This brings us to our own awkward moment. We are about to discuss the creation of a modern Lupercalia ritual. The question is - and we will forcefully insist on taking these questions one step at a time - if we hold such a ritual, what are we to do. As inescapable as the conclusion we reached, that those engaging in "the Great Rite" would have to do so without protection, we feel, is the conclusion that we would have to exclude the gay community from any such observance. If one is Wiccan, and is unhappy with the AIDS risk, one simply abstains from the Great Rite, and finds some other way to help the harvest. If one is a Classical Pagan, and can't deal with the thought of excluding people from an observance merely for being homosexual, then, we would say, just don't hold a Lupercalia celebration.

The Lupercalia is centered on a human fertility ritual. It is centered on procreation and only incidentally on sex. Homosexual unions can not produce children. The symbolism of the ritual would be all wrong, as the action implied, is one that could never be carried out, even in principle. (That is, the development of that desire, that leads to the birth of children, and the creation of new life that it leads to). As we believe that these rituals are reaching out to the gods on a subconscious level (see Constructing God), we would argue that while symbolism alone may not be sufficient to effect change, it is certainly necessary. So, this particular event is one we would ask the members of the Gay Community to sit out, because given that this ritual would have no relevance to any aspect of their own lives, they wouldn't belong there. It would be as if a heterosexual were to drop in on one of the rituals of a radical faery group. They would have no role to play, and having gawkers present would stiffen many of the very inhibitions we would seeking to loosen, were we to renew this observance. (Which is not to say, the inhibitions you may be thinking about right now).

Some won't care, and why should they? We would have nothing to offer them, on this day. This particular ritual is relevant only to an aspect of the Heterosexual Experience, and there are groups that focus on creating rituals that are more relevant to their lives. Others will be offended by this position. Too bad, but a vague statement that one is offended, does not change the logic of the argument above. We have discussed this with people, and after a lot of heat and a lot of circular verbiage, their argument reduced to this - "what if a gay person feels like going?" Why? He has no ritual role to play here. What is his purpose in going? "Well, what if he wants the experience?" But that's exactly the point. We can't give him the experience. All that we can do is have him run around swinging a strip of goat skin or what we have decided to substitute for it, after discussing the matter.

A ritual is not just a series of forms, it is those forms imbued with a certain spirit and sense of purpose. One doesn't partake of it, merely for the sake of "having the experience". To do so, is to trivialise and prostitute the ritual, much like those non-Catholics who enter a church, take communion and feel strangely empty afterwards, wondering what the big deal was. One can't have the experience without being serious enough about it to accept it on its own terms, even if those terms should occasionally prove inconvenient, or out of step with our notion of what would be "progressive". Does this mean that we sometimes have to hear the word "no"? Absolutely, and why not? If a religion leaves us free to follow every impulse, what does it mean to say that we have one at all? If there is anything offensive to be found in this situation at all, it is the notion that faith and service are to be reduced to being a sort of game, in the interest of appeasing one's fellow man.

Next issue, kids. This one's closed. Click here to continue.