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.
No comments:
Post a Comment