Following on from the thread started by Harriet Sonne and Erin
Copenbarger I am reminded that some years ago
Giulio Silano of the Pontifical Institute in Toronto pointed out to me
that Gratian does not necessarily talk
about consummation of marriage in the usual sense of "intercourse". My
own feeling is that here is a problem
worth investigating. Gratian mentions the "Commixtio Sexuum" (mingling of
the sexes), which has traditionally
been taken to mean (carnal) consummation. However, it equally possible to
suggest that this ambiguous phrase
should be taken to mean "an undivided life together" which both removes
the focus from the act of intercourse
and makes it possible to argue that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was
perfect. It is my own feeling that
Gratian had a stronger sympathy for the position of the Parisian school
(i.e. the consent theory) than he is
normally credited with: why else would he let his discussion of marriage
in chapter two of Book twenty-seven of
the Decretum follow a chapter on (spiritual) vows?
--
Frederik Pedersen
Department of History and Economic History
Meston Walk
King's College
Old Aberdeen
AB9 2UB
Scotland UK
Harriet Sonne wrote:
> > My question is - Was the gap between canonists, like Gratian and
> >theologians, like Hugh of St.Victor and later, Peter Lombard, so
> >intensely heated (I know that Gratian considered marriage valid only if
> >consummated and that Hugh of St.Victor and P.Lombard considered "consent"
> >the primary requirement) that the Church was forced to propogandize or
> >excert their views on the issue of "consent" which in turn supported the
> >model of the holy couple as the "ideal marriage"?
>
--
Frederik Pedersen
Department of History and Economic History
Meston Walk
King's College
Old Aberdeen
AB9 2UB
Scotland UK
|