Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
I read this 20 years ago. It makes me question everyone and societies’ norms on anything. Notice how what the church is obsessed 1000 years ago is similar to what both the left and the right are obsessed with now.
The question is. Would you want someone that wants to prevent you from having biological heirs to run your life? I mean, those are effectively genocide against you there. If so, go ahead, get married, officially.
The Church’s obsessions with sexual matters were very different …. In all three cases the Church seems to have been trying to prevent lords from siring legitimate heirs. If a man obeyed the doctrines of the Church in the year 1100, he could not divorce a barren wife, he certainly could not remarry while she lived, and he could not adopt an heir. His wife could not give her baby daughter to a wet nurse and be ready to bear another in the hope of its being a son, and he could not make love to his wife “for three weeks at Easter, four weeks at Christmas, and one to seven weeks at Pentecost; plus Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays—days for penance or sermons; plus miscellaneous feast days.” He also could not bear a legitimate heir by any woman closer than a seventh cousin—which excluded most noble women within three hundred miles. It all adds up to a sustained attack by the Church on the siring of heirs, and “it was not until the Church started to fill up with the younger brothers of men of state that the struggle over inheritance—over marriage—between them began.” Individuals in the Church (disinherited younger sons) were manipulating sexual mores to increase the Church’s own wealth or even regain property and titles for themselves. Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, following his break with Rome, which followed Rome’s disapproval of his divorcing the sonless Catherine of Aragon, is a sort of parable for the whole history of Church-state relations.Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen (p. 241). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition