Was Michelangelo gay?

[fix]

I am making a comparison as claiming major figures allows a group to become mainstream. To claim Columbus was Italian is also anachronistic to a wide degree.

I see no analogy.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I’ve heard that Michaelangelo was gay in orientation, but lived with almost “the chastity of a monk” according to one churchmen (I wish I could find the source, but I can’t). So my thought is this. He probably wasn’t, but IF he was it sounds like he followed the church teaching in that he had SSA, but did not engage in homosexual acts.

BTW, I agree that all this historical revisionism on who was gay and who was not is pretty silly. I think its because we oversexualize the culture. For example, there are many writers who never married and because they had close friendships with those of the same sex, they were seen as being “gay”. Sadly I’ve even heard this about Cardinal Newman, the poet and Jesuit Gerard Manley Hopkins, and a few other churchmen. I think its hogwash. People today don’t get that some people just aren’t interested, or in some cases actually give up sex and that if you aren’t you are strange. This even affects middle school aged kids. How many times have people been called “gay” simply because they don’t have a relationship of the opposite sex. What’s sad is now the media pushes this agenda and some otherwise good folks who just aren’t interested in relationships might think they are gay and end up in sin.

Sorry for the rant, but I just hate that people assume that so many historical figures were gay. Seriously, if they were we’d here about in documents at the time.

Close doesn’t really describe Bl. Newman’s relationship with Ambrose St. John, read his writings and see what he wrote about his bereavement.

Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all.

I would hesitate to suggest “being Italian” is anachronistic to Columbus, especially in the same way as “being gay” is to Michelangelo. The idea of “being gay” i.e. defining your identity by your sexual attraction to members of one sex or the other is entirely foreign to cinquecento Italy, thus it is anachronistic. “Being Italian” would certainly not have been the first way Columbus would have defined himself, but it wasn’t a concept he would have been totally unfamiliar with (as Michelangelo would have been with “being gay”) and it was one he would have, most certainly, assented to. Obviously, Columbus wouldn’t have identified as an “Italian citizen” as there was no Italian State to be a citizen of, but Italians in his day recognized a shared culture and ethnic identity (“being Italian”). See chapter 26 of Machiavelli’s The Prince, where Machiavelli calls for the liberation of Italy from “the barbarians” i.e. non-Italians or the insistence that the Pope be Italian (not just Roman) for two of many examples contemporary examples of a shared sense of “being Italian.”

Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex that I think Michelangelo would find understandable and non-foreign.

Do you think he would have considered a contemporary Neapolitan as Italian? How about a Sicilian? A Venetian? Or was any concept of Italia he might have had derived from Regnum Italicum and the Iron Crown?

Homosexual activists trying to project their sin onto others is rumors, gossip, detraction and calumny and is an example of how one sin leads to another.

calumny requires there to be an intention to harm which isn’t present.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Close doesn’t really describe Bl. Newman’s relationship with Ambrose St. John, read his writings and see what he wrote about his bereavement.

Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all.

Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex that I think Michelangelo would find understandable and non-foreign.

Do you think he would have considered a contemporary Neapolitan as Italian? How about a Sicilian? A Venetian? Or was any concept of Italia he might have had derived from Regnum Italicum and the Iron Crown?

calumny requires there to be an intention to harm which isn’t present.

Re: Newman.

1. Being greatly bereaved at the loss of a close friend does not imply sexual attraction or desire otherwise every man who greatly mourns the loss of his father is gay.
2. Being gay (i.e. a homosexual man) requires same sex attraction. Non-carnal desire for intimacy (i.e. non-sexual intimacy or “close platonic friendship”) is not the same as “being gay.” We are defining “gay” very differently, methinks. If by the statement “Michelangelo was gay” you mean to say “Michelangelo had close male friends and preferred the company of males to females while lacking any sexual desires toward males” then I’d agree with you. However, this is hardly a widely accepted definition of “being a gay man.”

Re: Italians.
Yes, Michelangelo would have considered Neapolitans as Italians, as he would have Venetians (Sicilians are less certain by far). Just look at Giorgio Vasari’s The Lives of the Artists which features only Italian artists and includes men from various places on the peninsula. Although, it really is beside the point if the exact geographic boundaries of “Italia” where identical to those today. Or look at the 13 popes who reigned during Michelangelo’s lifetime who hailed from Genoa, Siena, Florence, the Papal States, Naples, etc. - all Italian with the exception of 2. Michelangelo would have seen “being Italian” as much less important to his identity as “being Florentine” but the concept was still there perhaps as we today see “being from State X” as less important as “being American” but the concept of being a Virginian or Floridian is still something we can relate to. The (medieval) Kingdom of Italy wasn’t typically identified with “being Italian” which had a cultural basis more than a poltical one. As I pointed out above Machiavelli called for the expulsion from Italy of the “barbarians” but the Kingdom of Italy was always ruled (and indeed founded) by “barbarians.”

 

[fix]

Close doesn’t really describe Bl. Newman’s relationship with Ambrose St. John, read his writings and see what he wrote about his bereavement.

Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all.

Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex that I think Michelangelo would find understandable and non-foreign.

Do you think he would have considered a contemporary Neapolitan as Italian? How about a Sicilian? A Venetian? Or was any concept of Italia he might have had derived from Regnum Italicum and the Iron Crown?

calumny requires there to be an intention to harm which isn’t present.

What exactly does the term Gay mean?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Re: Newman.

1. Being greatly bereaved at the loss of a close friend does not imply sexual attraction or desire otherwise every man who greatly mourns the loss of his father is gay.
2. Being gay (i.e. a homosexual man) requires same sex attraction. Non-carnal desire for intimacy (i.e. non-sexual intimacy or “close platonic friendship”) is not the same as “being gay.” We are defining “gay” very differently, methinks. If by the statement “Michelangelo was gay” you mean to say “Michelangelo had close male friends and preferred the company of males to females while lacking any sexual desires toward males” then I’d agree with you. However, this is hardly a widely accepted definition of “being a gay man.”

I think what he is trying to say is that sexual desires for someone of the same sex is a necessary but not sufficient condition for what we refer to today as homosexuality or “being gay”. There are men who enjoy having sex with other men who would not identify as homosexual/gay, but feel no emotional intimacy or attraction at all towards other men. The reason behind this is simple: oral sex and anal sex feel good because of nerve endings regardless of the sex of the other person.

To cary this example further, why should we call a person who experiences almost complete homosexual sexual attraction heterosexual, or even bisexual, if he were to once have a pleasurable sexual experience with someone of the opposite sex, but afterwards have no real longing for opposite-sex emotional intimacy or sexual intimacy, a relationship, etc.

If you talk to a man who is homosexual (chaste or otherwise) he will likely tell you that there is something more at work in his relationships with other men than just pure sex-drive. Heterosexuals will say the same thing in their relationships.

Dakota, if I am wrong in trying to explain what you were trying to say/add some of my own observations, please feel free to correct me.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think what he is trying to say is that sexual desires for someone of the same sex is a necessary but not sufficient condition for what we refer to today as homosexuality or “being gay”. There are men who enjoy having sex with other men who would not identify as homosexual/gay, but feel no emotional intimacy or attraction at all towards other men. The reason behind this is simple: oral sex and anal sex feel good because of nerve endings regardless of the sex of the other person.

To cary this example further, why should we call a person who experiences almost complete homosexual sexual attraction heterosexual, or even bisexual, if he were to once have a pleasurable sexual experience with someone of the other opposite sex, but afterwards have no real longing for opposite-sex emotional intimacy or sexual intimacy, a relationship, etc.

If you talk to a man who is homosexual (chaste or otherwise) he will likely tell you that there is something more at work in his relationships with other men than just pure sex-drive. Heterosexuals will say the same thing in their relationships.

Dakota, if I am wrong in trying to explain what you were trying to say/add some of my own observations, please feel free to correct me.

Which is why we really should shun the terms “gay” and “homosexual” which imply lifestyles and focus on the action instead (which is how contemporaries of Michelangelo would have seen things). In that case we’d ask did Michelangelo engage in sodomy with other men? Of course there is no evidence that he did and that is enough to settle it.

However, I read Dakota to suggest that a desire for non-carnal intimacy with members of the same sex was enough to brand someone as “gay.” I suppose the conversation has broken down until we can nail down a precise meaning for “gay.”

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Which is why we really should shun the terms “gay” and “homosexual” which imply lifestyles and focus on the action instead (which is how contemporaries of Michelangelo would have seen things). In that case we’d ask did Michelangelo engage in sodomy with other men? Of course there is no evidence that he did and that is enough to settle it.

However, I read Dakota to suggest that a desire for non-carnal intimacy with members of the same sex was enough to brand someone as “gay.” I suppose the conversation has broken down until we can nail down a precise meaning for “gay.”

My issue with shunning the use of nouns and focusing entirely on actions is that in doing so, you basically ignore what is a real experience for what is more than just a fringe group on the edges. A pastoral response is needed more than the simple “Don’t have sex with other men. It is bad.”, because that ignores a large part of the situation, and in all honesty seems to be in tension with the Catechism’s statement that “disinterested friendship” is often needed.

By reducing homosexuality to sex, calling it SSA/focusing entirely on the sodomy aspect does the exact same thing that proponents of this language claim that such language prevents: it objectifies the person and views him entirely in the context of his sexuality. Also, before the claim is made, SSA is not the official terminology of the Church. The CCC uses “homosexuality” and “homosexual persons”. I believe SSA was invented by the Canadian bishops, but I could be mistaken on that.

 

[PietroPaolo]

My issue with shunning the use of nouns and focusing entirely on actions is that in doing so, you basically ignore what is a real experience for what is more than just a fringe group on the edges. A pastoral response is needed more than the simple “Don’t have sex with other men. It is bad.”, because that ignores a large part of the situation, and in all honesty seems to be in tension with the Catechism’s statement that “disinterested friendship” is often needed.

By reducing homosexuality to sex, calling it SSA/focusing entirely on the sodomy aspect does the exact same thing that proponents of this language claim that such language prevents: it objectifies the person and views him entirely in the context of his sexuality. Also, before the claim is made, SSA is not the official terminology of the Church. The CCC uses “homosexuality” and “homosexual persons”. I believe SSA was invented by the Canadian bishops, but I could be mistaken on that.

The real question, from Dakota’s post, seems to be whether a “gay” man (to use his word) needs to be sexually attracted to other men at all. I believe Dakota’s claims, “Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all” and especially “Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex” (emphasis added) seem to completely disassociate “being gay” with “being attracted to members of one’s own sex.” Clearing up the confusion over the meaning of “gay” would seem to be necessary for continuing to debate whether Michelangelo (or anyone else for that matter) was gay.

 

[fix]

Here is what the Church has said:

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

 

[fix]

My issue with shunning the use of nouns and focusing entirely on actions is that in doing so, you basically ignore what is a real experience for what is more than just a fringe group on the edges. A pastoral response is needed more than the simple “Don’t have sex with other men. It is bad.”, because that ignores a large part of the situation, and in all honesty seems to be in tension with the Catechism’s statement that “disinterested friendship” is often needed.

By reducing homosexuality to sex, calling it SSA/focusing entirely on the sodomy aspect does the exact same thing that proponents of this language claim that such language prevents: it objectifies the person and views him entirely in the context of his sexuality. Also, before the claim is made, SSA is not the official terminology of the Church. The CCC uses “homosexuality” and “homosexual persons”. I believe SSA was invented by the Canadian bishops, but I could be mistaken on that.

I think the Church has done an excellent job in parsing out your points quite well. The inclination itself is disordered regardless of the etiology. The acts are evil.

 

[Jaysuitical]

I heard somewhere that he was a homosexual, but I do realize that back then being gay could mean something totally different. Just curious.

Since the Romantic period, people have had difficulty interpreting the art & the literature of non-confessional ages. The period which we call 'the Renaissance', with its return to Greek-Roman forms of physical representation, carried many other things with it -- and it's difficult to say, in any particular case, what the creation, painted, sculpted, or written, might imply for the personal life of the creator.

Since the aesthetic-decadent movements of the latter 19th century, particularly in England where aesthetic sensibility had been so long detested (and where, C.S. Lewis argued, the Renaissance never really occurred), he’s been deployed as a proponent of homoeroticism, as a ‘gay’ artist.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I think the Church has done an excellent job in parsing out your points quite well.

Since all of my points were points about pastoral implementation of the settled moral theology and not about the theology itself, I have no idea how she could have parsed out my points. I am of the opinion that the response is so varied that blanket statements cannot be made regarding the overall pastoral ministry to homosexual person.

The inclination itself is disordered regardless of the etiology. The acts are evil.

Okay.

 

[fix]

Since all of my points were points about pastoral implementation of the settled moral theology and not about the theology itself, I have no idea how she could have parsed out my points. I am of the opinion that the response is so varied that blanket statements cannot be made regarding the overall pastoral ministry to homosexual person.

Not sure of what you intend here? Pastoral care can be tailored to individual persons as is true for every other issue.

The issue here seems to be the idea that certain words cannot convey the correct reality. I have no idea how some posters here are using the word “gay”. It certainly is a political term regardless of how others interpret it. It did not come into modern usage by chance.

 

[fix]

The real question, from Dakota’s post, seems to be whether a “gay” man (to use his word) needs to be sexually attracted to other men at all. I believe Dakota’s claims, “Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all” and especially “Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex” (emphasis added) seem to completely disassociate “being gay” with “being attracted to members of one’s own sex.” Clearing up the confusion over the meaning of “gay” would seem to be necessary for continuing to debate whether Michelangelo (or anyone else for that matter) was gay.

You have described the situation well. Maybe being “gay” means whatever one wants it to mean? Like Humpty said?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Re: Newman.

1. Being greatly bereaved at the loss of a close friend does not imply sexual attraction or desire otherwise every man who greatly mourns the loss of his father is gay.
2. Being gay (i.e. a homosexual man) requires same sex attraction. Non-carnal desire for intimacy (i.e. non-sexual intimacy or “close platonic friendship”) is not the same as “being gay.” We are defining “gay” very differently, methinks. If by the statement “Michelangelo was gay” you mean to say “Michelangelo had close male friends and preferred the company of males to females while lacking any sexual desires toward males” then I’d agree with you. However, this is hardly a widely accepted definition of “being a gay man.”

Re: Italians.
(…)

1. Few men write “I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband’s or a wife’s, but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or any one’s sorrow greater, than mine” for friends or insist on being buried in another’s grave (a spousal thing in England). In his diaries there he talked much about how he loved him, but it should be carefully noted that it does so couched in terms from the Gospel of John.
2. Of course it require same sex attraction, but that isn’t all of it, it is merely one part, for it to be isolated by itself suggests it isn’t gayness likewise with just emotional attachment to males.

Actually I was talking about Columbus

What exactly does the term Gay mean?

It’s exact definition varies from person to person, but as an endonym it involves both romantic and sexual attraction to the same sex.

I think what he is trying to say is that sexual desires for someone of the same sex is a necessary but not sufficient condition for what we refer to today as homosexuality or “being gay”. There are men who enjoy having sex with other men who would not identify as homosexual/gay, but feel no emotional intimacy or attraction at all towards other men. The reason behind this is simple: oral sex and anal sex feel good because of nerve endings regardless of the sex of the other person.

To cary this example further, why should we call a person who experiences almost complete homosexual sexual attraction heterosexual, or even bisexual, if he were to once have a pleasurable sexual experience with someone of the opposite sex, but afterwards have no real longing for opposite-sex emotional intimacy or sexual intimacy, a relationship, etc.

If you talk to a man who is homosexual (chaste or otherwise) he will likely tell you that there is something more at work in his relationships with other men than just pure sex-drive. Heterosexuals will say the same thing in their relationships.

Dakota, if I am wrong in trying to explain what you were trying to say/add some of my own observations, please feel free to correct me.

Correct, merely engaging in sexual acts with the same sex does not make you gay, see prisons.

Yes, it is more than just sex desire at work.

Which is why we really should shun the terms “gay” and “homosexual” which imply lifestyles and focus on the action instead (which is how contemporaries of Michelangelo would have seen things). In that case we’d ask did Michelangelo engage in sodomy with other men? Of course there is no evidence that he did and that is enough to settle it.

However, I read Dakota to suggest that a desire for non-carnal intimacy with members of the same sex was enough to brand someone as “gay.” I suppose the conversation has broken down until we can nail down a precise meaning for “gay.”

There is no unified gay lifestyle, there is no pervasive promiscuity, the median gay person has a sex life that is just as dull as that of the median straight person. In English at least sometimes we have to almost reinvent the wheel to talk about medieval England as some terms are no longer used or due to drift there is no word that means what it meant then.

It is not enough by itself to desire non-carnal intimacy with members of the same sex, there must also be a predominant sexual attraction to the same sex.

The real question, from Dakota’s post, seems to be whether a “gay” man (to use his word) needs to be sexually attracted to other men at all. I believe Dakota’s claims, “Being gay and sex with the same sex do not necessarily overlap, indeed in many cases they don’t at all” and especially “Gay people today do not define their identity based on sexual attraction there are other things such as a non-carnal desire for intimacy with the same sex” (emphasis added) seem to completely disassociate “being gay” with “being attracted to members of one’s own sex.” Clearing up the confusion over the meaning of “gay” would seem to be necessary for continuing to debate whether Michelangelo (or anyone else for that matter) was gay.

There needs to be predominant sexual attraction to the same sex. One can be gay without engaging in sex with the same sex, that does not mean sexual attraction is irrelevant

 

[PietroPaolo]

It is not enough by itself to desire non-carnal intimacy with members of the same sex, there must also be a predominant sexual attraction to the same sex.

There needs to be predominant sexual attraction to the same sex. One can be gay without engaging in sex with the same sex, that does not mean sexual attraction is irrelevant

Then we have your definition of the term ‘gay’ - a man with predominant sexual attraction to other men, regardless of whether he acts upon that attraction. I’m not sure I’d agree with you as your definition fails to distinguish between those embracing a lifestyle that celebrates those attractions from those who may struggle with SSA, but who reject those temptations and live chastely. It seems ‘gay’ is more fitting to the former, while another term, perhaps same sex tempted, would be better for the latter. As engaging in homosexual acts is gravely immoral, it seems important to distinguish between these groups, e.g. we wouldn’t group as ‘murders’ both those who unlawfully killed another person and those who are tempted to kill someone.

If we distinguish between the two groups and look at Michelangelo or Newman it is clear that neither was ‘gay’ as neither, from the evidence we have, actively lived a lifestyle which affirmed homosexual acts as good - in fact it is almost certain both men held the exact opposite opinion. If we take your definition without my further distinction, we still have no evidence to label either man with the term, emotional letters notwithstanding. Either way, we cannot conclude that Michelangelo (or Newman) was ‘gay.’

 

[enbell]

I have to ask, what difference does it make if he was or wasn’t?

The only evidence that Michelangelo leaves is his body of work. That is his legacy. What, if anything, he did in his private life is destined to stay unknown in the mists of history. Speculation does nobody any good and simply borders on the prurient.

I agree wholeheartedly! And yes, God bless Pope Francis!!!

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Then we have your definition of the term ‘gay’ - a man with predominant sexual attraction to other men, regardless of whether he acts upon that attraction. I’m not sure I’d agree with you as your definition fails to distinguish between those embracing a lifestyle that celebrates those attractions from those who may struggle with SSA, but who reject those temptations and live chastely. It seems ‘gay’ is more fitting to the former, while another term, perhaps same sex tempted, would be better for the latter. As engaging in homosexual acts is gravely immoral, it seems important to distinguish between these groups, e.g. we wouldn’t group as ‘murders’ both those who unlawfully killed another person and those who are tempted to kill someone.

If we distinguish between the two groups and look at Michelangelo or Newman it is clear that neither was ‘gay’ as neither, from the evidence we have, actively lived a lifestyle which affirmed homosexual acts as good - in fact it is almost certain both men held the exact opposite opinion. If we take your definition without my further distinction, we still have no evidence to label either man with the term, emotional letters notwithstanding. Either way, we cannot conclude that Michelangelo (or Newman) was ‘gay.’

I think you missed part of his definition of “gay” (which I also agree with)
Dakota Roberts:

It’s exact definition varies from person to person, but as an endonym it involves both romantic and sexual attraction to the same sex.

Predominant sexual attraction to the same sex is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. It also requires an emotional or romantic attraction to other men.

While I don’t like looking at historical figures like this, because I don’t think much can be gained from it, I think you could say in regards to Michelangelo that he would be familiar with these feelings. You could possibly say the same for Newman. Since I have no idea whether either of them actually were, I will refrain from saying anything definitive.

Also, I think it makes about as much sense to have a separate sexual orientation for gay people who are chaste as it does to have a separate orientation for straight people who are chaste.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think you missed part of his definition of “gay” (which I also agree with)

Predominant sexual attraction to the same sex is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. It also requires an emotional or romantic attraction to other men.

While I don’t like looking at historical figures like this, because I don’t think much can be gained from it, I think you could say in regards to Michelangelo that he would be familiar with these feelings. You could possibly say the same for Newman. Since I have no idea whether either of them actually were, I will refrain from saying anything definitive.

Also, I think it makes about as much sense to have a separate sexual orientation for gay people who are chaste as it does to have a separate orientation for straight people who are chaste.

Based on the historical evidence we have (Michelangelo’s art and poems, Newman’s letters) we cannot establish that either man had predominant sexual attraction to the same sex, which, as you admit, is a necessary condition for being ‘gay.’ Therefore, neither man can be classed as ‘gay.’

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Based on the historical evidence we have (Michelangelo’s art and poems, Newman’s letters) we cannot establish that either man had predominant sexual attraction to the same sex, which, as you admit, is a necessary condition for being ‘gay.’ Therefore, neither man can be classed as ‘gay.’

No disagreement from me. Like I said, I find historical reconstruction of people’s sexual orientation to largely be pointless. Do I think it is possible that either one of these men to have experienced some of the phenomena that we now associate with “being gay”? Sure, because I don’t think that these are things that just appeared in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I am not claiming that either was “gay” or had a “predominant attraction”. Simply that as people living over a hundred years removed from Newman, and more from Michelangelo, we honestly have no idea of what they felt beyond what is revealed in their writings, and because of this, I find people who make claims either way regarding their orientation to be a bit silly. They both appear to have been exceptionally chaste, beyond that I don’t really know.