As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about samesex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately He cited the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us. patient and compassionate with others in every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. for he allowed only one - not al l- to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love." After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France. The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder. It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about samesex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately He cited the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us. patient and compassionate with others in every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. for he allowed only one - not al l- to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love."
After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France.
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France.
I smell revanchism. In the early 12th century, the Church had just had its ass handed to it by the Turks and the Mamluks. Time to find a domestic enemy to kick when the foreign enemies kicked back too hard, methinks.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Turks, Mamluks, early 12th century? What do you mean? Even Saladin was last third of the 12th century, and the Crusades weren't over by then. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Still, the crusades definitely had their "Mission Accomplished" moment around 1100 AD. They won the first crusade in 1099. After that, they didn't really win anything anymore.
Well the current Crusade could well continue until 2099 if McCain has its way probably with a similar lack of success - although Bin Laden is no Salidin "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Bogomilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The name of the movement was bulgarus in Latin (meaning "Bulgarian"), which included Paulicians, Cathars, Patarenes and Albigenses. It became boulgre, later bougre in Old French meaning "heretic, traitor". It entered German as Buger meaning "peasant, blockhead" (and went on to English as bugger) and the French term also entered old Italian as buggero and Spanish as bujarrón, both in the meaning of "sodomite", since it was supposed that heretics would approach sex (just like everything else) in an "inverse" way. The word went on towards Venetian Italian as buzerar, meaning "to do sodomy" (the sexual acts performed by homosexuals). This word entered German again (see reborrowing) as Buserant and went on to Hungarian as buzeráns, becoming buzi around the 1900s, a form still in use as a sexual slur for male homosexuals. The word also entered Swedish, through the mediation of August Strindberg[citation needed], as bög, meaning male homosexual.
Cathar Perfect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cathar Perfects travelled the Languedoc in twos, in imitation of Christ's instructions to the Apostles in the Gospels (such as Luke 10: 1-12). Male and female Perfects always travelled with partners of the same sex to avoid sexual temptation. To their enemies this drew accusations of homosexuality.
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. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
As my quotes indicate, it was rather more insidious: it exploited popular prejudices to crush popular (and more connected to the populace) rivals to its monopoly over faith, first isolating and then more easily executing them. Tactics not unlike those the Nazis used against communists and Jews.
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.
There was the Spanish (and Italian) Inquisition, too. An escalation of full-blown insanity, when even the descendants of converted Jews and Muslims were sought after. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexuality, known at the time as sodomy, was punished by death by civil authorities. It fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition only in the territories of Aragon, when, in 1524, Clement VII, in a papal brief, granted jurisdiction over sodomy to the Inquisition of Aragon, whether or not it was related to heresy. In Castile, cases of sodomy were not adjudicated, unless related to heresy. The tribunal of Zaragoza distinguished itself for its severity in judging these offences: between 1571 and 1579 more than 100 men accused of sodomy were processed and at least 36 were executed; in total, between 1570 and 1630 there were 534 trials and 102 executions.[20]
The obvious answer would be to blame Christianity, but the Bible wasn't popularly read until later, there doesn't appear to have been any major theological shift until later, and I suspect the Church harboured and protected many gays at the time as is evidenced by the rites of gay marriage described in the diary. Was homophobia brought in by the Huns and invading tribes from the east who also destroyed Roman civilization (with which the Church was heavily identified). Was it popular/class resentment against the wealth and power of the (aristocrat) Church within feudal societies? Was it the need to rebuild populations post multiple wars, disease and famine?
I suspect it was a loss of nerve and leadership by the Church in giving way to popular sentiment or political/economic pressures and who sold out on gays as sacrificial lambs to the slaughter to save their own hide. The theological justification may have been a later post hoc rationalisation. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, "European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century." (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9). The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of "nature" as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that "Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature" shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition.
The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of "nature" as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that "Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature" shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition.
I suspect it was a loss of nerve and leadership by the Church in giving way to popular sentiment or political/economic pressures and who sold out on gays as sacrificial lambs to the slaughter to save their own hide. The theological justification may have been a later post hoc rationalisation.
It appears to me that you are looking for a single-step explanation. However, what I see is a process, one that can easily gain its own momentum: first opportunist rhetoric against opponents executed for the sin of hereticism aimed at cutting their popular support, then making homosexuality one of the sins of the heretics, then making homosexuality a marker enough to identify heretics, then homosexuality as a mortal sin on its own. It was a very similar escalation that took the Spanish Inquisition from the hunt for open heretics to hunt for Jews, then converted Jews, then grandsons of converted Jews. So I see your original either-or question as corresponding to different stages of an escalation.
Now, the above was my original view, but considering my own quote on the Spanish Inquisition, some nuance is in place: e.g. apparently, homosexuality used to be judged by 'worldy' courts in most places, thus the anti-gay escalation wasn't even under the full and direct control of the Church.
I suspect it was a loss of nerve and leadership by the Church
Why so lenient? Selling out was nothing unusual in the Dark Ages. Review the history of monastic orders on the verge of being declared heretic, the battles for political control with the Holy Roman Emperors, the Avignon Papacy, the backstabbing of the Temple Knights and so on. Also, publicly sentencing a few hundred homosexuals doesn't mean that their own homosexual priests weren't sheltered on - without publicity. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You misunderstand. Cathars, Bogumils and so were the rivals I meant, and calling them gays was a way to exploit popular homophobia to split these popular non-Church-controlled religious movements from the people, and later to more easily demonise executed 'heretics' before the populace. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Colonialism: the real `Apocalypto'
"Furthermore," Mejía concludes, "the conquerors treated `sodomy' as a special Indian sin and hunted it down and punished it as such on a grand scale. They orchestrated crusades like the Holy Inquisition, which began burning sodomites at the stake as a special occasion, as in the memorable auto-da-fé of San Lázaro in Mexico City." This bloody crusade of terror is confirmed in the colonizers' own words. Antonio de la Calancha, a Spanish official in Lima, wrote that during Vasco Núñez de Balboa's incursion across Panama, he "saw men dressed like women; Balboa learnt that they were sodomites and threw the king and forty others to be eaten by his dogs, a fine action of an honorable and Catholic Spaniard." When the Spanish invaded the Antilles and Louisiana, "[T]hey found men dressed as women who were respected by their societies. Thinking they were hermaphrodites, or homosexuals, they slew them."
"Furthermore," Mejía concludes, "the conquerors treated `sodomy' as a special Indian sin and hunted it down and punished it as such on a grand scale. They orchestrated crusades like the Holy Inquisition, which began burning sodomites at the stake as a special occasion, as in the memorable auto-da-fé of San Lázaro in Mexico City."
This bloody crusade of terror is confirmed in the colonizers' own words.
Antonio de la Calancha, a Spanish official in Lima, wrote that during Vasco Núñez de Balboa's incursion across Panama, he "saw men dressed like women; Balboa learnt that they were sodomites and threw the king and forty others to be eaten by his dogs, a fine action of an honorable and Catholic Spaniard."
When the Spanish invaded the Antilles and Louisiana, "[T]hey found men dressed as women who were respected by their societies. Thinking they were hermaphrodites, or homosexuals, they slew them."
By the way: does anyone here have sources for the claim that the charge of homosexualism was used against fallen-from-grace monastic orders? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
