On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, JH Arnold wrote:
> dear dennis
> you are of course right on the theological differences between Cathars
> and Carthusians on not eating meat; what interested me primarily was the
> criticism of carthusians denying meat to ill people, and how this chimed
> with the Cathar endura. there were different motives/reasons for the
> people doing the denying - but i wondered if there might be some point of
> contact in the criticism, if you see what i mean.
I see what you mean, but an even more fundamental difference, which I did
not underscore, is that the Carthusians fed their sick and fed them
well, better than those who were healthy. They understood that the sick
needed special attention in order to regain help, but they did not see
meat as medically indicated. They gave their sick all available
medical attention. Carthusians (as most monks) were familiar with
herbology and developed extensive pharmacological collections (including
the well-known medicinal liqueur). Sick Carthusians were permitted more
than the routine blood-letting etc. The aim was to see them recover if
humanly possible.
Granted, the critics of the Carthusians believed that meat was helpful or
necessary to recovery. But even they were concerned about recovery.
Were not critics of the Cathars concerned that the purpose of the endura
was death?
For these reasons, critique of the Cathar endura and critique of
Carthusian abstinence from meat even for the sick would seem to me to be
so different as to render comparisons, even of their critics, unhelpful.
Dennis Martin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|