Page 1 of 1
Back in the good old days...
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:15 pm
by Gob
Same-sex unions in Christian churches were held as long ago as the Middle Ages, research shows.
Historians say the ceremonies included many of the acts involved in heterosexual marriages, with the whole community gathering in a church, the blessing of the couple before an altar and an exchange of holy vows.
A priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and there was a wedding feast for guests afterwards.
All of these elements are depicted in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 AD) and his companion John, an article published on the I Heart Chaos blog this week says.
And Prof John Boswell, the late chairman of Yale University’s history department, found there were ceremonies called the Office of Same-Sex Union and the Order for Uniting Two Men in the 10th to 12th centuries.
The medievalist published Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century in 1980.
According to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies section of Yale University's website, the controversial book argued that the modern Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality 'departed from the tolerance and even celebration of homosexual love that had characterized the first millennium of the Church's teachings'.
The research brings into perspective the debate raging in America over same-sex marriage after President Barack Obama announced that he now supports it.
The chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same-gender Christian unions taking place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.
An icon in a Kiev art museum (pictured above) shows two robed Christian martyrs, St Sergius and St Bacchus who some modern scholars believe were gay.
The image of the two men has a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (best man), in the image of Christ between them, apparently overseeing their wedding.
Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (512 - 518 AD) explained that, 'we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life.'
One Greek 13th century rite called the Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union, invoked St Serge and St Bacchus and called on God to 'vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints'.
And the ceremony concluded with the words: 'And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.'
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic Office of the Same Sex Union involved the couple laying their right hands on a Bible while they had a crucifix placed in their left hands.
After kissing the Bible, they were then required to kiss each other and the priest gave them communion.
Records of Christian same-sex unions dating back to medieval times have been found around the world in places as far flung as the Vatican, St Petersburg and Istanbul.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:24 pm
by Scooter
I remember going to a lecture Boswell gave about this in anticipation of the release of his book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. It was amusing to see the litany of fourth-rate figures put up by the RCC to attempt to convince people that words didn't mean what they say, in an effort to disprove Boswell's findings. His scholarship was, and remains, unimpeachable, however.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:56 pm
by dgs49
Office of Same Sex Unions.
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Equally credible.
The inference that the Church sanctioned a lifetime of sodomy is beyond preposterous.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:19 pm
by Scooter
An office, in this context, is a type of ceremony, and not any sort of "department" of the Church as your lame analogy implies. Your ignorance of your own faith is appalling.
And since you have not even bothered to read the work you are criticizing, nor the source material on which it was based, you're just flapping your gums, as usual.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:44 am
by rubato
Dave's head has exploded because the church didn't always hate all the people he hates now.
It's ok davey-boy. Back then they could hate and even kill and steal the property of Jews and Protestants. Nowadays you only have fags to officially hate.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:47 am
by Guinevere
And women, of course. Or maybe they are only to be subjugated, but with love.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:22 pm
by dgs49
Produce some source material, asshole. I'll be glad to read it.
I suspect it is imaginary.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:55 pm
by Scooter
The name of the book (which is extensively reference to source material) and its author have been provided to you. Do you expect me to buy you a copy and send it to you?
Actually, if I had half a hope you would actually read it...but there's a greater chance that I would fall in love with and marry Ann Coulter.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:58 pm
by Lord Jim
I have to say,
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic Office of the Same Sex Union
"Same Sex Union" really doesn't sound like a 14th century type phrase...
But I guess that could be a translation issue....
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:59 pm
by Lord Jim
there's a greater chance that I would fall in love with and marry Ann Coulter.
You'll have to get in line behind Bill Maher....
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:02 am
by rubato
Guinevere wrote:And women, of course. Or maybe they are only to be subjugated, but with love.
You're right. Hatred of women is endemic in the Rep. party and forms most of their policies re: reproductive rights and sex education.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:44 am
by BoSoxGal
Scooter wrote:there's a greater chance that I would fall in love with and marry Ann Coulter.
Ann does have that Adam's apple, Scooter. I'm sure you've heard the speculation . . . And if Jim Carville and Mary Matalin can make a go of things . . . Well, never say never.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 7:06 pm
by dgs49
From a review of the "controversial" book:
"That complication persists and increases when Christianity enters the picture. At this early date, in the process of formation, Christianity is being influenced by many different, conflicting, strands of thought, and – of course – is reflecting a society in Rome quite unlike our own. But Boswell picks these influences apart and shows that though Christianity took on board a Stoic distain for earthly pleasures, a Manichean distrust of the flesh and various other philosophies which valued chastity over sexuality, none of these sources are particularly homophobic. They are against sexual pleasure in any form...Boswell acknowledges that there is no way of knowing whether sex featured in these passionate friendships, but he points out that the society of the time made no distinction between passionate friendships which did include sex, and those which did not."
As I said, the inference that the Church at any time sanctioned a lifetime of homosexual sodomy is beyond preposterous. Blessing friendships, maybe.
Yet another example of some homosexual writer exploring unconfirmable nooks and crannies of history to claim that some long dead historical figure was really a closetted homosexual, or that gays were celebrated somewhere or sometime that can never be reliably verified.
It's a lot like Mormon archaeologists sifting through pre-Columbian campsites and coming up with artifacts that they claim prove that the "Lost Tribes" are the ancestors of the American Indians. Wishful thinking.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:27 am
by rubato
Anyone looking for an example of "tortured logic" need look no further than this.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:46 am
by MajGenl.Meade
rubato wrote:Anyone looking for an example of "tortured logic" need look no further than this.
yrs,
rubato
Yes, 'yrs' and 'rubato' are a bit of a contradicktion
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:15 pm
by dgs49
I have raised the essential point of this story and this thread, and there is really no rebuttal to it.
Both the writer of the article and the writer of the book are trying to give the impression that The Church (or someone purportedly speaking for It), at some time in the long-distant and unverifiable past, overtly sanction at least one lifetime homosexual (characterized by sexual congress) relationship.
I have said, in effect, "Bullshit." Prove it.
Because what is being asserted SEEMS TO GO AGAINST two thousand years of Church history in which sodomy has been uniformly and unanimously condemned. The book apparently acknowledges that although there seem to be artistic and literary references to a few same-sex relationships being blessed in some undefined way, there is no indication whatsoever that these relationships were sexual in nature. And given the Church's longstanding position on chastity and celibacy, the burden would be on the person making the assertion to prove that these long-forgotten references were to something similar to the homosexual relationships which are under discussion now.
They might have been, but there is no indication that they were, and there is a mountain of indications that the Church would not sanction such a relationship, ever.
It is rather like the authors of "Holy Blood - Holy Grail" claiming that Jesus must have been married, because all rabbi's were married at that time, and if Jesus weren't married it would have been so remarkable that someone would have written about it. Thus, the fact that no one wrote about him being single PROVES that he was married. It's an interesting theory, but since it goes against 2,000 years of teaching to the contrary, unless there is some tangible proof, it is nothing but mental masturbation.
Re: Back in the good old days...
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:56 pm
by Scooter
You have done nothing but present hearsay twice removed (an unattributed quote claiming Boswell said something that undermines his own thesis). You haven't read the book, and so your purported commentary on it is meaningless.