 |
| Entrance of the Venetian |
Our visit at Venetian is fun though we missed the gondola ride since it was already closed.
 |
| Emperor Hotel |
Enjoy Life to the Fullest
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Welcome Back
Monday, September 12, 2005
GRADUATION
Finally after almost five years I was conferred with a degree in Masters of Business Administration from Ateneo Graduate School of Business. I decided to go back to scholl after five years of focusing on my professional career. Being an Area Manager for Kumon Philippines Inc., in 2000 I became too bored of what I used to do. I explored the world of management and decided to take charge with my life. I had to pass through a crossroad in 2002 of selecting what to prioritize my choice of career shift, arrange my family affairs or complete my masters.
It prompted me to attempt a change in my every facet of my life. I had to undergo a series of change of job again for almost every 5 months. Until I really decided that I would prefer to focus on a career in the academe. This triggered my desire to finally complete my MBA. It was only until July 17, 2005 that I finally received my diploma. IT was such a long journey to get to where I am right now.
This is not the end but rather a start of a more challenging journey ahead .....
FAST FORWARD
Tomorrow it will be already September 13 I am already with a GY shift with HCC from Friday to Tuesday 10PM to 7AM and I have my classes M 1:00PM - 8:30PM, T/F 5:30PM - 7:00PM, W 5:30PM - 6:30PM AND T 7:30AM - 7:00PM. The 2nd Semester will start in barely two months and so far I was able to keep up with two jobs though it is quite tiring. I am still checking the new sched how it will affect my body clock.
By the way the second semester will start a new phase in my academic career I will finally handle undergraduate and graduate subjects for Business Administation together with my load for the Industrial Engineering Department of FEATI Univerity.
At the same time I am currently a regular employee of People Support Phils. for HCC account.
Next project my financial cocnerns!!!!!!
By the way the second semester will start a new phase in my academic career I will finally handle undergraduate and graduate subjects for Business Administation together with my load for the Industrial Engineering Department of FEATI Univerity.
At the same time I am currently a regular employee of People Support Phils. for HCC account.
Next project my financial cocnerns!!!!!!
ENCHANTED KINGDOM
What a way to end the season of the Trilogy campaign. It was not a surprise that Team Tician Magician's will win the entire campaign having one of the best supervisor in the HCC operations. Enchanted Kingdom is the best way to splurge the 16 grand and enjoy fruits of all the efforts for the past month.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
WELCOME BACK
It took me ages before I have the chance to sit down, gather my thoughts and starts anew to write a journalized my happenings. It will for the past two weeks medyo lagare and beauty ng lola mo... Nagmamaganda...I have a 4AM shift with HCC from Fridays to Tuesdays and from Monday to Friday I have a full time teaching load with Feati University. So goodluck wish kong pumayat pero di ako kampante na ma-achieve ko siya dahil sa pagod lalong napapalakas and lafang ng lola mo... anyways eto na muna at pagod pang lola mo....
Friday, May 20, 2005
PRIORITIZE!!!
In less than a month the academic calender would start. To be exact it will be on June 13. Hanggang ngayon di ko pa rin naayos ang schedule ko. I wanted to be in gy and sana 10 x 4. I really need the morning for my teaching and yet I have not made any progress...... to be continued
Friday, April 29, 2005
GAY POWER VS GIRL POWER
vs 
Paano ba yan...panalo na naman ang mga bading.... imagine the person who got the lowest votes last night were Anthony and Constantine. It has been an astounding disappointment for a lot of girls last night that Constantine had to leave and Anthony had to stay. Anthony obviously got the gay votes and he looks like a typical BEL-AMI model who appears in m2m adult films.
A Perspective on Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI
I would like to share this article posted by Fr. Richard Mickley, O.S.Ae., Ph.D., abbot of the St. Aelred Friendship Society.
vs 
My friend, I will write in the first person to emphasize that it is my personal opinion I am expressing.
A television network and so many friends have asked me what I can say about the homophobia of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. So my subject for this little discussion is “A Perspective on Pope Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.”
Before Pope Benedict XVI was elected, many Catholic gay and lesbian people were struggling with the opposing issues of love and loyalty to Pope Paul II and recoil from his more than two decades of rebuff to the personhood and rights of gay and lesbian people. The litany of those homophobic rebuffs is long and harsh. They are in stark contrast with the otherwise loving and lovable Pope John Paul II.
Now we have to face the fact that Pope Benedict XVI was an accomplice, the chief theological advisor to Pope Paul II, and even author of many of his homophobic utterances. Pope Benedict is being extolled as a man of congeniality and kindness, gentleness and humbleness. Again, we have the contrast of this side of Cardinal Ratzinger with his ugly and hateful side which produced decrees demeaning the person and denying the rights of gay and lesbian people.
Some may ask, “Why dwell on this issue?” The reason is that dealing with homophobia is central to our mission. How can we bring friendship to our environment if we do not know how to deal with the prejudice and rejection of society, from the Holy Father to the father of our family? Our calling to be a voice of peace and justice becomes even more demanding because of the homophobia spawned and nourished by these two influential popes.
My friend Ito emailed some research done by Ethan Jacobs. It begins, “throughout his life [Pope John Paul II’s] opposition to GLBT rights became more pronounced, and his language became more poisonous. In a book published less than two months before his death the pope argued that same-sex marriage was part of ‘a new ideology of evil.’ For many GLBT people, this rhetoric leaves a stain on the pope’s legacy. What follows is a chronology of the pope’s words on homosexuality.”
[I have abbreviated the chronology, leaving enough to display the general tenor of the homophobic prejudice.]
October 5, 1979: the pope praised the bishops for preaching that gay sex was inherently sinful. To American bishops he said, “As authentic teachers of God’s law and as compassionate pastors you also rightly stated: ‘Homosexual activity . . . as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong.’”
September 6, 1983: the pope argued that both gay sex and premarital sex are incompatible “with God’s plan for human love.”
December 1, 1983: “Educational Guidance in Human Love,” which calls homosexuality both a “disorder” and a “social maladaptation.” The document’s vision of sex education for gay and lesbian people is a stern warning not to have any.
July 25, 1986: stripped the Rev. Charles Curran, a tenured theology professor at Washington’s Catholic University, of the right to teach theology for his dissent from the Vatican on a number of issues, including his stance on gay relationships. According to the Washington Post, Curran argued, “homosexual acts in the context of a loving relationship striving for permanence can in a certain sense be objectively morally acceptable.”
September 6, 1986: Seattle Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen announced in a letter sent to priests that the pope had stripped him of authority in five areas, including issues relating to gay and lesbian people.
October 30, 1986: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” which warns bishops against being misled by the “deceitful propaganda” of gay activists. Stepping up the rhetoric a notch from previous statements, the document argues that even an “inclination” to homosexuality bordered on the level of “an intrinsic moral evil.”
July 23, 1992: issued a document arguing in favor of the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in employment, housing and adoption of children.
November 16, 1992: The Vatican releases its 676-page Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first major compendium of Catholic belief issued since the 1566 Council of Trent. Gay and lesbian people get a special mention in the new book, and for those Catholics who haven’t been paying attention, the book restates the well-worn argument that gay and lesbian people should be treated with compassion but that they should abstain from sex.
February 23, 1994: the Pope issued a 100-page letter to Catholics on family values. Ratcheting up the rhetoric, the Pope argued that same-sex marriage was not merely sinful but potentially dangerous: “Other interpersonal unions [beyond heterosexual marriage] which do not fulfill the above conditions cannot be recognized, despite certain growing trends which represent a serious threat to the future of the family and society itself.”
December 21, 1995: “Human Sexuality: Truth and Significance,” also argues against teaching anything about safer sex to prevent the spread of AIDS.
July 21, 1998: warned attendees at the Anglican’s Lambeth Conference in Canterbury that relationships between the two denominations would be strained if the Anglicans either allowed gay and lesbian people to marry or enter the priesthood. He said that unity between the two denominations would be ruptured if the Anglican bishops promoted “diversity and differences which cannot be reconciled with the Christian Gospel.”
October 8, 1998: The pope canceled a trip to Sweden to meet with that country’s Archbishop Karl-Gustav Hammar; the pope was reportedly angry about an art exhibition going on at the time in Uppsala’s Lutheran Cathedral featuring photographs depicting Christ surrounded by gay men. Hammar also alienated the pope by welcoming gay and lesbian people into the church and ordaining them as ministers, even when they were living with same-sex partners.
July 13, 1999: rules that the Rev. Robert Nugent and Sister Jeannine Gramick must end their ministry to gay and lesbian people. Nugent and Gramick’s New Life Ministry, which encouraged gay and lesbian Catholics to remain in the church, had been the subject of a 12-year investigation, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger argued that the two had misled people into thinking that the Vatican might change their position on homosexuality. Ratzinger declared that Nugent and Gramick “are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.”
July 9, 2000: The pope condemned the World Pride event held in Rome, which was held in the city the same year as the Catholic Church’s Grand Jubilee of the year 2000. He said: “In the name of the Church of Rome, I cannot not express bitterness for the affront to the Grand Jubilee of the year 2000 and for the offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world.” For months before the Pride event the Vatican had lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the event out of Rome.
December 28, 2003: Following court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Canada, the Pope issued a public condemnation of same-sex marriage. “In our times, a misunderstood sense of rights has sometimes disturbed the nature of the family institution and conjugal bond itself,” the Pope said.
January 17, 2003: “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” argued that same-sex relationships can in “no way be placed on the same level as marriage, nor receive legal recognition as such.” In the United States the pressure of the Catholic Church was felt most notably by Sen. John Kerry in his unsuccessful bid to unseat President Bush.
July 31, 2003: a 12-page document calling Catholic legislators who vote in favor of same-sex marriage, rights for same-sex couples or gay adoption rights “gravely immoral.” The document argues, “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”
September 5, 2004: The pope told Canada’s ambassador to the Vatican that Prime Minister Paul Martin should abandon his efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. He argued, “Any attempts to change the meaning of the word ‘spouse’ contradicts right reason: Legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage.”
February 22, 2005: The Pope releases his last book, “Memory and Identity,” which includes the most virulent anti-gay language of his tenure. He argues that the legal push for same-sex marriage is motivated by a sinister agenda. According to the Pope’s new book: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if [the movement for same-sex marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”
How do we sort out the homophobia and “good person”? Two contrasting factors are prominent in the two popes. How do people who care shape their reactions?
Let’s talk about it from our perspective. We must start with our mission. Our mission is to foster love, friendship, peace, justice. In order to be who we aspire to be we seek friendship among ourselves and those whom God puts in our lives.
The application of this is that it would behoove us to love and respect each of those men, who happen to be popes, for their goodness. Some yeas ago in the United States an organization I belonged to was discussing how to demonstrate their displeasure to Pope John Paul II for his homophobic stands while he was visiting Los Angeles. “How can we show our displeasure for his anti-gay teachings? Should we throw rotten eggs at him?” (That was actually done by an anti-monarchist in Australia demonstrating against Queen Elizabeth II.) I immediately voiced my objection to any such disrespect to his person, even though we loathed his homophobia.
Now in regard to these two popes, I have the same attitude. I can maintain my personal respect, even admiration for Pope Paul II. And from what I hear since the election, the new pope merits respect for his human person and admirable traits.
Having said that, how do we deal with this phenomenon of anti-gay and lesbian hate or rejection which we feel so strongly? I can’t solve it all here. But let me point out we could start by looking at the kind of behavior or attitude that would be appropriate for a gay or lesbian person who experiences severe or mild rejection from farther or mother or grandparents. The only right thing for gay and lesbian persons to do is continue loving the parents and grandparents and seek the ways of love and friendship “to the best of their ability.”
The bottom line is love and friendship. No law by any government, by any cardinal, by any pope can remove and replace the Law of Love given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was clear: “Love God, love your neighbor;” “Love your enemies;” “Love those who persecute you;” and “Love one another as I have loved you.” No theological assumption, no prejudice, no other starting point can ever replace the basic teachings on Love given to us by Jesus. That means we must love our persecutors. Of course it also means that they should not persecute us. But more fundamentally, it means that love is of God, and our love is of God, and we must never lose sight of the fact that God smiles on all love, and that, indeed, includes same-sex love.
I personally have no problem with praying for the canonization of Pope John Paul II. But our mission is to promote love and friendship that reflects God’s love and friendship for gay and lesbian people. It could be similar to Cardinal Ratzinger seeking mutual understanding with Islamic theologians and Muslim people. He can seek ways of peaceful co-living on this planet, but he will do so without embracing some of the teachings of Islam. Likewise we can applaud the goodness of these two popes, and continue to pursue our mission (which they oppose).
I don’t oppose catholic ad orthodox theology in all areas which are not impacted by sex-negative theology which is not of Jesus. In my opinion any teaching which is not of Jesus (or contradicts Jesus) is not catholic or orthodox. In all other areas I personally can find an agreement with the catholic and orthodox stance of these two popes (who have collaborated theologically for more than 20 years.) Some of their non-biblical teachings, I do not promote, but I do not choose to make issues of objecting to stances other than sex-negative theology.
Our Order, the Order of St. Aelred, in General Chapter approved a catholic and orthodox theological position for the Order which placed the order firmly on the foundation of the teachings and example of Jesus which have been followed through the centuries in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. Let me remind us all that the Roman Catholic Church is one community of the church of Jesus Christ. But other Christian communities rightfully claim to belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, including the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, and the Order of St. Aelred and the St. Aelred Friendship Society.
We do not believe that Jesus was homophobic. We do not believe that Jesus excluded same-sex love from the love he so strongly and frequently urged us to pursue and live. He gave no indication at all to lead people to believe he rejected gay and lesbian people from his invitation, “Come to me all you who are heavily burdened.” Or that he did not want them to have that “abundant life” he came to bring all his followers. The life-long sentence of “no sex” which Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II insisted upon for gay and lesbian people is a far cry from “having life and having it more fully,” which Jesus mentioned as his mission.
On a practical level, Jesus healed the physical ailments of the same-sex lover of the Roman Centurion (Luke 7). When he spoke of eunuchs, he revealed a keen understanding of human nature far ahead of the scientific achievements of his era. The original and proper meaning of “eunuchs” is that it refers to “people who do not marry and have children.” He said some are born that way, some are [operated on] to become that way, and some are that way for the sake of the kingdom of God. No matter what arguments you make regarding the interpretation of this statement of Jesus, there can be no doubt that he recognized sexual differences among people. It is hard to prove that he meant gay and lesbian people are born that way, even though we now know from modern science that that is exactly what happens.
We do not have differences with the catholic and orthodox truths that have come down to us from the time and teachings of Jesus. We believe that homophobic attitudes entered the church’s teachings centuries later, and even Holy Union ceremonies were conducted in the church for same-sex couples in the early centuries of the church. St. Paul, who was not a gay activist nor a feminist, is misinterpreted. He was a product of his times. Jesus defied the conventions of his society regarding conversations and friendship with women, but Paul adhered more closely to his training as a “Teacher of the Law,” to the extent that he appeared to be dualistic (body is bad, soul is good) the Second Vatican Council contradicted it and broke away from dualism. Breaking away from dualism or approval of slavery is different form breaking away from approval of same-sex love. By that I simply mean, it was right for the church to break away from dualism and slavery, but it was not right to adopt anti-same-sex love position. They say the church never chances. Here are three examples of change.
We believe, therefore, in a sex-positive theology which is consistent with the all-embracing acceptance and the love Jesus extended to sincere people in his environment (he did not consider the hypocritical Pharisees to be sincere in their love for God, placing the letter of the law above the welfare of the people). Jesus embraces the poor and the needy as well as the rich, the sick and the oppressed, foreigners, and sinners, and, as we have demonstrated, homosexuals.
We believe, therefore, that that the three or four Biblical passages used to claim God’s condemnation of gay and lesbian love are completely misinterpreted. We believe and teach in lengthy seminars that these passages do not have anything to do with gay and lesbian love as we know it today.
Since we cannot say everything that could be said about these two popes and their misinterpretation of Jesus teachings on love when it comes to same-sex love, let us conclude by alluding to St. John’s teachings on love -- teachings on love that continued the extensive teachings (and example) of Jesus on love, which John learned first hand from Jesus. Indeed, John experienced the intimate love of Jesus. Eight times the Gospel tells us that there was one special person among the 12 men closest to Jesus who had the privilege of lying with his head on the heart of Jesus so that he was called the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.
John writes in his first letter, “God is love, and wherever love is, God is. Those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.”
That’s a very clear and simple teaching. God is love. Not young love, not old love, not straight love, but, God is Love. And same-sex love is love, and God is present in that love. God is smiling on that love. Our two popes are condemning what God is smiling upon.
We therefore love Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but we agree with Jesus and St. John and disagree with these two homophobic popes. In his first discourse as Pope, Benedict XVI said he would work for the good of humanity. The responsible expression of our love and sexuality is spiritually, physically, emotionally, and psychologically good for gays and lesbians. Cardinal Ratzinger has been a “No, no, no” cardinal. In the name of God, in the name of good, in the name of humanity, we pray that for the good of gays and lesbians, he will be a “yes, yes, yes” pope and include the good of gays and lesbians in the “good of humanity.” It’s such a simple thing that it won’t make him “Benedict the Great,” but it will make him great in the eyes of gays, lesbians, and God.
vs My friend, I will write in the first person to emphasize that it is my personal opinion I am expressing.
A television network and so many friends have asked me what I can say about the homophobia of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. So my subject for this little discussion is “A Perspective on Pope Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.”
Before Pope Benedict XVI was elected, many Catholic gay and lesbian people were struggling with the opposing issues of love and loyalty to Pope Paul II and recoil from his more than two decades of rebuff to the personhood and rights of gay and lesbian people. The litany of those homophobic rebuffs is long and harsh. They are in stark contrast with the otherwise loving and lovable Pope John Paul II.
Now we have to face the fact that Pope Benedict XVI was an accomplice, the chief theological advisor to Pope Paul II, and even author of many of his homophobic utterances. Pope Benedict is being extolled as a man of congeniality and kindness, gentleness and humbleness. Again, we have the contrast of this side of Cardinal Ratzinger with his ugly and hateful side which produced decrees demeaning the person and denying the rights of gay and lesbian people.
Some may ask, “Why dwell on this issue?” The reason is that dealing with homophobia is central to our mission. How can we bring friendship to our environment if we do not know how to deal with the prejudice and rejection of society, from the Holy Father to the father of our family? Our calling to be a voice of peace and justice becomes even more demanding because of the homophobia spawned and nourished by these two influential popes.
My friend Ito emailed some research done by Ethan Jacobs. It begins, “throughout his life [Pope John Paul II’s] opposition to GLBT rights became more pronounced, and his language became more poisonous. In a book published less than two months before his death the pope argued that same-sex marriage was part of ‘a new ideology of evil.’ For many GLBT people, this rhetoric leaves a stain on the pope’s legacy. What follows is a chronology of the pope’s words on homosexuality.”
[I have abbreviated the chronology, leaving enough to display the general tenor of the homophobic prejudice.]
October 5, 1979: the pope praised the bishops for preaching that gay sex was inherently sinful. To American bishops he said, “As authentic teachers of God’s law and as compassionate pastors you also rightly stated: ‘Homosexual activity . . . as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong.’”
September 6, 1983: the pope argued that both gay sex and premarital sex are incompatible “with God’s plan for human love.”
December 1, 1983: “Educational Guidance in Human Love,” which calls homosexuality both a “disorder” and a “social maladaptation.” The document’s vision of sex education for gay and lesbian people is a stern warning not to have any.
July 25, 1986: stripped the Rev. Charles Curran, a tenured theology professor at Washington’s Catholic University, of the right to teach theology for his dissent from the Vatican on a number of issues, including his stance on gay relationships. According to the Washington Post, Curran argued, “homosexual acts in the context of a loving relationship striving for permanence can in a certain sense be objectively morally acceptable.”
September 6, 1986: Seattle Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen announced in a letter sent to priests that the pope had stripped him of authority in five areas, including issues relating to gay and lesbian people.
October 30, 1986: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” which warns bishops against being misled by the “deceitful propaganda” of gay activists. Stepping up the rhetoric a notch from previous statements, the document argues that even an “inclination” to homosexuality bordered on the level of “an intrinsic moral evil.”
July 23, 1992: issued a document arguing in favor of the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in employment, housing and adoption of children.
November 16, 1992: The Vatican releases its 676-page Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first major compendium of Catholic belief issued since the 1566 Council of Trent. Gay and lesbian people get a special mention in the new book, and for those Catholics who haven’t been paying attention, the book restates the well-worn argument that gay and lesbian people should be treated with compassion but that they should abstain from sex.
February 23, 1994: the Pope issued a 100-page letter to Catholics on family values. Ratcheting up the rhetoric, the Pope argued that same-sex marriage was not merely sinful but potentially dangerous: “Other interpersonal unions [beyond heterosexual marriage] which do not fulfill the above conditions cannot be recognized, despite certain growing trends which represent a serious threat to the future of the family and society itself.”
December 21, 1995: “Human Sexuality: Truth and Significance,” also argues against teaching anything about safer sex to prevent the spread of AIDS.
July 21, 1998: warned attendees at the Anglican’s Lambeth Conference in Canterbury that relationships between the two denominations would be strained if the Anglicans either allowed gay and lesbian people to marry or enter the priesthood. He said that unity between the two denominations would be ruptured if the Anglican bishops promoted “diversity and differences which cannot be reconciled with the Christian Gospel.”
October 8, 1998: The pope canceled a trip to Sweden to meet with that country’s Archbishop Karl-Gustav Hammar; the pope was reportedly angry about an art exhibition going on at the time in Uppsala’s Lutheran Cathedral featuring photographs depicting Christ surrounded by gay men. Hammar also alienated the pope by welcoming gay and lesbian people into the church and ordaining them as ministers, even when they were living with same-sex partners.
July 13, 1999: rules that the Rev. Robert Nugent and Sister Jeannine Gramick must end their ministry to gay and lesbian people. Nugent and Gramick’s New Life Ministry, which encouraged gay and lesbian Catholics to remain in the church, had been the subject of a 12-year investigation, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger argued that the two had misled people into thinking that the Vatican might change their position on homosexuality. Ratzinger declared that Nugent and Gramick “are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.”
July 9, 2000: The pope condemned the World Pride event held in Rome, which was held in the city the same year as the Catholic Church’s Grand Jubilee of the year 2000. He said: “In the name of the Church of Rome, I cannot not express bitterness for the affront to the Grand Jubilee of the year 2000 and for the offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world.” For months before the Pride event the Vatican had lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the event out of Rome.
December 28, 2003: Following court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Canada, the Pope issued a public condemnation of same-sex marriage. “In our times, a misunderstood sense of rights has sometimes disturbed the nature of the family institution and conjugal bond itself,” the Pope said.
January 17, 2003: “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” argued that same-sex relationships can in “no way be placed on the same level as marriage, nor receive legal recognition as such.” In the United States the pressure of the Catholic Church was felt most notably by Sen. John Kerry in his unsuccessful bid to unseat President Bush.
July 31, 2003: a 12-page document calling Catholic legislators who vote in favor of same-sex marriage, rights for same-sex couples or gay adoption rights “gravely immoral.” The document argues, “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”
September 5, 2004: The pope told Canada’s ambassador to the Vatican that Prime Minister Paul Martin should abandon his efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. He argued, “Any attempts to change the meaning of the word ‘spouse’ contradicts right reason: Legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage.”
February 22, 2005: The Pope releases his last book, “Memory and Identity,” which includes the most virulent anti-gay language of his tenure. He argues that the legal push for same-sex marriage is motivated by a sinister agenda. According to the Pope’s new book: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if [the movement for same-sex marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”
How do we sort out the homophobia and “good person”? Two contrasting factors are prominent in the two popes. How do people who care shape their reactions?
Let’s talk about it from our perspective. We must start with our mission. Our mission is to foster love, friendship, peace, justice. In order to be who we aspire to be we seek friendship among ourselves and those whom God puts in our lives.
The application of this is that it would behoove us to love and respect each of those men, who happen to be popes, for their goodness. Some yeas ago in the United States an organization I belonged to was discussing how to demonstrate their displeasure to Pope John Paul II for his homophobic stands while he was visiting Los Angeles. “How can we show our displeasure for his anti-gay teachings? Should we throw rotten eggs at him?” (That was actually done by an anti-monarchist in Australia demonstrating against Queen Elizabeth II.) I immediately voiced my objection to any such disrespect to his person, even though we loathed his homophobia.
Now in regard to these two popes, I have the same attitude. I can maintain my personal respect, even admiration for Pope Paul II. And from what I hear since the election, the new pope merits respect for his human person and admirable traits.
Having said that, how do we deal with this phenomenon of anti-gay and lesbian hate or rejection which we feel so strongly? I can’t solve it all here. But let me point out we could start by looking at the kind of behavior or attitude that would be appropriate for a gay or lesbian person who experiences severe or mild rejection from farther or mother or grandparents. The only right thing for gay and lesbian persons to do is continue loving the parents and grandparents and seek the ways of love and friendship “to the best of their ability.”
The bottom line is love and friendship. No law by any government, by any cardinal, by any pope can remove and replace the Law of Love given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was clear: “Love God, love your neighbor;” “Love your enemies;” “Love those who persecute you;” and “Love one another as I have loved you.” No theological assumption, no prejudice, no other starting point can ever replace the basic teachings on Love given to us by Jesus. That means we must love our persecutors. Of course it also means that they should not persecute us. But more fundamentally, it means that love is of God, and our love is of God, and we must never lose sight of the fact that God smiles on all love, and that, indeed, includes same-sex love.
I personally have no problem with praying for the canonization of Pope John Paul II. But our mission is to promote love and friendship that reflects God’s love and friendship for gay and lesbian people. It could be similar to Cardinal Ratzinger seeking mutual understanding with Islamic theologians and Muslim people. He can seek ways of peaceful co-living on this planet, but he will do so without embracing some of the teachings of Islam. Likewise we can applaud the goodness of these two popes, and continue to pursue our mission (which they oppose).
I don’t oppose catholic ad orthodox theology in all areas which are not impacted by sex-negative theology which is not of Jesus. In my opinion any teaching which is not of Jesus (or contradicts Jesus) is not catholic or orthodox. In all other areas I personally can find an agreement with the catholic and orthodox stance of these two popes (who have collaborated theologically for more than 20 years.) Some of their non-biblical teachings, I do not promote, but I do not choose to make issues of objecting to stances other than sex-negative theology.
Our Order, the Order of St. Aelred, in General Chapter approved a catholic and orthodox theological position for the Order which placed the order firmly on the foundation of the teachings and example of Jesus which have been followed through the centuries in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. Let me remind us all that the Roman Catholic Church is one community of the church of Jesus Christ. But other Christian communities rightfully claim to belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, including the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, and the Order of St. Aelred and the St. Aelred Friendship Society.
We do not believe that Jesus was homophobic. We do not believe that Jesus excluded same-sex love from the love he so strongly and frequently urged us to pursue and live. He gave no indication at all to lead people to believe he rejected gay and lesbian people from his invitation, “Come to me all you who are heavily burdened.” Or that he did not want them to have that “abundant life” he came to bring all his followers. The life-long sentence of “no sex” which Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II insisted upon for gay and lesbian people is a far cry from “having life and having it more fully,” which Jesus mentioned as his mission.
On a practical level, Jesus healed the physical ailments of the same-sex lover of the Roman Centurion (Luke 7). When he spoke of eunuchs, he revealed a keen understanding of human nature far ahead of the scientific achievements of his era. The original and proper meaning of “eunuchs” is that it refers to “people who do not marry and have children.” He said some are born that way, some are [operated on] to become that way, and some are that way for the sake of the kingdom of God. No matter what arguments you make regarding the interpretation of this statement of Jesus, there can be no doubt that he recognized sexual differences among people. It is hard to prove that he meant gay and lesbian people are born that way, even though we now know from modern science that that is exactly what happens.
We do not have differences with the catholic and orthodox truths that have come down to us from the time and teachings of Jesus. We believe that homophobic attitudes entered the church’s teachings centuries later, and even Holy Union ceremonies were conducted in the church for same-sex couples in the early centuries of the church. St. Paul, who was not a gay activist nor a feminist, is misinterpreted. He was a product of his times. Jesus defied the conventions of his society regarding conversations and friendship with women, but Paul adhered more closely to his training as a “Teacher of the Law,” to the extent that he appeared to be dualistic (body is bad, soul is good) the Second Vatican Council contradicted it and broke away from dualism. Breaking away from dualism or approval of slavery is different form breaking away from approval of same-sex love. By that I simply mean, it was right for the church to break away from dualism and slavery, but it was not right to adopt anti-same-sex love position. They say the church never chances. Here are three examples of change.
We believe, therefore, in a sex-positive theology which is consistent with the all-embracing acceptance and the love Jesus extended to sincere people in his environment (he did not consider the hypocritical Pharisees to be sincere in their love for God, placing the letter of the law above the welfare of the people). Jesus embraces the poor and the needy as well as the rich, the sick and the oppressed, foreigners, and sinners, and, as we have demonstrated, homosexuals.
We believe, therefore, that that the three or four Biblical passages used to claim God’s condemnation of gay and lesbian love are completely misinterpreted. We believe and teach in lengthy seminars that these passages do not have anything to do with gay and lesbian love as we know it today.
Since we cannot say everything that could be said about these two popes and their misinterpretation of Jesus teachings on love when it comes to same-sex love, let us conclude by alluding to St. John’s teachings on love -- teachings on love that continued the extensive teachings (and example) of Jesus on love, which John learned first hand from Jesus. Indeed, John experienced the intimate love of Jesus. Eight times the Gospel tells us that there was one special person among the 12 men closest to Jesus who had the privilege of lying with his head on the heart of Jesus so that he was called the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.
John writes in his first letter, “God is love, and wherever love is, God is. Those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.”
That’s a very clear and simple teaching. God is love. Not young love, not old love, not straight love, but, God is Love. And same-sex love is love, and God is present in that love. God is smiling on that love. Our two popes are condemning what God is smiling upon.
We therefore love Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but we agree with Jesus and St. John and disagree with these two homophobic popes. In his first discourse as Pope, Benedict XVI said he would work for the good of humanity. The responsible expression of our love and sexuality is spiritually, physically, emotionally, and psychologically good for gays and lesbians. Cardinal Ratzinger has been a “No, no, no” cardinal. In the name of God, in the name of good, in the name of humanity, we pray that for the good of gays and lesbians, he will be a “yes, yes, yes” pope and include the good of gays and lesbians in the “good of humanity.” It’s such a simple thing that it won’t make him “Benedict the Great,” but it will make him great in the eyes of gays, lesbians, and God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)