A recent survey of research has 3.5% of our population identifying as LGBTQ; but 11% experience same-sex attraction while 8% have practiced such intercourse. So, for every self-identified "gay" there are 2-to-3 times more who experience the attraction and practice it who do not self-identify as gay.
(BTW a majority of the 3.5% who do identify as LGBTQ are bi-sexual by attraction; this is even more prounounced among women. This suggests that the hard, dogmatic "born-that-way" straight-gay binary is untenable and that there is a high fluidity, plasticity and vulnerability to our sexuality.)
Homosexual (same sex) simply describes a type of sexual-romantic attraction as well as a kind of sexual activity. So the word itself has a certain neutrality, a clinical objectivity to it. However it does have powerful historical associations.
Within Judaism and Christianity its active practice has always been seen as sinful since it violates (along with a litany including adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc.) the spousal (fruitful, unitive) purpose of sexuality.
Quite distinct from this is the genuinely homophobic use of disparaging expressions to shame and emasculate men perceived as effeminate. Such is a grave sin against charity.
Psychologically, a body of research associates the attraction with dysfunctions such as weak masculine identity, poor connection with father and peers, fear of women, negative body image, and incapacity to surrender to or yield authority. This discussion is entirely canceled by gay militance. My own observation is that the research deserves attention: there is strong association here but not direct causation or neccessary/essential connection. There are those who combine same-sex attraction with wholesome personalities, sterling character and even holy lives. The research should not be repressed: let the Truth manifest itself freely.
If the word "homosexual" is straightforward, true, corresponding to a reality; the word "gay" is not: it is ironic, transgressive, defiant, performative. The word deliberately misconstures, as happy, light, fresh and hopeful an attraction-action-lifestyle that(if not sublimated by chastity/charity) is intrinsically fraught with frustration, futility, sadness and despair. It is a falsehood, a manipulation, a false witness, a gesture of psychic-moral-spiritual violence.
Moral Orientations
Same-sex attraction is NOT an orientation. Orientation means direction, especially the moral trajectory of ones life. If I am driving from NJ to Canada my geographic orientation is northward. Attractions...feelings, emotions, passions...do not determine one's orientation. If I am attracted to petite Japanese women but I marry a big-boned Eskimo... what is my orientation? Hopefully, I am oriented monogamously, faithfully to my spouse, whatever my emotions and attractions.
For one with same-sex attractions, there are at least four orientations, moral paths, that present themselves. The first two are the traditional "don't ask, don't tell" programs of discretion; the second two are more recent, and contradictory of each other.
First is the decision to quietly endure the frustration of the condition and strive to live chastely, celibately, always ready to return to this path in case of failure.
Second is the choice to actively practice it, with a single person or many partners, with or without guilt, but abstaining from any moral crusade. This practice, by concealing itself, implicitly affirms the moral standard, by its discretion.
Third is a very small contingent which is dissatisfied with the attraction and hopeful for a traditional marriage. Such identify a sexual compulsivity rooted in wounds and so they seek reparative therapy as a healing of misconnections with father, mother, peers as well as sexual abuse. The intention here is not "conversion of orientation" but reparation of damage suffered, a release from compulsivity, and possibly a new gestalt in sexual/romantic tendencies. Reparative therapy is very marginal; popular in strong Catholic circles; and available only to those seeking it and not imposed coercively on anyone, certainly not youth. Unfortunately, it is confused with "conversion therapy," popular among more fundametalist evangelical groups, which can be coercive, oppressive, moralistic. It is not surprising that, in light of its toxicity and coerciveness, it has been largely banned. But the more gentle, consensual, psychologically sophisticated reparative therapy has enjoyed success. Its suppression by a woke resentment is not just or true.
Lastly, the gay position or decision, inflates the attraction into an orientation, an identity, a moral crusade, a way of life. The "coming out as gay" is a performative act, a vow of sorts, an acclamation of identity, values, belief. It proclaims: 1. My attraction is strong and significant and, at least in part, constitutes my identity. 2. I want to be known as such. 3. I renounce the shame inflicted by social homophobia. 4. I reject the traditional religious reservation of sexuality to spousality as restrictive, oppressive, and actually if not deliberately harmful and unjust.
The Gay Proclamation
"Coming out" to a Catholic family is a drama, a very real event. It requires a response. This can be implicitly framed as: "Accept me as gay; or reject me as gay." This translates as: "retain your Catholic belief and reject me; or reject your faith to love me as I am." This binary is invalid as is disallows a third response that is loving, truthful and Catholic: "I love you as you are, but I just don't buy the gay thing."
"Gay" is best understood as a mistake in self-identification. Mistakes in self-identification are common: if a friend tells me he is a member of the master race, or the revolutionary vanguard of the arc of history, or victim of "whiteness," or Napoleon, or a Winner (because he has so much money) or a Loser (because he has so little money), or being monitored by the FBI from the fire alarm system...I quietly register it as a mistake in self-identity.
In my world, "gayness" is not real; it lacks ontological substance; it is a fabrication, a myth, a misinterpretation. Earlier societies created such fictions: ghosts, lebrechauns, limbo, dragons. Modernity is replete with them: reproductive rights, whiteness, the arc of history, dialectic of the oppressor/oppressed, enviornmental psychology, critical race theory and LGBTQ identity.
I respect the subjectivity of the self-identifier in its sincerity, intensity, and integrity. The experience is itself real and powerful, but is informed by an intellectual error. The oppression of "whiteness" or the hope of "the arc of history" are both real experiences, but erroroneous. My love for you as a person is not contradicted, but rather enhanced by my renunciation of your misjudgement. To renounce a friend's moral-intellectual judgment is not to renounce the friend. Honest intellectual disagreement is part of any real relationship. Genuine love requires intellectual honesty and truth, however uncomfortable.
Why the Pivot to Gay?
Why the decision to self-identify as Gay? Sexual attractions are not chosen but received, passively. We are "afflicted" with our sexual/romantic longings. But self-identity is chosen. I have been pondering: Why do some with same-sex attraction (maybe about 1/3?) take that moral, intellectual, volutional position? I have not heard or read any discusion of this. I am eager for such. But it seems to me some of the following is at work. First, the attraction must be intense, persistent, deep-seated and inexorable. Second, there is an urge to be known as such; a impulse to transparency; a desire for the identity. Third, a moral outrage at the shame experienced. Fourth, a rejection of the classic restriction of sex to marriage as heterosexual, fruitful, exclusive, faithful.
Coming out as gay is in part a moral crusade against shaming, bullying, and disrespect. In that it is in part a good thing. It is a blessing of the Gay Movement that the stigma and shame associated have been diminished.
It is at the same time a contradiction of the Catholic view of sexuality, pure and simple. If the traditional teaching on sex is true, than a degree of disapproval and associated stigma is unavoidable and proper.
Additionally, there is a histrionic flavor to it which undermines the classic reverent reticence surrounding sexuality. Sharing intimate knowledge about ones sexuality is traditionally reserved for the spouse alone. A natural, salutary shyness surrounds the Mystery of sexuality. The Sexual Revolution tore away this veil of privacy and made sex something public, cheapened and vulgar. The gay movement has been expecially violent towards this childlike innocence as it parades its "pride" aggressively and has now overwhelmed all our major institutions, including the Church in the current papacy and much of the episcopacy.
It is worth noting the contrast between the gay movement in its histrionics and the spread of co-habitation among heterosexuals. The later is equivalent to the former as a clear violation of our time-honored code: but it has been widely implemented in a quiet, anonymous almost covert manner. No crusade, no parades, no "coming out." All of a sudden, everyone of the milenial generation is co-habitating: no argument, no culture war, no fuss. Something that was shameful a few generations ago has all of a sudden become commonplace. Our children, cousins, grandchildren...are all living together outside of marriage...apparently unembarassed and feeling no conflict with their proclaimed Catholicism. It is a close cousin of the gay movement, but so distinct in style. The widespread acceptance of non-spousal, contracepted sexuality and cohabitation by heterosexuals underlies, obviously, the widespread approval of the gay movement. The failure of the Church to confront cohabitation underlies its impotence before the demonstrative, aggressive gay movement.
Don't Ever Say "He is gay."
1. Because gayness is not effeminate behavior, nor sexual attraction, nor a kind of sexual activity, it is moral posture, a statement of belief and value, a social crusade. The four things are quite distinct: to call someone gay because of mannerism or sexual attraction or even sexual activity is a slander, a false judgment a violation of "thou shall not bear false witness."
2. One's sexuality is private and precious, something sacred and not to be casually discussed.
3. If someone self-identifies as gay, that is his privilege. He is free to do so. But we are also free to disagree; to refuse to endorse that judgment; to see him through a lens that is different from the one he has chosen. To confirm or encourage one we love in a gay identity is neither true nor just.
It is simple enough: I love you, cherish you, revere you, delight in you, care for you...but I do not see you as gay. Homosexual attraction is not an issue: we all suffer concupiscence in some form. Homosexual acts are sinful and serious. We can disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment