Anselm of Canterbury: Gay Bishop, Gay Protector. 21/04

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 – 1109, is important for the evidence he represents that the hostility of some Christians to homoerotic relationships has not always been typical of the institutional church. He has two claims in particular to attention from modern gay and lesbian Catholics. First, he is one of a band of notable medieval clerics who although personally celibate, exhibited a clear homoerotic sensibility, whose affectionate letters to his band of intimate male friends contribute to what John Boswell has described as a “medieval flowering” of a gay subculture, which was not again equalled until the latter part of the twentieth century.    He reminds us also, that just as there was then a homoerotic culture  deeply embedded in the catholic clergy, exactly the same applies today, as Mark Jordan has clearly shown (“The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism “).

 

St Anselm

Read some of these letters in Boswell, or read then on-line at Rictor Norton’s Best Beloved brother, extracts from his book: My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters Through the Centuries.

However, he is also important as an early protector of gay men from the rising tide of intolerance that came to dominate the later medieval and renaissance periods, intolerance that persevered today, and is widely mistaken for something which is somehow inherent to the Christian faith.

From the Calendar of LGBT Saints: (April 21):

The Council of London in 1102 wanted to enact ecclesiastical legislation which declared – for the first time in English history – that homosexual behaviour was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized.
But Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury prohibited the publication of their decree, advising the Council that homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter; he felt that although sodomites should not be admitted to the priesthood, confessors should take into account mitigating factors such as age and marital status before prescribing penance, and he advised counselling rather than punishment.

 


See Also:



Books:

Posted in Uncategorized. No Comments »

Faithful Dissent, or Myopic Obedience?

It is surely obvious to anyone who has given more than a cursory look to the problems of abuse in the Church, that a major part of the causes of the cover-ups, secrecy and protection of offenders that we have seen in the past, comes the insitutional culture which demands unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the hierarchy of control. (This of course is in sharp contrast to the Church’s own teaching on secular law. Where a law or governing regime is unjust and brings harm to the innocent, we are clearly told to oppose it. ) The Church however, has never been much given to applying to itself the standards it expects of others.

Fortunately, we are starting to see some small glimmers of resistance and breaking of ranks within the clergy. Mostly, this has been mild, or expressed behind closed doors. Now we have one brave priest who has spoken out unequivocally, stating that he does not believe that Benedict XVI is speaking the truth about his own past record, and that he needs to resign to restore the confidence of Catholics in the Church. He has done so, moreover in the most appropriate, public manner possible: in a Sunday sermon during Mass.

The Rev. James J. Scahill greeted people after Sunday’s Mass. (Michele Mcdonald for The New York Times)

The Rev. James J. Scahill has been in trouble with the “hierarchy” before, over his public stance against official cover-ups and protection of offenders, but this is going a whole lot further. He  understands very clearly the obvious risk he is taking, but believes that in conscience, he has no choice.  This is clearly in accordance with the Church position that I was taught in apartheid South Africa on dissent in conscience from injustice,  but I don’t suppose that is how the men in control of the Church will see it.  How will they react? (more…)

Epaminondas: Military Hero, Democrat & Liberator, Cultured Statesman. Gay.

Epaminondas lived before the Christian era, outside the Jewish tradition, and has no claim whatsoever to be treated as a “saints in any literal sense. However, taking the term much more loosely, including those we might consider as role models, he clearly fits the bill. If that doesn’t suit you, think of him as included in the “others” of my title.

Together with his lover Pelopidas, Epaminondas was one of the celebrated “Sacred Band of Thebes”, a military company of 150 pairs of lovers. That’s right, an army band where it was compulsory to be gay – and partnered. We usually think of the Spartans as the most military of the Greek cities, and with good reason. While Athens (and some other cities following them) valued democracy, philosophy and intellectual life generally, young Spartans were educated for one thing only – war. After Sparta had convincingly beaten Athens and her allies in the Peloponnesian War, the victors extinguished democracy in the vanquished cities, and placed their allies in command as local despots.

In the case of Thebes, they met strong resistance from the defenders of democracy, in the form of the band of male lovers. Founded initially by Georgidas, on the principle that men never fight more bravely than when fighting to protect and support their loved ones alongside them, the founding proposition was soon confirmed. In their first engagement with the Spartan enemy, victors in the recent Peloponnesian war, the new company of Theban lovers overcame a Spartan army of two to three times their number, and were able to reinstate democracy in their city.

Epaminondaswas initially somewhat hidden in the shadow of his friend Pelopidas, who succeeded Georgidas as leader just a year after the band was founded. Together, they won many famous victories. Later, overshadowing his friend, he found the more enduring fame, and for many notable qualities beyond his illustrious military career.

After assisting in the re-establishment of democracy in Thebes, he developed a career as an orator and statesman as well as a soldier. Although he was instrumental in defeating Sparta in establishing Thebes as the dominant geek power, he refused to use this power to to subject other cities to Theban domination and pillage, so that he was known as a military liberator, not a conqueror. Many scholars have described him as Greece’s greatest warrior-statesman. Diodorus Siculus wrote that he excelled all the others in valour and military shrewdness – but also in “eloquence of speech, elevation of mind, contempt of lucre, and fairness…”.

The Romans also admired him, although less enthusiastic about his cultural achievements. Cornelius Nepos included him in his Book o Great Commanders, but found it necessary to excuse his reputation as a musician and dancer on the grounds that the Greeks had a fondness for these pursuits. He “praises without reservation Epaminondas’ intellectual and athletic prowess, and finds he meets roman standards of temperance, prudence and seriousness….. and was such a lover of truth that he never lied, even in jest.” .

He died in 362, in a battle which once again defeated the Spartans, but also ended Epaminondas’ own life.

This could be my kind of guy – accomplished, virtuous, a democrat and liberator – and good-looking. Except that he lived about two millennia too soon, he could easily be seen as a great Renaissance man. My only objection? Surely he’s just too good to be true. Yet this is the picture that comes down to us from the ancients.

And to think that men of this calibre are not permitted to serve openly in the US army.

(Source: The material above condenses a passage from “Homosexuality & Civilization” by Louis Crompton, which makes an excellent and stimulating introduction to the history of homosexuality.)

[ad#In post banner]

What About the Women?

One of the few features of the Vatican responses to the abuse scandal that I can agree with, is that it is incorrect to speak of widespread “pedophilia”, or “child” abuse. They point out, quite correctly, that much of the abuse is not against young children, but against adolescents, and so is more correctly described as “ephebophilia”. Here, though, I part company with the Vatican apologists:  the higher age makes he allegations different, but still indefensible. Abuse remains abuse, whatever the age of the victim, and to take sexual advantage of another from a position of power remains abuse, even if there has been nominal consent.  But it doesn’t stop even there.  The victims of abuse are not just young and adolescent boys, or young boys and girls, but also include many adults, especially religious women and male seminarians. I have written on this before, but have been disappointed that in the present close attention to the worldwide problems of abuse, little has been written elsewhere about the widespread abuse of adults. We should remember that one the accusations against one of the of the most notorious alleged miscreants, Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado of the Legionnaries of Christ, was that he abused both women (with whom he fathered children), and male seminarians, as well as his own children. Before the current uproar led to the resignations of a handful of Irish bishops, the few other bishops to have resigned over abuse were some who had themselves been found to have had sexual affairs, invited or otherwise,  with adults. There have also been numerous reports that some leaders of female religious houses, especially in Africa, have pleadedd wiht their local bishops for protection from predatory priests, usually meeting with little success.

Marcial Maciel Degollado with his patron and protector, JPII

Now, a worthwhile piece by Angelina Bonavoglio at Huffington Post goes some way to correct that imbalance.  This deals only with the adult women, not the seminarians, but it’s a start. (more…)

God Hates Figs!

From the Box Turtle Bulletin:

This flyer was distributed during a recent Chicago counter-protest against members of the “God hates fags” Westboro Baptist Church. Food for thought:

3343598218_f7509066b7_b

Posted in Uncategorized. No Comments »

Healthcare Death Panels

Posted in Uncategorized. No Comments »

Tories’ Fence-Sitting on Gay Marriage.

Faced with the prospect of a crowd of hostile gay activists in front of their party headquarters, the Conservative Party has once again done what they do best: put on a smiling face, and fudged the issue. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer *who has a better LGBT voting record than his boss) came out to scmooze with the protestors, and assured them that if elected, Daivd Cameron would “consider” the issue of gay marriage.

George Osbprne, Shadow Chancellor

???

Has he not considered it already? After years of preparation for this election, has he still not decided what he stands for, and what we will be voting for? (more…)

A Reader Responds: Marie on Ratzinger and Kiestle

In a lengthy response to my earlier post “The Buck Stops …..Way Over There”, a reader (“Marie”) has posted a comment taken from a Reuters report which provides an account of the Vatican explanation. As I do not believe that a comments thread is the right place for lengthy pieces, I have instead copied it here.

The thrust of the defence appears to be that it is wrong to treat this as protecting a child molester, as the case concerned a simple request to leave the priesthood. The Vatican claims that it is this that was “scandalous”, and was resisted. I don’t think the facts are in dispute how – just the interpretation. I fail to see why a request from a convicted child molester to leave the priesthood is somehow more “scandalous” to the reputation on the church than a decision to leave him in he priesthood, where he cold conceivably do more harm, against his wishes and the judgement of his local bishop. The Vatican has once again missed the point entirely: the issue here is not about disciplining a priest, nor is it about the supposed scandal of a man wishing to leave the priesthood. The fundamental point, which is entirely missing in both Ratzinger’s letter of 1985 and the current “defence”, should have been that of the safety of the children.  It  now becomes clearer than ever that this safety has never been the first concern of the Vatican as in institution, nor of Joseph Ratzinger the man.

This is Marie’s contribution:

A new report by Reuters says that this Ratzinger letter was in response to a simple request by Keisle to leave the priesthood.

A request to leave the priesthood is a scandal, yes, especially coming from a 38-year-old priest, and therefore the recommendation that the priest be given “paternal care” while the case is pending. (more…)

Un-Gay, Family Values

Mark Fiore tackles un-gay, family values politicians coming out of the closet.

(Mitch McConnell sponsors gay marriage with 4-week honeymoon; Glenn Beck promotes Harvey Milk Holiday and “Do Ask, Do Tell” to promote heterosexual credentials.)

Posted in Uncategorized. No Comments »

The Buck Stops…….. Way Over There

Writing about the revelations from California of Cardinal Ratzinger’s reluctance to remove from the priesthood a convicted child molester Andrew Sullivan observed that

The Pope cannot blame the local bishops this time – they desperately tried to get the priest fired.

You’d have thought so, wouldn’t you? But Sullivan has grievously underestimated the Vatican’s capacity for denial and shifting the blame. As it was so vividly put in Mark Fiore’s fun video cartoon ,

"The Buck Stops .... Way Over There."

Benedict’s acolytes have indeed contrived to blame the local bishops, as they are said to have borne the primary responsibility for “disciplining” wayward clergy. (This blithely ignores that this was NOT a request for discipline, but an attempt to protect children from future harm. )

From the LA Times:

The Vatican insisted Saturday that Pope Benedict XVI had done nothing wrong when, earlier in his career, he hesitated to defrock a California priest who had admitted to molesting two boys.

A Vatican lawyer said that it was the local bishop, John Cummins of Oakland, who bore primary responsibility for protecting children from the abusive priest, Stephen Kiesle, and that the pope, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had acted appropriately when he declined to take immediate action.

“It’s the job of the bishop to discipline the priest,” said the lawyer, Jeffrey S. Lena of Berkeley, in an e-mail to The Times. “The pope is not a five star general ordering his troops around. That is simply an incorrect idea about the allocation of authority as between the pope and his fellow bishops.”

(Read the full report)

[ad#In post banner]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Switch to our mobile site