S
SuperLuigi
Guest
:nope: :dts:
- Status
C
captainrick
Guest
LOL says the guy with the St. Francis Quote as a sig!
K
Kelt
Guest
Ooh I think one could write a book on this subject! I’ve read a lot about medieval history but my son has just done a degree in it - one of his ‘modules’( whatever they’re called) was about sex and sexuality in the medieval mind/time. This involved lots of original source material and he has our top medieval historian as a lecturer. Knowledge they had (and didn’t have) of science and medicine all come into it…
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
It is a period of a thousand years. half of the life of the Church. I think it is a generalization to blanket that amount of time with accusations that you still have not cited. Sex in the medieval mind would cover the Roman Empire to the Renaissance. I think sometimes people forget how long a thousand years is. And how ideas of things like sex, varied during that time from region to region and person to person.
Lets give it the respect it deserves and not just use it as a dumping place for the term “long ago”
F
fpt
Guest
Per se, the marital act is for every day. The marital request for the practice of the marital act on sunday and the fact of saying yes to this request are not immoral and are not sinful. In reality , that is not a moral issue.
One spouse can not invoke unilaterally this day in order to refuse the marital request coming from the other. The other does not have to refuse the marital request via the invocation of this day. In addition, one spouse can not and does not to have to invoke unilaterally this day in order to refuse of requesting the marital act to the other.
The marital act on Sunday is a right, an obligation and a duty. The opposability of right to the body on sunday is totally lawful. The false acception of the spirituality is wrong for the marriage.
One spouse can not invoke unilaterally this day in order to refuse the marital request coming from the other. The other does not have to refuse the marital request via the invocation of this day. In addition, one spouse can not and does not to have to invoke unilaterally this day in order to refuse of requesting the marital act to the other.
The marital act on Sunday is a right, an obligation and a duty. The opposability of right to the body on sunday is totally lawful. The false acception of the spirituality is wrong for the marriage.
F
fpt
Guest
Unilaterally, each spouse does not have to be against the marital act on Sunday. This feeling, this view, this mentality, this doxa and this praxis are not catholic. The day of wedding, the sexual vows are for every day. The couple is not a monastery and a seminary. The spouses are not nuns, priests, friars, sisters, brothers, they are spouses. The unilateral decision of the refusal of practice the conjugal sex on Sunday, in invoking this particular day per se, is not enough. It is not fair and not legitimate, per se. Each spouse is here for each one, sexually speaking. The moral view on no conjugal sex on Sunday is a great problematic. By definition, the marital act is a prayer, a liturgy and an act of love, what is the problem on Sunday??? I would like to understand!!!
F
fpt
Guest
The morality of the marital act, per se? For being very clear!!!
The Holy Days: Yes
The Advent: Yes
On Christmas: Yes
On Sunday: Yes
Before Sunday Mass, without Communion: Yes
Before Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
After Sunday Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
After Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
Before Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
Before Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
After Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
After Mass, with Holy Communion Yes
Before Holy Communion, without Mass: Yes
After Holy Communion, without Mass: Yes
After Holy confession: Yes
Before Holy confession: Yes
On Ash Wednesday: Yes
Lent: Yes
Holy Week: Yes
Holy Friday: yes
On Easter: Yes
The Holy Days: Yes
The Advent: Yes
On Christmas: Yes
On Sunday: Yes
Before Sunday Mass, without Communion: Yes
Before Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
After Sunday Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
After Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
Before Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
Before Mass, with Holy Communion: Yes
After Mass, without Holy Communion: Yes
After Mass, with Holy Communion Yes
Before Holy Communion, without Mass: Yes
After Holy Communion, without Mass: Yes
After Holy confession: Yes
Before Holy confession: Yes
On Ash Wednesday: Yes
Lent: Yes
Holy Week: Yes
Holy Friday: yes
On Easter: Yes
That about covers it…
K
Kelt
Guest
I’m well aware of the span of Medieval history. I live in a house that has it’s origins in 12th century, down the hill from a Roman encampment…so I get the idea of the span of time and the history that’s happened!
I would argue that, with the Catholic Church having sole control of Christianity in the European medieval world, and reaching the far corners of Europe, ideas of things like sex were kept pretty constant between regions and between people. They developed and changed over time of course, but the church held a pretty tight control - or at least attempted to - over its flock.
I quote from the website Decameron Web:
Not only was the purpose of sex within marriage made abundantly clear by the church, but there were many rules and regulations pertaining to the act itself. According to James Brundage, “marital relations required forethought, deliberation, and conscious reflection if one wished to avoid serious sin” (450). TheSummae Confessorum, a handbook for confessors published during the early thirteenth century, listed some of the times in which sexual activity between husband and wife was not permitted, which included all feast and fast days, on Sundays, and at all times when the woman was considered “unclean” (during menstruation or pregnancy, while she was breast-feeding, and for forty days after childbirth). This meant that, on average, most married couples could legally have sex less than once a week (Richards, 28-29). In II.10 of the Decameron, Messer Ricciardo di Chinzica, who cannot keep up with his younger, lustier wife, finds a similar way to limit their sex life:
For he made it clear to her that there was not a single day that was not the feast of one or more Saints, out of respect for whom… man and woman should abstain from sexual union. To the foregoing, he added holidays of obligation, the four Ember weeks, the eves of the Apostles and a numerous array of subsidiary Saints, Fridays and Saturdays, the Sabbath, the whole of Lent, certain phases of the moon, and various special occasions… For a long time (much to the chagrin of his lady, whose turn came round once a month at the most) he abided by this régime…(179-80)
In addition to prescribing when couples might have intercourse, the church also provided instructions for marital coitus. The treatise De secretis mulierum gave a detailed account of the process, advising physical and mental preparation (such as the emptying of the bowels and bladder) and sufficient foreplay, or fondling of “the lower parts,” in order to raise the female’s body heat to the correct temperature. When the wife began “to speak as if she were babbling,” the husband should know to make his move (Brundage, 451).
The Summae Confessorum is a source here - you can google it to find out about it…I’ve got various books but my son has them at uni… and I’m running out of space! James Brundage, a medieval historian, has written a book on the subject.
F
fpt
Guest
A catholic couple, thus a wife and a husband can make love, morally speaking, every day, per se. In reality there is no limit, per se. No authority has the competence for banning conjugal sex during a period of time, per se. The Vatican (the Catholic Church) does not have this power. In the past, some documents about the bans were written** by local thinkers, not by the universal magisterium from the Pope, thus there was not a moral obligation to respect those texts. Today, we know the rules: the marital act is morally okay, all the time, per se. As catholic lay persons, morally speaking, we are held by the Universal Magisterium, not more and not less.**
The marital act during during menstruation, pregnancy, breast-feeding, and after the childbirth, when the mother/wife decides in function of her own health** is totally moral.**** It is not a moral issue, per se, in those situations for the catholicism. **Menstruation, pregnancy, breast-feeding, and the childbirth are not unclean periods.
The marital act during during menstruation, pregnancy, breast-feeding, and after the childbirth, when the mother/wife decides in function of her own health** is totally moral.**** It is not a moral issue, per se, in those situations for the catholicism. **Menstruation, pregnancy, breast-feeding, and the childbirth are not unclean periods.
F
fpt
Guest
The marital act is already a prayer, a liturgy, an act of love, an act of charity and an meritorious act. Why do any people want to ban this wonderful act of conjugal love on Sunday, the day of lord? In my humble opinion, that is a very good day for practicing and showing the conjugal love. In addition, this day of rest is for God, the couple, the family. By definition the marital act is the sign of the Holy Trinity, why to prohibit it on Sundays?
F
fpt
Guest
I know that some former texts promotes the conjugal sexual abstinence on Sunday. Nevertheless, some " catholic traditionalists " and some " ordinary catholics ", nowadays, like to use those documents for explaining that a true catholic does not have conjugal sex on Sunday and Co.
In reality, today the catholic thought coming from the Vatican and the Pope on the marital act is very misunderstood. You can note the debates about: the N.F.P., the modus operandi of the marital act, the equity and equality between wife and husband, the modesty in the garments, the decency in the garments, the conjugal sex during the menstruations…etc. Inside the catholicism, many catholics have wrong views. A big work has to be done.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Who did? Who is “they” And when did they do it?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It’s a mistake to think that all these disciplines amount to arbitrary man made rules. Without being able to quote sources off the top of my head, there is anthropological and handed down evidence, that fertility and the female cycle have featured as a big part of religious disciplines in pagan, Jewish and early Christian life.
Because religious holy days and times were and still are concordant with the cycles of nature and the astronomical influence on those cycles, a womans body was more ‘in tune’ also. Sexual abstinence and fasting at times of religious significant might coincide either with fertile or infertile times of womens cycles influencing the rate of population growth naturally. It has been shown that in very intimate tribal life… the majority of females will menstruate at the same time and would sometimes congregate together apart from the tribe during that time.
It’s really all moot these days as modern people don’t live in a very natural way but according to their own timetables and it takes all significance out of fasting and abstinence in a lot of ways.
Having said that, I have noticed over my fertile life how surprisingly concordant my cylce has been to natural and religious cycles.
I think that with many of the ancient disciplines… their meaning depended on the cultural awareness of the natural world.
F
fpt
Guest
In Europe, because of the Roman culture coming from the antiquity, some male catholics have issue with the female cycle. For them, that is too difficult to understand, and the periods are dirty, unclean and impure, thus the marital act during the menstruations are not licit, it is too much bloody and too dirty. For some catholic women, the periods are a punishment from God in reason the the original sin of Eve. Inside fundamental groups, in link with the tradition, largo sensu, the fact of thinking the marital act like Saint John Paul II is too much difficult. Thus, they use only old texts for explaining the morality of the marital act: the jansenism in Europe can stay so powerful in some christian subcultures. Often, the catholic quidam does not understand the moral rules. The priests are not enough listened in the details with all the subtleties.
- Status