Wednesday 22 July 2009

THE GAY RIGHT

Almost everybody from Swami Ramdev and Lalu Prasad Yadav, to assorted Muslim clerics, and Catholic spokesperson Rev Dominic Emanuel SVD have opinionated on gay rights.  Central Government Ministers have gone into a huddle.  Gay activists are ecstatic that the Delhi High Court has struck down Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as being ultra vires of the Constitution, basic human rights and equal treatment.

 

So what is the hullabaloo all about?  Gay activists (which include homosexuals, lesbians and transgenderites) had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking abolition of Sec 377 IPC.  This section considers all homosexual acts (same gender) as a crime.  Hence the police could arrest, prosecute, or plainly harass homosexuals.  The latter therefore remained hidden for fear of police excesses.  Social ostracization is a different issue entirely, in which the law of the land has no role.

 

The court has merely ruled that homosexuality per se is not a "crime", provided it is an act between adults (above 18 years of age), consensual and in private.  This is solid legal logic.  It has only de-criminalised such behaviour, not legitimised it.  The court is actually saying that the State cannot act like a moral guardian in what is essentially a private and personal affair.  We have seen enough of moral guardians and vigilantes in recent times, spewing venom on Valentine's Day and girls wearing jeans etc!

 

Swami Ramdev has gone one step further.  From being a yoga exponent he has now become an industrialist, media icon, social activist and political commentator.  He attributes the court judgement to Western (possibly Christian) decadent culture!  Absurd!  Section 377 was infact laid down during the British era.  Those who opposed it are Indian, and the judges who passed the order are Indian.  So why blindly blame the West?  The truth however is that most Indian laws, made by the British, are based on Christian principles and morality.  If Indian society does not like those laws it has had more than 60 years of Independence to jettison them.

 

The real issue is not the legality, but the morality of homosexuality.  Having spent 9 ½ years of my childhood in prestigious boarding schools, I heard sufficient "whispers", though I did not have any direct exposure or experience of homosexuality.  But I must confess that I found it repulsive and abhorrent.  I could perhaps understand that young boys with an urge for sex would turn to other boys, for want of any other opportunity. I would call this a desperate sexual drive, rather than any specific sexual orientation or deviation.  However, in normal circumstances, where the opposite sexes interact freely, I find it abhorrent that those of the same sex prefer themselves to the opposite sex.  Nor can I stomach men dressing up as women – powder, lipstick, handbags, dresses et al.  This is just my subjective opinion.

 

What is the traditional Christian attitude and current moral teaching on this sensitive issue?  The Bible throws much light, in both the Old and New Testaments.  Homosexuality between males is referred to as sodomy, named after the Biblical town of Sodom.  What went wrong in Sodom, and why was it destroyed by God's wrath?

 

We are told that the "people of Sodom were vicious and great sinners" (Gen 13:13).  Abraham pleaded with God to spare the city if 10 righteous people were found there (cf Gen 18:32).  What was their "sin"?  When two angels visited Lot's house in Sodom, the people said to Lot, "Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them" (Gen 19:5).  Lot refused, and was evacuated before the city was destroyed.  Till today nobody knows where exactly Sodom was located, through it was presumably in the locality of the Dead Sea. 

 

Old Testament morality considered homosexuality an abominable thing.  "You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman.  This is a hateful thing" (Lev 18:22).  The punishment is severe.  "They will be put to death" (Lev 20:13).  To be fair, the same punishment is awarded for incest and bestiality.  Male "sacred prostitutes" were banned (cf Deut 23:17).  The practice of "male sacred prostitutes" was considered shameful, though accepted in other contemporary societies (cf 1 King 14:24). Righteous kings took strong action against them.  Asa, a descendent of King David and the king of Judah (911-870 BC), "drove the male prostitutes out of the country" (I King 15:12).  Asa's son King Jehoshaphat (870-848 BC) followed in his father's footsteps.  "The few male sacred prostitutes left over from the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the country" (1 King 22:48).  King Josiah (640-609 BC) "pulled down the house of the sacred male prostitutes which was in the Temple of Yahweh" (2 Kings 22:7).

 

New Testament writers like Sts. Peter, Paul and Jude, share the same harsh proclivity towards sexual deviation.  Peter refers to the destruction of Sodom as a "warning to future sinners" (2 Pet 2:6).  Paul calls it a perversion.  "That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions: why their woman have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion" (Rom 1:26-27).  Jude says that the people of Sodom "who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts …are paying the penalty of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

 

Interestingly, Jesus' won reference to Sodom, which seemed to have scarred the Jewish psyche, is somewhat more circumspect, rather than absolute.  In an oblique reference he says that the disbelief of the people of Capernaum is a greater source of divine displeasure than the sins of Sodom (cf Mat 11:23-24).  This is typical of Jesus' empathy for, rather than condemnation of, sinners. He considers sins of the spirit like self righteousness and pride as greater evils than the sins of the flesh like sex or drunkenness.

 

Sexual morality evolves with society, which has no fixed norms. In the West there was Victorian prudism at one end, and nudity and free sex at the other.  The same India that gave the world the Kama Sutra, and the erotic temples of Khajuraho, kept its women in purdah, and frowns on youngsters holding hands and walking together.  Public morality is always terribly subjective.

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 11/10/1992 is considered the current moral code for billions of Catholics worldwide. It has some interesting insights.  It objectively states that "tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  They are contrary to the natural law ,,,, under no circumstances can they be approved" (CCC No 2357).  This is objective teaching, which is then tempered with sensitivity and pastoral concern.  It says that such persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (CCC 2358).  The Delhi High Court judgement seems to have taken a leaf out of the Catechism!

 

Rev Dominic Emmanuel, in his press release, said just that.  We welcome the decriminalisation and the need to stop discrimination.  Because we disapprove of something does not necessarily mean that we condemn it.  Rather than condemnation, we need to adopt Jesus' attitude of love and concern for all. At the same time, while we do not condemn, we do not approve or encourage such acts either.

 

If God in his infinite wisdom made male and female different, let us keep it at that. As the French would say, "Vive la differenz"! It would indeed be the right thing to do. 

 

* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and writes regularly on socio-religious issues.  

IDLE WORSHIP

It could be idle, idol or even ideal, depending on what one wants to worship. An idol is something that is fired by human imagination and fashioned by human hands. Humans create their own idols – what they want to look up to. The idol is determined by the idolater or adulator. This may sound funny, but true.

The classic idol in the Bible is the Golden Calf, actually a young bull. It was not just an innocuous animal. It was a fore runner of Baal, the god of sexual gratification. So what were the makers and worshippers of the Golden Calf saying – for us sex, free and uninhibited at that, is what we prioritise. This is our aim in life – sexual gratification. I'm no prude, and quite frankly admit that, as a married man, I enjoy God's gift of sex. As a human being I am also not ashamed to admit that I have strong sexual desires that could "lead me astray" if my wife doesn't keep me on a tight leash. But that does not mean that I idolize sex.

What do most people idolise? As I have already said, we tend to idolize what we want or desire, not necessarily what we actually need. So we hear of matinee idols, Indian Idols, American Idols, and a host of other idols, often the fruit of idle minds. As the old saying goes, "An idle mind is the devil's workshop."

The latest idol to have fallen off its pedestal, and shattered into smithereens is Michael Jackson (MJ). Gory details of his death are still emerging. Millions of fans around the world went hysterical at his death, and even attended a funeral service for an empty casket! Idolaters are so blinded by their own enthusiasm and media frenzy that they look at the "king who has no clothes", lavishing praise on his non-existent garments. This is the art of self-deception. It required the candour of a child to say, "What are you all admiring? The king has no clothes".

In death, MJ has been stripped naked. He was bald, had myriads of needle pricks all over his body. He had no food in his stomach, only undigested pills. He was a mere skeleton, weighing less than 50 Kgs. He was heavily in debt and even more heavily hooked on to drugs. He faced serious charges of paedophilia. And yet there were millions who idolised him and are still not shaken out of their stupor, despite the bare facts. Comparisons are now being made with the drug induced premature deaths of other matinee idols like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. As a teenager I enjoyed Elvis the Pelvis' rock-n-roll music. Marilyn was gorgeous enough to make any normal man drool. But idolising them?

Here is where I see some connection between the idols and the idle. The idle mind fantasises too much, allowing one's imagination to run wild. It becomes an obsession. Today's all powerful media can make instant idols, sooner than you can make instant coffee. Osama bin Laden is also an idol for many, as is Barak Hussein Obama. Nearer home we have icons like Rahul Gandhi and Mayawati. The latter has already idolised herself by erecting several of her own statues! If Michael could be a living idol, why not Mayawati? Who is there to say, "The king has no clothes"?

Be it music, movies, politics or sports there are many icons who could gradually metamorphosis into idols; and we humans are all prone to the idolatry syndrome. There was a time when I was hooked on Shabana Azmi and Steffi Graf. But when does an icon become an idol? Perhaps when one is blinded, to the exclusion of all else. It would be pharisaic to say, "I am not an idolater". The candour and humility of a child is required to correct the imbalance in our adult or adulterous adulation.

The fall of MJ reminds me of an incident in 2000. Pop star Remo Fernandes of Goa had come with his troupe to my hometown Kanpur, for a show at IIT. Fans went mad trying to just touch the "stars". The next day four of them died in a road accident. Their mutilated bodies were dumped on blocks of ice in the IIT morgue. Nobody wanted to touch them now. My wife pleaded with me to help a fellow Goan. Ultimately I brought those mutilated and decomposed bodies to my home. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with a "fallen star". So much for fleeting stardom.

I also referred to icons like Obama, Osama and Mayawati. They are not revered for their looks, but for their books – I mean their ideology. So apart from physical attributes, mental dispositions also play an important role in determining our idols.

No human is perfect, and therefore cannot really be idolised. However, I do find a perfect person in Jesus, not the Son of God, but the son of man (bar-e-nasa) as he repeatedly called himself, in his native Aramaic tongue. I find his thinking, his approach to situations, to suffering, to sinners, etc most edifying. I think he was a perfect management guru. He had no inhibitions in interacting with the opposite sex. He was genuine and empathic. Yes I would like to idolise him, not by putting him on a pedestal "up there", but by following him on the ground "down here".

With MJ gone, each one of us perhaps needs to stop and ask one's self the question, "Who is my idol? What is my ideal?" The idle mind will off course be too busy to stop and ask such a frivolous question.

# The writer has been deeply involved in youth and family counselling for several years.

JULY 2009