Homosexuality in the middle ages

True ,
but i was trying to find a way to include an option for the Incubus type of attraction ,
(Faerie rather than Infernal)
as players are normally limited to one story flaw.
Most bonus/penalty options in ArM05 are +/-03.
Having a +/-06 carries a greater degree of risk in certain circumstances.

In my opinion that's just it - there's probably as many views on homosexuality as there is magi in the Order. Ranging from austere disgust to acceptance to mild indeference.

I) In present time we know that there's is a strong corelation between knowledge/education and tolerance, but whether you can or will translate that to the magi of the Order depends on the stories you want to tell.
II) On the other hand maybe you can't deny the upbringing the individual magus have had and the "values" that have been given them.
III) Yet, the magi - because of their gift - might all have experienced ostracising or being bullied, prior to their apprenticeship, which might give them a better understanding of less accepted people.
IV) Then there's the fact that the Order rest on a classical herritage - the classical cultures being more sexually tolerant and accepted traditions of older men "mentoring" young men (and somewhat overstressed by a lot of fiction/films). Maybe that might have an impact on the magi's attitudes...
V) Finally, the precious life-prolonging longevity rituals used by magi either make you infertile or outright impotent; I would believe that your own sexuality would influence your view, for better or worse, on other sexualities. This is not to say that it's an either "get lost or let's get going" attitude, just a statement that your own sexual health my influence your tolerance - in a positive or negative direction.

So, to conclude - I havn't concluded anything at all, just rambled along aimlessly, but here at least - whether they are sound or not - you have some possible rationalisations for whatever you decides to do. Whatever makes your story the better.

I think on of the key issues is that concepts of sexual identity and orientation don't exist in the middle ages. IANACH(*), but I believe it is a decent approximation to consider homesexuals of that time as "men who engage in sexual congress with other men" (leaving aside lesbianism for a moment), rather then as "gay".

While "your game, his cultural identity", I'd be rather surprised if gay pride existed in a recognizable form in the 13th century. You can have unrepentent sinners, you can have people who firmly believe that what they do is divinely inspired, and everything in between, but you are unlikely to find pride as a social referm program...

The absence of sexual identity from the conceptual framework of the times is also a boon for the character, though: no-one is going to burn him because he is a homosexual. He may have to do penance, he may be charged with a crime (ecclestial court if he can read & write), but tagging him the way we are prone to tag people is a lot less likely. Of course, "lover of men" is a tag too, but one limited to sexual behaviour unlike most of the modern tags that tend to carry more baggage.

Also note that emotional focus on other men is not condemned, at least not as far as I can see. Brotherly love between men is even encouraged!

Of course, also, the way it affects the game is going to depend very very much on the role sexuality in the modern sense has in the game. Most games aren't greatly affected by the characters' sexual orientation, not because it is heterosexual, but because it is not central to the play -- exceptions abound, of course.

Finally, I would suppose that the character's promiscuity versus commitment to single partner is likely to determine a great deal of the impact this has on play. A single partner, be that remote or close by, is going to be a very similar to any other partnership in game and easily explainable to the rest of the world as "brotherly love". In case of transient partners the questions of finding partners, trusting them, and dealing with possible consequences assumes the greater role.

Cheers,

--d

  • I am not a cultural historian

I think House Tremere is relatively pro-gay. They admire the Spartans, who were as gay as peacocks, and had the whole incident with the Amber Eyed servants, and their tendency toward gayness.

Gayness might be a Dark Secret. It might be basically the same as Vow of Celibacy. Not with Tremere magi, mind you, because they don't care about these things.

That's just plain silly!

First of all - the classic image of ancient Greece's homosexual relations between men, though it has merits, is wastly exaggerated far beyond imagination. Partly due to the novelty of it and partly due to an amazing stubborness of the idea.

Second - It would never be the same as a Vow of Celibacy. The part that makes Vow a flaw, and thus interesting to portray in a character, is not that the character doesn't engage in sex (one way or another), but that the vow is challenging. Where example a priest might have sworn to live in celibacy, he still might have to struggle against his own sexual drive, whereas someone who basically not wants nor desires said sex (because of having a different sexuality) and not because of a vow, is something completely different. If it should be a vow, then it should be not to engage in the kind of sex you actually desire. And then there's possibly better terms to use than Vow.

In itself sexual intercourse, ALL sexual intercourse, was seen to be sinful (only forgivable if happening within a marriage - but even then in the early middle ages this was seen as a solid argument that lay people weren't belived able to go to heaven), and "deviant" sexual acts were seen as clear acts of sodomy. Therefore it is rather inconcievable that any would vow to do something that in itself is rather sinful.

[color=green][i] Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: Re: Homosexuality


Timothy Ferguson wrote:
I think House Tremere is relatively pro-gay. They admire the Spartans, who were as gay as peacocks, and had the whole incident with the Amber Eyed servants, and their tendency toward gayness.

Gayness might be a Dark Secret. It might be basically the same as Vow of Celibacy. Not with Tremere magi, mind you, because they don't care about these things. [/i]

That's just plain silly!

Glad you liked it 8)

First of all - the classic image of ancient Greece's homosexual relations between men, though it has merits, is wastly exaggerated far beyond imagination. Partly due to the novelty of it and partly due to an amazing stubborness of the idea.

I didn't say Greece. I said Sparta. I said Lycurgus. Are you lcaiming I'm wrong about Lycurgus?

Second - It would never be the same as a Vow of Celibacy.

If you have a gay orientation, but do not act on it, how does this differ?

The part that makes Vow a flaw, and thus interesting to portray in a character, is not that the character doesn't engage in sex (one way or another), but that the vow is challenging.

Again, I see playing a gay character who dares not speak his orientation, save in rare, lucky, tension-filled circumstances, to be challenging.

Where example a priest might have sworn to live in celibacy, he still might have to struggle against his own sexual drive, whereas someone who basically not wants nor desires said sex (because of having a different sexuality) and not because of a vow, is something completely different.

Gay people want and desire sex, generally speaking.

If it should be a vow, then it should be not to engage in the kind of sex you actually desire. And then there's possibly better terms to use than Vow.

Yes, but it is illustrative of the game mechanics. Your argument's semantic, and I do accept it, but semantic rather than mechanical.

In itself sexual intercourse, ALL sexual intercourse, was seen to be sinful (only forgivable if happening within a marriage - but even then in the early middle ages this was seen as a solid argument that lay people weren't belived able to go to heaven), and "deviant" sexual acts were seen as clear acts of sodomy. Therefore it is rather inconcievable that any would vow to do something that in itself is rather sinful.

This is rubbish. People regularly did all kinds of sinful things in the Middle Ages. According to a paralell argument, murder would never have happened, because they were clearly forbidden, and there would have been no premarital sex, theft, or acts of greed. Also, your idea that the laity could not reach Heaven is false - it's simply bad theological history.

Also, a lot of Tremere aren't Christians.

I see that I've provoked you, and much more than intended. And if that be the case, I hope you may forgive me.

I would however like to continue the discussion, not to create further provocation, but to deliberate on the subject. To some of your points I agree - others I do not, and I intend to argue more fully for my points than in the former post. I do not dispute you conclusion – it is yours (and I do not necessarily disagree with it) – I only want to elaborate, and at times object, on your arguments and your reply to my post.

My point wasn't that men didn't have sexual relations with each others. And I agree that it was accepted, at times even a tradition. But spurned by your characterisation of the Spartan population to be "gay as peacocks", which I found to be an undue simplification, I simply wanted to point that the stylised picture of widespread ancient homosexuality is a popular simplification of a much more nuanced reality. This an ongoing debate among the scholars of the subject, but in short: homosexuality was accepted (but there were conventions for the practice of said sex - whether these were followed we can't really know), you cannot directly compare present sexuality with it (being "gay" simply didn't in the same sense have the same connotations as today), the sexual relationsships at the time had many other defining factors (mainly older mentor with younger boy) rather than just being between men.

The issue of using the term ancient Greece wether using the term Spartan isn't that important - I grant you that my chosens words were unspecific. I did so because it is common to speak of the culture or civilisation in that region and time as ancient Greece - and that includes Sparta. And since I reckon that the issue at hand is a general subject, even if Sparta had it's particularities, as all the city states had, within that culture. Concerning Lycurgus, you actually didn't mention him! But even if you had, I wouldn't claim you were wrong about him, as well I wouldn't claim that anyone was right on him. Little is know of him, if we speak of the legendary Lycurcus who ruled Sparta (the famous one of the them) and that's exactly it: legendary. What is know of his life is primarily what others (Xenophon, Herodotus and Plutarch) wrote of him several centuries after his time. Therefore I don't see the point of including him in the argument. Even if we did, it wouldn't change my basic argument - yes homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece, but not to the extent that you could characterise a whole population as "gay as peacocks".

Well, this is partly due to a misunderstanding. Let my clarify it: reading your former post you get, at least I did, the impression that it was your intention that the Vow should be seen as the general flaw covering homosexuality – and it was to that I did object; As you are doing now. And in that light you may see the reasoning behind my argumentation. Because if that was the case, it would exactly look like an empty vow/flaw except for the ones who actual wouldn’t want to act on their drives – to the ones who have an active sex life, fearing being ostracised (even discriminated against) or not, using the vow as flaw would seem very empty. Now, seeing that this really wasn’t you intention, I have no objections on this at all. Save for one perhaps – that really isn’t an objection – that maybe the will not to act on your drives in this case might more be a case of survival instinct/fear of reactions rather than a vow. With the exception of the case where the will might be due to the characters own set of beliefs and not fear. But this is again semantics rather then mechanics – but still a good cause for sticking with your original idea – namely the Dark Secret (which happens to be what we’ve used in a similar situation in our saga).

Naturally! This relates to the earlier mentioned misunderstanding.

The last phrase was not to change the term vow to anything else, but in line with the former argument, that I didn’t find appropriate as a general flaw to cover homosexuality, because maybe the person in question actually couldn’t care less of conventions or the fear of peoples reaction and follows his drives anyhow. It is in this situation that I find the term vow to be useless – well, maybe that person doesn’t even need any flaws to represent this feature of the character; If he is living among people that do not share the cultural baggage of the present (medieval) majority.

It is interesting that you rage the most at me on the point that I’m actually most confident in my knowledge. The last of the following is a subject I’ve studied intensely at university. Here are actually two arguments in one paragraph, so I’ll try to separate them. First the argument with relevance to the vow; I never strived to say that people in the middle ages never did things they themselves believed sinful – because that clearly is rubbish, if I may use your term... Listen to the essence of what I’m trying to say. My intentions was simply to say that people probably didn’t vow not to do it – not because they were sly and wanted to do it anyway or anything in that line of thinking, but because it was self evident that you wouldn’t murder, rape, steal, rob etc and commit sodomy (and much of it still is)! Hence you wouldn’t vow not to commit murder. The act of same sex sexual activity would to the people be right up there among the cardinal sin, wherefore people wouldn’t vow not to do – it would be expected of them in the first place. Again, they most certainly did many of these things nonetheless, but that’s an entirely different tale.

And then the second part: the question of theology, church religion and lay beliefs is a huge subject – especially because in the Middle Ages, in spite of its negatively ringing epithet as the Dark Ages, these were in a tremendous development. Especially theology has always been in a changing and interrelated dynamic with lay religion (and still is). In the early Middle Ages in most of Europe religion had primarily been ritual, collective and impersonal – and salvation ultimately seen as a shared fate. But with the internalisation of the values (which is even seen in art: Christ changing from being depicted as Victorious and head held high on the cross to now being shown as suffering – for people to feel and identify with him) a reform movement was born. The church had changed from a missionary religion to an organisation under rising demands to reform and to involve lay religiosity. Only at the Fourth Lateran Council of the church in 1215 was the laity given theological access to heaven, whereas before it had been primarily reserved the members of clergy and a few select saints (the first married layman, Homobonus, was only canonized in 1199). Why so? One thing being that sexual intercourse was deemed sinful, only redeemable by the “sacrament” of marriage (which of the sacraments was in an unusual position, among other things not needing a priest). The challenge to lay religion was the pre 1215 theological fact that after having received your baptism, there was only to options: heaven or hell, and nothing in between. If you had any “unfinished” business when you died – you would go to hell, and since it was inconceivable to the theologians that any but clergy, who had wowed their life to service and prayer, could go through life without sinning, the gates to paradise was effectively closed to the laity. What happened in 1215 were many important reforms of the institution of the church, but foremost it saw the theological adoption of the notion of purgatory. Purgatory, to present-day Christians and others seeming a nasty place, was to the medieval people nevertheless a sliver of hope. That you sins might be cleansed post mortem and thus give everybody a shot at ultimately getting to heaven. Beforehand it hadn’t been a possibility to the great majority. Sex – of whatever kind – being just one of the many sins “committed” in a lifetime. So, if you want to attack me for bad theological history, feel free, but you should know that you attack a plenitude of established historians within this field.

No, they probalby aren't. I agree. And by all means, I wasn’t attacking your conclusions – feel free to use the Tremere however you like and I wouldn’t disagree with you. I might even do the same. My issue was with the arguments you presented in you post as your way to said conclusion. I simply felt that the presentation of classical Greece, or Sparta to be specific, was grossly simplified and that the idea of the vow misplaced. Concerning the last I stand corrected, because there we seem to agree and the fuss only due to misunderstanding of you original intent with the flaw.

To those who had made to the end of yet another long and potential boring post without nodding off, I congratulate you.

Respectfully

Jeppe

Yikes, I see this topic made quite a fuzz :unamused: But it's an interesting topic, and a somewhat difficult one to discuss. But just to say, since I started it, I have more than enough to go on in my campaign. But please, do continue discussing it. :slight_smile:

E.

[color=darkred]I see that I've provoked you, and much more than intended. And if that be the case, I hope you may forgive me.

Oh, I'm not provoked. Apologies for seeming provked.

[snip.]

[color=darkred]My point wasn't that men didn't have sexual relations with each others. And I agree that it was accepted, at times even a tradition. But spurned by your characterisation of the Spartan population to be "gay as peacocks", which I found to be an undue simplification,

Oh, that's fair, of course.

[color=darkred]I simply wanted to point that the stylised picture of widespread ancient homosexuality is a popular simplification of a much more nuanced reality.

Oh, I agree with this too, but my point is that Lycurgus, who was part of the system which had homosexual warriors fighting in pairs, is considered an important thinker in the house.

[color=darkred]This an ongoing debate among the scholars of the subject, but in short: homosexuality was accepted (but there were conventions for the practice of said sex - whether these were followed we can't really know), you cannot directly compare present sexuality with it (being "gay" simply didn't in the same sense have the same connotations as today), the sexual relationsships at the time had many other defining factors (mainly older mentor with younger boy) rather than just being between men.

This is true, I agree.

[color=darkred]The issue of using the term ancient Greece wether using the term Spartan isn't that important - I grant you that my chosens words were unspecific. I did so because it is common to speak of the culture or civilisation in that region and time as ancient Greece - and that includes Sparta.

I disagree with this, basically because the Spartans are a special case, not replicated elsewhere, who are pivotal to my point concerning the apporach of Tremere magi to homosexuality. I'm not making a general Hellenic case: I'm quite specifically talking about the one part of it that supports my case.
[color=darkred][i]
And since I reckon that the issue at hand is a general subject, even if Sparta had it's particularities, as all the city states had, within that culture.
Concerning Lycurgus, you actually didn't mention him! [\i]

Sorry, I was unclear, I mean when I mentioned him in the Tremere chapter.

[color=darkred]But even if you had, I wouldn't claim you were wrong about him, as well I wouldn't claim that anyone was right on him. Little is know of him, if we speak of the legendary Lycurcus who ruled Sparta (the famous one of the them) and that's exactly it: legendary. What is know of his life is primarily what others (Xenophon, Herodotus and Plutarch) wrote of him several centuries after his time. Therefore I don't see the point of including him in the argument. Even if we did, it wouldn't change my basic argument - yes homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece, but not to the extent that you could characterise a whole population as "gay as peacocks".

Yes, I was exagerating for effect, I agree.

[color=darkred]It is interesting that you rage the most at me on the point that I’m actually most confident in my knowledge.

That's not rage. It's scoffing. I meant it in a lighthearted way, which of course doesn;t come across on the web at all, I'm sorry.

[snip.]

[color=darkred]My intentions was simply to say that people probably didn’t vow not to do it – not because they were sly and wanted to do it anyway or anything in that line of thinking, but because it was self evident that you wouldn’t murder, rape, steal, rob etc and commit sodomy (and much of it still is)! Hence you wouldn’t vow not to commit murder. The act of same sex sexual activity would to the people be right up there among the cardinal sin, wherefore people wouldn’t vow not to do – it would be expected of them in the first place. Again, they most certainly did many of these things nonetheless, but that’s an entirely different tale.

Oh, this I can see. I was misconstruing your argument. There's a minor quibble that some do make vows not to take up arms, but beyond that yes, this is basically sound.

[snip.]

[color=darkred]Only at the Fourth Lateran Council of the church in 1215 was the laity given theological access to heaven, whereas before it had been primarily reserved the members of clergy and a few select saints (the first married layman, Homobonus, was only canonized in 1199). Why so? One thing being that sexual intercourse was deemed sinful, only redeemable by the “sacrament” of marriage (which of the sacraments was in an unusual position, among other things not needing a priest).

Ah, well, I did theology at university too...so it's interesting to step back and look at these things. The idea that common people couldn't get into Heaven before 1215 is, well, its just silly. The Christian cult is based on the promise of salvation. What exactly were the concerts expecting if not salvation?

Also, you are wrong about it being odd not to need a priest for sacraments. I n the early church only ordination and communion required a priest. All of the other could be performed by anyone, even Jews, in the classic case of baptism by the Jewish midwife.

[color=darkred]The challenge to lay religion was the pre 1215 theological fact that after having received your baptism, there was only to options: heaven or hell, and nothing in between. If you had any “unfinished” business when you died – you would go to hell, and since it was inconceivable to the theologians that any but clergy, who had wowed their life to service and prayer, could go through life without sinning, the gates to paradise was effectively closed to the laity.

This argument ignore the existence of a sacrament of extreme unction. You didn't have to live your life without sinning: you just had to be reconcilled with God at the time of your death. The whole point of confessions, penance and absolution was to place you in this sinless state, and extreme unction gave you a final polish.

I'd point out to you that the church in the East did not, and does not, have a Western concept of purgatory, retaining what they see as the pre-Lateran beliefs, and you'll see in their churches that they believe common people have every chance of Heaven, provided they are reconcilled at death.

The root of your problem is the idea that you needed sinless life to reach Heaven is demonstrably false. I can demonstrate this with simple examples: Saint Augustine, in his Confession, famous for "Givew me celibacy, but not yet!", makes it clear he burned with many cardinal sins, and yet he is a saint, and therefore clearly was given some form of cleansing. Similarly, Saint Ambrose hid from the nomination for the bishopric by hanging out in a brothel, and was also a bit of a character in his younger years. He's still a saint, so there must be some way to get from being, say, a prostitute to being saint through pentitence. Indeed, many of the Mary Magdelen stories from the period make it clear she was both.

What was confession -for- in the model you suggest? What did Christianity offer peasants except Hell?

[color=darkred] What happened in 1215 were many important reforms of the institution of the church, but foremost it saw the theological adoption of the notion of purgatory. Purgatory, to present-day Christians and others seeming a nasty place, was to the medieval people nevertheless a sliver of hope. That you sins might be cleansed post mortem and thus give everybody a shot at ultimately getting to heaven. Beforehand it hadn’t been a possibility to the great majority. Sex – of whatever kind – being just one of the many sins “committed” in a lifetime. So, if you want to attack me for bad theological history, feel free, but you should know that you attack a plenitude of established historians within this field.

Good gracious, you sound like I used to. That's not an insult, it's just an observation that I used that line of argument once and Robbie Westmoreland shredded me like a cabbage.

I'll take them and you, old chap, because this fundamentally fails to understand the function of confession. And, if you disagree with me, I'm more than willing to drag up the ghosts of the Early Church Fathers. 8)

Actually, I just see if I can set Michael de Vertieul on you. He's better at these sorts of questions. 8)

I'll steer clear of hardcore theology myself, but when it comes to laiety, I must say I was very much under the impression that the it was a "relatively common" lay belief, that all marital sex was sinless.

Cheers,

--d

Greetings to my aussie mate!

[Laughs heartily!]

Now it seems that we’re more on track again. Got to add that if this or any of my other posts seems garbled, it’s probably because I had to run of halfway during the former post to fight a fire, and that as a consequence I’m now suffering from lack of sleep (the present European heat wave doesn’t allow for catching up on sleep during the warm day). I claim a bit of Serf’s Parma, if nothing else.

That makes more sense (closing and restoring HoH:TL on its shelf) – thought you were referring to your post, didn’t on the fly remember that he was in the book. I do not disagree either – and in Ars it’s more than appropriate to use the classics, that’s what I really loves the most about the game! Was this in another context I probably wouldn’t use the stories on Lycurgus as is – he’s more steeped in myth than what we really can know for sure about him and his Sparta.

That satisfies my greatly, since this exaggeration was really what got me going in the first place – not you conclusions; as usually I just had to go in all kinds of strange loops to actually make my point, instead of simply just making it in the first place.

I concur – Spartans are one of a kind – when I started including all, it was based in my own case: to make a stand against the general widespread, stylised and misconcepted picture of Hellenic homosexuality – my offset for this debate. But I see now that I’m “preaching” to people already in the know and I’ll rest my case.

Apology accepted – that’s really true and coming from a country to whom irony is a national sport, I know how easily the intentions of words can go awry when communicating in text – internet or SMS.

[“lol” – couldn’t help it!]

And now to the more interesting issues on medieval religion and religiosity; I didn’t do theology though, but I studied history, my focus subjects being medieval Europe and did thesis on medieval lay religiosity and beliefs on the afterlife compared to institutionalised religion, namely theology and the church. It would actually be interesting to know whether some of our disagreements on this might pertain to a difference in approach to the subject depending on faculty: Theology/History.

Firstly my argument is based on the important assumption that there were a significant gap between what lay people believed and what theology found to hold true. These things naturally interrelate heavily and during the Middle Ages there was an enormous change – this is especially seen in the way lay people practiced religion, but also as a change in theology as a response to developing lay “demands”.

I really do agree with you that there’s a clear mismatch between the Christian promise of salvation and the statement that “Heaven was chiefly populated by monks, nuns, and saints*”, and my disbelief was as strong as yours, when I first read the accounts on this. Nevertheless it is important to stress that the lay persons themselves might naturally have believe different. Even talking of medieval European Christianity is in itself an umbrella term – a generalisation encompassing an almost infinite variety. My target is the establish theology – what by the church had been deemed right – which happen to be rather vague, but this vagueness of definition of the faith, beyond the Creeds, might be argued to have been vital element in the success and development of medieval Christianity.

No – it fails to understand the function of confession as we regard it today! It was actually, if I remember correctly, at the very same Lateran that it was introduced that every Christian soul should confess at least once a year (often at Easter). These years also saw the proliferation of the sanction of taking confessions (namely some of the friars). As I’ve also argued earlier – communion, at that time, was only thought to relieve you of the Culpa of your sins, not the Pena. But even if we agree on the function of the confession – the relevant question is still: how many do confess, and are they unwavering frank in their confessions? If they do not – or if they do not confess every sin – then those sins would remain with them until judgement, nevertheless; the function of the confession or not. Medieval people do not seem to be adverse to the confessions themselves, but if anything would hold them back then it would probably have been the often public nature of penance, depending on the priest.

And by all means - bring on the Chuch fathers if you have to - I'd like to learn on them! Bring on Westmoreland or de Vertieul - even if I am ignorant and don't know those squires! Bring them on, I say! This merry band of brothers! I stand at the ready! :wink:

Time runs so quickly – and soon the bell here tolls to end this debacle for now and actually play some role play! (roar of the crowd!)

I’ll see if I can stay awake….

Respectfully,

Jeppe


I do not bring these references to strengthen my argument – but because I have the impression that you find this interesting and might want to delve more into it.

  • R.N. Swanson, 1995: “Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215 – c. 1515”
    § N.P. Tanner, ed. 1990: “Decrees of the ecumenical councils”
    I could recommend many other source, but sadly they are in Scandinavian languages, which might not be of much use to you, or the majority of this forum.

To my fellow Northerner

Great - and good luck with you other story (you know the one about 'notch'notch...)!

Felt a bit sorry if we had completely kidnapped and bastardised your thread.... But if you got what you need, that's indeed nice to know!

Jeppe

A homosexual that hide the fact that he or she is gay should have the dark secret. Dark since it is considered a sin.
If the character is blatantly homosexual, that is saying that sodomy is good, that could be considered heresy. You would get burned at the stake.
If you repent and swear never to do it again, you could take the wow. IF it becomes public, you would most likely loose any offices you held. Unless you repent publicly, and possible claim to be seduced by a demon of sorts.
As a medieval person having such a feeling often, you might want to purge yourself by going on a pilgrimage. Or go reside in a monestary where you denounce your sexuality.
I recommend seeing and or reading "the name of the rose", the medieval crimestory, where Sean Connery play a retired fransician investigator. The monestary is in many ways similiar to a hierachic covenant.

House Tremere: Most mages are most probably more tolerant than most, as most with a higher degree are more tolerant than most. His collegues are probably not that interested in christian teology. But some might worry that he is possesed by an seccubus, since he is lusting after men. I think you should set up a group of tremeres would have taken the spartan ideals to heart, where homosexuality is accepted, as love between men. That would also explain a pride that is otherwise not accounted for in the medieval world, since there is no such concept as a homosexual, just a sodomistic sinner.

Other mages: It would vary greatly. I make most npc magi out to be socially reclusive, with some personal agendas. They might love to talk about their pet projects, but most are not very social. So a reputation in areas of "normal life" isnt as relevant, as your hermetic reputation is. But it might be a sore point in politics, the character could loose or gain allies, and be blackmailed because of it.

Remember that homosexuals who are blatant are only in trouble if weak, famously gay individuals include edward II and james I of england as openly gay rulers, who got in trouble for other reasons, not that they were gay, edward was in trouble for being incompetant and james for being scottish taking control of england. Add to that that the church is only going to make a fuss of it if they aren't spanking the altar boys themselves. Take the catholic churchs abuse scandals coming out over the past 10 years in italy, ierland and america. Whenever individuals swear not to have sexual relations with women then the strain comes out elsewhere. You can't preach the sins of homosexuality from the pulpit if everyone knows you are being hypocritical, and you definately don't do it if you know that your boss (the bishop) is also guilty.

As far as I understand it, in the Middle Ages there was no widespread idea that a person might have a definite and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual orientation. Therefore, there was no "gay" stigma per se. It was simply assumed that all people might lose control of their sexual appeties and indulge in the sin of lust, according to the circumstances (so it was somehow expected that homosexual sex would be a frequent occurrence in monasteries). Homosexual sexual behavior (especially male) brought an additional severity in comparison to heterosexual one, because it was assumed to be "against nature" (cfr. sodomy), and being a transvestite or obviously effeminate was likely to bring severe social handicaps, since wishing to be or deeming oneself of the opposite gender was thought to be a sign of madness at best, witchcraft at worst. However, if a person were to flaunt his obvious homosexual liasons all the time, and he would not be excused by the circumstances, he would get some social stigma, as he would be deemed an obdurate sinner in an especially desplicable form of the sin of lust.

I agree, but it suited what I was looking for, which was a military mindset that seemed, well, more medieval than a lot of people seem to actually play their characters. I wanted to be able top simulate military fantasy and SF in the game world. I wanted to do it without the romanticisation of the individual warrior that we see in chivalry and in Epics of Virgil, and have instead something that considered the common soldier, in so far as you can consider the common soldier when he is a magus. Something where you could see the point of subordination, rather than seeing subordination as necessarily evil, which is the basic take we saw in ArM3, and see in a lot of RPGs.

Homoesexuality was important ot it, because I wanted to hint, as much as I could without going off the deep end because American published RPGs are a lot more careful about this thing than in some other areas, that if you idolise the militant, athletic person, you also sexualise the militant athletic person. This has two effects: it changes the female role in the House: answering the question "Why, exactly, are women equal?" and it also sexualises the violent male, in a way that for me is reminiscent of 30s Germany. You get homosexuality, but without the affectations which seem, to me, to be terribly English - the lisping, the prancing, and so on. When we say "medieval and gay" we don't actually mean anyone who looks like Julian Clary. We may mean someone who looks like Duke Galehaut, who dies for the loss of Lancelot. I think that's an interesting character type, that conventional RPG shies away frome.

Go for it old chap. I did theology as part of my history degree, although my Honours is in Australian history and so helps me little.

Your argument also depends on the implicit assumption that the theology, rather than the folk practice, defines the Church, which I note as questionable.

I'd note that in the early church, pretty much every common citizen who reached heaven was a saint. You don't need to be a recognised saint to be a saint - the saints are innumerable and venerated on All Hallows. So, this definition is circular, unless they mean saint in a narrow, modern sense.

OK, so I'd just like ot be clear you mean the Latin theology, because there's no way your definition can stand in the Eastern Church. I'll debate you in this limited area.

No. Prior to this, the general view of the church had been much in accord with the modern view, and the Lateran Council formalised the ocrrectness of this view, in opposition to minor elements of the church which speculated, as you do, that only the religious could reach heaven. You are painting as revolutionary a document which was not revolutionary. Just because the Church says X is so, does not mean that previously it believed X not to be so, merely that persons within the Church were not required to believe that X was so. So, in the same process, when the Church formally approved the idea that, actually, Mary immaculately concieved, in 1854, it was not saying that previously most people believed the opposite. It was saying that henceforth, it should be understood by all people that this was no longer suitable for speculation, the truth being known.

I am not arguing in terms of majorities, but merely in terms of the sense of it being closed to the laity, which is false, if one accepts the statements of the missionaries as being of any value. I'm not talking of the really odd stories, like Saint Patrick having the right to judge the Irish. I'm talking about the basic idea that you'd need to be an idiot to sing up for a religion designed on the principles you note, and that the the people were not idiots. Leaving aside the basic test of idiocy, though, let us examine the very basics of the religion, which I note that you have dodged in your replies above. 8)

You are required, by the Apsotle's Creed to believe in the forgiveness of sins. Your model does not account for the forgiveness of sins. The belief that a spotless life is necessary is heretical, because it does not meet the requirements of the Apostles' Creed. You can't coherently construct an argument based on the wiritings of the Church Fathers without the Apsotles' Creed, because its a fundamental contextual touchstone.

Service does not matter, in terms of salvation: it is good, but you may be erring here in believing that Heaven can be earned. It cannot be, as noted in Ephesians 2:8-9

To be a martye you need to not be a heretic - and you still haven't got past the forgiveness of sins in the Apostles' Creed.

OK, note that the Church does not see Lateran IV as a change: in never sees these things as changes. Also, note that your position is unbiblical: Romans 10:9, for example, which is translated in the New International as "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Check them apples...the position of the Church has never really been that the vast majority were cactus, it has always bee nthat the vast majority had the free choice to deny sin, be reconciled with God, and thus achieve Heaven.

I'd note the idea that priests can act as the agents of God in forgiveness of sin occurs in Augustine, Ambrose, Athanasius and a few other early writers.

I accept the concept that Heaven was not immediate for many, but you go further than this, stating that Hell, rather than Heaven, was the eternal place for the peasantry after the General Judgement. Your evidence doesn't support this further extrapolation.

This is doctrinally false: an interim judgement is added instead. 8)

I'd point out that in 1215 you are slap bang after the explosion of the European book manufacturing industry in the 1100s, and there is a simlar sudden appearance of mannuals on famring. This does not demonstrate a sudden spiritual revolution concerning agriculture.

I think you are drawing quite a long bow there. Gothic art is based on the education of the laity through non-textual means, as a way of countering illiteracy. This form of educative construction of space is very expensive, so its found in the East since forever, through icons, but only appears in the West after the Commercial Revolution, in the C13th. Gothic art is new in style, but its declared function is very similar to the icons of the East. This doesn't demonstrate a new conception of the possibility of saving peasants, merely a new technology for the process that is affordable now that the west is comparatively wealthy.

Er, no, culpa is the emnity of God due to the spiritual transgression against him which God forgives. It's not "guilt", it is "fault". "Mea maxima culpa" means roughly "through my grevious fault"
[/quote]
but what remains is the Pena, that which only God could judge upon

Oh, I agree it's a strange one.

As I understand it, and I'm not an expert. Wanderer is on the money. Sexual Orientation, as we understand it and discuss it, is a part of a paradigm that didn't exist at that time. The premise that being gay must include dark secret or vow (to not engage it) apply when discussing the topic in terms of modern paradigm.

These virtues and flaws are more situational in a mythic setting. They are influenced not only be how people view sexuality, but where one views it.

Given the Roman and Greek origins of Hermetic Magic, given the androgynous attributes of Hermes, given that wizards are to some degree enlightened scholars pursueing the Mysteries in order to better understand themselves, the world, and magic, there could be a wide spread indifference if not tolerance to homosexuality. Of course this could be countered by individual magi who have strict religous our personal beliefs.

Furthermore, if this wizard never leaves his lab then neither vow or dark secret apply. In terms of storytelling, they simply don't matter to lab rats. One needs to consider the stories the character will be engaged in and decide if those stories will come into conflict with the characters sexuality.

If the character will likely never cross the path of someone in the Church who has persecution complex, then dark secret doesn't apply. If the character doesn't feel a need to change their sexuality, then vow doesn't apply. One could certainly have a reputation, which could alter the views of people on a situational basis, but again it solely depends on how this attribute will come into play.

For what it's worth, my Tytalus character isn't gay, but I wanted to play a character stigmatized for who he was. My character has Blatant Gift, Infamous Master, and a Bad Reputation. In terms of building characters these are 'flaws' but these are attributes I wanted in my character. He embraces his flaws and uses them to his advantage. They are elements that in terms of storytelling that are constantly there.

I would think about what sort of stories you are going to tell, and build the flaws around those stories, not around being gay, unless that attribute is story material that will be explored.

I forgot to state that the one thing a Middle Age homosexual person should avoid to do is to openly glorify his behavior, as this would be seen as challenging the Scripture quotes condemning it and therefore heresy. The Church can be quite tolerant about sins of lust as long as involved subjects keep it quietly ("Nisi chaste, tamen caute" has been the mainstream attitude about sins of the flesh for the last millennium), or even if they go public but they are in a position of power and privilege (e.g. a noble living in open adultery). But as soon as you try making a propaganda issue of it, you are challenging their monopoly of truth and they will be ruthless about it. So no gay pride.

I would not treat even a blatant gay orientation as a special social issue within the Order, apart from the occasional Christian fanatic. Wizards are accustomed at having a wide range of nonconformity among their fellows. Classic sources are less of a relevant influence during Middle Ages than one may think, since Latin, not Greek, sources mostly survive in the period, and Roman had less of a positive attitude (more towards indifference, as long as it did not threaten marriage) to homosexuality. As regards the folk at large, as long as one keeps it relatively quiet, it wouldn't really be of a problem, apart from perhaps having a minor negative Reputation. If one blatantly keeps homosexual lovers and despises marriage, he would have a signficant social handicap (make it the Infamous and the Social Handicap Flaws). If one is a transvestite or glorifies homosexuality, he should have inquisitors dogging his footsteps and face widespread social rejection (Enemies or Outsider Flaw). The Transvestite Flaw covers the more favourable situation when the charcter is adept at passing as the chosen gender and is generally assumed as a non-dangerous mad freak when spotted. The alternative is being deemed an heretic or witch. One of the charges of heresy brought against St. Joan of Arc was that she cross-dressed. Truly, there was severe political bias against her, since Church authorities would readily excuse a woman dressing as a man out of convenience (e.g. to preserve her chastity during travel, or wearing armor on the field of battle), and it was a frequent occurrence in literary sources (e.g. some Boccaccio's novellas, or Shakespeare's Twelfth Night). A man dressing as a woman would get much less tolerance, since there might be no perceived necessity for it.

Note: a blatant homosexual was labeled a "tristo" (sad one) in Middle Age Italian literary sources (Boccaccio), so it might be an apt nickname for a gay character in the Roman Tribunal.

One thing I find worth mentioning is the significance of social standing between (male) partners in a homosexual relationship in olden days. The person with the higher social standing was the one who did the penetrating. It was inconcievable for a freeman to be penetrated by a slave for example.
In one of the old Icelandic sagas (can't remember which one) the son of some famous viking is teased for bieng a "Kaelleknejte", not sure about the spelling. This word implies bieng the weak partner in a homosexual relationship, and if one was weak in bed (bieng on the recieving end) one was by extension also, a weak fighter, a weak drinker and generally weak in all areas where a macho man should be strong.
Homosexuality was generally accepted in pagan viking times.

Hail Eris!
Flarg