medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Re: [M-R] Touch and the
Religious
Lots of information in Chandler's intervention, to which I want
to add that in the Jesuit Order there is a rule forbidding touch, and
"ne taceas" was taken very seriously especially in the
novitiate, where penalties were prescribed for violation of that rule,
even in sports. Though it was not overtly state, I always though the
rule was to guard chastity.
Surely there must be a similar rule in earlier religious orders,
esp. since Ignatius used some of them as models for his.
GHB
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions
of medieval religion and culture
Interesting questions, Brenda. It is perhaps useful to think of them
in two parts: the first concerning the conduct of religious with
"seculars", and the second among themselves. The first, with
regard to women religious, raises all the issues associated with the
enclosure of nuns, which assumed stable form under Boniface VIII's
Periculoso (1298), was much insisted on in the aftermath of Trent, and
which in strict monasteries is relatively unchanged even today. You
could see Elizabeth Makowski's Canon law and cloistered women:
Periculoso and its commentators, 1298-1545 (1997), and there is a
good summary article by Jean Leclercq in Dizionario degli istituti di
perfezione 2:1166-1183 under "Clausura". There is now a
fairly large literature on particular early modern convents, sometimes
based on documentation produced only by investigation of abuses, but
nevertheless revealing a wide range of practice.
Where enclosure was strictly observed, outsiders would be divided from
the nuns by a grille (and sometimes a curtain). Where it was less
strict, or for immediate family, the curtain would be drawn back;
where it was less strict again, some physical contact might be allowed
with immediate family through the grille; but in general the regime of
enclosure was extremely restrictive, at least in theory. After Trent,
the regime of enclosure was enforced even on unwilling women in the
new-style non-monastic orders (St Charles Borromeo was notorious for
this); some managed, with greater or lesser success, to avoid it.
It was very common, in many orders universal, to require the presence
of a companion whenever a nun spoke with outsiders. (Even until recent
times nuns and sisters notoriously travelled in pairs).
Modern practice in monasteries of nuns (moniales, who are subject to
enclosure, and are not the same as sisters, sorores, who are not)
varies enormously even among monasteries of the same order, some
observing 16th-century legislation about grilles, keys, veils, turns,
and so on to the letter, others abandoning it entirely. I know a
Carmelite monastery, quite strict about enclosure, where even parents
are always separated from nuns by the grille but where small babies
are passed through the turn (a sort of double-sided cupboard) so the
nuns can hold them. In other monasteries the nuns ridicule such
antique practices.
From the later 17th century on, the many modern congregations of
sisters would have had rather diverse practices, in which case an
answer to your questions could only be "It depends..." Some
had very elaborate and minute legislation about all aspects of
physical comportment, often influenced by, or in reaction to, the
social mores of a particular time and class. I have the
impression--though it's a bit vague--that the most restrictive
practices, such as the sleeve-tugging and prohibition of physical
contact you mention, belonged especially to congregations influenced
spiritually by French Jansenism and perhaps also socially by elite
manners.
Many congregations retained quite restrictive practices into the late
'60s. I was told by the still-indignant mother of a religious sister
that in the '50s and '60s, on her daughter's rare home visits, she had
to feed her and the ever-present companion on a card-table in a
bedroom, because they were forbidden to eat in the dining-room with
seculars, even immediate family. Sometimes they cheated, depending on
the uptightness of the companion (of course, no rule goes unbroken).
Possibly a congregation which forbade you to eat with your mum would
have discouraged hugging and kissing her too. (And I knew some Good
Shepherd Sisters in the '70s who seemed to spend their evenings
determinedly playing cards because, they explained, until recently
they had been forbidden "to play at cards or sit with
lap-dogs").
Nevertheless, I think it would be unwise to generalise from the most
restrictive practices. Congregations devoted to, say, nursing the poor
in their homes tended to develop different practices, psychological
cultures, and attitudes to the body than, say, semi-enclosed sisters
teaching aristocratic girls in elite schools. Different convents and
congregations could vary enormously in the social class of their
members, some drawing exclusively from the aristocracy or upper-middle
classes, others from fairly ordinary families, and such diversity in
social origin was presumably also reflected in diversity of
manners.
Men, as usual, got off lightly. Chapter 70 of the Rule of St Benedict
forbids a monk to strike another, but I cannot remember any other
prohibition of touch in RB.
The medieval Carmelite constitutions, unless I missed it, have no
prohibition of physical contact. There was a prohibition on entering
another friar's room, or if it was necessary to do so, an injunction
that the door must be kept open. Otherwise, there are only generic
exhortations to dignified comportment, especially in the presence of
lay people. In fact, some physical contact would be actually mandated
for the clergy in liturgical contexts, such as the kiss of peace
(usually a ritualised embrace). In profession ceremonies the gesture
of "immixtio manuum", where the hands of the candidate
making vows are held in the hands of the superior or prelate, is
another ritualised embrace. I think that the formal embrace was an
important greeting during the Middle Ages, governed by considerations
of social hierarchy, but nevertheless witness to the social necessity
of physical contact. Prohibition of physical contact would surely have
been an impediment to pastoral engagement by clergy.
Although Benedict was concerned to maintain a boundary between monks
and visitors to the monastery, even the strictest orders of monks
never had the physical separations (grilles in parlours, and so forth)
which were a feature of monasteries of women. I'm sure I have read of
medieval saints who were fastidious about physical contact with women,
but aren't these stories related precisely as distinctive
characteristics of the saints rather than as normal practice? And I
seem to recall that St Aloysius Gonzaga decided to avoid all women,
including his mother, but he was a prig.
And on top of all this, in every age everyone is different, and it's
surely rare for even the most totalitarian legislation or social
control to suppress all difference and spontaneity. Do historians
sometimes underestimate this?
This is all a bit general. Others may have contradictions or specific
examples. -- Paul Chandler
On 03/11/06, Ms B M Cook < [log in to unmask]>
wrote:
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval
religion and culture
I am addressing this question
in particular to list members who are also members of Religious
orders.
My acquaintance with
Religious is very slight, but I have formed the impression that they
are forbidden to touch other people and that to attract the attentio
of even a fellow Religious it is forbidden to tap them on the shoulder
but only to pluck their sleeve,
If this is the case, how old
is this prohibition? Does it date back to the mediaeval foundation of
monastic orders or is is a Tridentine reform ?
And how widely does it apply.
For instance, if a father visited his daughter who was a nun, would
he
have to talk to her in the
presence of another nun ? Would he be permitted to hug or kiss her
?
Conversely, if a woman became
a nun and was later visted by her child, would she be forbidden to hug
or kiss that child ?
I do have a specific siuation
in mind, but would like to know the basic rule first - and if there
are variations in practice between, say, Benedictines, Cistercians and
Friars.
I am, of course, asking about
the pre-Tridentine situation.
Gratefully,
Brenda.
********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion
YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To
send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the
message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In
order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information,
visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
--
Paul Chandler, O.Carm. | Institutum
Carmelitanum
via Sforza Pallavicini, 10 | 00193 -
Roma | Italy
tel: +39-06-68.10.08.1 | fax:
+39-06-68.30.72.00
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it
to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the
message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order
to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask] For further information,
visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
--
George Hardin Brown, Professor of English Emeritus
Department of English, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305-2087
Home: 451 Adobe Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306-4501
Phones: Mobile: 650-269-9898; Fax: 650-725-0755; Home:
650-852-1231
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html