People feed off each other, right? When one is bothered, sad, angry, excited, infatuated, etc., there is an affecting of other people. Bitching at them, complaining, getting back at them, wanting their love or attention. All these are attempts at reducing their state in order to improve yours, if at least by knowing they know you feel a certain way (recognition). A vampiric, parasitic, animal-state that is about feeding off each other. It is based on not knowing who you are (and needing them to define your importance for you). Don’t keep the chain going. Don’t just suppress their bullshit, either, because that will hurt you. And here is where understanding and knowing higher things comes into play. Know and understand that they are suffering, and that they are like you, and accept their suffering in a mature fashion (awareness of others = love). (Note that I said "accept their suffering in a mature fashion," and not "let them get away with whatever they want.") Do that, and you will cut the feeding frenzy like a chain that has snapped. Now do you see what he meant when he offered his body and blood to others? You first, and the whole world is saved.
(P.S. Communion, the ritual itself, has a slightly different meaning in the eyes of Christians. It is the experience of contact with the divine, whether seen as symbolic or literal. Then again, how closely related are experiencing the divine and loving others?)
(P.P.S. Update Sept 4 2005- Communion is giving yourself over entirely unto yourself. Like a bride and a groom, 'the first loves the other, and the second gives itself entirely unto the first.' It is like wine being given to fools. Like light descending on your head. Like light burning forth from your eyes. Fools carry banners, and march into battle. Few are the ones who look up at the sky in the midst of the battle, and whose eyes are then seared by the sun. Now, when you look at their face, you see black holes where their eyes should be.)
For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)
A complete misrepresentation of this passage I read about implied Jesus was a sadist who encouraged men to literally neuter themselves for religion... ugh. Studying religious stories and symbolism opens up an interpretation for this passage that has already been discussed in the other essays in this webpage. The symbolic self-castration is a "death of the flesh or of the lower inclinations." You can see the same pattern in Jesus' body dying, but spirit realizing the kingdom. This is also evident in Samson's wife dying in order for him to beat the Philistines, Jacob's "hip socket" being hurt by the stranger in the night, Ruth rejecting non-Jewish and young men, and the entire first generation of Israelites in the desert dying before the Promised Land is reached.
The truth of sexual or worldly self-sacrifice is evident in celebrations of death, rituals of penance, fasting, and even more radical ones such as the literal genital self-mutilation of the Maya and the Canaanites, as well as the act of sacrifice, human or otherwise. That such rituals are too extreme, and "pagan" or "idolatrous," is your own opinion to form, though in my eyes all are only cultural manifestations reflecting one truth. In modern literature and film, this death of the lower self is evident in the formulaic "death of the bad guy," usually as an accident on his own part or because there is no other choice for the hero/es (self-defense, or in defense of another about to be killed, etc.).
Now... how radical is this sexual self-sacrifice? Is it to the point of fundamental mental and emotional celibacy, as the many saintly people who have lived in the past and shown no interest whatsoever in procreating acted? Maybe, but I would rather think it is a different case for every individual, and that you shouldn't worry about your sexuality's fate when meaning in life has yet to be found.
Or maybe it is not even close to that level of radicalism. The death of the lower dragon of misguided desires and ignorance may be the simple decision to act in an unselfish manner when relating to others, and manifesting love in oneself.
Catholicism is monotheistic in doctrine, polytheistic in practice. Real cool when you think about it: The already potentially-controversial Jesus, different aspects of Mary, the somewhat ignored-in-the-U.S. saints. (As for the situation of the saints, Protestantism's influence or modern attitudes/trends?)
Anyways, the afore-mentioned figures are treated like gods. They are prayed to, and depicted in holy images and statues, and even seen as guardians of the order of particular aspects of reality, much in the same way as there are gods of death and resurrection and vocations and uniquely feminine divine figures in polytheistic religions. However, and this is very important to remember, this does not mean that Catholicism is polytheistic. The status of the saints and Mary and Jesus is very carefully codified in monotheistic doctrine. Jesus is described to be of the same essence or nature as the Father, the One True God, yet a different person, in what is explained as the mystery of the Trinity. Mary and the saints are seen as very blessed souls, who hold a unique status in Heaven and who can act in the lives of people.
Interesting to note is that these unique qualities of Catholicism have been attacked by Protestants in the past. The argument I have seen is that Protestantism, in rejecting these polytheistic practices (just the saints and Mary), as well as the belief that the Catholic Church, with its hierarchy of priests who are supposed to hold power over the faithful in acting as intermediaries to the divine through the sacraments, with a literal (not symbolic) interaction with Christ in Holy Communion in particular, has returned to a "truer" type of Christianity, one much like what was supposed to exist in the early years of the Church. I think this view is somewhat misguided. This is because the early church seems to have been a strange one indeed, where dogma was not yet codified, and even Jesus' status, now taken for granted, was in question. If you wish to answer that the dogma was only waiting to be codified, then I answer that you are unbending in your opinion of how religion is properly practiced. I would recognize, though, that this rigidity is a reflection of a single, worthwhile spirit that is evident in all religions, properly practiced.
(P.S. Catholicism's evolution as such is probably the result of its expansion into the polytheistic world, where, in converting pagans, foreign practices and attitudes were not only obliterated, but also absorbed. Catholics are made slightly aware of this in such situations as when a practice in celebration of a saint or a holiday is recognized as being related to a pagan ritual or god that was displaced.)
Paul wrote, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)
If you are not Christian, replace the words "Christ Jesus" with the word "divinity" or the word "God", and you may find the passage more palatable. Now, let's do that:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in divinity.
Remember that Jesus Christ is equivalent to divinity/ is divinity to the Christian mind.