#women's ecclesiastical rights

[melannen]

Turnchetta playlist for @lesmisshippingshowdown

This is for @lesmisshippingshowdown which allows fanworks to give extra points in the polls. We are trying to get the very canonical and important pairing of Turning Woman #3 (a chorus member from the 2012 movie) and Musichetta (Joly's never-onscreen girlfriend from the book) onto the next round.

Even if you don't have a clue what Les Miserables is, can you vote Turnchetta here? As a favor? And if you're not sure, maybe this playlist will convince you of their deep canonicity and long-term importance to the fandom. Or just do it for chaos. Either one as long as you do it.

Spotify playlist:

Tracklist

Three Coins in the Fountain - Connie Francis

Musichetta stupidotta, scanzonata, innocente - Commenti Sonori

My Baby Loves A Bunch of Authors - Moxy Fruvous

What's Love Got To Do With It - Tina Turner

You Turn The Screws - Cake

Turn, Turn, Turn - Dolly Parton

Who Will Shoe Your Pretty Little Feet - Tennesse Ernie Ford

The World Spins Madly On - The Weepies

Sunday Bloody Sunday - U2

飛哥跌落坑渠 (Teddy Boy in the Gutter) - 李寶瑩, 鄧寄塵, 鄭君綿 歡場三怪

Turn Around - They Might Be Giants

Tangled Up In Blue - Indigo Girls

Heartaches by the Number - Cyndi Lauper

Three Times a Lady - Sissel

Let's Face The Music And Dance - Diana Krall

Turn The World Around - Womansong

Liner notes and Youtube links under the cut. (Fanmix liner notes means "write a synopsis of an entire hypothetical musical" right? That's how I've always done it.)

These are largely old standards, which meant I had a range of cover options, and I went with women's covers most of the time.

Three Coins in the Fountain - Connie Francis

This was the first song I thought of for a Musichetta and Three mix! You can read this either as the three being Musichetta, Joly and Bossuet, and only one of them gets a happy ever after - or you can read it as Musichetta, Three, and one of their other working woman friends, and only one of them ends up marrying rich.

2. Musichetta stupidotta, scanzonata, innocente - Commenti Sonori

We needed an actual musichetta on this mix. The title translates as "Musichetta stupid, carefree, and innocent" - this is her in her early days, working, spending time with the girlfriends of her youth like Three, dreaming of a superb future.

3. My Baby Loves A Bunch of Authors - Moxy Fruvous

Here she is as she gets more involved with the students, gets drawn into the artistic world, goes to fancy parties, becomes someone's mistress, falls in love with literature and books.

4. What's Love Got To Do With It - Tina Turner

That world of surface romance and semi-transactional sex starts to harden her, even as she has one (two?) boys who delight in her and she in them.

5. You Turn The Screws - Cake

In the full musical version this would be a duet between Three and Musichetta where they are growing apart as she draws further into the political, literary, and bourgeois world of her students and Three commits to staying as she is and they both become scornful of each other's priorities. They see each other in passing around the Corinthe and don't speak but don't forget. (This is probably happening around the time of the July Revolution, with red, white and blue everywhere.)

6. Turn, Turn, Turn - Dolly Parton

And time passes and everyone gets older, and maybe it can go on like this forever but time passes and it won't, but it's always been that way. (This song is a quote from the book of Ecclesiastes which is very good poetry to read when you're disillusioned with the world and not sure what the point of keeping going is when it's just more of the same and always getting worse.)

7. Who Will Shoe Your Pretty Little Feet - Tennessee Ernie Ford

There start to be ominous undertones in Musichetta's world. It feels like July 1830 only somehow not the same. Her sweet boys fuss over her but at the same time start making noises about what she'll do when they're gone (but with very little understanding of what she *will* do if they're gone. She doesn't disillusion them of course.)

8. The World Spins Madly On - The Weepies

This song plays while both Musichetta and Three are holed up in their separate apartments across town from each other, hearing the gunshots go off and staying in bed, Musichetta thinking about how she's abandoned her boys to fight without her and Three thinking about how she's let Musichetta get involved in all that without her.

9. Sunday Bloody Sunday - U2

They wake up and go down to the Rue Chanvrerie and get blood all over their pretty little feet and their eyes meet while they sing and work together but separately.

10. 飛哥跌落坑渠 (Teddy Boy in the Gutter) - 李寶瑩, 鄧寄塵, 鄭君綿 歡場三怪

This is a reprise of the first song, courtesy of 1960s Cantonese cinema which rewrote the lyrics as being about a girl of the town finding her boy stinking and disgusting in the gutter. I think it's supposed to be a scathing parody and he's just drunk and wearing too much perfume, but to the extent of my ability to translate the Cantonese, I think it also works here, as Three and Musichetta find the remains of her boys and Three is scornful of her squeamishness while hiding her compassion for her grief.

11. Turn Around - They Might Be Giants

Trauma. They don't deal well with the survivor's guilt.

12. Tangled Up In Blue - Indigo Girls

This is the key to the whole love story, I knew this song in the Indigo Girls cover first, so it's always been a song about star-crossed lesbians to me; they knew each other once, and they weren't even that different in class, but one of them ended up drifting and taking whatever manual work she could to get by, and one committed to spending time with college boys and reading medieval Italian poetry and doing sex-work adjacent work when she couldn't get anything else, and they keep coming together and separating again because they can't stay apart but they can't compromise with each other either. This is Three's song for Musichetta (how the specific incidents in the song line up with the plot is up to the person who ends up writing the book.)

13. Heartaches by the Number - Cyndi Lauper

This is Musichetta's song for Three - from her POV Three keeps leaving and breaking her heart while she stays still, even though at the time Three left she thought it didn't matter and she didn't care, looking back from this end she can't stand it, and she's determined the next time she sees Three she makes it clear how much it hurt her.

14. Three Times a Lady - Sissel

And here she finally meets up with Three again but instead of pouring out her hurt she ends up pouring out her love instead!

15. Let's Face The Music And Dance - Diana Krall

Well, says Three, the world is awful and nothing we do matters, so we might as well keep trying to make it better (this is Three admitting that she loves Musichetta too, and her boys and their lost causes weren't all wrong.)

16. Turn The World Around

(Couldn't find the version on Spotify on Youtube, so this is a random women's community chorus.)

With Musichetta's and Three's views reconciled, they realize that the key is to forget everyone's old grievances and come together in solidarity to make the world better for everyone with everyone's skills and resources together, and it does matter even though it doesn't matter, and they lead the Turning women (who have also all paired off now) in this song instead.

Curtain call!

[borgialucrezia]

"Juan and Lucrezia stepped forward to kiss the pope’s foot. They were followed by the ladies who once again passed in single file before the papal throne. A few of the more prominent women remained kneeling by the pope while the others moved to stand by his right. Among the prelates and other male guests at the pope’s left stood Cesare, an insignificant figure in ecclesiastical black who must have resented the stellar role of his younger brother. Juan again took his sister’s arm and led her and the other wedding guests into the Sala Reale, where the pope seated himself on his throne and the rest of the company found places on the cushions scattered on the floor."

— Lucrezia Borgia (by Emma Lucas)

[hrrtshape]

How is coryo's mother? Because in the books she was described to be vapid...

she lives. she breathes. she exists in that peculiar, well-heeled way that women who have never once miscalculated an eyebrow arch tend to do. i never read the books, so i have no idea what she’s actually called, but in my better cr, she is venera. which is fitting. opulent. almost ecclesiastical. she’s got that air about her. like a pearl necklace strung just a little too tight, a corset laced with an extra yank, a perfectly chilled martini served with an invisible but ever-present side of judgment.

as a mother-in-law? tolerable. more than tolerable, even. i wouldn’t mind her. she would never forget a birthday. she would have exquisite taste in gifts. she’d call at exactly the right moment, never a second too soon, never a second too late. also she gave coryo some scolding when we broke up. so. HAH

and here’s where things get interesting. and freud FUCK OFF. okay. she looks exactly like olivia cooke as alicent hightower. (i think that’s because i once saw alicent being fancasted as his mom and my mind was like YES.) which is, to put it bluntly, insane. because i, too, almost look exactly like olivia cooke as alicent hightower. not really in this cr, more in my dr. right down to the red ish curly hair. a visual palindrome. a mirror folding into itself. imagine walking into a room and being confronted with a version of yourself aged up just enough and then being your BOYFRIEND’S MOM. it’s insane. it’s horrifying. it’s cool. i think

[goodqueenaly]

One aspect of Baelor’s reign that I find fascinating, especially when considering Baelor’s view on his own kingship, is the king’ decision (twice over) to name a new High Septon himself. As Yandel relates, “[w]hen the High Septon died, Baelor informed the Most Devout that the gods had revealed the identity of the future High Septon to him” - that is, “a common man named Pate … a gifted worker in stone, but without letters, simple-minded, and unable to recall even a simple prayer”. When Pate-turned-High-Septon died of fever after a year, Baelor then “bec[a]me convinced that the gods had given an eight-year-old boy—a street urchin, some later claimed, but more likely a draper’s son—the power to perform miracles”; Baelor declared the boy “the next High Septon” on the grounds that he, Baelor, had seen “the boy speaking with doves that answered him in the voice of men and women”, which Baelor interpreted as the “voices of the Seven”. 

Of course, Targaryen intervention in High Septon elections was not an entirely new phenomenon by Baelor’s reign. When the High Septon died in 54 AC, Jaehaerys and Alysanne flew to Oldtown quietly determined to oversee, and indeed influence, the election of his successor. Archmaester Goodwyn ruefully noted later that when Jaehaerys proclaimed his and his queen’s intent to stay through the High Septon’s election “so we might ask for his blessing”, the septons of Oldtown “looked at one another and thought on dragons” - an unsubtle reminder that the mere presence of dragons in the city threatened violence should the Targaryens not get their way. Nor was Jaehaerys content to sit on the sidelines during this contest: in long secret conversations with Lord Donnel Hightower, the Targaryen and Hightower patriarchs agreed that the pro-Exceptionalism Septon Alfyn would be elected immediately, with a Hightower candidate to follow him eventually. 

Yet this anecdote differs importantly in character from Baelor’s actions during his reign. Jaehaerys’ interest in Alfyn rested not on the latter’s personal identity but rather on his adherence to Exceptionalism: before Jaehaerys and Lord Hightower settled on Alfyn as the preferred choice, Gyldayn noted that “King Jaehaerys did not care which house His High Holiness derived from, or whether he was of low or noble birth”, only that “the new High Septon be an Exceptionalist”. Too, the election of Alfyn as High Septon demonstrated at least the semblance of democratic process, whatever else actually occurred during such process. Gyldayn relates that the Most Devout conducted four ballots, initially favoring Mattheus but eventually settling on Alfyn; if Barth “rued the corruption that made the Most Devout so easy to manipulate” (thanks to the royal and Hightower agents among them), the choice was still, at least on face, in the hands of the Most Devout themselves. 

By contrast, what Baelor did with respect to these two High Septons was to replace, almost entirely, even the appearance of an independent election for the sake of a revelation he himself had allegedly uniquely received. In taking real elective power away from the Most Devout and replacing it with a mere right to ratify, Baelor arrogated to himself an unprecedented ecclesiastical role - indeed, one which partially usurped the role of the High Septon himself. In the view of the Faith of the Seven, the High Septon is “the Voice of the Seven on Earth”, the very avatar of the gods; so seriously is this aspect of High Septon’s office taken that Cersei can be charged with deicide for having had the last High Septon assassinated. In blithely informing the Most Devout that the gods had revealed the identity of two successive High Septons, however, Baelor had implicitly identified himself as the Voice of the Seven. He, Baelor, was the speaker for the gods, the sole receiver of their messages and the sole representative to transmit them. If this was not quite a Westerosi version of the divine right of kings, this was Baelor perhaps approaching a similar concept - portraying himself as even more literally divinely appointed than he might have seemed previously, above the rest of the Faithful thanks to his singularly blessed relationship with the gods. 

Moreover, the individuals chosen by Baelor were not simply unexpected; Pate and the unnamed boy were radically, indeed perhaps disturbingly unorthodox choices for the role of High Septon.  Far from these two people being members of the Most Devout - a tradition, if not a requirement, for the office of the High Septon - Pate and the draper’s son were not septons at all, nor even seemingly affiliated with the Faith in any formal way; if the two of them were members of the Faithful, it was likely only thanks to the religious omnipresence of the Faith in continental, non-northern Westeros. Baelor was raising to the highest office within the Faith commoners he had, quite bluntly, plucked off the street, with no more credentials than the divine appointment for each Baelor insisted had come from above. Whatever the wide-ranging, complex responsibilities of the High Septon within the Faith (and GRRM has been frustratingly vague on that score, admittedly), those were now in the hands of an illiterate, simple mason and a barely adolescent boy - and, of course, whatever each one decided would need to be obeyed by those same Most Devout now commanded to ratify the allegedly celestial decisions conveyed by Baelor. Instead of having one of their own lead the Faith, in other words, the Most Devout would be at the mercy of individuals with virtually no experience of the Faith at all, much less its highest circles of governance - an intriguing possibility for discomfort, even division, between the Most Devout and a king who might have seemed their strongest champion. 

What I think is so important to take away from this portion of Baelor’s reign is how these decisions speak to what I see as Baelor’s supreme confidence in his own regal authority. This was not a king content with merely handing over authority to the Faith and spending his days in prayer; pious and zealous as he undoubtedly was, Baelor was nevertheless a man with a clear idea of the mission he had been ordained, so I think he believed, to accomplish. Everyone - whether the humblest of his subjects or the proudest of his lords, not spearing even the Most Devout - had to obey his will, no matter how much that will might defy tradition. Whether or not any individual reader views Baelor in an overall positive or negative light, I don’t think Baelor can be called a weak king in the vein of, say, an Aenys or an Aerys I; sure in his own executive power, Baelor was seemingly not afraid to challenge even the expectations of the highest-ranking clergy for the religion he so zealously believed in and wanted to advance throughout his realm. He, I think Baelor believed, was king by the will of the gods, and responsible only to the gods; he could, and would, order the realm the gods had given him in accordance with what he believed the Seven desired.

[givemearmstopraywith]

how do i reconcile being religious (catholic specifically) while also being pro-choice? I’m sorry if this sounds like a bait question, it’s not i promise! But recently i’ve been grappling with my faith again and trying to immerse myself with god again and i feel a bit….dissonant i guess? over having strong opinions on abortion and then on the other hand being religious. i don’t feel grief about being pro-choice, it’s something i believe proudly and w integrity. but it seems like i am in between two opposing great forces which demand of me to choose one over the other? do you have any kind words on how i could possibly reconcile with these? thank you x

i just finished writing research close to this topic, specifically on the problem of mary's consent. which of course comes back to issue of bodily autonomy which is central to questions of abortion. and mary is a problem: theology can neither acknowledge the problem of rape nor accept a consenting woman. to not consent is to be raped, to have control over your body, to say "yes," to consent, is to show a yearning for sexual pleasure, for oneness, and to innate acknowledge that a woman has control over her body before Go does. women must be both and neither: that is why we have the virgin mary. according to contemporary understandings of consent, mary simply could not consent: effectively God has autonomy over her body before she does.

the historical mary is a woman: she is jewish, poor, young, unmarried, and pregnant, and is the ultimate embodiment of liberation theology’s “preferential option for the poor.” but she is absolutely absent of any sexuality. when marcella althaus-reid states that poverty is a bodily and sexual matter, mary cannot be included in this statement. mary is never indecent: her existence is pinioned on the concept of her decency. she is the “right” version of all women, the perfect mate for the god-man: she is submissive, and receives him without becoming distracted by the matter of her self-determination. mary is never overcome by a profane hunger. theology requires this ultimate model of femininity to measure against all other women.

elisabeth schussler fiorenza calls attention to the danger to ecclesiastical and political authorities if mary is rendered as a self-determining single mother: a single woman who is “god-empowered, god-protected” and “filled with the holy spirit who exalts the violated and makes the fruit of illegitimacy holy.” if mary was rendered as excitedly or joyfully consenting to the act of impregnation by god, she would not suit the dominant narrative of women’s sexuality in theology: her joy can only be vocalised after she has already submitted to the masculine-penetrative god-man.

a woman who leans into the oneness and pleasure of union with god because it is pleasurable, out of the locus of her body and her sense of self-determination rather than a sense of duty or submission, has no defined place in christian theology. she can only be appropriated and co-opted by dominant patriarchal narratives, talked over, and silenced. a mary who found pleasure and joy in her impregnation, who readily and excitedly agreed to the divine directive in full knowledge of its implications, implies a femininity which cannot be controlled.

i mention mary because mary is the nexus of most catholic arguments about abortion, whether she is specifically named or not. she is the excuse used to block anyone regarded as "receptive" to patriarchy from having control of their body. i personally read the lucan narrative as mary consenting: let what you have said be done to me. this is consent, though we may debate whether or not it was informed or coerced. but i cannot imagine that christ would have come into the world through an unwilling mother. nor does God force belief on those who do not consent to believe: only people, only dogma, forces itself on the unconsenting. so in this way i can say that God cannot exist to us without consent. violation is a human creation: it is humans who violate God at the crucifixion. as such God cannot exist to us without bodily autonymy, without allowing us choice- it is the human creation of fascism which denies choice, and i hold that dimension of denial absolutely separate from God, because it is not part of God. God may be used to excuse it, but God cannot deny the natural choice and autonomy of his creation without also violating his own existence.

as for catholicism, it is old and it loves augustine. the idea that abortion is wrong is a fairly new invention in the cahtolic church and really only comes from fears that all babies are destined to hell. medieval catholicism saw life as beginning at the "quickening," which could mean anything but was seen as the first movement of the child in the womb. quickening was seen as the moment of ensoulment, and church views of abortion dictated that after ensoulment, a baby would be condemned if not baptized. it is this bizarre and exceptionally antiquated view that is the foundation of contemporary abortion debates: but even contemporary ideas of "human at conception" are ludicrous in comparison to how medieval catholicism understood when a person became a person separate from the person of the one bearing it. christianity dispelled with the judaic idea that the mother's life was more important than the fetus: it is typical of christianity to dispel of its own humanity.

effectively what i'm saying is that things change. the church changes: we find ourselves in unfortunate epochs, but the catholic church is prone to evolution and i appreciate that. but i don't feel, in any way, that being pro-choice and being catholic are at odds with each other. your morality is simply beyond where the magisterium can currently gather itself, and that's okay. the church has always been like that and probably always will be. it is the body of believers, those in the grassroots, those out in the world, who matter the most: over and above canon law, since all law (unlike God) is subject to editing and change. maybe that's a bit controversial: i don't believe it is. jesus didn't live in the temple, he lived on the street. he loved his religion, but he also knew that certain aspects did more harm then good. and maybe he felt conflicted over his love for his faith and his conviction about humanity. you walk where he treads: be proud of that.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Meandering Thoughts on Marsilio and Giovanni and Marriage Contracts

In 1453 Lusanna di Benedetto and Giovanni della Casa burst into the legal record through a marriage trial – it was held in ecclesiastical courts rather than secular, a rarity at the time as marriage was predominantly a secular rite in late medieval and early modern Florence. The Church was only secondary to what was understood to be an inherently earthly arbitration between families.

Lusanna and Giovanni’s case was simple: were they truly married or was Lusanna a concubine? Naturally, Lusanna said she was a wife, Giovanni allowed her to be a concubine at best. The implication of what he truly thought left hanging in textual silence.

The problem for Lusanna proving that she was Giovanni’s wife lay in the documentation, or not, of their marriage. The entire ordeal did not follow the expected, and in some respects prescribed, route that a marriage ought to follow.

Traditionally, a marriage must be documented from the initial betrothal agreement through to the marriage contract and the delivery of the dowry. All of this was to be carefully documented by a notary for the honour and security of both families involved. Florence, in many respects, lived and died by documents. By knowledge creation, textual representation of actions taken or not taken.

Which was important, since Florentines perceived marriage as a fraught space for legal chaos – in the legal documents around marriage there is language speaking to arbitration, owing, contractual obligations, payments owed for reneging &c. and it was all done in a way quite distinct from their northern contemporaries.

For Lusanna – she had no betrothal contract, no marriage contract, and no dowry delivered to Giovanni. There were witnesses: her brothers and the friar who married them – but no one from the groom’s side. More pressing was that there was no public procession of the bride leaving her natal home to cross the city to her husband’s home. There was no stately, public announcement of the intention to set up a household. While they did sort-of live together in a husband-wife manner, the extent of it did not pass the bar of expectation.

All of this is because Giovanni wished to keep their marriage a secret from his family due to the great misalliance between him and Lusanna.

Lusanna was a widow above the traditional marriageable age of women in Florence (across all classes, it was anywhere from fourteen to sixteen/seventeen), not a virgin, and from a family of moderate means. Giovanni, on the other hand, was of prime marrying age for a man at this time (early thirties), came from a well to-do family, and had good prospects in the merchant-banking world. This is not a marriage that his family would condone.

Ultimately, the courts found in favour of Giovanni who went on the marry Marietta Rucellai in a public, proper, honourable marriage.

-

Honour and dishonour in marriage was determined by the presence of that previously mentioned documentation. That is what distinguished a wife from a concubine from a favoured sex-worker the man may have had some form of longish term relationship with.

Concubinage, as a relationship status, was recognized by law in Florence and the women and her children were afforded some basic rights, however it was nothing equal to that of the “proper” wife.

Honour was also determined by the publicity of the marriage. The more public, the greater display, the greater the wealth involved, the greater the honour bestowed upon the bride. And honour was important – it cemented family bonds and alliances, secured patronage, ensured business ventures and agreements. Banks foundered without honour, men were jailed over perceived lack of honour influencing business dealings (look at you, Gianfrancesco Cavalcanti), and what is Florence if not the city of fabulous banking boys?  

-

Which brings us around to our fabulous Platonic boys. In more than one letter, Marsilio declares he and Giovanni married. Well, married in a manner of speaking. Their souls were joined by God. God intended them to have intertwined lives and to live in companionship. Not that Marsilio is a man for predestination, he resoundly believes in free will and the theological implications borne from that, but he is also a romantic and desperately in love. Still, what he is calling back to is a form of quasi-marriage.

Marriage, as alluded to above, was not a terribly religious experience in Florence – people were married at home, a priest didn’t even have to be present etc. While betrothal contracts were cemented in a church it was purely done because churches were seen as neutral ground (as Thomas Kuehn says in his chapter on marriage contracts, since the initial betrothal was agreed to in a church, the Church was not necessarily required for the final ceremony). In a city with a tendency towards family-vendetta fueled civic disruptions, this neutrality was particularly important. Indeed, the greatest of civic unrest and war in Florence, Guelphs-Ghibellines conflict, came about, accordingly to legend, as a result of a disputed marriage. It is not until the Council of Trent do we see a more modern understanding of marriage as a religious rite enter the consciousness in Florence.

However, despite the mostly secular nature of marriage, Florentines still knew it to be a rite within the Church and an important one, at that. Therefore, a man and wife joined in matrimony might not have a priest overseeing the ceremony and exchange of vows, but everyone would have had an understanding that these two people are bound together by God.

It is into this fraught framework that Marsilio sought to position him and Giovanni. He clearly wanted to have their union, their relationship, understood within some confines of the social construct that is marriage. Yet, at the same time, he did not want them constrained by how Florentines did, understood, undertook, and inhabited marriage.

Forcefully Marsilio wrote that he did want Giovanni bound to him by contract. By an earthly understanding of union, of marriage, and all the baggage that attended to it. Baggage that included concepts of duty, social obligation, family businesses, political maneuvers, and social alliances. Additionally, and likely one of the greater reasons for this desire for distance, is that he did not want either of them read as Wife. Yet, outside of the Grecian lover-beloved dichotomy, this was the framework Marsilio had to work with, and he could never quite extricate himself and Giovanni from the confines of either.

Atop that is the focus on honour within marriage, and misalliance was one of the greatest reasons for a marriage to be deemed dishonourable. For a marriage to be kept secret and therefore considered illegitimate in the eyes of society and, more pressingly, the courts (secular and ecclesiastical).

Given what made an honourable marriage, what constituted misalliance, we can see the bind Marsilio found himself in. Same-sex nature of their relationship aside, what were he and Giovanni but a grand example of misalliance?

Marsilio: son of a doctor, middling means, taking on dependents with little ability to provide for them, no powerful connections through marriage or family (patrons are a flighty, unreliable bunch), eventual priesthood (not till 1473), no conventional attractiveness to improve upon anything.

Giovanni: son of one of the oldest families in Florence, cousin of the Medici, merchant-banker, wealthy, powerful, former nobility (though the family relinquished that in order to be granted participatory rights in Florence’s government), married honourably to someone. Maybe. Four daughters will be born to him, regardless!

Misalliance and the subsequent dishonourable, often secret, unions (and children) that sprung from such relationships were perceived as great risks to the social fabric that held Florence together. Socially, women walked a very fine line when in such relationships. They were concubines, more or less, and concubines were not whores but… And they were not wives but… And they were not not wives but…

So, if Marsilio was placing him and Giovanni within this structure he would necessarily have seen their relationship from a social-economic lens as misaligned. Also, there was the fact that, for the most part, these things were required to be secret, and secrecy lent itself to the perception of a dishonourable union, marriage.  

But the solution to a dishonourable marriage was to legislate legitimacy through documentation. That is what Lusanna attempted to do with neighbours attesting to the fact that she and Giovanni householded together as a married couple would. She also brought in her brothers and the friar as witnesses to the marriage itself. But her lack of written documentation, the lack of witnesses from the groom’s side, and the reputational smear campaign Giovanni waged against her and the friar, was what the court leaned on as a deciding factor in this case. (Power dynamics of a Della Casa versus someone of no family background aside, the physical, written documentation of a marriage cannot be underestimated.)

Therefore, if documentation was needed then documentation was what Marsilio could provide in spades. Here entered Marsilio’s great ability to write and write and write. Production of textual bodies of proof of love, of equality between them (if only from a Platonic philosophical lens), of mutual agreement to the relationship, was a means of creating that necessary public procession of the married couple through Florence.

Marsilio would shore their union with enough written documentation to drown the city. He would not allow them to be denied. Hold it up in court – ecclesiastical, secular, public opinion – witness us, witness us, witness us.

It was important to Marsilio that their love be sanctified in one manner or another, and over the course of his life he would spend much effort attempting to force Plato’s philosophy into the shape he needed it to be. Particularly as it pertained to the equality between partners in same-sex relationships – Plato said it was not possible. Marsilio managed to re-rig Plato to make an exception or two that conveniently bore the exact shape of him and Giovanni.

Marsilio said, very well we cannot be honourably married, we are both men, but we can be married within Plato and God, we can publicly show the world that we are honourable, that we love honourably, that we are married (in a manner of speaking), honourably. No mortal, earthly contracts allowed, no dowry, no gifts from the groom, but there will be a procession. There will be public witness, and no one will be able to look away.

[pradame]

Hi pradame,

I’m a 25 year old single mom struggling with my self esteem. I’m not happy with where I am in my life and what I’ve accomplished because there isn’t much to be proud of. I’m constantly comparing myself to other women my age and find myself wishing I was living their lives. Any advice? Thank you 🙏🏽 🤍

1 Corinthians 7 : And don’t be wishing you were someplace else or with someone else. Where you are right now is Gods place for you. Live and obey and love and believe right there. God, not your marital status, defines your life. Don’t think I’m being harder on you than on others. I give the same counsel in all churches.

Ecclesiastes 6 : Enjoy what you have rather than desiring what you don’t have. Just dreaming about having nice things is meaningless — like chasing the wind.

The present time is what matters, don’t think back on the past and what you have or haven’t achieved. Focus on the what you can do in the present time that will shape and show in your future <3

[wonder-worker]

Ælfthryth appears as a witness in a significant number of her husband [Edgar's] charters. Moreover, Ælfthryth is the first royal woman in England to regularly subscribe charters as regina. And, of course, Ælfthryth is the first recorded native-born English woman to be crowned as a queen consort to a king of the West Saxon dynasty. Arguably, however, all these legitimating activities placed her in better stead to exercise power as queen mother than as queen consort. For all the unprecedented recognition she receives as queen during her tenure as royal consort, it is in the early years of Æthelred's reign, as the mother [and effective regent] of a minor ruler, that Ælfthryth truly reached the apex of her agency as queen.

— Matthew Firth, Early English Queens, 850-1000: Potestas Reginae

While the transmission and adaption of Ælfthryth's reputation over time is a fascinating subject in its own right, it is unfortunate that the biography of the first-known crowned queen consort of England has been overshadowed by a single moment of scandal. The woman who comes into focus from contemporary sources was a remarkably adept player of the politics of the kingdom. While her agency remained delimited by her relationship to the king, she can also take great credit for testing the boundaries of what it meant to be a queen in late Anglo-Saxon England. Like the men who surrounded her, she understood the importance of making and maintaining political alliances. She recognised the importance of patronising the Church and forging relationships with ecclesiastical lords. She realised the opportunity that acting as an advocate at court for women and for clerics would afford her. Most of all, when Ælfthryth saw an opportunity for personal political advancement, she took it. As such, whether intended or not, Ælfthryth set new precedents and prerogatives for her successors and so materially moved the role of the queen towards one of political office.

[scribeforchrist-blog]

Is It Your Time? 

MEMORY VERSE OF THE WEEK

=======================

+ Ecclesiastes 4:5 Fools fold their hands

and ruin themselves.

=======================

VERSE OF THE DAY 

======================

+ Matthew 24:37-39 When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. 38 In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. “People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes.”

=======================

SUBJECT: Is It Your Time? 

======================

** SAY THIS BEFORE YOU READ; HERE’S SOME CHRISTIAN TRUTHS **

I AM READY 

I AM NOT AFRAID 

I AM BRAVE 

I AM CONNECTED 

======================

READ TIME: 8 Minutes & 4 Seconds

======================

THOUGHTS:

======================

  Many people are enjoying their lives and aren’t paying attention to what God is doing or trying to do in their lives, and that’s what happened in Noah's day. They were so fixated on banquets, parties, and things that they didn’t pay Noah any attention. They wanted to do what they wanted, and before they knew it, the flood came and swept them away. 

     That's what's happening now. Many people enjoy their lives in a way that isn’t acceptable to God. They are doing things that aren’t acceptable to God. They allow themselves to miss the biggest part in all this: salvation. Jesus died over thousands years ago and rose again, giving us all the opportunity to be saved, but it's up to us to be saved; it's up to us to want to reach and grab what he gave free to the world.

  Verse 40: Two men will work together in the field; one will be taken, the other left. 41 Two women will grind flour at the mill; one will be taken, the other left.

    Some of us are so busy with our lives that we won't notice the sudden change. Some will stay on this earth, and others will leave because God won't hold anyone back from coming to heaven just because someone else isn't ready. A lot of us are attracted to our friends, and we are attached to other people. We don’t see that sometimes, the people we are around can cause us to stay behind and cause us to act a certain way because they aren’t ready. I can say this, friends. If you have people in your life who aren’t ready, I ask you to pray for them and pray a covering over them, a submissive spirit for them.

  Verse 42: “So you, too, must keep watch! For you don’t know what day your Lord is coming.

  It tells us here to keep watch; a lot of us don’t want to because we want to live any matter way; the way people want to live their life is free from the direction, free from the love of God, but the longer they put it off, the more they will lose out on the perfect gift, this time of year people are looking for gifts and things. Still, the lord is the best gift, which is free. People can do all they can to put Christ last, but Christ will be first. 

    Every knee will bow. I can tell you that the biggest hurt in life isn’t a lonely life, not having what we wanted, but living without God; some of you are living right now without God in your life. You wonder why you feel alone, why you feel discouraged, why you feel so much pain; it is because you don’t have him in your heart; a lot of us are going through life without him because we want to, and we must not be this way we must stay strong in God and allow him to change us.

   Verse 44: You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected.

   We don’t know when the lord is coming back; a lot of us are so used to having our way, and we aren’t used to a disciplined lifestyle; we must have that to see the kingdom of God, and this is why we must always be ready not waiting for the very moment to get in the right hand of God. If God gives us a date, how many of us will be ready and wait until the very second to get it right? God is looking for a person with no spot or wrinkle. 

  Verse 50-51 The master will return unannounced and unexpected, 51 and he will cut the servant to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

   If we know Christ is returning without announcing himself, why won’t we get it right now? Why won’t we give him everything we can? It’s so many of us who don’t believe he’s coming back because we have heard it so many years, and we think he’s not, but he is; when he returns, those who aren’t ready will be placed in a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It’s nowhere good when we are placed there. God wants to give us every opportunity to get it right, and some of us just can’t because we aren’t ready to leave our lifestyle. We keep thinking I got another day, I got another day, but another day isn’t promised to us. 

 The servant in this story had time to get it right that his master wasn’t coming back, and he continued his way verse 47-48  I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. 48 But what if the servant is evil and thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’

  That’s what some of us think, but it’s a place that we will be going to; if we don’t get it right and no one can save us from we won’t be given another opportunity at all; the lord will allow us to experience this part of life because we every opportunity to place Jesus in our lives , we were told he was coming back, we have to stop playing games and get it right. Jesus is coming again; this time, he will judge us for every idle word and action, but it’s up to us to say I want to live for him; I want to get it right. 

  *** Today, we learned what will happen if we wait too long to serve God. We learned how he will place us where there will be pain, teeth gnashing, and weeping. This devotion is not to scare you but to get you to see what you are not adhering to. He’s given us each day to get it right, but it’s up to us to get it right. We can’t blame it on anyone else; if we don’t get it in, we must look at ourselves. 

   Matthew 25:23 His master said, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

  God wants to tell us Well done, good and faithful servants; he wants to tell us how proud he is of what we did, but have you done anything in your life he will say this to you , or have you been doing everything you want and not caring about his return. Go to him today and say, Father, I need your help. I am not doing well, but he will show you how to correct your actions because he loves you so much!  ©Seer~ Prophetess Lee

======================

PRAYER

=====================

Heavenly Father, thank you for today, lord; we are so grateful for what you're doing in our lives; we ask you to give us more of you and understanding lord, help us through our day, help us not to be like this world but be more like you, lord we are so grateful we ask you to help us all get ready for your return we don’t want to be not be ready help us to give you our heart and mind, lord without you we can't do anything, we just thank you for what you have given us in Jesus Name amen

======================

REFERENCES 

======================

+ Luke 12:44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

 

+ Revelation 21:7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.

 

+ 2 Timothy 2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

======================

FURTHER READINGS 

======================

Proverbs 19

Psalm 107

Obadiah 1

1 Thessalonians 3 

Romans 10

======================

[alice-and-ethel]

“If Ecclesiastical and Civil governments are ordained of God, then I contend that woman has just as much right to sit in solemn counsel in Conventions, Conferences, Associations, and General Assemblies, as man—just as much right to sit upon the throne of England, or in the Presidential chair of the United States.”

Angelina Grimké (later Weld), American women’s rights activist and abolitionist, 1837

[wishesofeternity]

"A queen's position privileged her relationship with the church hierarchy. This allowed  visible material expression of her personal devotion, and Elizabeth Woodville, though hardly  renowned today for her piety, was a case in point. Some of her requests were for very  private purposes, for example (in 1474) to have a portable altar. Others applied outside  the court. In 1477 she gained, at her own petition, an indult to enter Carthusian houses of  royal foundation, with eight to ten women servants, to hear masses and other divine offices; two years later she and the king were granted a licence to hear services within the Carthusian house at Sheen. Crawford (1985) uses this evidence to credit Elizabeth with a piety "beyond the purely conventional", but does not show how these actions prove it, given that the queen, any queen, had a far greater range of resources and opportunities to express piety than most women. Crawford also shies away from reconciling this comment with her earlier assertion that "many of Elizabeth's actions show her to have been grasping and totally lacking in scruple"  

Elizabeth Woodville's devotion to the Feast of the Visitation (also adduced by  Crawford) had complex implications. The main objective of her 1480 petition to the pope regarding this feast was that the people of England, including herself, not be deprived of the papal indulgences associated with its celebration; this was an issue because the date of the newly instituted feast conflicted with some traditional English ones. The pope declared an arrangement whereby neither observance would be lost. Elizabeth displayed even more of a sense of mission in requesting extra indulgences for practitioners of the Salutation of the Virgin, apparently wishing "the devotion of the faithful of the realm for the said Salutation to be increased more and more". But however important this was for contemporary English piety, and however useful for a broader understanding of Elizabeth Woodville, it does not  seem to take us far "beyond the purely conventional". More thought-provoking, perhaps, is the queen's surrender of her parts of two Worcestershire manors in 1479, which she granted to the monastery of St. Peter's, Westminster, with specific, detailed instructions for the observances she desired on behalf of the royal family. The same year she granted the  monastery of Jesus of Bethlehem 48 acres of land out of her manor of Sheen. One  wonders why Elizabeth undertook almost all her religious projects within a brief period, 1477-80. Had the necessary resources finally come her way, or was there a more personal reason -- for example, the death of her first royal son, George, at the age of two, early in 1479?

It is safe to assume that for any powerful woman of the fifteenth century, piety and patronage were unavoidably related. One of Elizabeth Woodville's first acts of intercession, in 1466, was to gain a royal licence for the founding of a London priestly fraternity. Despite Crawford's contrary assertion, at least one of Elizabeth Woodville's household clerics  became a bishop: her confessor Edward Storey, later bishop of Carlisle. The queen  maintained this ecclesiastical connection, later appealing to the pope on Storey's behalf. As for Elizabeth of York, her "singular devotion" for the Cistercian monastery of St Mary,  Woborn, led her, toward the end of her life, to send the pope a "most instant request" for the  union of that house to the parish church of Salisbury, but her wish was accompanied by those  of the bishop, the dean, the archdeacon of Buckingham and the chapter of the church, all by  the "will" of the king. This may indicate that the queen's word by itself would not have guaranteed the success of the petition.  

Queenly patronage might still be much more direct than this. Elizabeth Woodville was granted the right of presentation to the hospital or free chapel of St. Anthony, London, in 1468. In 1499 Elizabeth of York wrote to the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, asking  for a literal carte blanche of presentation to the highly desirable, centrally located living of All Hallows, Gracechurch Street, London, for which Elizabeth Woodville and her husband had also wanted preferment. The prior was to leave a blank on the certificate which the queen would fill in with the name of her candidate (Richard Southayke received the benefice). Both queens were granted rights of presentation to canonries and prebends in the royal chapel of St. Stephen, Westminster, but these were often shared, e.g. Elizabeth of York's grants of 1486 with the bishop of Ely, or of 1487 with four others. They might also be carefully qualified, applying only to the next vacancy, or to "become void after the king, or some one by his grant, has presented to one canonry and prebend in the same chapel". And even a queen could have competition; in 1500 the university of Oxford received letters from Elizabeth of York, the prince of Wales, and the king's mother recommending three  different candidates to the same position.  

The queen was not restricted to court or high-profile appointments, and she might exercise her influence even over livings to which she had no legal claim. In 1469 John Paston II informed his son that the "free chapell in Caster", a Paston property, was to be given to a chaplain of Elizabeth Woodville, "Master John Yotton", "at the speciall request of the Qwen and othere especiall good lordes of myn". This seems to have been contrary to  Paston's original intentions for the living; moreover, the queen expected a higher stipend for her candidate than Paston was willing to provide. Whatever salary was agreed on was evidently not enough to keep Yotton at his post, since before long "a prest to syng in Caster" was again needed; John Paston III advised his father that "now thys parlement tyme ... I thynk  [Yotton] shalbe awaytyng on the Qwen." Elizabeth of York claimed to be the exclusive patron, as queen, of the hospital of St Katherine-by-the-Tower, and attempted at least twice to obtain a plenary indulgence for it [...].

Naturally, a queen's ecclesiastical patronage could have less spiritual motives, whether personal or political. In 1479 Elizabeth Woodville's brother Lionel was granted a papal dispensation to hold four simultaneous benefices, though this was at the petition of both king  and queen.  The papal "relaxation" she obtained for those visiting St. Augustine's Church, Huntingdon, is also open to cynical interpretation, since one of the conditions is that the visitors "give alms for the maintenance of its buildings and ornaments". It is less obvious why, in 1488, a papal inhibition of "disturbances in the matter of the right of succession, etc." among Irish ecclesiastics, was said to originate in the concern of both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, though we should note that the queen's chancellor was an Irish peer. Elizabeth Woodville's record of "protectyng and defendyng the libertes and  ffrauncheses" of Westminster Abbey, and her "bounteous" donations for its repairs, stood her in good stead when she wished to lease a house there.  

Pious patronage might extend to literary patronage, and the prime example of this for our purposes is William Caxton. The dedication to Caxton's printing of the Fifteen Oes of St.  Bridget of Sweden states that the book was printed at the joint commandment of Elizabeth of York and the king’s mother. The reason for this patronage is unclear, since there is nothing especially queenly or even feminine about the content of these prayers. Of course, Lady Margaret's active piety is well known, and it has been suggested that the queen was her protegee in the patronage of devotional literature. In 1477 Caxton had dedicated his Boke of the histories of Jason to the prince of Wales "by [the king's] licence and congye [and] by the supportacion of... the Quene", Elizabeth Woodville; his reference to the new translation also formally acknowledges both king and queen. Contrary to what one might suppose, the reference to the queen is probably more meaningful than that to the king; Woodville patronage had been important in Caxton's early career on his return to England, and his connection to Elizabeth was probably the critical one.

It is reasonable to suppose that in an age when learning was still so strongly connected to the church, a queen's educational benefactions might fall under the rubric of pious good works. We lack any other substantiated motive for Elizabeth Woodville's patronage of Queens' College, Cambridge, which is first explicitly mentioned in 1465, even before her coronation. Elizabeth's main accomplishment, in 1473, was to give the college its  statutes (never provided by the original foundress, Margaret of Anjou), in which she  described herself as vera fundatrix and stated in part "the duties of our royal prerogative  require, piety suggests, natural reason demands, that we should be especially solicitous  concerning those matters whereby the safety of souls and the public good are concerned, and  poor scholars ... are assisted". The queen shared in the power to alter or rescind any of the provisions of these statutes. Unfortunately no records remain of any further direct benefaction to the college from Elizabeth Woodville; her daughter's involvement is even more obscure except for a fragmentary "mandate for selecting ... Billington to a fellowship or scholarship" Elizabeth Woodville apparently also gave "large sums" to Eton College, probably after 1477 (when Henry Bost, the provost who allegedly influenced her, was elected).  

Queens could, of course, be involved in more overtly worldly patronage, often in an intercessory role. A well-documented example is the involvement of the Mercers' Company of London with Elizabeth Woodville in the late 1470s. The queen first interceded for the  merchants in 1478, regarding a "fraye" between the king's servants and some London  citizens. By December 1479 the company had a much more serious problem; it owed the king an onerous sum for non-payment of its subsidy, and for its alleviation it looked to both Elizabeth and the king's chamberlain (William, Lord Hastings). From the beginning the queen's abilities were recognized as exceptional, not only by the company but by Hastings, who encouraged the merchants to cultivate her rather than himself. In January 1480, after the  merchants had given "grete lawde & thanke" to their court connections, including Thomas Grey and "the lord Ryvers", they reported that Hastings had cautioned them "to be more  secrete of theyre frendes and that non avaunt be made who that is frendly and laboureth for us  Except the quenes good grace oonly, whiche that is, & always hath ben, oure verrey good &  gracious lady in the said mater & c." Evidently dealing with the queen alone would get  the company into less political trouble than open lobbying of her relatives -- an indication,  perhaps, that Elizabeth was not considered one and the same with "the Woodvilles".  

By 8 January 1480, the queen had managed to convince Edward to forgive 500 marks (£333 6s. lOd.) of the fine, and the company decided that she was their most promising option; four days later the fine was further reduced by the same amount. Although this left the company still owing 3000 marks (£2000), which the king made clear was his final offer, the difference was significant enough to earn Elizabeth the merchants' gratitude. This episode helps to explain Elizabeth Woodville's membership in two London fraternities connected to the Skinners' Company. She was the fifth queen consort to belong to the Fraternity of Corpus Christi, and the book of the Fraternity of Our Lady's Assumption contains a painting of her in her coronation robes. Presumably this company had learned in the past that queenly connections were worth maintaining, and reasoned that to honour Elizabeth twice would be even more effective in keeping it in her good graces.  

The queen's intervention was not limited to the business sector. In June 1467, Elizabeth Woodville wrote a sharply worded letter to the earl of Oxford when he failed to restore Simon Blyant to a disputed manor. Her involvement did not end with this gesture, for we know that the archbishop of York was to speak with her about it in August even though she had taken her chamber. Another landowner, Catesby of Hopsford, eventually appealed to the queen in a matter involving a number of lands, though we do not know the outcome. Where families were concerned, the queen's influence might help to undo a marriage as well as to arrange one. From October 1471 until at least April 1473 Elizabeth Woodville and her council were involved, at John Paston H's request, in trying to cancel his engagement to Anne Hawte. Difficulties might arise when an individual had no such convenient connection to the queen; the prior of Bromholm asked John Paston for help because he did not know how properly to make his appeal to Elizabeth Woodville for "certeyn  tymber".

The queen's contact with cities was not defined solely by ceremonies of entry. In December 1467 the city of Coventry voted Elizabeth Woodville a gift of 100 marks (£66 13s.  4d.). Even if this was merely a New Year's gift, and not in response to any special situation, it may represent the city's recognition that it could be in their interest to pay tribute to the queen. For her part, Elizabeth made a gift of twelve bucks to Coventry in September 1474, not long after her visit there with the prince of Wales. The queen's dealings with Coventry were not a matter of mere courtesies. Three months later she wrote to the corporation to express her regret for the disturbance caused by one of the king's servants there. Elizabeth promised that the offender would be dealt with appropriately, and thanked the city for its recent kindness to her and the royal children. The point to take from this is that the relationship a queen might develop with a city could be quite independent of her husband, though useful to him. It was more effective for Elizabeth to communicate with Coventry even though the situation she addressed had nothing to do with her. Here we see queenly intercession operating, as it were, in reverse.

— Derek Neal, The Queen’s Grace: English Queenship, 1464-1503

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Jeremiah Taken to Egypt

When Jeremiah had finished telling all the people all the words of the LORD their God—everything that the LORD had sent him to say— Azariah son of Hoshaiah, Johanan son of Kareah, and all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, “You are lying! The LORD our God has not sent you to say, ‘You must not go to Egypt to reside there.’ Rather, Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you against us to deliver us into the hands of the Chaldeans, so that they may put us to death or exile us to Babylon!”

So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces disobeyed the command of the LORD to stay in the land of Judah. Instead, Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces took the whole remnant of Judah, those who had returned to the land of Judah from all the nations to which they had been scattered, the men, the women, the children, the king’s daughters, and everyone whom Nebuzaradan captain of the guard had allowed to remain with Gedaliah son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, as well as Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch son of Neriah.

So they entered the land of Egypt because they did not obey the voice of the LORD, and they went as far as Tahpanhes.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah at Tahpanhes: “In the sight of the Jews, pick up some large stones and bury them in the clay of the brick pavement at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace at Tahpanhes.

Then tell them that this is what the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will send for My servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and I will set his throne over these stones that I have embedded, and he will spread his royal pavilion over them. He will come and strike down the land of Egypt, bringing death to those destined for death, captivity to those destined for captivity, and the sword to those destined for the sword.

I will kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar will burn those temples and take their gods as captives. So he will wrap himself with the land of Egypt as a shepherd wraps himself in his garment, and he will depart from there unscathed. He will demolish the sacred pillars of the temple of the sun in the land of Egypt, and he will burn down the temples of the gods of Egypt.’ ” — Jeremiah 43 | The Reader's Bible (BRB) The Reader’s Bible © 2020 by Bible Hub and Berean Bible. All rights Reserved. Cross References: Genesis 19:14; Genesis 41:45; Exodus 12:12; 2 Samuel 12:31; 2 Kings 25:26; 2 Chronicles 25:16; 2 Chronicles 36:12; Psalm 18:11; Psalm 27:5; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 7:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 30:2; Isaiah 46:2; Jeremiah 2:16; Jeremiah 5:12; Ecclesiastes 9:1-2; Jeremiah 32:12; Jeremiah 36:4; Jeremiah 38:22; Jeremiah 40:11-12; Jeremiah 44:1; Jeremiah 44:30; Jeremiah 46:14; Revelation 13:10

[frmartinshomiliesandreflections]

17th November >> Fr. Martin's Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Luke 17:26-37 for Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time: 'So will it also be in the days of the Son of Man'.

Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

Gospel (Except USA) Luke 17:26-37 When the day comes for the Son of Man to be revealed.

Jesus said to the disciples: ‘As it was in Noah’s day, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It will be the same as it was in Lot’s day: people were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but the day Lot left Sodom, God rained fire and brimstone from heaven and it destroyed them all. It will be the same when the day comes for the Son of Man to be revealed.

‘When that day comes, anyone on the housetop, with his possessions in the house, must not come down to collect them, nor must anyone in the fields turn back either. Remember Lot’s wife. Anyone who tries to preserve his life will lose it; and anyone who loses it will keep it safe. I tell you, on that night two will be in one bed: one will be taken, the other left; two women will be grinding corn together: one will be taken, the other left.’ The disciples interrupted. ‘Where, Lord?’ they asked. He said, ‘Where the body is, there too will the vultures gather.’

Gospel (USA) Luke 17:26-37 So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Jesus said to his disciples: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, someone who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise one in the field must not return to what was left behind. Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.” They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.”

Reflections (6)

(i) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time 

According to the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a ‘time for every matter under heaven’. In today’s gospel reading, Jesus mentions some of the human activities that the term ‘every matter’ covers, namely, eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, marrying wives and husbands. This is the stuff of ordinary day-to-day life. These activities and many others will always be with us, in every time and place. Yet, Jesus warns against the danger of becoming so absorbed by these essential activities for life that we are completely unaware of another reality that is even more important, what he refers to as ‘the days of the Son of Man’. The ‘days’ or ‘day’ in question is that moment at the end of time when the Son of Man is revealed in all his glory. We have no way of knowing when that day will come. Yet, what we do know is that the glorious Son of Man who is to be revealed at the end of time is the same risen Lord who is with us always until the end of time. In that sense, the ‘days of the Son of Man’ are the days of our lives. The Lord reveals his presence to us each day, today. The value of our daily activities can so absorb us that we fail to see beyond them. The first reading invites us to contemplate the Author, the Creator, through the grandeur and beauty of his creatures. The term ‘contemplate’ might suggest going off on our own to a lonely place to pray. However, we can contemplate the Lord in the midst of all our activities, surrounded by God’s creatures. Contemplation is a way of seeing that brings us beyond the surface of things to the Lord who reveals himself to us from the heart of life. What is said of Woman Wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures can be said of the Lord, ‘She graciously shows herself to them as they go, in every thought of theirs coming to meet them’. 

And/Or

(ii) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

Each of us in our own way is involved in the daily business of life. The ordinary day to day matters engage us. Most of our time is taken up with just living in that very ordinary sense of the word. Jesus refers to this rhythm of daily living in this morning’s gospel reading. He speaks of eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, buying and selling, planting and building. This is the stuff of life. Without it life could not go on. It is no surprise that it takes up so much of our time and energy. Yet, in the gospel reading, Jesus warns against becoming so absorbed by the ordinary routine of life that we never look beyond it or look at a deeper level. In that context of ordinary human activity Jesus speaks of the day of the coming of the Son of Man. That will be a day that puts everything we do, the ordinary business of life, into a totally different perspective, an eternal perspective in a sense. We need something of that eternal perspective before the arrival of that day of the Son of Man. The glorious Son of Man, the risen Lord, is already among us. There is a sense in which he is arriving in the course of our day. The gospel reading warns against becoming so immersed in our day to day affairs that we fail to take notice of him or pay attention to him. We need to be fully immersed in our world with its various comings and goings while at the same time not being so absorbed by that world that we forget about that someone greater who stands among us calling out to us, inviting us into a personal relationship with him. It is out of that relationship that we then engage with the nitty-gritty of life.

And/Or

(iii) Friday, Thirty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

Today’s gospel reading speaks about the activities of eating and drinking, taking wives and husbands, buying and selling, planting and building. These will always be some of the main activities of any human life. We could add to that list. Jesus reminds his listeners that in the time of Noah people were all engaged in these activities when, suddenly, disaster struck, the flood came and all these vitally important human activities seemed less important. On this basis Jesus warns his contemporaries not to become so absorbed by these very human and necessary activities that when he, the Son of Man, comes at the end of time, they will be unprepared for his coming and caught off guard. Jesus is reminding us that we need to keep a proper sense of perspective. The activities of life can be so absorbing and so wonderful in many ways that they can become an end in themselves. There is a deeper dimension to these activities which we can miss. The Lord who comes at the end of time is present to us in and through all of our daily activities. The Lord is present in all things. We need that contemplative approach to life which allows us to recognize the Lord present to us in all our activities. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We encounter the Lord in and through the flesh of life. If we are open to his presence at the heart of life, then his coming to us at the end of time or at the end of our own earthly time will not take us by surprise.

And/Or

(iv) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The gospel reading this morning warns against being so absorbed in the ordinary things of life that we neglect what is of ultimate importance. The reading speaks of eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, marrying wives and husbands. These activities and many others are the stuff of life. They are very important. Life could not go on without them. They are so important that we may to see them as of ultimate importance; this is all there is. Yet, above and beyond all of that necessary activity there is a deeper reality, what the reading refers to as the day for the Son of Man to be revealed. The Son of Man is revealed at the end of time and at the end of our own personal lives. The Son of Man is also revealed in the here and now; the Lord calls out to us in and through the ordinary activities in which we are always engaged. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. All of life is an invitation to contemplate the Lord who is at the heart of life. He calls out to us, as we go about our daily lives, to seek him with all our being just as he seeks us with all his being.

And/Or

(v) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The gospel describes a situation in which the normal business of life is suddenly cut short by some unexpected event. The eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building, marrying wives and husbands, that went on in the days of Noah and the days of Lot were suddenly brought to a stop by catastrophic events, the great flood and the destruction of a city. In our own lives we can have a similar experience. We are caught up in the ordinary day to day business of living, and suddenly something happens that renders all of that of secondary importance. What is it that keeps us going when those familiar routines no longer sustain us? For us as Christians, it can only be our faith in the Lord. We know that when all else changes, when everything else collapses around us, the Lord endures. In the words of yesterday’s gospel reading, ‘the kingdom of God is among you’. God’s reign, God’s power, is among us, in and through his Son. When all else fails, we can rely on that. Like Saint Paul, we can discover that God’s power is made perfect in weakness. In our times of greatest weakness we can experience the Lord’s power most fully.

And/Or

(vi) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The first reading this morning speaks of those who take things for gods. They give to God’s creatures an allegiance that is due to God alone. This is the most obvious case of giving more importance to something than it merits. We can all be prone to that in different ways. We can get things out of proportion. One of the tasks of life is to keep things in proportion. For us as Christians keeping things in proportion will always mean keeping the Lord to the fore and not allowing other things to come between us and him. The ‘eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building’ that the gospel talks about are all important, but they are not of ultimate importance. Only God and his Son are of ultimate importance and we are called to live in a way that acknowledges their sovereignty. As Jesus says at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well’.

Fr. Martin Hogan.

[cruger2984]

THE DESCRIPTION OF SAINT WILLIAM OF BOURGES (William of Donjeon) The Patron of the University of Paris and Gunsmiths Feast Day: January 10

St. William (also known as Guillaume de Donjeon) was born around 1140 in Nevers, France.

His father initially intended for Guillaume to join the army. However, Guillaume took the ecclesiastical way of life instead. His ecclesial tutoring was handled by his uncle, the Soissons archdeacon Pierre (Peter the hermit). William eventually abandoned worldly pursuits and joined the Order of Grandmont.

He stayed with the order for some time and followed their practices with immense dedication. When he discovered that the members were no longer cordial with each other, he left and joined the Cistercians. At the Pontigny Abbey in France, he donned the habit and was soon made Prior. He was appointed Abbot of Fontaine-Jean Abbey in 1184. Also in 1200, he was made abbot of Chaalis Abbey.

Saint William nurtured a genuine and true dedication to the Blessed Sacrament. For this reason, he was often at the altar, meditating on the true meaning of the Sacrament.

In 1200, William was appointed Archbishop of Bourges. He was reluctant to accept this new appointment because it meant abandoning his solitary life of meditation and prayer. Pope Innocent III, as well as other religious superiors, encouraged him to take the position. William agreed but continued his asceticism practices throughout the rest of his life. He always wore a shirt made from hair beneath his bishop's habit and completely gave up meat.

Bishop William oversaw the ongoing building of the Gothic Cathedral of Saint Stephen that had been started by his predecessor in 1195. He paid visits to the poor and sick regularly. He did not forget the imprisoned as well. He also stood up for the rights of the clerics against government intrusion.

Saint William of Bourges died in 1209 at midnight while meditating at the foot of the altar. He died at the age of 59. Before his death, he had been making plans to visit the Albigensians as part of his missionary work. In his will, he asked that his body be buried in ashes while wearing his hair shirt. His remains are currently interred in the Basilica reliquary chapel. Pope Honorius III declared the canonization of Saint William on May 17, 1218.

Saint William of Bourges is the patron saint of pregnant women, midwives, and people in difficult labor. His devotion to aiding women during childbirth and his deep compassion for those in pain earned him this special patronage. It’s a testament to his unwavering commitment to helping others and his enduring legacy in the realm of compassion and care.

St. William's life was intricately woven into the tapestry of the 12th century, a period marked by both religious fervor and intellectual enlightenment. His story is not only one of spiritual devotion but also a reminder of the dynamic and transformative era in which he lived, where faith and knowledge intertwined to shape the course of history.

Source: Saint of the Day

[rcsplendent]

❝ TRUE that love in WITHDRAWAL was the weeping of ME . ❞

☼☾  (  saoirse  ronan  ,  30  ,  they/she  ,  non-binary  femme  ,  stuart  4  )  -  have  you  seen  ROWENA  STUART?    we’ve  heard  through  the  grapevine  that  they’re  DRUIDIC  but  also  NAIVE. when  you  think  of  them  ,  you  think  of  runes  etched  into  leather  and  stone,  dandelion  and  nettle  tea,  a  candlelit  shrine  to  the  gods.

parallels  :  jo march  (  little women  )  ;  misty day  ( american  horror  story: coven )  ;  nell crain  (  the  haunting  of  hill  house  )  ; luna lovegood ( harry potter )

BASIC  INFO

FULL  NAME:  rowena niamh stuart

AGE:  thirty

GENDER:  nonbinary woman

PRONOUNS:  they/she

ORIENTATION:  pansexual panromantic

LANGUAGE(S)  SPOKEN:  primary  —  english, scots, gaelic;  conversational  —  french

ACCENT:  scottish

LABEL:  the  druid;  a prophetic soothsayer; someone who seems to have a spiritual connection with the gods.

APPEARANCE  &  PERSONALITY

FACE  CLAIM:  saoirse ronan

HEIGHT:  five feet, six inches

HAIR  COLOUR:  dark blonde, curly & thick, down to her waist

EYE  COLOUR:  pale blue, but somehow warm & inviting

USUAL  EXPRESSION:   pleasant and friendly, but lost in thought; looking off into nothingness as if daydreaming.

POSITIVE  TRAITS:  gentle-hearted,  selfless,  kind,  friendly,  exuberant,  protective,  observant,  playful, spiritual, romantic

NEGATIVE  TRAITS:  naive,  anxious,  fearful,  scatterbrained,  capricious,  skittish, ditzy, ecclesiastic

FAMILY

MOTHER:  unnamed queen of scotland

FATHER:  graeme stuart, king of scotland

SIBLINGS:  violet stuart, princess of scotland; gwendolyn stuart, princess of scotland

THINGS  TO  KNOW

you  were  born  on  the  first  day  of  spring,  silent  as  you  arrived,  your  eyes  opening  to  reveal  a  look  of  wonder. the  midwives  said  you  looked  as  if  you  had  seen  it  all  before;  like  your  soul  had  already  been  reborn  a  thousand  times  over. 

it  started  when  you  were  a  baby,  really;  the  nonsensical  wailing,  the  inconsolable  fits. your  parents  thought  you  might  have  colic,  and  then  maybe  that  you  might  not  be  developing  quite  right,  but  you  grew  just  fine,  learned  to  walk  and  talk  at  the  same  age  as  everyone  else. but  the  fits  remained. sometimes,  you'd  suddenly  stop  what  you  were  doing,  take  one,  two,  three  heaving  breaths  and  then  BURST  into  tears  like  something  terrible  had  just  happened  to  you.

but,  see,  that's  the  thing  —  that's  what  it  felt  like. randomly,  in  the  middle  of  a  meal  with  your  family  all  around  you,  or  while  you  were  out  in  the  fields  chaining  daisies  together  to  make  a  crown  with  your  sisters,  safe  as  can  be,  you  would  suddenly  feel  like  the  world  was  ending,  or  like  someone  very  close  to  you  had  died. it  was  uncontrollable  and  all-encompassing  —  the  worst  sadness  and  fear  you'd  ever  felt,  hitting  like  a  tidal  wave  for  no  apparent  reason.

at  first,  your  family  believed  it  was  just  a  quirk,  something  you  might  grow  out  of. but  then  things  started  to  line  up  in  ways  that  felt  too  convenient  to  be  a  coincidence. when  you  were  five,  you  threw  a  fit,  screaming  about  how  "something  terrible  was  going  to  happen,"  and  the  next  day,  a  sentry  would  come  running  to  alert  the  royal  family  that  a  terrible  storm  was  coming  and  would  hit  in  less  than  an  hour. the  flash  floods  that  ensued  wiped  out  entire  groves  of  centuries-old  trees. when  you  were  seven,  you  halted  a  make-believe  session  with  your  sisters  and  bursted  into  tears,  wailing  the  words,  "they're  all  going  to  die."  that  evening,  a  soldier  reported  that  entire  herds  of  cows  in  the  upper  highland  ranches  were  dropping  dead  from  an  unknown  illness.

you  became  something  of  a  beacon. it  wasn't  always  true  —  sometimes  you'd  have  one  of  your  episodes  and  nothing  would  come  of  it. but  your  family  never  faltered  in  their  precautions,  because  more  often  than  pure  chance,  you  were  right. eventually,  your  family's  spiritual  advisors  heralded  you  as  a  DRUID  —  a  blessed  individual,  somebody  who  has  a  special  connection  to  the  gods.

people  from  other  cultures  insist  that  it's  not  real,  that  there's  no  way  you're  clairvoyant,  that  you  can  see  the  future. and  honestly,  you're  not  so  sure  of  it  yourself. but  you  can't  deny  what  happens  when  an  episode  strikes  —  that  feeling  of  being  overcome  with  doom,  the  all-encompassing  tidal  wave  of  dread. you  became  convinced  from  a  young  age  that  the  gods  had  given  you  this  ability  as  a  way  to  help  people.

so,  you  spend  your  adolescence  and  young  adulthood  becoming  more  and  more  devout  to  the  gods  who  had  given  you  this  gift. you  pray  to  them  every  dawn  and  dusk. you  have  a  shrine  to  dagda  in  your  chambers,  where  you  always  keep  a  candle  lit  —  you've  never  let  it  go  out,  not  in  the  twenty  years  since  you  built  it. you  have  countless  books  filled  with  runes  and  rituals,  and  you  know  recipes  for  healing  elixirs  like  the  back  of  your  hand.

but  even  stronger  than  your  devotion  to  your  gods  is  your  loyalty  to  your  family. you  are  a  STUART,  and  you  know  deep  in  your  heart  that  it's  your  purpose  to  love  and  serve  your  family. your  sisters  are  your  best  friends  and  you  tell  them  anything  and  everything,  despite  how  they  might  think  your  ecclesiastic  tangents  to  be  a  bit  boring. there's  no  one  else  you'd  rather  spend  your  days  with.

HEADCANONS

obviously,  rowena  is  not  actually  clairvoyant  !  she  is  mostly  just  a  very  anxious  and  deeply  intuitive  person  and  sometimes,  an  unexplainable  terrible  feeling  just  washes  over  her. sometimes it's nonsensical, but sometimes it's because she's observed signs of disaster that other people haven't, and sometimes without even realizing she's noticed them herself. in  scot/gaelic  culture  &  mythology,  there  are  individuals  called  druids  who  are  heralded  as  having  a  connection  to  the  gods,  and  are  believed  to  have  sensitivities  like  clairvoyance. so,  in  her  family's  culture,  it  makes  sense  that  she  would  be  treated  as  one.

she  is  a  deeply  romantic  person  and  is  always  finding  ways  to  notice  and  cultivate  love  in  her  life,  platonic  and  romantic. she  is  the  kind  of  friend  who  will  spend  hours  making  you  a  handmade  gift,  just  because  she  wants  to.

she  is  very  " religious "  in  the  sense  that  she  is  deeply  devoted  to  the  gaelic/celtic  gods. she  prays  every  dawn  and  dusk.

she  is  a  pacifist  by  nature,  but  has  a  fiery  heart  (  and  a  lot  of  fire  in  her  zodiac  chart,  although  she  would  have  no  idea  what  that  means!  ). she  is  fiercely  loyal  to  her  family  and  loved  ones  and  would  fight  anyone  who  tries  to  hurt  them.

she's  friendly  to  a  fault,  and  is  always  actively  seeking  out  the  good  in  people,  even  those  who  don't  see  it  in  themselves. she  wants  to  believe  that  everyone  is  a  good  person,  which  can  get  her  into  trouble  sometimes.

WANTED CONNECTIONS

friends:  she  definitely  has  lots  and  lots  of  friends!  anyone  who  is  kind  to  her  is  a  friend  in  her  book.

unlikely  friend:  she  is  desperate  to  see  the  good  in  people,  so  i  think  it  would  be  super  cute  if  there  was  someone  who  is  a  total  grump,  and  she's  managed  to  weasel  her  way  under  their  skin  !

a  fated  love:  listen ...... this  could  be  so  soft. someone  she  thinks  was  sent  by  the  gods. an  angel  in  human  skin. or  maybe  someone  who  makes  her  question  her  faith. LISTEN ....

[tlaquetzqui]

That may describe Early Modern Europe, but even then only the Protestant part, because Medieval Europe and Catholic Early Modern Europe had convents, for women who were not interested in men or marriage. Among other issues with that description of specifically medieval women’s economic prospects.

Convents were enormous economic and cultural centers, easily as much so as any monastery, and their abbesses often, maybe even usually had more influence in local ecclesiastic politics than their bishops did. it was also absolutely routine for medieval women to own property in their own names, married or not. (The parts about women’s property rights do still apply to Catholic women in Early Modern Europe, because they lost most of those rights with the rebirth of Greco-Roman patriarchy in the Renaissance; all the Reformation did was also take away the convents.)

I honestly always find the term ‘spinster’ as referring to an elderly, never-married woman as funny because you know what?

Wool was a huge industry in Europe in the middle ages. It was hugely in demand, particularly broadcloth, and was a valuable trade good. A great deal of wool was owned by monasteries and landed gentry who owned the land. 

And, well, the only way to spin wool into yarn to make broadcloth was by hand. 

This was viewed as a feminine occupation, and below the dignity of the monks and male gentry that largely ran the trade. 

So what did they do?

They hired women to spin it. And, turns out, this was a stable job that paid very well. Well enough that it was one of the few viable economic options considered ‘respectable’ outside of marriage for a woman. A spinster could earn quite a tidy salary for her art, and maintain full control over her own money, no husband required. 

So, naturally, women who had little interest in marriage or men? Grabbed this opportunity with both hands and ran with it. Of course, most people didn’t get this, because All Women Want Is Husbands, Right?

So when people say ‘spinster’ as in ‘spinster aunt’, they are TRYING to conjure up an image of a little old lady who is lonely and bitter. 

But what I HEAR are the smiles and laughter of a million women as they earned their own money in their own homes and controlled their own fortunes and lived life on their own terms, and damn what society expected of them.