Christianity and civil law during and after the reign of the Roman Empire did not agree nearly as much as they would in later centuries. In the first century CE there were civil laws prohibiting the seduction of male youths by male adults and a few other homosexual acts but there were no religious proscriptions to these acts, primarily because the civil laws were created with the purpose of protecting freeborn Roman citizens. As Valerius himself observes, the senate "wished chastity to be safe in Roman blood in whatever position it might be placed." In each of the incidents that are clearly homosexual, the defendant is either an adult who tried to assault or seduce the minor son of a Roman citizen, or a civil or military official who attempted to force a subordinate to gratify him.¹

Generally, in the first few centuries of the common era, Christian laws and leaders had little to say against these practices, and few punishments to exact even when they did have something to say. The behaviors were generally tolerated or even ignored by a great deal of religious law. Of course, there were various theologians who voiced themselves quite loudly in favor of and against homosexuality. It was not until the fourth century that the general ecclesiastical opinion towards homosexuality became unified in its disapproval. In 533, during the reign of the Emperor Justinian, the Roman Empire gained its first civil law against homosexuality that flatly outlawed it, placing it alongside adultery and incurring the same punishments. Further still, it was not until the Third Lateran Council in 1179 that a ecumenical council had ruled on homosexuality. At this time, punishment was officially entered into confessionals² and general canon for engaging in homosexual acts. For clerics, this punishment was removal from office or confinement to a monastery; for laymen, it was excommunication.³ It is not until the middle ages, after the Third Lateran Council, that Christian, mostly Catholic, officials and texts began to vociferously denounce and punish all acts of homosexuality with a zeal and passion not seen before.

What is it that caused this dramatic shift in the treatment of homosexuality in Christianity? What differences between the Greeks and Romans and the Christians fostered such different beliefs about sexuality? There is no one, all-encompassing answer to this question. There were of course many factors that contributed to these differing beliefs and treatments of sexuality, and specifically homosexuality. However, I posit that one of the major differences between the two societies is also the major catalyst of the other differences between them. This difference is the structure of the religion of these two groups: polytheism and monotheism. The differences between polytheism and monotheism can at once explain the relative tolerance of the Greeks and Romans, and the rigidity of Christianity.

David Miller, in his work The New Polytheism, defines polytheism and describes the effect that polytheistic ways of thinking has on our every day thought processes:

Polytheism is the name given to a specific religious situation. The situation is characterized by plurality, a plurality that manifests itself in many forms. Socially, polytheism is a situation in which there are various values, patterns of social organization, and principles by which man governs his political life. These values, patterns, and principles sometimes mesh harmoniously, but more often they war with one another to be elevated as the single center of normal social order. Such a situation would be sheer anarchy and chaos were it not possible to identify the many orders as each containing a coherence of its own.⁴

Polytheistic societies allow for polytheistic ways of thinking about government, everyday tasks, and even sexuality. David Miller argues that most people exist in a polytheistic state of mind and that this is a good state of mind to be in. Miller states that the polytheistic mind and society are what allows one to multi-task, to act different roles in society, and to engage in several types of thought processes at once. To neatly summarize Miller's main point: polytheism allows transitive thoughts and behaviors to occur without necessarily causing severe mental or moral dilemmas.

Therefore, like the polytheistic mindset Miller speaks of, religious polytheism sets up a system of religion in which people are allowed to transverse through several religious roles, types of worship, religious cults, and even to worship several different gods at once, incurring no (or very few) mental or moral dilemmas. Miller often refers to polytheistic religions as "multiple monotheisms" because in most cases it is quite difficult to actually worship two or three gods simultaneously. Rather, they are worshipped one at a time, with different times and types of worship set aside for each different god.

It is quite logical that religious polytheism would set the stage for social polytheism. A society, in order to be religiously polytheistic, almost has to be socially polytheistic as well, for religion has a great impact on society and its workings. The Greeks and Romans have precisely this structure to both their religion and their society. The Greeks and Romans are polytheistic. They are religiously, and thus socially, polytheistic. Multiple monotheisms acting at the same time and movement between each one are permissible. For example, the Romans generally thought it acceptable for citizens to worship Venus one day and Mars next week. The Greeks and Romans are also able to jump back and forth between several ideas of right and wrong, and to jump back and forth between roles, from a societal and even a sexual standpoint.

Monotheism, on the other hand, is a religious situation in which there is only one way of thinking. There is only right or wrong, yes or no. Monotheism, like polytheism, is easily mapped onto the functioning of society, but instead of creating fluidity between roles, gods, etc., it creates a rigid system of thinking in which there is one specifically right way of doing things, and only a slight possibility of not doing something the right way while still being considered right. David Miller points out that a true monotheism is extremely difficult to achieve, although possible, and Christianity attempts to do just that.

Christianity as shown above, began with quite relaxed laws and canon against homosexuality in the first few centuries of this era. This may be attributed to the still polytheistic nature of Christianity during these times. Indeed, Christianity was formed by many different groups of people and practiced in a vast number of places, many of which are hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away from one another. It is merely logical to say that the early days of Christianity consisted of many Christian monotheisms, each working together under the umbrella of "Christianity." This still active polytheism in early Christianity, I believe, the primary factor for the lack of proscription against homosexuality. The societies were still relatively fluid, with each one having its own interpretation of certain scriptures or variances in certain ritual practices.

The first attempt to put the "mono" in Christian doctrine, practices, and beliefs came towards the beginning of the second century as a result of criticisms of various practices and beliefs and a request to create a definitive canon to be used by all of Christianity;⁵ yet this did not actually come into fruition until the Council of Trent in 1546.⁶ Each of the successive ecumenical councils from the second century on served as a means of increasing the monotheistic nature of Christianity and decreasing its polytheistic nature. Increasing the monotheistic nature of Christianity entailed forming strict and unified dogma, systems of belief, and ideas of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors and corresponding punishments. It is ultimately this quest of monotheizing Christianity that strengthened the dichotomy of sex vs. no sex, procreative vs. non-procreative, and permissible vs. sinful, and lead to the rejection of all ideas and practices that may have suggested polytheistic tendencies. Thus, homosexuality is a behavior that is rejected by Christianity for several reasons. It is non-procreative sex, not between a man and a woman (the only choice available in monotheistic Christianity), and it reeks of lingering polytheism simply by association with the practices of the early Greeks and Romans.

The differences between the structures of polytheism and monotheism, at least within the context of the Greco-Roman and Christian religions, significantly affect ideas about sexuality and specifically about same-sex relationships. In the former case, the transition between several different sexualities is permissible with some exceptions, while in the latter case it is completely unthinkable. This reflects the fluidity of polytheism in the Greco-Roman world and the rigidity of monotheism in the early Christian world. It is true that Christian proscriptions against homosexuality stemmed from dogma, canon, and other ecclesiastical efforts, but these efforts would have been in vain had they not been unified under the rubric of the monotheistic monotheism that Christianity eventually became.

End Notes
¹ John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe From the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, p. 63.

² These confessionals are lists of possible sins a priest may encounter during a confession and the proper punishments to mete out for each sin, not to be confused with the structure in which confessions are received.

³ Boswell, p. 277.

⁴ David L. Miller, The New Polytheism: Rebirth of the Gods and Goddesses, New York: Harper and Row, 1974, p. 4.

⁵ McManners, John (Ed.). The Oxford History of Christianity. Oxford University Press, 1990, p.31.

⁶ Boswell, p. 92.

Works Cited
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe From the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. University of Chicago Press, 1980.

McManners, John (Ed.). The Oxford History of Christianity. Oxford University Press, 1990.

Miller, David L. The New Polytheism: Rebirth of the Gods and Goddesses. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Works Consulted
Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Yale University Press, 1993.

Hallett, Judith P. & Marilyn B. Skinner (Eds.). Roman Sexualities. Princeton University Press, 1997.

Halperin, David M., John J. Winkler, & Froma I. Zeitlin (Eds.). Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton University Press, 1991.