In doing some research on Bertie Ahern I came across an Op ED piece written by Jim Duffy and published in the Irish Times on August 11, 1998. Jim is chiefly known in Ireland as the researcher whose interview with Brian Lenehan destroyed the latter’s Presidential Campaign and enabled the election of Mary Robinson as President of Ireland.
In the article Duffy summarises John Boswell’s research into gay Marriage in the Christian tradition and shows that there were formal marriage rites for the consummation of gay marriage that were extant as late as the 17th. Century. I include the article in full below the fold because it gives the lie to so much “Christian” homophobic blather, but my main purpose in reproducing it here is to ask the question: Why did homophobia become so prevalent in western societies and why did Christianity appear to take a lead role in that process?
I ask the questions, because I do not know the answer.
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet aftet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Boswell’s book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union” having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.”
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering ering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.
At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, “taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.
Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality.
FOR the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins.
Peter L’enfant (he legally changed it to Peter from Pierre) was the original designer of the District of Colombia. In the 1980’s his body (might have been early 90’s) was exhumed and he was lain in state by an act of Congress.
So, why is this important?
Peter was gay and died penniless. These two things are actually intertwined. In the late 1700’s early 1800’s, Peter had moved with his lover to Philadelphia. A few years later, their relationship ended badly and the lover kicked him out of their house and then took him to court for PALIMONY. Yep, he sued Peter for everything he could get and he won.
So, when people tell me that gays shouldn’t have rights, I remember that in the early 1800’s Peter L’enfant lost everything to his mate. If gays aren’t supposed to be equally protected under the law, how is it possible that Peter could have even been sued for Palimony?
Just when it became such an overwhelming need to hate and vilify gays. I understand it is the nature of hu-mans to learn to hate all things “different” from them. . .race, tribe, religion,etc…but it makes one wonder.
Probably it has to do with the seeming lack of desire or ability for us to take responsibility for our lives and everything in them. It is just so much more convenient to have “others” to blame for everything that seems amiss. It is always the “them” who are to blame for the difficulties we encounter.
I keep hoping one day this mass of human beings will wake up, grow up and take an honest look at themselves and then take responsibility. It is not the challenges and difficulties we face in life but what we do with them, how we perceive them and our participation in making a masterpiece of our lives rather than a finger pointing blaming of every one else for our own missteps.
Mistakes are learning opportunities not failures.
Thanks for an informative diary.
Hugs
Shirl
“Homosexuality,” Plato wrote, “is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engen
If gay marriage was OK in medieval Europe, Obama’s definitely behind the curve on this one.
This is just a guess, but the only explanation I can come up with for that is that he figures that he would lose some black votes if he came out for gay marriage. Almost all non-blacks that are against gay marriage are probably set against him already.
I don’t think it would hurt him with them, honestly. I think polls typically show black voters to be more socially conservative than white Democrats, but that’s never hurt Democratic candidates in the past. I certainly don’t think it would hurt Obama.
Anyone who cares enough about gay marriage for it to impact his/her vote is already Republican.
Except the problem is that a lot of black churches are very, very aggressively homophobic. Obama’s chewed them out over it before, but it’s not going to change overnight. His main appeal there is that he’s more sensitive to their issues than Hillary is. If he came out strongly in favour of gay marriage right now, they’d probably just stay home. And that’d mean Hillary would get the nomination which, given her very close ties to extremely hard-right religious groups like the Family, would be disastrous for gays.
TLDR: Pam Spaulding’s okay with Obama’s developing stance on GBLT issues, and that’s good enough for me.
i think he’s trying to be pragmatic. He doesn’t see the votes there, in Congress. Now, if we do the work, can’t we start educating people about history and getting them to move off their fears and into electing legislators who love everyone instead of hating?
If we want equality for everyone, then aren’t we responsible to electing them first at the local level so that the person steering the ship can have the votes he or she needs to get the job done?
The great myth, in my opinion, is that gay marriage will decide an election. I don’t believe it decided the 2004 election. I don’t believe putting it on ballots in 2004 was some genius move by Rove. I don’t believe people really give a damn about it enough to punish a politician in a presidential election. The typical swing voter is going to say, “Alright, the gays are weird, but the economy’s going into recession, and the war is still a disaster, so who the hell cares about gays getting hitched?”
It’s like immigration: People care, but not enough for it to sway a stance they’ve chosen based upon the big issues. Elections will never swing on immigration. Sure, many people gripe about Mexicans coming over the border, but I submit that there’s a pretty strong tendency in this country to say, “Well, we’re all immigrants, so…meh.” Look at what happened in 2006. The Reps got all huffy about it, and they lost. The current GOP nominee for president was probably the least Republican of the candidates on that issue (the possible exception being Huckabee).
I really couldn’t care less if gays get married, personally. “They should be as miserable as the rest of us,” as comedians always say. 😉
I suspect that wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration are more about mobilising the faithful than attracting swing voters – its about showing you’re on the right side – even if you subsequently don’t do anything about it – until you raise it all over again at th next election. It’s Pavlovian politics – someone gives the signal – gay marriage undermines Christianity – the herd stampedes and does its Christian duty – then everyone goes home again and its politics as usual.
Of course. If Roe were overturned, the Republicans would be wiped out. The Hallelujahs would have no reason to show up, and non-voters would get off their lazy asses to vote Dem. (The majority of GOP voters actually favor keeping abortion legal, albeit with some more restrictions.) Immigration and gay marriage might serve as great issues for seeing how Mitt Romney will sell out his beliefs to win, but the typical winger isn’t going to rush out for those issues as he/she will for abortion.
Many thanks for your comments, guys. For a more “euro centric” discussion of the topic see my cross post on the European Tribune. I have attempted to sum up that discussion as follows:
“It all seems like an accident of history, with homophobia getting lumped in with xenophobia and the many vicious conflicts of the time often directed at foreigners or minorities. If one supposes that gays were also statistically more likely to enter celibate orders and seek the protection of the Church in so doing, there might also have been some class warfare involved – the Church being seen as part of the Feudal landowning classes and with peasant/serf resentment directed at its wealth. Later Church defeats in the Crusades might not have helped.
The Thomist quotations above seem to indicate that the Church was responding to popular prejudice against gays rather than leading the way, but nevertheless that prejudice subsequently became entrenched in Church Dogma because of the politics of the time. The subsequent attempts to provide Biblical justification for the prejudice against gays (and Jews) may have been more a consequence of the printing press/Gutenberg Bible and the rise of Protestant fundamentalism. Fierce competition between sects may have resulted in very strenuous attempts to enforce conformity/uniformity/solidarity within sects with correspondingly fierce condemnations issued toward outsiders/non-conformists.
All in all a pretty sad history of exclusion/internalisation of violence and one being fought in fundamentalist groups to this day.”
Thank you for a great article. For those saying Gay Marriage will not hurt a candidate, get a grip on reality. It would kill an candidate seeking election in November for the presidency. I know just how rabid the right can get at times about marriage. I was here in Texas fighting the marriage amendment in 2005. There is only one state that has successfully defeated a marriage amendment once it was on the general ballot and believe it or not that was Arizona. Homophobia and Bigotry have a strangle hold on middle America and until the majority of the people 50 and older currently are dead(the close minded ones), it will be the same. Young people do not seem to have the hangups of their parents and grandparents thank goodness.
Duffy is largely citing John Boswell, who as a devout Catholic gay man who died of AIDS certainly had a bias, but as a professional Yale historian also had a certain obligation to facts. Boswell’s best known assertion, that the Catholic church practiced gay marriage until at least the twelfth century, is still controversial, with various historians claiming that the rite in question was to unite two men as adopted brothers rather than as a married couple, but Boswell’s interpretation is also still favored by many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell
So if Boswell’s right and the church wasn’t particularly homophobic until the Enlightenment kicked into gear around 1700, why did they start then? The question is incredibly complex, depends on an uncertain assumption, and is probably unanswerable, but I think it would be fun to take a swing at it anyway.
I think it’s because from about Newton to World War II, everyone’s drive was to clean, simplify, standardize, industrialize, homogenize, dominate, and control. This was the era where European empires became global, and wars between European powers were no longer chaotic rape, pillage, looting, plague, and famine, which was standard in Europe during the Medieval era and is standard in Africa and various other places today, but were instead a relatively very clean, rational conflict between neat rows and columns of professional adult male soldiers. The civilians, instead of being preyed upon as usual, frequently just waited for the pros to settle it, and then submitted to the victor, which was a better deal for the victorious army as a whole, since they could conquer productive territory instead of a wasteland. The noteworthy thing is that this situation depends on the disciplined submission of the individual soldiers to the good of the collective army.
That drive towards control, homogeneity, and standardization carried an overwhelming desire for everyone to be fanatically disciplined, straight, white, Christian, monogamous, slavishly obedient to neat gender roles, and as hygienic as possible. It arguably peaked with the Victorians, and “Victorian morality” is now a pejorative shorthand for this whole mentality.
It all went sour during World War II, with the Auschwitz crematoriums, civilian bombing in London and Dresden and Tokyo, and most of all, the nuclear bomb, all of which were directly or indirectly caused by Hitler gambling that he could go back to preying on civilians for one final war, after which the entire world would be united in a single Thousand Year Reich and free of any war at all. Obviously he lost that bet, and after World War II, it looked like the clean, controlled, technological ideal was going to wind up with a whole lot of us turned into whiffs of carbon inside an enormous desert of radioactive glass.
Since then, the modern world has beaten back that ideal into a means for serving humanity in all its undisciplined messiness, rather than an end in itself. That’s why we’ve had dystopian literature about the betrayal of civilians during World War II like Slaughterhouse-Five and 1984, anti-militarism, civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, casual sex, Jews in country clubs and atheists in universities, and minor messy cultural norms like that loud noisy rock and roll, or the universality of casual clothes like t-shirts and jeans.
On the other hand, the frightening flip side of this is that the drive for centralization and control led to public schools, hospitals, welfare, and pensions, and the re-atomization of society may erase those and make the poor much poorer.
Finally, be aware that my own bias is the idea that technological discoveries are the single greatest driver of war, politics, society, morality, culture, and history, as is apparent in this argument.
Thanks for this thesis – worth a diary in itself – but it runs somewhat counter to the discussion on this diary on Eurotrib. There the change in attitudes towards gays and same sex marriage is seen as taking place in the 11th. and 12th. centuries – with perhaps some hold-outs in isolated pockets as late as the 17th. century. The change is attributed more to the Gregorian reforms and the attempt by Rome to re-establish control over largely autonomous feudal churches, cathedrals, monasteries and religious orders who were seen as having become corrupted by wealth and licentiousness.
The insistence on celibacy for the religious was perhaps a way of ensuring that the Church, and not the children of priests, abbots and bishops inherited all property and the condemnation of “sodomy” merely an extension of that – direct primarily, at least initially against priests, monks and friars in same sex monasteries etc.
Popular and class resentments against the wealth of the Church may also have led to homophobia directed primarily against the clergy/religious and the Church responded by adjusting its theology and politics to condemn the practice.
The changes you referred to – partly technological – came later – and the Gutemberg bible and invention of printing combined with the Reformation and a revulsion against the excesses of the Church led to a much wider puritanical movement – and yes, much greater pressures toward uniformity – although such pressures were also present in the Roman empire which seems to have been indifferent to homosexuality.
Interesting! I noticed a comment about the peasants’ discontent with the church in your summary of the Eurotrib comments.
What does LQD stand for?
Lazy Quote Diary – as almost the entire diary is a quotation from someone else. I was surprised, when I read it, that there appeared to have been quite a degree of endorsement of gay relationships in the early church – surviving as late as the 17 Century in some areas – and I felt it could spark a useful debate – especially as so much “Christianity” these days is almost entirely an invention of the past century – perhaps another interesting diary topic for the future!