Monday, January 31, 2011

Where the morality begins.

I would say that I am a, by now, convinced partisan of the "sex is morally neutral" theory.  Except that I am not sure it is truly sex we are talking about.
I think "sex" linguistically always is used in the context of the two varieties of homo sapiens.  It certainly takes the two varieties to function together to initiate life.  I think that is where the morality of sexuality begins.
Before that there is a lot we call "sex" that resides in the personal and corporeal make up of each of the two varieties of homo sapiens.  I think we may not really be talking about sex but about gender specifics.  The terminology is deficient.
The thing that seems erroneous in the way we were all brought up is the attitude, supposedly very spiritual and ascetic, that we had to ignore most of these gender specifics.  I only have experience of the male manifestations of these and cannot speak about the female equivalents.  But, basically, we were meant to ignore that fact that we got hard, not think about anything that made us hard, not observe the fact that we ejaculated, pretend that we did not find it pleasurable.  I can no longer see this as healthy.  I think that masturbation is the natural way to exult in and enjoy the masculinity we have been endowed with.  Certain among us feel a big pull to share the experience of all that makes us masculine with our fellow males, our tastes, fetishes, experiences and just plain playing together.  That also I see as good and capable of being the praise of our Creator.  On top of all this you can build relationships, man to man, and relationships of marriage for the starting of a family.  That is where the morality really begins.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Another Overview

I have been looking through things I wrote to other groups, in various contexts, before ever this blog existed.  I shall be re-posting the material here unless something gives me fresh inspiration for the day’s post.  I hope this will not look like a lot of repetition.  Ultimately it is always the same thing, but from different angles.  Today’s was originally posted to a group for gay priests and religious.
After long experience in the religious life, trying to fight my sexuality and my homophobia, having entered the religious life at the age of twenty not knowing that I was gay, nor even really that homosexuality existed, and being now in my late sixties, I have come to the following position with regard to male homosexuality and the religious life.
Homosexuality is totally different in character and experience from heterosexuality.  We should not philosophize or theologize about homosexuality in parallel with heterosexuality.  In heterosexuality the procreative aspects and the complementarity of male and female characterize everything.  In man-to-man relations there is the experience of bonding and total sharing of what we are as men.  I have to say that my homosexual make-up is strongly marked by fetish attractions.  This has certainly been my starting point to adopting a line of thought about homosexual behaviour that would see it largely as very valuable play and a way of exulting together in our masculinity.  Basically I think that homosexual activity needs to be seen as going no further than that.
Most people today regard masturbation as a good and healthy exercise.  I think that man-to-man sexual play, even penetrative, only has the character of shared masturbation, because it is devoid of those characteristics that mark heterosexual activity.  So I think that guys should play together as a way of giving God glory for their masculinity, like a person might give God glory for their body by being involved in athletic activities.
This man to man play then becomes an expression of chastity and should be regarded as perfectly consistent with vowed or clerical celibacy.  The important thing there is to remain free of all committed relationships so as to be free for the Lord’s work, and, within the religious community, to be careful to love all the brethren with an equally generous love.
It seems to me that men should play together sexually.  This may or may not become the basis of a relationship.  I certainly would not want to exclude loving monogamous relationships, but nor do I think that we have to adopt, in the homosexual context, the principle of “no sex outside of marriage.”
I know this standpoint may seem extreme and way out liberal, but to me it is the only way to go to unshackle mankind from homophobia and perhaps just plain sex phobia.

Saturday, January 29, 2011


I am grateful to Ray - – for plugging my blog.  He got a reaction from one of his readers that I was just trying to work out the problems in my own mind by preaching these ideas to others.  Well, of course, I am.  This blog really began as a sort of putting my journal online.  But the ideas I have been expressing have provoked a lot of interest and I hear sighs of relief that at last we have found a way of reconciling, theologically and philosophically, our homosexuality or enhanced masculinity with our Christian life and values.  The traditional, received, Christian doctrine really says you have to make a choice between homosexuality and Christ.  That choice is, in fact, impossible.  Enhanced males, gay guys, have rightly found that they cannot deny or walk away from their gayness.  This left them with no alternative but to walk away from Christ or, at least, from the Church.  We cannot walk away from our enhanced masculinity because Christ made us like that.  Now the time has come to walk back into the Church as practising homosexuals.  The two are not incompatible because enhanced masculinity is something other than, the originally heterosexually defined, sex.  But my blog is not the Catechism.  Take it or leave it.

Friday, January 28, 2011


The other day I discovered Nick’s blog -  I find it profoundly beautiful and spiritual, even mystical.  It will go a long way towards putting the beauty of Enhanced Masculinity on the societal map.  Remember that he who says “Beauty” says, “God”.  There is an opening for gays who have left the Church to come back to Christ through their sexuality.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Blindness of Men of the Church

Pope Benedict in his General Audience yesterday was talking about Joan of Arc.  He spoke of the inability of her judges, a body of Theologians of the University of Paris presided over by a bishop and by a member of the inquisition, to see her sanctity and the truth of her cause.  He saw this as a significant moment in the history of the Church, illustrating the teaching of Vatican II that the Church is at once holy and in need of purification.  I could not help feeling on reading this that this inability of men of the Church to see is with us in these days with regard to attitudes towards homosexuality, or, as I like to call it, Enhanced Masculinity.  Thirty years after Joan of Arc’s condemnation by men of the Church a re-habilitation of her was set in motion by the Pope, Callixtus III.  Ultimately, she was canonized by Benedict XV in 1920.  So Papa Ratzinger shows us that things can change in the Church, mistakes can be recognized, the dominion of sin in the Church is nothing new, and will be present until the end of time.  This, if you analyze it, gives us hope for the ultimate recognition in the Church of the good of Enhanced Masculinity, and the sin of homophobia.  For the moment, and for centuries, men of the Church have condemned homosexuality, because they are prejudiced, as the Pope says the judges of Joan of Arc were, but what of the future?

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


We should be enjoying looking at images of the masculine form that we find attractive and beautiful, including men in the act of celebrating their enhanced masculinity in erotic mutual play.  We may have this nagging feeling that we are doing something shameful or disgusting in looking at those pictures.  It is the residue of our homophobic formation and has to be overridden by adjusting our emotions and conscience.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Make it public.

We have to work towards an openness in society towards accepting that the activities of Enhanced Males are good and none-threatening that they can be totally beneficial to their practitioners and to society as a whole: because they uncover values and dynamics that make for more whole persons.  I think the following pic can serve as a sort of icon of how open and public the Enhanced Masculine life-style ought to be.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Defining Love

Christ Crucified carved by Michelangelo
In a response to a comment I made on his post “Gay Priests, Coming Out, Discovering Love – 2”, on Queering the Church, Bart asked the question “How do you define love?”  For myself, I would say that you start to define love, not with words, but by looking at the Crucifix.  Christ Crucified is the icon and sacrament of love, total self-giving.  Of this Jesus said: “Love one another as I have loved you,” (John 13:34 ) and: “Greater love than this no man has than to lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13).   Marriage, as a life-commitment to one woman and family is proclaimed by Saint Paul and the Church as a sacrament of this total love of Christ.  A total loving friendship between men might also be experienced as a sacrament of this Christ-like love.  But, if we think more about the core nature of love as self-giving, we can soon see that it can be present in lots of lesser ways than, for example the sacrifice and self-giving martyrdom of a Maximilian Kolbe.  We live the love Christ has put in us, he himself tells us, when we give just a drink of water to somebody else.  The homophobic culture we are often discussing has tried to impress on us that fucking a guy or sucking him off or mutual masturbation is totally devoid of love.  But is it?  We can do these things with a great deal of respect for the wishes, desires, joy and pleasure of the other.  True that without that respect and sensitivity to the other that we call love these things can become abusive.  But they are not necessarily so, and express the value we call masculinity and that expression many of us need.  The Christian will make sure that there is love in that expression.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Traditional Heterosexuality Morality.

It can feel unfair for us Enhanced Males to be saying every sexual expression is right and good between us and yet feel forced to say that the traditional sexual morality between people of the opposite sex is more or less right.  However, the kernel of the argument was well emphasized for me in a feature article I saw in the Daily Telegraph the other day, where Allison Pearson discussed a man, Keith Macdonald, who had appeared on BBC TV’s Panorama recently and who, at the age of 25, had had 8 children by as many different females.  The point Pearson was making was further underlined by the fact that the guy could not remember all the names of his eight offspring.  To launch babies on life without care and concern and some security about being able to bring them up, is the great evil that the traditional heterosexual morality is trying to avoid.  It is a direct sin against the commandment of Jesus: That you love one another.  Keith would not wear a condom, he admitted, “because it was like wearing a wet sock.”  So he would rather prefer to cast a baby on the world than that.  There is where I see the enormity of the offence.  However, the fact that this evil is immense, does not justify imposing the type of abstinence and restriction needed between heterosexuals on men who are made for men and focussed on masculinity.