Corporeal Unitive Fulfillment in the Eschaton: Exploring Eschatological Pleasures as they Concern Participation in the Communion of Saints

Corporeal Unitive Fulfillment in the Eschaton

Exploring Eschatological Pleasures as they Concern Participation in the Communion of Saints

I. Introduction

II. Two Types of Pleasure in Heaven

III. Emotive Problems with Eating and Sex in the Eschaton

IV. Exploration of the Possibility of Eating and Sex in the Eschaton

V. Eating and Sex as an Expression of the Unity and Joy of the Communion of Saints

VI. Conclusion

Introduction

It seems developmentally appropriate to wonder at some point, “what if heaven is boring?”  I remember a friend bringing up the point in Junior high, and my 10 year old child asked me if this were possible not long ago.  Sometimes, when I am engaged with a nonbeliever on the topic of the afterlife they point out how lame the Christian vision of the heaven is.  I believe these worries stem from the same basic cultural image of heaven being a place of clouds, visionquiet passivity with the occasional soft music.  The criticism of the afterlife one often hears from the nonbeliever is either an elaborate delusional engagement of fantasy wish fulfillment al la Freud, or that it seems boring, given the lack of corporeal pleasure. The latter stems from the unchristian belief that humans only abide as spirits in heaven.

However humans do have glorified corporeal bodies in the fulfillment of the Eschaton.  Thus, though the more passive idea of the beatific vision is a spiritual way of understanding the pleasure of heaven, there must also be corporeal ways.  The purpose of this treatise is to speculate upon the corporeal end of heavenly pleasure, how they relate to the spiritual pleasure, and how they relate specifically to the communion of saints as a communion. 

We will begin by distinguishing between the two types of pleasure, those geared toward our relationship with God and those geared toward our relationship with the fellow saints.  We will draw out two specific physical pleasures that could be used as an enhancement of the communal pleasures between the saints, those being eating and sex.  Regarding eating and sex we will discuss how these two particular actions bring about social union in the communion of saints, how they may abide in the heavenly realm and how they may differ from our experience of them here on earth.

This treatise runs the danger of becoming a treatise tantamount to angels dancing on the heads of pins.  Thus it must be remembered that reflection on the Eschaton, or paradise for that matter, are not simply a theoretical exercise.  As we move through our topic, it is important to be cognisant of ways to understand our present condition is through contemplation of fulfillment and perfection.  Thus a key use of this treatise is to help us live our live in the here and now.

Two Types of Pleasure in Heaven

Our journey here will take us through an analysis of corporeal pleasures in heaven, but in order to fully appreciate how those pleasures are enjoyed we must first make some broad distinctions.  In contemplating the Christian religion at it’s most basic level, one way that it is often described is a series of relationships between the individual and God, between the individual and their neighbor and finally a proper self understanding, or the relationship to one’s self.  In the Christian faith, salvation is a state where all of these relationships are functioning properly and according to their purpose.  So as we begin to discuss pleasures in heaven we will distinguish between the pleasures one has according to the benefit of proper relationship with God and the pleasures one has according to the benefit of proper relationship with one’s neighbor.  These two benefits are distinguished by the difference between enjoyment of the beatific vision and enjoyment of participation in the communion of saints.  

The beatific vision is the immediate knowledge of God that heavenly beings enjoy due to direct and perfect relationship with God.  It is available to a saint even before the final judgment and bodily resurrection given that it is a spiritual joy and not a corporeal one.  Concerning the souls of the departed Pope Benedict XII states in Benedictus Deus 

 these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence. Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment. 

It is hard to say what the exact impact of this experience is upon the human soul.  It is not necessarily the acquisition of any sort of omniscience by the human concerning God or creation.  Yet there is obviously some great joy and pleasure derived here for the soul.  One can only speculate, but certainly a result of the beatific vision is proper self understanding.  That is, proper understanding of your relationship with God, and how to order your priorities a in a theocentric manner.  It would mean perfect knowledge and awareness of our place as creatures made in the image and likeness of God as well as simultaneously being aware of how much the greatness of God surpasses anything we can comprehend as created beings.

I also believe that the experience of the beatific vision will invest the soul with true Christian joy.  Joy is an elusive virtue.  It is not fleeting like happiness, but abiding.  It is not necessarily intense, but it is characterized by an interest or excitement about life fueled by gratitude for existence and in this case perfected by the beatific vision.

These spiritual pleasures in relation to God foster and allow for perfect pleasure as one is united in the communion of saints.  It is by perfect self understanding in how one relates to God and neighbor and true appreciation of life by means of the fruit of the spirit, joy, that one can experience the fullness of communal pleasure in heaven.  This is especially true in the Eschaton, after the final judgment and the resurrection of the body.          

The resurrection of the body and the remaking of a new heaven and a new Earth seems to change things from our assumed view of heaven.  Our assumed view is that disembodied spirits dwell in the presence of God and heaven is a very passive place of quiet contemplation.  However, the image in revelations is that of a new creation that is a perfect unification of all the disparate parts of reality that were alienated by sin such that all is truly one reality.  Thus at this point we inhabit our glorified bodies and we dwell in a heavenly city, Jerusalem.  In such an urban setting passivity is not the image imparted.  It seems that the resurrection of the body and the remaking of heaven and Earth changes the type of activity that goes on in heaven.  There seems to be a shift from the simple passive spiritual bliss involved in the beatific vision of God, to an added corporeal dynamic, which is asserted, but largely uncommented on in the scriptures.  The silence here is akin to the silence concerning the activity of paradise, perhaps as a dissuasion from treating such texts as a secular blueprint.      

In his Summa Thomas Aquinas talks in Part 3 Article 93 about the fact that the happiness of the saints is increased upon the resurrection of the body.  He couches that happiness in the sense of joy that the saint has at the integral completeness of their being, given that humans are meant to be comprised of bodies and spirits.  He states

It is manifest that the happiness of the saints will increase in extent after the resurrection, because 

their happiness will then be not only in the soul but also in the body. Moreover, the soul's happiness also will increase in extent, seeing that the soul will rejoice not only in its own good, but also in that of the body. We may also say that the soul's happiness will increase in intensity. For man's body may be considered in two ways: first, as being dependent on the soul for its completion; secondly, as containing something that hampers the soul in its operations, through the soul not perfectly completing the body. As regards the first way of considering the body, its union with the soul adds a certain perfection to the soul, since every part is imperfect, and is completed in its whole; wherefore the whole is to the part as form to matter. Consequently the soul is more perfect in its natural being, when it is in the whole---namely, man who results from the union of soul and body---than when it is a separate part. But as regards the second consideration the union of the body hampers the perfection of the soul, wherefore it is written (Wis. 9:15) that "the corruptible body is a load upon the soul." If, then, there be removed from the body all those things wherein it hampers the soul's action, the soul will be simply more perfect while existing in such a body than when separated therefrom. Now the more perfect a thing is in being, the more perfectly is it able to operate: wherefore the operation of the soul united to such a body will be more perfect than the operation of the separated soul. But the glorified body will be a body of this description, being altogether subject to the spirit. Therefore, since beatitude consists in an operation, the soul's happiness after its reunion with the body will be more perfect than before. For just as the soul separated from a corruptible body is able to operate more perfectly than when united thereto, so after it has been united to a glorified body, its operation will be more perfect than while it was separated. Now every imperfect thing desires its perfection. Hence the separated soul naturally desires reunion with the body and on account of this desire which proceeds from the soul's imperfection its operation whereby it is borne towards God is less intense. This agrees with the saying of Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35) that "on account of the body's desire it is held back from tending with all its might to that sovereign good."  

Aquinas formulates all of his speculations around spiritual joy and not a corporeal one because he sees the beatific vision (a spiritual joy) as the summation of joy. But summation is not completeness.  Whereas the love of God does order all other loves, it is not the only variety of love available in heaven.  The love of neighbor, as expressed in participation in the communion of saints, would also bring great joy and happiness.  It could be argued that the joys one receives from one’s relationship with God are all spiritual, yet the joys one receives when relating to one’s fellow humans in the communion of saints would be both spiritual and corporeal, given that our physical nature is part and parcel not only of who we are, but how we share ourselves with each other.  The physical communion of the saints is further bolstered by the fact that Thomas does believe, as is clear in the Summa P3 Q82 A3, that the risen have use of their senses.  

But Aquinas seems loathed to allow for simple physical pleasure as a reason for our physical bodies to be preserved.  Once one understands that the physical goodness experienced in the Eschaton is ordered by beatitude informed by the beatific vision, there should be no scandal in the fact that interhuman relations in the Eschaton, and the pleasures contained therein,  may differ from how one relates to God.  Even that is not quite right to say, given that Jesus is the light of the city of God and he abides corporeally, thus one encounters the Second Person of the Trinity corporeally.  Also, all divisions we see now as “real”, such as physical versus spiritual, will be experienced in the Eschaton according to true Christian ontology, that things are simple and manifold at the same time, physical and spiritual joys are both one reality and separate realities simultaneously.  In the Eschaton all is one and all are individuated.  

The pleasures that one garners from one’s relationship with God are primary and facilitate one’s pleasure as experienced in the communion of saints.  Yet it is part and parcel to humanity to enjoy the company of our fellow beings, so even though the fullness social pleasure may be dependent on proper beatitude given with the beatific vision, it should not be considered tentative or optional.  Christianity is not a religion that finds fulfillment in a solitary human existence.  The theme of companionship runs from the creation of Eve, “It is not good for man to be alone”, to Jesus’ choosing of his apostles, to the great assembly in revelations which sings the praises of God.  

The pleasure one derives from participation in the communion of saints manifest spiritually in as much as one enjoys the relationships one has with their fellow saints and physically in as much as one communicates with the fellow risen in corporeal form.  As was noted, the beatific vision will not necessarily grant omniscience to the saved.  Part of the great pleasure of companionship is the ever developing intimate knowledge between friends.  Learning about someone and the growth of intimacy is a part of companionship that humans, as temporal creatures, could enjoy in the afterlife.  As we stated, the self revealing of God in heaven is experienced as a calibrating effect, such that all humans can properly enjoy companionship with him, but it also calibrates us to properly enjoy company with each other.  In this view the fullness we experience from the beatific vision is not knowledge of facts, but virtue and beatitude.  This is complete humanity or anthro-authenticity but such authenticity does not preclude development in some ways.  One who experiences this could still garner the enjoyment of surprise, such as Jesus did regarding the centurion.  One could still enjoy the pleasure of getting to know one’s neighbors. 

Another pleasure that one enjoys as one abides in the communion of saints is the simple pleasure of unity, much like Thomas Aquinas describes concerning the pleasure of the final and perfect unity of the body and soul. As Psalm 133 says,

How good and how pleasant it is,

when brothers dwell together as one!

Like fine oil on the head,

running down upon the beard,

Upon the beard of Aaron,

upon the collar of his robe.

Like dew of Hermon coming down

upon the mountains of Zion. 

There the LORD has decreed a blessing,

life for evermore! 

This beautiful piece of poetry notes the joy of human unity, then connects it to the priestly office of Aaron.  That anointing allowed for the link between God and humanity through his priestly office.  The last stanza likens the unity of humanity to dew, which recalls to the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews.  A cloud is conceived of as one “thing” when they are observed floating across the sky, but they are actually made of countless individual droplets, which one experiences when they walk through a fog bank.  This simultaneous unity and distinctiveness is pervasive in Christian dogmas and doctrines and is part and parcel of how ancient Christianity interprets the world fundamentally.  

In the Eschaton humans can experience this unity in perfection and the psalm indicates the joy one feels in that experience.  The pleasure is derived from the experience of perfect knowledge concerning Christian ontology, that things are simultaneously simple and manifold at the same time, that we are many parts and one body.  This perfect relationship is also easily symbolized by music, hence the common image in the Christian world of heaven as a place of communal music, the singing of the choirs of angels and the saints.  That a cord is a collection of individual notes as well as a unified reality is often used as a metaphor for trinitarian existence, but trinitarian theology itself is should remind us that God as Trinity is not a unique experience of reality.  All of existence is simple and manifold at the same time in a multifaceted way spanning from subatomic particles to how the creation is one with the one true God as a unit.  Contained in that spectrum is Humanity as a unit and then simultaneously the individual humans.  That those humans find great pleasure in singing makes sense, especially in imagery for catechetical purposes, because the activity symbolises the experience of the unity as opposed to the cognitive awareness of it.  It is also moving spiritually, thus Thomas in his agreement of sensorial retention in the Eschaton, yet passive existence, may have simply pictured mostly singing the glories of God.  While this image is true to scenes from Revelations, in that book there is also the scene of the heavenly city we have discussed.  

   

Another spiritual pleasure that is manifest through corporeal existence one may enjoy by participation in the communion of saints is philia.  In this case philia would be the pleasurable experience of love as it is expressed in commonalities, especially common tasks or labors.  Heaven is not often pictured as a place of work, because it shatters our passive and completely spiritual image of heaven.  Absolute passive contemplation before the resurrection makes sense, but once we inhabit our glorified bodies, there could conceivably be “work” to be done.  The idea that work is incompatible with heavenly bliss is fostered by postlapsarian influence of “labor” as the punishment of sin.  But when one reviews the second creation story one realises that those punishments are alterations of the blissful jobs that Adam and Eve had in the garden.  To conceive of the possibility of blissful work, one only needs to turn to Genesis Chapter 2 and see that it was Adam's job to keep and care for the garden.  The labor may not have been as hard, given the ground was not cursed, and certainly his later concupiscent disposition made him view his labor as painful, but it appears that in the garden there was some kind of task to be done.  

It is possible that such work is present in the Eschaton as well.  It is possible that after bodily resurrection, there is bodily work that is perfectly existentially fulfilling, fruitful, and communally edifying.  The last one relates because without such a structure the philia would be lacking in the kingdom.  Philia is the least commented on variety of love, but it is a source of great pleasure.  The saint’s disposition toward God and individual neighbor would certainly be fundamentally agapic and driven by eros, especially regarding willful action.  Eros is most likely the driving variety for the experience of unity described above.  When it comes to whatever tasks may be done (possibilities will be commented upon below) philia would be the operative variety of love.  Short of any familial or cultural awareness that may be kept in the Eschaton, the expression of philia would almost require a common task in this situation.  And since the Eschaton is the fulfillment of love it stands to reason that all varieties would be able to be experienced appropriately according to their purpose in the state of salvation, just as in the state of original justice, so common corporeal labor may be the best expression for philia.  

 For the remainder of this treatise we will explore two particular ways that physical communication could be expressed as a means of pleasurable participation in communion of saints.  We will discuss the possibility and purpose of both eating and sexual activity in heaven.  First we will seek an understanding of why people react to the possibility of such activities in heaven with horror or disapproval and how such activities relate to both the concupiscent corruption of humanity as well as the modes of participation in the church that seek to mitigate that corruption.  Next we will explore whether or not these activities are possible in the Eschaton.  Lastly we will discuss why you would have such activities in heaven, how their existence in heaven could be indicated in the present world and the also how contemplation of their existence in heaven inform Christian expression in the present world.

Emotive Problems with Eating and Sex in the Eschaton 

Thomas Aquinas very bluntly states in his Summa Contra Gentiles, “from what has been set down it follows that among those who rise there will be no use of sexual activity or of food”. [SCG IV 83:1]  He derives his calculation from a logical process concerning the purposes of sex and eating.  For Aquinas, that everything is properly order toward its true end seems to be a major if not the criteria for eschatological retention.  If this is going to be one’s metric, then proper teleology is essential.  Yet Aquinas seems to be lacking quite a bit in his understanding of the purposes of both eating and sex.  His belief is that they are both sustainers of post lapsarian humanity and that this is their only purpose.  He extensively comments on eating as preservation of the body and sex as preservation of the species.  Both of these are needed given the introduction of death with the original sin of the first parents.  He does not comment on the possibility of these activities in paradise.  Aquinas briefly allows for contemplation of pleasure as an acceptable end yet quickly balks

Now, let one say that in those who rise there will be eating and sexual union, not for the preservation and growth of the body, nor for the preservation of the species and multiplication of men, but simply for the pleasure which there is in these acts, so that no pleasure will be lacking in man’s final reward: in many ways, indeed, is it clear that such is an awkward position. 

Is it?  Aquinas thinks so because he believes that the beatitude and felicity of man do not consist in bodily pleasures, and such are the pleasures of eating and of sexual union, so such things do not exist in heaven.  He also believes that “it is a disordered and vicious thing to use food and sex for mere pleasure” in the present life without the sustaining element involved.  Related to that is the fact that he cannot seem to imagine that the pleasures of eating and sexual activity could in anything but selfish.  And since beatitude is other focused these activities cannot exist in heaven.  But to enjoy a pleasure that is gifted by God is not an evil unless one does it without gratitude toward God.  That gratitude makes the pleasure other focused even if no other human is involved.

Aquinas has a painfully narrow view that calculates its teleological conclusion only through the lens of concupiscent corruption, and no such corruption exists in heaven.  Granted, our only view is through the lens of our own concupiscence, but his point of view is most likely reflective of the opinion of most consecrated and clerics because of their approach to the problem of concupiscence.  For a moment let's review the effects of concupiscence on sex and eating and see how the consecrated seek to mitigate this effect.

Both sexual activity and eating are linked with a particular capital sin (capital sins themselves being the best examples of concupiscence).  Eating is particularly linked to gluttony, the urge to possess and devour in overabundance out of fear of future parsity.  Most people only link gluttony to engorging pleasure, yet it is more likely primarily a rebellion against trust in God, that he will provide.  The purpose of food and eating is sustenance security and communal unity, but gluttony displays distrust, fear and self centeredness.  With the fall and the entrance of concupiscence there is a postlapsarian inversion.  This postlapsarian inversion is easiest seen in the nudity of Adam and Eve, proper and appropriate in paradise, and the nudity of Noah in Gen 9 which is improper after the fall. Or the fruitful tree of Life in Genesis becoming the dead wood of the cross in the gospels.  In the case of eating and sex the postlapsarian reversal manifests as the socially applicable opposite of the purpose.  The result of the Fall is death, thus the way eating abates death is on the opposite end of the human spectrum as its unifying purpose.  It communally binds and individually sustains.  In this individual nature of sustenance gluttony is more easily manifest as it ties food to an individual and therefore it more probably becomes a self centered activity.  It is only secondarily that gluttony is a problem of pleasure, and that comes in the consummation of food and its enjoyment without gratitude.  Gluttony is a far more serious spiritual danger than most are willing to admit in this day and age.

Lust is the capital sin that particularly relates to sexual activity.  Once again the problem is not pleasure in and of itself.  The pleasure of sex is a completely good thing if one expresses proper beatitude toward the appropriate partner and maintains the gratitude one owes to God for all his gifts.  The fundamental problem of lust is objectification of the other.  Sex is supposed to be one of the great unifiers as well as the multiplier human beings.  Once again there is a postlapsarian inversion, the sin manifests as opposite of the purpose.  In an objectifying relationship the procreative aspect of sexuality is ignored and instead of the unity of interpersonal being, one being treats the other as an alienated object of pleasure and/or subjugation.  Again, the result of the Fall is death, the way sex abates death is on the opposite end of the human spectrum as its unifying purpose.  It individually binds and communally sustains.

As we shall see in what follows these two activities are extremely special, necessary, and important for humanity.  It is not surprising that of the capital sins all are very generally applicable to any action with the exception of the two dealing with sex and eating.  Because these varieties of concupiscence are operative in us, we tend to think of the actions themselves as somehow wrong, and it becomes hard to imagine that they would exist in heaven.  Added to this is another problem.  Since the concupiscence is operative, if we do allow ourselves to imagine or dare fantasize that these activities are in heaven, our fantasies are almost uniformly informed by our concupiscence.  We can eat and have sex according to our wildest, concupiscent, desires.  If this is one’s only view of these activities in heaven, then doubtless a spiritually mature person would calculate to deny their existence in heaven.      

In the Catholic church there have been two paths sculpted by the spirit to deal with these problems of concupiscence, particularly concerning lust and gluttony.  The first path was taken by Thomas Aquinas, and once one realizes how his path biases him, it becomes clear why he condemns the way he does.  His path was that of consecrated life, living in a community that sets itself aside to live according to a rule.  The purpose of a rule in a consecrated community is to introduce, to the best of the ability of the community, the kingdom of God in this world by means of communal living.  Consecrated communities seek to live the Eschaton now.  It does make sense that given this, the commonalities they have would somehow be indicative of the Eschaton and one commonality they all share is that they are sexless eschatologically based communities.  Their methodology has traditionally been to deny and withdraw from this world as they look to the future Eschaton.  Thus they seek to mitigate the effect of original sin by self mastery through disciplined denial.  These communities abide as same sex vowed relationships, and do not practice sexual activity.  Traditionally they have also been very restrictive of their eating habits, taking as little as is necessary.  In these latter days this has been less the case, I believe because of the ignorance of gluttony as a major and dangerous manifestation of concupiscence.

Given the default methodology of self denial and focus on spiritual contemplation in consecrated life, it makes sense that Aquinas would not be able to fathom how sex and eating could exist in the Eschaton.  It must be a place of quiet passive contemplation which is a perfect realization of the way he chose to live.  After all, his way of living is based on the eschatological principle.  But there is another path.

The second path is fundamentally sacramental and seeks engagement in the world as opposed to denial and retreat.  Such a view seeks to actualize the good that was proclaimed in creation from the beginning in Genesis 1.  This is of course particularly represented in the two sacraments that relate to our subject matter, marriage and eucharist.

Those engaged in consecrated life do not engage in sex, so they do not engage in marriage.  Given their tact of self denial one could speculate that in former times they would have denied themselves food if they could, but that is impossible for any human.  Thus those in consecrated life do participate in the sacrament of the eucharist, where God is present in food.  The answer to the problem of concupiscence in a sacral worldview is sacred rituals targeted at the problem, in this case a sacred meal, where God and man become one by consumption and subsequent sustenance.   

In marriage, the sacrament comes in the form of a sacral relationship that one lives.  One of the necessary interhuman communications for the validity of this sacrament is sacred sexual activity.  For it’s model marriage does not look forward to the Eschaton, but back to Paradise, two people in perfect communion.  This is a picture of active engagement in the world.  Since it is regressive it makes sense that one could argue that it is the “wrong way” to assess the Eschaton, however this may not be the case.  The question is what is human fulfillment and perfection.  Our understanding of both Paradise and the Eschaton have clues for us to ponder, and the two end points may not be that different when it comes down to it. In the last chapter of the Bible Jesus states, “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’  Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates.”  It sees from this quote that both the beginning and the end are somehow active in the unified reality of the Eschaton, and whichever path you choose there will be recompense according to your deeds.

Moreover, despite whichever model we may choose to live, neither marriage nor consecration actually embody what they seek to emulate.  That would be impossible given our fallen nature.  Marriage takes a sacramental view, and though the rituals of the sacraments will pass in the Eschaton, we shall discuss how analysis of the sacraments can be helpful for eschatological prognostication.  In the living of each sacrament, the active participation is a practice in the reception of grace through the physical objects and acts.  The sacred ritual trains and shapes one for the proper use of and disposition toward physical creation.  Since in the Eschaton, physical creation is present, there are lessons to be learned.  Denying aspects of that creation as a matter of disciplined spiritual training is useful right now, much like formal rituals for encountering grace through physical reality are useful.  In the Eschaton both of these training techniques will have outlived their usefulness, though the end purpose of the training will not. 

For the remainder of this treatise we will discuss how calculating eschatological retention using the understanding the sacramental view balances the consecrated view in that it helps one recognize the types of activities that may go on in that very active and solidly corporeal city of the heavenly Jerusalem.  We shall explore the possibility of two basic human activities, eating and sexual activity.  We shall then conclude with some reflection on why these activities warrant retention in the Eschaton    

Exploration of the Possibility of Eating and Sex in the Eschaton

We discussed earlier how both eating and sexual activity relate to the introduction of original sin by the first parents and to how Thomas Aquinas calculates eschatological retention.  His calculation is almost exclusively teleological.  Every time he speaks of a quality of the afterlife his reference point is its purpose.  Yet as we noted, sometimes he seems to lack some key elements of the purpose of creation that we now take for granted.  Given that, we may need to revisit his strong assertion that, “from what has been set down it follows that among those who rise there will be no use of sexual activity or of food”. 

Salvation is perfect love of God and neighbor.  In Paradise, the other great narrative of anthro-authenticity, it is asserted by divine decree that, it is not good for man to be alone.”  Aquinas’s rejection of both eating and sex revolve around the biological nature of both activities and how these activities developed as part of postlapsarian existence.  If that development tantamount to the development of the activity, it stands to reason that such activities would pass away.  For example, given the impassibility of the glorified body, there will be no need of the practice of healing.  There was no sickness in Paradise and this art arose completely due to sickness, and will not be needed in the Eschaton.  However, as we noted, the first parents did seem to eat in Paradise.  It is probable, given the word “intensify” in Genesis 3:16, that there was sexual activity in heaven.  This evidence is compounded by the teleological proclamation of the narrator after Adam's poem of glory to God and Eve after her creation in Genesis 2.  Sine the “reason” for sexual activity predates the fall, it must be an inherent good.  Neither of these activities arose strictly because of the entrance of original sin into creation.  So it stands that there is at least a possibility that they will be present in the Eschaton.  Indeed anything created “good” in the beginning, and since, will be retained and perfected.

What we will see upon analysis of each of these activities is that they both possess a biological function and a unitive function.  It is the assertion of this treatise that though the sustaining factors of the bio-function will pass in the Eschaton, the unitive factors will still be in play as one of the unative binding agents of the communion of saints.

Again, the only evidence we need for eschatological retention is a fundamental goodness of the target aspect of creation.  But it may help to go point by point over some evidence for both eating and sexual activity since these have been biased against for some time.

To provide evidence that there is eating in heaven is much easier than to provide evidence for sexual activity.  First and foremost, Jesus in his glorified body ate with the apostles.  In the Summa Contra Gentiles Aquinas states,

With regard to Christ, however, we ought to say that He ate after the resurrection not out of necessity, but to establish the truth of His resurrection. Hence, that food of His was not changed into flesh, but returned to the prior material state. But there will be no such reason for eating in the general resurrection.

I agree that there will be “no such reason”, but our argument is that there may be important reasons otherwise.  Eating is not only bio-functional, but plays a very important social role for humanity.  Though it is the mode of individual sustenance, it plays a key role in communal unity when engaged in properly.  More than any other social ritual, this thing activity is integral to human life, thus it’s primal emotive associations for survival carry over even into a civilization where scarcity is less an issue.  Even in modern times who is invited to dinner, where people sit at dinner and even who is served what are all indicators of both position and relationship.  If one doubts this, one need only go to a political fundraiser to witness the importance of each factor.  On a more intimate level if a suitor inquires concerning plans to pay for a dinner out, the receiving party could decline.  If eating were only a matter of bio-function, why would anyone ever decline?  But there is so much more at stake.  To say yes indicates some sort of connectedness that the intended is not willing to invest in.  That such a rejection could carry psycho-spiritual upset for the suitor is also indicative of deeper meaning behind food.  

All of this is so well documented in the Bible that it would be nothing short of overkill to compile an exhaustive list here simply for the purpose evidence.  A few examples will suffice.  First is the obvious inclusion of the three visitors by Abraham and the subsequent two by Lot in Genesis.  In these stories food is a means of hospitality and a way to offer comfort and joy while sharing time together.  Abraham extends that joy and protection as does Lot, though the city of Sodom does not.  In this passage, there is a pattern established where humans witnesses God and then come together in a meal.  Abraham gets a revelation from God concerning his wife and his future Son. In this story one can begin to see how both food and sex are fundamentally related given the prediction.  The flip of that is the Lot story, where a meal is offered by the few just people in the story, but they do not listen to the angel’s commands concerning where to go out of fear because they equate God’s revelation of his Justice a sense of God’s wrath.  The resulting sexual activity becomes a scandal and the resulting progeny becomes a problem for Israel in the future. 

Another perfect example of this pattern is the Exodus and passover itself.  Where the Hebrews have seen the mighty works of God and come together at a key moment for a sacred meal.  Closely connected to this is when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the other seventy witnessed God on the mountain and ate and drank in Exodus 24.

Indeed, the entirety of the levitical sacrificial system is a means by which one recognises God and then shares a sacred meal with one’s neighbors.  This of course foreshadows the meal Jesus had with the twelve from which we get perfect communion in the mass.  In this sacred bread we get a foretaste of the Eschaton where eating brings us together with God and our neighbor.   The pattern seems to anagogically foreshadow the witness of God in the beatific vision after death, then sharing a meal after bodily resurrection.  Since there is a great good that relates to eating, social unity, that seems intrinsically human, and not just the result of The Fall, it stands to reason that Heaven imaged as a banquet may not simply be metaphorical, but literal as well. 

The image of heaven as a banquet is a popular image both in art and in the Bible, but there exist no such image of heaven as a place of sexual gratification in the Christian tradition.  Indeed biblically one may argue that it is obvious that there is no sex in heaven because there is no marriage.  “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” (Mt 22:30)  As was discussed in the treatise Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention this applies to marriage but not to gender or bio-sex.  Both Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine argue that there is something essential and good contained in corporeal bio-sex that is retained in the Eschaton.  Could it be that this denial does not apply to sexual activity either? This is what we shall explore for the remainder of this section.   

Already one can see the correlation between sex and eating.  Both have bio-functions that seem to be the result of original sin.  Both have unitive functions that bind humans together in intense ways.  Like eating, the unitive function of sexual activity works on the flip side of its bio-function.  Sex sustains the community, but unifies by pairs.  It was Saint Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century who was the first to be adamant that there were two equal and intertwined purposes to sexual activity, procreation and union of the couple.  This dual purpose is something that Aquinas did not hold, possibly because doctrine had not developed to this point yet.  But since Liguori there has been a steady and strengthening assertion that both of these purposes are deeply fundamental to what it means to be a human and engage in sexual activity.  One sees Liguori's stance bolstered by both Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae, where Paul VI states

         

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Both of these documents make a strong point concerning the inseparable connection between the two purposes of sexual activity.  This seems to bolster’s Aquinas’ view that “there will be no use for  . . . sex in heaven” since both will not be present.  But in his Theology of the Body Saint John Paul II reminds us that the Eschaton is a new reality, a new age.  As will be discussed in the next section, the sacraments as such will pass away, there will be no further generation, yet there will be corporeal humans.  When one reads the quote above one will note a curious qualification concerning this inseparable connection that is, “established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break”.  Paul VI does not wish to limit God’s ability to separate the dual purpose.  That is a very important point, because it opens one up to the understanding that all of the pronouncements and dogmas of the church concerning this inseparability are geared to paradisiacal and postlapsarian humanity, and not glorified humanity.  Gaudium et Spes is written for Christianity now, not after redemption.  At the point of glorification there may be no procreative use for sex in the Kingdom, as Aquinas so skillfully points out, but there may still be active, communicative and ecstatic use or even requirement for sexual activity, and Paul VI passively allows for that possibility.  That passivity is understandable given the formerly discussed tendency to indulge in unhealthy fantasies about what a mind that is overthrown by concupiscence may want heaven to be, but never the less, the possibility, I dare say probability, remains.  Each purpose is equal and intertwined as we experience them now.  But if one were “more fundamental” it could easily be assumed to be unity.  There seems to be moral scandal if a child is born out of wedlock.  In such a case the Church would have much to say about the impropriety of the parents sexual activity, even though it bore fruit and expressed the procreative purpose.  However, the church continually asserts that a marriage that never bears the fruit of children is a fully functioning sacramental vocation and the sacred sex involved therein is validated by its unitive function.  Given that possible supremacy, it stands to reason that sex as a unifier would survive the glorification process, through procreation will not.          

Dr. Peter Kreeft is one of the few people online who has taken this topic head on and formulated an argument for the possibility for sexual activity in heaven in his article Is There Sex in Heaven?  He makes the basic argument that has been pointed out here.  He begins by reminding the reader that there is gender and bio-sex in heaven.  Dr. Kreeft points out that sex is more a spiritual reality than a physical one and it’s manifestations in humanity as spiritual, bio-diversifying and active realities are reflective of the structure of the cosmos at large.  He goes on to state,

In the most important and obvious sense there is certainly sex in Heaven simply because there are human beings in Heaven. As we have seen, sexuality, like race and unlike clothes, is an essential aspect of our identity, spiritual as well as physical. Even if sex were not spiritual, there would be sex in Heaven because of the resurrection of the body. 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, in splendor and glory and overflow of generous superfluity.

But is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? If we have bodily sex organs, what do we use them for there? Not baby-making. Earth is the breeding colony; Heaven is the homeland.  Not marriage. Christ's words to the Sadducees are quite clear about that. It is in regard to marriage that we are "like the angels". (Note that it is not said that we are like the angels in any other ways, such as lacking physical bodies.)

Might there be another function in which baby-making and marriage are swallowed up and transformed, aufgehoben? Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. Heaven neither simply removes nor simply continues earthly things. If we apply this principle to sexual intercourse, we get the conclusion that 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—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. 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. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. 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.

The basic argument presented is that there is a true eschatological meaning present in the sexual act.  Heaven is not a simply a spiritual or passive place, but is corporeal and active.  Once again, the passive image comes from the over focus of the saints as they abide now, previous to the resurrection, enjoying the beatific vision.  It makes sense that we main imagine heaven this way, given that this is how our relationship to the saints takes place, we on earth, they disembodied in heaven.  As we seek their intercession, this is our image.  But in the future we will all relate in a matrix that is the perfected continuation of the one we are in now.

It seems that both eating and sex are probabilities in the Kingdom.  They are activities that foster unity and joy in relation to the Communion of Saints.  From this point on we shall further explore particularly how they are expressions of these.  This will allow for good spiritual fodder as we train here and now for what is to come in the end.  We will start by drawing out the relationship between eating sex and the sacraments.  We will discuss what it means that the sacraments are not present in the Kingdom of God.  Then we will the go on to explore in greater detail the effects of the retained purposes of both eating and sex in the Eschaton as a communication system, an actualizer of unity, and mode of  pleasure concerning the Communion of Saints.  

Eating and Sex as an Expression of the Unity and Joy of the Communion of Saints

Previously we discussed how each of our activities, eating and sex, are fundamental to human existence, expression, and unity.  This is evidenced by their existence in Paradise.  It is because of their fundamental nature that these particular actions are targeted specifically as actions by concupiscence.  This targeting is manifest as two particular deadly sins lust and gluttony, whereas the other five capital sins are dispositions and not relate so strongly to specific actions.  It is also because of their fundamental nature and the subsequent attack upon them that they are specifically represented among the sacraments as the outward sign in marriage and the eucharist.  Eating and sex are present among both the capital sins and the sacraments.  This may indicate that there is some sort of particular importance for humanity connected to these activities and some sort of particular rectification that needs to take place in order for fulfillment to be reached in the Eschaton.  

It is fairly common knowledge that in the Eschaton there will be no need of the sacraments as such.  The Catechism states in article 1152         

Since Pentecost, it is through the sacramental signs of his Church that the Holy Spirit carries on the work of sanctification. The sacraments of the Church do not abolish but purify and integrate all the richness of the signs and symbols of the cosmos and of social life. Further, they fulfill the types and figures of the Old Covenant, signify and make actively present the salvation wrought by Christ, and prefigure and anticipate the glory of heaven.

Their relation to the Eschaton is one of prefiguration and anticipation, hence their absence therein.  But that does mean that something “of them” does carry over into heaven.  The sacraments are here in one respect to cue us into the sacramental nature of reality, which is already present.  They are here to heal and train us such that we can see this sacramental nature not just in the rituals, but also carry that vision to all of reality.  In the Eschaton all of reality will be self evident to the saved as “the” sacrament.  There will be no need for seven specific set apart rituals any longer.  But the departure of the sacramental rituals does not mean that any semblance is gone.  The anticipatory and prefigurative nature reminds us that they are not lost, but fulfilled in the end.       

One simple way this can be seen is that three of the sacraments carry some manner of “indelible mark” that lasts into the Eschaton.  Article 1121 states

Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or seal by which the Christian shares in Christ's priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

The belief is that this mark lasts into the Eschaton where, even though the structures and rituals of the sacraments have passed, something of them remains.  Indeed each of the seven sacraments most likely carries over into the Eschaton in some manner or another.  For example the sacraments of healing, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick, also carry over in that they are signs of the struggles we have gone through to attain and accept the grace of God.  Their mark on us is compassion, a virtue that would have been impossible in Paradise.  The trauma and suffering we go through here remains marked on us as well, as was made evident by Christ’s glorified retention of his wounds, a point we discussed in  Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention.  The healing sacraments also pass over in their ability to give a nuanced sense of the Awe of God by his ability to heal, rectify and show glory through weakness.  This variety of awe would also have been inconceivable in Paradise.

Eating and sex are fundamental to humanity, thus the actions associated with the sacraments would naturally retain in the Eschaton to the full purpose God had originally intended.  So though marriage and Eucharist may formally pass, social communion (both between God and neighbor) and individual intensely binding relationships will not.  These two sacraments teach us what the intensity of binding to a community and binding to an individual can be.  They confer the grace to be able to commune with God and the church, and to bind together as one with one’s specific neighbor.  Thus in the Eschaton what is now “sacred”, that is “set aside” for specific purposes, becomes simple day to day reality.  Whereas in the present time, sacred conveyors of grace are necessary, in the Eschaton the cosmos in toto self evidently functions as the conveyor.  Sacred meals become simple meals, every time we share a meal it will be eucharist.  Sacred sex becomes simple sex, every time we have sex it will be effectively binding.  As we shall explore these communication systems are powerful and there is still a need in the Eschaton for union and communion on the individual and communal level.  Thus these communication systems may have a part to play.

All that being said, this does not preclude the possibility of a mutual symbiosis between the sexually active and the celibate in the Eschaton.  Celibacy obviously has a part to play in Christian spirituality.  There are three example of Anthro-Authentic people in history, two were sexual partners and one was a celibate.  In his Address 78 concerning Theology of the Body: Marriage and Countenance Complement Each Other, Saint John Paul II assures us 

Marriage and continence are neither opposed to each other, nor do they divide the human (and Christian) community into two camps (let us say, those who are "perfect" because of continence and those who are "imperfect" or "less perfect" because of the reality of married life). But as it is often said, these two basic situations, these two "states," in a certain sense explain and complete each other as regards the existence and Christian life of this community. In its entirety and in each of its members this is fulfilled in the dimension of the kingdom of God and has an eschatological orientation, which is precisely of that kingdom. 

It only makes sense that these two ways of abiding would both be present.  Different people communicate in different ways.  Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and thus the Eschaton will present the perfection of both the beginning and the fulfillment.  But it is assumed that there will be countenance in heaven, so we will proceed with our illustration of both sexual activity and eating in the Kingdom. 

That the ritual action of the sacraments, as a specific conveyer of grace, will pass away in the Eschaton is obvious, but a further inquiry given this is, will exclusivity pass away?  This is a specific query concerning sexual activity especially, but it is not irrelevant to food and eating, so we may begin there.  

Who is excluded at table has always been a social indicator.  The Chosen People were given a Law by God that set them apart as sacred among the nations.  Part of that Law forbade them to intermarry with Gentiles, and subsequent interpretations of that Law extended it to not eating food prepared by gentiles, a fascinating expansion given the scope of this treatise.  Another factor concerning the resistance to “mixing table” also had to do with food not being allowable because it may have been prepared improperly according to Jewish  law or part of a sacrifice to an Idol, which would be illicit for Jewish consumption.  The Jewish attitude was generally one of an over abundance of caution.  Hence there are examples of Jewish people in the Old Testament not mixing table with gentiles such as Daniel Judith and Esther.  

This concern of dietary restriction carried over into early Christianity, where there was restriction on eating meat sacrificed to idols, which would have made meat consumption more difficult in urban butcheries, where all of the meat presumably would have been the result of such sacrifices.  It also would have made it difficult to dine with a non-believer in the same way it would be difficult for Jews to do such dining.  Exclusive dining, sets one apart, and allows for a specific communication system between those included.  This type of communication lasts up until today in Catholicism.  We do not allow others to share our sacred meal, it is exclusive to those who are baptised and practicing the Catholic faith.  

Even though our sacred meal is exclusive there are a host of ways that Catholics eat with others.  Any time there is interreligious dialogue, you can wager there will be a meal.  Catholics are not forbidden to simply eat with others because our concern for food is not point by point regarding its preparation or content.  We may eat with whomever we choose.  And in those meals there is effective communication and union as well, but on a different level.  In the Eschaton all distinctions will pass, food would be a conveyor of perfect communion to all who eat it every time.  Thus the sacred and profane distinction will collapse and the activity will be perfectly realized for its eschatological purpose.

In much the same way marriage is an exclusive endeavor.  It involves sacred sexual activities that one does not share with others.  It is not a communal activity on a mass scale, but on an individual one.  Thus the exclusivity is one on one and diadinal for this action.  But similarly, there is an entire network of sexual communication that is communal and not exclusive.  If one goes with a Freudian definition of sexual activity, almost any physical communication is sexual.  Certainly most physical communication between people of the opposite sex is sexually laden.  These type of sexual activities are expansive and not exclusionary, much the same way that we as Catholics can eat meals in unitive ways with non believers.  It is the sacred actions that are exclusive.

But in the Eschaton, the idea of the sacred, or set aside, is defunct.  So it stands to reason that if there is communion in eating, all eating is communion and not a set ritual.  Also all are saved and all can partake, there is no more exclusion, thus there is no more “sacrament” as we would define it now.  This line of thinking is non controversial when discussing food and eating in heaven.  It is when it is applied to sex that it becomes suspect to some.  But sexualtiy is fundamental to humans as Dr. Kreeft and former treatises here take pains to point out.  So with the rising of the body, and manifold forms of corporeal communication between members of the opposite sex, it stands to reason that there would be at the very least some sort of sexual communication and communion.  Why would we retain our bio-sex and not the communication forms of self giving that they are constructed to utilize according to Saint John Paul II.  This could be as broad and general and “non-intimate” sexual activity.  But, as Dr. Kreeft says, “If we have bodily sex organs, what do we use them for there?” 

Dr. Kreeft ends the above quote saying, “The relationship need not be confined to one [person] in Heaven. 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.”  This raises the question of “unnatural” sexual relations, but in his article he asserts that sex would need to be between men and women.  With regards to other problems such as close family etc. Dr. Kreeft speculates that there are compatible sexual souls for whom it would be appropriate to have sex with.  His assumption, evident in the above quote, is that there will be many partners and this will not be a moral problem.  

  The possibility of souls that are compatible for sexual activity in the Eschaton does link up with our present condition in an interesting way.  People are attracted to certain people and not others.  Those attractions are not uniform across humanity, but specific to the individual.  Though our current attractions may be tainted by original sin, in his Theology of the Body (40), Saint John Paul II points out that attraction is not lust, where he states, “The perennial call, which we have tried to analyze following Genesis (especially Gn 2:23-25) and, in a certain sense, the perennial mutual attraction on man's part to femininity and on woman's part to masculinity, is an indirect invitation of the body. But it is not lust in the sense of the word in Matthew 5:27-28.”  Unfortunately the pontiff does not continue with a development of the virtue, meaning, and goodness of attraction.  He assumes it is indirect, but gives no evidence as to why.  Instead, typical of his homilies in the series, once he has pointed out the good nature of a sexual aspect he goes on at great length and erudition commenting on how it has been corrupted by concupiscence.  Perhaps it is not an “indirect innovation”, but in the perfection of the Eschaton, a method for finding one’s sexually compatible partners.     

   Dr. Kreeft gives no traditional or biblical reference for his speculation concerning sexual souls, which would be helpful.  It is one interesting possibility, but I would also like to explore another.  In the Orthodox Church marriage is seen as an eternal union.  For the Orthodox Christian, the marriage service (wedding) is the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, a created image of God's love which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.  This view sees the loving bond that binds the two as a true reflection of God’s love that survives the glorification process.  

This possibility is detectable in Catholic theology as well.  For example, in article 1639 the catechism quotes Gaudium Et Spes in reaffirming that “authentic married love is caught up into divine love.” But the survival of marriage into the afterlife is not a general Catholic belief.  The Catholic vows asserts till death do you part and most people take this to mean that what “no man can put asunder” God does upon death, much like I assumed that God may separate out the purposes of sexuality and dispense with one in the Eschaton.  But the complete destruction of the marital relationship upon death is not the only available interpretation, it is possible that this vow is compatible with the orthodox view.  Everyone parts at death to be reunited in the Eschaton.  In that situation, love is complete and all are one, but that does not preclude specific relationships with specific people.  Jesus certainly maintain particular relationships in the Eschaton with his twelve friends who have specific tasks.  It may not be problematic that people are all bound by divine and all encompassing love that expresses at different levels of community as well as individual relationships.  It may be that the specific kind of bond formed in marriage remains in the Eschaton where all love if fulfilled. One could speculate that this point of view provided ground for the belief that a wife is saved only if her husband is.  This older belief justly has not survived to in these latter days, but it is still common to hold that the job of spouses is to work for each other's salvation, and that implies a soteriological and therefore eschatological connection.

  Theodore Balsamon, the 12th century Patriarch of Antioch says, "we believe and confess that the spouses are on account of the marriage, reckoned to be one humanity having more or less the same soul, which is perceived in two hypostases."  Some will point to Matthew 22, “ For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”  But that is not necessarily incompatible with Balsamon's assertion if Jesus were referring to 1) whether people engage actively in the sacrament (ie. create a new specific binding) in the Eschaton, that is they were being bound in the Eschaton and not here. Or 2) that Jesus was referring to the give and take of levirate marriage under levitical Law, which is not sacramentally explained, but a concern for the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying regarding the dead husband.  Notice, in this levitical law the original marriage is the focal point, given that the point is to create offspring for the dead husband so that his name will not perish.  Each of the successive liverite bindings have to do with preserving the essence of the first.  This seems to indicate hint the way marriage binds beyond biology.    

Each of these points of view concerning who we have sex with in the Eschaton are highly speculative.  Either way there is something fundamental to sexual activity, up to and including sexual intercourse that seems to warrant eschatological retention.  

The postlapsarian inversion of both eating and sex ties the sustaining labor of them to the punishments of the laborious tilling and making of bread and painful childbirth in order to to stave off death.  But the fundamental meaning of the actions as goodness accorded to original justice in paradise seems to be the unitive function.  This is why Aquinas is correct when he attack these activities on bio-sustaining as well as concupiscent grounds.  But as a Church, we fail to extol the unitive functions because most of the commentary on these actions is done by consecrated who take the path of denial and self mastery out of fear of concupiscence as opposed to the sacraly invested married laity who engage the goodness of creation. Once one makes the connection of the bio-functions to the inversion of postlapsarian existence, one better sees how the unity is the goodness of original justice and those warrants retention in the Eschaton.  Further, once retained, the purpose and function of sexual activity is explicitly unitive through three modalities, communication, pleasure and actualizing bond. We will proceed to discuss each of these.

With regards to each of our activities, sex and eating, it is manifestly obvious that the bio-sustaining functions will cease. As Aquinas points out eating is for individual sustenance and sex is for communal sustenance.  Since in the Eschaton all is sustained by the glorified body’s quality of impassibility, there will be no need for either nourishment or reproduction in the Eschaton.   

What remains is the unifying factor of each activity, which seems part and parcel of human nature and a mode by which one is bound to the Communion of Saints in the Eschaton, the individual sustainer, eating, being communal unifyer and the common sustainor, sex, being an individual unifier.  We will now discuss this unity in two ways, as communication system and as an effective unifyer.  

Eating and sex are both extremely intricate corporeal communication systems.  The groundwork concerning nature of this communication has already been laid out above.  As Saint John Paul II states in homily 12 of Theology of the Body, 

In our conventional language, the concept of communication has been practically alienated from its deepest, original semantic matrix. It is connected mainly with the sphere of the media, that is, for the most part, products that serve for understanding, exchange, and bringing closer together. On the other hand, it can be supposed that, in its original and deeper meaning, communication was and is directly connected with subjects. They communicate precisely on the basis of the common union that exists between them, both to reach and to express a reality that is peculiar and pertinent only to the sphere of person-subjects.

In this way, the human body acquires a completely new meaning, which cannot be placed on the plane of the remaining "external" perception of the world. It expresses the person in his ontological and existential concreteness, which is something more than the individual. Therefore the body expresses the personal human "self," which derives its exterior perception from within.

The quote reminds us that authentic communication binds together at the deepest level through corporeal communication.  As we stated, in the Eschaton bio-functions pass away, but unitive functions remain.  For our purposes we will distinguish between a more individuated corporeal communication between two particular people which happens by means of sexual communication and a wider social corporeal communication that happens by means of eating and dining.  Each of these fosters unity through communication in it’s own way. 

Regarding eating it could be as simple as knowing that the beloved disciple is beloved by the fact that he sits next to The Lord at the last supper and is able to place his head on his chest.  A more elaborate example is the account of how Joseph tested his brother using this communication system in Genesis chapter 43.  Joseph had been sold into slavery by his brothers who were jealous of him because he was his father’s favorite.  Joseph was the second youngest son of Jacob, but happened to be the oldest son of his favorite wife, Rebecca, giving him a status in his father's eyes that warranted special cloths and and enrollment as a spy concerning his brother’s misdeeds.  The older brothers understandably held resentment.  At this point in the story the brothers have brought Benjamin, the only remaining son of Rebecca, to Egypt to be seen by Joseph, AKA Zaphenath-paneah mighty the Egyptian lord.  One of Joseph's several cleverly devised tests was to invite the brothers to his house and serve them dinner. Verses 33 and 34 state, 

When they were seated before him according to their age, from the oldest to the youngest, they looked at one another in amazement;  and as portions were brought to them from Joseph’s table, Benjamin’s portion was five times as large as anyone else’s. So they drank freely and made merry with him.                  

In this portion of the testing, Jospeh wants to see if they will be jealous of their younger brother for the same reasons that they were jealous of him.  Thus he arranges the brothers by importance according to age.  Joseph does this on purpose in order to demonstrate that his next action is not haphazard. If that hierarchy were taken for granted by Jacob then they would have been favored over Joseph from the very beginning.  Since Jacob judged his sons by a different standard, that of according to rank of spouse as opposed to simple birth order, they were resentful.  They are initially surprised because they are arranged so well by order of importance, by someone who supposedly wouldn’t know them quite well enough to discern their rank in the family.   Next Joseph switches the hierarchical assessment by means of food portion.  He gives the youngest and only surviving son of Rebecca, the favored wife, an exceedingly large portion in order to demonstrate favoritism and elicit any latent jealousy in order to know whether or not things had changed with his brothers.  As is seen by the last line, and their passing of all other tests, they have reformed.

The use of table position is one way that people communicate by eating, and what is served and how it is served is another.  Another way food and dining is used as a communication system is by who is invited period.  You can see how Jesus’ detractors express concerns about who he dines with and the implications therein.  You can also see Jesus’ opinions on this reflected in his parables, especially in an extended commentary on appropriate dining in Luke chapter 14.  It begins with Jesus noticing how each person is trying to get a spot that reflects respect and honor.  He then gives his famous advice, “when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, ‘My friend, move up to a higher position.’ Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”  He goes on to the give advice to the host, to invite those who cannot repay him.  Meals are to communicate inclusivity, self giving and beatitude.  The point of dining according to Jesus is to express inclusive unity and beatitude. 

It is at this point that “One of his fellow guests on hearing this said to him, “Blessed is the one who will dine in the kingdom of God.” Jesus does not respond by saying that there will be “no use for eating or sex in the kingdom of heaven.”  Instead he glosses the speaker's statement by offering a picture of the communication system entailed in a banquet.  Some are invited and refuse to come.  This is communicates great insult to the host.  The host then offers the banquet to all and whoever responds with gracious appearance is allowed in, communicating universal acceptance by the host.

Regarding Sex as a corporeal communication system one need look no further that the scope and purpose of Saint John Paul II Theology of the Body.  The entire corpus is meant to demonstrate how, by methods of natural law and scriptural interpretation, one can come to understand marriage and sexuality as a divinely designed communication system that reveals both God as well as one individual to another.  In homily 20 the pontiff states,  

becoming "one flesh," the man and the woman experience in a particular way the meaning of their body. In this way, together they become almost the one subject of that act and that experience, while remaining, in this unity, two really different subjects. In a way, this authorizes the statement that "the husband knows his wife" or that both "know" each other. Then they reveal themselves to each other, with that specific depth of their own human self.

The pontiff set out to give a positive and affirming assessment of marriage and sexuality.  As was noted above, he often has a hard time remaining positive, and frequently sidetracks into long reflections on the effects of original sin and the value of celibacy.  But this quote is one of the frequent gems one stumbles upon, where he stays true to the purpose.  From it one can most certainly see that the pontiff understands sexuality as a communication system that results in unity of the couple.  In dining, what is communicated is social order.  In sex what is communicated is the deepest meaning and sharing of self.  When interpreting the second chapter of Genesis, the pontiff hones in on the word “know” in the biblical sense in order to get this across.  Communication can be partially defined as exchange of knowledge, and in both the Bible and Theology of the Body, sexual activity is synonymous with sharing knowledge.  The communication here, as in dining, also happens by means of position(s) of the body, thus the need for corporeal existence in order to communicate this way.  Once again, the likely reason it is just assumed that there will be no eating or sex in heaven is the unchristian view that we have no bodies there.  But to envision abidance in the Eschaton corporeally and communion in the communion of saints, some type of bodily communication should be a natural assumption.   

 

A second major point to be made is that the actions of eating and sex don’t just communicate unity, but actually affect it, that is, they make the unity happen.  Regarding sexual action we will distinguish three ways that this effect takes place.  First through simple pleasure second through biology and third through spiritual union.

1 Timothy 6:17 reminds us that God “richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment.”.  Sex is pleasurable and pleasurable things help people enjoy company.  In this way we become united through pleasure.  This is the most common way of understanding the unity of sexual action in the modern secular world.  Each participant gets good pleasure and a happy memory, and thus the two who participate are united.  Pleasure is a very good thing that is made by God for our glorification of him and our enjoyment.  Therefore, this understanding is neither untrue nor bad, it’s just not complete.

A second way of understanding sexual activity as unifying is biological.  In the act the couple is as much a biological unit as a single human body is.  They are attached, but not just “attached” physically, actually unified by a physical bond (in this case liquid).  We are so certain of our own individuality, that the physical oneness escapes us because we define people as rational agents who happen to dwell in physical bodies.  Since the reasonable capacities don’t merge, except in the willful consent to the action at the beginning, and since the physical can detach, the two are not perceived as one.  Despite our assumptions, the bio-oneness achieved during sexual union is just as true as the bio-oneness between your fingernail and your kidney.  That oneness is simply series of various types of physical connectedness that forms a unit in our minds called the body.  Bio-union constitutes one flesh, just as our understanding as Christians is that the two are one flesh in marriage, and this statement is explicitly connected to the sexual act.  

One may also reflect on the penetration or internal acceptance of the sexual act.  In it the two physical objects become one, one dwells inside the other, one surrounds the other.  Now add to that the reality of the uncircumcised male, where his internal being enters and is exposed inside the internal being of his wife, the two insides connecting (as his foreskin recedes upon insertion), and you have a beautiful sign of absolute self sharing inner to inner.  With that comes the fluid exchange that happens at climax, a mingling that lasts longer that the act itself.  The oneness of the mixed fluids during the act remain after the act inside the woman.  All this is what John Paul II means by the nuptial meaning of the body, that we are physically constructed to demonstrate true unity.  

The last way we may want to explore how sex unites the participants is spiritual and occur at the deepest levels of our self perception.  In order to understand how this union works it may help to engage in a mediation.  There are a few simple questions that must be answered in order to get at the general idea.  The first question is, “Where are you?”  the second is, “Have you ever felt sharp intense physical pain?” the third is, “Where were you?”.

Now, if your answer to the first question was, “I’m my reading at my desk” or some such thing, then it’s time to explain the gravity of question one.  What is really being asked is, where is your “locus of being”?  where, in your body, do you perceive your “self” to be.  Almost all modern westerners assume their locus of being is directly behind their eyes.  That’s where “I” live, not in my knee cap or this two inch diameter right here just above my wrist.  “I” am right behind my eyes.  This is where the most intense sensory data is coming in and therefore it is where our being is focused.  We love our eyesight.  It is our most cherished sense, the second most likely being hearing.  Certainly inside our head is where we assume our “locus of being” to be.  So, “where are you?”  “Just behind my eyes.”

With the crux of the first question explored, the next two question can now be utilized. “Have you ever felt sharp intense physical pain?”  the answer is certainly yes and there is no ambiguous secondary meaning here.  It is simply that, think of a time you felt a sharp pain and answer the third question in terms of locus of being.  “Where were you?”

The first job I ever had was as a dishwasher in a Barbeque place.  The Hobart Dish-machine that I worked was a manual lift double tray deal with a side door panel for maintenance, which the old machine needed often.  Once the machine jammed and I shut it down to see what the problem was.  I quickly saw that a drinking glass had shot up into the dishwasher, broken and was resting in pieces in the bottom of the machine, one piece blocking the jet axal.  In order to retrieve the pieces I had to reach way in and shove the crook of my neck into the upper doorway to get maximal distance.  Doing this made me rely on sense of touch alone.  After getting each piece I would visually locate the next, reach in “blind”, grab it and repeat.  Toward the end I miscalculated and reached in, going on sense of motion and touch alone, and hit the glass just right to slice a gaping wound down my finger.  The point of this gruesome story is, when the pain came, the answer to question number three was “I was in my finger”.  For a second or two there, there was no cognition, just confusion, and the vast majority of my sense data, given my methodology for retrieving the glass, was in my hand, once the pain came all my sense of self lept into my hand for an extremely brief span until I cognitively processed, pulled my hand out looked at it, emotionally reacted and sought medical attention.  Once the cognitive processing started I was back in my head, but what I want to point out here is the ability to shift one’s locus of being depending on where the major stimulus is.

What works for pain also works for pleasure, so another story.  Once I had gone out with my brother on a Friday evening and we stayed out very late, two or three in the morning.  I hadn’t eaten in many many hours having had an early dinner, so on the way home we stopped at a po-boy shop and picked up some sandwiches.   When I got home I walked to what could be described as a small patio, but more like an alley between my apartment at the time and a larger edifice.  It was completely dark, and I sat down on a little bench next to my front door.  I pulled the sandwich out of the bag.  All was quiet, I closed my eyes in that dark alley and bit into the sandwich.  At that moment I existed in my mouth, the taste was beyond excellent.  My locus of being shifted a few inches down to the point of major stimulus.

The secular world is correct, sex is pleasurable, but that pleasure alone is not all sex could be.  With practice the sexual act becomes a way of involving the locus of being of two separate people in one space as it were.  It seems fairly natural to seek this, as natural as sex in the dark or closing one’s eyes when the intense pleasure hits, shutting off now peripheral visual sense date for a greater purpose.  If the man shifts his locus of being to his sexual organ by inserting it into the woman’s sexual organ, who by that act also shifts her locus of being to her sexual organ then what you have is two beings, by sheer perceptive experience, located in the same place.  One being is completely filling the other, one being completely engulfing the other, but where one sense of self begins and the other ends is not definable, because all of this is beyond analysis, objectivity is impossible when engaging in the immediate experience of self.

This is a highly individual specific form of unitive corporeal pleasure that seems to me to make perfect sense in the Eschaton as an effector of individual unitive relationships.  The balance is the effector of communal unitive relationships, eating and dining.

Once again, passing a good time by eating with company is in itself unitive.  One has the corporeal pleasures of taste and a full stomach. There is also the spiritual pleasure of comfort, stability, and ease that comes with eating.  These are fostered by how one garners food naturally.  Food is acquired by labor and eating symbolises that labor is finished.  In one way this is why labor is the focus of the Paradise story, the beginning, and banquet is the focus of the Eschaton story, the end.  Sex is the pleasure of a beginning, eating is the pleasure of and end.  But this does not preclude both being be present in  the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega.       

These psychological comforts give light to how the physical is not the end of the unitive effect.  There is also how eating brings community together as the culmination of communal labor.  Recall earlier we noted that labor may not be absent in the kingdom.  The fulfilling labor of the Eschaton may be that of Paradise, working God’s Garden and enjoying its fruits.  Eating together is the culmination of that philia and where it finds its summative expression.  All of the fulfilling labors enjoyed together foster unity.  Through the entire process pleasure is built physical and spiritually as a community

Perhaps the best point in the Bible to see this is the book of Ruth.  In that book Ruth works hard through the harvest to garner her living.  The culminating scene is on the threshing floor where a great party is throw in celebration of a good harvest.  People work at winnowing, eat the abundance of raw wheat and drink freely celebrating God’s bounty.    

It is fitting to draw toward the end of this work commenting on Ruth because its narrative plays on every theme we have discussed.  The connection between man and woman, eating and sex and how all of these mean life and unity for the individual and the community is very clear in this work.   In the story Ruth is a Moabite who leaves her family and land in faithfulness to her mother in law Naomi whose sons had all died.  Ruth gleans the fields of a near kin, Boaz, in order to survive, and through her labor Boaz sees what a good person she is.  

It is on the threshing floor that Ruth makes her advance toward Boaz in order to secure union by marriage, sex and livelihood.  This scene shows the complete interconnectedness of these themes.  It is set on the threshing floor at the harvest celebration where Ruth sneaks in and lays at Boaz’s feet.  Through double entendre it is clear that sexual activity took place (the word for feet in hebrew is also slang for the male sexual organ).  As Ruth leaves there is a culminating scene which combines all in one, 4:14-15

So she lay at his feet until morning, but rose before anyone could recognize another, for Boaz had said, “Let it not be known that this woman came to the threshing floor.”  Then he said to her, “Take off the apron you are wearing; hold it firmly.” When she did so, he poured out six measures of barley into her lap and helped her lift the bundle; then he himself left for the town. 

It would not be lost on an ancient reader that pouring seed into a woman’s lap is a sexual a connotation as they come.  The seed here is literally barely, yet at the same time he has apparently just poured his procreative seed in her lap as well.  The ancients used the two terms interchangeably because eating and sex are seen as connectors for giving and maintaining life. 

If one applies an anagogical interpretation to this text one can see how Ruth moves from a land of death to a land of life.  Moab is a country that is not in sync with God, and where the husband and sons of Naomi have died.  Ruth leaves this land and goes to Israel, where there there is an abundant harvest “the Lord had seen to his people’s needs and given them food”.  There also is a suitable husband waiting for Ruth according to the levirate marriage laws.

For our purposes the bio-functions of the activities may cease in the new Israel, but the moral and anagogical lessons and sheer joy of the book of Ruth hold true in the “New Israel”.  In heaven we will exist bodily.  We will communicate bodily it stands to reason that we could find union in the communion of saints in the most fundamental of human ways, sex and eating.

Conclusion        

To conclude, the common vision of heaven consists of the disembodied souls of saints glorifying in the beatific vision.  As we pointed out this makes complete sense previous to the resurrection of the dead, but after that point the image should change.  The image becomes that of a new Israel and more interestingly a new Jerusalem, a bustling city filled with innumerable people who have been bathed in the blood of The Lamb.  

In the most general way our question was, what are all those people doing?  They have bodies and the metric for St. Thomas Aquinas for eschatological retention was purpose, so what is the purpose of those bodies.  Here we maintained, against Aquinas, that the purpose was as a medium for the experience of union, joy, and pleasure in the Communion of Saints.  We distinguished between spiritual and corporeal pleasure.  We then explored how spiritual pleasure is something that can be experienced concerning one’s relationship with God through the beatific vision and with the Communion of Saints through communication.  We then added the medium of corporeal pleasure as a means of union in the Communion of Saints and focused in on two particular pleasurable communication systems that take place physically, eating and sex.  After discussing several emotive problems people may have admitting that eating and especially sex may exist in heaven.  We went on to make the case that they do, because as actions they form a fundamental human communication system that seems to have been built into human nature from the beginning.  Lastly we explored ways that one finds both union and joy in the actions of eating and sex in the Eschaton. 

 

These are speculative matters that will be known at the end.  But to look to perfection often helps us learn how to shape our existence now.  This world is not a passing mistake that will be jettisoned for something else.  Therefore one’s actions in this world need to be geared toward that next manifestation of reality known as the Eschaton.  The simple assertion of this treatise is that sex and eating are not a passing mistake that will be jettisoned for something else in the next world.  Therefore one’s actions revolving around both sex and eating in this world need to be geared toward that next manifestation of reality known as the Eschaton.  Their existence in the Eschaton gives us a calibrating factor for what we are trying to achieve now.  If they do not exist there then all our morality regarding them is only a matter of secular maintenance, and many people do see sexual morality this way while at the same time practically denying that there is any morality involved in the act of eating.  

This type of maintenance morality is failing to capture the heart of today’s secular world.  This is possibly because sex is so deeply fundamental to our existence that to downplay its importance as fundamental leaves one with an emptiness.  Saint John Paul II tried to invest sexual activity with a deeper meaning in his Theology of the Body, but his inability to take it from Paradise all the way to the Eschaton left his homilies still mostly mired in sense of maintenance morality.  No one has taken on our modern problem concerning eating and dining, and therefore “respect” for Eucharist centers around ritual formal piety as opposed to deep meaning and respect for eating in general is becoming non existent.  With a healthier respect for the possibility of the abidance of both eating and sex in the Eschaton, perhaps we can begin to invest more in these activities more appropriately to the necessity and meaning they have for us as humans.