ABROGATION OF ART. 377: BLUNDER OF THE AGE

The recent abrogation of Art. 377 of the Indian Penal Code by the highest court of the land could unleash a great calamity of irretrievable immorality and a cascading effect on the other aspects of life.

Every rights of an individual creates new fields of rights and hence no rights can be assigned to an individual without a cascading effect. Therefore any concessions in rights, especially if it involves moral principles that go against the nature of law can have serious consequences.

Such consequences may not be instantaneous, and more so, visibly seen with immediate effect.

Hence rights based on the objective moral norms are always safe and secure for every individual’s. On the other hand rights that ignore the objective moral norms and standards can lead to serious repercussions in society.

It is unfortunate, in a society, that we are now becoming more and more subjective, in the name of inclusiveness and moral subjectivity.

The recent Supreme Court Judgment on Abrogation of Art. 377 is one such action which could have severe repercussions in society.

What worsens the situation is that the Supreme court, in its recent judgment, instead of limiting its language and stating only the rights of individuals and groups (which too is unacceptable but could be condoned) has gone on further to preach morality to the masses (or is it a move to justify its action?)

Art. 377 was a law that was rarely implemented; what is privately practiced, within the four walls of the house cannot have the reach of law on account of the limitations manifested by the law enforcement agency.  And if at all the law enforcing agencies were abusing the law in any way doesn’t mean that a good law which primarily educates should be totally abrogated.

On the other hand, the law was advantageous to communicate the evils of practicing what is unnatural to civilized human beings.

Today we are looking at unnatural sexual orientation as normal: Do we interpret this as natural to the order of creation?

If it was looked upon as unnatural and going against the natural law then it would also be looked upon as a sickness (looking at it as a crime is not my job as a Catholic priest, nor is it my job to look at any of the criminal laws that respects the natural law, and as assigned by the law of the land, from such an angle. My Job as a priest is also to judge what is evil, wrong and immoral in the light of the natural law and the universal objective divine law and then seek to help rather than condemn. This is the love which Christ manifests towards all evil, wicked and sinful men and for whose salvation he died the most painful miserable death in the history of humanity crying out: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. Therefore, since our motive is love, in the true Christian sense, we are capable of giving out a more objective and rational solution, soaked in love of humanity, for the moral good of the larger society. When the church judges something as wrong, in the light of the sacred word of God and sacred tradition, then that which is judged as wrong is detrimental to both the individual and society. History proves, through its many actions, that the cry of the majority is not always the cry of truth)  

By this limited 5 bench judgement of the Supreme Court of India we may have, in the first place, lost an opportunity to look at the unnatural sexual orientation as a sickness in need of help: If any sickness, be it Psychological or Physical, if not looked upon as sickness (bondage or slavery to what is evil) then the law that now protects can prevent help to reach to such a person.

This help could be either by way of spiritual or psychological or medicinal outreach or a combination of some of the above or all of the above.

What then could be some of the repercussions of such a law that is now turned protective?

1.      Outreach to such individuals will now seem distant; this is evident from the processes that led to it and the reactions of the LGBT community to such a judgment; Violence, hate, anger and a distortion of the understanding of basic human relationships and love have been some of the common outfall of these people.

2.      A new kind of outreach has begun, which accommodates them in the society without seeking to correct the evil thereof; a blind or short sighted compassion that seeks the immediate good but not the long term good of the other.

3.      The meaning of love has changed and what apparently seems extensively broader has in reality become narrower now; this kind of erotic love has a different hue about it and it is not the same as philia (friendship) love or agape (divine/self-sacrificing; a vocation of every individual on earth) love.

4.      This kind of impetus to erotic love that goes contrary to the normal order of nature could create new kinds of law and order problems in society; such as that which flows from jealousy, envy, slander, mental trauma & agony. Adulterous relationships will have new competition and heterosexual marriages could end up in newer kinds of conflicts.

Practically speaking; we may both consent to set our field on fire and may be the fire may not touch my neighbour’s field but who would control the pollution thereof? Who would control the heat thereof? Who will think of the many other forms of living creatures affected by such an act? Who would think of the other good species of trees and grass being burnt on account of the one single goal to be achieved? Hence moral issues are never about consent between two adults, as if it has no negative consequences.

5.      New pressure situation for others, especially parents who want to bring up their children in sound moral principles: (1) they will either seek to be free from society, as it normally happens. For eg. Every community, in order to live up to their personal beliefs, seeks to live in community ghettos and the children are sent to certain select schools.  Therefore another reason for people to live in ghettos that suit them and it is not the same, though a similar kind of situation. This separation also involves the moral principle!

In other words, the Supreme Court has just subscribed to a new kind of ghettoish push. It’s not just about gays living in separate ghettos but it is the other way round. If walking down a street with their little kids, good discerning parents were to watch gays openly expressing themselves in society, what pressures is it not going to create for these parents? If things were behind closed doors or as for movies then they always have a choice as a discerning parent to opt for a movie or not?

Not that, what happens behind closed doors is not going to affect society; any immoral act, even if done behind closed doors, outside the purview of all laws, can still have its negative effect on society: it creates unrest both in the individual and the society to which the individual belongs to and this is undoubtedly true without any dispute. Unfortunately, only families who face it know what they have to go through?   2) If not free from this kind of society or if not living separately they will go through the abundant turmoil of having their children’s morality getting eroded and new kind of stress and tensions. Even now, parents are faced with a new kind of stress created by the onslaught of various other kinds of addictions wherein communications at home has descended to a new low.

6.      Historically, unnatural sexual orientation is not a new phenomenon: Every generation or nations or group of peoples that have progressed (here progressed is looked upon from the worldly point of view) have led to a society of individual rights, compromising on moral principles. The ultimate end has been the destruction of such a society, either gradually or abruptly. In the Bible, we have the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God because of its affinity for what is immoral and unnatural. The great St. John Chrysostom asserts that it is a sin that brought hell down to earth before its time. Hence, unnatural sexual acts leads to a destruction of society, if not speedily then at least gradually.  Like the evil effects of a Marxist society, which gradually eroded the economic development of nations along with respect for the rights of individuals. Hence this assertion can be taken either as a prophetic utterance or as an historical truth. (I stand by both assertions). Glorifying the rights of individual to the extent of compromising the objective natural law, is the same as divinising the beastly sinfulness in humans. What arguments are left to prevent legalizing bestiality and other forms of sexual orientations which are today still considered criminal?

7.      It is a new law that overlooks psychology, over so called “scientific assertions” which are false: I wonder which science claims that it is genetic, therefore it is an innate natural inclination? The sexual desire is definitely natural but its orientations could be natural or unnatural just as any emotions in us is natural but its alignments could be natural or unnatural, likewise its expressions. For example: For any individual to have anger is natural and anger in itself is not wrong but a neutral emotion in us. But how it is manifested and where and on whom and why draws forth the moral application and judgment.  If it is genetic, then the law will not absolve wrathful manifested anger, if not the gallows then in all its leniency, will call for the rehab of such a person rather than allow the person to go scot free in order to create more unrest in society. Such a law enforcing agency would be acting irresponsibly, even if it be the Supreme Authority. Has the unnatural gay sexual orientation been looked upon in the same fashion, as an emotion gone astray and in need of rehabilitation?

Even in a heterosexual attraction the process varies. The sexual attraction may not be the first step in the process and if sexual attraction is primary it doesn’t always lead to a strong lasting bond; in a way suggesting the limitations of our decision making, often coloured by waves of confusion.  Such behavioural patterns only suggesting the need for help and guidance from parenting authority.

8.      I am reminded here of the Shakespearean declaration: Some are born great (perhaps the homosexuals and gays are born that way; if so then the outlook would be slightly different but I doubt and my arguments I have presented above. Just as there is no smoke without a fire likewise there is no one born in such situations  unless there is a triggering factor, let us not take the easy way out by assigning such tendencies to “genes”) Some become such (What do you say of this and the subsequent category; can anyone deny this truth?) and some have homosexuality thrust upon them (not by choice but by men & women without conscience who have taken advantage of the natural inclination in a grown up or forced oneself on an innocent young (among boys, it is less of a complaint then among girls) in order to lead them to such change in the so called “genetics??” How can “scientific psychological” findings contradict so called “scientific physiological” arguments of genetic factorings?

It is my hope that there is some damage control in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment otherwise we will be a nation heading for the abyss of destruction, beginning with a confusion in society.

On the other hand, it’s my sincere hope that the LGBT community seeks to understand their grim situation and seek help in order to overcome their tendencies, so has to lead a life which is much fuller and complete in truth. There is a better life in self-sacrifice and genuine agape love.

Finally, Christ’s word comes to the rescue of every individual who genuinely is seeking the solution of freedom from bondages: “If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” Jn. 8: 36 (Bible)