Monday, November 15, 2010

Sexual Fluidity: Blurring the lines of sexual orientation.


Inclusive and equal.
.
Kinsey pretty much invented the popular concept that sexuality can be fluid over time as it involves sexual attraction and experience.  (It can be fluid as regards orientation, behavior, identity and desire.)  The concept is big with women's pop-culture, psycho/sexual therapy networks.  The concept is also useful in putting forth an explanation as to why a straight man or woman can leave spouse and kids for a same-sex partner.  In recent years it is claimed it seems to be a variant in the sexual behavior amongst men in black urban culture - otherwise straight black men consenting to homosexual encounters from time to time, and so on.  And yes - the phenomenon is referred to as bisexuality, albeit that identity seems to be in process of being replaced by the concept of sexual fluidity.  In other words - it is hip to believe sexual orientation is no longer fixed - a person can go either way, any time, any how.  It is part of a global movement to exclude traditional concepts of gender identity.  I'm oversimplifying the concept of course - but it makes my point.
.
Amongst church-people the concept is subtly being adopted, if not taught - more quietly and secretly these days due to the scandals and "official" Church teaching.  It seems to me some bishops, seminaries, and the ordained appear to have harboured similar understanding long ago.  Not surprisingly I suppose, since the concept developed out of the very corrupt Kinsey research.  American Catholic leaders certainly bought into the psychological studies of the day, frequently even as it 'appeared' to contradict Catholic moral teaching.  At least that is the impression I have formed over the decades.    
.
A current example.
.
An Irish Capuchin priest has recently been ordered to stop writing/publishing his theory that homosexuality is simply a natural variant of the human condition.  On the surface it sounds as if the priest is simply advocating for homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation, rejecting the notion it is intrinsically disordered as the catechism makes clear.  But a closer read seems to indicate the priest believes the notion of sexual fluidity is the more natural dynamic - and that idea paves the way for rejecting Catholic moral teaching which says homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered.  The thinking these days is that when dealing with issues of sexual orientation, spiritual counselors, therapists and teachers must keep up with current thought, rejecting out-dated ideas, and accepting a new normal when it comes to sexuality.  From IrishTimes.com:
.
“... nature is a loose peg on which to hang a theology of human relationships”.
.
AN IRISH Catholic priest has been banned by the Vatican from publishing any more of his writings after he suggested homosexuality is “simply a facet of the human condition”.

.
Commenting on teachings that “homosexuality is unnatural”, Fr O’Sullivan wrote that “nature is a loose peg on which to hang a theology of human relationships”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary listed nine meanings for “nature” and 14 for “natural”, he said.
.
Throughout history “same-sex attraction and acts have been a consistent feature of human life . . . Same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition,” he said. He recalled church teaching says it is not wrong to be gay, ‘‘but it is wrong to act gay”.
.
He suggested: “Imagine someone saying... ‘There’s nothing in itself wrong with being Irish... But that doesn’t mean you may act on it. So, no more Guinness, going to Croke Park, singing rebel songs into the early hours of the morning, waving Tricolours, no more craic.” - Source
.
So anyway.  I suspect this thinking is most likely what is going down in some Catholic schools these days, as well as in progressive parishes, and most likely amongst some bishops meetings and priest support groups - why else would groups like Rainbow Sash endorse certain candidates for leadership positions in Church and State, while claiming this is what the people in the pews are asking for? 
.
H/T PewsittersNews

8 comments:

  1. Sexual fluidity, theological fluidity - what's the difference, really?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "He suggested: “Imagine someone saying... ‘There’s nothing in itself wrong with being Irish... But that doesn’t mean you may act on it. So, no more Guinness, going to Croke Park, singing rebel songs into the early hours of the morning, waving Tricolours, no more craic.”"

    When it comes to making parallels the guy has all the fluidity of Crisco.

    Ideas such as expressed by the priest above are precisely why Pope Benedict has said - somewhere, I know not where - that, in so many words, one must at some point recognize that not only are homosexual acts wrong, but that the desire/inclination is disordered. And not only disordered in the same sense that a man lusting after a woman is disordered (which is an equivalence many try to use to do away with hairy and what they consider embarrassing distinctions) but further disordered in the strata of nature itself.

    Where do these people get it from that the Church teaches that same-sex attraction is just okay? People like Tushnet and Heard?

    What the Church says in general is this: acting out on homosexual desires is to sin. Homosexual desires are not sinful (if they are not entertained, i.e. deliberate impure thoughts), but they are inherently disordered.

    I'm not worthy to be commenting on this, but there it is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul - great comment - you said it better than I could. Thanks. Unfortunately I do think the other crap comes from people like Tushnet and Heard and some of the powers that be seem to think it is the way to go.

    Larry - exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The BBC just now is running a survey on its website. It is all about “equality” and “diversity”. To make sure that the people who fill in the survey are representative of “modern Britain” they are asked the following questions:
    1. What is your age group?
    2. Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
    3. How would you describe your ethnicity?
    4. What is your gender?
    5. Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?
    6. Do you work and live full time in the gender role opposite to that assigned at birth?
    7. Do you sometimes adopt the gender role opposite to that assigned at birth?
    8. What is your religion, faith or belief even if you are not currently practising?
    9. Where do you live?
    Are questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 (note four out of nine questions) all there to make sure that there is plenty of ‘sexual fluidity’ among the respondents? Sounds like the people who dreamed up this survey and are in charge of “equality” and “diversity” in the BBC go along with: “The thinking these days is that when dealing with issues of sexual orientation, spiritual counsellors, therapists and teachers must keep up with current thought, rejecting out-dated ideas, and accepting a new normal when it comes to sexuality.” Only they, obviously, would also insert “BBC bureaucrats” among the list of occupations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the idea that "...a person can go either way, any time, any how" could end up screwing some people up so much that they don't know who or what they are any more. The fluidity, "switch hitting" thing is a dangerous game. And I do understand what Pope Benedict meant by saying that some desires are disordered.
    However I also understand how wearying it must be for someone who is who is homosexual but is trying to live a chaste life to have it constantly thrown up to them that the Church loves them but they are messed up. And that we need to treat them with kindness and charity, but don't forget they're disordered. And did I mention they are fundamentally disordered?
    At some point the idea that "at least my sins aren't disordered like your sins" just becomes the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I never understood how Kinsey had so much cultural clout in the first place. But so much of our modern "wisdom" goes back to him. Maybe people just wanted to believe his crap?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mercury: "Maybe people just wanted to believe his crap?"

    BINGO !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. while paul stillwell is absolutely correct, i like melody's comment best. it *is* wearying having it pointed out to you that you're disordered all the time. alright i get it ... now what about *your* stuff, dude?!

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.