We call this the "sacramental principle" because we become aware of it when we consider the sacraments. For example, how Jesus took bread and wine and told us that when we bless them and share them in remembrance of him they are his body and blood — and he assures us that whoever eats his body and drinks his blood has eternal life. Or how we enter the kingdom of God when we have the birth from above by water and the Holy Spirit which makes us God's adopted children. In other words, God uses matter, the things of this world to communicate spiritual realities to us. At Christmas we are reminded of another instance of that principle: the Incarnation. John's gospel tells us that the Word of God — through whom the universe was created, and who is himself God — became flesh, to save us from evil and bring us God's life and love. God did not work simply in a spiritual way. He chose, typically, to use the matter of the world he had created — human flesh, in the person of Jesus — to accomplish his purpose.
That is why for us, sex ought to be more than a physical action. It is not just about the pleasure it gives. To us it is a representation of what God is all about. It should represent God's interior life as well as his relationship with those he loves. Sex tells us something about God, speaks to us about God. The man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God, it says, and we take that to imply that it is in the context of a relationship like theirs that it is possible for sex to deliver the message about God fully and completely. One great thing about sex is that this sacramental principle is part of it from creation itself, so that it can teach us about the divine even if we don't believe in the Judeo-Christian faith.
God's love is unconditional, unending, unbreakable, and creative (including creative of life). For sexual activity to tell of God's love according to the sacramental principle, it needs to possess the same characteristics, to be in he context of a relationship of that sort. When "the two become one flesh" in such a relationship, it is like God becoming one with us; it is like the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and it is like being with God in heaven.
5 comments:
Very interesting post- I recall hearing about this in Sunday school when I was a teenager (still attending catholic mass every sunday).
I certainly agree that the perception and experience of sex seems like it would change drastically between two people 'in love' vs just the sympathetic nervous system response to orgasm. Obviously, to me, this is an issue of cognition affecting experience rather than 'gods love' but the net effect is the same (holding my tongue regarding ockham's razor when faced with two models that equally explain observation).
However, since you mention the 'sacramental principle' having some affect on the physical structure of our body, then this is a perfect example of where the methodology of religion is trying to explain something in the domain of science (see comments a month ago, where you stated that religion is good at explaining things outside of the domain of science, and science is good at explaining observable reality--- implying that they both agree when used mutually exclusively). So in this case, they cannot be mutually exclusive. I think since we have no observation or scientific model to suggest that this idea of god affecting flesh is real...we should defer to science to provide a model instead of faith.
Steve
Steve —
Thanks for the comment. Let me clarify a point. I didn't intend to speak of "the 'sacramental principle' having some affect on the physical structure of our body." In the eucharist, for example, the observable physical structure of the consecrated elements does not change from what it was before consecration. But God uses them to convey grace.
So too with what John Paul II called "the primordial sacrament." It is not that the body itself is affected physically, but that the action of the body inherently has a God-given meaning which can be more or less clearly perceived or more or less deeply felt — a meaning which also can be more or less clearly expressed or obscured insofar as the action more or less completely corresponds to God's will, which he has built into nature.
Without the benefit of revelation, one is quite unlikely to realize that sex is designed, among other things, to represent God's internal love and life as well as his love for his people. But there can perhaps be, for the spiritually minded, a feeling that there is something sacred about it. The degree to which this meaning is perceptible, to my mind, also depends on the conformity of the sexual activity to God's design.
Anonymous sex in the restroom of a bar, for example, does not have the ability to convey the meaning of sex which the loving sexual embrace of a married couple does. The former lacks the love and commitment of the latter, and so does not represent God in the same way the latter does. Similarly, homosexual sex, inherently lacking the possibility of procreation, and contracepted sex, in which that possibility has been deliberately destroyed, do not convey the meaning of God's creative, life giving love.
Other things aside that I may not agree on, I think sexual intimacy is most agreeable and beneficial to both parties when it's between two people that love each other.
Humans are not mere animals, we cognate at an unbelievably advanced level (at least relatively speaking). I think sex is (or, if someone chooses to go the evolutionary path, has developed into) an act that does far more than procreation for humans.
Sex has real cognitive implications for us. If we want to go off of science, numbers, physical health, and mental health accounts, sex between two people that love or care for each other is much more beneficial (read, healthy) than on-going anonymous hookups.
On a spiritual level, I believe with much of what you say, NG. However, I think a strong argument can also be made in it's favor from a non-faith level. What I'm saying is, people should agree with you in general, regardless of spirituality (or lack thereof).
Thanks for the comment and the support, James.
wow what poweful post!
Post a Comment