Just now I read a story on io9, by Annalee Newitz, about John Boswell's theory that Saints Sergius and Bacchus were joined in a "gay marriage" ceremony (located here: http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108)
There are numerous problems with this theory, but first, a bit about the saints.
According to their Passion, they were two high-ranking soldiers serving under Maximian (Roman Emperor from 286 to 305).
One day, Maximian was informed that Sergius and Bacchus were Christians, a doctrine outlawed in Rome at the time. Since they were both high-ranking and trusted members of the military, and much esteemed by the Emperor, he disbelieved the claim.
To prove it in error, however, he decided to enter a temple devoted to Zeus and see to it that Sergius and Bacchus sacrificed with him and consumed the meat of the sacrificed animal. Certain that this was mere slander, he told the supposed slanders that they would instead be treated as Christians, and killed accordingly, should Sergius and Bacchus sacrifice as expected.
Of course, Sergius and Bacchus refuse to sacrifice and declare their faith in Christ, so the Emperor strips them of their Roman army clothing, bounds them in chains, dresses them as women to disgrace them, and parades them in the marketplace. All this time, S&B are singing psalms and reciting Biblical passages, quoting St. Paul and Christ.
The Emperor tells them that Christ was born out of wedlock, was a bastard, was executed by the Jews for His crimes, etc, and S&B and reply with the standard Christian doctrine of virgin birth, atonement, etc.
They are eventually brought to trial before a Duke Antiochus (I have no idea who this person is - he does not appear to exist outside of this Passion). Bacchus is executed, Sergius is crushed by the loss of Bacchus, then Sergius is executed.
There's no real hint at any sort of romantic union, nor is there any suggestion that the two were engaged in any sort of "adelphopoiesis" ceremony. In fact, many scholars think that the Passion was based on earlier martyrologies of other saints - in other words, the saints may not even EXIST as historical people.
Newitz admits that the ceremony is probably not the same as "gay marriage" as we understand it, and even Boswell decried efforts to link gay marriages with the ceremony.
Most likely, it was a form of blood-brotherhood in a Christian context. Blood brotherhood was a popular, albeit long lost in the modern world, rite, in which two men would vow to take care of one another, and would literally 'adopt' one another, legally. However, there's no reason to assume that there was anything sexual in this. In fact, in early Christianity, there were cases of heterosexual couples who would be married but live chastely.
While I suppose Newitz's point - that 'marriage' is a flexible term - is taken (and is true). Defenders of "traditional marriage" generally take the point of view that marriage is inflexible and firmly established - when, of course, marriage can be used to solidify alliances, to make financial deals legal, etc. But it isn't necessary, or advised, to make things up to justify homosexual marriage.
There's this curious notion in her writing that "love" by definition involves sex - but people can love one another without sex, and in chivalry, the highest form of love is a completely unfulfilled devotion to a woman (this is heterosexual in perspective, of course).
Lancelot was not wrong for being devoted to Guinevere - Lancelot was wrong for consummating that devotion.
Of course, this is an ideal and by no means something that was likely routinely practiced - and even the advocates of courtly love varied in whether or not consummating the relationship was the end goal or if spiritual adulation of a woman, leading to further spiritual quests and purification was the purpose.
Some used devotion to a living woman to aid them in their devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
It may seem quaint or even absurd to-day, but there are many variations of love, not just the purely sexual that dominates modern society.
Also, no-one should use the term "Dark Ages," ever again.
No comments:
Post a Comment