Ancient gay Catholic marriage?

[FollowingHim]

I just read a fascinating article that claims the Catholic church authorised a number of homosexual marriages, both male and female, throughout its history from the third to eighteenth centuries. They apparantly even had specific rites called the "Office of same-sex union" and the "Order for uniting two men" at times.

Now the whole thing could just be a lone individual trying to find support for their position, drawing far too much out of more vague sources, as I haven't checked the sources at all. But it could be correct also.

If correct it is surprising, but not completely inconsistent with their other changes. This is after all the church that banned polygynous heterosexual marriage for all and banned any heterosexual marriage for the priesthood. Put a load of sexually-charged men together and tell them it's sinful for them to marry women, and some are bound to get some odd ideas. We've seen that in recent years sadly with the odd young boy.

Just because these things might have happened doesn't mean the church as a whole approved, I expect the sources for this article would be the odd group here and there that got a bit heretical, rather than a true endorsement by the main church.

Worth a read anyway. Do you think it's genuine?
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

 

[CecilW]

Wow! Well, to start off the responses, Samuel ...

I read the article, and found it plausible. However, as to its conclusions ...

I don't grant its basic premise that the RC church is either Christian or representative of Christianity. It is, in fact, a modern incarnation of Mithra-ism, using "Christianized" names as a means of assimilating true Christianity of out existence.

Since I throw out their damnation of polygamy and, in fact marriage, as well as their change of the Holy Sabbath from the 7th to the 1st day of the week, I'm not a bit likely to regard this as anything but further proof of the pagan non-biblical origins of the religion. Curious, but that is all.

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree their conclusions are false as the Catholic church in no way represents Christianity. The history is quite interesting though, if correct.

 

[CecilW]

The history is quite interesting though, if correct.

That's for sure!

 

[Seth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell
Now the whole thing could just be a lone individual trying to find support for their position, drawing far too much out of more vague sources, as I haven't checked the sources at all. But it could be correct also.
It's a gay catholic writing garbage. Why add the part it could be correct? We could be living in the matrix and a red sun will give me super powers.

 

[FollowingHim]

It's a gay catholic writing garbage. Why add the part it could be correct? We could be living in the matrix and a red sun will give me super powers.

You're a straight protestant writing garbage, and you don't even realise you're in the matrix already. Sucker. Bow to my superpowers.

Don't instantly dismiss somebody's research purely because they think something different to you. Of course he's gay - nobody who wasn't gay would bother writing that article. Your reference shows he was a professor of history at Yale, which makes me think he's probably correct. Which simply means the Catholic church is even more messed up than I realised previously.

 

[CecilW]

Total side note: Very few movies have really bothered me. (Well, I don't watch slasher type junk.)

But I saw The Matrix, and my whole world went tilt! I walked out of there shaking, and didn't settle down for hours or perhaps days! Not completely sure I ever have.

 

[Seth]

I dismiss a crackpot's research when it's refuted by the majority of the academic community. I research silly things before posting them, just because they happen to agree with my prejudices.
"Although Boswell's earlier works did much to break down the taboo surrounding the serious study of homosexuality in American academia, by the end of his life Boswell was out of step with the main current of scholarly opinion." wiki
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/05 ... swell.html

 

[Isabella]

I dismiss a crackpot's research when it's refuted by the majority of the academic community. I research silly things before posting them, just because they happen to agree with my prejudices.
"Although Boswell's earlier works did much to break down the taboo surrounding the serious study of homosexuality in American academia, by the end of his life Boswell was out of step with the main current of scholarly opinion."

If you are posting to support your point you should at least quote something in its correct context. That quote was regarding sexuality, the history of sexuality and nothing to do with the nature of the OP. The line in context is:

Although Boswell's earlier works did much to break down the taboo surrounding the serious study of homosexuality in American academia, by the end of his life Boswell was out of step with the main current of scholarly opinion.[citation needed] During the late 1980s, the influence of Michel Foucault's writings led to the emergence of a social constructivist view of human sexuality which emphasised the historical and cultural specificity of sexual identities such as 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'. Despite Boswell's friendly relations with Foucault, he remained adamantly opposed to the French theorist's views, which he characterised as a reemergence of medieval nominalism, and defended his own striking essentialism in the face of changing academic fashions. Since his death, Boswell's work has come under criticism from medievalists and queer theorists, who—while acknowledging his personal courage in bringing the issue of sexuality into the academy—have pointed out the anachronism of speaking of 'gay people' in premodern societies and have questioned the validity of Boswell's conclusions

Many social historians do not feel that there was such a thing as a homosexual until homosexuality was "medicalised" by 19th century Psychiatry. Up until then there were homosexual acts, but not homosexuals as a community of peoples and that is where the academic argument lies, it has little to do with the quality of the research presented.

B

 

[CecilW]

Nice, Bels!

So their idea is that no-one was sexually attracted to and active with ONLY their own sex until the medical community put a name on it? How queer. :lol: Isn't that sorta lie saying dinosaurs didn't exist until someone put a name to their fossilized remains.

Academic logic sometimes escapes me. :roll:

 

[FollowingHim]

Thanks Bels, was wondering when you'd show up on this topic! I think you mean that there have been people throughout history who had homosexual sex, but generally in addition to heterosexual sex. It is only once the medical profession started saying some individuals might be naturally predisposed towards homosexuality that people started thinking "That sounds like me" and began to decide to be exclusively homosexual and identify themselves in that way. People haven't changed but society, terminology and behavior has. Is that clearer Cecil, and is it accurate Bels?

 

[Isabella]

Thanks Bels, was wondering when you'd show up on this topic! I think you mean that there have been people throughout history who had homosexual sex, but generally in addition to heterosexual sex. It is only once the medical profession started saying some individuals might be naturally predisposed towards homosexuality that people started thinking "That sounds like me" and began to decide to be exclusively homosexual and identify themselves in that way. People haven't changed but society, terminology and behavior has. Is that clearer Cecil, and is it accurate Bels?

Pretty accurate except that even in Ancient Greece there was no such thing as 'gay' even though sex between men was fairly common. No one expected male exclusivity in marriage and that continued until the romantic period. Social change, expectation of marriage, and the growing medical science community created the "homosexual" as a separate entity as opposed to men, who just preferred other men.

B

 

[Seth]

If you are posting to support your point you should at least quote something in its correct context. That quote was regarding sexuality, the history of sexuality and nothing to do with the nature of the OP

If your going to make a point you should at least look at the correct context. The statement was about the author's academic theories being out of step with the consensus of academia. The point made by the OP was that because he was a professor at Yale his credentials made him believable.

Your reference shows he was a professor of history at Yale, which makes me think he's probably correct.

My response was that his position at Yale alone, does not alone give him credibility, as shown by the fact that his viewpoints are not shared by the mainstream. I then gave links that specifically listed counters to the OP's original thesis concerning catholic gay marriage. So 2 different points. If you didn't find that the quote from wiki to be relevant to the original thesis, it was because it was in reference to the idea that having a professorship at Yale means that ones points must be true. But allow me to go further and help you with some more context that you seem to be struggling with. His early works was the work on sexuality. His last book was before he died, at 47 from AIDS related problems, was the book in question about catholic approved homosexual marriage. Which would mean that by context of the writing that he was out of step at the end of his career, it was referring to in fact the thesis about catholic ordained homosexual marriage. That the next sentence then went back and referred to his early career, seems to have misled you, an understandable mistake. But if you look at the actual words, and the time line of his publishing's then it is clear what is said. Sometimes research helps to understand things, instead of just posting based on prejudices

 

[Isabella]

I then gave links that specifically listed counters to the OP's original thesis concerning catholic gay marriage.

I see one link, it is to Wikipedia. Using a timeline that is not verified by source but just being based upon a line that is not exactly verifiable (since Wikipedia is not) cannot be used to push your point.

Read the quote, it is far more enlightening than picking and choosing what you want to believe.....

 

[Seth]

Not sure why the other 2 links aren't showing up for you, here they are:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/05 ... swell.html

The accuracy of wiki is actually secondary, the accusation you leveled at me, was that I was using the quote at wiki incorrectly. Whether the quote is true or not, was it used in context is the question we are now contesting. If you want to disregard everything from wiki that is certainly your purview. But why complain I'm using wiki quotes out of context if wiki quotes are meaningless? Do you see the oddity of your position?

 

[Isabella]

I am not out to argue with you, I just feel your first post :

It's a gay catholic writing garbage. Why add the part it could be correct?

Was not and is not, supported by the evidence presented, the Wiki article certainly doesn't suggest garbage, Camilia Paglia reviewer in your first link is not an Historian but an Arts and Women's study Professor and social commentator and though she said the work was 'unpersuasive' she does not call it garbage, the second link is to a Catholic blogger who could hardly be considered objective and does not print his sources so it is little better than opinion.
This:

I dismiss a crackpot's research when it's refuted by the majority of the academic community.

You have not yet proved by the above.

"Although Boswell's earlier works did much to break down the taboo surrounding the serious study of homosexuality in American academia, by the end of his life Boswell was out of step with the main current of scholarly opinion."

I, did not say that Wiki does not have anything useful to say, I said that line was not verifiable since it is in the body of the text and is not sourced. Wikipedia even has it tagged as [citation needed] so it is clear that it is questionable. Therefore I am at a loss as to why you felt you could use it to bolster your point?

So as far as I can see your post was overtly hostile and betrays your prejudice more than actually says anything useful, are you surprised at the reaction?

B

 

[eternitee]

as all good students know: good research starts with wiki and google. You soon find that someone else already did all the hardwork for you and will link you to all the references that you actually need to get through a scientific writing assignment

 

[Seth]

To the issue of quoting wiki in context. You can certainly disagree with the point that he was out of step with the mainstream. But disagreeing with the statement doesn't mean I used it out of context. You can say there is a lack of cites for the publishing timeline. But the wiki has both the quote and timeline together. My assertion is that it was not out of context. The underlying truth can be disputed as to whether he represents mainstream academia or he does not. I used wiki as my first source because usually people won't accuse me of trying to bolster my argument by using subjective sources. Thus I was surprised to be accused of mangling and misrepresenting wiki. The other two quotes can likewise be questioned. I came up with lots of pro-homosexual sites that cite duffy and of course propagandize the issue for their particular bias. I am not a catholic, I think catholics have made many mistakes over the centuries. I just find that catholic bashing and homosexual propaganda to be useless for poly. Where is the merit in asserting that homosexuality was approved of by the catholics a thousand years ago? People post stupid things, and then say they don't know if it's true, but hey it might be...isn't that interesting. I'm not saying you beat your kids, but you might be. When did you stop beating your wife? Catholics are incestuous, cannibalistic, atheists, just saying that was the charge by the lawful authorities of the time. Might be something to it.....It's garbage slander. The purpose of the OP was to slander catholocism. Which was then jumped on by the next poster, who continues in the catholic bashing. I'm sure there are lots of appropriate places to bash catholocism. But I dislike people posting articles to forward that particular purpose. Acknowledging he doesn't research it, but hey it might be true. Obama might be from planet Niberu here to prepare the world for blah blah blah...I don't know for sure...but he might be...just saying.....So was my post overly hostile? It was hostile to catholic bashing. Is that the prejudice I am betraying? Is there some other prejudice being betrayed? If so please let me know I could have used this quote instead since it has cites to it if you would like:

Rites of so-called "same-sex union" (Boswell's proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a "spiritual" and not a "carnal" one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell's text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or "blood brothers".[4][5][6

 

[Isabella]

Might be something to it.....It's garbage slander. The purpose of the OP was to slander catholocism.

You have zero evidence for this, as far as I can see the only person behaving slanderously at this point is you.

Want to continue arguing? Be my guest but your long winded post was neither big, nor clever, it was just hot air trying to justify your inaccurate assertions with various straw men peppered through it. Far better for personal growth and your reputation on this site to admit you have probably over reached yourself and made assumptions.

And you know what they say about assumptions?

B

 

[Seth]

Lol, you incorrectly accused me of quoting out of context. That was displayed to you. If your done having it demonstrated that your post was off base, we can certainly stop. If my posts are too long for you, my apologies, I thought it best to reiterate points so you would understand them in context. Since my early posts were quite short and seem to cause you some consternation. Where was a straw man? I am acting slanderously? I assume you mean to the OP, and not Boswell. If you care you might want to read the posts before my first post, where catholics were attacked. So to state that I initiated the hostility or slander would in fact be incorrect again. Or you could read the posts by the op after my first post, where I did not slander him, and in his comical slander of me, specifically attacks me, where as I did not attack him Since you can't seem to respond to my points as they have rebutted yours. But instead say I am the only one acting slanderous I am more than willing to let your personal growth continue at it's current rate I would hesitate to comment on your reputation.