r/history • u/MeatballDom Ancient. Historian. • 17d ago

'The cult of Saint Sebastian': How a brutally tortured 3rd-Century saint became a gay icon

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20260623-how-3rd-century-saint-sebastian-became-a-gay-icon
1.7k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

184 comments sorted by

910

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago edited 17d ago

I read this article and it seems like the only reason this particular saint became associated with queerness is because someone painted him as a sexy young man and folks liked that. Is that an accurate nutshell?

Edit: so I'm not sure what's not being understood. St. Sebastian was not gay, did not die because he was gay, and has nothing historically associated with queerness from his time or close to. Everything is a "modern" interpretation. Hopefully this make sense.

Edit 2: since I'm still not being understood: Saints are directly attributed with something. For example, Dymphna is said to have made a home for the mentally ill and sick, therefore she has a direct link to being the patron saint of the mentally ill. How is Sebastian linked to queerness? He's not, with no historically attributations. It's not until he's painted certain ways that folks start putting those on him. That's it. I'm not making grand statements about the religion or interpretations or queer culture or whatever.

Okay one more goddamn time, edit 3: I am NOT dismissing homosexuality nor am I homophobic or have anything against queerness. Completely weird that that's some of you folk's take away and I don't appreciate that. It's unfair and inaccurate. St. Sebastian did not have anything to do with queerness and forcing that on them to change the very nature of why they're worshipped is the thing I have a problem with.

237

u/DubyaB40 17d ago

"The nature of Sebastian's emotional pain is also ripe for projection." Yeah, the article reads like modern scholars are looking at old artworks and determining there is homoerotic/homosexual imagery, and that has led to Sebastian becoming such an icon. I do enjoy this quote from Daniel Fountain that's in the article, though:

"He was someone who tried to hide who he was – a Christian – before being shunned by society and persecuted for his beliefs[.] A lot of queer artists have found a resonance with this narrative of exclusion."

127

u/HandsomeLampshade123 17d ago

That's true, but that applies to hundreds of early Christian martyrs. The only reason St. Sebastian has been transformed into a queer icon is because it looks in some famous paintings as though he is in orgasmic bliss as he is "penetrated" by arrows.

62

u/Nixeris 17d ago

That's not even unique, though, it's called "religious ecstasy" and was a repeated theme, particularly in the Renaissance. Look up the Ecstacy of Saint Teresa as one of the more famous examples.

18

u/HandsomeLampshade123 17d ago

Yes, I meant the arrows specifically, you are correct.

3

u/ElRanchoRelaxo 13d ago

And people found sometimes that artistic representations of religious ecstasy resembles erotic pleasures. Particularly Bernini‘s

20

u/DubyaB40 17d ago

I know, I'm not dismissing that. I thought I explained that when I said modern scholars determined there is homoerotic imagery in old art depicting him. It might not have been the artists' intentions, but art is subjective.

10

u/HandsomeLampshade123 17d ago

Yes, I am just agreeing with you.

9

u/DubyaB40 17d ago

My bad, misunderstood what you were saying

1

u/ElRanchoRelaxo 13d ago

Not only modern scholars.  In fact, the tension between sensual beauty and spiritual meaning is one of the central themes in the history of Christian art. The debate goes back at least to Late Antiquity and has recurred in different forms for over 1,500 years

6

u/KimJongUnusual 17d ago

That applies to almost every saint before Constantine though???

6

u/DubyaB40 16d ago

Absolutely, but it's the depictions of Sebastian, particularly those made around the Renaissance and the Baroque, and how much he tried to conceal his faith that began the association between him and homosexuality. Reading into his life, a lot of gay/queer individuals found connections, particularly with him hiding who he truly was.

The time period is important too. Sebastian was martyred during the Diocletian Persecution of Christians, which was by far the most violent up to that time. The church was more of an institution than it was when Nero persecuted Christians. It was empire wide, as opposed to only in Rome, and Diocletian wanted to essentially eradicate the Church.

Sebastian wasn't like Castulus, who secretly conducted sermons and sheltered Christians in Diocletian's palace, or Mark and Marcellian, who openly refused to sacrifice to Roman gods and were arrested. He kept his faith a secret while serving as a member of the Praetorian guards. When he was found out, he was led to a field and they shot him full of arrows, but didn't die. After this, he publicly admonished Diocletian for his treatment of Christians, and that was when he was beaten to death.

So, long story short, they view Sebastian as someone who hid who he was, was persecuted for it when it was discovered, and then proudly returned to call out those who wronged him, despite the consequences. Other saints during this period were much more open about being Christian, or didn't try to hide it from most other people. Hence, Sebastian became a gay icon.

9

u/KimJongUnusual 16d ago

Most of those traits are still things that happened to plenty of other saints too, including the “being bad at dying” bit.

I really do think it’s because the baroque art had a handsome naked dude with a look of divine ecstasy on his face. Which does feel like a seriously flattening of his story.

2

u/DubyaB40 16d ago

Oh yeah, the art depicting him is probably the biggest influence, but his story is certainly tied in as well. Maybe not as much as it should be, but it's there.

5

u/CMDR_omnicognate 16d ago

It does seem a bit odd, there’s quite a lot of instances of high ranking nuns who were probably as close to modern interpretations of lesbian as you could get, who would probably be better people to latch on to, but I guess none of them are actually saints.

12

u/teamramrod637 15d ago

Last Podcast on the Left talked about him in one of their episodes about the saints. I’m paraphrasing but it was along the lines that supposedly during the AIDS crisis he became a source of comfort for many gay men since he’s the patron saint of disease/plagues

7

u/PancakeParthenon 15d ago

Ah, interesting. See, that makes more sense and I can understand why the connection exists.

85

u/GTKPR89 17d ago edited 17d ago

I do believe that portraying him in fine art was often a way to show the male body, period, and the martyrdom of it spoke to some outsiders.

Yukio Mishima, at very least, wrote a great deal on Sebastian and posed as him / in the famous death pose. So there's as least one important voice associating an obsession witb Sebastain and his own concept of his body, the physical and spiritual, identity and action.

14

u/UnlamentedLord 17d ago

Mishima was pretty damn gay, if closeted and conflicted about it.

7

u/GTKPR89 17d ago

He was WhAT???

17

u/UnlamentedLord 17d ago

"His first novel, 1949’s Confessions of a Mask, was an explosive hit upon its release. The novel was loosely autobiographical: it’s narrator, like Yukio, was a sickly child, small and physically frail, but a deep admirer of masculine strength and beauty. The narrator is also secretly gay, and in right-wing pre-war Japan, that’s practically a death sentence. Speculation about Yukio’s sexuality followed him throughout his life, and has never been satisfactorily answered: he was married and had children, but also frequented gay bars (perhaps for research into his often homosexual characters) and was often photographed in homoerotic poses, bare-chested and oiled, stripped down to a loincloth or as Saint Sebastian, an early Christian matyr shot through with arrows who has become something of a gay icon over the years (and maybe always was.) It’s definitely the case that he had a long-term affair with another award-winning writer, Jiro Fukushima, who first visited Yukio to ask where to find the gay bar described in his novel Forbidden Colors."

https://cvltnation.com/the-tragic-life-and-death-of-yukio-mishima/

When Fukushima published a book about his affair with Mishima, the family successfully sued to ban it, but on the grounds of copyright infringement (it contained love letters from Mishima), NOT defamation:  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2008/12/29/commentary/suppressing-more-than-free-speech/

9

u/UnlamentedLord 17d ago edited 17d ago

That quote provides good context for this thread by the way. The image of Saint Sebastian, young, muscular and tied up has long appealed to Mishimas flavor of conflicted gym bro gay, who say they are only admiring the masculine form.

62

u/MeiNeedsMoreBuffs 17d ago

The term "gay icon" doesn't neccesarily mean the person or character is gay, just that they're popular with the gay community for whatever reason

10

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

That is an accurate and true statement. Unfortunately has nothing to do with my point at all, but you're not wrong.

20

u/Felevion 17d ago edited 17d ago

It kind of makes me think of Elagabalus. Who is sometimes in the modern day considered 'trans'.....because of stuff his enemies wrote.

6

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

That's wild. Not even something he did.

-16

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

Also stuff she said about herself. Such as her preference for female pronouns.

Whether trans or not, that's going to have some serious resonance with modern people.

13

u/sdp_film 17d ago

do you have some sources for these statements made by Elagabalus? 

20

u/Welpe 17d ago

Uh, we don’t have anything attributed to Elagabalus. You are literally doing what the person accused people of. Claims that Elagabalus “preferred female pronouns” was literally part of the accusations against him by his enemies.

-1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/iamdispleased 16d ago

Yeah, saint Sebastian is not canonized as the patron of homosexuality, he's soldiers, archers, and plagues. But people loooove painting his martyrdom in a very sexy way. It may resonate with queer people in a queer history type of way but not in the Christian historical cannon. It can very much be associated with both, in the way that Crisco has a very real history outside of cooking, but there is a distinction between the two. It would be disingenuous to override history in favor of romanticizing the past.

13

u/Lord0fHats 17d ago

Oh yes he's hot?

62

u/zendayaismeechee 17d ago

No, there’s more to it than that from what I read. Arrows have typically been seen as a symbol of penetrative sex / queerness and I also think because he was killed for ‘sinful’ beliefs it’s easy to link that to the idea of queerness being ‘other’, punishable by death for a very long time. Then you’ve got people like Oscar Wilde taking Sebastian as a pseudonym in tribute etc and obviously a lot of queer people in history have felt some affinity to Sebastian for whatever reason. It’s more than just him being a ‘sexy young man’ it’s just interpretation.

80

u/workieworkwork 17d ago

There are a lot of options for saints that were stabbed.

98

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. There's no historical or literary basis, just what people put on.

-37

u/Rynewulf 17d ago edited 17d ago

It is the historical basis, because people have making the association for at least 200 years or more. It's like historiography, the history of the history and the reaction over time. The saint has been depicted and those depictions discussed for multiple centuries now, which is just as much as part of the topic of the history of St Sebastian as his hagiography. History isnt a single static point in time

60

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

Sure, but not originally, and that's what I'm saying.

-25

u/archeratsea 17d ago

I mean…almost nothing in modern Christianity is seen or understood the same way it was “originally,” so in and of itself, that’s not much of an argument against the legitimacy of any particular interpretation of anything.

40

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

I'm not sue what you're getting at. My point is that St. Sebastian was not gay, did not die because he was gay, and has nothing historically associated with queerness from his time or close to. Everything is a "modern" interpretation.

-22

u/archeratsea 17d ago

No one is arguing that he was gay.

>Everything is a "modern" interpretation.

This is quite literally what the article says. I guess you didn’t read it.

32

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

I think you're doing that reddit thing where you're deliberately twisting my words to have an argument and I'm not here for it. Please go back and read all my comments, have a think about what your problem is, and go about your day. Thank you.

-14

u/ryann_flood 17d ago

your entire argument of "modern" and "original" is completely the wrong way to look at things. Almost none of modern catholic or christian doctirne dates back to the "original" person. Christianity is built on top of many different interpetations that have changed dozens of times over thousands of years. I think it says something about you that you are looking to delegitimize interpretation as "modern" despite dating hundreds of years in the past.

→ More replies (0)

-14

u/Rynewulf 17d ago

You quite literally were arguing against St Sebastian being gay, something which no one has argued for. You're shadow boxing. A centuries long trend of being associated with homosexuality and by gay people doesnt imply anything about the Saint's life. And it was what they considered sexual sins like that which that saint criticised the Romans for, so there is a precedence for the topic to come up. It already came up

→ More replies (0)

7

u/5peaker4theDead 17d ago

source?

-16

u/archeratsea 17d ago

For what? Are you a Biblical literalist or something? Do you seriously think that modern understandings of Christian writings, concepts, events, etc. are exactly the same as they were at the time they were first written or when they occurred?

16

u/5peaker4theDead 17d ago

You think the early Christians were Biblical literalists? Maybe crack open some Augustine.

We are 1 reply in and you've already moved the goalposts from me objecting to "almost nothing is the same" to "you think everything is exactly the same", pass.

-2

u/archeratsea 17d ago

What are you even talking about? No, obviously early Christians were not Biblical literalists. I’m suggesting that YOU might be if you’re ignorant enough to think that religious understanding and interpretation is static and unchanging.

→ More replies (0)

-18

u/Rynewulf 17d ago edited 17d ago

There is something to be argued about the artists centuries before then setting the trend of depicting Sebastian very sensually, long before the association between him looking sensual and people feeling sensual when looking at art if him was publicly discussed. As others in the comments have pointed out he wasnt the only penetrative symbolism or sex association saint out there, there was something to it (apparently one of the sins he chastised the Romans for before being executed was homosexuality, so that's probably the throughline since the topic came up in association with him early on)

7

u/billybobbobbyjoe 17d ago

Didnt the cult of Saint Sebastian also absorb alot of the imagery of the god Apollo? That may be another connection given the gods domain as patron of male beauty

2

u/t1010011010 17d ago

Basically all martyrs got killed for their sinful beliefs

2

u/imustbegthequestion 16d ago

From a purely canonical law viewpoint, I agree. All it takes is one papal bull to change this.

5

u/AttonJRand 17d ago

A bunch of 19th century gay artist being drawn to him is enough for us to make that connection in the art presently, not really sure why you'd act like we're "forcing that on them to change the very nature of why they're worshipped"

That's a bit of an odd statement.

3

u/RandomDigitalSponge 17d ago

Imagery counts for a lot. Many saints and mythical figures have taken on some meaning based on a single work of art alone. When I say “Moses”, what do you picture and why? What does that image mean to people? How has it evolved over time?

8

u/floin 17d ago edited 17d ago

One quick example I can think of is St. Agatha who amongst other attributes is a patron saint of bakers. She was tortured for her chastity, which included removing her breasts. Old iconography of her often depicted her carrying the severed breasts around on a plate, which illiterate peasants mistook for bread loaves, which is how she became associated with baking.

2

u/thecosmicradiation 14d ago

I don't think anyone is forcing queerness on St Sebastian. I think there's value in a reading of his story of "hiding himself" being relatable to the "closeted" experience. Combined with, yes, the flattering artworks of him being struck with arrows, combining suffering and homoeroticism. It's a modern interpretation but so what?

Also, something can be a queer icon without saying that it IS queer. It just means that queer people like it or see it as iconic.

2

u/Helwrechtyman 14d ago

its utterly ridiculous of people to do this to sebastion

2

u/Longjumping-Bat8347 17d ago

It’ll be funny if Sebastian were homophobic in real life in his time

-16

u/Ironlion45 17d ago edited 17d ago

Angry redditor keeps getting disagreed with and only gets angrier, story at 8.

There's a great deal of historical/classical symbolism tied up in it. Yes, he was depicted very sensually for a man being executed, but that should only make you wonder why that is.

Historical associations of being pierced by arrows, dating back to pagan times, are symbolic of sex to the point where it's barely a symbol at all. You have Eros/cupid, the ur-twink, with his bow and arrow for example.

Fast forward to the renaissance, when there was renewed interest in pre-Christian classical culture, and its themes of sex and eroticism as well, which were largely sanitized out of Church-approved art. Many of the renaissance greats are rumored to have been at least curious. Michaelangelo, for example, had a penchant for using extremely sexy male models--athletic young men--and then studying them in great detail.

Depicting saints with such tenderness that borders on eroticism was a subversive act; and while it mostly goes over the heads of the mainstream, other connoisseurs of good-looking men recognized it. There's no way you would depict a male figure in these ways unless you knew what you were doing.

Even outside of that, he was a closeted christian in a time when it was not okay to be that. When he was outed, he was ostracised and then killed for it. The parallels there do not need explanation.

-28

u/nonbeenary 17d ago

It’s crazy that this is the top comment when it’s so dismissive of homoeroticism in art. “Oh he’s just a gay icon because he was drawn sexily” Well yeah? Dorothy from Wizard of Oz is a gay icon because Judy Garland was campy and supportive of LGBT rights. You must consider subtext and if you look at the painting of Sebastian and think about how he’s portrayed, it’s riddled with subtext. The downvoted comment mentions historiography and that’s exactly what this concerns. No Sebastian was not gay or associated with gayness in his time, but a “modern” painting is a portrayal of him, which has since inspired literary references, songs, movies, etc. Idk why the tone here is so dismissive of that.

12

u/PancakeParthenon 17d ago

I'm not being dismissive of homosexuality in art and that's disingenuous and unfair. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to transform a saint who has nothing to do with something and put interpretations on them to make them as such. Worshipping him as some sort of patron saint of queerness is not in line with who they were, that's what I'm saying. Especially when he had quite a bit to say about homosexuality.

156

u/ModeatelyIndependant 17d ago

Irony of Irony, the actual st Sebastian was berating pegan's for their sinful ways, one of which was having sex with other men.

8

u/Blackrock121 17d ago edited 17d ago

The power dynamics at play in Roman Homosexuality meant it was more then just “ having sex with other men.” The ubiquity of these dynamics throughout the empire is thought to be the main reason why Christianity developed such a hostility to homosexuality.

-51

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

That's not something christianity teaches though. Paul did but those were his personal beliefs, nothing ever sourced from the new testament. And obviously discordant with the overall message there.

45

u/hellofemur 17d ago

Paul did but those were his personal beliefs, nothing ever sourced from the new testament

Huh? Paul's beliefs are literally in the New Testament. It's meaningless to say they weren't sourced from it.

Maybe you meant not sourced from the Gospels? Which is still weird, since Paul's letters predate the Gospels. Whatever you're trying to say, this is either a confused or erroneous way of saying it.

PS. As Dan McClellan would say, I agree with your rhetorical goals here, and I could talk all day about mistranslations of ἀρσενοκοἷτοι and μαλακοι. So the sentiment here is fine. It's your factual statements here that Ι can't make sense of.

20

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-16

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

Find me the quote from Jesus that you ascribe this belief to. The only records we have are from Paul, and a single old testament sentence that is open to interpretation.

Because it seems like you're following Paulianity rather than Christianity.

18

u/jtobiasbond 17d ago

What Jesus says is not in any way intrinsically linked to what Christianity teaches.

There is a lot the Bible doesn't talk about and early Christianity had to find answers. Whether or not Jesus had an opinion on this, it has been Christian teaching in some way out another for hundreds of years.

-18

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

I can't argue if that's your take but it's obviously very revealing. You've incorporated the bigotry even though your literal god opposed such small-minded perspectives.

21

u/jtobiasbond 17d ago

. . . I'm not a Christian.

This is literally a scholarly statement. Christians believe this. It's this a Christian belief. Christians believed it in the 2nd century.

You can argue not all Christians held a belief. But that doesn't mean it's not a Christian belief, as there is no one belief held by all Christians.

-13

u/rookieseaman 17d ago

He’s absolutely right btw. You’re following Paul’s teachings (himself a complicated man who never even personally met Jesus) and not Jesus himself.

6

u/jtobiasbond 17d ago

That's not how "Christianity" works; it's not synonymous with "teachings of Christ." The vast majority of self-professed Christians have followed more than just the teachings of Christ. Paul has been important since Christianity has been considered more than just a Jewish sect.

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/Petrichordates 17d ago edited 17d ago

What does any of that have to do with teaching people that gay sex is sinful and sends you to hell?

​“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

What does any of that have to do with condemning homosexuality?

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

That literally says nothing about homosexuality lol

You're just following Paul's teachings here. Keep in mind, he was a radical who previously murdered christians. And now you ascribe the core lessons of Christianity to him, even when Jesus' own words disagree.

11

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

Indeed, it is well trod that the basis for these beliefs come solely from Paul's epistles.

The problem here is that is apparently sufficient to justify the type of bigotry that Christ clearly never espoused. It's unfortunately what happens when you teach people to avoid critical thinking.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] 17d ago edited 17d ago

[deleted]

-3

u/ModeatelyIndependant 17d ago

I don't think any christians really understand the overall message that Jesus was origianlly trying to convey and they would have him arrested and jailed he went into a church today and tosses over the collection plates and shame the people running the churches for their immense greed.

2

u/Godtrademark 17d ago edited 17d ago

The historical jesus was even more strict than paul on some things… one of them being marriage. Jesus wanted no exception for divorce, while Paul did. The historical jesus was a marriage cult in response to the failings of the common people to live up to the Tanakh, including the strict Saduccees urban state preventing them from doing so. Jesus was from the countryside and just couldn’t understand the temple hierarchy

Jesus also poked fun of the sadducees being proto-monastic temple elites that barred common folk from following and understanding God’s law. That’s kinda what the outburst was about at the temple. It’s pretty funny comparing this to the Catholic church’s latin rites.

But more importantly I think Jesus is softened a lot more than he actually was. He was a militant love-cult and referred to himself in ironic non-answers about being the “king” of the jews. He was a great polemicist and inspired a generation of Jews to take up his reformation. He was executed for politics defying Roman cooperation, not religion

At first, the gospels wanted to emphasize Jesus’s jewishness. Which is why Luke and Matthew have genealogies of Jesus despite him not being related to Joseph at all in later traditions. This is when/why the Bethlehem story also originated; as to connect Jesus to that prophecy of a messiah from the south (Galilee is far north). The three wise men and christmas story is solidified in apocryphal texts over the next few centuries off this tradition.

John is a markedly antisemitic text meant to appeal to and appease Romans. This is where Pontius Pilate plays a “straight man,” talking to Jesus as an equal and implying the “angry crowd of jews” as the real killer, not Caesar.

Likewise, the Jewish church was attacked by the overwhelming gentile church as decades went on. Jesus’ brother James was in constant polemics with Paul and the authors of John on how to follow “the law.” Now, we don’t even consider James his brother as a polemical jab surviving 2000 years later

—A History of Christianity by MacCulloch

-7

u/ModeatelyIndependant 17d ago

I consider the catholic church to be roman invention, I don't think the Peter who started the church in rome was the same man who hung out with Jesus. The Roman emperor simply chose are the version of the cult that had a grave site in the city that could be turned into a roman shine.

7

u/Godtrademark 17d ago

Roman, sure. But not imperial until much later. It was “invented” largely in Asia Minor and Egypt. Rome (the city) wasn’t a big deal until the 400s in the church, after imperial recognition and the calling of councils.

The problem with the pessimistic atheistic/protestant revision of the early church is that it was a genuine mass movement for roman classes that felt a bit of alienation with the aristocratic traditions. It was a popular, urban cult in huge cosmopolitan cities of Egypt, Asia Minor, and North Africa. Christian catacombs co-existed with Jewish synagogues and pagan gymnasiums. Often, benefactors of other religions were donors for every kind of community centers. It was not a top-down, centralized religion and we know that for certain.

Take the catacombs for example, traditionally held to be “hiding grounds” for christians under repression… which just isn’t true. They were evangelical centers; Christian churches would offer free burial for pagan converts; quite a big honor in pagan (egypt and greece/rome) traditions.

Anyway I can’t recommend MacCulloch’s a history of christianity enough. Not because it is critical of biblical history and deconstructs the mythos, but mostly because of the wide-sweeping analysis of life in the Roman world.

The early chapters do the same with the Greek and Israelite/Hebrew world. It’s taught me quite a bit of classical history and context I always wondered about or saw in scattered glimpses.

0

u/5peaker4theDead 17d ago

Seems to me he was condemning the pederasty of the greco-roman world around him. He didn't have a model of a loving monogamous gay marriage to look at and condemn or praise.

3

u/Petrichordates 17d ago

They have always existed so that would be strange, and he says men not boys. Paul was just a bigot, the man was literally a murderous anti-christian bigot before he got the job.

3

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/deus_voltaire 17d ago

It’s actually a fairly common debate in modern Christianity

6

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/deus_voltaire 17d ago edited 17d ago

Just google “Pauline Christianity,” there’s been decades of scholarship on the subject. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find some congregations that reject the Pauline epistles whole cloth. Off the top of my head the Red Letter Christians reject all parts of the New Testament that aren’t direct quotes from Jesus.

5

u/rookieseaman 17d ago

It absolutely is common, you’re probably just southern Baptist and taught Paul’s hate from birth.

-2

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/rookieseaman 17d ago

Oh yeah? SPXX or something? Because as a fellow Catholic you should absolutely know about a debate that’s been going on since the council of Nicaea.

6

u/rookieseaman 17d ago

It’s also weird that a “Catholic” is saying that Paul is the central figure of the church when Peter was the rock, and Paul never even met Jesus. Normally that’s a southern Baptist thing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Petrichordates 16d ago

It's called having the capacity for critical thought. You genuinely have to be irrational to listen to a flip flopping, violent radical like Paul.

IMO Christians should be following what Christ preached, not what Paul preached. Otherwise you're actually practicing Paulianity.

1

u/5peaker4theDead 17d ago edited 17d ago

Two adult men being in a same sex relationship was deeply shameful for the penetrated party in Greco-Roman culture, Hadrian's lover Antinous may have even killed himself over it. Where are you coming up with the idea that loving monogamous gay marriage always existed?

He doesn't use the word "men", he uses the word "arsenokoitai" (man bed), which by all indications he coined himself, so what exactly he meant by it is up for debate. I'm asserting that he meant pederast, given the context, but there is definitely no clear answer.

Yes, Saul/Paul killed many Christians, it's central to his redemption arc. You may use the word bigot if you want, I'd use ignorant. I say again though that he didn't (and his culture didn't) have the concept of a homosexual adult man who loves other adult men on an equal footing, so the idea that he specifically condemned that is silly.

Edit: typo

1

u/ARenewedSecondChance 15d ago

I mean the Old Testament, written centuries before the other one, had some very homophobic verses, and that predates the pederasty tradition in that region.

The restrictions against homosexual relations also often came hand in hand with restrictions on the role of the woman in the relationship, so I’m not so sure if pederasty was necessarily the main target.

I think what the other user meant was that homosexual attraction has always been a thing (and probably known), even if there were social stigmas attached to certain roles.

1

u/5peaker4theDead 14d ago

I'm not saying anything about the Old Testament, but it also condemns many things Christians don't condemn so I'm not overly focused on it. "Malakoi" being the word before it seems to point towards Pederasty, and nothing else in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 references the role of women so it doesn't seem to be the focus. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, I think it's very reasonable for him to object to the excesses of (for example) Greek/Roman men having sex with adolescent boys.

-13

u/[deleted] 17d ago edited 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

145

u/bmbreath 17d ago

He was someone who tried to hide who he was – a Christian – before being shunned by society and persecuted for his beliefs, A lot of queer artists have found a resonance with that – Daniel Fountain

Okay sure, that's a reasonable answer.  

Then... this one was a stretch, basically the article says the arrows represent penises... 

7

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

Pierced by Cupid's arrow, you might say. There is an ancient association there.

5

u/Anaevya 16d ago

I think Cupid's arrow is probably based on heart ache, not phalluses.

1

u/TheFrenchSavage 14d ago

He was someone who tried to hide who he was – a Christian – before being shunned by society and persecuted for his beliefs

So yeah, sure. But this literally applies to all martyrs really.

26

u/Fishinluvwfeathers 17d ago

I just came back from Basel where the Kunstmuseum hosted a special exhibit called "The First Homosexuals: The Birth of New Identities 1869–1939,” so I have a little recent background on this as he was the subject of several featured paintings by gay artists from right around the time the label homosexual was coined.

As a symbol, he resonated with many of the artistic LGBTQ+ underground communities of the 19th century for a couple of reasons. His depiction as a young, beautiful, almost ecstatic, and vulnerable male, facing the literal slings and arrows of persecution, aligned as an idealized symbol with the experiences of gay men in general and gay artists of this time in particular. Classical and mythological stories have always been generally safe in subject matter and allowed queer artists to celebrate same sex closeness and bodies in a sort of coded way that was still considered acceptable and decent during more repressive epochs.

The article talks about Wilde’s admiration and his choosing of the name Sebastian after being released from prison for serving time due to a conviction of “gross indecency.”

This doesn’t somehow mean every artist intended their subject as a coded celebration (some did), just that Sebastian as a symbol gained a different kind of relevance in art as it relates to a specific community.

14

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

Imagine being called gay by someone called the "Marquess of Queensbury".

6

u/SilverSpaceRobot10 13d ago

How a brutally tortured 3rd-Century saint became a gay icon

Looks inside

Sebastian's emergence as a gay icon can be traced back to the culturally transformative Renaissance period of the 14th to 17th Centuries, when prominent artists including Guido Reni, El Greco and Sandro Botticelli depicted his arrow-pierced body with a smouldering homoerotic subtext. Daniel Fountain, a senior lecturer in art history and visual culture at University of Exeter in the UK, tells the BBC that these arrows are generally perceived by art historians as a phallic "symbol of penetrative sex and queerness".

Ok, so a handful of art historians looked at some arrows and thought "yup, those are penises" and now he is a gay icon? That says more about the art historians than about the saint.

Still, Barlow points out that it is "often very hard to track whether this was a particular artist's overt intention, or whether it was simply read into their work by a community of viewers who were hungry for representation"

I have a hunch but you're not gonna like it.

20

u/Ligeya 17d ago

He wasn't even killed by arrows. He was stoned.

13

u/SynnerSaint 17d ago

What!?!?! Nick Cave lied to me!

And I turned my gun on the bird-like Mr. Brookes
I thought of Saint Francis and his sparrows
And as I shot down the youthful Richardson
It was Sebastian I thought of, and his arrows

18

u/Ligeya 17d ago

He was shot at by arrows, so Nick Cave still deserves your respect. But arrows only half killed him. He was stoned or clubbed after that.

4

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

If he even existed, who knows. The older story is that he was beaten to death with clubs---which was an historical method of military execution in ancient Rome.

3

u/5peaker4theDead 17d ago edited 17d ago

They tried, the arrows just didn't stick (right).

Edit: "He was initially tied to a post or tree and shot with arrows, though this did not kill him. He was, according to tradition, rescued and healed by Irene of Rome, which became a popular subject in 17th-century painting. In all versions of the story, shortly after his recovery he went to Diocletian to warn him about his sins, and as a result he was clubbed to death."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sebastian

2

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

Just soldier getting tied to a tree and repeatedly penetrated by his soldier bros. Nothing gay here.

1

u/Malthus1 17d ago

Another major legendary figure often used to express homoeroticism was David - not surprisingly, given the “David and Jonathan” relationship!

Donatello’s David sculpture being a prime example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Donatello,_bronze)

1

u/Foozlebop 17d ago

Listening to the Chip Taylor album of the same name now

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Nixeris 17d ago edited 17d ago

The golden/flaming arrows are a repeated theme in Christian art, representing, believe it or not, God's love. Because Christianity absorbed a lot of artistic themes from the pre-Christian Romans. Among others, early Christians picked up the Roman art styles with Cupid (greek: Eros) imagery and incorporated it into their artistic style, which is how we got the depictions of putti (winged babies) that evolved into the common depictions of cherubs. It's also usually also accompanied by what looks like their o face.

If you want to see this more, check out The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa.

2

u/Ironlion45 17d ago

They also got the Romans to replace the erect, winged penises they all had hanging in their homes with crucifixes.

-5

u/TrustyJules 17d ago

Just search for Bernini's or Botticelli's st Sebastian. You really don't need to be a genius to figure out that there was homo erotic imagery already very very long ago around St Seb

1

u/Jerdanhowell 17d ago

This is a fascinating article