Joan Of Arc And 9 Other 'Queer' Saints

Church officials and followers from many different demoninations have long used the Bible to argue that homosexuality and transgender identities are abominations in the eyes of God.

A few passages, especially two in the book of Leviticus, which many claim have been taken out of context or misinterpreted, have contributed to discrimination against LGBT people in a variety of ways, including the blocking of legal same-sex marriage in the United States and proposing criminal punishment (or even death) in other countries around the world.

Still, many, not just religious LGBT people, refuse to read the Bible this way. What's more, some have even gone so far as to look for examples of LGBT people within the Bible or Christian history.

While many would freely admit that most of the men and woman of yore were not gay or transgender as defined by our modern standards, they would assert that these people were involved in non-heteronormative relationships, presented non-traditional gender identities, or understood, approached, and complicated aspects of faith with relation to sexuality and/or gender identity.

Performing a "queering" (or re-appropriating/re-imagining/claiming based on available evidence) of religious texts and lives is one tactic LGBT people have widely used throughout history to see or find themselves and each other in a world where they have been forced to remain hidden. It is a way to celebrate and honor those who did not live "straight" lives and to discover role models and trail blazers who may have been obscured, forgotten, or stripped of their queerness.

In honor of St. Nick's Day, we're taking a look at 10 "queer" saints (who can be found in the slideshow below along with their saint days and the calendars on which the dates can be found):

Comments

[DanaLane]

12:43 PM on 04/19/2012

Never go into the bible to support a counter argument to religion because doing so, validates it. Simply reject it. Done deal. hugs

[Nicole Darlene Alldredge]

02:57 AM on 04/19/2012

I find this idea that one needs to find justification within the bible and religious movements to justify their existence to be sad. It is this same pathetic belief that one will most often find as the reasoning behind anti-gay activity designed to deny equality to all people.

I do not require the religious hypocrites to approve of me and provide justification that I should be allowed to exist as who I am. I do not desire membership at their gatherings, I do not care about their subjective beliefs. All I require from them is that they cease trying to install those imaginary beliefs as laws restricting equality and infringing on my rights.

[bigben0328]

01:28 PM on 02/29/2012

This first part about St. Joan of Arc is incredibly misinformed and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of quality journalism. First of all, all of your evidence is coming from a single source, so you're pretty much just regurgitating someone else's words. Secondly, you're choosing to only look at one aspect of the trial and therefore presenting biased and out-of-context information. Joan of Arc was executed for neither "witchcraft" nor "dressing as a man". The charges placed on her were of heresy (because she refused to recant her claims of holy visions and voices). The dressing in men's clothing was also criticized, but it wasn't the sole reason (or even the main reason) why she was sentenced to death. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that the reason she crossed-dressed was because she was "queer". What makes more sense is that she saw herself as a soldier, and so she chose to dress this way to preserve her sexual purity (by making it easier on the men she was living and fighting with) and also because it would be terribly difficult to ride into battle and scale walls in a dress.

[Nicole Darlene Alldredge]

02:13 AM on 04/19/2012

I find it very amusing that you condemn the writer for the use of but a single source in the story of Joan of Ard, However, you do nothing more than present your opinion and belief pertaining to the matter as if it was documented credible proof of your assertions. Yet the funniest part of your post is the end where absent of any creditable sources of proof you suggest she simply dressed as a male to preserve her sexual purity and make it easier to scale walls.

When arguing against theories you believe lack ample source of corroboration it would probably be best to present opposing creditable evidence disproving the original assumption. Otherwise your post is simply your unsupported opinion and your argument fails.

[plansmaker]

04:40 PM on 01/08/2012

Joan of Arc is not Gay or Transgender...There is not thread of truth she is gay.
At her time of death, she remain a virgin.

[Cheyla]

01:23 PM on 01/06/2012

It is utterly amazing to me why anyone of intelligence would want to affiliate themselves with a group of corrupt, hater mongering people whose beliefs would buy them a one way ticket to an insane asylum if they did not cloak themselves under the guise of religion.

[fineline9]

12:27 PM on 01/06/2012

Must have been a really slow day in the office to have come up with this one. Seriously guys, can we make the stretch that Captain Stubing was also gay because he liked to wear those little white shorts and piloted "The Love Boat"?

[xrk9854]

04:33 AM on 01/11/2012

Nice way to be dismissive of other peoples identities.

[bigben0328]

01:10 PM on 02/29/2012

XRK you have absolutely the worst and most useless posts. Thanks for your pointless one sentence comments and general lack of decorum.

[see-ellen2001]

11:52 AM on 12/28/2011

I find parts of this rather laughable: an example of making someone 'one of us', reminiscent of those white, blondish Jesus paintings of my youth. If a woman lives as a monk, it is probably because the devotional, monastic life she sought was available only to males.

[xrk9854]

04:34 AM on 01/11/2012

As much as you don't like it the possibility DOES exist.

[huff puff2]

11:14 AM on 12/23/2011

This is THE worst type of trash journalism I have ever read. Back to history 101 I think.........
'Many would freely admit....' 'they would assert....', no primary sources, no evidence, no proof, just rash assertions, misquotes and hateful slander. This is everything that is wrong with contemporary journalism today, and it is unhelpful to the vast majority of people who read it.

[Syl 13]

12:39 AM on 12/21/2011

1/2

Interesting stuff. While everyone (or rather, conservative Catholic trolls who probably made profiles just to comment on this article when they heard about it) is debating whether Joan of Arc was killed for her crossdressing or other sins, I have my own thoughts.

The early church seems like it was more tolerant the Church in present times. There was adelphopoiia, and there recorded gay marriages recent as the 13th century. St. Anselm's life demonstrates that in some places, homosexuality was tolerated. Now it is a major issue with the Church. Gays are made into "The Enemy", agents of Satan in this world, and while the faithful are told to pity them, that pity quickly turns to anger, and then outright obsessive hatred when those one believes to be in dire need refuse your help, insist they don't need it, and indeed accuse you of being a bigot when you truly believe you're helping them. This harms not just LGBT individuals who suffer second-class citizenship, discrimination, and hate crimes because of the Church's stance, but also the faithful who are made to hate their fellow man.

[TMK222]

01:02 PM on 12/17/2011

...this cannot be taken seriously as a scholasticbody of work? There are so many points that this assertion is erronous. St. Joan of Arc was not burned at the stake because she wore battle garb (i.e. men's clothing). Did these authors even read her trial transcript? The theory they are asserting is being pulled out of thin air! Where is the evidence?

If I had put forth a paper such as this one, proping a argument up with no support, I would have been given an F; these two get published. Amazing.

[Grada3784]

10:49 PM on 12/19/2011

Actually, dressing as a man was the only legit charge they had against Joan of Arc.

[Terence Weldon]

02:09 AM on 12/17/2011

I agree that it is important that modern LGBT people should uncover and honour their predecessors in the church, of whom there were very many. We need to uncover those that later generations of heteronormative church historians have hidden from history.

There are many more than the ten listed here: see, for instance, the blog dedicated to the subject, "Queer Saints and Martyrs", "Calendar of Queer Saints" at Queering the Church, or the series on LGBT saints at  Jesus in Love blog.

[stevenmitchell]

05:56 PM on 12/15/2011

Joan of Arc may have been put to death for dressing as a man, but that has absolutely nothing to do with transgender in the modern contextual sense. This is a version of a story that has as much of an agenda as those who persecute the transgender population. While Joan of Arc is a great story for women, it truly has nothing to do with transgenderism. It is about as comparable as trying to equate her visions with LSD. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, the authors, Stryker and Whittle do a complete disservice to historical interpretation - and are obviously not historians at all.

[Grada3784]

10:54 PM on 12/19/2011

In the section particular to Joan and the court records, it refers to transvestitism, which is indulged in by both straights and gays.

I suspect that like many women prisoners, Joan was possibly raped and returned to wearing men's clothes after that. Shakespeare may have been righter than he knew.

[xrk9854]

04:38 AM on 01/11/2012

You said: "it truly has nothing to do with transgende­rism."

How do you know this? Were you there? Are you so close-minded you can't even acknowledge the possibility?

[messy]

12:50 PM on 01/26/2012

In other words, XRK wants his/her bigoted opinions to be confirmed by negative evidence. The actual trial transcripts found in the 19th century were proven to be real, and there's no evidence of any trangenderism.

[takamine98]

03:21 PM on 12/15/2011

hilarious! is there no end to historical revisionism?

[xrk9854]

04:39 AM on 01/11/2012

Your dismissive attitude towards others is distressing.

[DanaLane]

12:46 PM on 04/19/2012

Making revisions against fiction is okay. Carry on.

[cathuf]

01:59 AM on 12/15/2011

I understand the writers themselves are homosexual and tranvestite. Must they project there convoluted sexuality upon the saints too. It's bad enough that they've convinced a perverted society that children as young as two or three could be gay, but now they aim at the saints?!! Really?!! Are they that desperate?!! I know what...lets satisfy there hunger to homosexualize the world by giving everyone a gay pill so that everyone could now be gay.

[DianaLynn1967]

11:31 PM on 12/19/2011

Why don't we just allow people to be who they are? Let gay people be gay, heteros be hetero, bisexuals be bi, etc. If somebody propositions you and you're not interested, just say "No thanks" and move on.

[Syl 13]

12:45 AM on 12/21/2011

It'd be a boring world with nothing but gay people, as it would with nothing but straight people. I'm not trying to turn anyone into what they're not (trust me, I've had a lifetime of being made to be what I wasn't, it's not something I'm keen on foisting on others). All I want is the freedom to be myself, and that same freedom for everyone.

And St. Anselm and Sts. Sergius and Bacchus were gay, bro. Dealwithit

[messy]

12:51 PM on 01/26/2012

No it would have been a people-free world with nothing but gay people.

[Thomas OBrien]

12:05 AM on 12/15/2011

This article needs to be burnt as heresy and utter blasphemy.