Was there a consensus?
James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe
Google Books
Mentioned here by someone who is not particularly orthodox, iirc.
Still, is some sort of revision necessary, not for the basic precepts regarding our sexual powers, but with respect to our attitudees and understanding of the virtues pertaining to those powers and marital relations?
The conjugal act: as God originally intended or a concession to the Fall?
Infants and children may need sensible signs of affection and touch by parents for their emotional/mental health and to flourish, and this may be true of adults to an extent that we may not realize. Would we say that this is merely concupiscence, our desire to touch and to be touched? In so far as it is non-rational, maybe some would. (Concupiscence is not just a condition of the sexual appetite but of the appetite for nutrition as well, and what else? Hunger, indeed.) A consequence of the fall, an increased animality or manifestation of the "sensitive" aspect of the soul? Maybe, maybe not. But a real feature of human beings in this world, nonetheless. So why wouldn't it be the case with how men and women, or husbands and wives relate to one another? Is something to be condemned or criticized or merely permitted because it is "too" carnal, or not "spiritual" enough? What if there is a natural teleology to certain acts of touch that we may be tempted to dismiss because we think we shouldn't need them?
No comments:
Post a Comment