A Little Catching Up; a Forum at MCC Quezon City

So much has been going on in my little world that I have been pulled away from one of the things I like to do best – writing. On August 1 we moved (lipat bahay) from Quezon City to Pasig, to a much smaller dwelling, beginning the process of getting unneeded “things” out of my house and life, as I face the prospect of not living on this earth forever. Since then one “distraction” has been trying to adjust to living in much reduced space.




On September 5, I joined MCC Philippines (Manila, Makati) in the festive celebration of their 19th anniversary since our first service on September 7, 1991, when I arrived authorized to bring MCC Philippines into God-praising existence. In the anniversary celebration I observed 50-some Spirit-filled LGBT Christians worshipping wholeheartedly as MCC has done through many pastoral leaders every Sunday since that first service 19 years ago. I understand joyful photos have been posted on Facebook.



On August 28, I had an interesting experience at a Forum at MCC Quezon City, hosted by Rev. Ceejay Agbayani. (MCC Quezon City celebrated its 4th anniversary in early September. MCC Baguio is bringing the worship and message of MCC to people of the North under the spiritual guidance of seminarian Myke Sotero).



The Forum was more exciting because the 50 some people in attendance kept it going for several hours with comments after the presentations by me, Attorney Germaine Leonin, Oscar Atadero, and Prof Eric Manlastas.



It’s been more than 15 years now since Oscar worked with us at MCC Manila and Pro Gay Philippines to mobilize the first Gay and Lesbian Pride March in the Philippines on June 26, 1994 (the 25th anniversary of Stonewall). That turned out to be the first such LGBT march in Asia. Our focus that year, 1994, was to join the family of LGBT-alert nations around the world who celebrated the goodness and joy of being LGBT and beginning the quest for our LGBT rights. I attended a discussion hosted by Pro Gay at that time and the discussion was mostly about the pertinent topic: it’s time for the Philippines to stand up (march) and be counted.



This year, on August 28, I was overwhelmed by the savvy, shall I call it LGBT sophistication, in the forum discussion. Now it was a specific focused LGBT right that was being discussed in depth, the right to equal marriage.



Here I will share the presentation which the organizers asked me to make. I wish I had the ability and authorization to share the other brilliant presentations.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



”The Metropolitan Community Church of Quezon City would like to invite you to be our resource speaker on the topic



PP1 {PP is an abbreviation for Power Point]

“What does the Bible say about same-sex marriage?”

________________________

for our forum entitled, “When Two Men/Two Women Unite: Prospects of Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippines” on August 28 Saturday 7pm at the MCCQC-LGBT Center 3/F 56 Mindanao Avenue, Project 6, Quezon City.



PP1

Speaker: Bishop Richard R. Mickley,

Catholic Diocese of One Spirit, Philippines,

Founder MCC in the Philippines



Good evening beautiful people. I read in the Inquirer, “Where else can you find a land as beautiful as her people and a people as warm as her climate?” And I added where else will you find three of the 10 largest malls in the world in one city?

___________________________________________________

“The forum aims to provide participants with a basic understanding of the religious, historical and legal aspects and perspectives for same-sex marriage in the Philippines, as well as gather experiences and testimonies on the struggle for same-sex marriage.”

____________________________________________________-

PP2 Assigned Objectives



1.Establish and clarify

Religious/spiritual issues re

Same-sex marriage.



2.Clarify if RC opposition

has basis or not.



The speaker’s mandate is summarized, “We hope your presentation can help establish and clarify the religious/spiritual issues over same-sex marriage. “The objective of the first speaker is to clarify whether mainstream religious view against same-sex union has basis or not –since opposition comes mainly from the Roman Catholic Church.”



_______________________________

“What does the Bible say about same sex marriage?



“When Two Men/Two Women Unite”



“Clarify religious/spiritual issues in same sex marriage”

______________________________________________





At first I thought the topic was a dead end. Since there is nothing in the Bible about same sex marriage, I thought the topic would lead nowhere. But if you look at all the subjects mentioned in the Title and Objectives, you realize there is a lot of explaining to do.



Let’s go back in history and attack the challenge of the title. “What does the Bible say about same sex marriage?”



PP3

What is “Marriage”?



In order to discuss “marriage” in the Bible, we have to have a definition of just what marriage is. When you think of marriage, do you think of Aga and Charlene in the “Wedding of the year,” in a romantic story book, beautiful love story.



But that is not what marriage always is. Through the ages of history, it has often been more of a legal contract with little or no love and romance, with arranged marriages and marriages of convenience quite common.



In the Philippines we have church weddings (in church), and we have civil weddings in a judge or mayor’s office.



I went with a heterosexual couple to a judge’s chamber for their civil marriage. It can best be described in these few words: The Judge asks, “Do you want to be married?” They each say. “I do.” The judge says, “Sign here; pay over there.”



My friend, Father Paul, in California, recently penned some insights on marriage which will be helpful for us. He went to the local government office where “people apply for marriage licenses and obtain marriage certificates.” He writes, “I did not see any reference whatsoever to marriage being a sacrament or for time and eternity (as the Mormons say). I saw no requirement for adherence to the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, …

“Everything was about civil law and exclusively civil law. And civil law is not concerned about romance, about tear-jerking movies, about love poems and love music, …

“Civil law is not concerned about covenants, promises, rings, exchanges, or how big the wedding party is. Civil law is not concerned about sexual behaviors, proclivities, openness or closedness.



“Civil law exists to protect the economic interests of a designated family. The fundamental issue is the human right of all people to call on the resources of civil law to protect their homes and families.” End of quote.



So what is the difference? Is there one definition of marriage? The answer is no.



In the churches, including MCC, marriage does involve love. In MCC, as in the Catholic church of the first few centuries (and in the 11th century), you find same sex union, which are called Holy Union in both MCC and the early Catholic Church.



In short, in the early church, John Boswell, the noted historian, tells us, if a boy and girl wanted to get married, they went to city hall. If a priest or a male-male or female-female couple wanted to be united, they had their ceremony in the church.



There was no Bible prohibition of same-sex unions. Priests routinely “took a wife.” And boys and girls who wanted to be married went to city hall.





PP4

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

says that marriage is

for the good of the spouses

and the procreation of children.



So the definition of marriage is not the same everywhere. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines marriage as a sacrament

__________________________________________________

ARTICLE 7

THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

________________________________________________________________

. But that definition does not apply to anybody but Catholics.

So you can see, without even talking about the arranged marriages throughout history, this whole thing about marriage and unions is not a simple exploration.



So let’s look at our own country. In MCC we have Holy Union. In City hall and in the churches we have marriage. But the marriage in church and the marriage in the judges’ chambers are different. Let’s take a look at this representation of the difference in general in the Philippines, not counting the allowance of polygamy in Mindanao.



PP5

MARRIAGE HOLY UNION

!!! !!!

ARE THE SAME IN:



Love,



VOWS,



COMMITMENT,



WEDDING





MARRIAGE HOLY Union

!!! !!!

ARE DIFFERENT IN:



--GENDER TEST --NO M-F TEST

MALE-FEMALE.

--MUST OBEY --FAM CODE

FAMILY CODE NOT APPL.

--MARRIAGE --BETWEEN

LICENSE Two & GOD

--REGISTERED --NOT Reg

WITH GOV. with Gov

--LEGALLY --MORALLY

BINDING BINDING

--NO DIVORCE





Last year I was invited to a nationally televised talk show on marriage and divorce, hosted by a lawyer.



He opened by saying, “Now tell me, Reverend, about these same sex marriages you have.”



I replied, “Sir we do not have any same sex marriages in the Philippines. You are a lawyer, Sir, and you know that the law. The Family Code defines marriage in the Philippines as between a male and a female.

____________________________________________-

How does the Family Code define marriage?



Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.



Then the qualiications include:



What are the essential requisites of marriage?



No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:



(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and

(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

___________________________________________________________



Then the lawyer-host backed down a little and asked, “Then what do you have?”



I replied, “Sir, we have Holy Union.” And I explained what that is. And he exclaimed, “Oh, I see, you change the name.”



That was my cue to remark, “Sir, I see that you are discussing Divorce also in your show today. You and I and everybody knows that the Catholic Church hates divorce and forbids its members to separate by divorce, in fact it does not even allow anybody, Catholic or not, in the Philippines to have divorce.” He agreed. I continued, “But, sir, is it not also true, that if you pay enough money in fees, you can obtain a separation under a different name – which we all know as annulment, which is quite all right with the church? We change the name to unite people. They change the name to separate people.” He calmly remarked, “You have a point there.”



Nobody has suggested that “changing the name” is in any way illegal.



That custom seems to have started in the early church. So where did the opposition to same sex unions come from?



Before we look at that, I want to say that I join the majority of LGBT leaders in our country who do not advocate activism for same sex marriage in the Philippines.



We deserve it; we have a right to it. Judges are saying that in supreme courts throughout the world. So why do we not advocate activism for it?



Let me illustrate by an example. Shortly after Stonewall, when I was national Director of Prison Ministry for MCC in the United States, I wrote a book which contained the advice that prisoners should not break the rules of the prison about having sex and same sex activism. Many prisoners wrote to me, “Why not? You have marches and parades and rallies outside; why can’t we here in prison.” My answer then and now, was that they should not make life worse for themselves by breaking the rules, getting put in solitary confinement, etc.



The issue was not whether they had the “human right” to demand sex and LGBT rights. The issue was that it was harmful to make life worse for themselves. They were prisoners and subject to the laws of the prison.



PP6

In the Republic of the Philippines,

we are prisoners of homophobic

and heterosexist laws

– and, yes, they are all inspired

– and driven by the churches



– (not just the Roman Catholic Church). We indeed have to examine where prudence is the better part of wisdom. And that’s why the majority of the leaders in the LGBT community do not feel it is for our benefit – but rather for our harm – to fight for same sex marriage. Yes, we need to be informed, to strategize, but not to harm our movement by counter productive activism.



Here is an example to illustrate what is meant by counter productive. When Congresswoman Angara Castillo introduced a bill into congress a few years ago, we all agreed it was a fabulous proposed law, a courageous approach to LGBT rights in the country. It was unimaginably wonderful, an omnibus of idealistic legislation. But I had to tell her honestly that the LGBT leaders could not support it. It was too good. Almost immediately the Catholic church bishops and priests collected hundreds of thousands of signatures at Mass against the bill. And politically minded congress members saw those signatures as votes against them. That’s the power of the Catholic bishops.

There has to be a strategy, not just unplanned action. I am an activist and willing to die for our justice and rights. But there has to be a strategy.



PP7

Now back to the definition of marriage. We saw the definition of marriage in the law of the Philippines. But that is not the law of all countries. It is a matter of observation that



the people of the Philippines,

Muslims, Protestants, atheists,

as well as Catholic people

are in bondage, in chains, in slavery,

to the power of the Catholic bishops

who hold the whole country

hostage to their sex negative views.



But In Spain, another country described as a Catholic country, the legislators, unlike here, are not afraid of the Catholic bishops. In Spain the legislators granted LGBT people equal marriage rights, no gender test. I discreetly pointed that out to members of congress here in a hearing in the House.



In our country the members of congress bow and quiver in fear – that a word or campaign of the bishop will end their time in congress at the next election.



It’s a unique phenomenon here. Why is the Republic of the Philippines the only country in the world, besides the island of Malta, which does not allow its people the freedom of choice to separate by divorce? Why do we have trouble passing a Reproductive Health bill? Why will we not have an equal marriage law? The bishops won’t let us have divorce or condoms, do you think they will let us have equal marriage?.



So we have illustrated that the premise in the assignment is correct. The culprit is the church and churches. Fr. Paul made some interesting observations recently, when he wrote, “It is interesting to note that the Royal Kingdom of Spain is by culture and heritage Roman Catholic, yet it has a Socialist parliament which legalized same-sex marriage and the bishops there have not been able to overthrow it.



“The Republic of Argentina is by culture and heritage Roman Catholic, yet the parliament legalized same-sex marriage in that country in spite of the protestations of the bishops.



“Other countries in Central America are pursuing the same course. The legislative body of Mexico City has legalized same-sex marriages in the city. The supreme court of the Republic of Mexico has declared that these marriages must be recognized in each of the states of Mexico. And same-sex marriages were legalized in the Roman Catholic province of Quebec in Canada a few years ago.” End of quote.



We are familiar with the on again, off again equal marriage in California. And we continue to watch what happens there. “Courage Campaign and its\Chairman, Rick Jacobs, released a press release on the ruling that same-sex marriages may resume in California on August 18th.

“Today’s ruling means that in less than one week, equality under the law will be restored for millions of loving families across California. Lifting the stay is ultimately consistent with both legal precedent and the findings in this case.



“Specifically, that every American has a civil right to marriage, and that by depriving millions of families this right, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Judge Walker’s ruling affirms that the purpose of our judicial system is to protect our constitutional rights, not to take away those rights.” End of quote Fr. Paul adds: “it gives us all hope that the full protection of the U.S. Constitution guarantees of equal protection and due process will soon extend to all gay and lesbian Americans.



We now await the decision of the Ninth Circuit (and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court) on whether to stay the Judgment or to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California during the appeal.” End of quote



PP8

Now if you look at the definition of marriage in the



Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden,

Spain, South Africa, Canada, Argentina,

and all the countries which allow LGBT

to have legal marriage on an equal basis,

of course their definition of marriage

does not include a gender test,

a male-female requirement.

So it’s obvious such laws are made by humans,

and laws forbidding same sex love and marriage

are made by human beings too..



PP9

This is happening in our own day. Now look at the Bible. You will immediately see that The Bible is not a very good place to look for encouragement of Catholic conservative practice of marriage. One web site summarizes some Bible facts thus: “The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more.



Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines



(essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? My question is: what does one do with 1000 wives. 3 a day for a year would barely see each once a year.



PP10

Those are good questions for some other day. Today our question is,



Is there Biblical basis

for denying same-sex marriage

to same sex couples who desire it?

And the answer is NO!





So where did the church and churches get this astoundingly abhorrent sex negative attitude? The church definition virtually makes childbearing the purpose of marriage.



But in the Bible, Not one verse, not one story, not one word in the entire Bible condemns same sex love, same sex companionship, or same sex marriage. There are 5 or 6 verses (some are duplicates) that are called “clobber” verses which are said to be condemnatory and are used to try to show that the Bible condemns same sex love. These verses do not condemn our love. I present a 12 hour seminar on these verses to show the absurdity of using them to condemn our love.



PP11 I Cor 6:9 Malakoi, Arsenokoitai



Just let me give you a small sample. I Cor 6:9 gives a list of the sinners who can’t enter heaven. Most English translations say that murderers, robbers, homosexuals, etc can’t enter heaven. I have 17 English translations and most of them use some form of the word homosexual in this verse. BUT St. Paul wrote in Greek. His Greek words were malakoi and arsenokoitai.

These words do not mean homosexual.

Malakoi means soft

Nobody knows what arsenokoitai means

because St. Paul made it up

and does not define it.



SO, every translator guesses what St. Paul might have meant by using these words.



One thing we know for sure: St. Paul did not mean “the homosexuals” because that idea was not invented yet. For him to speak of “the homosexuals” would be just as impossible as for him to speak of flying in an airplane. Neither the idea of airplanes nor the idea of homosexuals was invented yet. Almost 2000 years later, In Rizal’s time, psychiatrists decided, “Ah, yes, there are some people who are constitutionally attracted to the same sex. Let’s call them ‘homosexuals.’” The only logical conclusion is that



St. Paul could not have meant,

“the murderers, robbers

and homosexuals cannot enter heaven

” It is a very wrong, unscholarly translation.



The use of the other clobber verses is also very unscholarly. Good scholars nowadays realize that. But we will save that for another seminar.



PP12

The important thing to remember

is there is no Biblical basis

for condemning LGBT love.

There is no condemnation,

no mention of same sex marriage in the Bible.



BUT, we shall see that the Bible is an embarrassing place to go for clarity about marital ethics in general.

_____________________________________

One website observes:

There are no passages in the Bible that deal directly with same-sex marriage (SSM). Like abortion access, followers of the Bible have had to develop a position on SSM by using biblical passages dealing with other, related topics:

Generally speaking:



Religious conservatives use their interpretation of the six "clobber passages" and of passages discussing opposite-sex marriage to condemn SSM.





Religious liberals use the Bible's general themes on same-sex relationships, love, and justice to argue that SSM is a human right.





PP13

I find it is better to look at the



general themes of the Bible

on same-sex relationships,

love and justice.



So, in conclusion, I like to look at the Book of Ruth and the charming love vows of Ruth and Naomi and delight in that whole book of the Bible focused on the beautiful love of two women for each other. And, regardless of how many wives King David had later, I like to read the romantic account of David’s exciting love story with Jonathan, after David defeated the giant Goliath.



I like to look at Jesus himself. First of all, the Gospel tells us eight times that Jesus had a “beloved.” And that beloved was a same-sex beloved, the one whom Jesus loved, the one who was allowed to lie with his head of Jesus’ heart, to cuddle with Jesus. Of course there is no intention to imply that the love or cuddling had any orgasmic physical sexual content. No evidence at all. But there can be no denying there was a same sex relationship with a special love. No doubt Jesus loved all 12 of his closest followers, but no doubt also that this one special one had a special place. For example, when Jesus was dying on the cross, who did he ask to take care of his Mother after he died? Yes, of course, it was his beloved, and from that moment the beloved took Jesus’ Mother into his home…



But I like to look beyond even the personal same sex love of Jesus -- to the whole ambiance of his life. Just for example, He showed his acceptance of all people, sinful or not, when he allowed a sinful woman to give him a very romantic foot massage, even drying his feet with her own hair.



Then Jesus shows this same attitude of acceptance when a Roman military officer asked Jesus to heal his gravely ill lover. (We know from the Greek word Pais that the servant was his lover, a common experience for military officers from Alexander the Great onwards.) Jesus healed the bakla with no hesitation. Surely there is enough evidence in the Gospel to show us that Jesus knew what was going on around him, and he knew he was healing a gay man.



And finally briefly to keep this narration short, Jesus saved a woman from stoning who was caught in adultery according to Leviticus 22. If Jesus saved that woman in adultery, would he not also save a man who lies with a man who also is to be stoned according to the same Leviticus 22?













PP14

In short



the whole ambiance

of Jesus’ life, love, and ministry

is acceptance, justice, common sense.



When the “rules rules rules guys,” the Pharisees, questioned Jesus about allowing his disciples to pick some grain to appease their hunger while walking through a wheat field on the Sabbath day when it was forbidden to do any work like picking grain, he told them that people were more important than rules.



Well the early church got off to a good start following what Jesus was really like, even having wedding ceremonies for same sex couples.



There were a lot of debates in the early church, about if Jesus was God and many more things that were settled in the various meetings of bishops, called Councils, notably the Council of Nicea in the year 325.



But the debate heated up in regard to sexual issues by the year 400 with the teachings, writing of many books, and influence of St. Augustine, the great doctor of the church who is revered as a foremost teacher of Christian philosophy and theology. He himself was a very sexual person in his younger years, with more than one concubine, fathering a child, etc. But after his conversion and becoming bishop of Hippo in his native North Africa, he developed a very sex negative approach to sexuality.



PP15

Augustine’s unfortunate

sex negative theology

can be summarized thus:

All sex is bad,

except for a married man and women

once a year to make a baby;

under the covers, with the clothes on;

get in there fast, make the baby fast,

get out of there fast, and don’t enjoy it.



He was a great theologian of the church and his influence had a great impact on sexual attitudes – to this day. We firmly believe, along with many theologians of today, that his sex negative theology is wrong. He is also criticized for his theology of predestination, so we know he can be wrong.



PP16

That, ladies and gentlemen, was the beginning of the massive sex negative theology in the church which has persisted through the years.



MCC and countless great thinkers and writers like Fr. McNeil and Fr Pittenger, who both have spoken to MCC General Conferences, have begun to point out to the world that





Condemning same sex love;

sex negative theology

does not come from Jesus or the Bible.

And that is the Good News

MCC continues to share with all.



In addition, I myself conduct full length seminars on sex positive theology to aid this battle which fights the forces that corrupt the true spirit of Jesus’ teachings.



PP17

Assigned objective clarified

Neiher Bible nor Jesus

Condemn same-sex love’

But the church – St. Augustine.

Popes, and Cardinal Sin

Condemn us

And influence society

To deny us human rights.



Thus, in conclusion, we have accomplished our objective, we have clarified in this short time that neither the Bible, nor Jesus condemn same sex love or unions. But the church, composed of human beings like St. Augustine, popes, and Cardinal Sin, condemns us. And because of the power of the church and the influence of the church, much of society condemns our love and love unions and denies us our human rights.



Marriage has so many definitions. Marriage might even have many wives., even in the Philippines. It can even be a commercial contract. It is subject to the whims and laws of government. So we cannot look forward to equal marriage in the Philippines.



PP18

Holy Union is always about love,

not about laws.

It is about commitment

nd making each other happy.

holy, blessed by God.



PP19

What is needed

is a radical commitment

to the real Jesus,

the Way, the Truth, the Life –

In his way,

people are more important

A Foot Massage and Cuddles

A Foot Massage and Cuddles

The Gospel tells us Jesus had a foot massage from a sinful woman and routine cuddles from his beloved.

That’s part of the Gospel message that has had its true meaning suppressed. We need teachers, preachers, ministers, priests (men and women priests) who will preach the full truth.

Year of Prayer for Priests

Today I announce the “Year of Prayer for Priests” in the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit, Philippines, the Diocese of which I have been appointed bishop. It will be a year of prayer for vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese – holy priests who will teach LGBT people in the Philippines that love, massages, cuddles are God’s gift to us all, and that happiness, holiness, and liberation from moral slavery is God’s will for all.

You are reading this because you have the potential to be a priest. As you read these semi auto biographical descriptions of how many LGBT persons are being harmed, ask yourself, or pray, am I called to be part of the solution.

I came here in 1991 to be part of the solution. I can’t be the solution alone. Even three hardworking pastors in MCC Manila, MCC Quezon City, and MCC Baguio can’t solve the situation for 9 million LGBT people of the Philippines. We need more MCC’s. We need more zealous ministers to preach the full truth of the Gospel.

The Foot Massage Gospel reading

Today’s Gospel reading is one of my favorites. Jesus got a wonderful foot massage from a sinful woman.
Luke 7:36-50

36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with Him, so He went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind Him at His feet weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39When the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, He would know who is touching Him and what kind of woman she is-that she is a sinner."
40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt cancelled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
44Then He turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven-for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Now isn’t that interesting? How do the people handle this -- the people who want to take Jesus up into some angelic bodiless state, completely free of any bodily pleasures. These were the same people who screamed bloody murder when famous theologians first taught that Jesus had a penis.

Imagine Jesus without a penis. What would be there? For God’s sake, it was God’s idea for Jesus to be a human, an “incarnation” of God, a “coming of God in the flesh.” Stupid as it is, for a half second try to imagine Jesus without a penis. It baffles the imagination. Not a hermaphrodite, not a male, not a female. What?

Of course, Jesus was fully human. He enjoyed a foot massage from a sinful woman.

Why did the Son of God need, want, or tolerate a FOOT MASSAGE? Why did he accept it from a sinful woman? Why in the world was he associating with a sinful woman? Did he hear the sneers of the Pharisees, “if he were a prophet, he would know” that this woman is a sinful woman – and should not even be in his presence. He did know. And that’s the way he was. He was fully human and he did not sneer at the sinful woman. He accepted her love and loved her in return.

Cuddle?

Did they cuddle? No, there is no account of that. She kissed his feet, but he had his cuddles with somebody else, his best friend, his beloved. Haha, you think I am writing another Da Vinci Code, and taking the fictional limelight off Mary Magdalene. No, again. I am not making up any fictional story. I am referring to something that was mentioned eight times in the Gospel, non fiction, the Gospel itself.

Eight times the Gospel refers to the “one whom Jesus loved,” the beloved disciple, the one who was allowed to lie with his head on Jesus’ chest. Now, I did not make that up. It’s the Gospel, and it sounds a lot like cuddling to me – the one who was allowed to lie with his head on the heart of Jesus.

So Jesus enjoyed a foot massage from a sinful woman and cuddles from his beloved disciple. What does that tell us about Jesus? Just that. We should not “over-interpret” it. It means that Jesus enjoyed a foot massage from a sinful woman and cuddles from the one whom he loved. And it means he was very human just like we are. And, guess what? It means it is ok to be human, to have a body, to have bodily pleasure.

Look at the other account about “Jesus and feet.”

John 13:1-17 (New International Version)

Jesus Washes His Disciples' Feet
1It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.[a]
2The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
7Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
8"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet."
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
9"Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"
10Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”

Jesus not only received a foot massage, but again showed his humanity and humility when at the Last Supper he washed one by one the feet of his 12 apostles. The significance of this is not lost. In human relationships there is a moment for receiving and a moment for giving, for love and service received and love and service given.

He graciously received the sinful woman’s love, forgave her sins and assured her she was saved. He put aside all godly attributes and showed his love to the Apostles by washing their feet.

St. Aelred and Human Divine Love

In Mirror of Love St. Aelred gives us the sublime description of a true Friend – one who gives us the great joy and consolation of affection. In short form some of the characteristics of a True Friend as described by St. Aelred are the following: One with whom I am deeply united in the bonds of love, with whom my weary spirit can find rest, to whom I may pour out my heart, whose conversation is as sweet as a song, whose presence is a harbor of calm, to whom I can lay bare all my secrets, whose spirit will give me the comforting kiss that heals all the sickness of my troubled heart, who will cry with me and rejoice with me, to whom I can turn for advice, who is so closely bound to my heart and soul that even when far away is together with me in spirit, with our souls embraced in absolute peace, our hearts united in oneness and the closet ties of love.

He gave this wonderful man to man true friend description to the 500 monks in his monastery. Notice the very bodily, very human, images in many of the lines. And then he asked, “Does it seem strange that one man should love another man in this manner? Let the love of Jesus for his beloved disciple be your model.”

Human Love is not Bodiless

So what is the point? There are those who would teach us that the further away we get from the body and human pleasure, the closer we get to Jesus. Jesus never ran from his body. Why should we believe that He Who became fully human expects us to become less human, bodiless like angels?

Why do we expend so much effort in the Center for the Study of Spirituality and Sexuality discussing, explaining, promoting “the integration of spirituality and sexuality.” Why do we teach seminars and cyber seminars on the subject? Why do we have full fledged study courses on the subject?

Well, if spirituality has anything to do with trying to be like Jesus, you have the answer. Those who pray and receive Holy Communion, and recognize God as the Leader and Light of their life can also be like Jesus who enjoyed a foot massage from a sinful woman and cuddles from his beloved. That’s a first step toward unifying (integrating, bringing together) spirituality and sexuality.

When people come to me for help with their same-sex wedding, I make sure they know that God loves them just the way they are. Jesus throughout his life story in the four Gospels never ever showed prejudice. But he sure showed a lot of love and compassion for people that other people were prejudiced against, for example the sinful woman in the Gospel story we talked about. Love and compassion was deeply ingrained in his spirituality. It can well be part of who we are, too.

The Wondeministry of MCCrful affirming
Last year I saw the following fine description of MCC ministry. I don’t know where I found it, but it does a good job of describing Jesus.

Gay-friendly Church Asks
'Would Jesus Discriminate?'

A liberal church movement has launched a new campaign designed to ask people whether Jesus would discriminate against others.

The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), which has congregations in more than 20 countries, is strongly committed to gay rights and supports same-sex marriage.

Five of its churches in Texas have produced two posters, each claiming that stories in the Bible showed Jesus did not disapprove of homosexuality.
MCC claims that verses in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 refer to a centurion who is gay, saying the word used to describe his sick servant - pais - is an ancient Greek word for same-sex partner. In the story, Jesus cured the man, which, according to MCC, shows he did not discriminate against gays.

Another verse, Acts 8:26-40, sees Philip baptizing a eunuch. MCC claims it is obvious the eunuch is gay.

A statement on the church's website says: "Throughout the history of Christianity, many religious institutions have used their interpretation of the Bible to justify discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and people with a different sexual orientation and/or identity issues.

"People of faith probably would not imagine that Jesus would discriminate, but no one has previously asked the question. Many still maintain discriminatory beliefs, not because they think it is right, but because they have never actually examined their own beliefs closely.

"This campaign asks the question and initiates the dialogue around the question: 'Would Jesus discriminate?' Our viewpoint is that discrimination was not a part of Jesus' message, nor is it part of the best of any Christian church's ministry. This campaign seeks to educate people through active dialogue and friendly discussion."




The Caring, Affirming Ministry of Bishop Burch in CDOS

Bishop James Burch of the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit, in his Seminar for Pastors, present the gruesome picture of God as God is sometimes represented by churches. Then he wonderfully describes God as God really is:

“A God who is the one that Jesus tells us about, who IS love, and who expresses God’s own Self as everything that we see and know to exist, and every human person. This God is the power that set all of the universe – God’s expression – into existence about 13.7 billion years ago, and consciously keeps it in existence at every moment of every day. This God IS love and so every expression of this God IS love. We all live within a mammoth bubble of love.

“But in this bubble which is all-love, we human beings have the great gift of free will, the wonderful gift of choice … all so that we can experience our way back to who we are. Never let go by God’s loving presence, we are, nevertheless, able to distance ourselves a little or a lot from the Wholeness of God, and for a little while or for a long while. We know that we are capable of experiencing this Wholeness of God, because we have both tasted it ourselves, and we have recognized it as completely matured in Jesus, who told us that we are just like him in nature, and will one day be just like him in experience.”

There is nonsense all around us. When it was suggested that a highly respected, popular gay man, television personality Boy Abunda, might be appointed to new President Aquino’s cabinet, these same, anti-foot massage, anti-cuddling, anti-gay people screamed bloody murder, “He’s a homosexual; he’s only a homosexual.” And, we triumphantly add, a very accomplished and successful gay man.

The injustice of society and the churches is so blatant that the By Laws of the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit explicitly condemn discrimination against LGBT people and women. “Anti-Discrimination / Loving Acceptance for ALL God’s people. Gays and lesbians are especially demonized by much of society, as anti-Christian as any practice could be. Many of our members are leaders against such human abuse. Helping women to reach innate equality in society and church is fundamental justice.”
Statement in CDOS By Laws
Bishop Burch issued a pastoral letter directly addressing justice to LGBT people. “PASTORAL LETTER
HOMOSEXUALITY
The Catholic Diocese of One Spirit
November 15, 2006
(Reissued several times in ensuing years)

(This is one in a series of pastoral letters put out by the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit. There is no obligation on the part of ordained members or others who feel themselves a part of this diocese to believe all that is written here, or in the way that it is written. This is offered by the current Coordinating Bishop of this diocese as a validly alternative Catholic Christian viewpoint, which readers may use to philosophically engage this topic.)


“Of all the arguments throughout the centuries, pro and con, regarding homosexuality, this topic is actually illuminated by one quick insight, a singular truth. So this pastoral letter is short, in order to not confuse the essential reality with scattered arguments.

“The life and teachings of Jesus was about loving and accepting all people. Jesus said not one word about homosexuality, and very little about sexual matters at all. To say the least, this was not his preoccupation. What he certainly did, however, was to bring a New Message of love, a radical turning on its head of the judgmentalism of the past, into a recognition of Divinity Within and of God's equal and unequivocal love for every human being.

“The Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, meeting a couple of years ago in Baltimore, freshly condemned homosexuality all over again, saying that it is "objectively disordered," "not [in] accord with the natural purpose of sexuality" (as though that were evident on its face), and that homosexual acts are "sinful" and "never morally acceptable." These are the same group of men who continue to tell women the details of regulating their feminine bodies. This group of overwhelmingly elderly men, who are supposed to have no contact with sexuality, also tell homosexuals that their way of life "do[es] not lead to true human happiness."

“How sad. There is another Catholic way, a "truer" Catholic way.

“God is love, according to the most fundamental teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, and so, to feel love is to experience God. Sometimes the feeling of love can be light and fleeting, sometimes passionate, sometimes rapturously consuming. But always, in some way or another, it is the experience of God, who is love. This is, then, the end of the debate about whether such experience comes from God, and whether or not God loves homosexuals and accepts their loving style. The God who gives love, loves its recipients.

“God is not much more interested in genitalia than in earlobes or elbows. God gives all things as tools for us to use to become more loving people. God is concerned with the direction of our hearts. God loves every one of us, each on our unique journey of experiencing the Divinity which infuses us with life and purpose.”


James H. Burch
Coordinating Bishop
The Catholic Diocese of One Spirit
www.OneSpiritCatholic.org
Jim@ContemporaryCatholic.org

People are Listening to Common Sense these days

I am pleased, actually thrilled, that so many people are “figuring it out” these days. Unfortunately they are not getting help from the pulpit, and probably not in the confessional. And, to tell the truth, people who have been told that God hates their sexuality (them) over and over again eventually reach the point where they feel they have heard it enough, and skip the visit to the “condemnation box.”

For years and years I was overcome with guilt every time the force of nature (hormones) brought me to the point of (almost involuntary) masturbation. The shame was overwhelming. I carried that guilt and shame till after I was forty. And then a good and wise priest helped me understand that God is not like that. God is not watching my every move to zap me into hell if I feel the pleasure of the release of nature’s own power. I can be God’s friend even if it happens.

But it took me a long time to get going in that direction. I was in my forties when I discovered it was true that I was attracted to other men (same-sex attraction). I had just learned to cope with masturbation. Now this.

That same priest who helped me deal with the biological-physiological fact of masturbation not too long after that, helped me to know that I still had the same loving, non-condemning God if I had loving attraction to and sexual pleasure with another man. What a relief!

But in my case I was not instantly cured of the effects of the guilt and shame that I suffered for so many years. It took help to realize that massages (even with happy endings) and cuddles (even with orgasm) did not make me hated by God.

It took me awhile; with the help of that good priest and my idol, Rev. Troy Perry, the founder of the gay and lesbian affirming Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in 1968, nine months before the Stonewall riots of 1969. No one person, no one institution has done more since that time to liberate LGBT people from the chains of sex negative theology. The autobiography of Rev. Perry and my close personal work and association with him (as a co-minister and friend) was a major influence in my life.

And then, much later, there were my friends, Father Norman Pittenger and Fr. John McNeill and many others. In fact it was a long while until I reached the point of not only knowing what God is really like, but also being able to help others reach that point.

We need more priests to help with that work. There are 9 million LGBT in the country’s front ranks. And so few priests and ministers who can help them know that God loves them as they are. “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

IS There Sin? What is Sinful?

Of course, it was tempting to begin to think that nothing was sin. I made many mistakes, sins, before I got the point of sorting it all out: some things are sin, and some things are not sin. I thought masturbation and making love was a sin. When I realized that was false moralizing, I still had to come around to recognize that I was still sometimes sinning.

And what was that? This is tell-all time. The biggest help I got from books at that time was in the wonderful autobiography of Rev. Perry, The Lord is My Shepherd and He knows I am Gay. That was followed by the books on sexuality written by my friend the great, internationally acclaimed theologian, Fr. Norman Pittenger. It’s another story, but it was my friendship with him that brought me to write my first book on sexuality at his urging.) (Many more great theologians and great writers, such as Fr. John McNeill (The Church and the Homosexual), have come along since then.

To make a long story short, Father Pittenger described sin as flowing from harm and force (using or abusing another person). He summed it up in one place by saying: ask yourself when dressing to go home in the morning, “Am I leaving a person whom I have loved, or a body which I have used?”

So, gradually I began to distinguish one from the other. No problem with love and pleasure. But I had to learn the hard way that there is sin and abuse and using people.

And when I, in reverse, had been used enough times, it began to sink in. There is nothing wrong with love and pleasure – if it is not selfish, one-sided, or abusive. It took me a while, with the help of studying professional ethics in my psychological training, to realize that what looks innocent, like sex with the boss, sex with the counselor, sex with the pastor, sex with those underage (in New Zealand it’s 16; other places it’s 18) constitute an abuse of power and are always wrong and potentially harmful.

[I must retell the story of the 30 year old man in New Zealand who had a “blood contract” (signed in their own blood) with a 12 year old Maori boy. It was mutual consent, yeah. I was able to get them apart, but the 30 year old would not stay away. When the 12 year old (who had sworn loyalty forever) was sixteen (the age of consent there) after being told about child molesters by his school mates, he gave the 30+ man two black eyes and a report to the police that got him arrested. I attended the trial. There was the “blood contract” for evidence, “I will be faithful to you forever…” The “consent” of the 12 year old dissipated when he reached the age of consent. I visited the 30+ many times during his six years in prison. He never learned. He kept on thinking, “I was the best thing that ever happened to that boy.” He made it seem so true that prison was the best thing that happened to him.]

When people come for a same sex wedding, we talk about what’s good and what’s bad. Love between consenting adults is not bad. Yet, there are some factors that can make even adult consenting love not good, but harmful. These might include: If there is harm, if one of them has a commitment to another person, if one is in a power situation (over the other), and if the participation is not mutually self giving.

What pleases me is that many people understand that their love is not sin, “How can love be a sin?” I love to hear that. They discovered that wonderful truth at a much earlier age than I did.

Moral Slavery

Unfortunately some people are so brainwashed that they want to cling to the “love is sin” idea. Two good go-to-church-every-Sunday and confession-every-Saturday Catholic men came for a same sex wedding. I made my usual inductive explanation that God is love and love is not a sin. They insisted their love and their wedding was a sin (because the church says so), and I sadly told them I couldn’t be part of their sin. I don’t know what became of them. Maybe they clung to their sin “till death do us part.” We call it moral slavery; they just want to cling to their sin. We call it moral slavery.

Recently two women came in. As we talked about it, the one said, “Of course it is a sin, but I love her so much…” The partner was shocked. Together we talked with her about, “How can love be a sin…if it is not harmful or forceful.” They hugged as both were finally in agreement. But the other one had a problem with her mother who definitely considered their love sinful. I taught them to be at peace with their own conscience, even if others cannot understand.

In my own story, believe me, I did not want to cling to my sin, the moral slavery type or the harming, forcing, or abusing type. I wanted to get rid of sin and enjoy massages, cuddles and sexual pleasure from making love without sin.

We don’t know what the sins were of the “sinful woman.” We are conditioned, of course, to assume that “sins” are sexual sins.

Go Away, Sexual Sin; Go Away!

In my case, in truth, my sins were sexual sins, as I was taught at that time. Even in high school (seminary) I prayed the 7 penitential Psalms every day to get freed from the “passion of the flesh,” which actually was masturbation, and it was causing me a lot of trauma, “Teenage Masturbation Trauma (TMT).” Seven Psalms or 150 Psalms; it didn’t go away. For years by church condemnation and self condemnation, I was a dirty, filthy, disgusting sexual sinner, a masturbator, no less.

That was many years before I ever knew what “homosexual” was, or had any idea that I could be one.

Masturbation made me a sexual sinner, despised by God. I knew from Romans 7 that St. Paul had some kind of sin gnawing at him. I was convinced it was the same as mine, and I was happy to see that he conquered it in Romans 8. Maybe I could. I read Romans 8 over and over. “It” did not go away. Paul was a saint; I was not, I concluded.

So, if I were to compare my self with the sinful woman, I was a sinful man. She showed her love with an elaborate foot massage ritual of service for Jesus – who surely needed it for all the walking around “doing good” he did.

In my case (another sinner) I couldn’t give him a foot massage, but I could offer and give my life to him in service. He accepted the sinful woman’s foot massage, and I am convinced today that Jesus forgives my sins (the real ones and the vestiges of the church-and-self-imposed ones) and accepts my love and service in return for his love – who first loved me.

That’s important because my mission in life is to teach each and every person with TMT or any other sexual guilt trauma that Jesus looks at them and loves them, and forgives them and assures them that their faith saves them. And that is the mission of MCC, and that is the mission of all our sex-positive priests.

The Simplicity of the Method of Jesus

Finally I realized something that made it very clear to me as I was teaching others about the unconditional love that God has for us – as shown to us over and over
again by Jesus in his life and in his parables. I came to realize that Sex Positive Theology has the answers – not in hard to understand book definitions, but in just plain down to earth common sense -- like Jesus gave us in the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus in telling the people beautiful parables.
Or, quite importantly, it dawned on me that Sex Positive Theology does just what Jesus did when he contradicted the Law as prescribed by the Pharisees (the church of his time). One website states the situation directly, “They lay heavy burdens upon the people but would not do anything to make the load lighter. Their own works were done to be observed by men rather than God.” (http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-23-jesus-condemns-scribes-and-pharisees) He never showed prejudice against marginalized people in his whole life, but he consistently resisted the laws, laws, laws and rules, rules, rules of the Pharisees.
An example of Jesus confronting the Pharisees about “working” on the Sabbath is found in Mark 2:23-28 (New International Version)
“ 23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Another website gives an interpretation of this confrontation of Jesus with the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath laws. “By implication Jesus also lends insight into the nature of the sabbath law itself. Often understood as a part of God's unchangeable "moral law," it is seen as inviolable and absolute in and of itself -- as the laws concerning other gods, idolatry, God's name, etc. Yet it would be difficult to find any exception at all for these "moral" laws, particularly an exception grounded in human concerns.16 So, far from "eternal moral law," then, Jesus seems to classify the sabbath otherwise. And it was precisely this that his legalistic opponents failed to see. The sabbath was not an end in itself, an absolute that admitted no exceptions.17 It was intended for man's benefit, his well-being. To elevate it to a place of tyranny over man is to make more of it than was intended; indeed, it would overthrow it altogether.18” (http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/sabbath1.htm
Imagine Jesus saying that about contraceptives (for a large family with no food and school money). Imagine Jesus saying that to a lesbian who says, “I know they say it is sin, but I love her so much.” What do you think Jesus would say to a boy about to go crazy of TMT. He wanted to be good, but, “I just can’t help it, and they tell me I am going straight to hell.” Would Jesus say to him…what he said to the “sinful woman,”… “Your faith has saved you…”
In the same way that Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, Sex Positive Theology departs from the sex negative theology of today’s church. Sex Positive Theology is a Jesus-like common sense alternative to sex negative misrepresentations of God and God’s will.

Yes, SPT Ain’t Everything

A member of our network asked me how I can explain our emphasis on “Sex Positive Theology. Isn’t there anything else?” That’s a question I love to hear. It’s like once in 30 years as a pastor, after I gave a sermon on prayer, a member of the parish came up to me sincerely (and knocked me figuratively off my feet) and requested, “Pastor, teach me how to pray.” The following week I began a weekly study and practice seminar on “how to pray.”

Of course there are a lot of things in theology and spirituality that may be a lot more important in the long run than Sex Positive Theology. But we start there for those people who would never get out of the “trauma” stage without defeating sex negative theology which has been holding them back all these years. It’s like trying to make your hair beautiful while ignoring a serious infection eating away at you. Get rid of the infection first. The trauma from sex negative theology is an infection.

Of course, the Gospels show Jesus spending a lot m0re time on prayer than on receiving a foot massage. But in our real world, liberation from the infection of sex negative theology has to be rooted out before we can rise above all these distractions and enter into greater bliss in our friendship with God.

And, of course, we teach Sex Positive Theology to those who are already moving right along in their friendship with God – so that they can teach it, wherever they go in their daily lives, to not only LGBT friends but to parents and relatives and neighbors, and maybe their own partner. In other words when we have moved from being the victim (of sex negative theology), we become the victor, the winner who can share the winning victorious truth with others.

Jesus came to show us what God is like. St. John, who had the wonderful privilege of lying with his head on the heart of Jesus, tells us that God is Love. Jesus describes and lives that definition throughout the Gospel. Look, for example at the beautiful parable of the prodigal son (sometimes called the parable of the Loving Father). In the simplest of terms Jesus gives us a very clear picture of what God is like. The story of the loving father of the prodigal son shows us exactly what God is like, the kind of love we get from God, our loving parent.
We all know the story. Let’s look again at the father’s joy upon his son’s return. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.[a]'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate…
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "
That story of Jesus is a very human image of what God is like, and perhaps the son is a very human image of what we humans can be like in one way or another. But more importantly the emphasis is on God – what God is like when we humans are human in the way that humans are human. God is still like the father of the prodigal son.

Sex Positive Theology can do no better than imitate the style of Jesus in teaching common sense theology in down to earth terms.

Yes, there is love; and how best to express it?

After I wrote and preached for many years that massages and cuddles are Ok, I began to realize there is an even higher level of body-spirit spirituality.

When couples come to me for their same-sex wedding, I teach them “Love’s Bottom Line.” It’s not just, “I love you,” in words. It’s, “I love you by doing this…” Some have suggested it should be called “perfect love,” because Jesus said there is no greater love than that one gives one’s life for the one who is loved. Of course Jesus demonstrated that in his death for us – whom he loves.

Now the application is that I – we – can show our love best by giving our life for our beloved (mahal).

We call it “Love’s Bottom Line” because when you take away all the immature stuff, it’s the real bottom line love that always remains. It’s the secret to the happiest relationship in the world. Massages and cuddles are wonderful, but sometimes they are mixed in with immature stuff. The next step is “giving oneself.”

How? Not on a cross. Not in an auction, but in our everyday relationship. When a disagreement is about to start, I naturally say under my breath, “How can I win?” I may have tried that and the other methods – and they don’t work. Throwing pots and pans, slamming doors, screaming, or not speaking – they don’t work.

The new formula is one that works year after year. It is Love’s Bottom Line. It’s the real proof of real love, and the best superglue for loving partners ever invented.

So, the new formula to replace “How can I win?” is Love’s Bottom Line. When a disagreement is about to become an argument, Love’s Bottom Line says, WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE MY PARTNER HAPPY? That’s it.

I get emails from all over the world telling me it works. It’s like Jesus: total self giving, giving the gift that only you can give each other – happiness to your partner day in and day out. It’s the only thing that makes sense. Perfect love makes sense. Making your partner happy makes sense. It’s the only thing that makes sense. You give up what you want (total self-giving) in order to give happiness to your partner.

We talk about giving massages and cuddles . That’s great, but the greatest, the one that works over the long haul, is the ultimate – giving ourselves for the happiness of the other. When two lovers love enough to do this, then you got “Mighty Bond.”

That way, we go from sin, real sin or imagined sin, to the sublime – a life of happiness for the other and each other.

We need, priests, ministers,
preachers of the full Good News

The Roman Catholic Church has just concluded today the “Year of the Priest,” praying for the spirituality and commitment of their priests throughout the world.

Today I announce the “Year of Prayer for Priests” in the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit, Philippines, the Diocese of which I have been ordained and appointed bishop. It will be a year of prayer for vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese – holy priests who will teach LGBT people in the Philippines that love, massages, cuddles are God’s gift to us all, and happiness , holiness, and liberation from moral slavery is God’s will for all.

The priests with new priestly vocations will join those already in adult seminary programs or cyber programs to bring love, peace, and joy to God’s beloved LGBT people in the Philippines.

Today let me just quote Rev. Leanne McCall Tigert, Coming Out Through
Fire: Surviving the Trauma of Homophobia. She speaks of "the process
each of us must go through to transform the trauma of homophobia and
heterosexism [and I would add anti-feminism]."

She speaks of the mystery of LGBT persons. "How can we continue to
love deeply and passionately when so many seek to destroy our lives?
How do we continue to care for one another and ourselves when others
are convinced we are not capable of really caring about anything but
sex, and are really sick and need help? How can we be such witnesses
for others who are hurting when we ourselves are fighting our
oppression? Why are we such good teachers, ministers (priests,
sisters) doctors, nurses, political activists, organizers, dancers,
writers, lovers, and workers in the midst of the traumatization of
homophobia -- that believes we are incapable of such [accomplishments]
and seek to prove our incapability?"

And I thank God that the message of God’s love is being brought to more and more people in MCC Manila, MCC Quezon City, MCC Baguio – and through the seminars and courses in Sex Positive Theology and the Integration of Spirituality and Sexuality which we provide through the Center for the Study of Spirituality and Sexuality.

Sex Positive Theology is not the bottom line of Christian spirituality, of what it means to enjoy the glorious freedom of the children of God. Sex positive Theology, which we teach in cyber seminars, sets LGBT people free from the obstacles to the full joy of living in friendship with God and each other.

You can be an instrument of bringing this peace, love, and joy to LGBT people as a priest or minister. Man. Woman, gay, lesbian, transgender – you will know in your prayers if God is calling you. You can be a priest and keep your job, your career, your life partner (mahal).

Some people spend their whole life in selfishness. If you are one with a desire to help others, pray to know if God is calling you.

You are welcome to ask questions. Send me an email. Pour out any question on your mind. Maybe you felt called to the priesthood when you were young, but it was denied to you because of your gender or gender preference. Maybe your vocation never got off the ground because of TMT. All these obstacles are gone. You can be God’s priest and minister and help LGBT people gain freedom through Sex Positive Theology and move on in the path pf holiness and Christian joy.

I will close with a thought from my fellow priest in the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit, John Chuchman, the well known spiritual writer.


The steadfast connection through it all
was/is
God.


As I let go of each stage of life,
the rewards were surprising.


Any darkness has ended up being spiritual nourishment.


My trust in God
has grown deeper
as I have been able
to turn away from myself.


Whatever did not fit into
my plan for life
seems to have fit into
God's Plan.


I have discovered
that nothing is merely an accident
or a coincidence.


My whole life
has been marked out for me
in Divine Providence
and has a complete coherent meaning
in God's Eye.


I have learned to rejoice
as the meaning
of my journey
is revealed to me
bit by bit.

This reflection is taken from John Chuchman's 2008 book,
"Spirituality & Spiritual Growth beyond Hierarchical Church", with the author's permission.

[If you have read this far, you have already completed the reading for the first section of the “Cyber Seminar on Sex Positive Theology.” Email me (saintaelred@gmail.com), and you may enroll today for the remaining portions of the Cyber seminar. After that you may enroll for the more challenging academic cyber course, “Certificate in Sex Positive Theology.” Or, you may skip the cyber seminar and enroll directly in the cyber academic Certificate Course.]

Comelec and Unharmful Loving Sex

A few days ago I offerred a summary of some of the great pro LGBT commentaries on the Internet about Comelec's rejection of Danton Remoto's Ang LadLad party list application (again).

Virtually the same day I found myself in La Funeraria Paz offering my sympathy to my longtime friend and co-activist, Danton, on the occasion of the sudden death of his mother. (Yes, I thought it was some terrible mixup. But it was his mother, this time; it was his father who had died last month. Much caring concern for you, Danton, on these two successive personal losses -- and then the Comelec iodicy, too.

This is a good time to recommend that you get to know this outstanding leader in the LGBT community, winner of the Pink Feather Award and many other honors. Check him out on the Internet.


Danton Remoto
July 6, 2009 at 9:41 am (Prof. Danton Remoto, elections)

Caption: Danton Remoto brings his pink army to the electorate. Photo by Pol Briana, Jr. Manila Bulletin
Pink Revolution: Ang Ladlad’s Danton Remoto
60 Minutes
June 28, 2009
Manila Bulletin

Will Danton Remoto be the Philippines’ answer to Harvey Milk?

Milk made history in 1977 when he became the first openly gay man elected into public office. Remoto is yet to do the same, but the impact he’s made on the Filipino lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community is certainly as impressive as Milk’s history-making feat.

Remoto, with fellow writer J. Neil Garcia, was behind the pioneering “Ladlad: An Anthology of Philippine Gay Literature.” Its effect on Filipino culture has been immense. Ladlad has gone through several editions, has resulted in the teaching of gay literature classes at the University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University, and is credited for Ang Ladlad, the partylist that Remoto formed in 2003.

“We started in September 2003 with only one mandate — to help Akbayan push the Anti-Discrimination Bill which was filed in 1999,” he says of Ang Ladlad’s beginnings. “Congress is not really against it, but they just think it is not as important. So lagi, ang mga bading, lesbians, transgender, bisexual, laging, kung baga cameo role lagi.”

Fighting for one’s rights is certainly nothing new for Remoto. With his father in the military, Remoto grew up with the belief that nobody should take any abuse lying down.

“My father was a military officer and we were trained to be amazons. Isa lang ang turo niya: You study hard; you study well at ‘pag may umaway sa inyo at umuwi kayo ng luhaan, papaluin ko kayo; you should learn to be tough and fight back,” he recalls with a laugh. “So ang nangyari ngayon, may mga pumupunta sa bahay namin na mga magulang, ‘Naku sir, ‘yang anak ninyong bading binugbog ang anak ko.’ Sabi ng tatay ko ‘Eh di, mabuti!’”

Remoto does the same fighting for the LGBT community. Whether it’s freeing hundreds of gay men being detained illegally or arguing for lesbians and transgenders who have been discriminated against for their sexual orientation, Remoto and his allies are always ready with a legal challenge and a witty retort.

“You have to show them that you will not allow this. If you show them that you will fight back, they will move away. Bullies are really cowards,” he says.

Remoto’s fight for equal rights would have reached its peak in the 2007 elections had Ang Ladlad been allowed to run as partylist, but the COMELEC refused to accredit the group, citing its lack of constituents. It is Remoto, however, who has the last laugh, as he is now planning to run for the Senate on an education platform.

“I’m running on a platform of education because I’ve been teaching for 22 years. ‘Yun talaga ‘yung alam na alam kong issue, ‘yun gay rights, kasama na ‘yan sa education.
Open-mindedness is a function of education, kasi ang tao kapag pinaaral mo, luluwag ang isip. Education is what we really need in this country,” he says.

To close June as the Pride Month, Danton Remoto lets it all out: about being gay in the Philippines, his vision for the Philippine LGBT community, and the possibility of being the country’s first openly gay senator. (RONALD S. LIM)

To continue, since my previous blog, the Internet continues to buzz with brilliant reactions to the stupid Comelec action. (I guess they have a right to "decide," but do they have the right to add ridiculing remarks to their decisions?)

I don't think I need to continue the summaries here (they are coming in from everywhere).
There is still the motion for recobnsideration to the full Comelec and the appeal to the Supreme Court.

But no sooner did I write those preceding words than my attention was caught by an opnion column in today's Inquirer. Let me just give a selected few of the highly quotable quotes.

Commentary
Why Ang Ladlad should thank the Comelec

By Florin T. Hilbay
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:30:00 11/22/2009


It is precisely because I disagree that I am elated.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of Ang Ladlad’s petition for accreditation, the decision starts a new era in Philippine constitutional law. We have now entered the discourse of substantive equality of the type that many other countries in the world today confront.

And because Ang Ladlad will be at the center of this development, they have the rare opportunity to craft the law’s development and gain political mileage out of it. They can only thank Nicodemus Ferrer and Co. for this gift.

What the Comelec has done is to sanction, with the use of public authority, prejudice against homosexuals. In constitutional law, this is equivalent to “state action,” which now arms Ang Ladlad with the power to raise the Equal Protection and the Non-Establishment of Religion Clauses in any appropriate domestic and, perhaps, even international forum.

This is no ordinary consequence.

Prior to the Comelec’s decision, prejudice against homosexuals by opinion writers, netizens, religious leaders and ordinary citizens could be considered, as a matter of doctrine, “private discrimination” which, however irrational and hurtful, is not attributable to the state. We can heckle these bigots out of classrooms, newspaper columns or coffee shops all we want, but we cannot go to courts and ask the speakers to stop and apologize.

Given that the Comelec is a public institution, aggrieved parties can now say that because the Constitution recognizes equality and secularism as basic tenets, the corrective organs of the state such as the Supreme Court are obligated to reverse and remedy the grave abuse of discretion committed here. Otherwise, the prejudice of the members of the Comelec will be transformed into official state policy.


Even those less than confident about the capacity of the Supreme Court to correct this constitutional violence should nonetheless rejoice. This is because the decision of the Comelec, by itself, already creates a formal platform for academic and legal discourse.

In the narrow sense, there is now an opportunity for students of the Constitution to talk about discrimination against homosexuals because they have a concrete case to study in class; in the larger sense, this decision opens the door to consciousness-raising of present and future policymakers.

Whereas, before, academics and advocates could only talk about discrimination against homosexuals in a cultural sense, today the Comelec has, by its narrow-mindedness, provided gay rights activists a rallying point that can potentially bring together previously unpoliticized and uncommitted supporters into the debate.


Those who study the history of constitutionalism in these islands will notice that the debate on equality has never really taken on a consciousness-transforming path. We have never had the kind of civil rights movement here of the kind that has legally emancipated blacks and women, even if we experience racism and women are still dis-empowered.

At some point, Congress discriminated against the Chinese to ease their control on the economy, but even today many distinctions on the basis of nationality are constitutionally unproblematic because under a state system citizens can expect more privileges than non-citizens.

The Ang Ladlad case presents a different scenario precisely because the petitioners here are citizens of the republic who have been specifically singled out.

In essence, what the Comelec has done is to declare the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community constitutionally invisible and inappropriate subjects of election law.

This not only flies in the face of the policy of the party-list system to let the market of electors decide who they wish to send to Congress; it is also one of the most egregious violations of the principle of republicanism that guarantees citizens the right to participate in government through the vote.

By denying accreditation to Ang Ladlad, the Comelec disqualifies a substantial number of Filipinos from the game of civilized warfare called democracy.

This is fundamentally unfair because, as a group of human beings, they are entitled to seek recognition, meaning and happiness within the confines of a pluralistic constitutional regime.

It is tragic enough that they are sometimes subjected to humiliation by an insensitive society; it is worse when such malevolence is sanctioned by the very state that taxes them.

Florin T. Hilbay teaches constitutional law and legal theory at the UP College of Law and is currently a visiting fellow at the National University of Singapore School of Law.




To continue, God's will be done. The problem is, when the fate of the minority is in the hands of the majority, all too often, God's will is not considered (even though they quote the Bible, Canon Law, The Pope, The Imam...)

Since I am, and have been, for around 40 years an outspoken advocate of Sex-Positive Thinking, people do ask me, "Is there sexual sin? Is everything OK?"

I go out of my way to give an emphatic. "Yes, there is sin, and I repent everyday of my life for my personal experience in that regard. I don't repent because of deserving the fires of hell, but because of the harm and hurt and sadness I have caused those not deserving of such pain.

In the Sunday Inquirer (Nov. 22), Lito Gutierrrez presents a brilliant but quizzical feature. "Leave Manny Alone."

Is this the right queetion? "Did Manny show marital infidelity with Krista at the expense of wife Jinky?" If so, who's asking? Who has the right to ask? Why ask in a newspaper story? Is it because payment is made by the column inch? I don't know.

But look at the article. It seems to say, "See no evit; do no evil," but then the article proceeds to speak a lot of evil about the world's greatest boxer. Did he commit adultery? The article ends, "Leaave Manny Alone. Leave well enough alone."

Why do I say "quizical"? In the whole article the writer leads us into assuming that Manny had sex with Krista. If so, that is is not "well enough..."

Adultery is one of those things that falls into the category of "not good enough." Along with child abuse, using people, or harming another person in any way, verbally, physically, sexually, etc.

The same day, I painfully watched a TV documentary on child abuse by Catholic priests, nuns, and brothers in Catholic orphanages, etc.

Is there sin? There sure is.

Is Manny Paquiau guilty of sin? Just who am I to even ask that question? And i wonder why Gutierrez mulls over the question so belaboredly in an article where he writes of "Cathilic self-righteousness and rank hypocrisy."

Is there sin? Yes, there is sin. Yes, there is self-righteousness. Yes, there is hypocrisy.

Sex-positive theology does not erase, condone, cover over, or play blind to sin.

Sex-positive thinking is positive about the great gift of our loving God -- the great gift of unharmful, unforceful, loving sex.


"God is Friendship." (St. Aelred, 1110-1167)



REV. FR. RICHARD MICKLEY, OSAE, founding PASTOR MCC-MANILA,
founding abbot, The Order of St. Aelred

------------------------------------------------------------
Fr. Richard R. Mickley, O.S.Ae., Ph.D.
Abbot
The Order of St. Aelred
St. Aelred Friendship Society
82-D Masikap Extension
Barangay Central, Quezon City
1100 Metro Manila, Philippines
Landline: 63 2 921 8273
Mobile: 63 920 9034909
E-mail: saintaelred@gmail.com
Website: http://webspace.webring.com/people/ms/saintaelred/index.html
E-group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saeffriends
Fr. Richard’s personal blog: http://richardrmickley.blogspot.com
Catholic Diocese of One Spirit (CDOS) website: http://www.onespiritcatholic.org

Comelec Intensifies the National Sin

There are a lot of murders, kidnappings, abductions, graft, corruption, but what single act of infamasy can equal the infamous decision of a division of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) of the Philippine Government?

My dear LGBT friends have a difficult decision to make. We canot live in this world unless we are willing to be counter cultural.

We have to go against the trend (as demonstrated by the Comelec decison) of hate and prejudice. It seems ingrained in our culture.

How can we be effectively counter cultural?. March in the streets?, (30 or 40 of us)? Hold prayer meetings in front of Comelec offices? There is a time for such demonstrations.

But how can we be truly effective everyday of our lives? By being counter cultural.

But How? We are called by God to LOVE and HOLINESS. We are indeed not called by God to hate and prejudice. I guess that even means we are not called to hate the Comelec. Last election, the head of the Comelec who resigned after being accused of accepting a huge bribe, turned down Ang Ladlad's petition to be a pro-LGBT party (list). This year a division has done it even more hatefully. But Jesus says, love your enemies. Whew. That's hard. So, let's just love everybody around us and stop the hate and prejudice in our own lives as a way to start being counter cultural.

I don't need to write a further rebuke for the injustice of the Comelec. The Internet is buzzinfg with responses. Let me just put a few of them together in one place. The responses become overwhelming when they are all placed side by side. And I can only choose some of the them..

To start, the comelec resolution that aroused so much reaction in our LGBT community and even in the Human Rights Commission, in the Senate, and elsewhere is here presented in full for our utter disgusted amazement


SPP Case No. 09 - 228 (PL)


IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REGISTRATION OF ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
FOR THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY CHAIRMAN DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner.

x------------------------------------x
Ferrer, N. T., Presiding Commissioner
Promulgation: 11 November 2009




R E S O L U T I O N


- download pdf version here -


We resolve the verified Petition1 for registration of ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY (Ang Ladlad, for brevity) as a sectoral party under the party-list system of representation.
Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines with postal address at Unit 304 Golden Legacy Condominium, 98 Xavierville Ave., Cor. Esteban Abada St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City.
In its Petition filed on August 17, 2009, petitioner alleges the following, to wit:
1) That it is composed of Lesbians, Gays, BisexuaIs, and Transgenders, "like-minded individuals with the same concerns and interests, comprising a bona fide sectoral organization";
2) That it seeks to participate in the Party-list system as a sectoral party to represent the "Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community";
3) That it has nationwide constituency;
4) That Petitioner "is not a religious sect or denomination";
5) That it does not "advocate violence or unlawful means to seek its goal";
6) That it "or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections";
7) That it is "not and endeavors not to receive any support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes"; and
8) That it "is not a party or organization that is an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government;
Attached to the Petition are its Certificate of Incorporation2, By-laws3, Articles of Incorporation4 and List of Officers and Members.
An Order5 dated September 4, 2009 was issued directing Regional Election Directors to verify the existence of petitioner in Regions I-XIII, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) and the National Capital Region (NCR).
The case was set for hearing on September 24, 2009 in an Order6 of the Commission dated September 9, 2009 which also directs petitioner to publish its petition as well as the said Order in two (2) daily newspapers of general circulation.
The Petition was heard as scheduled on September 24, 2009. Petitioner, through counsel, presented on the witness stand Prof. Danton Remoto, the President of the party, who, having authenticated the documents establishing the jurisdiction of the Commission all the documents attached as annexes to the Petition, testified on direct examination and identified all the documents attached as annexes to the Petition, and answered clarificatory questions propounded by the members of the Second Division.
Thereafter, petitioner was directed to formally offer its evidence the following day during office hours. However, it failed to comply with the order.
This Petition must fail.
There are two (2) issues to be resolved in the present case, these are:
Whether or not the documents establishing the jurisdiction of the Commission and other documents can be admitted as evidence considering that the same were not formally offered; and


Whether or not petitioner should be accredited as a sectoral party under the party-list system of representation.
Anent the first issue, we hold that the evidence of petitioner may be admitted. The general rule when evidence is not formally offered is found in Section 347, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which forbids the courts from considering evidence not formally offered. However, when evidence has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and incorporated in the records of the case, the rule may be relaxed such that evidence not formally offered may be admitted.8
The exception may be applied to the case at bar. Petitioner, through its witness and President, Danton Remoto, sufficiently identified the pieces of evidence presented. The testimony was duly recorded and incorporated in the records of the case. Hence, the documents authenticated and testified on by witness Remoto are hereby admitted, although not formally offered in evidence by the petitioner.
Despite the foregoing, however, this Petition is dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus:
"xxx a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity."
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which:
"xxx refer to a person's capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different qender, of the same gender, or more than one gender."
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs. In Romans 1:26, 27, Paul wrote:
"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet".9
In the Koran, the hereunder verses are pertinent:
"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women "ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7.81). "And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (7:84) "He said: "0 my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do mischief!""(29:30)."10
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its Comment dated October 2, 2008:
"The 'ANG LADLAD' apparently advocates sexual immorality as indicated in the Petition's par. 6F: 'Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and
(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969)."
Petitioner should be denied accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it "or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections".
Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith. Lehman Strauss, a famous bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A said in one article that ''older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth"11. As an agency of the government, ours too is the State's avowed duty under Section 1312, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation.
We are not condemning the LGBT, but we cannot compromise the well-being of the greater number of our people, especially the youth.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
(Sgd.) NICODEMO T. FERRER
Presiding Commissioner
(Sgd.) LUCENITO N. TAGLE
Commissioner(Sgd.) ELIAS R. YUSOPH
Commissioner

CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation among the members of the Commission before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission's Second Division.
(Sgd.) NICODEMO T. FERRER
Presiding Commissioner


Then we proceed to a recent piece which somewhat sums up the situation.

Messages
1a. Poll exec: To be moral is not old-fashioned
Posted by: "Danton R" danton_ph@yahoo.com danton_ph
Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:39 am (PST)

Poll exec: To be moral is not old-fashioned
Written by Reynaldo Santos Jr.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Gays are already `over-represented' in the House
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) stands firm on its decision to deny a gay organization accreditation for the party list, even after the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) sided with the incensed members of the "third sex."

In response to the CHR's comment that the poll body's ruling on Ang Ladlad (literally, The Coming Out) "smacks of prejudice and discrimination," Comelec commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer said there was nothing "retrogressive" in it.

Ferrer, along with commissioners Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph, on grounds the group "tolerates immorality," last week rejected Ang Ladlad's petition to participate in the party-list elections and be hopefully represented in the lower chamber of Congress.
In its petition for accreditation, the group claims to represent lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It defined its sector's sexual orientation as capable of "profound emotional, affectional, and sexual orientation to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender."

Thus, the Comelec ruling that the group would be "exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith."

Penal code applied
"In using my judgement in cases like this, of course I have to resort to my past experiences," Ferrer said about his being Catholic.

The commissioners came under fire from CHR for citing provisions in the Bible and the Koran, sacred books of the Christians and the Muslims, respectively, to stress its argument that "petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."
Ferrer said the use of verses from the holy books was necessary, as they "give us guidelines on how to behave morally."

"To be moral is not old-fashioned," he said, in response to Ang Ladlad head Danton Remoto's comment that Ferrer is "a very old man with obsolete ideas."

Ferrer said that the decision may have been "medieval," but it is definitely not a violation of human rights, as he assured that the provisions in the Revised Penal Code are well incorporated in the decision. "We're applying the law as it is," he said.


Gay lawmakers?
Ferrer also said that the Comelec did not present "unequal protection of law" with its decision. According to him, there are no other petitions similar to Ang Ladlad's, hence the group is not being singled out.

Besides, Ferrer said, there is no need for Ang Ladlad to join the party list because its sector is not under-represented. "Actually, [they are] over represented in the Upper and Lower House," he said.
To this, Remoto replied: "Is it correct to out gays who want to keep themselves in the
closet?" he said.

Remoto said the commissioners' use of scriptures "as props for legal arguments" is "not the proper way to argue. They should have defended their own opinion the legal way." He said their religious biases came into play in deciding on Ang Ladlad's petition. He said Ferrer is a Eucharistic minister in Pangasinan, Tagle is a director of Christian Family Movement in Cubao, and Yusoph is a Muslim imam.


Welcome intervention
Ferrer said that they are ready for interventions from groups like CHR "to give them full opportunity to express their views." The Comelec, according to him, though, has to look at the "interests" of petitioning parties to see if there are "reasons other than a valid purpose."
He said the gay group is seeking accreditation only to create a vehicle "to separate themselves from the mainstream. Do they want to impose their will against the majority?"

Remoto said Ferrer has no recourse but to accept the CHR's intervention because he could be impeached if he doesn't. Remoto said the anti torture law states that government officials who are found violating human rights will be subject to impeachment proceedings.

Ang Ladlad will be filing a petition to both Comelec and the Supreme Court this week in able to catch up with the December 1 deadline of filing of candidacies.
The commissioner said only 30% of all appeals for reconsideration are approved, and the poll body is not giving preferences to any group. (Newsbreak)

Now I present the statement of Senator Loren Legarda, candidate for vice President of the Republic.

This is the statement of support by Sen. Loren Legarda sent to me this
afternoon by her Chief Legal Counsel Atty. Anton Paredes.
Senator Loren Legarda’s Statement on the Disqualification of Ang Ladlad
Party for the 2010 Elections


As citizen and Senator of the Republic, I question the recent rejection of
Ang Ladlad Party to be a duly registered sectoral party by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) because of allegations of ‘immorality.’ The Comelec
invoked passages from the Holy Bible and the sacred Qu’ran to justify their
decision on Ang Ladlad’s petition for party registration.

The Republic of the Philippines is a secular state, and as such, we must
ensure the clear separation of church and state in our civil and political
affairs, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 6.
Invoking justifications from sacred texts should not stand in the way of our
secular and liberal democratic principles and the rights for political
representation of all well-meaning Filipino citizens.

Every Filipino, regardless of sexual orientation, can exercise the
fundamental right to be represented in the country’s political affairs,
including the right to run for public office as political parties and
individuals, and to present their platform to the Filipino electorate. There
should be no room for discrimination and bigotry against any group
representing gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation from within the ranks
of our government.

We are now at a historic time when nation after nation has begun to
decisively dismantle the barriers of the past – such as those that denied
groups and individuals from being rightfully considered as equals. Many of
these barriers were premised on differences based on gender, race and sexual
orientation. While more and more countries have been embracing deserving
homosexuals as state leaders (e.g., Iceland), as ministers (e.g., France),
and as regular members of their armed forces (e.g., USA), by its recent
decision, our COMELEC is dangerously institutionalizing social exclusion and
intolerance, and degrading a party like Ang Ladlad as political pariah.

A fair and honest election, fundamentally presupposes that every legal
individual and party group aspiring for public office should be treated with
respect, without bias, and with equality, irrespective of their religion,
race, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation.
Senator Loren Lagarda

)..Quite insightful is the response of a much loved and highly respected professor at the university of the Philippines, Director of the UP Center for Women's Studies (where I have been guest speaker on several occasions

Dear Editor
Is there anyway to impeach the following Comelec Comisssioners: Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucinito N. Tagle and Elias R. Yusoph?

They must be impeached because they have openly decided to turn the
country into a religious state instead of a secular one. I am referring
of course to their decision to outlaw Ladlad on the basis of upholding
religious beliefs. They quote the Bible and the Koran forgetting that
they should consult the Philippine Constitution instead. Only in the
Philippines would we have high government officials who state that
obedience to religious beliefs trumps other more cogent legal
provisions as a basis for policy.

If stupidity were a basis for
impeachment, the proceedings would be quite short. Their display of
ignorance of current scientific knowledge on sexuality is quite
appalling. They should have taken the simple expedient of asking any
psychiatrist or psychologist who upholds the standards of organizations
like the World Health Organization or the American Psychiatric and
Psychological Associations. They would have been told that
homosexuality was delisted as a psychological pathology more than 30
years ago. They either did not bother to read for themselves or
consulted the psychiatric association of the Taliban when they decided
that homosexuality is an abnormality.

As a Filipino citizen who
is neither Christian nor Muslim; as a practitioner and teacher in
psychology and sexuality; as someone who cares that we do not look like
backward bigots to the world community; I urge the impeachment of these
men who have violated morals, scientific truths and our laws against
discrimination.

I am so upset. I'm gay starting today and until Ladlad gets accredited.

Sylvia Estrada Claudio, M.D. PhD.
Director, University Center for Women’s Studies
Professor of Women and Development Studies
University of the Philippines


Another venerable Senator of the Republic who will someday be as old as I spoke out in his customary frank and to the point manner. We thank our American friend George DiCarlo for picking this up for us.


http://www.philstar .com/Article. aspx?articleId= 523485&publicationSubCateg oryId=63

Joker comes to defense of Ang Ladlad
By Aurea Calica (The Philippine Star) Updated November 15, 2009 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Joker Arroyo came to the defense of Ang Ladlad, a gay organization whose petition for party-list status was junked by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on grounds of “immorality.”

Arroyo joined several organizations, including militant groups, in asking the Comelec to reconsider its decision.
“
The Comelec’s 2nd Division acted out of bounds when it denied accreditation to Ang Ladlad’s bid to participate in the party-list elections on grounds of ‘immorality’ and for ‘being inimical to the interest of the youth,’” Arroyo said.


“The resolution reveals a deeply-entrenched prejudice against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBTs), the constituency of Ang Ladlad. So what if they are LGBTs?

Precisely because of that, as a group which has been oppressed and marginalized in all spheres of their lives, they should be allowed to exercise their basic right to representation in the House of Representatives to protect and advance their interest, the very objective of party-list representation,” Arroyo added.

According to Arroyo, the Comelec’s mandate is to ensure clean and honest elections, not to vent their ire and prejudice against gays.


All groups stand on equal footing to have party-list representation under the Constitution. The Comelec cannot, as their 2nd Division has done, discriminate against and whiplash gays, while they give party-list accreditation to cock fighters, etc.,” Arroyo said.


“The decision violates their human rights, is utterly bereft of legal basis, grounded as it was
on blighted notions of moral standards, even as it invoked the Bible and the Koran,” the senator stressed.

The Second Division, composed of Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph, refused to accredit the organization as a party-list group because their sexuality “tolerates immorality.”


Meantime, Migrante is poised to file a petition for temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Supreme Court next week if the Comelec fails to immediately resolve its motion for reconsideration of a resolution denying them a slot in the 2010 party-list polls.
Migrante chair Connie Bragas-Regalado said that barely five days are left before the 11-day period for the filing of “manifestation of intent to participate” in party-list elections but the Comelec has not acted on their motion.

“The denial of our petition to be registered as a sectoral party (that can join the polls) is already questionable. Now, the Comelec keeps us in limbo by not acting on our motion so we are preparing to seek a TRO from the Supreme Court,” she told The STAR.
Migrante was among the 25 party-list organizations rejected by the Comelec on various grounds.


From Nov. 20 to Dec. 1, the groups joining the party-list elections will have to file their manifestation. The same period was given to candidates to file their certificates of candidacy.

Regalado said that in rejecting Migrante, more than 10 million overseas Filipino workers have been denied their representation in Congress without justifiable reason.


“The Comelec should hold a hearing in order to prove that the delisting was not politically motivated. We are legal, we have the constituency and everything that is needed for us to join in the party list elections,” she added. – With Sheila Crisostomo


--
George DeCarlo
908 342 1275 (cell)

We are also indebted to George for the following comments:

Hate promoted by Comelec
InboxX

Reply |George DeCarlo to Progay, saeffriends
show details 14 Nov (4 days ago)
The Bible and Koran are quoted to support thier moral theory. Did Comelec think to look at the Philippines' Constitution that makes and clear strong separation of churchc and state? This separation in the constitution is stronger in language than the US Consitution.

I believe that many nations giving financial assistance to the Philippines needs to know about the hate.


Published on ABS-CBN News Online Beta (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com)
Home > Lifestyle > Comelec says gay party 'immoral'
Comelec says gay party 'immoral'

by Kristine Servando, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 11/12/2009 8:56 PM

In this article:
Comelec Rules that Ang Ladlad poses 'risks' to Pinoy youth
Ang Ladlad to appeal decision
Danton Remoto: Comelec's ideas on homosexuals are 'obsolete

MANILA - The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Wednesday rejected Ang Ladlad for party-list accreditation on the grounds that the party advocates "sexual immorality" and "immoral doctrines."



Ang Ladlad is an organization of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT).
In a ruling dated November 11 [12], the Comelec said that although the party presented proper documents and evidence for their accreditation, their petition is "dismissable on moral grounds."

Page 5 of the ruling states that Ang Ladlad's definition of the LGBT sector as a marginalized sector who are disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation "makes it crystal clear that the petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."

The document quotes passages from both the Bible and the Koran (taken from internet site www.bible.org [13]) that describe homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive."
The Comelec goes on to state that accrediting Ang Ladlad would pose risks for Filipino youth.

"
Should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith," the ruling stated.

'Gays are threats to youth'

This statement is followed by a quote by preacher Lehman Strauss published in a website saying "older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth."
The Comelec said it is "not condemning" the LGBT community but "cannot compromise the well-being of a great number of people."

The document was signed by Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle, and Elias Yusoph.

Ang Ladlad also applied for party-list accreditation in 2007, but was denied this due to the lack of regional membership in the Philippines.


'Painfully obsolete ideas'
Danton Remoto, National Chairperson of "Ang Ladlad" that pushes for LGBT rights. He also plans to run for Senator in 2010. Photo by Ralph Camus.

Danton Remoto, President of Ang Ladlad, told abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak in a phone interview that they will contest the Comelec ruling before the Supreme Court.

"This is a decision of painfully old men with painfully obsolete ideas on homosexuality. We are in the 21st century already, we are fighting for human rights. They do not know what they are talking about," he said.


Remoto, who taught literature at the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University for over 20 years, criticized the Comelec's allegation that older homosexuals are threats to the youth.
"How would I have stayed in the country's premier exclusive Catholic school (Ateneo) if I were a threat to the youth?" he stated as an example.

He also took issue against the Comelec ruling's frequent citation of internet-sourced reports, saying that a legal document should at least use primary sourcing. Remoto said this spoke of "intellectual bankruptcy" among Comelec officials.

Remoto said that the Comelec ruling is offensive to the LGBT community and an insult to their human rights.


Comelec spokesman James Jimenez, however, said he does not consider the Comelec's dismissal of Ang Ladlad's petition for party-list accrediation as a human rights issue.
"They might bring it up because they might feel offended of being called immoral. In that case, it's their right to bring whatever action is deemed necessary," he told abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak in a phone interview.

He added that the right to be voted for is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation.


Immoral institution?

Remoto also questioned the Comelec's decision to deny the party's accreditation based on moral and religious reasons since the Constitution provides for separation between the Church and State.


Since when did the Comelec become a moral arbiter? The Comelec is a state institution, [it is] not the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines," he said.

"The Comelec has no right to make decisions on morality because it is not a moral or religious institution. It is a political institution, and hence, should confine itself to politics," Remoto added.


Jimenez said it is standard for the Comelec to consider what each party-list stands for before accrediting them.

He cited the case of the Samahang Magdalo, a reformist group led by detained mutineers, who were denied party-list accreditation [14] on the grounds that they "advocated violence."
The Ang Ladlad is requesting help from the Ateneo Human Rights Center in filing a motion for reconsideration before the Comelec, before raising the issue to the Supreme Court, where Remoto believes the party may have "some hope."


All is not lost for Remoto and his crusade for LGBT rights, however, since he announced plans to run for Senator in 2010 "under a big political party." He will make a formal announcement in 2 weeks.

Should the Comelec approve his candidacy, he will be the first openly gay senatorial candidate in recent history. Report by Kristine Servando, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak.
as of 11/13/2009 6:16 PM

--
George DeCarlo
908 342 1275 (cell)

And one more from the many pieces sent by George:

'Medieval' Comelec hit for rejecting Ang Ladlad
ANDREO C. CALONZO, GMANews.TV

Gay bashers or grand inquisitors?

Critics of the Commission on Elections are increasing. Politicians and netizens believe that the Comelec acted "medieval" after it rejected the petition of a gay and lesbian group to be accredited as a party-list group and join next year’s national elections.

“To deny representation for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) as a marginalized sector is outright discrimination. To invoke religion to violate their rights is sheer bigotry," said Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza in a statement sent to media on Saturday.
The Comelec’s Second Division presided by Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer on Thursday denied Ang Ladlad’s petition on basis of “moral grounds."

In its eight-page resolution, the poll body said the group “apparently advocates" sexual immorality, which violates the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.

Akbayan party-list Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros said the Comelec’s decision could be used as basis to impeach the officials of the poll body.

“By using religion as a basis to reject Ang Ladlad’s accreditation, they have crossed the constitutional boundary between the State and religion. For that alone, they can be impeached. They should be made to read the Constitution," said Hontiveros, author of the Anti-Discrimination Bill, which grants equal rights to LGBTs.

Maza is asking the Comelec if it has already become a member of a religious group, while Hontiveros thinks that the poll body has become “homophobic and medieval" in its actions.
“It is ironic that they view LGBTs as immoral, when the LGBT community is a part of the human family. Filipino LGBTs are citizens of our country, and they deserve to be accorded with equal rights," said Hontiveros.

“Furthermore, what is the ascendancy of COMELEC to be the country’s moral compass when it has accredited the party-list of Palparan, a human rights violator?" added Hontiveros.

Critics from cyberspace

nti-Comelec statements have also flooded cyberspace. User burlanhagi of the gay site Manilagayguy.net hit Comelec for denying the LGBT community the right to be represented in government.

“Party-lists, in the first place, are supposed to represent marginalized sectors in society and not the majority. Some people need to review their basic laws and constitutions," the user said.

Another visitor of the site, poorcomelec, commented, “Hello Philippine government? 21st century na. Free society na tayo. Sana one day dumating ‘yung time na totally na ang pamahalaan sa simbahan pagdating sa social matter."

(Hello Philippine government? It’s the 21st century already. We are already in a free society. I hope there will come a day that the government would be totally separated with the Church regarding social matters.)

A lesbian user of another forum nicknamed "fireworks" questioned the “different treatment" toward members of the LGBT community.

“To say the least, homosexuals, who are said to have equal rights with other citizens, (are) treated differently because of lifestyle and sexual preference," she said.

Two years ago, the group led by professor Danton Remoto also failed to get Comelec’s nod. In the February 27, 2007 resolution, the Comelec’s Second Division then presided by Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason Jr. said that Ang Ladlad declared untruthful statements in its petition.

“Contrary to petitioner’s allegation in its petition that its membership is national in scope, reports from our field offices reveal that it doesn’t exist in most regions of the country," the resolution stated. - GMANews.TV

--
George DeCarlo
908 342 1275 (cell)

.Lets go now to look at the almost angered response of the Chairperson of the Human Rights Comission (CHR) :

George DeCarlo to Progay, saeffriends
show details 16 Nov (1 day ago)

Yes, I know others have mentioned it and it is very good that they have brought the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. But,...from the Philippine Constitution

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091115-236451/CHR-supports-gay-party-bid-to-join-partylist-polls

CHR supports gay party bid to join partylist polls
‘Comelec ban smacks of prejudice, discrimination’
By Jocelyn Uy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:43:00 11/15/2009
Filed Under: Human Rights, Eleksyon 2010, Inquirer Politics
MANILA, Philippines -- The Commission on Human Rights has expressed support for the gay organization, Ang Ladlad, in its bid to join the party-list elections in May 2010, saying homosexuality is part of the diversity of the Filipino culture and must be part of Philippine politics.


CHR Chair Leila de Lima said on Sunday her office would file a motion for intervention before the Comelec in support of the gay organization's move to overturn the decision barring it from seeking congressional representation in the May elections.

It said the decision of a Comelec division smacked of prejudice and discrimination and that it appeared to be a "misplaced edifice of arcane views on homosexuality." In making such decision, the Comelec division exhibited a "retrogressive" manner of thinking towards the issue, said the CHR.


"We do not think that Ang Ladlad seeks accreditation to promote immorality in the country, but to give a voice to a marginalized sector to push for further protection of their rights," she said in a strongly worded statement on Sunday.

"It is a fact that gays are often objects of discrimination through ridicule, contempt and various forms of violence just as this decision clearly illustrates," De Lima continued.
In an eight-page resolution dated Nov. 11, the Comelec's Second Division said Ang Ladlad's petition "must fail" despite the group's fulfillment of election requirements, because the practice of homosexuality offended morals. It also said the group was "tolerating immorality."


"Homosexuality is not a counterculture... Homosexuals are part of the Filipino family and unavoidably must be part of our politics," said De Lima, a known election lawyer before she was appointed human rights chief.

She also pointed out that no governmental policy characterized homosexuality as neither illegal nor immoral, citing the Universal Declaration Human Rights, which stated that "all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."


"There is and can be no basis in law to deny the registration of the party, directly or indirectly on the grounds of homosexuality... to make assertions based on their homosexuality is patently discriminatory,” she said.
The CHR is set to file a motion for intervention so that it could formally present its views, insights and position on the issue as a "premier" national human rights institution in the country.

"The rights of the lesbians, gays and bisexuals are a human rights issue,” she pointed out.

--
George DeCarlo
908 342 1275 (cell)

I shall close with the information thqat we, and many members of the Order of St. Aelred are members of Ang LadLad

Professional Summary (When you get to be 81, there's a lot of things to add and maybe a lot forgotten,)
Amicus Missionaries of the Precious Blood, Veteran of the Korean War in Korea, former Latin teacher, (Louisville High School, Central Catholic High School, Canton Ohio), Journalist, father of the 8 most wonderful offspring in the world (who deserve a better father) , Business man (owner of 2 restaurants in Canton. Ohio), National Cursillo leader with Ralph Martin and Steve Clark, worked with Ralph Martin and Steve Clark in their developing the Life in the Spirit Seminar, served on Pastoral staff in MCC Detroit's early years, assistant pastor MCC Chicago, pastoral staff MCC Phoenix, Director of national Prison Ministry of UFMCC, Director (and Editor) of Publications for UFMCC, pastoral staff MCC Los Angeles, founder MCC's Cursillo style retreat movement, Pastor MCC Upland, pastor MCC Ventura, Administrative staff, professor,( International University, Los angeles, Union of ECU, Cincinnati, Ohio) clinical psycholgist on staff in Los Angeles, pastor MCC Auckland, New Zealand, founding pastor MCC Manila, founder The Order of St. Aelred, television guest on all popular Philippines shows regarding sex-positive theology, guest speaker for universities and organizations, founder and director of the Gay Men's Support Group, celebrant of hundreds of Holy Union sacramental weddings for same sex couples, retreat director for spiritual retreats, author of some 200 books and pamphlets on prayer, spirituality, and sex positive theology, bishop of the Cajholic Diocese of One Spirit, Philippines
,
--