AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Orthodox Gay Union Rite (rev/GAYMAR.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 48KB | 993 lines

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-
[e-mail],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
[e-mail]

****************
From: ANTONY FRANKS
[e-mail]
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and each time the publisher has withdrawn it.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
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
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"
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
.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
[e-mail]
[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
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
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-
[e-mail]
[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
[e-mail]
[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
[e-mail]
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.  Dr. Skinner 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
[e-mail]
[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
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
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.