vid

I have read enyclical Familiaris Consortio of John Paul, which discuses JP2's view on family in modern world.

Curiously, he pretty much distanced from patriarchal family (which he blamed on "cultural traditions" ), even though not completely (he still says that even though woman is equal in marriage, she still must retain bringing up children role, so to solve this he proposed to "make home working equal to male working outside"). Anyway - was this something new in Catholicism? Do you know about some earlier catholic decrees on family which comment on this question (equality of roles and standing of male and female in family)?

Solo

Paul believed his chastity to be a gift from God (1 Cr7:7), and thought it had to do with 'self-control'. Luke's Jesus sees the credentials of his following in this wise : "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple." (14:26). Matthew 19:12, correlates sexual abstinence with access to the kingdom of heaven.

These ideas are very interesting when considered together and when we compare them with what we know about the bipolar disorder.

Paul transparently rationalizes his lack (or loss) of libido correlating it with God's will (he does not exactly burn with passion himself). We know that the loss of appetite and sexual interest is one of the standard signs of depression. We also know that during the low cycle people tend to be negative about, and disconnecting from, everything and everyone around them, even the closest family. Manic psychosis follows in severe cases of depression, as sort of an escape valve, which inverts the accumulated dregs (Paul called his life before Christ explictly 'shit') and catapults the subject into euphoric heights in which he or she experiences him/herself as a specially favoured one by God, powerful, masterful, all-knowing, etc....The people of antiquity did not know about the relation of the two antipodal emotional states. Actually, it was discovered by one of the great Greek physicians, Aretaeus of Cappadoccia who has been variously placed into the first or second century CE. But his ideas would have had very limited circulation, and likely would not have touched the early Christian spiritualists even if it had been available. The trips to heaven were just too much of a thrill to give up.
(It is the same with many manics today).

Matthew 19 bespeaks of the relation between the "sexless" state and the spiritual ecstasies that came to be be associated with Jesus' kingdom. Asceticism was practiced the world over in order to "force" the euphoric, paradisiac, mind states.

Indeed, the early Christian preoccupations with death and ways to beat it to earn afterlife without sex, would not have been conducive to family values, as I am sure Paul learned in the school of hard knocks when his congregations swelled beyond the committed mystics.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

No, I do not think the earliest Christians had noncelibate alternatives lined up for the traditional family. (I never meant to suggest they did, and if I did so my apologies.)

A strongly patriarchal emphasis would put any writer back in line with the traditions of most ancient Mediterranean cultures (Jewish, Roman, Greek, what have you). So sure, one could be patriarchal and still not condone a particular culture which also happened (like most) to be patriarchal. IOW, questioning Roman imperial ideology does not require one to question patriarchy; but questioning patriarchy casts all of Roman imperial ideology in a rather bad light.

I suppose one could look at (A) the strong paternal propaganda that Augustus pumped out and (B) the strong antifamily stuff amongst the dominical sayings and say that this match is a coincidence. Perhaps the antifamily sentiments merely derived from a strained relationship between Jesus and his own family, for example.

OTOH, I have a hard time imagining that no early Christian noticed that a prohibition against calling any human being father (Matthew 23.9) meant that one could not rightly regard Augustus as the pater patriae. And I have a hard time imagining that so many of the father sayings in the gospels seem to have Jesus saying that his only father was God himself (perhaps explaining, for example, why fathers are conspicuously absent in Mark 3.35; if we imagine that it is only because no father happened to be waiting outside for Jesus, then I do not think we can explain the sisters in this verse; also refer to Mark 10.30, which likewise lacks fathers). Notice that in these passages celibacy is not really front and center; not even the traditional family per se is on trial, at least not as directly as the concept of an earthly father.

From another angle, this no father but Yahweh tack sounds so much like the more usual no king (no lord) but Yahweh rallying cry that I doubt the thematic similarity is a coincidence.

Ben.

mountainman

Dear figuer,

The Romans were good at war and conquest. They appropriated the technology of the greeks and other "barbarians". They were experts at genocide and the slave trade. They added little of value to science and technology in comparison to the greeks.

The law codes of a civilisation yield information about family law, which in turn may provide valid sources to reconstruct the family values in place at that time in history.

Have you read them? Specifically sections related to family law? And where are the Roman codes? Do you have any evidence to point at, or are you dwelling in conjecture? I suggest they be compared to what is revealed concerning the laws which the Romans enacted according to an analysis of Codex Theodosianus. Which laws were more advanced? The fourth century CE Roman laws, or the third century BCE greek laws? Which were more humane? Which were more family focussed in a relative sense.

Three things I have realised in these discussions is that many supposed "infidels" are for some reason better characterised as closet apologists, that many confirmed skeptical atheists have no problem swallowing the bullshit of Eusebius, and that archaeological evidence for christianity before Constantine is non-existent (except for donkey-like grafitti pointed out by well-paid Vatican tour guides).

“The revolution of the fourth century, carrying with it a new historiography will not be understood if we underrate the determination, almost the fierceness, with which the Christians appreciated and exploited "the miracle" that had transformed Constantine into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator of the Christian church.”

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century (1960).

Do you think the Jewish historian Momigliano believed in "miracles"? I dont for one minute think Momigliano believed in "miracles". So why did he use this term "miracle"? Are there any Momigliano followers out there?


Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

I think you're right and that line of belief continued until Christianity was supported by Kings.

Here's Procopius, the first of Eusebius' martyrs of Palestine ...
What worked for Agamemnon worked for Yahweh as long as Christianity had no earthly king. Then Constantine came and I think I remember a panegyrist honoring him with the same Homer.

vid

Can you please point me to some (preferably online) ancient greek and roman literature describing how did greek/roman family look like? Things like what was role of women, what rights did they have, how strictly were kids brought up, laws on sex outside marriage, virginity, divorce, rape, etc...