"Is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? ... Intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be? It could certainly be spiritual intercourse ... this spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man ... The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. ... I think there must be some special "kindred souls" in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. ... But would it ever take the form of physical sexual intercourse? Since there are bodies in Heaven, able to eat and be touched, like Christ's resurrection body, there is the possibility of physical intercourse"This is Peter Kreeft's opinion, and now that he has given up Catholicism in favor of Westianism, we should pay attention to what Kreeft has to say. This is the wave of the future, after all.
“Are there animals in Heaven? The simplest answer is: Why not? How irrational is the prejudice that would allow plants (green fields and flowers), but not animals into Heaven.” Regarding pets, he writes: “Would the same animals be in Heaven as on earth? ‘Is my dead cat in Heaven?’ Again, why not? God can raise up the very grass; why not cats? Though the blessed have better things to do than play with pets, the better does not exclude the lesser.”
So, the obvious question arises. Do we have sex with dogs in heaven?
"Wait!" I hear you cry, "That's disgusting!"
Oh, you unenlightened non-Westians who haven't entered the higher knowledge are all alike, aren't you? Always ready to condemn things you don't understand!
Don't mock the good Dr. Kreeft.
He recognizes there is no marriage and no procreation in heaven.
He simply argues that physical intercourse is a possibility.
Not a big stretch, right?
Obviously, physical intercourse with other "kindred souls" (plural) can only be possible in heaven, if there is no such thing as illicit sex in heaven. And there can be no illicit act in heaven, because everything in heaven is lawful.
Sex with one woman not your wife is not fornication, because there is no marriage in heaven.
Sex with multiple women isn't polygamy.
This is all holy, according to Kreeft, so this kind of polyamory is fine, perfectly licit, nothing wrong with it.
Now, part of Kreeft's argument rests on the obvious fact that we retain our bodies and therefore our genitalia. Obviously heavenly dogs would likewise retain their genitalia.
Another part of his argument is that sexual union is just a full participation in universal charity. You can't argue against charitable sex, right?
Of course, if sex is merely one great way to express universal charity, and if everything in heaven participates in the universal charity of God, then dogs would certainly participate in universal charity, right?
So, to paraphrase Dr. Peter Kreeft, "How irrational is the prejudice that would allow me to have sex with other men, women and children but not to have sex with dogs, cats and sheep?"
Simple.
Logical.
Inarguable.
Islam Rising
Is it just me, or, does Kreeft's heaven begin to approach the Muslim view of heaven?
Specifically, isn't it interesting how male Westians endorse boinking lots of heavenly women or engaging in some kind of group sex thing?
I mean, ladies, do you find it enticing to think that you can have sex with dozens, hundreds or thousands of men, women, dogs and cats in heaven?
Perhaps I'm prejudiced from excessive study of Islam and rejection of Westianism, but this is a pretty male version of heaven. I'm not sure women would really be "up" for it, if you get my drift.
Is their precedent for Kreeft's unique vision?
Well, yes, there is.
Back in the 8th and 9th century, Muslim armies were constantly besieging Christian Constantinople.
Now, it should be noted that Muslims hate iconography, the depiction of people in artwork. They see it as an offense against God.
So, it was no coincidence that during this very period, the Christian rulers of Constantinople fell into the heresy of iconoclasm. During this heresy, Byzantine Christians destroyed thousands of icons and statues of saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and even a legendary statue of Jesus himself.
Monks, nuns and other religious who opposed this attack on sacred images were cruelly oppressed and tortured. Their tongues were torn out, their eyes were pierced or torn from their sockets. The iconoclasts beheaded - notice the beheading - the Patriarch himself for daring to oppose this wanton destruction.
"The iconoclast movement never spread to largely illiterate Western Europe; its madness consumed only the segment of Christendom that boasted the highest literacy rate. Artists fled for their lives from Byzantium, heading for the western court of Charlemagne whose largely illiterate courtiers welcomed them with open arms."
It is worthwhile to note that nearly all the heretics of Christianity were learned men. Martin Luther, who also adopted many of the Muslim views expressed by the Islamic armies besieging Europe, was not only an ordained Augustinian priest, he had a Ph.D. in theology. Luther was not unique in this - most heretics were priests or bishops.
Likewise, it is worthwhile to remember that the Christian faithful of Ephesus were the heroes of that Council. It was their prayers, their parades, their constant invocation of Mary, Mother of God that helped the bishops of that Council recognize that Archbishop Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was a heretic for denying Mary's true maternity of God. For the whole of his life, even after being exiled to a monastery like Maciel, Archbishop Nestorius insisted that he was orthodox.
Dr. Peter Kreeft's teaching is not found in the writings of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church.
His is a teaching of Islam, not of Christianity.
Kreeft, of course, is now a valued instructor at the Theology of the Body Institute, along with Dr. Janet Smith and the notorious Chris West, all vigorously sponsored by Matt Pinto's Ascension Press.
This is where Westianism leads you.
Do you really want to go there?
UPDATE:
I had a further thought about this.
If we are supposed to have sex with everyone in heaven, will women, especially nuns, have to stay in Purgatory until they accept the idea?
Is morality on earth different than morality in heaven?
And what of the 144,000 virgins who sing the song to the Lamb in Revelations 14:1-4?
Is that verse just wrong, or are they singing because they are finally going to get laid?
"Krazy as a Kreeft" may become a watchword among Catholics.
Now I'm going to have to pull his endorsement of my TOB book, or write a disclaimer pointing out that he endorsed it before he went publicly insane.
This is depressing.
21 comments:
"The iconoclast movement never spread to largely illiterate Western Europe; its madness consumed only the segment of Christendom that boasted the highest literacy rate. Artists fled for their lives from Byzantium, heading for the western court of Charlemagne whose largely illiterate courtiers welcomed them with open arms."
One speculates that a modern-day version of iconoclasm is the substitution of Joni Mitchell and Burt Bachrach for actual liturgical music.
At least his Socratic Logic text is still solid.
His works from 15 years ago were instrumental in bringing me back to the practice of the Faith and recognizing that the Faith wasn't opposed to Reason.
Sad to see "how the mighty are fallen", Steve.
It's a good reminder to pray for him, among others. We all need the grace of Final Perseverance.
I should elaborate a bit...Kreeft's writings from 15 years ago were sufficiently lucid, Catholic, and logically sound that they prepared me, along with a steady diet of Plato and Aristotle, to fruitfully read Augustine and Aquinas.
I'd hesitate to recommend lots of Kreeft's recent work.
Although, these days, I tend to recommend Job and the Psalter if I'm recommending anything.
Strictly speaking, the only people who have bodies in heaven are Jesus and Our Lady (and possibly Moses and Elijah). We will not. We will have bodies again in the Resurrection. But Jesus is quite clear that in the Resurrection we will *not* be married nor given in marriage. That means no sex in heaven or in the Resurrection since sexual congress is limited to the marital covenenat and people won't be married after their earthly death.
There certainly will be a new heaven and a new earth, and they will most likely be filled with plants and animals. But that's *not* the same thing as having Fido with you in heaven. And if you won't be happy without Fido in heaven then you have bigger things about which to worry.
What in the world is Westianism - even a google search turns up nothing - must be an insider thing??
Jerry
Jerry - "Westian" is a reference to Chris West, the heretical popularizer of "The Theology of the Body".
Thank You, TH2. I should have picked up on that.
Jerry
I guess here's where I have a problem.
Sex is a sign. Sex as in created male and female, and sex as in the marital embrace. they are signs of a greater reality. God uses those signs to draw us to that which is higher.
In heaven, we have no need of signs. In the New Jerusalem, there will be no need of a Eucharist. Why? We won't need the sacramental veils anymore. Our minds, wills, and spirits perfected, we will have Christ without the need of such veils.
Think of the sun. It not only provides light to us, but likewise serves as a sign. A sign of God's supremacy in creation, a sign of the unity of the Church (a la St. Cyprian), and a thousand other mystical allegories. The point is, the sun is a sign. In the New Jerusalem, there is no sunlight. There isn't a sun. Why? Because Christ will be our light forever.
So when I hear Kreeft and others talk about "sex in heaven", it really is a denial of the fact that sex is meant to be a sign. They are like the Christians the Hebrew writer is writing to, wanting to go back to this or that thing in the Old Covenant.
His entire point? There was nothing to go back to! Those rituals and ceremonies lost their significance in Christ's coming. And in heaven, sex really loses its significance. We no longer need signs for deep union with another that is a shadow of union with God, because we will have union with God in its fullness. We will not need this or that to be pleasurable, as a reminder that God provides true happiness, because we will have God providing that true happiness.
He basically makes heaven just a tad bit better than this world. Not to be hyperbolic, but Kreeft empties the Gospel of any power when he talks like this.
This is weird! Jesus said there would be no marriage, (hence no sex) in heaven. And this guy is saying even though there's no marriage in heaven, there's going to be sex? The whole purpose of marriage is to have children, so why does Kreeft now believe we're going to have a chance of getting laid in heaven? This man is definitely you-know-what in the head!
“…nearly all the heretics of Christianity were learned men.”
However, given the proliferation of feminist “theologians” in recent years, the women are catching up!
Thus if “a little learning is a dangerous thing” it is instructive to note how a lot of learned people seem to have learned so little.
This is strange. I remember years ago reading a Kreeft book that said there will be no need for sexual intercourse in heaven. He used this analogy: (I'm paraphrasing) Which would a 8-year old boy choose: kiss a girl or get a chocolate candy bar? More than likely the boy would choose the candy bar. The boy hasn't matured to understand how wonderful it is to kiss a girl. Likewise, sexual intercourse is wonderful, but there's something even more wonderful than bodily union of man and woman in heaven. I'm surprised that Kreeft has switched his views on this. Weird.
An interesting idea (which may gum up the works rather than illuminate) is to discuss the difference between a sign, a symbol, and a sacrament. I'm following the thought of Alexander Schmemann in For the Life of the World (Eastern Orthodox) and certain modern platonic thinkers (Jean Borella, Stratford Caldecott, etc).
A sign is simply that which points to a certain reality but is not the reality itself. A street sign, a coat of arms, or any man-made or man-yoked imagery meant to evoke an idea (the American Eagle evoking America) is an example.
A symbol is that which participates, shares in, the reality it signifies (a participatory sign). This means the whole of the reality is not present, but one still comes in contact with that reality by coming into contact with the symbol. All of creation tend to be symbols of many realities (think platonic forms) - water of purity and rebirth and quenching, fire of destruction but also transformation and life. Sacramentals are symbols par excellence, sharing in the life of God and His acts.
A sacrament is something which is what it signifies. Thus the Eucharist does not simply "share in" or "is a part of" the Body of Christ, but IS the whole of Christ (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity). All the sacraments do this, manifesting the fullness of God's life - Baptism is renewing ourselves as the true Image of God, Confirmation is sanctifying us and taking on His likeness, Anointing is revealing the true health of a Child of God, etc.
In marriage, we have a symbol involved (a sacramental) - sex. All the sacraments have symbols involved - holy oil, holy water, blessed objects, acts such as the sign of the cross. Marriage's most powerful symbol (though it is not the sacrament itself) is the sexual act.
Now, as a sacrament, I think we do have to affirm (in some fashion that does not do damage to Christ's comment about the perpetuity [or lack thereof] of marriage) that the reality of the sacrament persists. Sacraments are THE realities, not signs or symbols of the realities, thus we talk of indelible marks (for example, a priest in heaven is still a priest and is celebrated as such in liturgical rites). The Eucharist would persist, but we would no longer consume Christ in bread and wine (the symbols which hold the reality, the species of the substance which is Christ if we wish to use Aristotle), but rather would share fully in his life as partakers of the beatific vision. Getting back to marriage, I would say it, the sacrament, simply persists in the special union of the two (without any need to discuss physical relations or the legal ramifications of the union which is what the Pharisees wanted to know). The symbol of the union (a symbol which is participatory not of the reality of the union of the two, but of the union of Christ and His Church) is no longer needed. It, like all symbols, can be set aside.
There is something about "spousal love," especially distinct from the physical manifestation in sex, that persists and even comes about in the life to come. Virgins are considered espoused, in a kind of real way, to Christ. Mary is often depicted as espoused to the Holy Spirit (and Joseph, though there again is no physical aspect). We, as the Church, are all considered espoused to Christ. One could begin tiptoeing into waters of semi-manicheanism here, though, so I think I'll bow out. I've gotten far too long winded anyway...
Mamie Farish said: This is strange. I remember years ago reading a Kreeft book that said there will be no need for sexual intercourse in heaven. He used this analogy: (I'm paraphrasing) Which would a 8-year old boy choose: kiss a girl or get a chocolate candy bar? More than likely the boy would choose the candy bar. The boy hasn't matured to understand how wonderful it is to kiss a girl. Likewise, sexual intercourse is wonderful, but there's something even more wonderful than bodily union of man and woman in heaven. I'm surprised that Kreeft has switched his views on this. Weird.
Kreeft has NOT switched his views on this, Mrs. Farish. The reason you are baffled by Kreeft's apparent about-face is because Steve has for some reason lifted words out of their context in Kreeft's essay, "Is There Sex in Heaven?" and thus made it seem as if Kreeft were arguing in favor of the opposite point that Kreeft makes in that essay.
You say you remember reading a book by Kreeft in which he says there will be no need for sexual intercourse in heaven. You're probably remembering this very essay that Steve has selectively and very, very misleadingly quoted. The passage Steve ripped out of context is a part of a broader discussion and detailed argument in which he establishes that, yes, there will be "sex" in heaven, because God made man in His own image, and made man male and female, and males will continue to be male and females will continue to be female in heaven -- thus, the male and female sexes will exist forevermore, which means there will be "sex" in heaven -- and since love will be perfected in heaven, that means sexual love, love as it is manifested in the human sexes, will exist perfectly in heaven too. However, if you read Kreeft's whole argument, you will eventually get to this part of his essay:
"But would [heavenly love] ever take the form of physical sexual intercourse? We should explore this question, not to kowtow to modernity's sexual monomania but because it is an honest question about something of great significance to us now, and because we simply want to know all we can about Heaven.
"Since there are bodies in Heaven, able to eat and be touched, like Christ's resurrection body, there is the possibility of physical intercourse. But why might the possibility be actualized? What are its possible purposes and meanings? . . . ."
Kreeft then methodically goes through all the possible purposes and meanings, and RULES THEM ALL OUT, thus concluding that sexual intercourse in heaven is a possibility that will NOT be actualised, and that sexual intercourse and the very question of sexual intercourse will be IRRELEVANT in heaven. Kreeft then says:
"I think there will probably be millions of more adequate ways to express love than the clumsy ecstasy of fitting two bodies together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love. If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. The question of intercourse in Heaven is like the child's question whether you can eat candy during intercourse: a funny question only from the adult's point of view. Candy is one of children's greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant? Only if you know both can you compare two things, and all those who have tasted both the delights of physical intercourse with the earthly beloved and the delights of spiritual intercourse with God testify that there is simply no comparison."
In other words, just as it will be POSSIBLE to eat food in heaven (Jesus ate fish after the Resurrection), so sexual intercourse in heaven will be POSSIBLE. However, Jesus ate food to prove the reality of His resurrected body, not because He needed food to live or to satisfy hunger. So too, we will not have any need for sexual intercourse to express heavenly love, and thus that function of the body will not be "actualised." THAT is Kreeft's position, which Steve left out of his cut-and-paste of Kreeft's argument.
It is somewhat surprising, and very disappointing, that Steve would misrepresent Kreeft's position in this way. "Is There Sex in Heaven?" is not a new essay of Kreeft's, and I would have thought Steve had long been familiar with it. It's deeply disappointing that he would selectively quote this essay with the apparent purpose of making it seem Kreeft was saying somethat that he wasn't saying at all -- and then proceed to caricature and twist his words and his arguments as the same as the perverted Muslim view.
Considering that Steve has severely, even obscenely, distorted Kreeft's arguments concerning "sex in heaven," it would be prudent to pause before taking Steve's word for what Kreeft allegedly believes about pets in heaven.
Steve owes Dr. Kreeft, and his own readers, an apology for torturing his words. It's only right to criticise and reject erroneous and dangerous things that Chris West and Janet Smith have said in popularising the Theology of the Body, but Kreeft said nothing contrary to the Faith in his essay. (If he had, Steve wouldn't have had to twist Krreft's words.)
Jordanes551, Steve did not "cut and paste" to make his argement. He quotes Kreeft accurately. And when I read the article, I discovered that he said the Holy Trinity is a sexual relationship! This is outright blasphemy! Since God is all masculine, do you know what this implies?! Do I or Steve K. have to spell it out to you? This sex stuff that Kreeft is talking about smells like it was taken from the Kaabala. It would not surprise me if that was the case. The only 'Western' religions that I know of that have any sex teaching like this are the Mormons and the former Worldwide Church of God (founded by Herbert W Armstrong) and some of it's spin-offs. All of them are clearly anti-Christian cults with a twisted verison of Christian morality. Was Kreeft messing around with the Kaabala? It sure sounds like it!
This isn't where "Westinism" leads us; it is where "John Paul IIism" leads us. We seem to sometimes forget that this "theology" of the body nonsense was cooked up by this Pope who was a seriously toubled man in many ways (and, no, I am not forgetting some of his good qualities). You can blame Mr West all you want to, and rightly so, but it was John Paul II who started this horrible mess and it is a mess we are going to have to suffer through for decades. That it will be eventually condemned by the Church I have not the slightest doubt, but many will suffer and be confused in the interim.
Mr Kreeft, I am afraid, has always been a nonentity in my view, his namby-pamby Catholicism appealing to the more timorous of our co-religionists. He is also useful as a straw man for war-mongering charlatans like Robert Spencer to beat down. I'm sure Mr Kreeft is a "nice man" but as a Catholic thinker he is fairly useless.
Maybe we could all make a new year's resolution to consign this theology of the body to the ash can where it belongs (after, of course, we make a resolution to stop using the word "gay" to describe buggery).
Jordanes551, Steve did not "cut and paste" to make his argement.
He certainly did "cut and paste," as all can see by noting how many ellipses are in the quotations, and by noting that Steve completely left out Kreeft's conclusion that there won't be any sexual intercourse in heaven, which is the exact opposite of what Steve claims Kreeft said.
He quotes Kreeft accurately.
No, he quotes him selectively and misleadingly. It's a very serious offense to mutilate someone's argument in that fashion.
And when I read the article, I discovered that he said the Holy Trinity is a sexual relationship! This is outright blasphemy!
It's not blasphemous when you understand Kreeft's argument on the nature of divine love.
In the patristic tradition, one of the words used for God's love is eros.
Since God is all masculine, do you know what this implies?!
Not what you obviously think it implies, since God is essentially incorporeal and not a biological organism.
This sex stuff that Kreeft is talking about smells like it was taken from the Kaabala. It would not surprise me if that was the case.
There's no reason whatsoever to suspect that Kreeft was influenced or inspired by occult Jewish mysticism.
The only 'Western' religions that I know of that have any sex teaching like this are the Mormons and the former Worldwide Church of God (founded by Herbert W Armstrong) and some of it's spin-offs.
Mormonism and Armstrongism are both polytheistic, and both talk of a "God Family" and deny the Trinity and claim humans can attain true divinity. However, the Mormons teach that "God" or "gods" participate in corporeal marriage and sex and natural procreation, while Armstrongism teaches that in the resurrection there will be no marriage nor sexual intercourse among the "God Beings" in the "God Family." The arguments Kreeft presents in his essay don't have anything to do with either of those heresies.
Jordanes551, Steve may have indeed cut and pasted the way you define it, but he didn't do it to dishonestly represent Kreeft's views. He just simply took the relevant passages and quotes and put them together to give you the sense of what Kreeft was saying. Anybody reading the article (except you apparently) could see he was not misrepresenting Kreeft's positions.
You say it's (his explaination of the Trinity) not blasphemous if I understand Kreeft understanding of divine love. Oh, I understand it very well. He's trying to sexualize God in a heathanish, carnal fashion. I looked up the word eros and guess what? It's not even used in the New Testament as a word for love. the word for God's love is agape, which is totally non-sexual. You're reading something into the text that isn't there.
No reason to suspect Kreeft was inspired by occult Jewish mysticism. Mr Kreeft mentioned cosmic sex in his article. Well, I googled that little phrase and what do you know, I found referances to Hinduism and Kaabala! Surprise, surprise, Gomer! It's about getting it on with the help of pagan Gods!
As for you claiming big differances in Armstrongism and Mormonism, come on! Armstrong borrowed his slop from the Mormons, every cult researcher knows that. Both systems promote the insane idea that man can become God. It's splitting hairs as to how and when the 'reproduction' of beings takes place.
Jordanes551, Steve may have indeed cut and pasted the way you define it, but he didn't do it to dishonestly represent Kreeft's views. He just simply took the relevant passages and quotes and put them together to give you the sense of what Kreeft was saying. Anybody reading the article (except you apparently) could see he was not misrepresenting Kreeft's positions.
"Dishonestly represent" are your words, not mine, but he undeniably misrepresented what Kreeft said. Steve claims that Kreeft said there will be coitus in heaven, even promiscuous coitus -- whereas in fact Kreeft concludes just the opposite -- that there will be millions of better things to do in heaven than having sex. Steve left out that part. . . . which blows a gaping whole in his argument against Kreeft. He completely leaves out Kreeft's conclusion, and then attacks Kreeft for something Kreeft didn't say.
You say it's (his explaination of the Trinity) not blasphemous if I understand Kreeft understanding of divine love. Oh, I understand it very well.
No, you clearly don't.
He's trying to sexualize God in a heathanish, carnal fashion.
See, you obviously don't understand it at all. Kreeft says again and again that human love is but a pale image or shadow of the divine love, but you accuse him of saying the opposite -- that divine love is patterned after human love.
I looked up the word eros and guess what? It's not even used in the New Testament as a word for love.
Big deal -- the words "Trinity" and "Immaculate Conception" also never appear in the New Testament. Catholics believe in Scripture AND Tradition, not Scripture alone. As I said, one of the Greek words that the Church Fathers sometimes use for God's love is "eros."
the word for God's love is agape, which is totally non-sexual.
However, agape is not the only word that the New Testament and the Fathers use for God's love.
No reason to suspect Kreeft was inspired by occult Jewish mysticism. Mr Kreeft mentioned cosmic sex in his article. Well, I googled that little phrase and what do you know, I found referances to Hinduism and Kaabala! Surprise, surprise, Gomer! It's about getting it on with the help of pagan Gods!
That's nothing -- if you Google the word "God," you get plenty of hits to all kinds of religions, and to atheism as well. Kreeft talks a lot about God in his essay. Surely that means that Kreeft is secretly an atheist pantheist animist polytheist monotheist Muslim Jewish Mormon Armstrongist Christian Catholic Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian Anti-Trinitarian writer.
Kreeft doesn't say anything about "getting in on with the help of pagan gods." Rather, he argues that in heaven there won't be any need or desire or occasion for "getting it on."
As for you claiming big differances in Armstrongism and Mormonism, come on! Armstrong borrowed his slop from the Mormons, every cult researcher knows that. Both systems promote the insane idea that man can become God. It's splitting hairs as to how and when the 'reproduction' of beings takes place.
Whether or not Herbert Armstrong got the term "God Family" from the Mormons (there's no evidence for it, but it's not impossible), the Mormon "God Family" concept is vastly different from the Armstrongist "God Family" concept -- and it's hardly splitting hairs to note the obvious distinctions and differences between and among those and other religions. Both are polytheistic, both include the notion that the new God Beings would presumably be put in charge of other worlds, but that's about where the similarity ends -- and anyway neither of those heretical concepts has anything to do with Kreeft's argument. Kreeft, of course, holds to divinisation in the Catholic, Athanasian sense, not in the Mormon or Armstrongist sense.
Post a Comment