Sexual Souls

Have you ever wondered if your soul is male or female? During the time that our souls are separated from our bodies - between death and the Resurrection - will we have gender? Our souls are indeed sexed; they are not sexually neutral or unisex. In his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven, Peter Kreeft has a chapter entitled "Is there Sex in Heaven?" Despite my initial assumption, Kreeft is not asking if there is sexual intercourse in heaven (although he does touch on that toward the chapter's end), rather he is examining the gender of our souls.

In our present embodied state, the sexes are equal in value and dignity but they are nonetheless intrinsically different; male and female are not equal in nature. Kreeft (and the Catholic Church) holds that "sexuality is part of our inner essence." It is intrinsic to who we are at our core. If this is the case, "then it follows that there is sexuality in Heaven.” After all, grace perfects nature, it does not replace it, according to the Church.

Kreeft explains:

If sexual differences are natural, they are preserved in Heaven, for 'grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.' If sexual differences are only humanly and socially conventional, Heaven will remove them as it will remove economics and penology and politics. (Not many of us have job security after death. That is one advantage of being a philosopher.) All these things came after and because of the Fall, but sexuality came as part of God's original package: 'be fruitful and multiply.' God may
unmake what we make, but He does not unmake what He makes. God
made sex, and God makes no mistakes. . . . The body is not a mistake to be
unmade or a prison cell to be freed from, but a divine work of art designed to
show forth the soul as the soul is to show forth God. . . .

The reason this subject interests me, is because I am always curious about the differences between men and women. Isn't the opposite sex so enigmatic sometimes? Heck, I find my own sex enigmatic. ;-D Thinking about engendered souls is a whole new aspect of this topic which I have never before contemplated.

“For some strange reason people are shocked at the notion of sexual souls,” Kreeft says. “They not only disagree; the idea seems utterly crude, superstitious, repugnant, and incredible to them.” If we believe that the body is bad, crude, sinful, and/or a temporary shell, then it is easy to view the soul as a perfect essence imprisoned and in need of liberation from our corrupt flesh. In this view, a person is a “ghost in a machine . . . [where] one half of the person can be totally different from the other: the body can be sexual without the soul being sexual. The machine is sexed, the ghost is not,” writes Kreeft.

Kreeft points out that God invites each of us into relationship with Himself as the men and women He created us as – not as “monosexual souls”. I am fascinated by the beautiful differences of the sexes in our embodied states. The complimentarity God has designed is intriguing and awe inspiring. I am fascinated with John Paul II's teachings on the Theology of the Body which so thoroughly examine how both sexes uniquely image the very relationship within the Trinity. Although God is spirit and neither male nor female, He did create men and women in His image. (Yeah, we always refer to God as He.) If we are in God's image then each of the essential attributes of maleness and femaleness originate in God.

Kreeft comments:

A wholly male soul, whatever maleness means, or a wholly female soul, sounds unreal and oversimplified. But that is not what sexual souls implies. Rather, in every soul there is-to use Jungian terms- anima and animus, femaleness and maleness: just as in the body, one predominates but the other is also present.

I suppose Kreeft anticipated questions regarding hermaphrodism as well as the issue of persons who feel that they are the opposite sex "inside" from what they are externally. He writes, tongue in cheek . . .

If the dominant sex of soul is not the same as that of the body, we have a sexual misfit, a candidate for a sex change operation of body and soul, earthly or Heavenly. Perhaps Heaven supplies such changes just as it supplies all other needed forms of healing. In any case, the resurrection body perfectly expresses its soul, and since souls are innately sexual, that body will perfectly express its soul's true sexual identity.

Another controversy regarding the idea of sexed souls is that many hold a pantheistic "view of spirit as undifferentiated," as becoming one with some great Spirit and "leaving behind all the distinctions known to the body and the senses." "But this," Kreeft explains, "is not the Christian notion of spirit. . . . To call God infinite is not to say He is everything in general and nothing in particular: that is confusing God with The Blob! God's infinity means that each of His positive and definitive attributes, such as love, wisdom, power, justice, and fidelity, is unlimited."

Kreeft also says:

Spirit is no less differentiated, articulated, structured, or formed than matter. The fact that our own spirit can suffer and rejoice far more, more delicately and exquisitely, and in a far greater variety of ways, than can the body- this fact should be evidence of spirit's complexity. . . .

God is infinitely differentiated, for He is the Author of all differences, all forms. . . . Each act of creation in Genesis is an act of differentiation - light from darkness, land from sea, animals from plants, and so on. Creating is forming, and forming is differentiating. Materialism believes differences in form are utterly illusory appearance; the only root reality is matter. Pantheism also believes differences in form are ultimately illusory; the only root reality is one universal Spirit. But theism believes form is real because God created it. And whatever positive reality is in the creation must have its model in the Creator.

Before moving on to Kreeft's comments on sexual intercourse and the afterlife, I just want to remind you of a quote frequently repeated by our former Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:

Christ reveals man to himself.

Just contemplate this in regards to the issues Kreeft has already raised concerning our engendered souls.

Okay, are you ready? As for sexual intercourse in heaven, Kreeft writes that in heaven . . .

. . . all earthly perversions of true sexuality are overcome, especially the master perversion, selfishness. To make self God, to desire selfish pleasure as the summum bonum, is not only to miss God but to miss pleasure and self as well, and to miss the glory and joy of sex. Jesus did not merely say, 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God', but also added that 'all these things shall be added' when we put first things first. Each story fits better when the foundation is put first.

C. S. Lewis calls this the principle of "first and second things". In any area of life, putting second things first loses not only the first things but also the second things, and putting first things first gains not only the first things but the second things as well. So to treat sexual pleasure as God is to miss not only God but sexual pleasure too.

The highest pleasure always comes in self-forgetfulness. . . The self has a built-in, God-imaging design of self-fulfillment by self-forgetfulness, pleasure through unselfishness, ecstasy by ekstasis, "standing-outside-the-self". This is not the self-conscious self-sacrifice of the do-gooder but the spontaneous, unconscious generosity of the lover.

(Rodin, Auguste. The Kiss, 1886. )

If there is sexual intercourse in heaven it is not for "baby-making". Kreeft says, "Earth is the breeding colony; Heaven is the homeland." Christ makes clear that at the resurrection we will not be married or given in marriage.

Kreeft asks, "Might there be another function in which baby-making and marriage are swallowed up and transformed? Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. . ."

Sexual intercourse is spiritual. Kreeft says, "We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." He continues that "God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment." He says that, "Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue." Uh, yeah, "promiscuity of spirit" sounds a bit crass, but I understand what he's trying to convey.

This sort of intimacy is different from romantic love here on earth because it is "free, not driven; from soul to body, not from body to soul." Intimacy with others in heaven is not opposed to or apart from our relationship with God, but rather it is "a part of it or a consequence of it." Communion of saints is God's own invention! Our relationships with one another in heaven will be "totally unselfconscious and unselfish: the ethical goodness of agape joined to the passion of eros; agape without external, abstract law and duty, and eros without selfishness or animal drives."

These thoughts thrill me and give me great hope because you know as well as I do that no matter how close you get to someone you love physically or emotionally, it is still not possible to fully know one another down to the minutest detail of their being. Heck, we don't even know ourselves to that degree; only God does! In heaven, we can most fully know ourselves, and know one another. In heaven, we canexpress love and experience the deepest intimacy possible with those whom we now love on earth. (This is a good reason to express your love to others here on earth in such a way as to help you both get to heaven. I mean, if one or both of you leave this life out of relationship with our God and Creator, then . . . well . . . you won't get to experience this ultimate, heavenly knowing of one another.)

After the Resurrection we will all be embodied in Heaven as Mary and Christ are already. We'll be able to eat and to be touched. Therefore physical intercourse is possible. Why would we actualize this potential? Why not?

Kreeft offers the following explanation:

Animal reasons for intercourse include (i) the conscious drive for pleasure and (2) the unconscious drive to perpetuate the species. Both would be absent in Heaven. For although there are unimaginably great pleasures in Heaven, we are not driven by them. And the species is complete in eternity: no need for breeding.

Transhuman reasons for intercourse include (i) idolatrous love of the beloved as a substitute for God and (2) the Dante-Beatrice love of the beloved as an image of God. As to the first, there is, of course, no idolatry in Heaven. No substitutes for God are even tempting when God Himself is present. As to the second, the earthly beloved was a window to God, a mirror reflecting the divine beauty. That is why the lover was so smitten. Now that the reality is present, why stare at the mirror? The impulse to adore has found its perfect object.

Specifically human reasons for intercourse include (1) consummating a monogamous marriage and (2) the desire to express personal love. As to the first, there is no marriage in Heaven. But what of the second?

. . . 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?

This spiritual intercourse with God is the ecstasy hinted at in all earthly intercourse, physical or spiritual. It is the ultimate reason why sexual passion is so strong, so different from other passions, so heavy with suggestions of profound meanings that just elude our grasp. No mere practical needs account for it. No mere animal drive explains it. No animal falls in love, writes profound romantic poetry, or sees sex as a symbol of the ultimate meaning of life because no animal is made in the image of God. Human sexuality is that image, and human sexuality is a foretaste of that self-giving, that losing and finding the self, that oneness-in-manyness that is the heart of the life and joy of the Trinity. That is what we long for; that is why we tremble to stand outside ourselves in the other, to give our whole selves, body and soul: because we are images of God the sexual being. We love the other sex because God loves God.

And this earthly love is so passionate because Heaven is full of passion, of energy and dynamism. We correctly deny that God has passions in the passive sense, being moved, driven, or conditioned by them, as we are. But to think of the love that made the worlds, the love that became human, suffered alienation from itself and died to save us rebels, the love that gleams through the fanatic joy of Jesus' obedience to the will of His Father and that shines in the eyes and lives of the saints—to think of this love as any less passionate than our temporary and conditioned passions "is a most disastrous fantasy". And that consuming fire of love is our destined Husband, according to His own promise.

Why Everyone Cannot Receive Holy Communion

Holy Communion

When you love someone so much that you just wanna eat 'em.

:-D

(The following thoughts are a collaborated effort between myself and my friend Mattias Caro.)

Often I assume-probably incorrectly-that everyone knows that only Catholics are allowed to receive communion at Catholic mass. I think it would be really important for me to explain why the Church holds firmly to teachings such as forbidding non-Catholics to receive Communion at Catholic Mass. Here it goes . . .

The Catholic Church allows only practicing Catholics and Orthodox to receive Holy Communion at Catholic Mass. Interestingly, the Orthodox Church does not give her members permission to receive at Catholic Mass. The reason the Catholic Church has an exception for Orthodox Christians is that, even though they do not esteem the Bishop of Rome as their top authority, they do retain all 7 sacraments from the time they split from (what is now known as) the Catholic Church. Their priests also retain legitimate apostolic succession. The Orthodox Church claims to follow "only the authority of 'Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods' (from Nicaea I in 325, to Nicaea II in 787)" ( Catholic Encyclopedia). You can read more about the Eastern Schism at the New Advent website. On this site it is explained that there has "never been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith" between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It is a case rather of "pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology." The Orthodox split from the Roman Church. The Eastern rites (which are often Orthodox) have "equally legitimate ways of celebrating the same mysteries." The Orthodox do at least continue to recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first Patriarch of Christendom as he is the successor of the see of Saint Peter the Apostle (the first Pope).

Well, that's sort of a side note, but important foundational information nonetheless. Moving on . . .

The Catholic Church also holds that one must not receive Communion if they have any unconfessed mortal sin. Mortal sin refers to any grave sin which a person commits willfully with full knowledge that such an action is indeed a grave sin. Mortal sins actually cut us off from God's grace and communion with Him by our own doing, by our free choosing. In Confession the penitent person is absolved of his confessed mortal sins by the priest. The priest forgives sins by the authority Christ gave Him that was handed-down through apostolic succession. (See John 20:22-23.) Through Confession and absolution the penitent is restored to a state of grace and communion with God. Of course, only those who are Catholic or Orthodox go to Confession - at least with a priest who has the apostolic authority to absolve sins.

I personally do not like the separation that exists among Christians in that we cannot all eat from one table and drink from one cup. However, this is the reality of things due to the Reformation. Most Protestants do not believe that which the Catholic Church has always taught and defended regarding Holy Communion, namely that Christ is made present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in the bread and wine during the consecration by the priest. Although some Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and even charismatic Protestants claim a belief in mystical transubstantiation, this is not what the Church has held up through the centuries.

"Mystical transubstantiation" refers to the belief that the faith of the one receiving Communion is what causes the bread and wine to become the actual body and blood of our Lord. I am curious to know what passages of Holy Scripture a Bible-only, Protestant Christian would use to support this notion. The Church holds that transubstantiation takes place because of the legitimate apostolic authority of her priests at the consecration of the elements. Even if a priest is a wicked man personally, if he has been given the apostolic authority bestowed through the Sacrament of Ordination, then his priestly act of consecrating the host is still valid. (His priestly act of absolution of sins is still valid towards those who receive it from him, even if he is on the path to hell himself.)

This is the sort of faith that Catholics exercise. We do not simply have faith in faith. After all, I could have faith that God will give me a sex-change overnight, but what good would that faith be because it is based on no legitimate rationale. As a Catholic, I have faith that Christ gave His authority to His Apostles at the Last Supper to consecrate bread and wine so that His body and blood would become present in the elements. Not only did He give them that authority, but He commanded them to do it - often. (See Luke 22:19-20 and I Cor. 11:23-26). Those disciples then passed on this authority from Christ to their successors through the Sacrament of Ordination. As a Catholic Christian, this requires much faith on my part; however, this faith is based on something which Christ Himself instituted, not something that a Protestant pastor 1,700 years after-the-fact decided was the right interpretation of a passage from the New Testament - a Catholic book, might I add. ;-D

And I want to take a moment here to explain also that the Catholic Church does not invent truths and dogmas (i.e. the papacy, Sacrament of Confession, Immaculate Conception, Trinity, etc . . . ) Rather the Church is the steward of the truth; she teaches only that which was given to her from Christ in the "deposit of faith" and was taught by His Apostles. The Church comes to fuller understandings of truths as time progresses, but she does not change any of the truths which have already been revealed. For instance, the case of the Immaculate Conception of Mary; just because this doctrine was not defined until recent centuries, does not mean that the Church did not believe and teach it during the prior centuries. The Church often defines doctrine and dogmas only as heresies and conflicts arise that necessitate such definitions.

Okay, back to the original point. . .

As a Catholic, I firmly believe that a priest must have legitimate apostolic authority in order for the bread and wine he consecrates to be transubstantiated. I would venture to say that many Protestants would be repulsed if I said the prayer of consecration over a saltine cracker and then tried to distribute it to them as if it were the actual body of our Lord. Maybe they would find it ridiculous that I would even think that Christ would humble Himself to become a cracker (actually vice-versa) and be eaten by people. But also, they would think, "Who the hell are you?!" By what authority could I do such a thing even if it were possible? If all that is necessary for transubstantion is faith and not any sort of legitimate authority, then why can't I consecrate bread and wine and give it out to other Christians at a home-made Communion?

If someone does not believe that the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Catholic Mass become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, then it would be a sacrilege for them to receive communion. It would be a sacrilege on two accounts: 1. to eat and drink without discerning the Lord's real presence is to eat and drink condemnation on oneself (I Cor. 11: 27-32), and 2. the person receiving Communion while disbelieving that it is what the Church says it is is violating his own conscience and acting contrary to his own beliefs. He should be committing a sacrilege according to his own belief system.

Sometimes a person accepts that a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest has legitimate authority to consecrate the elements and that Christ is transubstantiated in them, but this person is not officially in communion with the Church and does not desire to be so. He is not allowed to receive Communion at a Catholic Mass even though he assents to the Church's teaching that Christ is literally made present in the Eucharist by the apostolic authority of the priest. Why not? Well, it is simply because he is not in full communion with the Church. That's the way it is. It is not that the Church desires to deny this person the real body and blood or our Lord in the Eucharist, but he has simply not taken the steps necessary to be in the position to receive our Lord at Mass.

The Church opens her arms to any and everyone to enter into full communion with her, but this requires a time of being catechised, making a first Confession, and then being Confirmed. The Church wants to make sure the catechumen or candidate is fully aware of what the Church teaches and that he in turn assents to these truths. That makes sense, right? If someone doesn't believe all that the Church holds, then they are not Catholic; therefore they do not participate in Catholic Sacraments. I'm not sure I understand why someone would want to participate in the Sacraments anyway if they do not accept the Church's authority and teachings as legitimate. It is analogous to a man wanting to communion sexually with a woman, yet he does not want to make her his bride. There are just certain things that must come first in order to protect the sacred!

If I am playing softball and I'm on 3rd base, I have to run home and cross the plate in order to score a run, right? What if I decide that I want to score a run by running straight to first base from third? Well, not only will I not score a run, but I will also have screwed up the game and pissed off my entire team. I certainly have no such authority as to change the rules to fit my fancy; neither does my team or our coach have such authority. There is probably some overarching National Softball Federation that determines the rules of all softball games. If you want to play in the real deal you have to play by the rules. The analogy, of course, breaks down at this point, because the Church is not like a softball federation which can alter doctrines and dogmas of her own accord, rather the Church preserves, protects, and promotes the truths she has been given from our Lord and His Apostles.

Similarly, let's say that a man is raised Catholic and leaves the Church because he doesn't accept many of her teachings or her authority. However, this man wants to still receive Communion at Catholic Mass because he feels it is his right, and he believes that it is a legitimate Sacrament - despite the other supposed failings and falsehoods the Church practices and promotes. This is akin to a man leaving his wife because he does not like her any longer, and he does not want the sacrifice and commitment required to remain in their marriage. However, he feels he has the right to come and have sexual intercourse with her when he so desires it. What gives him that right? Either he wants to be with her or he doesn't? In behaving this way he is abusing his wife; he is unwilling to commit to her and live out that commitment, but he wants to keep one perk - the one that he finds most beneficial to him personally. He wants what he wants, and he wants it on his own terms.

Such a man is not willing to lay down his life for his wife, but rather only to take from her. This is selfish and abusive in a human relationship, and it also applies in the situation regarding Communion. It is inordinate and presumptuous, an abuse of the Church and Her Sacraments to receive Communion at Catholic Mass without being committed to the Church and embracing her as a whole, for all that she is and all that she has to offer.

For a Catholic, receiving communion at Mass is affirming a belief that the bread and wine one is receiving is no longer bread and wine-except in appearance-but the actual body and blood of Christ. Our "amen" just prior to receiving "the body of Christ" on our tongues from the priest or Eucharistic minister is an affirmation that we accept not only the truth that Christ is present in the Eucharist but also that we uphold all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ and by extension His body here on earth. Who doesn't want to be a man of his word? In walking the aisle, saying "Amen", and receiving our Lord's body in Communion, we are saying with our actions (and our word) that we are in full communion with the Church, have been cleansed from mortal sin beforehand, and believe that we are receiving the very body and blood of Jesus. If these things are not true, the person receiving Communion is (perhaps inadvertently) lying; he is saying one thing with his actions and his word, but his reality and his beliefs are contrary.

Because I honor and love my Church and firmly believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I wanted to take the time to explain these things to any who were unaware. Anyone who has ever illicitly received Communion at a Catholic Mass out of ignorance is not fully culpable for the sin that it is. From now on, this person should not receive Communion at Mass. If this offends that person, then at the very least they can consider refraining simply as an act of respect for the "customs" of the Catholics at Mass, seeking not to offend them or cause controversy. (That's akin to what we Catholics call imperfect contrition. ;-D) Should I walk into a Jewish Synagogue and demand to read before the Congregation from the Torah? No. Why not? The Torah is a Christian book isn't it? It's the first part of my Bible. Well, I'm just not allowed to do that. It's not going to help my Catholic witness to Jewish people if I walk all over their customs and in their own house of worship.

As for Protestants abstaining from Communion, inversely, I follow the same principle when at a Lutheran service or an Episcopalian service; I don't receive there because I would thus be giving witness to a belief that simply is not mine, namely that Christ is not present in the Eucharist or even that He is although the "priest" has no legitimate authority to consecrate the elements for transubstantiation. Even though Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have much in common in Lewis's sense of a mere Christianity, it is simply a fact that we do not all believe the same things about Holy Communion.

Confession - A Healthy Dose of Reality

Yesterday as I was out for a walk and praying the rosary, I thought about how much I treasure being so utterly candid with God in my prayer intentions. It's satisfying to be so honest with myself, too.

In several ways, Confession is my favorite Sacrament. It is so liberating. Just as a joke, I thought of my own "Demotivational" poster . . .

Confession

Because if you suck, you should at least know why.

Hehehe. Totally kidding.

Have you ever gone through a time haunted by a vague sense of shame? Perhaps in talking with a friend you eventually find yourself confessing some sin or hidden motive or desire or hurt or anger that you didn't realize was deep inside of you. Ahhhh. Then you feel so much better, and even if it is a painful realization, you can face reality and deal with it in a mature and thoughtful manner. Doesn't that feel so good? It feels good to grow in virtue.

That's what Confession is like. Jesus said that the truth will set us free, and He was not kidding.

If something is hurting me, I like to know that my hurt is based in reality and not simply my imagination running wild with scenarios completely out of touch with what is really going on.

Proverbs 24:26 reads, "An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips." Have you ever had someone be painfully honest with you? Even when it stings, isn't it liberating? And have you ever had someone express feelings towards you that were insincere (i.e. lying to you, leading you on)? Ouch. That can be more painful than an honest, "Sorry, but I'm just not interested."

It's all about living in reality. That's where true happiness and freedom lies. How can we better live in reality, to see things as they truly are? Go to Confession. Do an examination of conscience. Confession is the perfect way to examine how you may be lying to yourself about your own actions and desires. It's a great way to examine if you've been living as if something is true that is not true. It's perfect for coming clean if you are using another person in some way. It feels good to "face the music."

I enjoy the lyrics to most every Relient K song, but I especially find comfort in the words of "Forward Motion": "It's good to experience the bittersweet, to taste defeat then brush my teath. Because I struggle with forward motion. We all struggle with forward motion. Forward motion is harder than it sounds. Every time I gain some ground, I've got to turn myself around again." So true.

After Confession, then you receive Christ's own absolution and grace from your priest. Hopefully the priest is also wise to give you counsel about how to face reality better and to make amends as you journey towards deeper freedom in Christ and therefore in life.

John 8:31-36 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' They answered Him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, "You will be made free"?' Jesus answered them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'" (NKJV)

Get real. Get clean. Confess, and be free to live in reality!

Blessings!
Natalie



*The still above is from Alfred Hitchcock's film I Confess. I've not yet seen it, but my priest highly recommends it as an exemplary depiction of the "seal of the confessional". All Catholic priests are utterly forbidden to disclose anything revealed in the Confessional . . . ANYTHING. They cannot even bring it up outside of the Confessional with the person who confessed it (unless that person brings the matter up to the priest again outside of Confession). If a priest reveals anything from a Confession to anyone, then I believe he can be excommunicated. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1467.)

How to Attract Women

Thought this was cute . . . and true in many ways. Yesterday the Associated Press posted an article in which writer Don Babwin reports, "Women looking for a long-term relationship like men who like children, and they can tell which guys might be interested in becoming fathers just by looking at their faces." To read about more about these "findings of a study of college students published Wednesday in a British scientific journal" check out Women Get Paternal Clues in Men's Faces. ;-D

"AP illustration showing women attracted

to men who like kids." (AP Graphic)

So true! Haha. So funny. ;-P Well, I've got an illustration of my own. . .

According to my observations and the findings of the aforementioned study, it appears that 2 of the 4 women in this photograph are in the market for a long-term man. ;-D

Blessings!
Natalie

Raccoon Invasion

Well, I have been working on my next blog entry the past couple of days, but time is a bit hard to come by to dedicate myself fully to the task. And so, I have decided to share a true and profound story with you to tide you over until that entry becomes a reality. ;-D

Several days ago I went bounding down the stairs from my bedroom to the kitchen. At the foot of the stairs I noticed what appeared to be the cat's chew toy - which happens to look like an extremely furry rodent. As I stepped over the toy I realized (*gag reflex kicks in*) that it is actually a dead bird. Yes, our spastic Siamese not only attacks us at her caprice, but she also loves to attack living creatures that are smaller than herself. She has brought us many a half-dead field mouse, but this was a heavy duty, totally lifeless bird. It was pretty sick.

Anyway, I got my landlord to clean up the carcass and toss the dead bird in the trash. (Poor thing.) After all, the cat belongs to her. So we set the trash near the stairs as a reminder that it needs to be taken out when we next head out the front door.

Ahem . . . so, a few nights ago my roomie arrives in the wee hours of the morning from an insane marathon day/night at the sweat shop . . . uh . . . I mean her job office. She is deliriously tired, and as she stumbles up the staircase, she sees a dead bird lying next to some trash and a shredded trash bag. Nice.

Too tired to care, she proceeds to the kitchen. There she is greeted by a hulking, wild raccoon. What the crap?! How did a raccoon get into our kitchen? Clearly, you do not have a kitty door on your house. Yes, the kitty door is how a wild raccoon gets into one's kitchen. (Fortunately I was safely asleep in my room with the door closed.)

Poor roomie. The raccoon was so scared that it began to run up the stairs towards our bedroom (where I was safely enclosed :-). I must have been "dead-to-the-world" because apparently a fit of shrieking and extemporaneous prayer ensued as my roommate and our landlady combined efforts to scare the raccoon back down the stairs and back out through the kitty door. That night their efforts were rewarded with great success. Too bad I could not share their panic or their victory because I had no clue that it all even went down until the next day.

Man, I love a good story. I'm just glad this one didn't end with my roommate being attacked by a rabies-crazed raccoon. I lose more friends that way. . . :-D

(not the actual raccoon)

Official Roman Catholic

Yes, it is official. I was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church at the Saturday Easter Vigil at my parish this year. So many of my friends made it out to support me. I love my parish, my Church and my priests. I am so very, very blessed. Receiving Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist for the first time was soberingly exciting. I have tried to make it to daily Mass every day this past week. I am so happy. I so long to be a holy woman. I welcome any and all of your prayers. I'm truly home and I want to live and breathe the fullness of the faith which Jesus has given to His Bride, His Church. Thanks you so much, all of my friends, who came out to partake of our Lord and my joy in being received into His Church!!!

Well, I had an old girl friend from high school and college drive up to see me this weekend. It was good to catch up. The first thing she said when she set her bags down in my room was, "So you're Catholic now? What made you decide that?" Good times. We had some lovely conversations. Although, we did waste a good hour and a half surfing the internet together and looking up old friends from our high school and college days. Some of our discoveries were disturbing, I must say. But the useful part of it all is that I just felt so thankful to have our Lord, to have His Church, and to have so many friends who long to please Him as well. (Thank You so much, Lord, for where you have brought me. Please, "grant that I may love you always and then do with me as You will"!)

As I awoke this morning, my friend was still sound asleep. So I took advantage of the quite moment and the secure feeling I have when a friend is near to do some quality reading. I picked up Fulton Sheen's Guide to Contentment. It's a quick read, really. One particular part that I enjoyed was on the issue of "love at first sight". Here comes the typical long quote . . . ;-D

A young man may know and appreciate a number of young women, and yet in the depths of his soul remain unmoved. And then one day, a woman with no conscious purpose will release some secret spring in the depths of his personality, and from that moment on, she becomes the center of the world.

What creates this new condition? It may have been knowledge of her character and personality, but it may also have been rather spontaneous, or what is called love at first sight.

One may ask if each of us does not really carry in his or her own heart a blueprint of the one that he or she loves. This blue-print is made by our reading, our prayers, our experiences, our hopes, our ideals, by our mother and father. Then suddenly the ideal becomes concretized and realized in a person, and we say, "This is it."

Each of us carries around in his own heart the music that he loves. We hear a certain kind of music for the first time, and we immediately love it. It satisfies the rhythm and the tempo that are already inside our hearts. Love at first sight may be incomprehensible, but it is a fact, nonetheless. In the end it may not be first sight; it may be just a dream coming true. (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1967. pg 23-24.)

I can tell I'm going to love this book. It deals with much more than romantic love, it focuses also on our affections in general and how our "loves" orient us toward virtue or vice.

Easter Blessings! Christ is Risen!

Natalie

Wanted: Co-creators (see inside for more details)

I ain't got much time for usin' this here internet these days, so we'z gotz to git right down to business. Mmmmkkk?

You and I are creatures, created beings. My very existence did not come from myself, nor do you have any hand to play in your own existence. It is God Who created you and me, and He designed the means by which we would one day come into being. (Psst . . . it involves sexual intercourse.)

God, in fact, is still very much in the business of creating; His creative work did not end when He rested on the seventh day (see Genesis 2:3). God has established the laws of nature in such a way that His wonderful creation, human kind, participates profoundly in His continuing work of creating new human beings in His image and likeness. (This is not a physical likeness, as God is spirit, but a likeness in that we can reason and will things as God does. We are capable of self-knowledge, self-possession, and self-giving. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #357.)

When a man and a woman “use the sexual urge in sexual intercourse,” they “enter as it were into the cosmic stream by which existence is transmitted,” says JPII (54). As rational beings, both a man and a woman can “consciously direct their own actions and also foresee the possible results, the fruits of those actions” (54). The CCC #357 says that human persons are capable of freely giving themselves and “entering into communion with other persons.” We are called by grace to offer ourselves in faith and love to God, a gift that no other creature on earth can do in our stead (CCC 357).

When a couple copulates, they are, in the words of JPII, “the rational cocreators of a new human being” (54). The physical union of a man and woman may beget the physical body of their own child, however, neither of them can take credit for the creation of the spirit of that child. It is God rather who “breathes” the spirit of the child into its physical being upon conception. (See CCC 366.) The Catholic Church holds that a person’s body and spirit form a unity of substance; they are not two separate things. That is dualism, and we will have none of that. ;-D

Peter Kreeft explains, in Catholic Christianity:

“Man is not merely a body (that is materialism). Nor is he merely a soul (that is spiritualism). Nor is he two beings, like a ghost in a machine (that is dualism). He is one being in two dimensions, bodily and spiritual. . .

“The human soul is not imprisoned in the body, as Plato taught, but expressed in it, as the meaning of a play is expressed in its words. And the body is not enslaved by the soul but fulfilled by it, as a beautiful piece of marble is fulfilled and brought to perfection in a great work of sculpture. . .

“The human soul is not a pure spirit, like an angel. It is the ‘form’ of the body; it is meant to inform a body. The body is not a house, and the soul is not ghost. We are not haunted! The soul is not something strange, occult, or alien. Just the opposite. It is who we are; it is our personality. God gave it to us at conception (that magical moment that was the beginning of our body, too), and we shape it through all of life’s choices” (59).

“We are neither animals nor angels. Our bodies are neither the whole of our nature, as with animals, nor outside our nature, as with angels. They are not external to us, not costumes for spirits to hide in, like Halloween masks, or instruments for minds to manipulate, like computers. We are essentially body as well as spirit.

“Why did God design us this way?

“God designed us to be the priests of the whole of creation. ‘God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him’ (CCC 358). How then do we fulfill our destiny as the priests of the whole creation?

When we offer ourselves to God, we offer up the whole universe in our body, for our body is a ‘microcosm’, a little cosmos, the universe in miniature. We are made up of star-stuff and mineral-stuff and plant life and animal sensations, as well as mind and will and heart. ‘Through his very bodily condition [man] sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the creator’ (GS 14; cf. Dan 3:57-90). In us, the floods clap their hands and the hills sing for joy (Ps 98:8). (58-9)

So what happens to a man’s spirit upon the death and decay of his physical body? Kreeft explains:

“The soul must be reunited with a new body because God made man as a soul-body unity, and God makes no mistakes. Therefore the resurrection of the body is needed to complete and perfect our human nature in heaven. (Between death and resurrection, we are incomplete.) We do not become angels any more than we become ants” (60).

We are not to despise our bodily life. Because God has created our bodies and will also resurrect them in His own timing, we should indeed hold our bodily existence in honor as the good that it is.

All this to bring it back to the point that when a man and woman conceive a child, they participate with God in the creation of another immortal soul, of a brand new human person, the incarnation of their love (well . . . hopefully). Isn’t that amazing?

Well, if you wanna find out what love's got to do with it, then stay tuned! ;-D

Lent

Just wanted to let any one out there know that I hope to blog again on Sunday, but for the rest of the week I have very, very little internet access . . . as I've given up most of my personal internet usage for Lent. It's really great, I must confess. Ooooo, and I'm going to have my first Confession/Penance sometime soon. I'm soooooooo excited! Seriously!

Blessings!!!
Natalie

Nothin' Says Lovin' Like Somethin' from the Oven

JPII explains:

The proper end of the sexual urge is the existence of the species Homo, its continuation (procretio), and love between persons, between man and woman, is shaped, channeled one might say, by that purpose and formed from the material it provides. It can therefore take its correct shape only in so far as it develops in close harmony with the proper purpose of the sexual urge. An outright conflict with that purpose will also perturb and undermine love between persons. (52-3)

Wow! JPII is particularly referring to contraceptive acts here. A husband and wife must recognize the life-giving purpose behind the use of the sexual urge, and they must never do anything to thwart that purpose (i.e. sterilization, coitus interruptus, or use of barriers or chemical contraceptives of any kind). JPII says that "man often accords the sexual urge a merely biological significance and does not fully realize its true, existential significance - its link with existence" (53). When we think of something as merely biological, we tend to think it is okay to manipulate and alter it. Recognizing the "natural purpose of the sexual urge" as pro-creative and existential does not banish love from the equation. JPII says rather that recognizing the procreative purpose of the sexual urge gives conjugal love its true character (53).

In taking marital vows a man and a woman should be consciously choosing to "participate in the whole natural order of existence," being completely open to facilitating "the existence of another concrete person, their own child, blood of their blood, and flesh of their flesh" (53). As JPII says, "This person is at once an affirmation and a continuation of their own love. The natural order of human existence is not in conflict with love between persons but in strict harmony with it" (53).

Love between a man and woman is intimately connected with the utilization of the sexual urge. JPII explains that whenever a couple seeks to circumvent the purpose of the sexual urge by artificial means they are actually damaging the love between them.

There are of course times in which the sexual act simply cannot bring about the conception of a new human person (i.e. when a woman is not fertile - which is the majority of the time). Also, when a woman is already pregnant, if either of the spouses are sterile, or if a woman is post-menopausal, then conception is not biologically possible. JPII tells us that another value of the sexual urge, apart from its procreative purpose, is to bring together men and women into reciprocal and complementary relationships.

He elaborates:

If the spouses are to take legitimate advantage of the energy which the urge releases, and of its natural promptings, they must before all else take into account its basic meaning and rationale. If this condition (that nothing shall be done to negate the proper purpose of the urge) is fulfilled, then even when a new human being cannot be born from the union of a man and woman, or from a particular occasion of sexual intercourse, the spouses are none the less reborn in love, and so to speak give birth to each other in their interpersonal communion. (f.n. 17, p294)

I am reminded of a passage from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. I do not have the book, so I cannot quote it directly, but he speaks of the natural law and of morality regarding contracepted use of the sexual urge. He compares the use of the sexual urge to the use of the urge to eat. The primary purpose for hunger and the desire to eat is that we will indeed eat and be nourished and continue to live. (Remember, existence is our first and primary good :-)

However, there is pleasure attached to eating (unless of course the food tastes bad, is poisonous, or if you simply have no sense of taste or smell). This is comparable to the fact that pleasure is often attached to the use of the sexual urge, but pleasure is not guaranteed and is not a purpose of the sexual urge. By the way, Janet E. Smith in her talk "Contraception: Why Not?" makes the point that God attaches pleasure to those things which He wants us to do for our own continuation and health. Such things include sex, eating, sleeping, and exercising. I think that's fascinating.

Lewis compares contracepted intercourse to bulimia. The bulimic wants the pleasure of eating, but because he does not want to follow the act through to its natural end and experience its natural consequences, he forces himself to throw-up after he experiences enough of the pleasure of beginning the eating process. Likewise, contraception is an unnatural act by which a couple seeks to enjoy some of the pleasure of the sexual act without following it through to its natural end and experiencing its natural consequences. The consequence that most couples are trying to avoid when contracepting is the conception of a child. (The couple does not realize that there is much pleasure also to be had in the begetting of and rearing of their own children.)

Some couples have grave reasons for seeking to avoid pregnancy, particularly if the mother has a condition in which a pregnancy can cause her to die. The Church holds forth any number of modern, scientific Natural Family Planning methods for use in situations like these. (We are not talking "rhythm method" okay?)

Natural Family Planning (NFP) involves the charting of the wife's fertility-cycle. During the wife's "fertile window" the spouses mutually abstinence from intercourse (including any other act which would cause one of the spouses to come to sexual climax apart from the act of intercourse; that's a whole 'nother element of Catholic sexual moral teaching). The difference between NFP and contraceptive acts is that NFP refuses to utilize the sexual urge for the sole purpose of pleasure while intentionally thwarting the procreative capability of that act.

NFP also has some benefits in that it fosters communication between the spouses, prayer, a greater understanding of the woman's body and health, and also the virtues of self-control and self-discipline. During the woman's fertile period, the couple must seek creative, non-sexual ways to express their love. NFP can also help a couple to know when to "try for" a baby because they are aware of their fertile periods. It is still possible for a couple of use NFP with a "contraceptive mentality", but I do think the practice as a whole has a positive influence on the couple's openness to life and selflessness with one another.

The Existential Significance of the Sexual Urge

What is the foundational purpose of the sexual urge? Come on, take a guess!!!

It's pro-creation, the continuation of the species.

"What?!" some might exclaim. "It's not love? It's not pleasure? Is the purpose of sex to have as many babies as humanly possible?! What happened to the 'personalistic norm' here? Isn't that another form of utilitarianism? Ahhhhhh!!!"

Yes, that could definitely be a utilitarian approach of a different variety. Love does has something to do with the sexual urge; JPII very much affirms that the sexual urge provides the "material for love between persons, between man and woman" (51). However, he also points out that two persons of the opposite sex can have much love for one another and yet have no sexual chemistry or attraction for one another. Love is also not guaranteed between two people who have sex. Love is dependent on human free will. Therefore we can deduce that the primary purpose of the sexual urge is the continuation of the human species. But, as we will see in my next blog entry, JPII will also address those more personalistic, incidental purposes of the sexual urge.

JPII writes:

The existence of the whole species Homo depends directly on [the sexual urge]. The species could not exist if it were not for the sexual urge and its natural results. . . . Human kind can be maintained in being only so long as individual people, individual men and women, human couples, obey the sexual urge. (51)

If the sexual urge had not been built into our nature, we human beings just might cease to exist. Seriously.

JPII points out that "existence is the first and basic good for every creature. . . . All other goods derive from this basic good" (51).

He continues:

Man's multifarious works, the creations of his genius, the fruits of his holiness are only possible if the man - the genius, the saint - comes into existence. To be he had to begin to exist. The natural route by which human beings begin to exist passes through the sexual urge. (52)

Although the sexual urge is a force of nature, we do not study it merely from a biological standpoint. The sexual urge has more than a biological significance; it has an existential significance. The sexual urge is intimately bound to the very existence of mankind in general. The study of existence itself is a subject of philosophy. Natural sciences (such as biology and chemistry) are not directly concerned with existence in and of itself; rather these fields take "existence for granted as a concrete fact inherent in the object which it studies" (52). Because of the existential significance of the sexual urge, it is imperative to consult philosophy in determining the "true importance of the sexual urge, which has obvious implications in the realm of sexual morality" (52).

Remember the Catholic assertion that human existence is "that first and most basic good"(52)? If the sexual urge is intimately connected to the existence of the human person, then the sexual urge is not meant to be used for just any end a man may choose. Although "it is there for man to use,” the sexual urge must follow principles regarding respect for the human person, and the sexual urge must not be utilized in absence of "love for the person" nor used in contradiction to “love for the person” (52).

It is interesting to think, as JPII points out, that the sexual urge is wired into every man by God's design. It was His idea, not ours! And furthermore, God gave us predetermined purposes for the sexual urge that remain independent of any man’s will. So, we don't make the rules about the sexual urge and its purposes, and when we try to we do so to our own peril. For, as a professor of mine once said, "Reality can only bear the weight of a bad idea for so long." (He may have been quoting a book called Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. I’m not sure.)

We must cooperate with the reality of things in life. We are not doing ourselves any favors by going against the grain of the built-in meaning and purpose of the sexual urge. I particularly like the way Rick Santorum deals with this topic of cooperating with the "natural law" in his book It Takes a Family.

Santorum explains in chapter four, "The Meaning of Family," that the traditional family is "constituted by a mother and a father who have committed themselves to each other in lifelong marriage, together with their children" (28) This is a "traditional" family "because it is fundamentally natural" (28). Santorum says modern liberal thought rejects such a definition of the family as "restrictive" because "it limits our 'freedom' to choose who and how we will love" (28) It "'excludes'. . .different kinds of families" which are supposedly "no better and no worse than the natural family" (28). He says the very word natural often makes people nervous in the liberal sphere of the political spectrum "since nature is what we are as human beings, which we cannot change or choose otherwise" (28)

I don't mean to turn the focus to politics at the last minute, especially since I am largely inept at such discussion. However, Santorum's thoughts are right on target regarding the natural law.

He continues:

In the tradition of my own faith community, the Catholic Church, we speak about the natural law, which we might think of as the operating instructions for human beings. The promise of the natural law is that we will be happiest, and freest, when we follow the law built into our nature as men and women. For liberals, however, nature is too confining, and thus is the enemy of freedom. Consequently, when liberals think about society, they see only "individuals"--not men and women and children. Men and women and children have natures, but liberal "individuals" are abstractions, free to choose anything at all and unconfined by purportedly illusory factors like gender. At first, the liberal vision may sound attractive--because freedom is attractive. The only problem is that it is a false vision, because nature is nature, and the freedom to choose against the natural law is not really freedom at all. (It Takes a Family 28-29)

[By the way, Wikipedia on-line defines "political liberalism" as "the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals." In my on-line quest for a definition of “liberal” as used by Santorum, I came across a blog called Liberal by Definition. The author made me laugh, although I am in no way endorsing his blog.]

"I want your sex"

In case you didn't catch that, the title of this entry includes lyrics from an old George Michael song. I just thought it would be funny to contemplate the literal meaning of his words in light of what I am going to discuss today from JPII's Love & Responsibility

JPII writes:
"Every human being is by nature a sexual being, and belongs from birth to one of the two sexes. This fact is not contradicted by the phenomenon of so-called hermaphroditism - any more than any other sickness or deformity militates against the fact that there is such a thing as human nature and that every human being, even the deformed or sick human being, has the same nature and is a human being precisely because of it. In the same way every human being is a sexual being, and membership of one of the two sexes means that a person's whole existence has a particular orientation which shows itself in his or her actual internal development" (47).

Yep, folks. We are all inescapably sexed! If you are a human being, you are a sexual being. You have a sex: male or female. (JPII will come back to the issue of hermaphroditism in the last section of Love & Responsibility, which we are no where near yet.)

Our darling, former Pope continues, "The orientation given to a person's existence by membership of one of the sexes does not only make itself felt internally, but at the same time turns outwards, and in the normal course of things (once again, we are not speaking of sicknesses or of perversions) manifests itself in a certain natural predilection for, a tendency to seek, the other sex. What is the goal of this orientation?" (47-8). I ask myself that question every day of my life? Haha. Just kidding.

JPII points out that there is an "urge to mutual completion" between the sexes because the "attributes of each sex possess some specific value for the other" (48). The usual joking about the differences between men and women "indicate only a division in terms of psychological and physiological attributes" (48), but "sexual attraction makes obvious the fact that the attributes of the two sexes are complementary, so that a man and a woman can complete each other" (48). JPII continues, "The properties which the woman possesses are not possessed by the man, and vice versa. Consequently, there exists for each of them not only the possibility of supplementing his or her own attributes with those of a person of the other sex, but at times a keenly felt need to do so" (48).

JPII asks, "Is it that the attributes of each sex possess a value for the other, and that what we call the sexual urge comes into being because of this, or do these attributes, on the contrary, possess a value for them because of the existence of the sexual urge?" (48). Hmmmm. Good question. He says it is the second option. "The sexual urge is something even more basic than the psychological and physiological attributes of man and woman in themselves, though it does not manifest itself or function without them" (49). Hmmm.

He elaborates that the sexual urge is not simply "an orientation towards the psychological and physiological attributes of the other sex" in the abstract (49). No, rather men and women desire a specific, concrete individual of the opposite sex. As JPII puts it, "the sexual urge in a human being is always in the natural course of things directed towards another human being" (49).

Some clarifications on this point from our beloved JPII follow below:

"If [the sexual urge] is directed towards the sexual attributes as such this must be recognized as an impoverishment or even a perversion of the urge. If it is directed towards the sexual attributes of a person of the same sex we speak of a homosexual deviation. Still more emphatically do we speak of sexual deviation if the urge is directed not towards the sexual attributes of a human being but towards those of an animal. The natural direction of the sexual urge is towards a human being of the other sex and not merely towards 'the other sex' as such. It is just because it is directed towards a particular human being that the sexual urge can provide the framework within which, and the basis on which, the possibility of love arises" (49)

"The sexual urge in man has a natural tendency to develop into love simply because the two objects affected, with their different sexual attributes, physical and psychological, are both people. Love is a phenomenon peculiar to the world of human beings. In the animal world only the sexual instinct is at work" (49).

Love between a man and a woman does not consist of the biological or psychological consummation of the sexual urge, but rather love is shaped by "acts of the will at the level of the person" (49). Love grows out of the conditions created by the sexual urge as experienced between two concrete persons of the opposite sex, but love is not merely the experience of sexual attraction or emotional bonding; it is based in the will of the individuals.

The sexual urge does not deprive man of "his power of self-determination" (50). JPII says, "The sexual urge does not itself produce complete, finished actions, it only furnishes, so to speak, in the form of all that 'happens' in man's inner being under its influence, what might be called the stuff from which action is made" (49-50). The human person is master of the sexual urge; he (or she) can turn the "force of the sexual urge" towards the purposes he deems best. Any act originating in the manifestation of the sexual urge "must be evaluated on the plane of love" (50). The power of the sexual urge requires us, as human beings, to be responsible to use it only in ways that truly express love. (And I'm not talking about "If you love me, you'll have sex with me" or "I think it's time to have sex now because we really love each other." No. No. No. Rather true love is all about not engaging in sexual intimacy outside of a lifelong marriage covenant.)

JPII continues:

"Here it should also be said that the sexual urge is an attribute and a force common to humanity at large, at work in every human being, although it is a force which manifests itself in different ways and indeed with different degrees of psychological and physiological intensity in different people. The urge, however, cannot be identified with the ways in which it shows itself. Since the urge itself is a universal human attribute we have to reckon with its effects at every turn in all relationships between the sexes and indeed wherever they exist side by side" (50).

Man is both a social and a sexual being. Men and women often co-exist in social settings; we lead a "co-educational" existence in this sense (51). Because of these realities, sexual ethics also addresses social relationships between men and women in general. All relationships between the two sexes should operate on the principle of the dignity of the human person. Proper relations between the sexes in social life are necessary for the common good of society.

"Interpretation of the Sexual Urge"

I have to be honest, when JPII begins explaining the "sexual urge," I find it a bit difficult to understand. I hope that as I progress in reading Love & Responsibility that the issue of the sexual urge becomes lucid.

Okay. JPII describes the "sexual urge" as a drive common to all human beings. True. True. This urge or instinct is not merely a matter of physical arousal and a desire for intercourse, but rather it is "the source of what happens in a man" both in his sensual and emotional life. He says that the sexual urge is a "vector of aspiration along which [one's] whole existence develops and perfects itself from within" (46). I like the poetry of that last statement, but I don't understand exactly what he is trying to convey. If any one else out there is familiar with JPII's teachings on this, please contribute your understanding.

What I do get is that the sexual urge is not only reserved to the sphere of sexual intercourse and such activity; it permeates the whole of human existence. It is not so much "that man behaves in a particular way as that something happens to man, something begins to take place without any initiative on his part, and this internal 'happening' creates as it were a base for definite actions, for considered actions, in which man exercises self-determination, decides for himself about his own actions and takes responsibility for them" (46-7).

JPII describes the sexual urge as a "reflex mode of action, which is not dependent on conscious thought" (45). As human beings who are conscious of our free will, however, we also have a reflex action to resist "everything that does violence in any way to that freedom" (45). So our sexual urge is sometimes in conflict with our freedom because we can be tempted to express ourselves sexually "without any conscious thought" or deliberation on "the end in view". It is not typical of man to follow a mode of action without reflecting on its relation to "the end at which he aims (46), writes JPII. It is proper to us as human beings to consciously select our ends and to select the best and most appropriate means to achieve those ends.

We are not responsible for involuntary sexual sensations, but we are responsible for what we do with them and how we act on arousal and our desire to be with another person. We are not the cause of our sexual desires, they are God's idea. We cooperate with our God-given sexual urge using our freewill. (I also get the impression from the words of JPII that he wants to point out that persons are not responsible for what another person may do to them sexually without their consent. That’s a very important thing to note for anyone who has been sexually abused.)

JPII continues: "There is in man an innate principle which makes him capable of considered behavior, or self-determination. Man is by nature capable of rising above instinct in his actions. And he is capable of such action in the sexual sphere as elsewhere. If it were otherwise, morality would have no meaning in this context, would simply not exist, but sexual morality as everyone knows is a universal phenomenon, something common to all humanity. It is, then, difficult to speak of the sexual instinct in man as though it meant the same as it does in animals, difficult to accept it as the sole and ultimate source of actions in the sexual sphere" (46).

My First Gig

Before I attempt to introduce JPII's "Interpretation of the Sexual Urge," I'd just like to say that last night was my first dance performance "gig". I performed a 15 minute set to Turkish and Egyptian music for some friends' birthday party. I had a blast, and I think the performance was a smashing success with the crowd. Good times.

My beloved roomie and I.

(Thanks for taking these shots!)

Caught by the birthday boy!

Hello there.

Here, hold my veil; I insist.

Make room. Coming through.

"The Unveiling" or "I am Bat Girl"-
whichever you prefer

No matter how many times I hip-drop,
I just can't make myself Persian.
Dang it.

He just ain't no good for me.

He is mesmerized by my veil.
Or maybe he's in a drunken stupor.

I challenge you to a shimmy.

The piñata clown gets it.
Why doesn't anyone else get it?

"The Tempest"

Dance, my Esmerelda, dance!

Blessings!
Natalie