Sheesh- its like I'm saying when You drop a plate, it will break, and you guys want citations about the brand of plate.What we want to know is what those sources are, who wrote them, why they might have had a reason to tell such a story, and their proximity to the event.
Its an argument.
Clearly one you folks don't follow. Perhaps that's my fault.
1- you can not rely on historical first sources in regards to proscribed behaviors because people are not honest reporters.
That a culture writes down its attitudes toward a forbidden behavior as being forbidden tells you nothing about how the people on the street actually felt or behaved, other than to imply that people must be DOING it, else it would not be mentioned as proscribed.
to wit: Smoking pot is against the law- and we have had a 'war on drugs'- and yet a large percentage of the population routinely smokes pot and even more thinks its no big deal.
2- That to glean insight as to how people actually felt or behaved in the past, you often find clues in the contemporary rumors and other stories that can not be factually proven.
to wit: Richard III WAS a hunchback with a withered arm. Scholarly denials aside- it turned out he was a hunchback- but had no withered arm.
recent experiments have shown that a hunchback with his afflictions could do everything first source describe him as doing- destroying the recent argument of those depictions refuting his being a hunchback.
This suggests that, since historians accept the Edward II WAS at the very least bisexual... that there must have been rumors to that effect circulating during his life and around his death-
The truthful details of how he died is immaterial to the fact that the rumor focused on his homosexuality, and NOT on what really was at play.
The exaggeration of the rumor- that it was a RED HOT poker ( which does not make impalement any more deadly nor painful ) reveals an Attitude about men who took it in the butt.
A medieval attitude.
Not really horror. Not really revulsion. But a humorous sense of "just deserts".
As to the chruch- it is mere proof that a group can condemn a behavior they secretly indulge.
I have seen zero argument to prove the clergy of the pre-renaissance was somehow immune to the faults and foibles of the clergy today.