Within the valley of the River Rye, in the North York Moors, stands the bone-white Gothic arches of Rievaulx Abbey. This striking skeleton, its monastic community long since dispersed, endures in defiance of its dissolution in 1538 by Henry VIII’s Act of Suppression. This was an act part of a wave of cloistral cruelty which weaponised the so-called “Buggery Act” of 1533 to execute any clergy resisting monastic dissolution. Regardless of the events of the 16th century, four hundred years prior the abbey was a thriving Cistercian settlement under the care of Abbot Aelred. St Aelred’s life is detailed in Walter Daniel’s The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx. Walter was a monk whilst Aelred was present, and he takes care to refer to him as “Our Aelred.” When young, Aelred was a member of the court of David I of Scotland at Roxburgh, in some accounts promoted to chief steward. The influence gained by Aelred was not without controversy. Walter records an instance of a knight at court who publicly insulted Aelred, the insult described as “too foul for me to speak.” McGuire has suggested this was an insult about Aelred’s sexuality. After his time at court, Aelred eventually felt the pull of religious life, working his way to become Abbot of Rievaulx by 1147. Under the watch of Aelred, the Cistercian community at Rievaulx doubled in size. In the last years of Aelred’s life, Walter Daniel describes the disability which Aelred faced, sacrificing himself “on the altar of unfailing suffering.” Aelred is said to have been allowed to live in his own house near the infirmary due to his ailments, thought to be kidney stones and arthritis. The supportive community Aelred fostered at Rievaulx was willing to break monastic rules to support a disabled brother. Aelred died in 1167, and whilst never being formally canonised, he is widely accepted as a saint, including by the US Episcopalian Church. He is the patron saint of Integrity USA, an Episcopalian LGBTQ organisation. The sexuality and legacy of St Aelred are, of course, contested. Historians such as Brian McGuire and John Boswell see St Aelred as a gay figure, with Boswell’s conclusion acknowledged amongst some Christians but criticised by others.
 |
| Rievaulx Abbey, 2021. Taken by writer |
The illustrious career of St Aelred, impossible to explore fully in the space provided, contained writings such as The Mirror of Charity, and the focus of this article, Spiritual Friendship. In this work, Aelred details the value of friendship, describing the ideal relationship as a bond between two monks and Christ. Spiritual Friendship was written near the end of Aelred’s life as a reflection on his career and past relationships. A spiritual friendship is an intense bond between two monks, but is never explicitly confined to men. The parallels between this and modern gay relationships are evident. The work is written as a dialogue, common in classical forms, between Aelred and other monks. Aelred begins with Cicero’s definition of friendship, an “agreement in things human and divine, with good will and charity”. Ergo, the good will of friendship becomes good work. Ciceronian and Cistercian ideals overlap, with charity key in both. Aelred’s adaptation of classical ideals in a monastic framework could be argued to extend to a reinterpretation of homosexuality. Friendship is distinguished from charity by being a true relation of trust rather than hospitality shown to an enemy out of necessity. Friendship therefore is not a practice that emerged out of the necessity of monastic rules, but one actively sought by monks, this motivation is key.
Aelred separates Friendship into three kinds: carnal, worldly, and spiritual. The first is a shallow partnership rooted in lust and indulging in vices. Aelred does not explicitly condemn this for physical relations; the main issue with this partnership is a lack of “discretion” and “forethought”. This first friendship is associated with youth. Next, worldly friendships represent a partnership in greed; however, this is fickle as without “hope of common gain,” the friendship falls apart. In contrast to both is spiritual friendship, where friendship itself is the reward. This friendship is founded on love for the other partner and for God. Augustine, who Aelred quotes at length, spoke of three phases of friendship. To Augustine, the adolescent pairing was self-interested, the young adult one founded in love, and adult friendships based on the love of Christ. Aelred swaps the young adult friendship to become the adolescent.
The concept of partnership here is incredibly ambitious, as “a friendship that can end was never genuine.” There’s no room for situationships or casual breakups in Aelred’s model, who is clearly a believer in soulmates. Friendship is said to embody virtue, charity, truth and wisdom in one union. In fact, it is the “foundation for all virtues,” and virtue “destroys the vices” present in a carnal friendship. A spiritual friendship needs pure intentions, the willingness for both partners to grow spiritually together. Within a friendship one can “confess any fault”, enabling this growth. There are limits in what friends should tolerate, not exposing each other to lust, but this is described as dishonourable rather than in the language of sin. A spiritual friendship is the antithesis to the earlier carnal friendship and yet this is not dismissed entirely by Aelred as it can develop into a spiritual one. “Woe to the solitary, because when he falls, he has no one to lift him up.” We all have that one friend who can’t be happy single. Gratian, the contrarian figure who Aelred argues against, notes that “this friendship isn’t common.” Aelred’s description of spiritual friendship, both intimate and existential, makes this union rare. Clearly, this model does not apply to most casual friendships. Gratian is described as “everybody’s friend” and Aelred warns him this approach risks accepting a false friendship or carnal instead of spiritual. Emotional intimacy is exclusive by the nature of the connection, a bond so intense it must be uncommon. Gratian, ever the pessimist, thinks friendship isn’t worth it, insisting they’re happy single. Aelred succinctly replies, “As if any virtue could be acquired or kept without anxiety!” To Aelred, true friendship is worth the struggle and heartbreak.
The making of “one out of two” bears similarities to marriage. In the book of Ephesians, St Paul writes that in marriage “the two will become one flesh.” St Aelred’s description of a spiritual friendship has similarities. In the Orthodox tradition, Adelphoiesis, meaning brother making, refers to the uniting of two monks. Whilst Byzantine scholar Claudia Rapp notes that these rituals did not resemble Orthodox marriage ceremonies in form, the symbolism overall is not entirely dissimilar. Other precedents include Christ’s relationships. As Aelred writes, Christ “gave the keys of the kingdom” to Peter, but to John “unlocked the secrets of his heart.” John Boswell describes Christ and St John as having a “special relationship,” with St John often called the disciple whom Jesus loved. This was the ultimate model for a close emotional relationship between Christian men.
Aelred is vague about intimacy. Kissing is said to be a means to exchange “Breath or spirit”, rather than simply a physical gesture. The biblical precedent for holy kisses is written in Romans 16:16, shared between Peter and Paul and, of course, subverted by Judas. St Aelred continues this tradition; however, he is careful to avoid a misused kiss, which is “nothing but adultery.” Instead, one should share a “spiritual kiss… not by joining lips but by blending spirits.” Kissing means something closer to soul bearing than physical contact, separating the holy kiss from the adulterous kiss, drawing the spiritual away from the lustful. Aelred reframes loving behaviours in a religious context.
.jpg) |
| Rievaulx Abbey, 2021. Taken by writer. |
The final part of the work contains a great detail about who to befriend and who not to, the equivalent of red flags, “Do not make friends with the hot-tempered”. Additionally a partner should not “differ too much from your character”— clearly Aelred disagrees with ‘opposites attract.’ Despite warnings, it is clear we are not to “exchange friends on a passing whim”, so nothing casual. When choosing a friend, it is important to “test the nature” of their soul, see how a potential partner acts, and how they treat others. This advice has held up well. Furthermore, if your friend cares more for your possessions than for you, it probably won’t work out, sugar daddies beware. In a true friendship, both parties “become equal.” Choose your friends carefully, but once you have one, avoid “suspicion, the poison of friendship”. It’s a fine line to tread between testing a friend and being suspicious. Oh, and a friendship “should be a little relaxed.” Aelred doesn’t seem to know exactly what he wants.
As we are taught “love your neighbour as yourself”, Aelred inverts this passage. “Here is the mirror: love yourself.” If you’ve ever heard that you’re not ready for a relationship until you can love yourself, credit St Aelred.
Aelred’s experiences, mentioned as examples throughout, can be pieced into a narrative of his love life. The prologue explains how Aelred experienced the “charm” of his “companion” with other male pupils at school. He then details the “carnal gloom” that he experienced. As Aelred alters Augustine’s model to make adolescent love the carnal stage in friendship, this might suggest he struggled during puberty. Coupled with the accounts of Aelred’s scandal as a young courtier, a passionate love affair might lurk in his past. When describing St John and St Peter, Aelred reveals two of his previous friends, one whom he relied on for “affection” and one for “reason”. You can have many friends, but typically Aelred uses monogamous language for the more intimate friendships. Only his affectionate friend would remain close, eventually becoming “one heart and one soul.” When Aelred’s friend grew old, he wanted to offer “physical alleviation”, but Aelred’s unnamed partner refused lest it be seen as “carnal affection” rather than care. The pair were evidently concerned with being perceived as having a carnal relationship, aware of same sex relations. Powicke records a popular story about Aelred, that he took ice cold baths to “expel the lusts of the flesh.”
We can piece together the story of a gay man who experienced intense passion as a youth, who subsequently came to church, transforming his passion for his fellow monk from carnal into spiritual. It is difficult to accuse historical figures of being “gay” as the men of status who left behind the most sources were expected to marry and carry on their lineages. Monastic life could provide an alternative for gay men. As McGuire notes, Aelred was part of a tradition where “monks hardly thought of women.” Whether or not Aelred experienced opposite sex attraction, he did not write about it. Aelred expresses his love throughout the work, calling the Monk named Ivo his “beloved brother.” Spiritual Friendship is deeply personal and anecdotal, his relationships informing his writing.
The ambition of monastic life was for the body not to take priority over spiritual matters, to shun the material world. The aspirational spiritual language, of moving beyond carnal needs, represents the end goal and not the journey. Ruth Karras concludes that Aelred’s model “excluded sexual activity and even lust but did not exclude the passions usually connected with erotic love.” It was as close as Aelred could get. Male friendships used to be normalised as closer, but in a modern context, the closest forms to Aelred’s incredibly passionate friendships are same sex relationships of emotional intimacy, confiding flaws, including lust. St Aelred’s teaching provides a Christian space for religious gay men to find solace and become closer to God. For LGBTQ members of the Catholic Church, Aelred’s model enables them to balance spiritual matters and other identities.
Aelred’s work has had a long reception, regarded as fantastic advice in general for Christian relationships. Women are described as an equal partner for man and therefore Aelred’s model of friendship is applicable to all. Modern Catholics can use his advice for successful marriages, so his advice can apply to unions.
There has been pushback to the approach of John Boswell. The Catholic magazine Crisis published a particularly egregious article on St Aelred. Here, Jim Russel asserts that there is “no direct evidence” that St Aelred might have been gay—judge for yourself what Aelred’s passions suggest to you. To attack the “new homophiles” who dare to use St Aelred’s writing as a guide, Russel claims that without the context of a monastery the work loses relevance. Monastic language is key to his work, of course, but his ideas still apply elsewhere. To argue against a same-sex union without “sex acts” being permissible, Russel develops a semantic argument. The Catholic church is said to view “eros”, which relates to sexual love, to be a complementary one. Therefore Aelred’s friendship between the similar is not proper love. Finally, Russel argues that love blossoms into “agape-love”, the highest form, whereas spiritual friendship is to be an unchanging eternal union. A married couple’s desires cease in heaven, whereas Aelred’s union is to carry on, occurring all the while through God. Russel successfully disproves that “eros” relates to St Aelred’s ambitions, fine, but a spiritual friendship lasts longer and is a closer relationship with God, aiming to move past carnal desires earlier. Russel argues that since Aelred was writing for monks who must be celibate and unmarried, therefore, it does not pertain to love. He fails to consider the motivations of monks for joining a monastery; some monks were raised in monasteries from youth, but that certainly was not the case for Aelred. The final argument Russel offers is that spiritual friendship isn’t exclusive. Aelred uses language like “many are made one”, so clearly it can’t apply to a chaste gay couple. Russel may be horrified to learn of polycules but seems to neglect the monastic context which he claims is so important. Aelred obviously contends that love is vital within the wider monastic community, and the language of friendship can stretch from acquaintances to emotional confidantes. Additionally, Aelred gives space to more exclusive relationships, advising to choose “someone on whom to lavish affection.” Note the language used being someone, and not many. In Aelred’s personal stories, he describes periods of close affection for one individual, whilst still being friends with others. Russel ignores the man behind the writing and attempts to turn his work into a monastic piece.
Concluding with “If you want to be “spiritual friends” with someone, whether you have same-sex attraction or not won’t make a difference.” Russel is happy to insist upon the rigid monastic context of the writing but ignores the personal context behind St Aelred’s notion of a spiritual friendship. Obviously, a spiritual friendship could occur amongst anyone, but the passion that drives Aelred’s relations altered the nature of the friendships.
“Just do what St. Aelred did: set aside everything that is carnal or worldly”, St Aelred frequently admits his own carnal desires, aiming to set them aside but as part of a spiritual development process that Russel ignores. This seems to me a form of wilful ignorance to make LGBTQ Christians feel unwelcome, and Aelred certainly wouldn’t have stood for it.
The legacy and application of St Aelred’s writing are heavily embroiled in the ongoing culture war. This work is perhaps pertinent because of its interpretability. It can be seen from a gay angle, as I have, or simply from an entirely religious perspective. To Aelred, the two would be inseparable.
By Daniel D. Wicht
References
Aelred of Rievaulx, ‘Spiritual Friendship,’ translated by Lawrence Braceland, edited by Marsha Dutton
Brian McGuire, Brother and Lover, (1994)
Claudia Rapp, Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium: Monks, Laymen and Christian Ritual, (2016)
Jim Russel, ‘The New Homophiles vs. St. Aelred on Spiritual Friendship,’ Crisis Magazine, https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-new-homophiles-vs-st-aelred-on-spiritual-friendship
John Boswell, Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, (1980)
R. M. Karras ‘Friendship and love in the lives of two twelfth-century English saints,’ Journal of Medieval History, 14:4, (1988), p.305–320
Walter Daniel, ‘The Life of Ailred of Rivaulx,’ translated by F.M Powicke