In my ministry in the Roman Catholic Church, I advised the people a lot on “conscience” with regard to “birth control and family planning.” Only recently have I realized that I have not adequately instructed LGBT people on conscience. Conscience is the honorable way out of “moral slavery.” Moral slavery is “no condoms, no masturbation, no sex ever in your whole life if you are given a same-sex attraction.”
I have written briefly about it a couple of times recently. But now I realize from hundreds of conversations in counseling that I have not written, spoken, and taught enough about conscience.
Here in the Philippines, a cult of conscience is arising around a new “national hero,” Jun Lazada. People from former President Cory Aquino, many senators, religious people, and people on the street are praising Mr. Lozada for following his conscience as a whistleblower in a prominent investigation of corruption in government.
A full page ad by the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines today begins with a quotation from Martin Luther King: On some positions, COWARDICE asks the question, “Is it safe?” EXPEDIENCY asks the question, “Is it politic?” VANITY asks the question, “Is it popular? CONSCIENCE asks the question, “Is it right?”
Dr. King continues: There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but one must take it because CONSCIENCE says, “It is right.”
For too many years, black people stayed in the back of the bus because of COWARDICE or EXPEDIENCY. CONSCIENCE finally told them: It is right to stand up for your rights.
Martin Luther King continued, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent on things that matter.”
The issue here, in this blog, in my ministry, is moral slavery of LGBT people, the minority, to the homophobic human teachings and traditions which have bound them to a moral code of the majority that comes neither from God, not from the Bible. (When you allow the majority to make “rules” for the minority, the minority will suffer on the short end of the proposition.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia on the internet devotes 11 pages to an intricate “explanation” of CONSCIENCE. The bottom line is that it does not negate or contradict my definition, from church textbooks, that CONSCIENCE IS A CHRISTIAN MORAL JUDGMENT.
LGBT people have a basic human right to form their conscience without bowing to the chains of moral slavery.
They will do this first by listening to the teaching voice of their Christian church (and Moslems will make an Islamic moral judgment after first listening to the teaching voice of Islam.)
Secondly they will weigh, examine, and consider (the word of the Catholic Encyclopedia) all the factors that make a decision a personal moral judgment. This will include cultural matters, human psychology, and their own personal situation. (For example: To kill is a sin, but my personal situation is that if I don’t kill this intruder, the intruder will kill me.)
Thirdly, each person in each situation decides, makes a judgment about what is right or wrong, sin or not sin in that situation. (For example: Judgment: it is not a sin for me to kill in self defense.)
The mother and father with low income, perhaps no employment, with four kids whom they cannot house, feed, and send to school adequately must decide if it is sinful to protect their family from deeper poverty by using condoms or other appropriate methods which cause nobody any harm.
The LGBT person, then, in freedom of conscience, will weigh all the factors which affect the expression of same-sex love. They are aware of centuries old prohibitions, but they have a right to recognize these prohibitions of their love as moral slavery and move on to consider all the personal human psychology which makes this attraction and its expression “right” for them. And the finishing touch could well be that God is love and those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them. And they will then decide to love according to their nature with the full confidence that God is smiling upon their love.
LGBT people can make a Christian Moral Decision to express their same-sex love according to their nature with the confidence that their love and its expression is not sin. Indeed, God smiles upon their love.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Human Rights in Senegal, Everywhere
Today an Email from ILGA (International Lesbian and gay Association) details the arrest and detention of 10 persons in Senegal for alleged ‘homosexual activity.”
It outlines the response from the International Federation for Human Rights.
We have been outspoken in proclaiming and defending human rights for LGBT people. For example, recently we have clearly stated the elements of the basic human right to “freedom of conscience.”
In this blog post I suggest that we compare the old sex-negative, destructive and vio;ent approach of Senegal to LGBT peple with the urgent recommendations of the International Federation for Human Rights.
Senegal
Homosexuality must no longer be a crime
The International Lesbian and Gay Association(ILGA) and its 600 affiliates take note of the release, after 3 daysof arbitrary detention, of 10 persons held in Dakar in connection withthe investigation of an alleged homosexual marriage.On 5 February , 10 persons were arrested and detained at the CriminalInvestigation Division in Dakar, Senegal. These arrests followed thepublication in a monthly magazine of a report concerninghomosexuality in Senegal, in which photos of individuals celebratingan alleged homosexual marriage were printed. The 10 individuals wereinterviewed concerning allegations of indecency and unnaturalmarriage. Others appearing in the photos, fearing reprisals, havereportedly fled the country and are sought by the Senegaleseauthorities.
Then it outlines the urgent message of the International Federation for human Human Rights addressed to the government of Senegal.
Under the Senegalese Criminal code, homosexual acts are punishable by 5 years imprisonment and to a fine of 100 000 to 1 500 000 CFA francs(between 150 and 2300 euros). In penalising private relations , the lawcontravenes provisions of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights , in force in Senegal since 1978, which provides under Article 17 (1) that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary orunlawful interference with his privacy, family, home orcorrespondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
In addition, these discriminatory provisions of the Criminal code arecontrary to the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights that provides under Article 3 (1) that “every individual shallbe equal before the law.”
While our organisations welcome the liberation of the ten individuals who were arrested, we remain concerned for their physical and psychological integrity.
Consequently, we urge the Senegalese authorities to:
- Ensure the physical and psychological integrity of the personscharged in this affair, and more generally, firmly condemn homophobicacts that attack the physical and psychological integrity ofhomosexual individuals;
- Revise the Criminal code to abolish punishment of homosexual acts;
- Conform with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, and in particular Articles 17 (1) and 26, aswell as the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and in particular Article 3. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'Homme (RADDHO)Organisation nationale des droits de l'Homme (ONDH)Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme (UIDH)Amnesty International Senegal (AI)Pan Africa ILGA - the African Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
It outlines the response from the International Federation for Human Rights.
We have been outspoken in proclaiming and defending human rights for LGBT people. For example, recently we have clearly stated the elements of the basic human right to “freedom of conscience.”
In this blog post I suggest that we compare the old sex-negative, destructive and vio;ent approach of Senegal to LGBT peple with the urgent recommendations of the International Federation for Human Rights.
Senegal
Homosexuality must no longer be a crime
The International Lesbian and Gay Association(ILGA) and its 600 affiliates take note of the release, after 3 daysof arbitrary detention, of 10 persons held in Dakar in connection withthe investigation of an alleged homosexual marriage.On 5 February , 10 persons were arrested and detained at the CriminalInvestigation Division in Dakar, Senegal. These arrests followed thepublication in a monthly magazine of a report concerninghomosexuality in Senegal, in which photos of individuals celebratingan alleged homosexual marriage were printed. The 10 individuals wereinterviewed concerning allegations of indecency and unnaturalmarriage. Others appearing in the photos, fearing reprisals, havereportedly fled the country and are sought by the Senegaleseauthorities.
Then it outlines the urgent message of the International Federation for human Human Rights addressed to the government of Senegal.
Under the Senegalese Criminal code, homosexual acts are punishable by 5 years imprisonment and to a fine of 100 000 to 1 500 000 CFA francs(between 150 and 2300 euros). In penalising private relations , the lawcontravenes provisions of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights , in force in Senegal since 1978, which provides under Article 17 (1) that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary orunlawful interference with his privacy, family, home orcorrespondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
In addition, these discriminatory provisions of the Criminal code arecontrary to the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights that provides under Article 3 (1) that “every individual shallbe equal before the law.”
While our organisations welcome the liberation of the ten individuals who were arrested, we remain concerned for their physical and psychological integrity.
Consequently, we urge the Senegalese authorities to:
- Ensure the physical and psychological integrity of the personscharged in this affair, and more generally, firmly condemn homophobicacts that attack the physical and psychological integrity ofhomosexual individuals;
- Revise the Criminal code to abolish punishment of homosexual acts;
- Conform with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, and in particular Articles 17 (1) and 26, aswell as the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and in particular Article 3. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'Homme (RADDHO)Organisation nationale des droits de l'Homme (ONDH)Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme (UIDH)Amnesty International Senegal (AI)Pan Africa ILGA - the African Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Requesting your comments
You may have thought I have forgotten you. I have been posting blogs for five months, and maybe you didn’t receive any of them.
The problem is that my computer crashed in September, and only now someone made it possible to get it fixed. Locked in a computer that didn’t work was the file with your address, so, in the meantime, I was limited to my Gmail directory.
All the blogs are posted on my personal blog, http://richardrmickley.blogspot.com. I invite you to visit and catch up.
Some of my blogs are quite personal, and some are quite religious, and some are somewhat philosophical.
Today, I need your comments. Situations have come up which require some wise advice in two areas. In regard to both of these areas, people have recently come to me seriously asking for “how to” information to protect and strengthen their relationship.
The first question I ask for your personal experience, information, and advice on is:
“What are some tips for making a relationship work when one is 15-20 or more years older than the other?”
Please send your comments. I will publish the final results here. Please indicate if your name may be used.
The second question I ask your personal experience, information, and advice on is:
“What are some tips for making a relationships work when the partners are living in different countries – a long distance relationship?”
Please send your comments. I will publish the final results here. Please indicate if your name may be used.
Thank you.
Father Richard
The problem is that my computer crashed in September, and only now someone made it possible to get it fixed. Locked in a computer that didn’t work was the file with your address, so, in the meantime, I was limited to my Gmail directory.
All the blogs are posted on my personal blog, http://richardrmickley.blogspot.com. I invite you to visit and catch up.
Some of my blogs are quite personal, and some are quite religious, and some are somewhat philosophical.
Today, I need your comments. Situations have come up which require some wise advice in two areas. In regard to both of these areas, people have recently come to me seriously asking for “how to” information to protect and strengthen their relationship.
The first question I ask for your personal experience, information, and advice on is:
“What are some tips for making a relationship work when one is 15-20 or more years older than the other?”
Please send your comments. I will publish the final results here. Please indicate if your name may be used.
The second question I ask your personal experience, information, and advice on is:
“What are some tips for making a relationships work when the partners are living in different countries – a long distance relationship?”
Please send your comments. I will publish the final results here. Please indicate if your name may be used.
Thank you.
Father Richard
LGBT Rights
I am very impressed by the 1999 book, “Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, Religious Analogies.”
It delves deeply into subjects that I am profoundly interested and involved in: gay and lesbian rights, women’s rights, and religious liberation from moral slavery.
It is written by David A. J. Richards, professor of Law and director of programs in Law, Philosophy, and Social Theory at New York University.
He is a leading philosopher who has brought together in this book all the topics in the book title into one learned thesis. He develops an intriguing study of social hierarchy and moral slavery.
He argues that racist, sexist, and anti-gay issues all have in common the degradation of human identity and denial of the rights of conscience. And this is what he calls “moral slavery.” I find the invention of that term an absolutely tremendous breakthrough.
It is impossible to summarize this weighty book in short, but “in short,” it is a powerful defense of gay rights. [Footnote: unfortunately he comes from a mind-set which uses gay as a substitute for homosexual, thus including in his intention all LGBT people. That is not my approach, and I try to cover it up wherever plausible.]
The book is written in the “deepest” (most learned) academic language as if for advanced doctoral degree candidates.
My challenge is, first of all, to understand it myself, and then in this blog to present his powerful arguments and valuable insights in language we can all understand.
There are six (Library of Congress) research areas referenced in the book title alone. One blog could not do justice to even one of these topics: gay rights, gay identity, Afro-American civil rights, women’s rights, freedom of religion, identity (psychological).
This blog will only analyze one short paragraph, the final paragraph of the Introduction to the book. I will present professor Richards’ words (modified only enough to make shorter sentences). Then I will briefly comment on each sentence.
“The case for gay rights expresses a structural injustice common to extreme religious intolerance, racism, and homophobia.”
Comment: He develops the proposition that the very structure of American culture expresses the same kind of injustice against Blacks (racial minorities), women, and persons with same-sex attraction. He calls it structural injustice because it is the basis and foundation of societal behavior that reduces all those who are “non-conformist” (to patriarchal one-mold society) to a common pit of unjust treatment – which he later identifies as “moral slavery.” [Note: the book deals with American society. It would be interesting to have an authoritative “social scientist” report on the relevance of these issues to Philippine society. In my 16 years now as a Filipino, I unauthoritatively observe the same phenomena.]
“The analysis of the case for gay rights also advances general understanding of the two mechanisms by which such injustice is entrenched: its privitatization and stereotypical sexualization.”
Comment: He will, in his own words, demonstrate how injustices became so much a mold and pattern of society that not even the victims recognized that they were victims.
Entrenched means “dug in,” “firmly set in place,” “immoveable,” and unremoveable, as it were.
That was when women naturally knew that their place was in the home kitchen and the home laundry. Blacks knew their place was in the back of the bus. Gays and lesbians knew that they had no place, and were even unmentionable. Gays and lesbians would never to dare think of the “right” to marriage because they knew they did not have a right to exist, and no rights.
“These mechanisms enforce on homosexuals (as they have on religious minorities, people of color, and women) rigidly defined, hierarchical terms of identity, thereby unjustly reducing human complexity to the simplistic terms of a dehumanizing stereotype of abject servility and silence.”
Comment: These mechanisms – privatization and stereotypical sexualization – require whole chapters to explain.
In another era and another arena, we see the mechanism of injustice in Apartheid South Africa. Blacks had no right. Period. And that’s the way it was – entrenched. Nelson Mendala had no rights in prison for 20 some years – and came out to serve as a world-respected president of the country and a world-respected leader.
For centuries in America, in the Philippines, and around the world, gays and lesbians allowed themselves to be “as Blacks in Apartheid.” Reduced to dehumanized non-identity. He calls it abject servility and silence. He later explains an aspect of this as servility as “moral slavery” – the chaining of the minority (gays and lesbians, etc) to the moral whims (albeit traditions) of the majority.
It was all condemned to silence. “Don’t even think of rights – you have none.” And that is why same-sex marriage was not mentioned for centuries.
“Resistance to such unjust hierarchy clarifies and explains the legitimate grounds of contemporary expressions of gay and lesbian identity in the experience of an empowering choice and ethical demand of responsibility for self.”
Comment: Resistance ended Apartheid. Resistance ended “back of the bus” treatment of Blacks. Resistance gave women the choice of coming out the kitchen and laundry. Resistance brought recognition to indigenous people of the Philippines. Resistance brought “equal marriage” to all citizens of five countries of the world and recognition of same-sex relationships in many other places.
The book goers on at great lengths to explain the “legitimate” (lawful) grounds that gays and lesbians have for expressing their true identity (and humanity).
When I came to the Philippines (in 1991), I found that gays and lesbians in general did not realize there is an alternative to sex-negative theology, an alternative to “moral slavery,” slavery to the entrenched “morals” of the majority.
Richards fully explains there is a choice. Each person does the have the right to a natural and religious choice to be oneself and take responsibility for what the author will explain as “freedom of conscience.”
Thus the author ends the “Introduction.” He then devotes the book, four chapters, to “The Racial Analogy,” “The Gender Analogy,” “The Religious Analogy,“ and finally “Identity and Justice.”
My added comment: Why is this discussion of injustice and “silencing” and denying of identity of importance or value?
There may some among us today, still, in this day and age, gay or lesbian or whoever, who do not realize they have a right to advance from the back of the bus, if they choose; to come out of the closet of fear and shame, if they choose; to claim their rightful and just place in society, in church, in God’s embrace, if they choose.
And why should we never forget the injustice? Why should we never let the world forget? Why do the Jewish people, who lost millions of their fellow Jews in the Holocaust, build memorials and never let the world forget what happened in those extermination camps of dreaded memory? Can a world which remembers ever let it happen again?
Why was a symposium on the Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals, composed of survivors and historians, held in Washington DC on April 28, 2000?
How many people – gay, lesbian, or straight – know about the Nazi programs to persecute and exterminate homosexuals – because they were inferior, not “real” Aryan human beings who did not bear good strong Aryan children; and that they were subjected to medical experimentation. Lesbians were not targeted, but gay men, especially effeminate ones, were imprisoned, sent to concentration camps and forced to wear pink triangles. Sometimes they were given the option of volunteering for castration.
Six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. No one knows for sure how many homosexuals were among the additional five million “substandard” human victims killed by gas, torture, and furnaces of fire.
Even after the end of the war and liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, many homosexuals clung to silence in their shame.
In the here and now we can take a cue from Barack Obama’s campaign message. He says it is all about change. It is the past against the future. For us that means it’s time for change from moral slavery to freedom of conscience. For LGBT people, it’s all about change from injustice to justice.
So why is Professor Richards’ study of silence and “moral slavery” important and valuable?
It delves deeply into subjects that I am profoundly interested and involved in: gay and lesbian rights, women’s rights, and religious liberation from moral slavery.
It is written by David A. J. Richards, professor of Law and director of programs in Law, Philosophy, and Social Theory at New York University.
He is a leading philosopher who has brought together in this book all the topics in the book title into one learned thesis. He develops an intriguing study of social hierarchy and moral slavery.
He argues that racist, sexist, and anti-gay issues all have in common the degradation of human identity and denial of the rights of conscience. And this is what he calls “moral slavery.” I find the invention of that term an absolutely tremendous breakthrough.
It is impossible to summarize this weighty book in short, but “in short,” it is a powerful defense of gay rights. [Footnote: unfortunately he comes from a mind-set which uses gay as a substitute for homosexual, thus including in his intention all LGBT people. That is not my approach, and I try to cover it up wherever plausible.]
The book is written in the “deepest” (most learned) academic language as if for advanced doctoral degree candidates.
My challenge is, first of all, to understand it myself, and then in this blog to present his powerful arguments and valuable insights in language we can all understand.
There are six (Library of Congress) research areas referenced in the book title alone. One blog could not do justice to even one of these topics: gay rights, gay identity, Afro-American civil rights, women’s rights, freedom of religion, identity (psychological).
This blog will only analyze one short paragraph, the final paragraph of the Introduction to the book. I will present professor Richards’ words (modified only enough to make shorter sentences). Then I will briefly comment on each sentence.
“The case for gay rights expresses a structural injustice common to extreme religious intolerance, racism, and homophobia.”
Comment: He develops the proposition that the very structure of American culture expresses the same kind of injustice against Blacks (racial minorities), women, and persons with same-sex attraction. He calls it structural injustice because it is the basis and foundation of societal behavior that reduces all those who are “non-conformist” (to patriarchal one-mold society) to a common pit of unjust treatment – which he later identifies as “moral slavery.” [Note: the book deals with American society. It would be interesting to have an authoritative “social scientist” report on the relevance of these issues to Philippine society. In my 16 years now as a Filipino, I unauthoritatively observe the same phenomena.]
“The analysis of the case for gay rights also advances general understanding of the two mechanisms by which such injustice is entrenched: its privitatization and stereotypical sexualization.”
Comment: He will, in his own words, demonstrate how injustices became so much a mold and pattern of society that not even the victims recognized that they were victims.
Entrenched means “dug in,” “firmly set in place,” “immoveable,” and unremoveable, as it were.
That was when women naturally knew that their place was in the home kitchen and the home laundry. Blacks knew their place was in the back of the bus. Gays and lesbians knew that they had no place, and were even unmentionable. Gays and lesbians would never to dare think of the “right” to marriage because they knew they did not have a right to exist, and no rights.
“These mechanisms enforce on homosexuals (as they have on religious minorities, people of color, and women) rigidly defined, hierarchical terms of identity, thereby unjustly reducing human complexity to the simplistic terms of a dehumanizing stereotype of abject servility and silence.”
Comment: These mechanisms – privatization and stereotypical sexualization – require whole chapters to explain.
In another era and another arena, we see the mechanism of injustice in Apartheid South Africa. Blacks had no right. Period. And that’s the way it was – entrenched. Nelson Mendala had no rights in prison for 20 some years – and came out to serve as a world-respected president of the country and a world-respected leader.
For centuries in America, in the Philippines, and around the world, gays and lesbians allowed themselves to be “as Blacks in Apartheid.” Reduced to dehumanized non-identity. He calls it abject servility and silence. He later explains an aspect of this as servility as “moral slavery” – the chaining of the minority (gays and lesbians, etc) to the moral whims (albeit traditions) of the majority.
It was all condemned to silence. “Don’t even think of rights – you have none.” And that is why same-sex marriage was not mentioned for centuries.
“Resistance to such unjust hierarchy clarifies and explains the legitimate grounds of contemporary expressions of gay and lesbian identity in the experience of an empowering choice and ethical demand of responsibility for self.”
Comment: Resistance ended Apartheid. Resistance ended “back of the bus” treatment of Blacks. Resistance gave women the choice of coming out the kitchen and laundry. Resistance brought recognition to indigenous people of the Philippines. Resistance brought “equal marriage” to all citizens of five countries of the world and recognition of same-sex relationships in many other places.
The book goers on at great lengths to explain the “legitimate” (lawful) grounds that gays and lesbians have for expressing their true identity (and humanity).
When I came to the Philippines (in 1991), I found that gays and lesbians in general did not realize there is an alternative to sex-negative theology, an alternative to “moral slavery,” slavery to the entrenched “morals” of the majority.
Richards fully explains there is a choice. Each person does the have the right to a natural and religious choice to be oneself and take responsibility for what the author will explain as “freedom of conscience.”
Thus the author ends the “Introduction.” He then devotes the book, four chapters, to “The Racial Analogy,” “The Gender Analogy,” “The Religious Analogy,“ and finally “Identity and Justice.”
My added comment: Why is this discussion of injustice and “silencing” and denying of identity of importance or value?
There may some among us today, still, in this day and age, gay or lesbian or whoever, who do not realize they have a right to advance from the back of the bus, if they choose; to come out of the closet of fear and shame, if they choose; to claim their rightful and just place in society, in church, in God’s embrace, if they choose.
And why should we never forget the injustice? Why should we never let the world forget? Why do the Jewish people, who lost millions of their fellow Jews in the Holocaust, build memorials and never let the world forget what happened in those extermination camps of dreaded memory? Can a world which remembers ever let it happen again?
Why was a symposium on the Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals, composed of survivors and historians, held in Washington DC on April 28, 2000?
How many people – gay, lesbian, or straight – know about the Nazi programs to persecute and exterminate homosexuals – because they were inferior, not “real” Aryan human beings who did not bear good strong Aryan children; and that they were subjected to medical experimentation. Lesbians were not targeted, but gay men, especially effeminate ones, were imprisoned, sent to concentration camps and forced to wear pink triangles. Sometimes they were given the option of volunteering for castration.
Six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. No one knows for sure how many homosexuals were among the additional five million “substandard” human victims killed by gas, torture, and furnaces of fire.
Even after the end of the war and liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, many homosexuals clung to silence in their shame.
In the here and now we can take a cue from Barack Obama’s campaign message. He says it is all about change. It is the past against the future. For us that means it’s time for change from moral slavery to freedom of conscience. For LGBT people, it’s all about change from injustice to justice.
So why is Professor Richards’ study of silence and “moral slavery” important and valuable?
Friendship
I think a very good subject to start the new year with is Friendship. I capitalize the word because Abbot St. Aelred teaches us that God is Friendship.
Of course we will joyfully keep it positive even though His Holiness Pope Benedict Ratzinger has already in the first 4 days of the new year declared war and hatred four times on our same-sex Friendship (still capitalized).
The very Love which is of God, in God, and with God is condemned cold bloodedly and blasphemously. Indeed, those who live in Love and Friendship live in God, and God lives in them. So we don’t want to play the war and hatred game. It is just plain out of order. It does not ft the plan of God for Love and Friendship.
In our website, we note Abbot St. Aelred’s beautiful description of a “True Friend” (from his book on Love, “The Mirror of Love” which St. Bernard of Clairvaux asked him to write).
In Mirror of Love (Speculum Caritatis), we find a delightfully human description of what a friend is. This is indeed a model for true friendship; that is, friendship with love.
A True Friend
It is such a great joy to have the consolation of someone's affection;
someone to whom I am deeply united in the bonds of love;
someone with whom my weary spirit can find rest;
and to whom I may pour out my heart;
someone whose conversation is as sweet as a song in the tiring times of daily life;
someone whose presence is a harbor of calm when my life is rocked on the choppy seas of life;
someone to whom I can lay bare all my thoughts and secrets;
someone whose spirit will give me the comforting kiss that heals all the sickness of my troubled heart;
one who will cry with me when I am upset and rejoice with me when I am happy;
the one I can talk to when I need advice or good judgment;
someone so closely bound to my heart and soul that even when far away is together with me in spirit;
when the world falls asleep all around us, our souls will be embraced in absolute peace;
our hearts will lie quiet together, united in our oneness, as the grace of the Holy Spirit flows over us;
with heart and mind together, we are bound by the closest ties of love.
Abbot St. Aelred yearned for such a True Friend, and in his books he describes not only the general description of a “True Friend” (as above), but also reveals and describes his own beautiful relationships with “true friends.”
At the end of his description of a “True Friend,” he adds a very pointed paragraph. Since it was obvious that he was talking about a same-sex friend, he suggests that some people may find this wonderful awesome friendship between two persons of the same sex unusual.
Then he invites us to ponder the “model” of true friendship, directing us to look at the friendship of Jesus and his beloved friend. “No doubt,” he writes, “Jesus loved all the 12 apostles, but one had the privilege of lying with his head on the heart of Jesus.” He goes on to remind us, not just once, but eight times, that this one special one was called the beloved of Jesus, “the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.”
Is this the kind of Love and Friendship His Holiness has declared war on? Of course, he would deny that. I’m sure Abbot St. Aelred would debate that with him or anybody else.
Below, at the end, I am going to include a neutral “mini bio” of this “beloved disciple.” My friend, Ito, emails me every day the “Saint of the Day,” and that’s the website where this appears.
According to a very ancient tradition in the Christian church, the beloved disciple was St. John whose remembrance day is just after Christmas.
For now, and we have only just begun to discuss friendship, let conclude with a practical application of what it is to be a “true friend.” I want to make a little comment about “love’s bottom line,” a day to day way to put all the points of abbot St. Aelred’s description of a true friend into daily life situations.
When two people say they love each other, or they are “true friends,” and if their Friendship is truly “in God,” we say they will live “love’s bottom line.”
Some people, shall I say many people, seem to think that the purpose of being together is to argue, fight, and win. But those who want to live as true fiends, will always have in their heart and on their mind, not, “how can I win,” but “how can I make my partner happy?” It’s the secret to the happiest relationship, friendship, in the world.
Now go back and ponder Abbot St. Aelred’s description of “A True Friend.” Then you see some of the manifestations of the happy life and friendship of those who live love’s bottom line. This is Friendship at its very best, because God is Friendship and those who live in Friendship live in God, and God lives in them.
Since I have been teaching “Love’s bottom line” for several years, I receive happy stories form around the world. Please email your questions or comments about Friendship, about Love’s Bottom Line. (Email: saintaelred@gmail.com)
Fr. Richard
December 27, 2007
St. John the Apostle
It is God who calls; human beings answer. The vocation of John and his brother James is stated very simply in the Gospels, along with that of Peter and his brother Andrew: Jesus called them; they followed. The absoluteness of their response is indicated by the account. James and John “were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him” (Matthew 4:21b-22).
For the three former fishermen—Peter, James and John—that faith was to be rewarded by a special friendship with Jesus. They alone were privileged to be present at the Transfiguration, the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the agony in Gethsemane. But John’s friendship was even more special. Tradition assigns to him the Fourth Gospel, although most modern Scripture scholars think it unlikely that the apostle and the evangelist are the same person.
John’s own Gospel refers to him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (see John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2), the one who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper, and the one to whom he gave the exquisite honor, as he stood beneath the cross, of caring for his mother. “Woman, behold your son... Behold, your mother” (John 19:26b, 27b).
Because of the depth of his Gospel, John is usually thought of as the eagle of theology, soaring in high regions that other writers did not enter. But the ever-frank Gospels reveal some very human traits. Jesus gave James and John the nickname, “sons of thunder.” While it is difficult to know exactly what this meant, a clue is given in two incidents.
In the first, as Matthew tells it, their mother asked that they might sit in the places of honor in Jesus’ kingdom—one on his right hand, one on his left. When Jesus asked them if they could drink the cup he would drink and be baptized with his baptism of pain, they blithely answered, “We can!” Jesus said that they would indeed share his cup, but that sitting at his right hand was not his to give. It was for those to whom it had been reserved by the Father. The other apostles were indignant at the mistaken ambition of the brothers, and Jesus took the occasion to teach them the true nature of authority: “...[W]hoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:27-28).
On another occasion the “sons of thunder” asked Jesus if they should not call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable Samaritans, who would not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem. But Jesus “turned and rebuked them” (see Luke 9:51-55).
On the first Easter, Mary Magdalene “ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, ‘They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him’” (John 20:2). John recalls, perhaps with a smile, that he and Peter ran side by side, but then “the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first” (John 20:4b). He did not enter, but waited for Peter and let him go in first. “Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed” (John 20:8).
John was with Peter when the first great miracle after the Resurrection took place—the cure of the man crippled from birth—which led to their spending the night in jail together. The mysterious experience of the Resurrection is perhaps best contained in the words of Acts: “Observing the boldness of Peter and John and perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men, they [the questioners] were amazed, and they recognized them as the companions of Jesus” (Acts 4:13).
The evangelist wrote the great Gospel, the letters and the Book of Revelation. His Gospel is a very personal account. He sees the glorious and divine Jesus already in the incidents of his mortal life. At the Last Supper, John’s Jesus speaks as if he were already in heaven. It is the Gospel of Jesus’ glory.
Comment:
It is a long way from being eager to sit on a throne of power or to call down fire from heaven to becoming the man who could write: “The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16).
Quote:
A persistent story has it that John’s “parishioners” grew tired of his one sermon, which relentlessly emphasized: “Love one another.” Whether the story is true or not, it has basis in John’s writing. He wrote what may be called a summary of the Bible: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)
(This entry appears in the print edition of Saint of the Day.)
Of course we will joyfully keep it positive even though His Holiness Pope Benedict Ratzinger has already in the first 4 days of the new year declared war and hatred four times on our same-sex Friendship (still capitalized).
The very Love which is of God, in God, and with God is condemned cold bloodedly and blasphemously. Indeed, those who live in Love and Friendship live in God, and God lives in them. So we don’t want to play the war and hatred game. It is just plain out of order. It does not ft the plan of God for Love and Friendship.
In our website, we note Abbot St. Aelred’s beautiful description of a “True Friend” (from his book on Love, “The Mirror of Love” which St. Bernard of Clairvaux asked him to write).
In Mirror of Love (Speculum Caritatis), we find a delightfully human description of what a friend is. This is indeed a model for true friendship; that is, friendship with love.
A True Friend
It is such a great joy to have the consolation of someone's affection;
someone to whom I am deeply united in the bonds of love;
someone with whom my weary spirit can find rest;
and to whom I may pour out my heart;
someone whose conversation is as sweet as a song in the tiring times of daily life;
someone whose presence is a harbor of calm when my life is rocked on the choppy seas of life;
someone to whom I can lay bare all my thoughts and secrets;
someone whose spirit will give me the comforting kiss that heals all the sickness of my troubled heart;
one who will cry with me when I am upset and rejoice with me when I am happy;
the one I can talk to when I need advice or good judgment;
someone so closely bound to my heart and soul that even when far away is together with me in spirit;
when the world falls asleep all around us, our souls will be embraced in absolute peace;
our hearts will lie quiet together, united in our oneness, as the grace of the Holy Spirit flows over us;
with heart and mind together, we are bound by the closest ties of love.
Abbot St. Aelred yearned for such a True Friend, and in his books he describes not only the general description of a “True Friend” (as above), but also reveals and describes his own beautiful relationships with “true friends.”
At the end of his description of a “True Friend,” he adds a very pointed paragraph. Since it was obvious that he was talking about a same-sex friend, he suggests that some people may find this wonderful awesome friendship between two persons of the same sex unusual.
Then he invites us to ponder the “model” of true friendship, directing us to look at the friendship of Jesus and his beloved friend. “No doubt,” he writes, “Jesus loved all the 12 apostles, but one had the privilege of lying with his head on the heart of Jesus.” He goes on to remind us, not just once, but eight times, that this one special one was called the beloved of Jesus, “the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.”
Is this the kind of Love and Friendship His Holiness has declared war on? Of course, he would deny that. I’m sure Abbot St. Aelred would debate that with him or anybody else.
Below, at the end, I am going to include a neutral “mini bio” of this “beloved disciple.” My friend, Ito, emails me every day the “Saint of the Day,” and that’s the website where this appears.
According to a very ancient tradition in the Christian church, the beloved disciple was St. John whose remembrance day is just after Christmas.
For now, and we have only just begun to discuss friendship, let conclude with a practical application of what it is to be a “true friend.” I want to make a little comment about “love’s bottom line,” a day to day way to put all the points of abbot St. Aelred’s description of a true friend into daily life situations.
When two people say they love each other, or they are “true friends,” and if their Friendship is truly “in God,” we say they will live “love’s bottom line.”
Some people, shall I say many people, seem to think that the purpose of being together is to argue, fight, and win. But those who want to live as true fiends, will always have in their heart and on their mind, not, “how can I win,” but “how can I make my partner happy?” It’s the secret to the happiest relationship, friendship, in the world.
Now go back and ponder Abbot St. Aelred’s description of “A True Friend.” Then you see some of the manifestations of the happy life and friendship of those who live love’s bottom line. This is Friendship at its very best, because God is Friendship and those who live in Friendship live in God, and God lives in them.
Since I have been teaching “Love’s bottom line” for several years, I receive happy stories form around the world. Please email your questions or comments about Friendship, about Love’s Bottom Line. (Email: saintaelred@gmail.com)
Fr. Richard
December 27, 2007
St. John the Apostle
It is God who calls; human beings answer. The vocation of John and his brother James is stated very simply in the Gospels, along with that of Peter and his brother Andrew: Jesus called them; they followed. The absoluteness of their response is indicated by the account. James and John “were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him” (Matthew 4:21b-22).
For the three former fishermen—Peter, James and John—that faith was to be rewarded by a special friendship with Jesus. They alone were privileged to be present at the Transfiguration, the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the agony in Gethsemane. But John’s friendship was even more special. Tradition assigns to him the Fourth Gospel, although most modern Scripture scholars think it unlikely that the apostle and the evangelist are the same person.
John’s own Gospel refers to him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (see John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2), the one who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper, and the one to whom he gave the exquisite honor, as he stood beneath the cross, of caring for his mother. “Woman, behold your son... Behold, your mother” (John 19:26b, 27b).
Because of the depth of his Gospel, John is usually thought of as the eagle of theology, soaring in high regions that other writers did not enter. But the ever-frank Gospels reveal some very human traits. Jesus gave James and John the nickname, “sons of thunder.” While it is difficult to know exactly what this meant, a clue is given in two incidents.
In the first, as Matthew tells it, their mother asked that they might sit in the places of honor in Jesus’ kingdom—one on his right hand, one on his left. When Jesus asked them if they could drink the cup he would drink and be baptized with his baptism of pain, they blithely answered, “We can!” Jesus said that they would indeed share his cup, but that sitting at his right hand was not his to give. It was for those to whom it had been reserved by the Father. The other apostles were indignant at the mistaken ambition of the brothers, and Jesus took the occasion to teach them the true nature of authority: “...[W]hoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:27-28).
On another occasion the “sons of thunder” asked Jesus if they should not call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable Samaritans, who would not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem. But Jesus “turned and rebuked them” (see Luke 9:51-55).
On the first Easter, Mary Magdalene “ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, ‘They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him’” (John 20:2). John recalls, perhaps with a smile, that he and Peter ran side by side, but then “the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first” (John 20:4b). He did not enter, but waited for Peter and let him go in first. “Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed” (John 20:8).
John was with Peter when the first great miracle after the Resurrection took place—the cure of the man crippled from birth—which led to their spending the night in jail together. The mysterious experience of the Resurrection is perhaps best contained in the words of Acts: “Observing the boldness of Peter and John and perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men, they [the questioners] were amazed, and they recognized them as the companions of Jesus” (Acts 4:13).
The evangelist wrote the great Gospel, the letters and the Book of Revelation. His Gospel is a very personal account. He sees the glorious and divine Jesus already in the incidents of his mortal life. At the Last Supper, John’s Jesus speaks as if he were already in heaven. It is the Gospel of Jesus’ glory.
Comment:
It is a long way from being eager to sit on a throne of power or to call down fire from heaven to becoming the man who could write: “The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16).
Quote:
A persistent story has it that John’s “parishioners” grew tired of his one sermon, which relentlessly emphasized: “Love one another.” Whether the story is true or not, it has basis in John’s writing. He wrote what may be called a summary of the Bible: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)
(This entry appears in the print edition of Saint of the Day.)
End of year 2007 Blog
I am not nearly as smart as St. Thomas Aquinas. But in my conceit, I like to think I have some of the same kind of smartness. Of course we differ widely in the areas where he shows his homophobia (and that is in anything sexual).
But how might St. Thomas Aquinas and I be a little similar? He wrote all those philosophy books in Latin which in my day, and for centuries, Roman Catholic seminarians had to study in Latin. But where did he get all that philosophy? He never pretended to invent it all. He got it mostly from Aristotle.
So what did he do? He is known as a great synthesizer. He “baptized” the thought of Aristotle. He synthesized it with St. Augustine (who synthesized Plato) and Christian thinking up to his time, but he kept it distinctively Aristotelian.
Now what do I do? In my simple way, I build my teachings on the writings, the philosophy, the theology of modern thinkers who challenge sex-negative theology and have evolved sensible teaching on sex-positive approaches. I synthesize them, put their ideas into simple language that I and my friends can understand, with a sex-positive outlook for us ordinary LGBT people.
There are mind-boggling, hard to read, scholarly, irrefutable arguments and books on justice and rights and religious freedom for LGBT people. These books quote sources, academic publications, learned thinkers. But they are hard to read and understand. I pounce on them with a Ph.D. and try to find the meaning. Then I ponder how can I restate these very important and valuable thoughts in words I can understand and my LGBT friends can understand.
At the beginning of the millennium I got off to a start by restating ordinary sex-positive theology in ordinary everyday language for us everyday LBGT people. I wrote a series of columns, “Sex and Salvation,” which were published in a popular gay and lesbian news and information magazine, ManilaOut. Some of the columns are reprinted in my website, and I get feedback from all around the world that this synthesizing (my word) is helpful.
The great internationally known theologian, Norman Pittenger, was a spokesperson for Process Theology. He was also a very effective in his simple communication in other full length books on love and sexuality. In his books and in person, he was my first, and forever best, mentor on the simple beauty of love and sexuality. Author of more than 100 theology books, he gave us books on love and sexuality which are models of simplicity and effective communication.
Already when I was a seminarian, Fr. James Bender, now a missionary in South America for more than half a century, was my personal editor and mentor for my youthful ventures into publication. “Keep the sentences short,” was pr0bably his most valuable legacy to me.
I have had a book in our LGBT library for many years by Barry Adam, “The Survival of Domination: Inferiorization and Everyday Life.” It is a very powerful study of the inferiorization of Blacks, Jews, and Gay Men in America.
That calls for my gift of synthesizing. This week I have been trying to read and understand an excellent and profoundly abstruce book which links religious homophobia with race and gender prejudice. It links them all together with a theory of “moral slavery.” Of course, I immediately thought of Adams’ study of the inferiorzation of Blacks, Jews, and Gay Men. Moral Slavery and inferiorization. I thought, “It will be interesting to see what the ‘moral slavery’ theory of the new book will add to the ‘inferiorization’ theory of Adam.”
The new book is authored by Professor David Richards, “Identity and the Case for Gay Rights.” It arrived in December 2007 with the new shipment of books from George and Ryan for the George DiCarlo-Ryan Reyes LGBT Library of the Philippines. It has been “on the market” since the millennium came in, but only now has it reached me. In three very scholarly chapters, he examines “moral slavery” in race, gender, and religion.
I was intrigued by the very words. I hated the idea of “moral slavery,” but the words set my mind to synthesizing. In race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation certain people have been subjected to moral slavery.
We are bound and chained to the enforced ideas of certain people who have controlled the thinking of the masses. Even before reading the book, I was filled with ideas.
In my first peep into the book, I found that Professor Richards strikes a blow at the effect of moral slavery upon the conscience. It annihilates conscience. Moral slavery replaces conscience.
Those who would dictate “what” our conscience “should” decide contradict their own definition of conscience which, for Christians, is Christian Moral Judgment. When moral slavery dictates what the judgment must be, it destroys conscience. There is no judgment.
For example, “No condoms” already condemns the father and mother trying to decide what is right for them when they cannot feed, clothe, or send to school the children they already have. A conscience that is not free to decide is not conscience; it is moral slavery.
When couples come to prepare for a same-sex wedding, I ask them, “What do you say when somebody tells you your love is a sin?” Nowadays, contrasted with 16 years ago, the answers usually indicate some sort of “common sense conscience.” I spend some time with them offering premises for the conscience judgment. This helps them shake off the dictates of “moral slavery,” which not only gives then premises, but dictates the judgment. Any judgment needs “premises” or data on which to base the judgment, but if the premise is the conclusion, there is no conscience. There is moral slavery.
In his well-researched book, Richards documents that conscience is a universal human right. Repudiation of the right to conscience is therefore indeed a moral slavery that violates a fundamental and inalienable human right.
Every person in every moral situation has to decide what is right or wrong. If the answer, the judgment is pre-cast in concrete, there is no conscience, only moral slavery. Take a look at: “no masturbation,” ”no condoms,” “no sex outside of heterosexual marriage to make babies,” “no sex ever in any way in your whole life if you are given a same-sex orientation.” These pronouncements already constitute the answer, the judgment, a slavery, which is not freedom of conscience.
I am still trying to synthesize freedom of conscience with a very interesting basic teaching of my current mentor, Bishop James Burch: the answer is within. A sample he offers: “It is so intimately close, closer than anything that can be spoken. It is alive as the stillness in the core of your being, too close to be described, too close to be objectified, too close to be known in the usual way of knowledge. The truth of who you are is yours already.”
Every person has the right to the answer within. Conscience leads us to the answer within.
Well, in conclusion for today, if 10 people out of the 1000’s who receive this blog, email me, “More, more!” I will write more about what author Richards has to say on this very interesting subject. He got me going just by some of his key words.
In Friendship,
Richard
But how might St. Thomas Aquinas and I be a little similar? He wrote all those philosophy books in Latin which in my day, and for centuries, Roman Catholic seminarians had to study in Latin. But where did he get all that philosophy? He never pretended to invent it all. He got it mostly from Aristotle.
So what did he do? He is known as a great synthesizer. He “baptized” the thought of Aristotle. He synthesized it with St. Augustine (who synthesized Plato) and Christian thinking up to his time, but he kept it distinctively Aristotelian.
Now what do I do? In my simple way, I build my teachings on the writings, the philosophy, the theology of modern thinkers who challenge sex-negative theology and have evolved sensible teaching on sex-positive approaches. I synthesize them, put their ideas into simple language that I and my friends can understand, with a sex-positive outlook for us ordinary LGBT people.
There are mind-boggling, hard to read, scholarly, irrefutable arguments and books on justice and rights and religious freedom for LGBT people. These books quote sources, academic publications, learned thinkers. But they are hard to read and understand. I pounce on them with a Ph.D. and try to find the meaning. Then I ponder how can I restate these very important and valuable thoughts in words I can understand and my LGBT friends can understand.
At the beginning of the millennium I got off to a start by restating ordinary sex-positive theology in ordinary everyday language for us everyday LBGT people. I wrote a series of columns, “Sex and Salvation,” which were published in a popular gay and lesbian news and information magazine, ManilaOut. Some of the columns are reprinted in my website, and I get feedback from all around the world that this synthesizing (my word) is helpful.
The great internationally known theologian, Norman Pittenger, was a spokesperson for Process Theology. He was also a very effective in his simple communication in other full length books on love and sexuality. In his books and in person, he was my first, and forever best, mentor on the simple beauty of love and sexuality. Author of more than 100 theology books, he gave us books on love and sexuality which are models of simplicity and effective communication.
Already when I was a seminarian, Fr. James Bender, now a missionary in South America for more than half a century, was my personal editor and mentor for my youthful ventures into publication. “Keep the sentences short,” was pr0bably his most valuable legacy to me.
I have had a book in our LGBT library for many years by Barry Adam, “The Survival of Domination: Inferiorization and Everyday Life.” It is a very powerful study of the inferiorization of Blacks, Jews, and Gay Men in America.
That calls for my gift of synthesizing. This week I have been trying to read and understand an excellent and profoundly abstruce book which links religious homophobia with race and gender prejudice. It links them all together with a theory of “moral slavery.” Of course, I immediately thought of Adams’ study of the inferiorzation of Blacks, Jews, and Gay Men. Moral Slavery and inferiorization. I thought, “It will be interesting to see what the ‘moral slavery’ theory of the new book will add to the ‘inferiorization’ theory of Adam.”
The new book is authored by Professor David Richards, “Identity and the Case for Gay Rights.” It arrived in December 2007 with the new shipment of books from George and Ryan for the George DiCarlo-Ryan Reyes LGBT Library of the Philippines. It has been “on the market” since the millennium came in, but only now has it reached me. In three very scholarly chapters, he examines “moral slavery” in race, gender, and religion.
I was intrigued by the very words. I hated the idea of “moral slavery,” but the words set my mind to synthesizing. In race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation certain people have been subjected to moral slavery.
We are bound and chained to the enforced ideas of certain people who have controlled the thinking of the masses. Even before reading the book, I was filled with ideas.
In my first peep into the book, I found that Professor Richards strikes a blow at the effect of moral slavery upon the conscience. It annihilates conscience. Moral slavery replaces conscience.
Those who would dictate “what” our conscience “should” decide contradict their own definition of conscience which, for Christians, is Christian Moral Judgment. When moral slavery dictates what the judgment must be, it destroys conscience. There is no judgment.
For example, “No condoms” already condemns the father and mother trying to decide what is right for them when they cannot feed, clothe, or send to school the children they already have. A conscience that is not free to decide is not conscience; it is moral slavery.
When couples come to prepare for a same-sex wedding, I ask them, “What do you say when somebody tells you your love is a sin?” Nowadays, contrasted with 16 years ago, the answers usually indicate some sort of “common sense conscience.” I spend some time with them offering premises for the conscience judgment. This helps them shake off the dictates of “moral slavery,” which not only gives then premises, but dictates the judgment. Any judgment needs “premises” or data on which to base the judgment, but if the premise is the conclusion, there is no conscience. There is moral slavery.
In his well-researched book, Richards documents that conscience is a universal human right. Repudiation of the right to conscience is therefore indeed a moral slavery that violates a fundamental and inalienable human right.
Every person in every moral situation has to decide what is right or wrong. If the answer, the judgment is pre-cast in concrete, there is no conscience, only moral slavery. Take a look at: “no masturbation,” ”no condoms,” “no sex outside of heterosexual marriage to make babies,” “no sex ever in any way in your whole life if you are given a same-sex orientation.” These pronouncements already constitute the answer, the judgment, a slavery, which is not freedom of conscience.
I am still trying to synthesize freedom of conscience with a very interesting basic teaching of my current mentor, Bishop James Burch: the answer is within. A sample he offers: “It is so intimately close, closer than anything that can be spoken. It is alive as the stillness in the core of your being, too close to be described, too close to be objectified, too close to be known in the usual way of knowledge. The truth of who you are is yours already.”
Every person has the right to the answer within. Conscience leads us to the answer within.
Well, in conclusion for today, if 10 people out of the 1000’s who receive this blog, email me, “More, more!” I will write more about what author Richards has to say on this very interesting subject. He got me going just by some of his key words.
In Friendship,
Richard
Blog Continues
Introduction
I don’t know much about the technicalities of blogging. But I can now continue my own type of blogging, after a period of interruption.
Lipat Bahay
Due to financial constraints, we found it necessary to move (lipat bahay as it is called in the Philippines). That sure disrupted things for awhile.
Pneumonia
Unknown to me too, I had pneumonia during the physical labor of the moving. So when we finally got settled, the double pneumonia hit with a double whammy and put me in bed for a week and on limited physical activity for another period of time.
The Garden
Then trying to get things straightened out was another task that had to be done. Our friend Jessie (from Dumagette and Saudi) was visiting, and he helped tremendously designing and setting up the transferred garden so tastefully.
I continued to amuse myself not so strenuously making little planters of assorted decorative plants which I have placed all around, inside and out.
Encyclopedia
Academically speaking, I have been doing some work on a new world wide LGBT encyclopedia. I have been working on the Philippine LGBT entry with some teachers from the University of the Philippines.
My 79th birthday
When it was time for my 79th birthday on November 12th, things had calmed down a bit, and Simon invited a dozen family members and personal friends for a quiet lunch in our screened-in porch and meeting room which is surrounded by trees and our garden. It turned out to be an all-afternoon time of fun and talk and laughter (with some people dropping in who got word that something was going on.) There was a cake, a small one, to add to the apritada (delicious Filipino dish of chicken and vegetables in a special tomato sauce) Simon made, the deviled eggs I made, and the goodies brought by the others. Unlike my 75th surprise birthday party which Simon pulled off, there were not 75 people who brought 75 cakes. (We are saving the big party for the 95th.)
Computer crash
In the mean time my computer has crashed, and I am using Simon’s. But all my files are, of course, on my hard disc. That means some very important files are inaccessible.
Therefore the additional items I wanted to share today are put on hold, until I can get my computer fixed I am gradually getting things in order financially. The last water bill came yesterday for the old house. It was P687, and that’s the end of that. It’s the staggering unpaid electric bill there which is still hounding me, but I hope something happens that I can get that taken care of in December.
2007 December Pride March
The Task Force Pride Network, which we have belonged to since its beginning in 1999, is holding their annual December LGBT Pride March on December 8. Details are on the TFP Task Force Price Website. Pro Gay Philippines continues to hold an annual LGBT Pride march in June, since our first one in June 1994, the first in Asia.
Gay priests
Chanel 7, as one of the two top national networks, wanted to interview me on one of their popular news programs last week. The topic was “Gay Priests.” They wanted me to appear with a local gay Roman Catholic priest. And they wanted me to put them in touch with a local gay Roman Catholic priest. Of course, there are many. But I told the producer, “You want me to break the seal of confidentiality?” They said they would call me when they found a gay priest they could interview along with me. I told them that that would not happen, that they would not find any priest willing to do that. I explained to them that being an openly gay priest is the same as resigning from the active priesthood. Such a priest would be taken out of active ministry immediately. Of course they did not call me back; they did not have the show.
Prejudice
Prejudice, indeed, is the hallmark of the church when it comes to almost anything sexual (except producing children in holy wedlock). The sexual prejudice of the church, of course applies to gay priests, but it spills over into society. That is why, for example, the Republic of the Philippines is the only nation in the world which does not have divorce. I do not promote divorce, but the facts of human life are demonstrated in that every country in the world bigger than the Island of Malta recognizes the human need for legal separation because of the reality of human nature.
Prejudice and discrimination is subtly and sometimes not so subtly found throughout society with reference to LGBT issues. Still, all too often, couples come for a Holy Union, and they insist in hushed tones that it be “discreet,” or “very private, “ or “strictly confidential.” I, of course, would always honor that. The issue is why it is necessary for them to feel that way. What prejudice are they afraid to face? What discrimination do they fear?
Persecution
People ask me if I am ever “persecuted” by the church? I tell them that stories get back to me about discriminatory remarks made by priests and even bishops. A few years ago, a page one news story in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the leading English daily, named me, that priest who solemnizes same-sex unions, in a derogatory comment from the archbishop, accusing, falsely, an active Roman Catholic priest of collaborating with me. (It turned out to be another man, a “white” Roman priest.).
LGBT Library
Back here, today, we are waiting for another shipment of LGBT books and resource materials. The balikbayan box is on the way from George and Ryan in New Jersey. Its contents will be added to the hundreds of other volumes and resource items they have sent over the last several years for the George DiCarlo-Ryan Reyes LGBT Library of the Philippines (my title, not theirs). Added to my original rather extensive collection, these box loads from George and Ryan make an impressive LGBT library.
Today that entire collection sits in a special room in boxes – from the move. But we have no resources for the challenging job of getting it out of boxes, setting up shelves, and displaying the materials so university students and LGBT people can continue to benefit from them. We are hoping that a local drive to raise funds for the library will be successful and make it possible to get the library back in “operation.” It’s not just taking them out of boxes and putting them on shelves. It’s classifying and properly shelving them, so I can’t just hire help from next door. It requires some know-how and for me to be with them (as I am the custodian of the classifying system for this specialized library). Pray that our local fund raising drive will be successful for this.
A Phenomenon
A phenomenon has hit us that has changed us (us and the Philippines) gradually over the last several years, subtly at first, but very noticeably now. Jobs and especially good-paying jobs are hard for many people to come by in this country, even educated people. (Doctors even become nurses to make more money in the United States as nurses,,,)
The phenomenon is the call center “industry.” It has boosted our economy, made well-paying jobs available to thousands of well-educated people. Teachers, even professors, leave their classrooms to get double the pay working nights taking calls from the United States (or some “developed” country). People who leave for work at 10 or 11 at night cannot attend evening meetings. People who work at night have their metabolism turned upside down, and many find, if not physical ailments, psychological impairment for their lifestyle as they had known it. Call centers have changed this nation. This has hit many of the NGO’s, non-government organizations. It has changed the membership rosters and attendance at many of the organizations in our LGBT networks. In our case we noticed that when fifty of our sixty-nine Gay Men’s Support Group (GMSG) members got jobs in call centers, our weekly attendance dropped from 20 to 10, and, when some of the leaders finally succumbed to the call to call center money, we were devastated even more. Who can blame people for wanting and getting jobs that pay better than almost all other jobs (for educated and talented people)?
Conclusion
And those are some of the things that are happening in the Republic of the Philippines (not to mention rebellions in hotels) in the 79th year of this 16 year missionary to the Philippines. A time for re-thinking, a time for redirected work and action to bring God’s people the comfort of knowing God’s unbounded, unlimited, unconditional offer of friendship.
Do you have any ideas, any advice? saintaelred@gmail.com
God is Friendship. (St. Aelred)
I don’t know much about the technicalities of blogging. But I can now continue my own type of blogging, after a period of interruption.
Lipat Bahay
Due to financial constraints, we found it necessary to move (lipat bahay as it is called in the Philippines). That sure disrupted things for awhile.
Pneumonia
Unknown to me too, I had pneumonia during the physical labor of the moving. So when we finally got settled, the double pneumonia hit with a double whammy and put me in bed for a week and on limited physical activity for another period of time.
The Garden
Then trying to get things straightened out was another task that had to be done. Our friend Jessie (from Dumagette and Saudi) was visiting, and he helped tremendously designing and setting up the transferred garden so tastefully.
I continued to amuse myself not so strenuously making little planters of assorted decorative plants which I have placed all around, inside and out.
Encyclopedia
Academically speaking, I have been doing some work on a new world wide LGBT encyclopedia. I have been working on the Philippine LGBT entry with some teachers from the University of the Philippines.
My 79th birthday
When it was time for my 79th birthday on November 12th, things had calmed down a bit, and Simon invited a dozen family members and personal friends for a quiet lunch in our screened-in porch and meeting room which is surrounded by trees and our garden. It turned out to be an all-afternoon time of fun and talk and laughter (with some people dropping in who got word that something was going on.) There was a cake, a small one, to add to the apritada (delicious Filipino dish of chicken and vegetables in a special tomato sauce) Simon made, the deviled eggs I made, and the goodies brought by the others. Unlike my 75th surprise birthday party which Simon pulled off, there were not 75 people who brought 75 cakes. (We are saving the big party for the 95th.)
Computer crash
In the mean time my computer has crashed, and I am using Simon’s. But all my files are, of course, on my hard disc. That means some very important files are inaccessible.
Therefore the additional items I wanted to share today are put on hold, until I can get my computer fixed I am gradually getting things in order financially. The last water bill came yesterday for the old house. It was P687, and that’s the end of that. It’s the staggering unpaid electric bill there which is still hounding me, but I hope something happens that I can get that taken care of in December.
2007 December Pride March
The Task Force Pride Network, which we have belonged to since its beginning in 1999, is holding their annual December LGBT Pride March on December 8. Details are on the TFP Task Force Price Website. Pro Gay Philippines continues to hold an annual LGBT Pride march in June, since our first one in June 1994, the first in Asia.
Gay priests
Chanel 7, as one of the two top national networks, wanted to interview me on one of their popular news programs last week. The topic was “Gay Priests.” They wanted me to appear with a local gay Roman Catholic priest. And they wanted me to put them in touch with a local gay Roman Catholic priest. Of course, there are many. But I told the producer, “You want me to break the seal of confidentiality?” They said they would call me when they found a gay priest they could interview along with me. I told them that that would not happen, that they would not find any priest willing to do that. I explained to them that being an openly gay priest is the same as resigning from the active priesthood. Such a priest would be taken out of active ministry immediately. Of course they did not call me back; they did not have the show.
Prejudice
Prejudice, indeed, is the hallmark of the church when it comes to almost anything sexual (except producing children in holy wedlock). The sexual prejudice of the church, of course applies to gay priests, but it spills over into society. That is why, for example, the Republic of the Philippines is the only nation in the world which does not have divorce. I do not promote divorce, but the facts of human life are demonstrated in that every country in the world bigger than the Island of Malta recognizes the human need for legal separation because of the reality of human nature.
Prejudice and discrimination is subtly and sometimes not so subtly found throughout society with reference to LGBT issues. Still, all too often, couples come for a Holy Union, and they insist in hushed tones that it be “discreet,” or “very private, “ or “strictly confidential.” I, of course, would always honor that. The issue is why it is necessary for them to feel that way. What prejudice are they afraid to face? What discrimination do they fear?
Persecution
People ask me if I am ever “persecuted” by the church? I tell them that stories get back to me about discriminatory remarks made by priests and even bishops. A few years ago, a page one news story in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the leading English daily, named me, that priest who solemnizes same-sex unions, in a derogatory comment from the archbishop, accusing, falsely, an active Roman Catholic priest of collaborating with me. (It turned out to be another man, a “white” Roman priest.).
LGBT Library
Back here, today, we are waiting for another shipment of LGBT books and resource materials. The balikbayan box is on the way from George and Ryan in New Jersey. Its contents will be added to the hundreds of other volumes and resource items they have sent over the last several years for the George DiCarlo-Ryan Reyes LGBT Library of the Philippines (my title, not theirs). Added to my original rather extensive collection, these box loads from George and Ryan make an impressive LGBT library.
Today that entire collection sits in a special room in boxes – from the move. But we have no resources for the challenging job of getting it out of boxes, setting up shelves, and displaying the materials so university students and LGBT people can continue to benefit from them. We are hoping that a local drive to raise funds for the library will be successful and make it possible to get the library back in “operation.” It’s not just taking them out of boxes and putting them on shelves. It’s classifying and properly shelving them, so I can’t just hire help from next door. It requires some know-how and for me to be with them (as I am the custodian of the classifying system for this specialized library). Pray that our local fund raising drive will be successful for this.
A Phenomenon
A phenomenon has hit us that has changed us (us and the Philippines) gradually over the last several years, subtly at first, but very noticeably now. Jobs and especially good-paying jobs are hard for many people to come by in this country, even educated people. (Doctors even become nurses to make more money in the United States as nurses,,,)
The phenomenon is the call center “industry.” It has boosted our economy, made well-paying jobs available to thousands of well-educated people. Teachers, even professors, leave their classrooms to get double the pay working nights taking calls from the United States (or some “developed” country). People who leave for work at 10 or 11 at night cannot attend evening meetings. People who work at night have their metabolism turned upside down, and many find, if not physical ailments, psychological impairment for their lifestyle as they had known it. Call centers have changed this nation. This has hit many of the NGO’s, non-government organizations. It has changed the membership rosters and attendance at many of the organizations in our LGBT networks. In our case we noticed that when fifty of our sixty-nine Gay Men’s Support Group (GMSG) members got jobs in call centers, our weekly attendance dropped from 20 to 10, and, when some of the leaders finally succumbed to the call to call center money, we were devastated even more. Who can blame people for wanting and getting jobs that pay better than almost all other jobs (for educated and talented people)?
Conclusion
And those are some of the things that are happening in the Republic of the Philippines (not to mention rebellions in hotels) in the 79th year of this 16 year missionary to the Philippines. A time for re-thinking, a time for redirected work and action to bring God’s people the comfort of knowing God’s unbounded, unlimited, unconditional offer of friendship.
Do you have any ideas, any advice? saintaelred@gmail.com
God is Friendship. (St. Aelred)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)