Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Update on Chastity.

Guys jacking off, encouraging one another to jack off, talking about their jack off experiences and the same for fucking and sucking is a brave new vibrant gay world stimulated by the internet.  In all of this we find a chastity that is much more valuable than the old chastity of abstinence, which is based, after all, on the rather quaint principle that sex should not be.  Those of us who have a vow of chastity made in the days when the sexual abstinence vogue dominated, have to realize that these values can mutate and a new type of chastity becomes imperative once we have accepted the inherent good of our male to male appetites.   
Sex-positive chastity, to the old school, sounds like a contradiction in terms, but to the man who has accepted enhanced masculinity, it is the consecration of his specific mode of being.  The basis of this is that we cannot allow ourselves to see sin as in any way inherent to man to man erotic play, it us just a tremendous celebration of something good.  There is also the underlying principle that the original idea of a vow of chastity was not to not have sex, but to not have babies, not have a family, not to covenant your sexuality in a relationship where somebody had claims on you, so as to be free for the Lord.  There are all sorts of wonderful, and very spiritual things you can do with sex, without infringing your vow of chastity.  In fact they will bring it to a new fulfilment.  If I am primarily advising myself on this, then so be it.  My blog is where I write my personal reflections, my journal, but open to other viewers.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012


I think Queer Heaven (who has a lovely blog) made a very valid point in his comment on my post “More on the Catechism.”  Yes, there is a strong element of self-justification involved in my thinking.  The fact is I am a gay man with a religious adherence to the Catholic Church in whose creed and sacramental system I believe.  But that Church declares me as a gay man a phenomenon that should not really exist.  If I accept and suffer out my frustration with my passion for male to male bonding, that Church praises me as a hero.  But basically it tells me that I have an orientation towards a disordered existence.  Now, I find no justification in scripture nor in the essence of being that supports such a condemnatory attitude.  Especially I find no condemnation of my enhanced masculine being in the teachings of Jesus.  

 So I believe I have to do what I can to change the thinking of the Catholic Church, and that of society which has largely been modeled by the thinking of the Catholic Church and its even more fundamentalist protestant offshoots.  So I am, inevitably in a defensive position, which is largely the same thing as self-justification.  In a society where everybody accepted that men were going to play dick together and was convinced of the good of their doing so, I would not need to defend or justify my position.

Monday, February 27, 2012

More on the Catechism.

I found Dave’s comment on my post about “Orientation and Act” very interesting.  It just underlines the non sequitur in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  As treated in the gospel, and ever since, a man lusts after another man’s wife, or a married man lusts after another woman, and commits adultery with her in his heart.  Everything that is wrong about it, however, comes from the implications of the married status.  Nobody says anywhere that there is anything wrong in itself with the desire or appetite for sex with a woman.  As Dave points out lust implies the determination to act out, and not just the desire.  Whatever about that, there is no condemnation in what Jesus says of the appetite for sexual bonding with a woman.  The catechism, when treating of the desire for male to male sexual bonding simply states that it is a desire for something that can never be had, and so the very desire is disordered.  This is not very helpful.   
Plus, nobody is explaining where the difference in the two innate desires comes from.  How does it come about that nobody condemns the desire a man feels for a woman, and yet people try to introduce a universal and absolute condemnation of men desiring sex with men?  After all, the two types of desire have no different a source, they come from the make-up of the person.  If what were desired were evil in itself this condemnation would make sense, but nobody has proven that about male to male erotic activity.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Orientation and Act.

The President of Dignity Canada wrote an article recently in their newsletter which set me thinking again on the approach of the Catechism.  It made me see more clearly how ridiculous is the position of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Basically it enjoins on Catholics to believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual orientation, and therefore, desire.  It is just wrong to give way to these desires.  But, it seems to me, that if what is desired is wrong, then the desire is wrong.  The Catechism’s logic makes no sense.  To kill a person is wrong, nobody would ever say that the desire to kill a person is all right and we should respect persons with murderous orientations.  My conclusion, stated before anyway, is that what the Catechism says does not work as a solution to the homosexual conundrum.  The only thing we can take away from it, positively, is that the Catechism is encouraging us to try and solve the conundrum, to find a place in the life of the Spirit and of society for those with a homosexual orientation.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Women and Men.

I think it would be interesting to know more about how wives see their husbands masturbatory habits.  Some women seem to take it for granted, others seem to see it as a threat or kind of infidelity.  If women ever came to accept that their menfolk were going to masturbate, then, it would be logical for them to see nothing untoward in their men masturbating together, or sucking or fucking each other, because the latter two activities are no different from masturbation since they have nothing to do with procreation.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Recent Correspondence

Me: Instead of abstinence, chastity needs re-defining in terms of using your sexual faculty as part of your spirituality to the praise and glory of whoever or whatever you worship as deity.  Men have to fuck, suck and jack to the glory of God. That is chastity.
Correspondent: Thank you westernstock for your very intelligent remarks concerning sexuality and spirituality. I noticed from your blog that you are a priest. I am guessing Anglican rather than Catholic. I was raised Catholic in a very repressive educational environment, taught that sex outside marriage was degenerate filth by nuns and priests. Have developed a life-long hatred for the R.C.  I'm wondering if I had been raised Episcopal/Anglican would my attitudes toward Christianity be different today.

Me: I am a Catholic priest, though a rebel one I guess. That Catholic deformation is something we have all been harmed by. I am trying by my blog to get over it myself and help others get over it. The significance of the Catholic Church is way bigger than sex, though you would not think so at times. Church thinking on mansex needs reforming until it is fully robust and recognizes the male on male contribution to the moral economy. I am trying to do my bit.

Correspondent: dear brother Paul,
it's a good thing when a catholic priest will see the church as repressing authority.
I am catholic an gay too, I want to say: church thinking on S E X generally needs to be reformed
and to feel sexual lust should not rest a sin, and should to get an absolution.
God bless you

Thursday, February 23, 2012


I had an interesting surf-through the other day.  Somebody had said that Jack Scott was having a very hard time with cancer.  So I went to see whether he was still blogging and came across a post only four days old that is really profound, moving and spiritual.  While there my eye rested on a heading in his blog list “Paul’s Story.”  That took me to a blog called “Guys like Me”.  Paul presents himself as a married man trying to sort out his need for erotic and emotional involvement with men.  His latest entries are an account of his first relationship with his fuck-buddy and are good reading for the way they communicate his experiences and reflections and his struggles.   

Then I went to have a look at his earliest posts, from 2008, where he has a very complete reflection on how natural it is for men to be attracted to men and how normal it was in the Greek and Roman classical periods.  I came away from my morning’s surfing with a feeling that perhaps God has kept his gift of homosexuality, enhanced masculinity, under wraps for the first two thousand years of Christianity and is gracing this age, via the internet, with a blossoming of the sense of value, even necessity, in the male’s erotic involvement with males.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Hetero-married Discussion.

Commenting on my post on the Hetero-married (note the terminology, because in a number of places, according to civil law you can also be homo-married), Rick from Torn Jeans commented: “And this will never end cuz men will continue to marry women due to society pressure. My heart goes to the women. They need to listen to their intuition cuz they know something's not right when ask to marry the man!” 
 All I can say is that I dream of an ideal world where women will accept that their men will go out and have erotic play with other men, and the women will see neither wrong nor infidelity in this, but the fulfilment of a male need that no woman can meet.  The women will see this recreation as no more a threat to their marriage than their men going out to play football.  Finally, thanks for all the comments that have made an extremely interesting discussion on this topic.