Feature Writer: Various

Feature Title: Papal Sodomites

Link: Various

Papal Sodomites

Sacred Homosexuality

The other most important aspect of the Galla (Galli), the Catholic Priests and the continuation of the worship of Cybele is the distinction of what is Celibacy and an abstinence of sex.

Originally, the Galla cut of their genitals, so they could no longer perform sex acts as men. This did not preclude them from having sex — quite the opposite — it opened the door for sacred homosexual acts where there Galla were sodomized during various ritual and celebrations. Such homosexuality was considered so sacred that the promotion of homosexuality outside of a religious context was frowned upon by the priests and supporters of Cybele. Open homosexuality was considered an afront to its sacred and ancient nature.

This policy has continued today with the Roman Catholic Church strongly against open homosexuality, while sacred homosexuality between its clergy remains as strong as it has been since the days of the Galla.

Chastity and homosexuality

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Interpretation

Condemnation based on Sacred Scripture: The scriptural basis for their statement that “homosexual acts … [are] acts of grave depravity” is found in footnote 140 which refers to a single passage of six verses in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:15-20. The King James Version translates this passage from the original Greek as:

15-17: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

18-20: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

However verses 15 to 17 refer to sexual activity with a prostitute. This would seem to justify treating same-sex behavior as a gravely depraved sin when it is part of a commercial transaction with a same-gender sex worker. But it does not appear to include in any way consensual sexual behavior within a committed same-sex relationship.

Verses 18 to 20 refer to fornication: sexual activity outside of marriage. However, many loving, committed same-sex couples enter either:

A civil marriage by a judge or town hall official, or a religious marriage by a liberal/progressive faith group.

As of early January 2012 same-sex couples can marry in the District of Columbia, in nine U.S. states, anywhere in Canada and in about ten other countries. So, this passage would seem to imply that because the Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex marriages performed outside their denomination, and does not permit same-sex marriages within their denomination, that all same-gender sexual behavior is an act of grave depravity. That conclusion is thus grounded in the Church’s policies concerning marriage and not Sacred Scripture.

Since Article 2357 bases it condemnation of same-gender sex on only this one passage of Sacred Scripture, it would appear that there is little or no justification for their stance that all same-gender sexual behavior by persons with a homosexual orientation is condemned by Scripture. Rather, it seems to be based on the church’s marriage policies.

Later in Article 2357, they do bring in four other biblical passages which they imply condemns same-gender sexual behavior — Genesis 19 — This is the story of the destruction of Sodom. However, most biblical commentators, with the exception of some extreme conservatives, suggest that this passage has absolutely no connection to consensual same-sex behavior within a loving committed relationship. The passage deals with male-on-male rape — an act of violence and gross humiliation.

Romans 1:24-27 — This passage describes how a group of heterosexual, formerly Christian, men and women became so inflamed with lust during Pagan sexual orgies that they violated their basic sexual nature by engaging in same-gender sexual behavior. Again, this is has no direct connection to same-gender sexual activity by loving, committed same-sex couples in private. In fact, it could be argued that this passage would imply that it would be a great sin for persons with a homosexual orientation to violate their basic sexual nature by engaging in opposite-gender sexual activity.

1 Corinthians 6:10 — This contains a list of behaviors that exclude a person from Heaven. Unfortunately, it includes the Greek word “arsenokoitai” whose exact meaning has been lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. Since”arsen” refers to males only, this passage cannot logically be used to condemn lesbian sexual behavior.

1 Timothy 1:10 — This contains the same untranslatable word as does 1 Corinthians 6:10. Here, the Catholic church agrees with two beliefs of conservative Protestant denominations and many other religious conservatives — That the term “homosexuality” refers to sexual behavior, not sexual orientation or feelings of sexual attraction.

That the Bible interprets same-sex sexual behavior as seriously depraved. Other secular and religious groups and individuals interpret the Bible’s famous six “clobber passages” as being silent on same-sex behavior within a loving committed relationship. Rather it condemns — In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) — anal rape, and uncaring treatment of strangers. Same-sex prostitution in pagan temples. In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) — men sexually abusing boys, heterosexuals who violated their fundamental nature by engaging in same same-sex acts during orgies, and men engaging in bestiality by attempting to have sex with a non-human species: namely angels.

Clearly, sincere, intelligent, thoughtful and devout people can interpret the Bible in different ways. The meaning of the Bible is clearly ambiguous.

However, the Catholic church acknowledges that such same-sex behavior is caused by a person’s homosexual or bisexual orientation. Conservative Protestant denominations frequently do not stress this point; the latter often imply that it is a choice and/or an addiction and/or a disorder caused by a poor relationship with the same-sex parent.

The gift of life — The Catechism also condemns same-sex behavior because it cannot initiate a pregnancy. In the same way, opposite-sex sexual behavior using NFP (Natural Family Planning) or artificial birth control could also be condemned because both approaches are claimed to be about 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Yet the Church allows NFP and condemns condoms and — the pill — even if the former is sometimes needed to prevent the transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted disease.

Affective and sexual complementarity— Finally, the article points out that same-sex sexual activity, by definition, cannot be grounded in a real emotional and sexual interaction as it can be between two persons of different genders. This is a belief not shared by many lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, or by professional psychiatric or psychological associations.

This teaching by the Catholic Church can be considered as conflicting with the biblical interpretation of Genesis 2:18 — God is quoted there as saying that It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone. This implies that it would be good for Adam to have a partner that he could join with physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Adam was apparently heterosexual or bisexual, because he and Eve are said to have had at least three children: Cain, Abel, and one or more daughters who continued to procreate through incestuous relationships.

If Adam had a homosexual orientation, then he would only have been attracted to another male. The verse is unclear whether God would have considered such a relationship to be “good.” One might argue that a same-sex loving committed relationships are good for homosexuals and bisexuals as an opposite-sex loving committed relationship is good for homosexuals and bisexuals. Apparently, the Catholic Church believes that God would not have considered the Adam being sexually attracted to another man to be good.

The nature of homosexuality

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

Interpretation

The Church often avoids the use of the term “homosexual orientation,” preferring instead to refer to “homosexual tendencies” or “homosexual condition.” They recognize the findings of numerous human sexuality studies that homosexual orientation is not a choice. The implication is that a homosexual orientation is unchangeable. These are beliefs that the Church does not share with the vast majority of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians and other religious and social conservatives who believe that homosexuality is a choice and is changeable, in spite of a considerable body of knowledge indicating the opposite.

The church opposes “unjust discrimination” against gays and lesbians. This implies that there are just forms of discrimination that can be used to oppress homosexuals that are moral and acceptable — Denying loving committed same-sex couples and their children the status and protection of same-sex marriage — Denying them access to adoption services, and — Denying them access to assisted fertility service, so that they can raise a family securely.

Homosexuals are called to celibacy

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Interpretation

The Church teaches that only married heterosexuals and those bisexuals who are married to a person of the opposite sex can legitimately express their love physically to each other. The Church expects homosexuals to remain celibate and thus to remain lonely without a life partner for the rest of their lives.

This raises an interesting point: if sexual orientation is not chosen, then most Catholics would assume that it is determined by God. Thus, God creates about five percent of humans as homosexuals and then tells them — through the church — that they must remain single for the rest of their life without the joy of being in a committed, loving relationship. Yet God apparently does not create any mechanism by which people can change their sexual orientation. This suggests a degree of meanness and lack of caring that is not normally considered two of the God’s attributes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And there is also the historical record of decadent societies that have embraced homosexuality.  Ancient Greek and ancient Rome both embraced the homosexual lifestyle that St. Paul condemns in Romans 1. Both of these societies bit the dust, and if we go along to get along with homosexual marriage, then our society will crater as well.  “Men doing shameful things with men,” Paul says in Romans 1:27.

For the record, homosexuals insert their sex organs into another homosexual’s anus or mouth, and ejaculate.  God does not like the spilling of the male seed (Genesis 38:9-10).  This in no way equates to the marriage act between a man and a woman, where the natural course of things is to procreate the human race. In fact, homosexual activities have just the opposite effect of procreation, because of VD and AIDS which can cause death to the participants.  Homosexual activity is definitely NOT the survival of the fittest.

And there are many consequences to having homosexual marriage in society.  For instance, will county clerks who are Christian and who refuse to issue the “couple” a license to get married be fired?  Will judges or pastors or priests who refuse to perform the ceremony on the constitutionally enumerated right of freedom of religion be hauled into court for violating the civil rights of the couple?  Will churches and synagogues who refuse to rent their facilities to homosexual couples also be hauled into court for discrimination?  And will wedding photographers and florists who are Christians and who refuse to provide their services at the wedding also be hauled into court? The answer is yes to them all. Talk about opening Pandora’s box by marginalizing the constitutionally protected freedom of religion in favor of exalting the unconstitutional right of homosexuality and marriage (neither are in the US Constitution!).

And now we have the US Military led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates overturning 236 years of tried and proven tradition of no homosexuals serving openly in the military. The US must have gotten it all wrong from 1776 to 2012.  Already chaplains who do not believe in homosexuality are being pressured by homosexuals AND other chaplains who see nothing wrong with it. Male recruits are already starting to get text messages about how cute they are from other males. Is this what we want as a country?   May God have mercy on us.

So many people cannot understand the Catholic position of not condemning the homosexual, while condemning the sin of homosexuality.  Most people have some kind of sexual addiction, whether it’s impure thoughts, pornography, masturbation, or whatever.  All sexual sin is serious, whether it’s homosexuality or any others. The difference is that the homosexuals are trying to change the definition of homosexuality from being sinful to being normal, right, and good, and you will be ostracized and/or sued if you disagree with them, and then they say that “you hate them.” Hating sin is NOT hating the sinner – never was and never will be. And this business of disagreement with someone = “hate” is very strange indeed. Imagine if everyone who you disagreed with on politics, the weather, money, etc., claimed that “you hate them” because you disagree with them. Very strange indeed.

And don’t forget that once homosexual so-called “marriage” is enshrined as a new civil right that equals race, color, creed, or national origin, there will be a massive indoctrination campaign by the government, the public schools, the newspapers, billboards, the media, etc.  Our kids will be ostracized by their peers in school if they stand up for Christ and do not yield to all of the demonic propaganda that somehow sodomy = the marital embrace.   In other words, the very thing the homosexuals now complain about, being pariahs in a heterosexual world, they will in turn do to you and your kids, as payback.  And when our kids grow up, they will in turn be living in a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.  Is this the future we want for our kids?  I certainly hope not.

And if this deviant behavior is “normalized” by society, look for kids to experiment with trying it out, just like they did with illegal drugs back in the 1960’s, when that horror was normalized by late night comics, hippies, and the media. Parents should start instructing their children NOW that this homosexual behavior is not what God intended for mankind.

To sum up, there is no constitutional right to marry.  Marriage has always been between men and women, and a healthy marriage produces healthy children who will take their place in a healthy society when they grow up.  All kids deserve a loving mother and father.  The bible condemns homosexuality, and the author of the Bible is God Himself. Man has no right to change that.

And it would certainly be wonderful to hear a sermon or two from the pulpit on Sunday condemning the practice of homosexual so-called “marriage.”

Romans 1:26-32 — For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 — Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man slayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,  in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Galatians 5: 19-24 — Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,  idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.  And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Studies into the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood are contested and controversial. The issue is complicated by the distinction between priests who are to some degree homosexual, and those priests who engage in or promote gay sexual activity in contradiction to their vows and to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Church, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that homosexual persons, including priests, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”, and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.[4] Regarding gay sexual activity, however, the Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”, and that “under no circumstances can they be approved”.

These prohibitions apply especially to priests, as the canon law of the Catholic Church requires that clerics “observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

For this reason, priests in Latin Catholic dioceses make vows of celibacy at their ordination, thereby agreeing to remain unmarried and abstinent throughout their lives.
The Church distinguishes between “homosexual attractions”, which are not considered sinful, and “homosexual acts”, which are considered sinful.

In 2005 a senior Vatican official confirmed a report in Corriere della Sera that gay men who are closeted and chaste (abstain from sexual activity) for at least three years will still be allowed to become priests, and others have argued that the Church would be unable to enforce an outright ban.

Attitude toward homosexuality in the Church

In 1102, Saint Anselm of Canterbury demanded that the punishment for homosexuality should be moderate because ‘this sin has been so public that hardly anyone has blushed for it, and many, therefore have plunged into it without realizing its gravity. It was probably only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that a mass condemnation of homosexuality began in Europe. This moderated considerably in the final decade of the twentieth century with the distinction now made by Catholic Church authorities between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity, forbidding the latter while tolerating the existence of the former.

Journalists have said that in 1986 “the Vatican pronounced homosexuality to be a disorder, whereas in years before the church had regarded it as morally neutral.”[8] The Catholic Church in fact, which judges homosexuality in the sense of homosexual activity to be, like all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage, objectively wrong, considers homosexuality in the sense of homosexual orientation to be objectively a possibly immutable disorder that as such does not call for moral condemnation: “the Catholic Church teaches that it is not a sin to be gay man or lesbian”.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

There has been some support for homosexual priests expressed by members of the clergy, including by Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit, who has argued for the ordination of gay men.

“Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn’t know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy.” Furthermore the report suggested that some priests and behavioral experts believe the church had “scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful”. One of the first gay priests to come out as gay was Robert Carter, co-founder of LGBT advocacy group the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Estimating numbers

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests, although the John Jay Report reported that “homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s”, and available figures for homosexual priests in the United States range from 15–58%.

A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that 9 percent of priests identified themselves as homosexual, and 6 percent as “somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side.” Asked if a “homosexual subculture” (defined as a “definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary”) existed in their diocese or religious order, 17 percent of the priests said “definitely,” and 27 percent said “probably.” 53 percent of priests who were ordained in the last 20 years (1982-2002) affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.

Anonymous studies have also suggested a prevalence of homosexual leanings in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Studies by Wolf and Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the United States of America. Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, “It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual.”

Anecdotal press reports from anonymous sources suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population. It is [vague] theorized part of the over-representation might be caused by heterosexual priests leaving in order to marry. But it may also have much to do with the Church offering a perceived ‘sanctuary’ for many men living in societies where homosexuality is criminalized or shunned, especially reducing the pressure by families to marry and have children.

One report suggested that since the mid-1980s Roman Catholic priests in the United States were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population; with most of the cases contracted through same-sex relations, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates. A followup study done the next year by the Kansas City Star found AIDS-related death rate among priests was “more than six times” the rate among the general population in the fourteen states studied.

Persistent rumors suggest a gay lobby in the Vatican and investigative journalists have caught high ranking people in the Vatican engaging in gay behavior. The New Statesman claims what is described would be a cabal rather than a lobby but doubts if such a group exists.

Gay Popes

Pope Benedict IX (Latin: Benedictus IX; c. 1012 – c. 1056), born Theophylactus of Tusculum in Rome, was Pope on three occasions between October 1032 and July 1048.[1] Aged approximately twenty at his first election, he is one of the youngest popes in history. He is the only man to have been Pope on more than one occasion and the only man ever to have sold the papacy.

Benedict was the son of Alberic III, Count of Tusculum, and was a nephew of Pope Benedict VIII and Pope John XIX. His father obtained the Papal chair for him, granting it to his son in October 1032.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Benedict IX was about 20 when made pontiff, although other sources state 11 or 12. He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life and allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family. In terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian is alleged to have described him as “feasting on immorality”; the anti-papal historian Ferdinand Gregorovius wrote that in Benedict, “It seemed as if a demon from hell, in the disguise of a priest, occupied the chair of Peter and profaned the sacred mysteries of religion by his insolent courses.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him “a disgrace to the Chair of Peter.”[2] The first pope said to have been primarily homosexual, he was said to have held orgies in the Lateran palace. He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders”. Pope Victor III, in his third book of Dialogues, referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

He was briefly forced out of Rome in 1036, but returned with the help of Emperor Conrad II.

In September 1044 the opposition forced him out of the city again and elected John, Bishop of Sabina, as Pope Sylvester III. Benedict IX’s forces returned in April 1045 and expelled his rival, who returned to his previous bishopric.

Later in 1045, in order to rid the Church of the scandalous Benedict, his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, persuaded Benedict to resign the papacy for a sum of money, thus allowing Gratian to become Pope Gregory VI. Some also say that Benedict wanted to marry.

Benedict IX soon regretted his resignation and returned to Rome, taking the city and remaining on the throne until July 1046, although Gregory VI continued to be recognized as the true pope. At the time, Sylvester III also reasserted his claim.

German King Henry III intervened, and at the Council of Sutri in December 1046, Benedict IX and Sylvester III were declared deposed while Gregory VI was encouraged to resign because the arrangement he had entered into with Benedict was considered simoniacal; that is, to have been paid for. The German Bishop Suidger was crowned as Gregory’s successor, Pope Clement II.

Benedict IX had not attended the council and did not accept his deposition. When Clement II died in October 1047, Benedict seized the Lateran Palace in November, but was driven away by German troops in July 1048. To fill the power vacuum, Bishop Poppo of Brixen was elected as Pope Damasus II and universally recognized as such. Benedict IX refused to appear on charges of simony in 1049 and was excommunicated.

Benedict IX’s eventual fate is obscure, but he seems to have given up his claims to the papal throne. Pope Leo IX may have lifted the ban on him. Benedict IX was buried in the Abbey of Grottaferrata c. 1056. According to the abbot, he was penitent and turned away from his sins as pontiff.

Benedict is usually recognized as having had three terms as pope: the first lasting from his election to his expulsion in favor of Sylvester III (October 1032 – September 1044) the second from his return to his selling the papacy to Gregory VI (April – May 1045) the third from his return after the death of Clement II to the advent of Damasus II (November 1047 – July 1048) embarrassing death / b. 23 February 1417 / r. 30 August 1464 / d. 26 July 1471

I’ve been reading Martin Duberman’s anthology, “Hidden From History”, and in particular James Saslow on Homosexuality in the Renaissance. One of Saslow’s key points is that at this time, men who had sex with men were not exclusive – in modern terms, they w0uld more likely be described as “bisexual”. In a passage about how the rich and powerful freely made sexual use of their subordinates, I came across this throwaway reference: Similar patterns prevailed among the clergy and educated humanists. Charges against Paul II and Julius II centered around their seduction of much younger men; Cellini’s autobiography records a beautiful and talented youth, Luigi Pulci, who made a career out of service to Roman bishops.

Now, I knew about Julius II  – and for that matter, Julius III – but this was the first sexual gossip I have come across concerning Paul II, so I explored further.  This is what I found: it seems he died while being sodomized by  a page boy.

Paul II died, on July 26, 1471 of a stroke, allegedly whilst being sodomized by a page boy. After his death, one of his successors suggested that he should rather have been called Maria Pietissima, “Our Lady of Pity”, because he was inclined to break into tears at times of crisis. Some historians have suggested the nickname was rather due either to Paul propensity to enjoy dressing up in sumptuous ecclesiastical finery, or his likely homosexuality.

Nor was he the only cleric who enjoyed some male company.  Here’s Saslow again:
The intimate living arrangements of the all-male clerical world and the opportunities that educational and religious duties afforded for privacy and empiotional intimacy, while not themselves “causes” of of homosexuality, may have contributed circumstantially to their expression.  Priests in fifteenth century Venice and Stuart Sussex were convicted of sex with young parishioners, unpublished records of church trials in Loreto, Italy, in the 1570’s detail the activities of a choirboy who slept successively with various older monks.

Remember, while Paul II was enjoying his adventures with co-operative pages, elsewhere in Italy and the rest of Europe, “sodomites” were being burned at the stake for their “sin”.

Nor was it only Paul’s interest in boys that got my attention.  On his election as pope back 1464, the cardinals tried to rein in papal power (and thus to increase their own), by imposing s range of tight conditions, which: bound the future pope to continue the Turkish war; forbade him to journey outside Rome without the consent of the cardinals;
limited the number of cardinals to a maximum of twenty-four, all creations of new cardinals were to be made only with the consent of the College of Cardinals.

Upon taking office, Paul II was to convene an ecumenical council within three years.
Alas, for the best laid plans of mice and men.  Paul II simply ignored these requirements, declaring  that election “capitulations”, which cardinals had long been in the habit of affirming as rules of conduct for future popes, could affect a new pope only as counsels, not as binding obligations. He then created a whole slew of new cardinals from his own loyalists. Now, a half a millenium and more later, why does all this sound so familiar?

(Among his “achievements”, he was friendly to Christian scholars; he restored many ancient monuments; made a magnificent collection of antiquities and works of art; built the Palazzo di St. Marco, now the Palazzo di Venezia; and probably first introduced printing into Rome. Paul embellished the costume of the cardinals, and collected jewels for his own adornment.)

Papal Sodomites

For the month of Gay Pride (in church), it would be great if we we could simply celebrate a list of unambiguously gay popes – but we can’t. This is not because they don’t exist (there were undoubtedly several popes whom we know had physical relationships with men), but because of the inadequacies of language, and the weakness of the historical record over something so deeply personal, especially among the clergy. Both of these difficulties are exemplified by Mark Jordan’s use of the phrase, “Papal Sodomites”.  In medieval terms, a “sodomite” was one of utmost abuse, which meant far more than just the modern “homosexual”. It could also include, bestiality, or heresy, or witchcraft, and (in England, after the Reformation) “popery”, which is deeply ironic, and hence treason.

So in the years before libel laws and carefully controlled democratic institutions, accusations of “sodomy” were a useful slander for the powerful to throw at their political enemies. Some at least of the charges against the popes will have been without foundation. We just don’t know, and probably never will, which of these charges were simply malicious. On the other hand, the historical facts around some of the others are clear. In the modern world, the problem is somewhat different. There have been clear reports and claims that at least two modern popes have had male lovers, but in the deeply closeted world of the Vatican, these claims remain as yet not conclusively proven (not have they been clearly refuted).

Still, it is worth considering both those are definitely known to have had male lovers, as well as those who may have done, and also those who did not, but tolerated or protected others.

About Paul II (1464 – 1471) Sixtus IV ( 1471-84), Julius II (1503-1513), Leo X ( 1513-1521), and Julius III (1550-1555) there is little room for doubt: the historical record is clear. About Boniface, Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503),  Benedict IX and John XII (r. 955-964) the evidence is less certain.

Among the early popes who notable tolerated or protected people accused of homosexual practices, we should remember Pope Callistus, who was harshly criticized by Tertullian for his failure to condemn sex between men; Pope Leo IX, who implemented many of St Peter Damian’ s proposals for church reform, but rejected the appeals for harsh penalties against clerical “sodomites”, and also rejected appeals to prevent the consecration as bishop of the promiscuous John (or Jean) of Orleans. Later, ,Paul III (1534 -49) is said to have protected and bestowed honours on his son, Pier Luigi Farnese, who surrounded himself with male lovers, used Roman police to track down a young man who had spurned his advances, and was accused of raping a bishop and other clerics.

A passage from the glbtq.com is fascinating for the very different picture it paints to that prevailing elsewhere, at a time when the inquisition and secular powers were burning between them thousands of men across Europe and in the New World:

The papacy generally revealed in practice a relatively tolerant attitude to sexual “deviation.” Within the Papal States, penalties against sodomy were enforced less rigorously than in many other territories. By the fifteenth century, Rome had developed a vibrant subculture of men who enjoyed sexual relationships with other men. (The situation of women in Rome is less well documented.)

Thus, throughout the early modern era, men found refuge in Rome from the harsh punishment of sodomy, which was more “routine” in northern Europe and which was also vigorously prosecuted in Spain and Portugal during the Inquisition of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although popes at least acquiesced in the prosecutions under the Inquisition, the persecution of sodomites probably resulted from local animus and zeal rather than from directives from Rome. Protestant reformers consistently condemned papal toleration of homosexual acts.

The medieval  flowering of homoerotic Christianity

In the modern popular imagination, the middle ages have generally had a bad press, compared unfavorably with the classical civilizations which preceded it, the Renaissance flowering which followed it – or even the Islamic and Byzantine centers of scholarship and learning alongside medieval Europe. However, the thousand or so years between the fall of Rome and the high Renaissance cover a wide range of conditions.

In the midst of this period, at the start of the second millennium, lies a period which deserves greater attention from anyone interested in the history of the church, or of homosexuality, or (most particularly) of the intersection of the two. This was a period of the most visible, most public “gay” sub-culture in Europe before the late twentieth century. It was also a great age of church reform – and despite strong pressure from vocal opponents, the church reformers generally ignored it.

This coinciding of Church reform and homosexual tolerance is important: Classical writers observed that in Greece, those cities where male love was most common, were also those with “good laws”.

(A superficial look at the modern countries and US states which have approved gay marriage or civil unions certainly matches my perception of those with “good”, i.e. democratic, laws).

Does the same principle apply to the Christian church?) Because it is important, let me spell out the evidence.The abuses of the papacy and bishops before the Reformation are well known. However, there are specific periods that stand in stark contrast to these. The period I am looking at here, the opening of the second millennium, is described by Eamonn Duffy in his history of the papacy, as the great “age of reform”, featuring among many notable reformers, the reign of Gregory the Great.

Now note also, that this same period is seen, from the prism of modern teaching, as a key point in the development of anti-gay theology. In “The Invention of Sodomy” Mark D Jordan shows how Saint Peter Damian’s hostility to homoerotic relationships is central to modern homophobic theology. Now, here’s the fascinating thing: the clear homophobia expressed by Peter Damian, central to modern approved thinking, is the one part of Damian’s proposals that was rejected by the popes and other churchmen of his time. Although the official line at the time was that same sex relationships were sinful, this was not taken very seriously. Instead, the evidence from actual practice, was that such relationships were at worst tolerated, at best celebrated. Let’s look at some “for instances”.

From literature, we have the example of bishops and other clergy writing verse with frankly homoerotic themes: Marbod of Rennes, Baudri of Bourgueil,and Hildebert of Lavardin wrote poems which, while superficially orthodox, also treat frankly homoerotic themes with remarkable frankness and authenticity. All three of these later were consecrated bishops. (Much earlier, two other bishops had written homoerotic verse, which may be read today in the Penguin Book of Homosexual Verse. St Paulinus of Nola wrote erotic love poems to his male lover, while St Vergilius Fortunatus wrote verse with a clearly homoerotic flavor.) Alcuin of Tours also wrote gay love letters, such as one to Arno the bishop at Salzburg:

Love has penetrated my heart with its flame,
And is ever rekindled with new warmth.
Neither sea nor land, hills nor forest, nor even the Alps,
Can stand in its way or hinder it.
From always licking at your inmost parts, good father.

(Read the full letter, and also one by Marbod of Rennes, at Gay Love Letters through the centuries: Medieval clerics)

Another notoriously (and promiscuously) gay bishop was John of Orleans, whose lovers included two archbishops of Tours, and the French King. Yet when widespread opposition to his consecration was presented to the Pope, it was not on the basis of his orientation or promiscuity, but on the grounds of his youth. Even so, the objections were ignored, and the consecration of an openly and promiscuously gay bishop went ahead.
At much the same time, the Archbishop of Canterbury, St Anselm, was presented with a decree by the council of London calling for harsher penalties against “sodomites”.

But he refused to publish the decree, noting that the practice was widespread, and that ordinary people did not even know it was wrong. St Anselm himself was notable for the intensity of his (chaste) relationships with this predecessor at Canterbury, and a succession of his pupils. (Read some of his letters to a pupil at “Gay Love Letters through the centuries: Anselm“). He also undid centuries of earlier monastic practice, by recommending, not prohibiting, close friendships among men in monasteries. Across the channel in France, another famous Monastic saint was in a similar position. St Aelred of Rievaulx was another celibate, chaste priest who nevertheless penned letters containing extraordinarily clear, frankly homoerotic sentiments to his pupils.

Sadly this medieval flowering of a gay sub-culture, described as the most open and visible in Europe until the 1970’s, was all too brief. Not long after attitudes changed, and saw active persecution by the church and state which was horrifying in its severity. That too is a period in gay church history which deserves to be remembered, for exactly opposite reasons. For now, though, let us simply reflect on the thought that at one important time in church history, church reform and “good laws” did indeed coincide with homosexual tolerance.