The Dictionary of Homophobia (148 page)

Cantarella, Eva.
Selon la nature, l’usage et la loi, la bisexualité dans le monde antique
. Paris: La Découverte, 1991. [Published in the US as
Bisexuality in the Ancient World
. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.]

Cameron, Alan.
Porphyrius the Charioteer
. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973.

Williams, Stephen and Gerard Friell.
Theodosius: The Empire at Bay
. London: B.T. Batsford, 1994.

—Against Nature; Bible, the; Criminalization; Heresy; Justinian I; Paul (of Tarsus); Sodom and Gomorrah; Theology; Violence.

THEOLOGY

Antiquity & Medieval Periods
During the early centuries of Christianity’s existence, bishops, church hierarchy, and those who have been called the “church fathers,” sought to formulate Christian doctrine. This theological task was accomplished by referencing the
Bible
, and in particular the New Testament; it also took into consideration the traditions and beliefs of the different churches. Certain local assemblies or ecumenical councils sometimes specified the wording of dogmatic principles or defined moral positions. These declarations were formulated in Greek or Latin, the two universal languages of Antiquity. Even though they adopted Christianity, the authors of these doctrines had received the usual elite education and had been immersed in the culture and
philosophy
of Antiquity, and were obviously influenced by them. The influence of the
vocabulary
of
rhetoric
(in the formulation of the truths of faith) and of the moral strictness of Stoic philosophy remained highly perceptible during the Church’s first centuries, at a time when the Roman Empire was still powerful. This double influence was already evident in the writings of St
Paul
—himself a Roman citizen who wrote in Greek—which bear the mark of concepts used in Greek philosophy. It is thus that the expression “
against nature
” (unnatural) (Rom 1:26), frequently used (even today) to condemn homosexual acts, is not specific to Christianity, but belongs mostly to pagan philosophy. In reality, Christian morality at the beginning situated itself on the straight line of a certain popular stoicism which can be summarized by “living according to nature,” i.e. conforming to the biological and procreative inevitability of the body and avoiding the disturbances engendered by passion or even pleasure.

Church fathers appropriated this interpretation of sexuality, in which it is always considered unsavory and shameful. As author John McNeil states: “Saint Augustine went so far as to categorize all attraction and all pleasure as sin,” because the purely rational goal of sexuality was procreation within
marriage
. Therefore, homosexual relations were condemned. In reality, long before the ascension of state Christianity (
Theodosius
’s decree of 389 CE), Roman law had already taken into consideration the moral demands of Stoic philosophy, even though the application of such laws was not very strict: in 17 BCE, the
Lex Julia de adulteris
was aimed at those who practiced
debauchery
with other men; in 342 CE, Christianity being already in place, Constantine and Constance proclaimed an edict against men who practiced passive homosexuality and threatened them with “cruel” punishment; in 390 CE,Valentine,Theodosius, and Arcadias threatened homosexuals with “vengeful fire” (the Biblical punishment of purifying fire); in 536 and 544 CE,
Justinian
rewrote the
Lex Julia de adulteris
in his
Novellae
, which was aimed at all those who engaged in homosexual acts, both active and passive, and explicitly incorporated Biblical text and punishment.

The decrees that civil authorities of the Empire imposed also appear in the church’s conciliar decrees. The first ecumenical councils were mostly fixated on doctrine and the rejection of
heresies
; however, some local ecumenical assemblies legislated on questions of morality. Thus, in 314 CE in Ankara (Asia Minor), Canon 17 fulminated against “those who have committed the stain of sin with male animals or men.” Here, the link between homosexuality and bestiality was obviously homophobic, but it was more often the case that homosexual acts were condemned under the guise of adultery; in other words, it was more the idea of extramarital relations that was targeted than homosexuality itself.

Starting in the thirteenth century, the Middle Ages saw a considerable increase in the amount and degree of homophobic thought and condemnation. Theologians of the time took homosexuality quite seriously and wanted to prove, intellectually, its harmfulness, whereas the councils, in the form of civil justice, passed severe condemnations. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), a Catholic priest of the Dominican order, was a great figure of philosophy who left a lasting mark on thirteenth-century theology. He was also one of the few to have reflected upon, with the rational weapons of scholasticism, relations between persons of the same gender (in the eleventh century, church reformer Peter
Damien
had denounced sin against nature with such vehemence that Pope Leo IX was forced to urge him to be more moderate). Starting with Aquinas, homosexuals, already condemned to the fires of Hell (as well as to actual pyres) for Biblical reasons, were also condemned for theological ones. Aquinas studied at the University of Paris under another Dominican, Albertus Magnus, who had declared that homosexuality was the most detestable of
vices
for a variety of reasons: it originated out of infernal passions; it had a repugnant odor, and those who practiced it were unable to purify themselves; and it was contagious, as are all diseases. The arguments were quite irrational, and demonstrated a homophobic sensibility founded on ideas from the Old Testament (Hell composed of fire and brimstone), on the dialectic of the pure and the impure borrowed from St Paul (by way of the metaphor of the contagious and incurable disease), and on irrational fear (i.e. subjective adjectives such as “detestable” and “repugnant”).

Thomas Aquinas countered this fear with his cold intelligence, only to come to the same conclusions. He situated his reflection in the larger context of an argument on sexuality and femininity by taking up the previously used arguments of Stoic thought from Antiquity. His ideas specifically relating to homosexual relations appeared briefly in his
Summa theologica
(Comprehensive survey of theology) and, in a more developed manner, in
Quaestiones disputate
(Disputed issues). In the section pertaining to “The Virtues,” temperance provided Aquinas with a platform to discuss same-sex relations, which he understood as debauchery in opposition to reason and the order ordained by God. With the essential finality of the sexual act being procreation, all that remained—i.e. sexual pleasure for its own sake—was nothing but vice. Thus, those who engaged in “egotistical” pleasure, as well as all sexual acts (including heterosexual) that did not express a shared love, were condemned as being “against nature” and consigned to the worst vices of lust (masturbation and bestiality, for example). It is important to note here a form of homophobia that persists to this day among those who claim to adhere to the
Catholic Church
: the denial that homosexuals can ever be loving. In fact, starting with Aquinas, the Church almost never considered homosexuality as
being
, but rather as
practice
, which allowed it to condemn homosexual acts and “compassionately” accept those who performed them.

During the Middle Ages, church councils and assemblies debated widely about homosexual relationships (mostly male). Leaving the theologians to prove the nuisance of these types of relationships, the Church contented itself with pronouncing the necessary condemnations and devising adequate punishments. Those who were accused of practicing homosexuality were often considered heretics and treated as such, as shown by the fourteenth-century arrest and trial of the Knights Templar on charges of heresy and immorality. Thus, in the penitential, the book of laws for confessor priests, penance is determined in conjunction with the sin and its severity. For homosexual acts, the penance proposed is always extremely harsh; at the end of the thirteenth century, sodomy became a special sin that fell within the province of bishops or the pope. With regard to morals, the most ambitious ecumenical council was the Fourth Lateran Council, summoned in 1215 by Pope Innocent III in order to “eradicate vice and favor virtue, correct abuses and reform morals, eliminate heresies and strengthen the faith.” Because sodomy was not explicitly mentioned among the vices to eradicate, the ecumenical council left the responsibility of legislation and necessary action to the local assemblies. Thus, by 1120, the Council of Nabulus, in the eastern Latin states (now the Middle East), had already produced four canons against homosexual acts and had condemned the guilty to the pyre.

Despite the
violence
of conciliar texts, the Church called for homosexuals to repent, but left the matter to lay courts, which were often harsh. The tribunals of the
Inquisition
, during which heretics were hunted down, also functioned in the same manner: once guilt was established, it was the “secular arm” which took charge of enforcing the sentence. Civilian justice often treated heretics and sodomites the same by punishing them both with death by fire. Women convicted of the same crimes suffered identical sentences; they were often grouped in the same category as witches, and were also burned at the stake.

During the Middle Ages, as the Church became firmly established in the West, it acted as if it were seized by a siege mentality, ruthlessly pursuing anything that appeared to threaten it; theologians were put into service, and ecclesiastic assemblies established laws that were enforced by lay courts. The result was a more resolute persecution of homosexuals, although it is difficult to comprehend just how seriously they could have threatened religious life. In any case, as much from a theological point of view as a factual one, the period was obviously a homophobic one, and even more so toward the end of the Middle Ages.

However, it would appear that the imposing legal system put into place to deal with homosexuals, and the violently repressive discourse that went along with it, had rather limited effects. French historian Maurice Lever notes that between 1317 and 1789, “in the seventy-three trials for sodomy listed by Claude Courouve in France, only thirty-eight led to executions,” not counting other punishments, such as torture, banishment, and prison. These thirty-eight executions seem very few, especially in light of the fact that some of the accused were also accused of rape, abduction, or murder. Despite the loss of archival documents (trial materials were burned along with the condemned), and other gaps in information available, a majority of accused “sodomites” might not have been (overly) worried about what civil or religious authorities might do to them. Nevertheless, the threat of death was quite real, and homophobic social pressure might have had a great effect on homosexuals during the period, especially because of its legitimization by the Church.

A look at the
literature
of the time confirms the ambiguity of the medieval point of view on homosexuality. Writings that deal with the subject are interesting because they do not describe “actual” examples of homosexuality, but rather imaginary representations. While the idea of love between a man and a woman appears in lyric poetry and fiction of the period, almost every medieval literary genre also values the friendship or companionship between characters of the same sex. We therefore find inseparable companions in literature (such as
The Song of Roland
’s Olivier and Roland) and unfailing friendships in novels (Lancelot and Gawain); additionally, historian John Boswell, among others, uncovered numerous examples of love poems that are clearly written with same-sex desire in mind. However, the majority of literary texts emphasize moral conformity and vigorously condemn same-sex relations: there is no obvious representation of homosexual characters. On the other hand, it is quite common, especially through female characters whose romantic intentions are unrequited, to insult a knight by calling him effeminate or insinuating his propensity for young men or boys (for example, in
Le Roman d’Enéas,
v. 8619–8675). Even in literary works, then, homosexual relationships are used as a foil in a society ruled by very homophobic moral and religious laws.

Modern & Contemporary Periods
The principles of Church dogma, or those truths that must be accepted as articles of faith, were not yet finalized during the first centuries of Christianity; they came into gradual existence through divine word, the Bible, and Church tradition: knowledge of the truth (of God, Christ, the Church) was not revealed all at once, but was the ongoing subject of theological research. This is why we can describe theology in terms of diachronic development. During the sixteenth century, the
Protestant
Reformation put the Catholic Church into question (challenging its dogma, unity, clergy, etc.) and forced it to more clearly formulate certain truths and moral questions. The rational speculations of medieval scholasticism were not forgotten, but theologians, searching for a more scientific approach to biblical text, proposed a hierarchical organization of dogmatic principles while placing more emphasis on them. They finally presented moral recommendations for the actions and rituals that all true Christians must observe. In reality, the Counter-Reformation (sixteenth century), as it became known, was not revolutionary; it merely reaffirmed truths that had been made murky by abuse. The Church’s view on homosexuality never swayed, however: the Church continued to firmly condemn it, even though popes who ruled during the Renaissance seemed to enjoy great freedom with regard to morals (but not greater than that enjoyed by twelfth-century popes, whose very licentious habits had also led to disciplinary reforms).

Since the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic community’s position has remained rather fixed. It was as a result of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) (1962–65), however, that there was some innovation with regard to religious rites and ceremonies. The Council’s agenda was extensive, and topics discussed included modern communications, relations between Christians and Jews, religious freedom, the role of laity in the church, liturgical worship, contacts with other Christians and with non-Christians, and the role and education of priests and bishops. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church remained steadfast when it came to its essential beliefs: the moral teachings of the Church never changed. As far as this assembly of bishops was concerned, marriage and sexuality were not only instituted for reasons of procreation and the education of children, but also so that “the mutual love between spouses … may progress and grow.” Nevertheless, the pastoral approach to the faithful has had to evolve, for the bishops insisted on condemning the sin rather than the sinner; in other words, homosexual acts must be rejected, but not homosexuals themselves. This distinction, perhaps overly subtle, has not always been fully understood, given that homophobic remarks on the part of zealous pastors and the faithful alike, aimed at gay men and lesbians, remain frequent. The Church also maintains a separation between
being
and
acting
(one can be forgiven for being homosexual so long as he or she doesn’t act on it), which can lead to a sort of schizophrenia among the gay faithful: destined for hell for what they do, but not for what they are.