|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prevalence of Gay Clergy
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?
This article certainly seems to suggest as much. This one as well.
On another thread, amber said about 10% of CofE Bishops were thought to be gay. This seems to be higher than general population incidence figures I can come up with.
This article tries to come up with some reasons why this might be the case. It is mainly talking about the Catholic Church but I don't think the discussion or issue is restricted only to the Catholic Church.
I wonder if there is any connection to the God of Christianity traditionally being seen as male and repressed sexuality being projected onto a male God.
If the incidence is indeed greater than in the general population, what do you think the reasons might be?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From a practical standpoint the priesthood is a profession where you typically don't have to answer questions like "Why aren't you married yet?" (even in denominations that allow married clergy) or have to come up with excuses about why you don't want to be set up with your friends' other single friends. In short, it's a profession where a man (or, more recently, a woman) can be apparently single without arousing a lot of commentary and speculation. As the social need to be closeted (vestried?) diminishes, these considerations will likely be diminished as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Fair point from a Catholic perspective.
Not so much an Anglican one tho. Homosexuality seems common there too.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fair point from a Catholic perspective.
Not so much an Anglican one tho. Homosexuality seems common there too.
Until recently, the position of the Anglican Church on openly gay clergy was similar to the Catholic one. And it should be noted that while Anglican priests are allowed to marry, it is not (as far as I can tell) considered unusual for them not to.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
I don't know if Gay and Lesbian people are more represented in the Clergy than in other professions - but we are more of an issue. In the societies the overwhelming majority of Ship Mates are from sexuality is basically a private matter and actions to discriminate against or preclude the appointment of a Gay or Lesbian dentist, lawyer nurse, teacher or social worker would be socially unnaceptable and probably illegal. It is the churches who plead for, and generally obtain, some measure of exemption from human rights legislation.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
As for the observation that there is less pressure for single (and assumed straight) clergy to marry this may well be true of 'mainstream' churches but I have read about reluctance in some of the more conservative Evangelical churches to appoint single people as pastors / ministers.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
It is the churches who plead for, and generally obtain, some measure of exemption from human rights legislation.
I always find this fact saddening and shocking.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
This link to Changing Attitudes commentary is the source of the 10% figure (allegedly the chap writing this could name 13 of our CofE Bishops who are known to be gay - see the comments at the end of the article)
More possible statistics at this link which suggests the figure for Priests may be significantly higher than 10%.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fair point from a Catholic perspective.
Not so much an Anglican one tho. Homosexuality seems common there too.
Until recently, the position of the Anglican Church on openly gay clergy was similar to the Catholic one. And it should be noted that while Anglican priests are allowed to marry, it is not (as far as I can tell) considered unusual for them not to.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
I don't know if Gay and Lesbian people are more represented in the Clergy than in other professions
The stuff I've been reading seems to say there is an overabundance in representation.
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
but we are more of an issue.
Yes. Because historically and presently homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus - yes I know shellfish are also an abomination) and unnatural (Paul somewhere) in Christianity.
So why.....when the church so obviously says it's not on, is there a an excess incidence of gay people in ordained ministry?
******
Thank you amber for those links.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Is some of it due to an historic reason - priestly training was at one time all male in the CofE as well as RC. If so, you'd expect over time for there to be fewer gays coming forward for ministry training now that female priests are becoming more numerous. (Although, of course, there are gay female priests as well.)
Is some of it due to the caring nature of the vocation, involving what some would say are more feminine skills. If so, you'd expect there to be more gay male nurses than would be thought from the general population spread.
Is it due to something about the threat of persecution pushing more people into a certain role. Many gays are pushed the other way, into wanting nothing to do with church.
Perhaps when some of these questions are addressed, some answers may be found.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
(snipped)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
I don't know if Gay and Lesbian people are more represented in the Clergy than in other professions
The stuff I've been reading seems to say there is an overabundance in representation.
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
but we are more of an issue.
Yes. Because historically and presently homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus - yes I know shellfish are also an abomination) and unnatural (Paul somewhere) in Christianity.
So why.....when the church so obviously says it's not on, is there a an excess incidence of gay people in ordained ministry?
[/QB]
*thinks of old Scooby Doo episodes from childhood*
'Ack, and we'd have gotten away with our homophobia if it hadn't of been for those pesky gays.'
They're everywhere, I tell ya. Hiding under the beds, behind the curtains, ready to pounce in dark alleyways, walking down the aisles in supermarkets....
It's obviously a conspiracy: today the church, tomorrow world domination....
And apol's if there are formatting issues - haven never yet got the hang of working out how to do the multi-quote thang!
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Evensong has posted an interesting question in that there is certainly some evidence that there is a statistical overrepresentation of Gay people in the clergy despite some of the harsh words both Scripture and Tradition have to say about homosexuality.
Chorister is on to something I think by talking about gender performance. Some of the traits we associate with masculine behaviour around competitive and highly assertive behaviour would be quite counterproductive in most ministry situations whereas compassion, concern and tenderness are valued. Just as a personal note I moved from being a RN to ministry - so have two professions associated with Gay men in my background.
Also I think the experience of difference, of being transgressive in some way, can lead to an introspection and reflection that may lead to some of us becoming more engaged with religion. Early on in life I found myself trying to reconcile being a square peg with the round hole of what was expected, acceptable and normal. In fact it was my adolescent angst about my sexuality which led me to church in the first place. Being a gay kid in the ealy 80's in a working class community in the north of England was far from easy but I suspect many people reading this thread would have similar stories to tell.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
I think the experience of difference, of being transgressive in some way, can lead to an introspection and reflection that may lead to some of us becoming more engaged with religion. Early on in life I found myself trying to reconcile being a square peg with the round hole of what was expected, acceptable and normal. In fact it was my adolescent angst about my sexuality which led me to church in the first place. Being a gay kid in the ealy 80's in a working class community in the north of England was far from easy but I suspect many people reading this thread would have similar stories to tell.
Thinking back to my time as a youth group leader, I find this very interesting. In our group of 35 or so, we had a goodly number of 'square pegs' - teenagers that somehow didn't fit in easily. This included youngsters on the autistic spectrum, a couple with real body issues (grossly overweight or verging on anorexic), others with varying degrees of dyslexia and dyspraxia, quite a few who were just desperately shy, and yes, two or three that I can think of whom I am pretty sure were gay.
The reason they all congregated at the church youth group was because, compared to school or to down town on a Friday night, this was a very safe place for them to be. It wasn't just that bullying was disallowed; kindness and 'fellowship' were positively encouraged, and feelings were acknowledged and talked about. And the friendship groups they made there carried over into their school and social lives elsewhere.
So maybe, even ironically given the traditional teaching, gay teenagers are drawn to church because it is still safer than wider society, and there is at least at the youth group stage, a culture of acceptance. This is speculation on my part - maybe others can confirm or contradict.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Chorister, on those rare occasions when I have to sing solo or lead I am a fit of nerves ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Letting the side down I fear.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?
I've heard it said that the music ministry in churches would collapse if all the gays upped and left.
I gather I helped in some small way to demonstrate the point at my previous church, actually...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Because Christians worship a God who was tortured and crucified by the Powers That Be? A God who was the ultimate outsider, and who identifies with other outsiders?
Even when I was outside the church for decades, I found that idea gripping, and the life of Christ to be an utterly true representation of reality....
[ 29. June 2011, 13:00: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?
I've heard it said that the music ministry in churches would collapse if all the gays upped and left.
I gather I helped in some small way to demonstrate the point at my previous church, actually...
I've certainly heard that said about organists. Though having formerly been in a cathedral choir - and since then been on standby duty in a couple of others - and being now in a secular choir which exists for charidee concerts... out of all that lot I only know one gay person in the whole lot. If I think back to my days as a boy chorister I can add two more who I know in adulthood are gay. But that's it, and you do get to know people's circumstances fairly well when you work that closely with them. Usual caveats about never knowing what people do on the side etc.
But there is a point to this anecdote. I don't disbelieve your comments at all Orfeo. If you look at surveys of where gay people are to be found, it is far from being homogeneous. There are way more who have gravitated to towns and cities especially (and not all cities equally). It would be easy for me to conclude that music was essentially a heterosexual preoccupation, but if my singing career had been in (say) London, Brighton, Manchester etc. I'm certain my experience would have been different.
If you move in circles where there are a high proportion of gay people it may be easy to forget that the phenomena that gave rise to that effect will also give rise to other circles where they are conspicuous by their infrequency or even absence. You don't have to postulate that those circles are inhospitable in any way - it's just statistics at work.
I'm not sure though whether that all applies to the clergy - there may well be other effects at work there such as have already been suggested.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I would like to point out, though, that the articles linked to in the first post specifically talk about the Catholic Church - and it seems completely obvious to me that the path to any sort of intimate relationship is utterly closed for a man who wishes to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Gay Catholics are not encouraged to marry heterosexually, but are "called to chastity" and to "unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."
And if a man is already dedicated to following the teachings of the Catholic Church to that extent, it would seem he'd be a likely candidate for the priesthood in any case - i.e., the ultimate "calling to chastity and uniting to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."
And this all would seem to work in a sort of feedback loop, I'd say.)
[ 29. June 2011, 14:19: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(What's interesting about that, of course, is that the Church itself teaches the very thing that it is now objecting to, at least according to those articles.
Another fairly obvious indication that its teachings on this matter are highly confused and deeply in error....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I would like to point out, though, that the articles linked to in the first post specifically talk about the Catholic Church - and it seems completely obvious to me that the path to any sort of intimate relationship is utterly closed for a man who wishes to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Gay Catholics are not encouraged to marry heterosexually, but are "called to chastity" and to "unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."
And if a man is already dedicated to following the teachings of the Catholic Church to that extent, it would seem he'd be a likely candidate for the priesthood in any case - i.e., the ultimate "calling to chastity and uniting to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."
Typical sort of statement from celibate church hierarchs who assume that only celibacy is sacrificial.
Marriage and partnership involves sacrifice too.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?
I've heard it said that the music ministry in churches would collapse if all the gays upped and left.
I gather I helped in some small way to demonstrate the point at my previous church, actually...
I've certainly heard that said about organists. Though having formerly been in a cathedral choir - and since then been on standby duty in a couple of others - and being now in a secular choir which exists for charidee concerts... out of all that lot I only know one gay person in the whole lot. If I think back to my days as a boy chorister I can add two more who I know in adulthood are gay. But that's it, and you do get to know people's circumstances fairly well when you work that closely with them. Usual caveats about never knowing what people do on the side etc.
But there is a point to this anecdote. I don't disbelieve your comments at all Orfeo. If you look at surveys of where gay people are to be found, it is far from being homogeneous. There are way more who have gravitated to towns and cities especially (and not all cities equally). It would be easy for me to conclude that music was essentially a heterosexual preoccupation, but if my singing career had been in (say) London, Brighton, Manchester etc. I'm certain my experience would have been different.
If you move in circles where there are a high proportion of gay people it may be easy to forget that the phenomena that gave rise to that effect will also give rise to other circles where they are conspicuous by their infrequency or even absence. You don't have to postulate that those circles are inhospitable in any way - it's just statistics at work.
I'm not sure though whether that all applies to the clergy - there may well be other effects at work there such as have already been suggested.
I understand what you're saying. In my case the circles I moved in (past tense) definitely were NOT circles with a high proportion of gay people.
And in my case I won't claim a total gay destruction of the music ministry. I only helped as other sensitive souls also headed for the door. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I've often wondered about the (claimed) correlation. Why would it exist? Why, for that matter, do certain musical acts have an enormous gay following? I'm a huge Tori Amos fan and the male half of her more devoted fanbase is wildly skewed towards homosexuals - in Tori Amos circles, you have to out yourself as straight.
I don't really know to what extent these things are genetic (ie linked genes, ones that are near each other on a chromosome somewhere) and how much its environmental (being an outsider, turning to art).
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I wondered if it was in some way due to singing, for many years, being considered by adolescent males as in some way 'girly'. So a lot of the more macho males steered clear. Perhaps a larger percentage gay men do not mind so much being linked with a 'girly' activity?
(just a guess, feel free to disagree)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Much of the homosexuality notoriously ascribed to organists (hmm) -- by which I mean the idea that a higher proportion of organists than the general public was gay -- derives, I think, from the late Victorian English Cathedral culture -- which still lived on, in some measure, as late as the 1970s in the CofE and places that imitated it.
Cathedral (and college, and large church) organists were products primarily of public schools and Oxbridge colleges. That is, they came from a predominantly male environment, and one in which there was a degree of romanticising male friendship. (depending on who you believe, they were also hotbeds of gay sex) They were put in sole charge of 16-20 prepubescent boys, more if there were also a choir school that took non-singers as well. They were working in an environment that was solely male -- because although the cathedral clergy might be married, their wives would not be running about the cathedral in the places an organist would be working and (possibly) living.
In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men. And even if the organist later married, it's pretty clear that marriage to a woman really had very little to do -- in the kind of society I'm talking about -- with sexual predation on boys, for the person in authority over them. (And this wasn't only in churches -- the men found consorting with guardsmen in Hyde Park at night, and the patrons of male brothels in late Victorian London were predominantly married men with children.)
Whether or not it was true that a larger than usual proportion of organists were actually gay, or acted as if they were, I don't know. It was certainly accepted for a long time that if male organists did like boys and played around with them, it was somehow all right in a way it wouldn't have been all right in any other context. There was, I think, a widespread closing of eyes among cathedral clergy and others towards something considered distasteful but not really something to worry about -- after all, many of one's friends (and perhaps even oneself, at one stage in one's life)....and no lasting harm had been done. (To be fair, some cathedral clergy may well have been totally oblivious to the idea that men and boys might have sex together.)
The latest case of which I've heard dates only back to the 1980s, at a cathedral here in Canada, where the organist admitted sexual assault on a number of the boys in his charge over a number of years. And he was married with a number of children.
You also have to account for the phenomenon behind the well-known question about how to separate the choir men from the choir boys at (name Oxbridge college of choice. I heard it of Peterhouse). Answer -- with a crowbar. Mind, it's worth remembering that until 40 years ago, some of the trebles might be as old as 16, and some of the men as young as 17, so the questions was not so unusual as it seems today.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
I can't answer for anyone but myself, but perhaps being gay is precisely what led me to a deeper need for God in my life. It can go either way, you generally tend to find, at least in my opinion, a pretty much 50-50 split of believers versus VEHEMENT NON believers in the gay community.....
It also may come as no surprise that there is a large amount of Substance abuse in my community. Latching onto an external source of relief, etc, from a drug or habit is the opposite of holding fast to God, but an effort, nonetheless to be comforted or to deaden the pain of being 'different' and treated badly and harmed by others.
My partner, is now Sober, and is working as a counselor to recovering addicts and alcoholics.
He has stated numerous times that there is a disproportionate amount of homosexuality in the treatment programs; this can not be a coincidence. He attributes this skew to the reasons I mention above.
So then, why all the clergy? I daresay that the over representation of homosexuals in minsitry is most definitely not due to all of these people entering His service to avoid lay life. I feel that their vocations are real; I believe that God wants to use these individuals to God's own glory. He humbles us, in whatever we he chooses to get us to love him. Yes, I do have straight friends who are spiritual; yet I find that they become caught up in family life at times or career pursuits and don't notice God. Their lives are easier, at least in appearance.
There is no doubt that there are some men who become RC priests in a misguided attempt to kill their sexuality; and I also have no doubt that there are many gay men who are leading lives of celibacy, in accordance with their vows.
I do not agree with the idea of enforced celibacy, for any human being. It is completely unnatural to have someone vow to never do something that is as natural as breathing. It doesn't make a person a better religious person; yes not having a family definitely frees one up to be more 'useful' to the church; but to what end?
--------------------
Christos Aneste
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I can't answer for anyone but myself, but perhaps being gay is precisely what led me to a deeper need for God in my life. It can go either way, you generally tend to find, at least in my opinion, a pretty much 50-50 split of believers versus VEHEMENT NON believers in the gay community.....
Thank you for that witness BalddudeCrompond.
And to other gay folk that have contributed to this thread.
I am learning much from your contributions.
[ 03. July 2011, 12:53: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Amen to that BaldudeCrompond. I think your observation is evidently true, which leads us to the unhappy paradox that a section of people who are perhaps more inclined to offer themselves for ordination are generally discouraged or actively prohibited unless they embrace life long celibacy, something many of their critics would never entertain as an option for themselves.
[ 03. July 2011, 21:39: Message edited by: Matariki ]
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
Some of the traits we associate with masculine behaviour around competitive and highly assertive behaviour would be quite counterproductive in most ministry situations whereas compassion, concern and tenderness are valued... the experience of difference, of being transgressive in some way, can lead to an introspection and reflection that may lead to some of us becoming more engaged with religion.
Now we're getting somewhere. To add another suggestion or two, a good little church mouse at least earns the approbation of one's mother and many other women. In an environment where bullying by peers looms as a threat, a gay boy may feel few other endeavors are promising enough to gain the admiration of adults at all.
In addition, a definite part of my fascination with the organ at an early age was as a large, intricate, and esoteric mechanical wonder. I have no doubt that this appeal is fairly standard, sincere, and as such characteristically (therefore reassuringly) masculine. If one happens also to be a dedicated chorister, moving onto the organ bench is a completely natural promotion-- almost like a gung-ho boy scout's inevitably aspiring to the eagle badge. Only a few may reach it, but the structure of a well-organized choir is remarkably similar to that of a scout troop in many ways, including a detailed ladder of officially recognized goals and incentives. Even though organ study is not formally on that ladder, if striving towards the next step has become habitual, a full chorister may well ask himself what's next? However accurately electronic organs may someday come to reproduce the sound of the real thing, they will never make the same appeal to those young enough to go to the top. This shortcoming alone gives one grave misgivings about the future of the instrument.
It also seems to me that there is some basis for a wide, cross-cultural recognition that gay people tend to have an aptitude for artistic and creative pursuits, as well as for occupations concerned with preserving and propagating cultural traditions into the future. Clergy usually participate in both functions.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
John Holding, would you please not conflate the sexual abuse of children with homosexuality.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Think -- would you either read for understanding or provide proof that in any way I suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were the same or even linked.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Think -- would you either read for understanding or provide proof that in any way I suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were the same or even linked.
John
Well there's this, for instance:
quote:
In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men.
, in which you linked pedophilia with gayness, bisexuality, and - of all things - shyness....
[ 04. July 2011, 16:30: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Is some of it due to an historic reason - priestly training was at one time all male in the CofE as well as RC. If so, you'd expect...
As a logical equation, doesn't that make as much sense as assuming homosexuals to be overrepresented in the British Army?
I could have misunderstood you, and I hope you'll patiently correct me if so. It just looks like you're falling for the old fallacy of all-male environment being almost a priori attractive places for men with same-sex attraction.
It seems demonstrably to be less straightforward.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
you're falling for the old fallacy of all-male environment being almost a priori attractive places for men with same-sex attraction.
It seems demonstrably to be less straightforward.
Of course, it's not straightforward, but that doesn't mean that it is either fallacious or untrue. Back in my university days, when a gay fellow student three years older got a job after graduation that put him in an all-male environment, he wrote that it was a relief and he felt particularly comfortable there. I'm sure I would say the same (if and when).
Have you any data demonstrating that gay men are not over-represented in the British army? A statistical case either way would be difficult to make when we don't even know what percentage of the general population is gay or Lesbian. But wasn't it Winston Churchill who described the tradition of the British navy as "rum, sodomy, and the lash?" It certainly seems from Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts that they have long been over-represented in the U.S. armed forces, however carefully the fact has been concealed from the public.
Another difficulty in recognition would be that a military subculture corresponds so little to any stereotype of "gay" that another word may be needed. But ever since the Theban Sacred Band (and let's not forget Baron von Steuben along the way, who built the U.S. Army at Valley Forge and whose predilections must have been known to George Washington himself) the military has been a singularly suitable way for "gay" men to be productive members of society, and for various reasons. IMHO the sooner we accept this, the better our armed forces can be.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Think -- would you either read for understanding or provide proof that in any way I suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were the same or even linked.
John
Well there's this, for instance:
quote:
In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men.
, in which you linked pedophilia with gayness, bisexuality, and - of all things - shyness....
As I said, read for meaning and context. I was commenting on a widespread idea that church musicians are disproportionately gay. The actual widespread idea is (or was) that they are both gay and probably active with boys and/or singing men in the choirs they conduct.
I suggested that well over a hundred years ago, a number of factors might have led some gay, bi or shy straight men (yes, shy -- men who'd never had to relate to women since sent to school at 8 or 9) to have a relationship, maybe sex, with singing boys and singing men (note please, men). I suggested that these relationships probably followed on from relationships they'd had or knew about at school and later at university, and that were, if not broadly acceptable in the long term, certainly known about and winked at in the shorst term.
It's clearly a foreign world. Its assumptions and practices are mostly -- in this case, thankfuly -- gone, and I don't share them. But at that time, homosexuality and paedophilia (neither a concept in use at the time, I believe) were believed to be linked, except that what we now call paedophilia was seen more as something boys put up with if they had to than as major abuse. After all, most of what was going on (not in the case of an organist and his youngest treble, of course) was between men and boys who might be as little as five years apart in age (less in the case of Oxbridge colleges).
What I am hearing from you is that it is not permitted even to describe how a society different than your own worked, lest one be thought to agree with, even to promote the beliefs. values and practices of that society.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Is some of it due to an historic reason - priestly training was at one time all male in the CofE as well as RC. If so, you'd expect...
As a logical equation, doesn't that make as much sense as assuming homosexuals to be overrepresented in the British Army?
I could have misunderstood you, and I hope you'll patiently correct me if so. It just looks like you're falling for the old fallacy of all-male environment being almost a priori attractive places for men with same-sex attraction.
It seems demonstrably to be less straightforward.
I was meaning that they might feel more comfortable in an all-male environment. A point which has been made by others on this thread.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Fair point, then. I'm apologise for taking it as a stronger statement than you intended.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I suggested that well over a hundred years ago, a number of factors might have led some gay, bi or shy straight men (yes, shy -- men who'd never had to relate to women since sent to school at 8 or 9) to have a relationship, maybe sex, with singing boys and singing men (note please, men).
Note please: boys.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It's clearly a foreign world. Its assumptions and practices are mostly -- in this case, thankfuly -- gone, and I don't share them. But at that time, homosexuality and paedophilia (neither a concept in use at the time, I believe) were believed to be linked, except that what we now call paedophilia was seen more as something boys put up with if they had to than as major abuse. After all, most of what was going on (not in the case of an organist and his youngest treble, of course) was between men and boys who might be as little as five years apart in age (less in the case of Oxbridge colleges).
What I am hearing from you is that it is not permitted even to describe how a society different than your own worked, lest one be thought to agree with, even to promote the beliefs. values and practices of that society.
John
These two paragraphs are really quite bizarre. You're suggesting that boys were not harmed by being forced to have sex with men 100 years ago, but are now, because our "perceptions" have changed.
Or else you're suggesting that boys are not harmed now and never were; I'm not quite sure.
In either case: perhaps some of the adults were actually extroverted straight men? I mean, since this was apparently all thought to be normal and without consequence? Why, in that case, would it only be "gay, bisexual, and shy" adults? It wasn't in ancient Greece, as far as I know.
Further, if neither "homosexuality and paedophilia" was "a concept in use at the time," then how could they have been "thought linked"? You're making no sense at all.
BTW, could you actually provide some evidence for the things you're saying?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I have generally hung around in Conservative Central Churchmanship circles so I am not really aware of there being a higher proportion of gays in the clergy. However, in that sort of environment one's sexual proclivities, or the lack of them, is not a topic of conversation.
I would suspect that there are more gay clergy than gays in the general population. Two factors I can imagine havng a direct bearing are that it is a caring profession, and one in which being unmarried general goes unremarked - at least in urban, Liberal, and Anglo-Catholic parishes.
PD
[ 06. July 2011, 06:41: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
It's clearly a foreign world.
Biographies / obituaries of men used to be written in terms which would now imply a sexual interest to modern readers, yet clearly didn't at the time. Hence, it's difficult to reconstruct the public understanding of such descriptions.
For example, this is a modern biography of the Rev James Cooper, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University. It can't be read as implying any sort of sexual orientation.
At the time however, his devotion to his mother, his extended batchelorhood (he married at the age of 66) and the fact that "his main affection was for youth and especially for boys and young men" was unremarkable fact.
I would agree with John Holding that society "worked differently" then but would caution against seeing paedophilia merely because, in the language of the time, a man was described as feeling affection for boys.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
But at that time...
At what time exactly? You aren't describing the England of a hundred years ago at all.
Maybe you should go back in time and let Oscar Wilde and AE Houseman know about it.
quote:
....homosexuality and paedophilia (neither a concept in use at the time, I believe)
A hundred years ago, certainly they were in use. The idea of "homosexual" as a type of person seems to be a late 19th-century invention (& I suppose naturally leads to the 20th-century notion of "sexuality" as an essential character of a human being). It would have been called "sexual inversion" more often than "homosexuality" though I think that word was in use by then.
Sexual abuse of children was certainly known about a hundred years ago, or a thousand. The invention of a posh Greek name to make it sound better (of at worst as if it was some kind of mental illness rather than a crime) is early 20th century though. Havelock Ellis possibly. So just over a hundred years ago.
quote:
... were believed to be linked, except that what we now call paedophilia was seen more as something boys put up with if they had to than as major abuse.
No, it wasn't. You could be executed for it.
You seem to be under a misconception here. "what we now call paedophilia", that is sexual relations with immature children of either sex, would have been heavily disapproved of at any time in English history. Sometimes it might have been overlooked or hidden - sometimes it still is - but it could theoretically be punished. (By hanging, if it involved anal intercourse) Of course it happened but it was never exactly approved of.
Adult men being attracted to girls who were just past puberty would have been seen as quite natural, but of course illegal after the age of consent laws were past in the late 19th century.
The word you are looking for is not "paedophilia" but "pederasty" - which would have meant an older man buggering a younger one or a boy. There were no special laws against it before the 19th century because there was no need for them because until the mid-19th century the common law penalty for buggery was death, whatever age or sex the other person was, and regardless of consent.
That's not really what I'd call social approval.
[ 06. July 2011, 11:56: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[QUOTE] You're suggesting that boys were not harmed by being forced to have sex with men 100 years ago, but are now, because our "perceptions" have changed.
Or else you're suggesting that boys are not harmed now and never were; I'm not quite sure.
I'm about to give up on this, but it seems clear to me that I was saying that back then people did not believe that boys being forced to have sex with older men (perhaps as little as 5 years older, but let that pass) was the traumatic event we now believe it to be.
As for evidence, I don't suppose you would consider a couple of graduate degrees in Victorian history and around 40 years of private interest in Victorian/Edwardian British society relevent? No, didn't think so.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As for evidence, I don't suppose you would consider a couple of graduate degrees in Victorian history and around 40 years of private interest in Victorian/Edwardian British society relevent? No, didn't think so.
John
Oof. Way to bring out the big guns. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As for evidence, I don't suppose you would consider a couple of graduate degrees in Victorian history and around 40 years of private interest in Victorian/Edwardian British society relevent? No, didn't think so.
John
In that case, I'm surprised that you won't provide some more information per a simple request. "Victorian history" covers quite a lot of ground, I'd say - and we are talking about a fairly specialized parcel of it here.
So you're right that I don't consider your degrees and personal interest to be evidence in support of your argument(s) here; I know exactly as much now as I did before, and am no more convinced than I was before.
Which is OK; I can look at this topic myself - but I'm surprised that you're not eager to pull up lots of references in support of what you believe to be true.
In any case, several other people here have asked questions and/or made objections, too.
[ 07. July 2011, 12:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
To answer the original question in this thread, it rather depends on whether you believe that men and women are ordained because of a call from God.
If you do accept this, then: does God call gay men and women more than straight men and women (historically of course this would mainly be gay men...)
My answer to this would be that Gay Christians are more likely to hear God's call, not that God is more likely to call them that other people. "My power is made perfect in weakness"
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
At what time exactly? You aren't describing the England of a hundred years ago at all.
Maybe you should go back in time and let Oscar Wilde and AE Houseman know about it.
I believe that one of the reasons Oscar Wilde was so reckless was that the anti-homosexuality law was relatively recent and hadn't been used seriously until he was tried under it.
quote:
The word you are looking for is not "paedophilia" but "pederasty" - which would have meant an older man buggering a younger one or a boy. There were no special laws against it before the 19th century because there was no need for them because until the mid-19th century the common law penalty for buggery was death, whatever age or sex the other person was, and regardless of consent.
In practice, you were much more likely to be charged and if charged found guilty if you had buggered a minor and if there was no consent. Certainly, a survey of all cases in the late medieval and tudor period finds that it would be just about unheard of to be put on trial for something that happened in private between consenting adults. All cases on record either involve the rape of a minor, or else are effectively political show trials.
That's not the same as social approval of course. But it indicates that the legal status and the opinions of clerical rigourists probably were not the only attitudes found in society.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
My answer to this would be that Gay Christians are more likely to hear God's call, not that God is more likely to call them that other people. "My power is made perfect in weakness"
G'day Bax and welcome to the ship.
Do you mean being gay is a weakness?
Or that a gay person might just perceive it to be (because of society and Christianity) and is therefore more likely to hear God's call by being in a vulnerable position?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
At what time exactly? You aren't describing the England of a hundred years ago at all.
Maybe you should go back in time and let Oscar Wilde and AE Houseman know about it.
I believe that one of the reasons Oscar Wilde was so reckless was that the anti-homosexuality law was relatively recent and hadn't been used seriously until he was tried under it. .
What - it goes back to 1553, when the penalty was hanging.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I believe that one of the reasons Oscar Wilde was so reckless was that the anti-homosexuality law was relatively recent and hadn't been used seriously until he was tried under it. .
What - it goes back to 1553, when the penalty was hanging.
From the fount of all knowledge:
The Gross Indecency charge for which Wilde was imprisoned came into law in 1885. The charge of sodomy (sic), which would have resulted in life imprisonment (or within living memory of Wilde death), was a dead letter: people were very reluctant to convict under it.
Laws against homosexuality as such go back further than 1553 - but as I said were only used under special circumstances.
[ 04. October 2011, 15:43: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
