>And we can at least be civil about claiming whatever consensus we do claim
>for our positions.
>
>Dennis Martin
>
>
>Indeed so, and thank you. For my part I am very sorry if I have come on too
strong, and offended anyone's deeply-held beliefs.
May I suggest, though, that if it is desired to confine the discussion to later
missionary activity among the 'barbarians', one could well start with the
correspondence between Augustine (of Canterbury) and Pope Gregory. A number
of Augustine's questions relate to matters of sex and marriage. For example:
IV. Augustine's fourth question. May two brothers marry two sisters provided
they belong to a family not related to them?
Gregory answered: this is entirely permissible, for there is nothing in the
sacred writings on this point which seems to forbid it.
Please, dear friends, do not be offended if I point out that it is the Biblical
norms which Gregory regards as relevant to the situation in England.
V. Augustine's fifth question. With what degree may the faithful marry
their kindred; and is it lawful to mrry a stepmother or a sister-in-law?
Gregory answered: A certain secular law in the Roman State allows that the
son and daughter of a brother and sister, or of two brothers or two sisters
[i.e. first cousins] may be married. But we have learned from experience
that the offspiring of such marriages cannot thrive. Sacred law forbids a
man to uncover the nakedness
of his kindred; hence it is necessary that the faithful should only marry
relations three or four times removed, whilst those twice removed must not
marry in any case, as we have said. It is a grave sin to marry one's
stepmother, because it is written in the law: 'Thou shalt not uncover thy
father's nakedness'. [Leviticus 18:7]
Again, Gregory refers to Biblical norms.
Gregory continues:
Now because there are many of the English race who, while they were
unbelievers, are said to have contracted these unlawful marriages, when they
accept the faith, they should be warned that they must abstain [from sexual
intercourse], because such
marriages are a grave sin . . .
Nevertheless they are not to be deprived of the communion of the sacred Body
and Blood of the Lord for this cause, lest they seem to be punished for sins
which they committed through ignorance, before they received the washing of
baptism . . .
[An interesting example of a relaxation of the rules.]
But all who come to the faith must be warned not to perpetrate any such
crime. If any do so, then they shall be deprived of the communion of the
Body and Blood of the Lord; for as the sin is in some measure to be
tolerated in those who did it through ignorance, so it must be strenuously
prosecuted in those who presume to sin knowingly.
In the course of Question VIII, Augustine asks , among other things, if a
man who has had intercourse with his wife enter the church before he has
washed . . .
[one suspects, a rare event in Anglo-Saxon England! Or perhaps not. It may
be that the dirty, smelly barbarian is a construct of modern prejudice. Has
anybody out there made a study of barbarian bathing habits? There is of
course the fascinating memoir of Ibn Fadlan about the local Vikings - he was
disgusted with their manner of washing, but they certainly did wash regularly]
He also enquires, in Question IX, about giving Communion to someone who has
suffered
[enjoyed?] a wet dream.
Dare I say, that a bishop who is worried enough to write to the Pope to see
if he
should give communion to those who have had a wet dream, is not about to give it
to polygamists?
Oriens.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|