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