In 1962, Francis Poulenc had composed his last sacred work, his Sept repons des tenebres, a piece he wouldn't live to hear when it premiered in New York the next year. 'I have finished Les Tenebres,' he said. 'I think it is beautiful. With the Gloria and the Stabat Mater [two of Poulenc's other choral compositions], I think I have three good religious works. May they spare me a few days in purgatory, if I narrowly avoid going to hell.'
Service follows this introduction by remarking:
Ah Francis! It wasn't you who needed saving from a hellish afterlife thanks to the strictures of the Catholic church. In fact, it's just the other way round: Poulenc's sacred music--composed by a gay man who had also fathered a child out of wedlock, making him a personna non grata according to the church's diktats--amounts to a redemption of the intolerances of the church. Poulenc fearlessly accepts the whole of human life in the sensual and spiritual sounds that his sacred music makes. [emphasis mine]
In other words, Poulenc had it all wrong! He wasn't the one at fault; it was the Roman Catholic Church!
I must confess that when I first read Service's article, I was rather angry. Even though I am not a Roman Catholic (in fact, I have my own problems with Catholicism!), I am a Christian, and what Service is attacking here is not a uniquely Catholic doctrine but a moral standard that has been held by all Christians for centuries. In fact, he is rejecting the clear teaching of the Scriptures, which consistently, in both the Old and New Testaments, condemn homosexual activity and extramarital sexual activity of any kind.
However, to be fair, Service is hardly alone in holding a negative opinion of Christian sexual ethics. I think it is fair to say that his view is quite typical of the politically progressive in the UK and elsewhere (Need I add that Service writes for the famously progressive British newspaper The Guardian?). Even many individuals who do not consider themselves progressive in their social/political views subscribe to the idea that any sort of sexual activity is morally acceptable--as long as those in engaging in it "love" each other ("Love is love"). Western society as a whole has turned away from divinely-established moral standards with regard to sexuality.
Moreover, Service's attitude toward Poulenc seems to be colored by the idea of the artist as hero. This idea, which arguably reached its full development in the period of Romanticism in the arts, is that the artist, by virtue of his or her identity as a supremely gifted individual, is not bound by the moral conventions of society. Think of the poet Percy Shelley (1792-1822), who as an undergraduate in college wrote a pamphlet in defense of atheism and later abandoned his wife for another woman. Or think of the composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883), who was well-known for his womanizing and narcissism (and anti-Semitism!). Service clearly sees Poulenc as a great man, one who "had the wisdom to know that the sacred and the profane, the sublime and the erotic, the cosmic and the personal, are all sacralizing routes to transcendence." Furthermore, according to Service, "Poulenc's compassion is a redemption of the Catholic theology of the time." In short, the fact that Poulenc had such "wisdom" and "compassion" is evidence that he was the morally superior. Therefore, "Poulenc deserves all the heavenly bliss he desires." Indeed, Service tells his readers: "Whatever else you have faith in, have faith--in Poulenc!" Thus, Service--at least, rhetorically--elevates Poulenc to a near-divine status!
And yet, ironically, it may have been Poulenc who had a more realistic view of himself. The fact that he expressed uncertainty about whether or not he would "narrowly avoid going to hell"--assuming these words were spoken in sincerity--demonstrate that had some feeling that he had sinned grievously in his life. Thus, he may have possessed a much clearer moral sense than Service.
Image of Francis Poulenc and harpsichordist Wanda Landowska from Wikimedia Commons