Western European societies attitudes towards sex have largely been moulded by the Christian Church. Homosexuality in particular, the so-called Sin of Sodom, has over many centuries been the target of virulent religious opprobrium. For whereas in the eyes of the Church the heterosexual sinner might be able to plead some kind of social mitigation, even for crimes as heinous as adultery and contraception, no such recourse existed for those accused of homosexuality. His sin, and it worth here noting the Church’s apparent  indifference to or disbelief in, female homosexuality, was mortal and would often be judged on a sliding scale of immorality: a kiss may be considered a minor felony, but the act of sodomy was, in the words of Pope Gregory III, “a sin so abominable in the sight of God, that the cities in which the practitioners dwelt were appointed for destruction by fire and brimstone.” A view echoed by a more recent incumbent of the Petrine Inheritance Pope Paul VI, when he remarked in 1976 that homosexuality was, “shameful, infamous and horrible.” What these views, separated by so many centuries, express is the current not just the historical revulsion of the Catholic Church towards what they consider ’sins against nature.’

The early Christian Church dealt with acts of homosexuality harshly, including within the priesthood itself. For example, in AD 693, the Church Council of Toledo denounced homosexual acts, or what they termed, ‘those who copulate against reason’, a vile practice, and declared that any Bishop, Priest or Deacon discovered practising it would not only be struck down by damnation but would also be given 100 lashes and despatched into exile.  This may appear fairly lenient given the terrors of, for example, the Inquisition. But the King was to add to the Church prohibitions the secular punishment of castration. Even so, this was somewhat lenient, the layman would have been executed for committing a similar crime.

Homosexuality, however, has not always been viewed in such an unfavourable light. Certainly in Athens during the 4th and 5th centuries BC, homosexual relationships, and in particular those between male adults and young boys, were positively encouraged. As indeed were sexual relationships between consenting females. Marriage was considered beneficial to the household in terms of procreation but affection was expected to lavished upon your same sex companion. Likewise, masturbation was encouraged as an effective safety valve against sexual frustration which had a warping effect on the mind. So, for a brief period at least, homosexuality and pederasty flourished in ancient Greece. As indeed did the arts, though whether the two are linked is a matter of some controversy to this day.

It would appear then that society’s hardening attitude toward homosexuality coincided with the increased power of the Church and the subsequent influence of Christian teachings. The Churches future strictures against homosexuality found greater definition with the the work of the thirteenth century philosopher, theologian, and future saint, Thomas Aquinas. For just as St Augustine had rendered the sexual act as acceptable only in terms of procreation, for that was evidently what the sexual organs were for, then, as Thomas pointed out, the act of homosexuality must by definition be a crime against nature. For if the Creator made the sexual organs for procreation then homosexuality must be a deviation from the natural order, and those who pursue or indulge in it, deviants and perverts.

The Churches generally obssessive and paranoid reaction to sex has not always been reflected in society, however. For whereas society has sometimes banned incest, adultery, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, the Church has glibly proscribed them all. In the case of sodomy, the Church prefers this term as it draws attention to the physical act and not the feelings of love and affection that may accompany it, the grounds for its proscription  seem to emanate from the words spoken by the crowd gathered outside the house of Lot in the Book of Genesis 19.4.11 demanding that he present his male guests, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them.” And the Book of Leviticus that declares that, “A man should not lie beside another man as he would a woman.” The Church correspondingly forbade homosexuality using the strictures of the Bible as its justification. It also forbade much else besides regulating a strict order of sexual crimes: bestiality, zoophilia, sodomy, non-observance of the correct means of coitus, masturbation, adultery and fornication. It even proscribed the deliberate cultivation of lascivious thoughts. The demands of the Church made upon society to observe its strict code of moral conduct contributed to an atmosphere of paranoia in a Europe consumed by sexual guilt. It was a paranoia that manifested itself in the superstitious belief in sexual demons, incubi and sucubi, that would steal a young girls virginity while she slept and corrupt the unsuspecting male. A superstition and dread that later gave vent to itself in the Witch Craze that swept across Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and in which women were perceived as promiscuous seductresses and the male witch as effeminate and homosexual.

It was around the time of the Renaissance that the Churches negative and prohibitive attitude towards sex in general came to be enshrined in the laws of States. For example, in Renaissance Venice sodomy was considered the most serious of all sexual crimes. The punishment for it would be to be burned at the stake, the so-called Flames of Heaven. Before long this punishment for sodomy was to become common throughout Europe. But it was a crime difficult to prove and so this punishment was rarely enacted. This was in no way leniency on the part of the Authorities but rather the need to enact such  draconian punishments indicated the deep psychological fear of what they deemed abnormal sex.

In early modern Europe homosexuals were perceived to act in direct contravention of the Will of God. They were morally corrupt, a curse upon society, a threat to the established order, and condemned to damnation. Homosexuality threatened property relations based as it was upon wealth acquisition and family inheritance. In the AIDS epidemic of our own time this implicit threat to human existence is continued. The often hysterical response of the media mirrors the medieval Churches equally hysterical outbursts against sodomy. That AIDS was frequently referred to as ‘The Gay Plague’, inferred Divine Judgement, that it was a latter day Sodom and Gomarrah. As those struck down by it were invariably homosexual or promiscuous, and probably both.

The onset of the Enlightenment in Europe in the eighteenth century did bring with it a more rational approach to the understanding of society in general. Greater intellectual freedom was its watchword and this meant release from the captivity of the Church. This didn’t necessarily bring in its wake more enlightened views of the place of sex in society, however. Homosexuality was still demonised, if not in strictly religious terms then as in opposition to their concept of the family. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in his Social Contract makes clear the the family (and he meant a man and a woman with children) was “the oldest form of society and the only natural one.” This view was challenged by the Marquis de Sade. Though he was never widely read at the time he propagated the view that sodomy was neither contrary to nature or reason. Waste, he argued, was part and parcel of nature, so the waste of semen, for so long criticised by the Church, was the most natural thing in the world, it was in accordance with nature. Thus he articulated a philosophy that suggested sodomy was natural to all men at a time when it was still held under harsh condemnation by both Church and State. Indeed, in de Sade’s France they were still burning homosexuals at the stake long after they had ceased to burn witches. The death penalty for sodomy in France was not actually repealed until the penal code of 1791. Ironically, de Sade is now considered a philosopher of some merit in France whereas elsewhere he is considered little more than a sadist and a pervert.

If indeed there had been a change in societies attitude towards homosexuality it can be best seen in the gradual change from a moral condemnation based on a reading of Biblical texts to  secular laws often derived from the reading of those same Biblical texts. There is little doubt that the law could be as harsh in its punishments as any Church. For example, in England, even as late as 1828, Parliament passed a law that stated, “Every person convicted of the abominable crime of buggery  either committed with mankind or with an animal will suffer death as a felon.” It was common throughout this period for sex between consenting adult males to be associated with sex between animals. It was considered little better than animal abuse. Still, in Britain homosexuality was considered a vice best ignored, though Parliament continued to legislate against it. Homosexuality and effeminate behaviour was believed to be a vice of foreigners. Where it did exist in Britain it was believed to be an unfortunate by-product  of the public school system. Abnormal sex, flaggelation and masturbation (the British disease) were taboo subjects and not liable to discussion. This did not prevent Parliament from adding a clause to the ‘Criminal Amendment Act of 1885′, specifically criminalising homosexuality and allowing for up to 2 years hard labour as punishment. Its most high profile victim was to be the Irish playwright and novelist, Oscar Wilde.

Even today, homosexuals are subject to laws restricting their rights to free expression.It is still possible for homosexuals to be arrested for public displays of affection. They can of course express physical love in the privacy of their own homes provided they are over 18. Though homosexuality is now legal in most Western countries artifices are still employed to limit its exercise. In the American State of Virginia there exists the so-called Sodomy Statutes which do not specifically outlaw homosexuality but instead ban all anal and oral intercourse regardless of sex. Such ambivalence simply engenders the ‘thick moral blanket’ that continues to shroud an honest debate, not just about homosexuality, but about sex and relationships in general.

Religious condemnation and legal punishment of any minority group or pursuit reflect societies need to condemn as a whole. Exercising what John Stuart Mill, referred to as social democracy practising, “a tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.” Certainly physical punishments for acts of homosexuality have diminished over the centuries in western Europe, it is less certain whether the social and moral condemnation of such acts have diminished likewise. Homosexuals are still often forced to live surreptitiously, to pursue double lives, to forego careers, lie to their families, and are reduced to living in twilight worlds and sub-cultures separate from mainstream society. They may no longer be in fear of the law but remain intimidated by social condemnation and the subsequent discrimination, which despite our best efforts it would be foolish to deny.

This almost paranoid anxiety about homosexuality has been described as a uniquely European trait that does not necessarily exist in the rest of the world. Though there are countries where the punishments for homosexuality remain medieval in their brutality. The language to describe homosexuals is still often derogatory and abusive even in the most liberal of societies. For the stage we are at is one of toleration not acceptance, and this toleration can always be withdrawn. The law may have changed, the Church less so, but societies attitude towards homosexuality is perhaps best expressed in the vernacular and this indicates less change than perhaps might be imagined.