Thank you for proving that St Paulinus did not love Ausonius in that way.
Claiming union of spirits despite distance in bodies is a pretty clear way to say as much as: "I like you as a person, we think the same about a lot of subjects, but I am not exactly dying to hold you in my arms." It is an example of charity to a man who - if the background research is correct - might have been desiring such a thing. But it is not an example of honouring such a bad request with acquiescence. A very useful lesson, if true. And Ausonius, unlike St Paulinus, is not a canonised saint. He was a Pagan.
Huffington Post used an example where queerness was claimed for a monk or two for using the word "love" for other men or - in Newmans case - for showing affection to one on the yonder side of the grave. I do recommend people to read CSL's book The Four Loves. I am not sure if Huffpost journalists will follow that recommendation, but still.
I was just today thinking about telling Frédéric Mitterand that he may well feel as a spontaneous and naturally given identity a greater human or even aesthetic attraction to men than to women (I do not, if I am attracted in any way whatsoever at all), but chosing sodomy over coitus is hardly that.
I mean, if King David liked Jonathan better than his sister, whom he was married to, that does not mean there was any doubt about whom he was married to. Or made love with.
A lesson quite necessary to some Huffpost writers too.
Such a pity that Vortex missed that there are in fact three saints who crossdressed, for battle or for hiding among monks (both of the girl monks were accused of rape, b t w), and that it came up in the article not at all for lesbiannism, but because crossdressing counts as a separate type of queerness. The only connexion between these types is that a German shrink wrote a book about several types of queerness, Psychopathologia Sexualis. And, since I do not agree that doctors of medicine should investigate charges of sodomy, that is for judges and priests, I do not either see how crossdressing could be even remotely taken as indicating lesbianism in and of itself.
Are all women who wear trousers today lesbians? Of course not. But Krafft-Ebbing - the name of that shrink - counted crossdressing as a queerness independently of whether it was in the particular case a question of a butch lesbian or not at all that.
So, it is a mistake to classify voluntary crossdressing as a medical condition. It is a moral one, and when sufficiently flagrant and without excuse a bad one. Bad as indicating bad morals, bad taste (something to forgive in relatives) or bad judgement: since it may arouse either heterosexual or homosexual lust in someone else. But not in and of itself terribly bad. When Israel of Old Testament stoned crossdressers, it should be remembered that premarital sex also involved stoning to death for a virgin who volunteered to it. That was before the Messiah came, it was when Israelites, Jews, Jewesses could still become His ancestors. What is behind Krafft Ebbing is a total misunderstanding of that as if the Old Law were autonomous, rather than related to the New Law.
Then there is also a mentality in which Torah says that calves must not be boiled in the milk of the cow that gave them birth, then you cannot add sour cream to the sauce you serve chicken in. That is behind much of Krafft Ebbing. That rather than Christian morals.
It is also a mistake - the one that the Huffpost published researcher did - to think sodomy innocent because crossdressing is no longer a stoning crime.
St Paul calls sodomy unnatural. He also calls it a mortal sin, as excluding from heaven. He also calls it a punishment for paganism (Ausonius was a pagan, remember).
It is tragic that Krafft Ebbing and Freud have started to make both anything deviating from very manly men desiring very female women and very female women desiring very manly men look suspect of homosexuality and on top of that very manly men desiring very female women is suspect of homosexuality "in denial" as the Freudian jargon goes. It stops boys and men from making close friends for one thing.
Fortunately not having those prejudices, I did make a few friends. Here is a guitar sonatina for one of them: Sonatine pour Guitarre VI. It is not meant as me playing it to him, it is dedicated to him because he might like to play it - to whomever he wants to. He is a guitarist with Hispanic music sensibility. I am not a guitarist, I only compose for guitar. It seems the other one - he is married now - suspected me of being queer now and then. But then some in his family were reading things like Krafft Ebbing. He also thought hairdressers are all queer. Did he ever watch Marriage of Figaro? Or are French monarchists (which is his political affiliation) prohibited from watching any single thing signed Beaumarchais in any part of the artistic process?
Hairdressers "all queer" - as in all having Count Orloff's preference? Give me a break! That is a wishfulfilment dream of husbands sending their wives to hairdressers. So, if there is a patron saint for hairdressers, and their should be, because wearing hair long in a male without a good cause counts as crossdressing, does such a saint qualify as queer too with Krafft Ebbing?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
George Pompidou Library
(appropriately enough in
the queer part of Paris)
St Nino of Georgia's feast
15th of December YooL 2011
Claiming union of spirits despite distance in bodies is a pretty clear way to say as much as: "I like you as a person, we think the same about a lot of subjects, but I am not exactly dying to hold you in my arms." It is an example of charity to a man who - if the background research is correct - might have been desiring such a thing. But it is not an example of honouring such a bad request with acquiescence. A very useful lesson, if true. And Ausonius, unlike St Paulinus, is not a canonised saint. He was a Pagan.
Huffington Post used an example where queerness was claimed for a monk or two for using the word "love" for other men or - in Newmans case - for showing affection to one on the yonder side of the grave. I do recommend people to read CSL's book The Four Loves. I am not sure if Huffpost journalists will follow that recommendation, but still.
I was just today thinking about telling Frédéric Mitterand that he may well feel as a spontaneous and naturally given identity a greater human or even aesthetic attraction to men than to women (I do not, if I am attracted in any way whatsoever at all), but chosing sodomy over coitus is hardly that.
I mean, if King David liked Jonathan better than his sister, whom he was married to, that does not mean there was any doubt about whom he was married to. Or made love with.
A lesson quite necessary to some Huffpost writers too.
Such a pity that Vortex missed that there are in fact three saints who crossdressed, for battle or for hiding among monks (both of the girl monks were accused of rape, b t w), and that it came up in the article not at all for lesbiannism, but because crossdressing counts as a separate type of queerness. The only connexion between these types is that a German shrink wrote a book about several types of queerness, Psychopathologia Sexualis. And, since I do not agree that doctors of medicine should investigate charges of sodomy, that is for judges and priests, I do not either see how crossdressing could be even remotely taken as indicating lesbianism in and of itself.
Are all women who wear trousers today lesbians? Of course not. But Krafft-Ebbing - the name of that shrink - counted crossdressing as a queerness independently of whether it was in the particular case a question of a butch lesbian or not at all that.
So, it is a mistake to classify voluntary crossdressing as a medical condition. It is a moral one, and when sufficiently flagrant and without excuse a bad one. Bad as indicating bad morals, bad taste (something to forgive in relatives) or bad judgement: since it may arouse either heterosexual or homosexual lust in someone else. But not in and of itself terribly bad. When Israel of Old Testament stoned crossdressers, it should be remembered that premarital sex also involved stoning to death for a virgin who volunteered to it. That was before the Messiah came, it was when Israelites, Jews, Jewesses could still become His ancestors. What is behind Krafft Ebbing is a total misunderstanding of that as if the Old Law were autonomous, rather than related to the New Law.
Then there is also a mentality in which Torah says that calves must not be boiled in the milk of the cow that gave them birth, then you cannot add sour cream to the sauce you serve chicken in. That is behind much of Krafft Ebbing. That rather than Christian morals.
It is also a mistake - the one that the Huffpost published researcher did - to think sodomy innocent because crossdressing is no longer a stoning crime.
St Paul calls sodomy unnatural. He also calls it a mortal sin, as excluding from heaven. He also calls it a punishment for paganism (Ausonius was a pagan, remember).
It is tragic that Krafft Ebbing and Freud have started to make both anything deviating from very manly men desiring very female women and very female women desiring very manly men look suspect of homosexuality and on top of that very manly men desiring very female women is suspect of homosexuality "in denial" as the Freudian jargon goes. It stops boys and men from making close friends for one thing.
Fortunately not having those prejudices, I did make a few friends. Here is a guitar sonatina for one of them: Sonatine pour Guitarre VI. It is not meant as me playing it to him, it is dedicated to him because he might like to play it - to whomever he wants to. He is a guitarist with Hispanic music sensibility. I am not a guitarist, I only compose for guitar. It seems the other one - he is married now - suspected me of being queer now and then. But then some in his family were reading things like Krafft Ebbing. He also thought hairdressers are all queer. Did he ever watch Marriage of Figaro? Or are French monarchists (which is his political affiliation) prohibited from watching any single thing signed Beaumarchais in any part of the artistic process?
Hairdressers "all queer" - as in all having Count Orloff's preference? Give me a break! That is a wishfulfilment dream of husbands sending their wives to hairdressers. So, if there is a patron saint for hairdressers, and their should be, because wearing hair long in a male without a good cause counts as crossdressing, does such a saint qualify as queer too with Krafft Ebbing?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
George Pompidou Library
(appropriately enough in
the queer part of Paris)
St Nino of Georgia's feast
15th of December YooL 2011
2 comments:
Michael Voris for Vortex TV actually twisted a theological point.
He said that St Joan of Arc was burned as heretical for claiming to hear voices.
She was burned as heretical for saying that voices from God told her to wear men's clothing. I e for claiming to have been declared by a voice from Heaven an exception to the rule, if the English friendly Inquisitors would have bothered to thank as far as that. She was also burned for witchcraft. It was claimed her vioctories were due to such rather than to Heaven's blessing.
Claiming to hear a voice from Heaven or see a vision from Heaven, as such, can not be considered heretical in the Catholic Church. The Apocalypse was certainly a vision from Heaven and a lot of voices from Heaven.
Although it was one of the last parts of the Canonic Scriptures written - the Gospel of St John was written after it, actually, cf bishop Ælfric's homily for december 27 - and one cannot add any new writings to the canon or new content to the Depositum Fidei, that does not exclude private revelations as reminders, even afterwards. St Eustace and St Hubert had seen Christ Crucified between antlers of hunted stags. And heard His voice. No one among the English Inquisitors could possibly contest that point.
This addition is because it is Vortex TV that linked to the bad scholarship that for one thing called Ausonius gay - true or false I do not know - but on top of that said that St Paulinus of Nola was that too.
Post a Comment