should be excluded from the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, they can effect that. But you are not an ecclesiastical authority, and I will no longer listen to any of your rantings; nor will I attempt to engage any longer in conversation with a man who admits from the start that he has nothing to learn.”

27 07 2009

“The problem is not the “church you’re in”. The problem is you.”

Actually, the problem may be both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: