Interesting article on the history of gay Christian marriage (yes, you read correctly) in the Irish Times.
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.
(hat tip to Cynical Nation)
I see he’s following John Boswell’s theory. I haven’t read Boswell, but I’ve read a lot about him. He seems to be almost as questionable as Bellisle (sp? – the early American’s didn’t use guns, guy).
My own inclination would be to research a great deal more, before accepting it completely. Someday I might have time to actually do it.
This is at best a jab at the basis of theological objections to gay marriage. IMO it has no chance of changing their minds and will at most irritate some. Many are rather up to very learned too. I wouldn’t play on their turf.
I read the whole article and I have to say that I’m extremely skeptical of the thesis that this type of activity was commonplace in early Christianity and that Church disapproval of only “invented” at a later date – the Didache, which is about as early a Christian source as you’re going to find outside of the gospels, includes a condemnation of the homosexual act, as do the patristic writings of the first several centuries.
The fact that these two guys are still on the saints’ rosters is also something that argues a great deal against Boswell’s conclusions – St. Christopher got taken off the roster for far less of an offence than living in a homosexual relationship would be under Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox, for that matter) teachings.
I tried Google, but all I got was various prayers for both saints at various websites as well as links to variations of Boswell’s writings. Were this actually true and verifiable in the text the way that Boswell argues (anybody got ahold of the original Latin?), I would imagine that it would be shouted from the rooftops by various gay publications every time the Church restates its beliefs with regard to human sexuality.
More to the point, I’m not entirely certain what this has to do with the public policy arena debate of gay marriage that was being discussed in the other blog. Even if the claims made by Boswell are true, they also executed anyone who practiced sorcery and considered public variation of religious opinion a secular offence, two things that I very much doubt that anybody wants to see revived anytime soon.
As just some friendly advice for AL, if you want to win hearts and minds on this particular issue, I would stay out of the religious arena and simply from argue the perspective of public policy. One of the reasons why many religious conservative are uneasy about secular gay marriage is that they don’t believe, rightly or wrongly, that the implementation of secular gay marriage is going stop at their church door. It would be in best interest of those arguing such things to stay free of such things, lest one be left the impression that those who advocate in favor of gay marriage have objectives that range beyond the arena of public policy into what individuals whose religious views they either disagree with or do not share “should” believe.
Wow, pulling one out of “The Davinci Code” playbook. Why bother coming up with a new conspiracy theory when the template has already been made?
Hey, now, I had full information on the Da Vinci code playbook by playing GURPS Illuminati, which had been published almost a decade previous. I’m sure you can take the theory back further still.
The modern variations of conspiracy theories actually date back to the early to mid-1800s in Europe, where secret societies like Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminatii or the anarchists actually were attempting to subvert society and were promptly suppressed in return for their efforts, though the latter group even managed to kill one of our presidents. Fascism and communism were both more or less in love with conspiracy theories.
Later, stuff got even more systemized when the Tsar had the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forged in order to use it as an excuse for the pogroms in Russia. If you really want to know more about the history of this stuff, I’d be happy to recommend some books for y’all to read on the subject.
This definitely needs some more research, one way or the other. I know little about the topic or author, so I will let the more informed address it more fully.
I’m entirely in agreement with Dan on this. There’s a certain outlier value to this, but since the catholic saints don’t really mean diddly to me I’m still looking for some justification not to be outraged by a runaway coach. I don’t have a problem with the notion that this is a public policy issue at all, as long as the public has some say in it, and we make at least some effort to suss out the unintended consequences.
I haven’t yet checked whether you’ve responded to my previous post below, but it ocurred to me to ask whether you think Socrates would have had the slightest interest in marrying Alcibiades, or visa versa? The notion is so ridiculous than one can almost imagine an SLN sketch based on it.
One of the grains of salt to take with this is that the RC church has hardly been consistent on various matters over 2000 yrs, so why should this particular issue be the exception? What matters are disposed of ex cathedra even change from century to century, and homosexuality isn’t a matter of dogma as it is dealt with exhaustively in the Bible. This allows any pontif to approach the subject from a number of approaches, depending on which passages are invoked.
The poly Patriarchate Orthodox churches have even less of a claim for inexorable consistency, although Orthodox claims in on any one subject are usually muted compared to the RC views on those subjects (perhaps that’s why they are called “orthodox”).
But in the case of various definitions of marriage, one should beware of the pitfalls, even “man traps”, involved with even understanding what is meant by these “unions”. Prior to careful, original sourced, research, us moderns have little certainty they don’t imply that these fellows were just spiritually supportive. (I wouldn’t extend this spiritual courtesy to the Byzantine imperial families however, who were notorious lechers of all sorts.)
It’s interesting that this came up at this time – about 20 centuries after the fact, and after several decades of research.
Guys, I didn’t mean to hit a nerve with this; it was an amusing ‘huh?’ read for me.
What the church did in the 12th Century doesn’t begin to define what it should do in the 21st.
A.L.
Try this:
“Declare you not unclean that which I have made clean.”
—–Peter, according to Acts.
Who says it has to apply only to food?
Alan:
Probably Paul for one.
AL:
I think I made a category mistake as far as what you were thinking when you posted this. My bad.
I’ll see your humor, and raise you one:
I don’t know what this proves, except that people are funny. (Funny “peculiar” and funny “ha ha.”)
I should have hat-tipped *News of the Wierd* for scrounging up that little piece on the sacred marriage of wood.
“Guys, I didn’t mean to hit a nerve with this; it was an amusing ‘huh?’ read for me.
What the church did in the 12th Century doesn’t begin to define what it should do in the 21st.”
AL
I wouldn’t call it hitting a nerve. It is comic, and we’re laughing. Rule #1: When rewriting history to support your political ideas, don’t use the exact premise of the most publicized fiction book of the year.
I’m not saying you or anyone here did this. It’s such self-serving hooey I think it’s hilarious they bothered to write it down.
I think the point of the article is excellent from a First Amdmt. point of view.
Marriage is a religious matter and different religions at different times had different views.
In other words the government must keep it’s hands off. Not just as a matter of civil rights but also religious liberty.
mj –
‘When rewriting history to support your political ideas, don’t use the exact premise of the most publicized fiction book of the year.’
…enlighten me? What did I miss?
A.L.
AL
Church teachings influence a large number of people. Those opposed to church teachings can make great headway by attacking the legitimacy of of these teachings.
The DaVinci Code: Evil men perverted church teachings to force second class status on women.
Jim Duffy: Evil men perverted church teachings to force second class status on homosexuals.
The DaVinci Code is completely unoriginal as well. A book called “The Prophetess” develops the exact same themes. They’re different in details, I think one of the disciples is female, but the themes are identical.
I’m constantly amazed at the fluidity of history for political purposes. Homosexuals have always been treated poorly. This fact has been the central tenet of the homosexual rights movement for the last 50 years. But today we’re going to pretend it isn’t true so we can attack the church.
Gay rights are progressing at an extraordinary rate in Western culture. Basing them on revisionist history doesn’t advance the cause.