Appropriate relationships were not a matter of morality or even personal sexual desire. Rather, propriety was dictated by social status. The "active" partner in the relationship had to be higher in status than the "passive" partner. Those who were lower in status included women, young boys and slaves. However, this meant that any man who was effeminate and enjoyed being the "passive" partner was considered to be aberrant, as eventually he was expected to become the "active" partner, as reflective of his status in society.
Homosexuality is tied to natural disasters: Initial Legislation
After Constantine converted to Christianity, homosexual activity became the subject of legislation. Early legislation (300-800) made it a crime punishable by death. Emperor Justinian (540s) cited the homosexual activity and blasphemy for this to be the story of Sodom.
"We know that God brought a just judgment upon those who lived in Sodom, so that to this very day that land burns with inextinguishable fire. By this God teaches us, in order that by means of legislation we may avert such an untoward fate."
This linked natural disasters (such as the bubonic plague and earthquakes) to homosexual activity. This reason was also repeated by Emperor Charlemagne (800). He cited the conquest of Spain by Muslims as clear evidence that Justinian's warnings were accurate. It was proposed that homosexual activity be punished by burning at the stake.
Many years later the black plague (1340s) brought back similar views, the populace blaming the heretics, the sodomites and Jews for their suffering. In the 1400s the Florentine Officers of the night were created to hunt out these so-called culprits. This group sought out "sodomites" and punished them so that "in this way the city and its upright citizens may be freed from all commotion, wars ended, plague abolished, enemy plots curbed and cities turned towards good government and praiseworthy conduct".
How did early doctrine encourage homophobic attitudes?
The misinterpretation of the story of Sodom meant that people believed that homosexual acts were responsible for catastrophic events. Leaders used this to pacify the population and show that they were doing something about events that were out of their control. This meant that sexual desires were not viewed as a private act, but a public act. This encouraged obsessional homophobia. However, it is important to note that other sins were blamed for natural disasters, like blasphemy, and other sins were legislated against, like adultery.
Homosexuality is ranked as a sin: The Church
From at least 590, the church believed that if you sinned, you had to do penance. Early Christian writers viewed homosexuality as the same as adultery. Theodore of Tarsus wrote that the penance for sodomy (any sexual act from bestiality to anal intercourse) included being banned from the church building for 5 years. After 5 years he could enter the church porch and listen to the bible from a distance. In the next four years he would fast and physically mortify
From 1007 the clerics started pressing for reform, as many clerics had families and some had concubines who were male. Peter Damian wanted married priests to divorce their wives and reject their families. He believed that sodomy was one of the worst sins, "If blasphemy is the worst sin, I do not know in what way Sodomy is better". He cited the death penalty in Leviticus, urging that clerical sodomites be required to do penance for at least 15 years, be beaten, spat upon, bound in chains, imprisoned and starved. The pope did not agree to these demands.
However sins started being ranked. Ivo of Chartres (1040-1116) wrote that it is "more flagrant and shameful than to sin by a natural use in fornication or adultery". Gratian (1140) found homosexual acts as more unnatural than fornication, adultery and incest. Alain of Lille (1128-1202) found homosexuality to be on the same level of seriousness as homicide. In 1280 Albert of Cologne wrote that it was a special "stink" that rises to heaven. "It is contagious, spreading from one man to another until the whole world is in danger of infection".
Thomas Aquinas wrote that it was unnatural, saying that even rape and incest were not in the unnatural category because they resulted in procreation, the ultimate purpose intended by God.
The four kinds of unnatural sexual acts:
- bestiality
- homosexuality
- oral and anal intercourse
- masturbation
How did the early church encourage homophobic attitudes?
Protestant Christians believe that the only way to truly pay for sin is through the death of Jesus on the cross. However, early doctrine of the church viewed sin as something that required penance. This meant that different sins needed to be ranked in seriousness. This can be seen as encouraging hysterical prejudice, as the early church deemed some sins to be more "unnatural" than others.
In addition to this the word "Sodomy" implies that Emperor Justinian's interpretation is still accurate (homosexual acts are responsible for natural disasters).
In addition to this the word "Sodomy" implies that Emperor Justinian's interpretation is still accurate (homosexual acts are responsible for natural disasters).
Homosexuality is used as a political tool
Although the church was not directly responsible, their treatment of homosexuality did enable groups to employ the charge of sodomy as a weapon against their enemies.
- In the 12th century the middle class reformers accused the aristocracy of sodomy.
- During the 13th century, the Muslims, Jews and heretics were routinely accused of sodomy.
- Kings were also included of sodomy (William Rufus, Philip II, Richard I, Edward II, Henri III).
- During the Grusades, the Muslims were accused of sodomy, portrayed as predators who wanted to attack innocent Christians.
What I personally found the most strange, was that during the Protestant Reformation both sides (Catholic and Protestant) accused the other of sodomy. Catholics tried to prove that Protestants were using their faith to hide the sodomy, and Protestants preached sermons representing papists as sodomites.
Homosexuality becomes the realm of science
Science starts taking over the categorisation of "sodomites"
- In the 12th century the middle class reformers accused the aristocracy of sodomy.
- During the 13th century, the Muslims, Jews and heretics were routinely accused of sodomy.
- Kings were also included of sodomy (William Rufus, Philip II, Richard I, Edward II, Henri III).
- During the Grusades, the Muslims were accused of sodomy, portrayed as predators who wanted to attack innocent Christians.
What I personally found the most strange, was that during the Protestant Reformation both sides (Catholic and Protestant) accused the other of sodomy. Catholics tried to prove that Protestants were using their faith to hide the sodomy, and Protestants preached sermons representing papists as sodomites.
Homosexuality becomes the realm of science
I included my whole timeline here because I think it's very interesting. If you don't want to read the whole thing, the basic summary is that homosexuality starts to become decriminalised around Europe, while also becoming a popular topic in the medical field. Eventually it becomes accepted as a condition that is inherent to the person rather than a choice. They called it "sexual inversion", which was the idea that homosexual people act outside of their gender roles.
18th and 19th Century
1764
Cesare Beccaria (Italian criminologist):
argued for decriminalisation of several crimes including sodomy. He claimed
that often false confessions were obtained by torture, the crimes were too
difficult to prove, and they were ultimately harmless.
1774
Jeremy Bentham: argued that sodomy should be decriminalised. He referred to
it as "paederasty" and referred to Greece and Rome as examples
England should follow. However the executions only increased. Between 1749 and
1804, executions averaged only one every ten years. By 1806 and 1836 sixty men
were hanged.
1783.
France: Sodomy is decriminalised
1794
Prussia: abolished death penalty in 1794
Science starts taking over the categorisation of "sodomites"
1852
Medical theorists: Gender roles were
believed to be established in nature. They started making distinctions between
innate and acquired sexual characteristics. This means they started to identify
homosexuality as an identity. They called them "inverts", meaning
that their sexual desire has been reversed. For example, it was assumed you
were an invert if you were a woman who was into politics, or a man who likes
cats.
This raised the question of whether
"inverts" should be punished for their acts since it is part of their
nature. Some people argued that inverts were genetically different from the
majority of men.
1861
England: stopped executing
for sodomy, but it continues to be a criminal act until the 20th century. It
was punishable by "penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than
ten years..
1868
Karl Heinrich Ulrichs began to write pamphlets describing homosexual people as a
"third sex". He argued that they were a separate sexual identity
1870
Karl Westphals: argued that homosexuality was a moral
insanity resulting from a reversal of sexual feeling.
1877
Paul Moreau: argued that pederasts
and sodomites were a class of people whose emotional constitution wavered
between sanity and insanity, whose "malady" was hereditary.
1886
Benjamin Tarnovsky (Russian researcher): Insisted that homosexuality was
incurable, and a result of their parents' genes being damaged by epilepsy,
alcoholism or another psychological or physiological traumas
1836
Cesara Lombroso: placed homosexuals in a class of moral
and psychological criminals, concluding they were insane and should be
committed to asylums
1893
Dr C.H. Hughes: wrote that science must "determine
for society and for the State, what is restrainable and vicious, and what are
the morbid and resistless organic impulsions of these bizarre eroto-sexual
states".
1898-1908
Over a thousand articles appeared on the subject
of sexual inversion. They started to conceptualise it as a medical
"problem".
They started to define the "normal"
and "abnormal" relations between men and women.
Women were to be submissive socially and
sexually, focussed on domesic life, pious and morally pure. Men were assertive
both socially and sexually.
Victorian theorists assumed that these roles
were dictated by biology. They also insisted that "love" was only
possible between men and women.
They regarded the "active" partner as
an acquired or vicious perversion. They regarded the passive partner as the
"real" homosexual, whose desires were innate and involuntary. It is interesting to note that this distinction has carried through from ancient Greece (where the receiver was regarded as effeminate) to the church (where the active partner received harsher penalties) and into science.
Conclusion
In general a lot of the emphasis on homosexuality has been the result of misinterpretations of Scripture, particularly the story of Sodom and the seriousness of sin. Now we understand that no sin is more seriousness than the next, we would not single out homosexuality to blame, to punish or to use as a political tool. At least, I hope we wouldn't.
Our history has a few implications for Christians today.
Firstly, we should acknowledge that the doctrines of the church in the past has in some way led to homophobic attitudes today. The church created a culture where homosexuality was ranked as one of the worse sins and called "unnatural" and "contagious". The fear of homosexual acts was also cultivated in our culture through its ties to natural disasters and the laws. I would say that the Christian church has had a part to play in that.
Firstly, we should acknowledge that the doctrines of the church in the past has in some way led to homophobic attitudes today. The church created a culture where homosexuality was ranked as one of the worse sins and called "unnatural" and "contagious". The fear of homosexual acts was also cultivated in our culture through its ties to natural disasters and the laws. I would say that the Christian church has had a part to play in that.
Secondly, we should distinguish between homophobic attitudes and calling homosexuality a sin. Homophobic attitudes are rooted in lies. People who are homosexual are not out to get you, they are not beneath you and they aren't different to you. We should work to cultivate an attitude towards homosexual acts that is similar to our attitudes towards sex outside of marriage.
However: Any lack of homophobia on our part is not due to our own loving attitudes, but due to the media. In the past the most reviled sins were homosexuality, masturbation and bestiality. Nowadays we accept homosexuality and masturbation as commonplace but not bestiality. We always say that we think of homosexual acts as the same as sex outside of marriage, but bestiality and paedophilia we see as being disgusting, perverted, horrifying. Which, coincidentally, is how the church used to see homosexuality.
If Christians truly believe all sins are the same, then either you should be disgusted by everything (from lies, slander, drunkenness, heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual intercourse, masturbation, bestiality, paedophilia) or disgusted by none.
I'm not going to tell you how to view sin, I'm just going to tell you that it needs to be consistent. When will our attitudes match our doctrine? Why are our attitudes still dictated by society rather than theology?
However: Any lack of homophobia on our part is not due to our own loving attitudes, but due to the media. In the past the most reviled sins were homosexuality, masturbation and bestiality. Nowadays we accept homosexuality and masturbation as commonplace but not bestiality. We always say that we think of homosexual acts as the same as sex outside of marriage, but bestiality and paedophilia we see as being disgusting, perverted, horrifying. Which, coincidentally, is how the church used to see homosexuality.
If Christians truly believe all sins are the same, then either you should be disgusted by everything (from lies, slander, drunkenness, heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual intercourse, masturbation, bestiality, paedophilia) or disgusted by none.
I'm not going to tell you how to view sin, I'm just going to tell you that it needs to be consistent. When will our attitudes match our doctrine? Why are our attitudes still dictated by society rather than theology?
