Subject: Orthodox Gay Union Rite: Text and Discussion Date: 10 Apr 1994 19:30:30 GMT AN ORTHODOX RITE OF HOMOSEXUAL UNION?: A COMPILATION OF RECENT INTERNET DISCUSSIONS COMPILER: PAUL HALSALL from VARIOUS AUTHORS I PROLOGUE The following information will interest very many people. Taken from the Internet discussion list Medgay- L@ksuvm.ksu,edu (Medieval Gay Studies) It is a composite of recent discussions and texts/translations of an old "marriage" rite [see discussion on this in Appendix I] from Greek Orthodox sources. John Boswell, whose book on _Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_ will be published in a few weeks, has found over a hundred such texts. The text here is just one of many. Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU **************** From: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU Subject: MARRIAGE LITURGY FOR MEN POST 1 I received over the holidays a "theological samidzat" translation from an *abridged* Greek edition of the Orthodox marriage liturgy for men. The translation stems from a seminar a few (2-3) years ago. I've managed to double-check the translation, and it seems reliable. POST 2 Okay. So far, it's been mostly yeses. One person has said "Wait till Boswell's book comes out." If I figure out how to do this, he'll publish, making this at best an exercise. If I don't, the book won't come out--again. In the past 7 years, I have cataloged pre-publication galleys for said book TWICE, and each time the publisher has withdrawn it. Besides, the more info the better. And, this stuff was left for me with the intimation that it was safer for me to disseminate it than for the actual perpetrator. So, here goes: II INTRODUCTION [text given, without original author, by A. Franks] "This service is a rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church dating from very early times and assuming its present form between the fourth and ninth centuries AD. This service is translated from the _Euchologion_ of Jacobus Goar, which was printed in 1647 and revised in 1730. A facsimile of the 1730 edition, published in Graz, Austria, in 1960, is the edition available in many theological libraries. With the rising influence of western ideas in recent centuries, this rite ceased to be practiced widely and was largely forgotten or ignored except in isolated areas, most notably Albania and other areas in the Balkans, where it flourished throughout the nineteenth century and up to at least 1935. Both men and women were united with this rite or similar ones." "This rite is called "spiritual" because the relationship between spiritual brothers is not one of blood-relation but of the Holy Spirit, and also to distinguish the rite from blood-brotherhood, which the Church opposed. In the service, the saint-martyrs Sergius and Bacchus are invoked, who were united in spiritual brotherhood "not bound by the law of nature but by the example of faith in the Holy Spirit". These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other." [Note from A. Franks:: I have vetted these comments and another article I acquired at the same time against the MG 115 ed. Sergius and Bacchus, indeed, are h^eteros and erotik^as, companions and physical lovers.] "This rite is incorporated into the Divine Liturgy. It begins with the usual blessing and prayers of a Liturgy. During the Great Synapte, petitions for the couple to be united in spiritual brotherhood are added to the usual petitions. After the First Antiphon, two special prayers are said for the couple, after which they kiss the Gospel Book and each other. After the priest sings a hymn, the Liturgy continues at "Have mercy on us, O God .. ". Accounts of the use of this rite (such as Nacke, _Jahrbuch f ur sexuelle Zwischenstufen_, vol. 9, 1908, p. 328) confirm that the spiritual brothers receive Holy Communion together, thereby forming the sacramental bond in this union. However, Goar mentions in a footnote that in some manuscripts, the couple is only blessed with holy water. III "MARRIAGE" RITE TEXT PRIEST: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3 times). Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. All-Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord forgive our sins. Master, pardon our transgressions. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for your name's sake. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. (After this, the priest says the Troparion.) Save, O Lord, your servants, and bless your inheritance. (And the two who are about to be joined together in brotherly unity place their hands on the holy Gospel book, which has been prepared and placed on the table. And they hold in their hands lighted candles.) (And the priest says the following, so that it is heard from above: Save, O Lord, your servants. Followed by the Troparion of the day) Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Holy Apostles, intercede with the merciful God to grant our souls forgiveness of sins. Now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Through the intercessions, O Lord, of all the saints and of the Theotokos, grant us your peace and have mercy upon us, only merciful One. THE GREAT SYNAPTE. (The responses of "Lord, have mercy" are understood.) In peace let us pray to the Lord. For the peace that is from above, and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord. For the peace of the entire world, the welfare of the holy churches of God, and the union of all of them, let us pray to the Lord. For this holy house, and for those who enter it with faith, reverence, and fear of God, let us pray to the Lord. For our Archbishop, the honorable priesthood, the deacons in Christ, and all of the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord. For the servants of God who have approached to be blessed by Him, and for their love (agapesis) in God, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be given full knowledge of the apostolic unity, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be granted a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be deemed worthy to glory in the honorable Cross, let us pray to the Lord. That both they and we may be delivered from all affliction, wrath, and distress, let us pray to the Lord. Help us, save us, have mercy on us and keep us, O God, by your grace. PEOPLE: Amen. PRIEST: Having called to remembrance our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and ever- virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and one another, and all our life unto Christ our God. PEOPLE: To You, O Lord. PRIEST (quietly): O Lord our God, whose might is beyond compare, whose glory is incomprehensible, whose mercy is infinite, and whose love toward mankind is ineffable; in Your tender compassion look down upon us Yourself, O Master, and upon this holy house, and grant us and those who pray with us Your rich mercies and compassion. PRIEST (aloud): For to You are due all glory, honor, and worship; to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. PEOPLE: Amen. PRIEST: Let us pray to the Lord. Lord our God, who has granted us all things for salvation, and who has commanded us to love one another and to forgive each others' transgressions; now You Yourself, Master and Lover of mankind, to these Your servants who have loved each other with spiritual love, and who approach Your holy temple to be blessed by You, grant to them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned. And as You gave Your holy disciples Your own peace, also grant these all the petitions for salvation, and eternal life. For You are a merciful and loving God, and to You we ascribe glory, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord our God, the omnipotent, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, who made man according to Your image and likeness, who was well-disposed to Your holy martyrs Sergius and Bacchus becoming brothers, not bound by the law of nature but by the example of faith of the Holy Spirit; Master, do send down Your Holy Spirit upon Your servants who have approached this temple to be blessed. Grant them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, and that they may be without hatred and scandal all the days of their lives. Through the prayers of Your immaculate Mother and of all the Saints. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages. (And with the table made ready in the middle of the church, they place the holy Gospel upon it. And they kiss the Holy Gospel, and each other.) THEN THE PRIEST SINGS: By the union of love the apostles join in the praying to the Master of all; themselves committed to Christ, they extended their beautiful feet, announcing the good news of peace to everyone. PRIEST: Have mercy on us, O God. (And continues the Liturgy.) APPENDIX I - DISCUSSION OF THE TEXT FROM: MARK D. JORDAN MEDPHI%IRISHMVS.BITNET@uwavm.u.washington.edu I want to thank Anthony Franks for providing the citation to the Byzantine rite of "spiritual friendship" in Goar's Euchologion. At the same time, I want to say that I can only hope that John Boswell has more to give us than this text. Because what we have here is not much. First, the edition itself. Goar is no doubt a remarkable scholar of Greek liturgy for the 17th century--and I am always ready to praise ecclesiastical scholars of that time (having spent too many years working through the ecclesiastical scholarship handed down to us in Migne's PL). Moreover, Goar's edition gives every indication of philological care--say, in the reproduction of MS variants. But his editorial prologues are to be accepted with caution. And so the assertion about the age of the rite cannot be taken as authoritative. (For Goar, see Quetif- Echard Scriptores vol. 2 574b-575b). Second, the context of the rite. It occurs not as part of the discussion of marriage liturgies, but in a section of miscellaneous prayers. It is preceded by a prayer for the reconciliation of enemies and followed by prayers for a healing rite (Goar, Euchologion [rptd Graz 1960], pp. 705-706 and 709-710). The prayers of healing are followed by a calendar of readings for the liturgical year from the Gospels and Paul. Third, the rite itself. The thing is called an order (akolouthia) for adelphopoiian, that is, for making an adelphos, that is, for adopting one as brother (or sister). The word and its siblings appear first with that fairly specific legal sense, which is then transferred to theological and spiritual uses (as in Christ's adopting us as brothers). So that the proper analogue is not marriage, but adoption. Hence Goar seems quite right to stress in his note (709) that the principal motive for the use of the rite is the desire to establish a spiritual and legal connection outside of blood-lines or marriage. Hence too the mentions of Sergius and Bacchus are to be weighed against the mentions of Peter and Paul and of all the apostles, as well as of Cosmas and Damian or Cyrus and John (Varia lectiones, 708, first two additional prayers). Fourth, and leaving aside my constructivist prejudices, I am perfectly willing to "read" this rite as expressing or repressing or coopting any number of homoerotic or homosocial desires and practices. Indeed, I am even willing to join efforts on behalf of its immediate restoration as a liturgy in the Eastern churches and churches liturgically connected to them--as the Anglican churches. But I am not willing to say that the rite represents or even provides evidence of "gay [!] marriage. "Sorry to be such a curmudgeon. FROM: ANTHONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I, too, had and still have misgivings on the Goar text--it is an abbreviated one, but at the moment, it seems to be the only one in print. I do have some methodological observations to make, and I hope no one gets overly sensitive about them. The first is, everyone seems to be using Latin sources and secondary editions. Most of the source material that deals frankly with these matters--both marriage and Sergius and Bacchus, is in Greek. The Latin translations are not, shall we say, entirely accurate. In the Migne ed. of Simeon Metaphrastes, the Greek says they're lovers. The Latin trans. says they're just good friends. Finally, when you're using editions, such as Goar, you're at the mercy of the editor's prejudices in organizing the texts. Goar, it is true, puts the marriage rite for men in the "other stuff" section of the book. Greek manuscripts organized by function-of-rite place it in "Gamos" with other marriage rites. In short, what we're seeing in most of our Latin and Roman Catholic sources is filtered through the editor, compiler, translator's mindset--and, as we're all aware, there are none so blind as those who will not see. I have an oddball reference for all: an article by Nicholas Zymaris, State University of New York at Stony Brook, entitled "The Rite of 'Spiritual Brotherhood', homosexuality, and the Orthodox Church". I have a Xerox of it, but no citation whence it came. It is obviously, though, a published article from somewhere. I hope someone can track it down--I can't, and it is very good. It leaves little doubt that, indeed, it's a marriage rite for persons of the same gender. FROM "Mark D. Jordan" MEDPHI%IRISHMVS.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I agree entirely with Anthony Franks about the dangers of construing Greek texts through Latin eyes. Indeed, one of the things I was going to say last night about Goar is that it would be very odd indeed if there were something scandalous in his liturgical anthology, given his own career as a Dominican administrator and the numerous testimonies of orthodoxy prefixed to the edition. And I am also willing to take Goar's notes with several pounds of salt. But my main point was precisely a point about the Greek. If Goar's edition gives us the correct title, the rite is a rite for spiritual adelfopoiia, not of spiritual marriage and not even of spiritual friendship. Adelfopoiia (or adelfopoiesis or adelfopoios) cannot I think be translated as friendship or marriage without some explanation, indeed without justification, because the word means *adoption* in most contexts that I can find. There are citations in Liddell & Scott and in Lampe--or, for that matter, in Du Cange's _Glossarium mediae & infimae Graecitatis_. With the aid of the TLG, I found one interesting and rather early use in Athanasius, _Orationes tres contra Arianos_, orat.2 sect.63 (Migne PG 26.280A-B). Athanasius uses the word, as do many later authors, to describe adoption by Christ. Now an argument can of course be made that this liturgy was used historically not for the purposes of spiritual adoption but for purposes that we would want to describe as those of recognizing or blessing a union of affection and life between two persons of the same genital configuration. Perhaps that is just the argument that Boswell will make. But it is not an argument evident just from the letter of the text. Two final things: First, note that many of the uses of *adelfopoiia* and its cognates occur in legislation prohibiting the use of this rite between monks--which ought to be connected with the use of the notion of brotherhood as a general description of the relations among all monks. Second, I would be delighted to have MS references to codices that place this rite alongside marriage liturgies. Third, I can't find anything by Nicholas Zymaris on any of the Wilson databases. I will go onto Dialog in a bit, but I wonder if anyone else was having any luck finding the piece. With reiterated thanks to Anthony Franks for stirring up such interesting issues, FROM: DAVID GREENBERG DGREENBERG%NYUACF.BITNET@uwavm.u.washington .edu I am no specialist on any type of Christian ritual, but I am extremely skeptical of any assertion that either the Byzantine or Roman Catholic Church ever had any ritual that legitimated a sexual relationship between persons of the same sex who underwent this type of ritual. The prohibitions against such sexual contact were absolute. I believe these couples were supposed to remain chaste, whatever the nature of the emotional bonds that held them together. For this reason these rituals make a poor precedent for contemporary efforts to obtain recognition for gay marriages. The historian Eugene Rice of Columbia University has told me that he has read John Boswell's manuscript, and that Boswell makes no claim that these rituals legitimated sexual relationships. I think a lot of purchasers of this book are going to be disappointed, because they are not going to find what the promotion is leading them to believe is in it. - FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In response to David Greenberg] I agree with much of Professor Greenberg's argument here, but want to make some comments nevertheless. 1. "Marriage" is functioning as an undefined term in discussions here. Roman Catholic canon law, for practical reasons, has long emphasized the sexual aspect of marriage. In Byzantium, I think, this was much less prominent: repeatedly one comes across saints who have agreed to marry, but not to engage in sex. Ideal "marriage" does not necessarily involve sex. 2. I am a little surprised to see an author who has delivered a notable contribution to the theory that sexuality is "constructed", seem so willing to accept that absolute prohibitions made in one period would continue in full force in succeeding, and very different periods. Let me put it another way: canonical prohibitions against remarriage after divorce were "absolute" in 7th century Byzantine Christianity [I am relying on the work of my former fellow-student at Fordham, Carmen Hernandez, who pursued this issue in depth], nevertheless such remarriages were allowed in the later Byzantine period. One period's absolutes may become another's hazy "ideals". 3. I am also not convinced that such ceremonies as Boswell claims to have dug up [and on videotape he *does* claim they were for sexual relationships] should not be precedents for modern gay wedding ceremonies, if people want to have them. Lillian Faderman has argued that probably-asexual romantic friendships between women *are* part of Lesbian history. Similarly ceremonies which have invoked societal approval on male bonding [and, I gather, female bonding as well] could surely be invoked as part of the legitimate heritage of modern gay people. Of course for pious constructionists [:-)] such a proposition is ludicrous: the construction of ever-new "epistemes" surely eviscerates any such concept of "heritage". But, psychologically, I think this does not work: no matter how convinced I am by writers in this school [and I do find much of what they say compelling], like David Hume rising from his desk, their arguments melt away, and I see the political utility of appropriating such a heritage. All heritage's are appropriated: I see little reason to hinder modern gays and lesbians in appropriating theirs. FROM: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I must agree with Paul Halsall's wise comments on absolutes. I remain skeptical about an "activist's" interpretation of this rite, but there's so much talk about it, I thought it would be good for folks to see it. In Roman canon law, there is (or was, my courses were before the new code) provision for "Josephite marriage"--celibate marriage. Sex, however, and not just once on the wedding night, was a requirement for the creation of a valid marriage. Without it, or its denial by one party to the marriage, annulments could be granted-- Pope Alexander VI, I think, issued a bull on the matter. It is unfortunate that the article by Nicholas Zymaris has no cite on it. If it would help matters, I will isolate a bibliography from his citations and transmit that. He addresses the issue of the purpose of the marriage rite, and the understanding of the society using it. This whole matter of a marriage rite for men is causing some interesting problems among Orthodox in the West Coast. I've been told by one priest that the practical problem for the hierarchy is, that if this was a valid, historical rite of the church, then it can be used again now, if there is a need for it. All it takes is a priest with an ecclesiastical death wish. Unlike the roman rite, "approved rites" is a rather looser concept. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Here is some more useful information on the exact significance of the "adelphopoiia" ceremony, which points to its commonly-known usage as a rite to sanctify homosexual sexual relationships. The text I post here is from _The Rudder_ ["Pedalion" in Greek], a compilation and commentary on Orthodox canon law by Saint Agapius, a Hieromonk, and Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain circa 1800. In many respects it is not trustworthy, at least as regards ancient canon law. It is, conversely, very useful information on Orthodoxy in Greece two hundred years ago. The citation of the version I am using is: Agapius the hieromonk and Nicodemos the monk, _The Rudder..._, trans. D. Cummings, (Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957; repr. 1983), from the fifth edition edited by Ioannes Nikolaides in Athens, 1908. From p.977 on there is an attempt to bring together all the laws concerning marriage. Chapter 10 of this section [p.997] addresses under the general heading of marriage "Brothership by Adoption". (See A. Franks note above about the general tendency to deal with this ceremony along with {other?} marriage texts or canons in Greek sources.) Here is the text from _The Rudder_: [the references are those given in the text] "So called brothership-by-adoption is not only prohibited by ch.35 of Title XIII of Book V of the law (p.217 of _Jus Greco-Romanum_) altogether, and rejected by the Church of Christ, but is also contrary to nature, according to Demetrius Chomatianus(ibid.). For adoption imitates nature, but nature never generates a brother, but only a son. So adoption, as imitating nature, cannot make a brother. Hence such a thing as making a brother by adoption not only is not practicable or to be considered to constitute an obstacle to marriage among themselves of such allegedly adopted brothers, but neither ought it to be projected at all. For it ought to be rejected from the Church of Christ, on the ground that it is the cause of many evils and of the perdition of souls to most of them, and merely afford matter for some persons to fulfill their carnal desires and to enjoy sensual pleasures, as countless examples of actual experience have shown at various times and in various places" Clearly Agapius and Nicodemos were not happy with adelphopoiia, which they indicate is still going on, and which we have see had a distinct rite. They also are quite aware, I think, that "adoption" is not what was going on in this rite [one person "adopts" another; two people do not "adopt" each other]. I am not clear what the line about "an obstacle to marriage among themselves" means - it reads as if there was another specifically male marriage ceremony, but this seems unlikely. What is clear is that they regarded it as common knowledge that the adelphopoiia ceremony was connected, in practice, to the fulfillment of carnal desires. It seems fair, if _The Rudder_ is correct, to regard the adelphopoiia ceremony, sanctioned by usage by the Orthodox church and people [although, evidently, resisted by some] as a ceremony celebrating, and giving religious significance to, homosexual sexual unions, and that this was done with common knowledge. FROM: ED. PINARIN [posted on;] MEDIEV- L%UKANVM.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu [Responding to a post of the "marriage rite"] It seems that the rite described here is that of adoption of a brother. "Spiritual brotherhood" is opposed to the pagan rite of adoption of a brother by mixing his blood with one's own. I think it's a far-fetched assumption to call it a homosexual marriage. The Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexuality, as well as bestiality, pedophilia, adultery, and fornication. In medieval Russia (they got their faith from the Greeks) homosexuality was a capital offense. If my memory serves me correctly, gay men were burnt alive on fire and lesbian women were beheaded. (Cf. Kotoshikhin, Grigorii Karpovich, "Rossiia v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha"; "Ulozhenie 1649 g." (Russian Law Code of 1649).) That was before the introduction of Western ideas to Russia under Peter the Great. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In response to ED PINARIN] As I tried to indicate by including some critical discussion, I think that exaggerated interpretations of these sorts of ceremonies need to be viewed with great caution. On the other hand I do not think the situation in Russia has any bearing on interpretation of earlier texts. The problem is this: modern political correctness" {TM} may very well lead to misinterpretation of the past; but the track record of "theological correctness", to coin a phrase, in distorting the past and conforming it to present beliefs is far worse. When it comes to discussing "homosexual marriage" these issues come to the fore rather strongly. What is marriage? Does it involve sexual relationships, is it a legal contract, does it necessitate consent of all parties, is it "for" the procreation of children? There is not *one* answer that could be given to such questions on a cross-cultural and historical evidence. Until recently at least, in modern Western society marriage has tended to be seen as a legal contract, surrounded by the epiphenomena of "love", connected with domestic partnership and raising children. Would then so called "Josephite" marriages, contracted with no intention of sexual intimacy, count as marriages for us? We have no ceremony or legal relationship, or at least not until very recently, where one could create a familial relationship with another person by adoption as a sibling. If we define marriage as a "rite which creates a family", and treat sexuality as a side issue, then rites such as the one I posted might indeed prove legitimate sources of inspiration for modern homosexuals, even though scholars need to keep clear distinctions more popular accounts will overlook. As a side note, one that I have not explored fully, I will note that John Meyendorff, my advisor until his death, in his book _Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective_ [a popular rather than scholarly work] mentions that the legislation of Leo VI which remitted marriage law to the Church was also concerned with adoption of children. The focus was the creation of family bonds rather than sexual intimacy. The danger of the modern "theological opinion" approach, is seen in the assertion above that the "Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexuality as well as bestiality, pedophilia, adultery, and fornication". Well yes and no. In the modern West we would probably consider the sexual relationship of a 12 year old girl and an adult male "pedophilia", and deny strongly that a 12 year old could give "consent" to such a relationship. But the law of both Latin and Greek churches allowed such relationships within marriage. Greek canon law [as in the Council in Trullo] and the almost universal opinion of the fathers condemned all second marriages [whether spouse no. one was dead or not]. In particular it is very difficult to show that canon law allowed a second marriage when the first spouse was still alive [my former colleague at Fordham, Carmen Hernandez, delivered several papers on this precise topic]. And yet, following the remission of marriage law to the Church, the Orthodox Church in practice began to allow such formerly condemned unions. Just because a Church claims it has "always done" something, we have no need to accept such a claim. With regard to Ed Pnarin's last paragraph. - Yes, the past was quite barbaric! Legal codes are not a very good source for discovering actual practice though. FROM: MICHAEL DIMAIO dimaiom@salve3.salve.edu Subject: Greek Orthodox Adoption Ceremony [certain names have been removed] I read your posting with a great deal of interest and also with a heavy heart because I am Orthodox. If the media were to get downwind of the service, God help the Church. At least you only posted the short service. In Slavonic the longer service exists which is a mirror image of a real Orthodox/Byzantine rite marriage service. The two services differ in one very major respect; while the heterosexual service abounds with references to fertility and human sexuality, the so-called marriage for men lacks this material. Several years ago a Richard S. was at Yale when a symposium on Homosexuality was being held; some person brought up the fact that the Orthodox Church had this service and that it was inconsistent with the church's traditional stance against homosexuality. Richard S. took this matter up subsequently with Fr. ****** ******* of **** ******** Church here in **; they both approached Fr. John Meyendorff of St. Vladmir's Seminary and Fordham. Meyendorff indicated that yes the church has always been against homosexuality, but that there was the service under discussion. At Meyendorff's guidance ******** obtained a book, in Russian, by a fellow named Nikolsky. The book dealt with repressed services in the Orthodox Church; in fact, the whole history of a service would be treated. ******** has a Xerox of the Nikolsky book. The Service was not intended to be a marriage service, although it may read like one. It is an adoption service to make sure property would stay in a family. According to ********, all the laws concerning family life in matters like this, the church was the legal agent of the state. Now, the service was apparently abused by people who used it to legitimize what some might perceive as abnormal relationships. My problem is that, if ********* is right, the gay lobby is certainly reading something into this service that was never intended to suit their own political agenda. In any case, Fr. ******* indicated to me that he would be more than willing to share any information that he has with you. From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In private email Michael DiMaio asked whether I felt the rites under discussion did indeed constitute homosexual marriages] My thoughts on the rites, from the evidence I have seen so far, are complex. I do not think the rites indicate a service which was thought of as a "marriage" [as Michael says above "marriage" usually indicates something to do with the procreation of children - although even that might not always have been insisted on]. But I do not think the that service has anything to do with *"adoption"* either. In other words, it is as much a mistake to conceive it as a modern "adoption", as a modern "marriage" - in adoption one person adopts another, two people do not adopt each other. This rite seeks to create a sanctified bi- lateral and equal relationship, which is more like our idea of marriage than our idea of adoption [which is bilateral but unequal]. I also think, and _The Rudder_ seems to confirm this, that such rites were used to sanctify relationships which all participating parties - including the clergy - knew were, inter alia, sexual. Although later Orthodox commentators, such as Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain might protest that this was an "abuse", they also seem to indicate that it was an "abuse" known to all: one might equally say then, that earlier practitioners did not consider it an abuse. I think also, that those participating in the rite may have thought of it as a sacrament. As I understand Orthodoxy, "sacrament" has a far broader meaning than in the legalistic West: monastic profession, imperial ordination and so on, might also be considered sacraments. It is then, possible, that this rite was considered, to use Roman Catholic terminology, a *sacramental* analogous to marriage, but not identical to it. From: John P Rash jpr18@COLUMBIA.EDU I was surely amongst the many grateful recipients of Paul Halsall's post on a gay marriage rite, though actually it seems to have been something different. I do not pretend to know much about marriage, since it has never been relevant to my life. But I immediately noted that one element essential to the contracting of marriage is omitted, and that is the exchange of vows. In Orthodoxy, as anciently in the West, this is the subject of a separate ceremony of betrothal. But the exchange of vows provides much of the texture of what we think of as marriage, in that there is a contractual process of blending lives involved. Since I do not think a betrothal of two members of the same sex is known in these texts, what we are delighted to call a gay "marriage" is actually nothing more than a blessing of friendship, a commodity of considerable value in its own right in the war-torn medieval period. Also, in Orthodox marriage rites, the couple are "crowned," and the text offered in the post makes no mention of crowning; perhaps some of Boswell's texts include this. Anyway, that's enough cold water on the subject. I'd like to hear comments refuting what I've just written. BTW, there is a reference to an article by one Nicholas Zymaris. He is indeed elusive, at least electronically. I checked RLIN (nothing), the online portion of the SUNY Stony Brook library catalogue (nothing), and all of the relevant online periodical indices that I get through Columbianet, as well as Dissertation Abstracts online. All were nothing. Is the article to which reference is made typeset, does it have pagination other than its own self- paging? Or is it more likely to be the work of a student (graduate perhaps?) or adjunct faculty member, or someone else low on the totem pole? With more information, perhaps I can ferret this fellow out. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU John Rash raises some interesting issues about the significance of the "union" text that was posted. See the information I already gave above on the sexual reading of such ceremonies by _The Rudder_. I have a few other points on what constitutes a marriage for the Orthodox. John Rash, very correctly, refers to vows and betrothal as essential in modern ideas of marriage. In the West of course, marriage was conceived of as a contract between two people - until 1917 for instance no priest was required for a valid Roman Catholic marriage, and even now a priest is only a witness to the marriage. In the East, however, it is the priest who performs the marriage, and his presence is required. Now, what, for the *Byzantines*, made a sacramental marriage? Leaving aside the whole inexact nature of "sacraments" in Orthodox theology [which is much less tied to a legalistic "seven"], we must note that, until the ninth century, marriage was contracted in a civil ceremony. From an early period a Christian couple partook of the Eucharist together [just like the male couple in the adelphopoiia ceremony] and this communion alone [no vows, no crowning] was - according to Tertullian - the Christian seal of marriage. From the fourth century, however, a specific ceremony of crowning was celebrated for *some* couples, during the Sunday liturgy. It was not required. The _Epanagoge_, a legal compilation probably written by the Patriarch Photius (d. 886) still offers three alternatives for Christians to conclude a marriage. The text states: "Marriage is an alliance between a husband and wife and their union for their entire life; it is accomplished by a blessing, or by a crowning, or by an agreement" (XVI,1). The development of a crowning rite *separate* from the marriage during the Eucharist came in the 10th century. At that time the Church was given [by the novels of Leo VI, d.912] the duty of validating all marriages. This meant in practice it had to validate marriages [such as second marriages, marriages after divorce] which it disapproved of, and had previously left up to the state. It was thus at this time that crowning and marriage ceremonies separate from the Eucharist became common [so that the Church would not have to give communion to those whose marriages it was required by law to recognize, but still did not approve of]. One group of people, however, still were allowed by the law to marry sacramentally, through the Eucharist and not by an - expensive - crowning ceremony. These were slaves, who were only required to by "crowned" by Alexios I Comnenos [1081- 1118]. Thus the "normative", although not practiced, method of marriage remained through the Eucharist, and such rites were used, rather than a separate crowning rite, until the late 15th century. [All the above comes from John Meyendorff, _Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective_, 3rd ed., (Crestwood, NY: 1984), pp. 24-29] Seen in this light, it does make some sense to see the adelphopoiia ceremony as related to marriage. I also gather, by the way, that John Boswell has evidence that the crowning ceremony did take place between men! We will see. FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU I do have some general thoughts. When one considers the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity (I realize there have been those who have questioned them), I personally find it hard to believe that the "Church" would have turned looked the other way when it would come to such activity. Many of the fathers were clearly opposed to this type of sexual activity. The sin, as Fr ******* has indicated to me, is not the fact of being gay but the actual physical act. The service has to be looked at in its historical context. I cannot read Russian; I will have to rely on Fr. ******** for this. I have a feeling that the service may have been proposed for one purpose and used by others for another. That is, for the sakeof argument, it might be an adoption service which others(those who were gay) may have put to their own use. In any case, if this service was repressed, an attempt has to be made to determine why it was repressed. Was the service an abuse; did it cause scandal? I am not ready to tackle these questions. I want to review what material you have sent me and i want to look at my edition of the Rudder. I am also planning to consult a number of my ecclesiastical friends to review the evidence and then I will formulate an answer. This is an extremely complex issue. I intend to ultimately make my own judgement. Nickolsky is where I intend to start. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Michael DiMaio's point on the Biblical and Patristic evidence is well-taken, although there is no conciliar evidence at all, which gives one cause for thought. But, one must realise that the Bible has always been used as the reader wants: sex with a menstruating women [still condemned in Judaism, and perhaps in Orthdoxy {?}, and by all Western authorities until at least the 19th century, is now sometimes actually taught to Catholic couples as one aspect of using infertile periods for birth control!] is called an abomination, but is not really a big issue. Leviticus specifically condemns transvestitism, and yet there are over a dozen transvestite women saints in Orthodox calendars. With regard to current distinctions between "being gay" and the "actual physical act" -this may be something to take more bluntly. Many Jewish authorities read Leviticus to ban anal penetration. Other erotic activities are not covered. This may have been understood in Byzantium. The Greek of Leviticus and of Romans 1 talks of "arsenes" - ie "males" rather than "men"; it may have been common to read this as banning pederasty [the dominant model for same-sex intimacy in the Ancient Greco-Roman world]. In fact, and really going out on a limb here - the assimilation of the rite to brotherhood may have been because of the completely *unequal* nature of classical pederasty. As a matter of fact, btw, I do not think the fathers or anyone before modern psychology had the analytic tools to distinguish between orientation and action [although this is open to discussion] I agree that this is a very clear possibility that the rite was created for one purpose and used for another, although, bear in mind the objections to calling this rite an "adoption" I posted earlier. But it also seems that this {ab}use of the rite was widely known. [I think Boswell is going to try and prove, btw, that the crowning ceremony was used for *this* ceremony before marriage]. As to why it was repressed - this is an important question. Note that the service posted was a *Roman Catholic* service for Greeks in Southern Italy [at least Boswell has claimed that that was where he first found such rites]. The tendancy of ecclesiastics to read the present into the past is, however, extreme in my opinion. One need only look at the claims of the papacy to see that. APPENDIX II - SERGIUS AND BACCHUS From: Richard Oliver ROLIVER%TINY.COMPUTING.CSBSJU.EDU@KSUVM. KSU.EDU Last August when the rumors about Boswell's book on medieval "marriage" ceremonies began appearing on the Internet, out of curiosity I did a brief investigation on the martyrs Sergius and Bacchus who were mentioned as an inspiration for the "rite." Perhaps now that the topic has resurfaced here some readers may be interested in what I found out about the martyrs: Some information and sources for further investigation concerning the martyred/married(?) pair, Sergius and Bacchus. Feast day, formerly 7 October; "cults suppressed in 1969" (Ramsgate, 505). "Sergius and Bacchus, MM. They were Roman soldiers, officers in the household of Emperor Maximian. Sergius is said to have been 'primicerius gymnasii trionum' at Trieste, and Bacchus a subaltern officer. For refusing to sacrifice to the gods, they were ignominiously dressed in women's clothing and conducted through the streets of Arabissus (near Comana in Cappadocia). Then they were scourged until Bacchus died, 1 Oct. 290. Sergius was brought to Resapha (Augusta Eupratasiae) in Syria, where, after various tortures, he was decapitated, 7 Oct. 290. "The tomb of S. Sergius at Resapha was a famous shrine. In 431, Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis built a magnificent church in his honor. In 434, the town of Resapha was raised to the rank of an episcopal see and was named Sergiopolis. Emperor Justinian I enlarged and fortified it. Sergius was venerated as patron of Syria. Parts of his relics were transferred to Venice, where these saints were patrons of the ancient cathedral. In the seventh century a church was dedicated to them in Rome. F. 7 Oct" {Holweck, R.G., _A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints_, (St. Louis; London: Herder, 1924), 901}. Variations/expansions on the above life: "...absenting themselves when Emperor Maximian was sacrificing to Jupiter...." "Sergiopolis became one of the greatest pilgrimage centers of the East. Many churches bore the name of Sergius (sometimes with Bacchus), and his cultus was extraordinarily widespread and popular; the nomads of the desert looked on him as their special patron saint" (Attwater, 305-6). "These martyrs were said to be officers of the Roman army on the Syrian frontier, Sergius being described as commandant of the recruits' school and Bacchus as his subaltern. ... On their refusal they were stripped of their arms and badges of rank, dressed up in women's clothes, and so paraded through the streets. ... St. Bacchus died under the lash. His body was thrown out on to the highway, were vultures protected it from the attacks of dogs, an incident recorded of several other martyrs. St. Sergius was made to walk a long distance in shoes with nails thrust through into his feet, and was beheaded. ...the particulars of their passion are far from trustworthy. ... Sergius and Bacchus became the heavenly protectors of the Byzantine army, with the two Theodores, Demetrius, Procopius and George. ... Their "acts" are preserved in Latin, Greek and Syriac" {Butler's Lives of the Saints, "Oct. 7"}. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS, MARTYRS: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Analecta Bollandiana, 14 (1895), 373-395. Attwater, Donald. The Avenel dictionary of saints. New York : Avenel Books : distributed by Crown Publishers, [1981] c1965. The Book of Saints : a dictionary of servants of God canonized by the Catholic Church / comp. by the Benedictine Monks at St. Augustine's Abbey Ramsgate. 6th ed., rev. and re-set. London : Black, 1989. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York, 1907-1914. Delehaye, Hippolyte, S.J. Les origines du culte des martyrs. 2. ed., rev. Brussels : Societe des bollandistes, 1933, 210-211. Guerin, Paul. Les petits Bollandistes: vies Des saints, etc. 17 v. Paris, 1865. Le Bas, Philippe [and George Waddington?]. Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie. Paris, 1870, t. 3; n. 2124. Lucius, Ernst. Die Anfaenge des Heiligenkultus in der Christlichen Kirche. Herausg. G. Anrich. Tuebingen, 1908, 223. Piolin, Paul. Supplement aux vies des saints et specialement aux Petits bollandistes d'apres les documents hagiographiques les plus authentiques et les plus recents. 3 v. Paris : Bloud et Barral [1885-86]. Stadler, J. E. Vollstaendiges Heiligen-Lexikon : oder, Lebens- geschichten aller heiligen, seligen &c.&c.; hrsg. von Joh. Evang. Stadler, und Franz Joseph Heim in Augsburg. 5 v. Augsburg : B. Schmid, 1858-. Synaxarium Alexandrinum. 2 v. in 6. edidit [et interpretatus est] I. Forget. Louvain : Secretariat du CorpusSCO, L Durbecq 1953-1963. (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium. v. 47-49, 67, 78, 90. Scriptores Arabici; Series 3; t. 18-19). Thurston, Herbert J, S.J., and Donald Attwater. Butler's Lives of the Saints. 4 v. Westminster : Christian Classics, 1988. ___ Thomas W. Holt, Jr | Alias: Gwyn | Internet Mail: Avcholt@Amber.Indstate.Edu Indiana State Univ | Audio-Visual Technical Coordinator | Work: 812-237-3956 Snail-mail: 609 South 6th St, Terre Haute IN 47807-4313 | Home: 812-234-2814 Queer Resources Directory: FTP,WAIS,Gopher,WWW,FTP-Mail via Vector.Casti.Com If Space and Time are curved, where do all the straight people come from?