No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
An adapted version of a paper given in Oxford at the 1986 conference of Friend. Friend is a national organisation dedicated to the counselling and befriending of homosexuals.
Historians are accustomed to listening to the debates of theologians, but the theologians they listen to are usually those of the past; and they do not normally join such debates. I do not propose to alter that. But one of the workmanlike tasks of historians (as it is of philosophers) is sometimes to put aside their own books and see to the task of making tools others use in their work, and if they are to be taken seriously in a wider college of learning they need sometimes to fulfil this obligation. Sometimes they need to pay the rent.
In a small way that is what I would like to do in this paper, and the audience I have primarily in mind is composed of those moral theologians and practical pastors who are troubled by the tension that exists between homosexuals and the Christian Church. Inevitably, though, what I have to say is not equally relevant to all Christian churches. I have less to say to those who are ready to construct their moral theology afresh, from the beginning. For good or bad they are free of the past. But for many Christians, in varying degrees, this is not a possible option, and it is fundamentally not a possible option for Catholics, for whom an appeal to scripture and tradition—a willingness to listen to the past—is unavoidable.
1 Perkins, William, The Workes of … Mr W. Perkins, Vol. 3 (Cambridge 1609) p. 532Google Scholar. All the quotations in this paper have been modernised according to the rules in H.R.E. (see note 13 below) p. 115.
2 Pagitt, Ephraim, Heresiography, London 1647, p. 139Google Scholar. I have discussed the connection between popery and attitudes to sodomy at greater length in H.R.E. pp. 13–32.
3 Quoted in Bingham, Caroline, ‘Seventeenth‐Century Attitudes Towards Deviant Sex’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 456Google Scholar.
4 Carcía‐Cácel, Ricardo, Herejía y Sociedad en el Siglo XVI: La Inquisición en Valencio, 1530–1609, Barcelona 1980, p. 291Google Scholar.
5 The Life of Father Augustine Baker, O.S.B., ed. McCann, Dom Justin O.S.B., London 1933, pp. 42–43Google Scholar.
6 Coke, Edward, Twelfth Part of the Reports, London 1656, p. 37Google Scholar.
7 Shepard, Thomas, The Works of Thomas Shepard, Vol. I, Boston 1853, p. 28Google Scholar (from The Sincere Convert of 1641).
8 Bradford, William, Bradford‘s History 'Of Plimouth Plontation’, ed. Wright & Potter Printing Co., Boston 1898, p. 459Google Scholar.
9 Hell Upon Earth: Or The Town in on Uproar, anon., London 1729, pp. 41 and 43Google Scholar.
10 Arend H. Huussen ‘Sodomy in the Dutch Republic during the Eighteenth Century’, and Rey, Michel, ‘Parisian Homosexuals Create a Lifestyle, 1700–1750: The Police Archives’, Eighteenth‐Century Life, Vol. 9 No. 3 pp. 169–178Google Scholar and 179–191. Alan Bray, ‘Molly’, H.R.E. pp. 81–114.
11 Boon, L.J., ‘Those Damned Sodomites: Public Images of Sodomy in the 18th Century Netherlands’, Among Man, Among Women: Sociological and Historical Recognition of Homosocial Arrangements, Supplement No. 1 pp. 19–22, University of Amsterdam 1983Google Scholar.
12 D'Emilio, John, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970, Chicago 1983Google Scholar.
13 This is brought out most clearly in the writings of Michel Foucault and Jeffrey Weeks. Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction, London 1979Google Scholar; the second volume of his History of Sexuality has been translated into English as The Use of Pleasure. Harmondsworth 1986, and is particularly relevant to the moral questions indirectly addressed in this article. Jeffrey Weeks's Sexuality, Chichester 1986, is an excellent introduction to his writings. A seminal work on homosexuality was Mary Mclntosh‘s 'The Homosexual Role’, reprinted in The Making of The Modern Homosexual, ed. Plummer, Kenneth, London 1981, pp. 30–49Google Scholar; my own Homosexuality in Renaissance England, London 1982Google Scholar, abbreviated above as H.R.E., shares the approach of these writers. Not all historians have accepted the culturally relative view of sexuality presented in this article, especially in the U.S.A. Its most intelligent (and readable) critic is John Boswell, whose Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Chicago 1980Google Scholar, is written from the standpoint of the sociobiology of E.O. Wilson.
You have
Access