Is homosexuality worse than any other sin?

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

No, there’s not. In fact I’m fairly certain Jesus said that lies are the sins that the Father despises the most.

What do you base your opinion on?

In post thirty seven of this thread I provided Church and Scriptural proof that in fact God does treat sodomy worse than most other sins.

Do you have any authentic Church teaching that states differently?

 

[Hadrianus]

I apologize for the discrepancy. I was not in any way, shape, or form inferring that sodomy is not sinful; Homosexuality IS “a sin that cries out to Heaven”, but only by it’s opposition to God’s intention of two different sexes, and thus denial of procreation. What I was trying to say, however, is that homosexuality is not innately evil on it’s own due to the fact that it would not necessarily object to God’s plan for marriage, procreation, etc. if it did not (for one reason or another) deny procreation.

In short, every evil is relative to God’s natural law and order. There are millions of possible ways God could have made us, and still be ordered, but he created the Human DNA, so it and its intent is the standard for ordered by his choice, not by the only way to be ordered.

If that still doesn’t make sense, sorry!; A 16 year old only knows so many words

P.S.
Modern Catholic = Catholic loyal to the Holy See, the Pope, and Vatican II Catholic. Just trying to express that I believe the Church is NOT in a state of apostasy, but rather still completely guided by the Holy Spirit. I suppose I should update that…

For 16 you seem to know quite a few words! Regarding the ranking of sins we must begin with sins against charity which are the gravest, and then work our way down. Homosexual acts are sins of the flesh and thus like any other sexual sins are way down from hatred and envy (in the sense that it brings a real desire for the misfortune of othrs) and so forth.

The Sin of Sodom which cries to heaven is not clearly defined. From parallel passages in the OT, e.g. in Ezekhiel, it seems to involve exceptional pride and cruelty. This would tie in well with the other 3 sins categorized in the group of four. The attempt at forcible sexual assault on the angels is really the proverbial last staw, and is indicative of their hatred for others generally. This by the way is not some trendy new interpretation but can be found in ancient authors as well.

Whatever the correct exegesis, there is no reason to read this as suggesting that homosexual acts are somehow in a different category from any of the other sins against chastity. St Paul lumps them in with fornication, and drunkeness, so they are hardly in a division apart from any of the other sins of fallen human nature.

Natural law actually means something different from what people usually understand. It is not about what actually exists in nature, but is rather, as St Thomas Aquinas teaches, that by which human reason participates in the eternal divine law. All sin is contrary to Natural Law in this sense, because it is contrary to the order which is divinely willed.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

The Sin of Sodom which cries to heaven is not clearly defined. From parallel passages in the OT, e.g. in Ezekhiel, it seems to involve exceptional pride and cruelty. This would tie in well with the other 3 sins categorized in the group of four. The attempt at forcible sexual assault on the angels is really the proverbial last staw, and is indicative of their hatred for others generally. This by the way is not some trendy new interpretation but can be found in ancient authors as well.

Whatever the correct exegesis, there is no reason to read this as suggesting that homosexual acts are somehow in a different category from any of the other sins against chastity. St Paul lumps them in with fornication, and drunkeness, so they are hardly in a division apart from any of the other sins of fallen human nature.

Natural law actually means something different from what people usually understand. It is not about what actually exists in nature, but is rather, as St Thomas Aquinas teaches, that by which human reason participates in the eternal divine law. All sin is contrary to Natural Law in this sense, because it is contrary to the order which is divinely willed.

That’s a very interesting post. Do you have any Church sources/references for your understaning of ‘sin of the Sodomites’?

 

[whm]

As a word to the wise, it’s advisable to avoid definitive statements based on a sample size of 3.

I find it difficult to claim my statement was definitive. I in fact was countering a definitive statement that “one’s orientation cannot be controlled”

 

[Hadrianus]

That’s a very interesting post. Do you have any Church sources/references for your understaning of ‘sin of the Sodomites’?

Yes indeed. First look at Ezekiel 16: 48 et seq. where Sodom is condemned for her pride and idleness and failure o aid the poor and needy. And interestingly her abominations are spoken of as being less than those of Jerusalem. In Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Sodom seems to be referred to when they speak of sinners destroyed for their bitter hatred towards strangers. In Matthew 10:14 Our Lord makes a reference to Sodom when he says that it will be better for it than for those who would not receive the apostles when they enter a city. Origen in his homily V on Genesis also talks about Sodom’s inhospitality to strangers. St Ambrose follows a similar theme in his De Abrahamo. I seem to recall that Josephus says similar things which demonstrates the Jewish tradition. Also, if one looks for a common theme in the 4 sins which cry to heaven, maltreatment of wayfarers would fit better with the other three which all concern livelihood and survival, than does a sexual element. That said, in trying to make sense of this general idea some comentators followed an idea from Plato that those who by homosexual acts prevented procreation ‘murdered the human race’ and read the Sin of the Sodomites in that light to make it fit in. This is certainly ascriptural, but given the natural tendency of all humans to be fascinated by sex, it gained the upper hand over time as the primary sin of the Sodomites. To modern people the idea of inhospitality to strangers seems a weak crime, but in the ancient Near East travellers could easily die if turned away from a settlement and forced into the wilderness.

In saying all of this I am not ignoring the sexual element, but seeking to put it into context. Down through the centuries moral theology adopted the term Sodomy for all acts of non reproductive sex, and down to the 20th Century Latin authors describe homosexual acts and contraceptive sex as both falling under the category of “Sodomia.”

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes indeed. First look at Ezekiel 16: 48 et seq. where Sodom is condemned for her pride and idleness and failure o aid the poor and needy. And interestingly her abominations are spoken of as being less than those of Jerusalem. In Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Sodom seems to be referred to when they speak of sinners destroyed for their bitter hatred towards strangers. In Matthew 10:14 Our Lord makes a reference to Sodom when he says that it will be better for it than for those who would not receive the apostles when they enter a city. Origen in his homily V on Genesis also talks about Sodom’s inhospitality to strangers. St Ambrose follows a similar theme in his De Abrahamo. I seem to recall that Josephus says similar things which demonstrates the Jewish tradition. Also, if one looks for a common theme in the 4 sins which cry to heaven, maltreatment of wayfarers would fit better with the other three which all concern livelihood and survival, than does a sexual element. That said, in trying to make sense of this general idea some comentators followed an idea from Plato that those who by homosexual acts prevented procreation ‘murdered the human race’ and read the Sin of the Sodomites in that light to make it fit in. This is certainly ascriptural, but given the natural tendency of all humans to be fascinated by sex, it gained the upper hand over time as the primary sin of the Sodomites. To modern people the idea of inhospitality to strangers seems a weak crime, but in the ancient Near East travellers could easily die if turned away from a settlement and forced into the wilderness.

In saying all of this I am not ignoring the sexual element, but seeking to put it into context. Down through the centuries moral theology adopted the term Sodomy for all acts of non reproductive sex, and down to the 20th Century Latin authors describe homosexual acts and contraceptive sex as both falling under the category of “Sodomia.”

H,

Ascriptural, you say? Not according to this below, which is part of CAF library, on the matter on the sin of Sodom:

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
*The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

**Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom. **

**Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.
**
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
*

[bolding added]

Note there is a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur at the end of the publication.
.

 

[danserr]

I’ve ben reading over these forums for quite a long time now. I was wondering if there is any proof that suggested homosexuality was worse than any other sin?

There is no such proof because it is not. It is a classic point of christian moral theology that the sins of the flesh are the least bad of all sins; the spiritual sins are far worse. Pride was always connsidered a more serious sin that lust. This is not to say sexual sins are not serious and can’t keep one from God, they can, but the sins of the flesh are not the worst of all sins.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is no such proof because it is not. It is a classic point of christian moral theology that the sins of the flesh are the least bad of all sins; the spiritual sins are far worse. Pride was always connsidered a more serious sin that lust. This is not to say sexual sins are not serious and can’t keep one from God, they can, but the sins of the flesh are not the worst of all sins.

In Catholic theology, pride is a cardinal sin, which means it is a motivator – along with anger, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth – for serious sin. As such, pride is on an equal level with lust as a fundamental motivator and a favorite dwelling place of the devil. These two are equal pathways to evil. For example, lust often drives a man to murder, as does greed (another cardinal sin), as does envy (still another).

 

[Hadrianus]

I did not say that homosexual lust was not a sin of the Sodomites, merely that the notion that it was their Primary Sin and that it was the principal reason for the destruction of the city is ascriptural. I’ll stand by that based upon the passages I cited, especially that of Ezekiel. Do read the whole passage beginning with 16:35 in context if you are interested.
God is rebuking Jerusalem and accusing her of abominations and refers to her as being “more corrupt than they (the Sodomites) in all your ways.”(16:47) The passage goes on to say “Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me.” It goes on to say that Jerusalem had acted “more abominably than they.” Thus whatever the abominable deeds of the Sodomites they were not more abominable than the behavior of the residents of Jerusalem.

The passage from Jude 7 in the text you cite is an inaccurate translation of the Greek. The RSV, in common with other modern translations often takes liberties with the original texts for reasons which I don’t understand. The old Douay Rheims and KJV translations are closer to the original which refers to fornication and going after strange(literally “other”) flesh. the Greek is “sarkos heteras”, the Latin is “carnem alteram.” That may refer to homosexual acts, but if so it is a unique usage. It could also refer to the fact that the men being assaulted were angels.

I read the whole text you’ve cited, but couldn’t find where it comes from. An imprimatur simply means that the text says nothing contray to Catholic teaching, not that it is necessarily correct on matters of interpretation.

 

[Hadrianus]

In Catholic theology, pride is a cardinal sin, which means it is a motivator – along with anger, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth – for serious sin. As such, pride is on an equal level with lust as a fundamental motivator and a favorite dwelling place of the devil. These two are equal pathways to evil. For example, lust often drives a man to murder, as does greed (another cardinal sin), as does envy (still another).

Oh dear, Elizabeth, I am afraid I have to take issue with you again. First pride is a capital sin, the only Cardinal Sin I know of was the former Archbishop of Manila There is a real hierarchy of sins with those of the spirit preceding those of the flesh. The former, which were committed by the fallen angels are the graver in kind of the two. Any mortal sin can send one to hell, but there are great degrees nonetheless, and someone who has committed a mortal sin of lust has a better chance of repentance than someone who has committed a mortal sin of pride. The latter sin leaves a deeper corruption in the soul. Sexual sins are directed against the natural virtue of chastity, whereas grave sins of pride involve a sin against the supernatural virtue of charity because they always entail hatred of one’s neighbor or of God.

One must of course add that as all fully willed sins of lust are grave matter by nature it is much easier for humans to commit a mortal sin of lust than it is for them to commit a mortal sin of pride, because the sins it engenders admit of degree, and it is also true to say that sins of the flesh dispose a soul towards graver sins so that left unchecked they may lead to them.
The devil no doubt is content to gain a soul in whatever way he can, but I suspect he is more satisfied by a real mortal sin of pride than he is by a thousand ones of lust. After all hatred is his business and it is something he can fully understand.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hadrianus, the patronizing and condescending attitude is unnecessary. I’m not sure where you get your information, but it most certainly isn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 The sin of the Sodomites,140 The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

Cardinal sins are those which underlie, produce, motivate. They are not sins in themselves, but rather sources or origins of particular sins. (Thus, “capital.”) Yes, pride is generally considered the most deadly of the “7 deadly [capital] sins,” because the ego of man is the devil’s favorite dwelling place, and self-flattery is his most effective tool as a rationalization for evil. In my previous post I was not meaning to order pride and lust as equal capital sins, but equating them within a category. They are of the same category, being static until acted upon.

 

[Hadrianus]

I am sorry if I sounded condescending, I did not mean too, and intended the comment about Cardinal Sin as a bit of levity. As to where I get my information it is mostly St Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastic theologians. I reread my post and I stand by it as a perfectly adequate expression of the teaching of Catholic theologians on these points.
Nor does it contradict the passages you cite from the CCC.

I entirely agree with you about category, but even within the category of capital sins there is still a hierarchy.Surely the catechism mentions this? I suppose I should add that I do have a degree in theology and have spent many years in studying it both in dogmatic and moral questions. That doesn’t make me in any way infallible. Every now and then I can make a blunder, especially if relying on memory alone, but I do take the authorities in these areas very seriously, especially when they are doctors of the Church.

In anything as important as moral theology in which even a small mistake can have severe consequences for real people precision is extremely important. Again, I apologize for any offence, it is not intended.

 

[shaky]

homosexuality by itself is not a sin at all if you are talking about the inclination. you asked about sin specifically so I responded with what is a sin. The homosexual act between males is sodomy, and that indeed is sinful.
there is no evidence either, way, and no evidence that God wills (vs allows) anyone to be born with or to aquire any disorder
so no we cannot agree to anything that has not been established through science or through church teaching

still waiting for OP to get to the point, what is your specific issue with regard to social justice, and why did you pose a morality question on this forum? If you have a social justice issue, please state it.

There is no evidence that anyone is born with a disorder. What about a person born with both genitals. A penis that produces sperm and a vagina with a womb. Oh i think i will have a wife. Oh maybe i should have a husband. Or i can stay single and have sex with myself and have children that way.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As to where I get my information it is mostly St Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastic theologians. I reread my post and I stand by it as a perfectly adequate expression of the teaching of Catholic theologians on these points.Nor does it contradict the passages you cite from the CCC.

Your post most certainly does contradict

the only Cardinal Sin I know of was the former Archbishop of Manila.

The terms cardinal sins and capital sins are interchangeable; they both express the same concept: which is the root of sin. Pride, per say, is a capital/cardinal sin which manifests in any number of specific mortal sins, but pride itself is a category of sin, as is lust, as is envy, etc. One does not go into the confessional and say, “I’m guilty of the sin of pride,” because most priests will ask, “In what manner? What did you do?” It is the actions that emanate from the cardinal/capital sins that become the specific sins for which we are forgiven, not merely for “having pride.”

In anything as important as moral theology in which even a small mistake can have severe consequences for real people precision is extremely important. Again, I apologize for any offence, it is not intended.

Apology accepted. It is indeed important not to even accidentally mislead, if possible, since there are so many RCIA’ers on this discussion forum, new converts, and inquirers. There’s a discussion elsewhere about whether merely having an angry thought is a mortal sin, which in the case described, would not be. That’s despite the fact that anger is indeed one of the 7 cardinal sins.

Just FYI, pride may be the deadliest, most intransigeant, and the most blinding of this group, because of its ability to distort and to flatter and exonerate self, but priests report that the two that come up in the confessional most often are anger and lust (for men) and anger and either pride or envy (for women), depending on whom you talk to.

 

[puzzleannie]

There is no evidence that anyone is born with a disorder. What about a person born with both genitals. A penis that produces sperm and a vagina with a womb. Oh i think i will have a wife. Oh maybe i should have a husband. Or i can stay single and have sex with myself and have children that way.

what is your question about? I was referring to the specific disorder of homosexual attraction, and rebutting the popular claim that it is either genetic (inherited through the genes) or present from birth (as the result of some prenatal influence other than genetic). That has not one blooming thing to do with a person born with malformed external genitalia. There is no connection so why are you bringing it into this discussion?

 

[Hadrianus]

Your post most certainly does contradict

The terms cardinal sins and capital sins are interchangeable; they both express the same concept: which is the root of sin. Pride, per say, is a capital/cardinal sin which manifests in any number of specific mortal sins, but pride itself is a category of sin, as is lust, as is envy, etc. One does not go into the confessional and say, “I’m guilty of the sin of pride,” because most priests will ask, “In what manner? What did you do?” It is the actions that emanate from the cardinal/capital sins that become the specific sins for which we are forgiven, not merely for “having pride.”

Apology accepted. It is indeed important not to even accidentally mislead, if possible, since there are so many RCIA’ers on this discussion forum, new converts, and inquirers. There’s a discussion elsewhere about whether merely having an angry thought is a mortal sin, which in the case described, would not be. That’s despite the fact that anger is indeed one of the 7 cardinal sins.

Just FYI, pride may be the deadliest, most intransigeant, and the most blinding of this group, because of its ability to distort and to flatter and exonerate self, but priests report that the two that come up in the confessional most often are anger and lust (for men) and anger and either pride or envy (for women), depending on whom you talk to.

I see no contradiction simply because I avoid the phrase “cardinal sin” which to my knowledge has never been used by a theologian. The reason is because cardinal is normally used in theology to denote something positive. One speaks of the cardinal virtues, those on which good actions hinge literally. Capital on the other hand is used for offences. One speaks of a capital crime for example. this is just the normal theological language. it’s not absolute and I recognize that we mean the same thing, but I prefer to use the classical terminology.

Incidence of something does not equate with gravity. Mortal sins which stem from pride are more damaging to the spiritual life of the soul than mortal sins which arise from lust or anger which relate more to the passions, and are more easily repaired.
Both are mortal, but they differ in degree. We should be thankful that the former are not as common as the latter, because were the former as common our society would become almost unbearably cruel. This is because the more sins engage the spirit the more they come to resemble the primordial sin of the devil himself. Anyone who has ever encountered real hatred will know what I mean.

PS I suspect that when women accuse themselves of pride they really mean vanity. The day to day meaning of pride is somewhat different from the theological meaning.

 

[Hadrianus]

I am sorry the previous post was posted pematurely by mistake. I wish to add the definition of pride given by Tanquerey in his treatise on the Spiritual Life: pp 393-394.

he defines pride as “an inordinate love of self which causes us to consider ourselves explicitly or implicitly as our first beginning and last end. It is a species of idolatry for we make gods of ourselves” St Gregory the Great when discussing the seven capital sins traces them all to pride. “St Thomas also traces them all to pride and shows how they can be logically classified…”

Tanquerey goes on to consider the distinction betwen explicit pride which is the considering oneself to be autonomous from God which was the sin of Lucifer and implicit pride which is more common and that is to look upon the natural and supernatural gifts which God has bestowed upon us as in every sense our own.

There’s much more but from this we can conclude that a sin of pride is perfecly possible in se, without any further act.

I realize of course that we are getting very off topic and I apologize to all the readers for this. So perhaps it might be best to start a new thread on a discussion of the sins and virtues if that would be of interest.

 

[shaky]

Yes indeed. First look at Ezekiel 16: 48 et seq. where Sodom is condemned for her pride and idleness and failure o aid the poor and needy. And interestingly her abominations are spoken of as being less than those of Jerusalem. In Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Sodom seems to be referred to when they speak of sinners destroyed for their bitter hatred towards strangers. In Matthew 10:14 Our Lord makes a reference to Sodom when he says that it will be better for it than for those who would not receive the apostles when they enter a city. Origen in his homily V on Genesis also talks about Sodom’s inhospitality to strangers. St Ambrose follows a similar theme in his De Abrahamo. I seem to recall that Josephus says similar things which demonstrates the Jewish tradition. Also, if one looks for a common theme in the 4 sins which cry to heaven, maltreatment of wayfarers would fit better with the other three which all concern livelihood and survival, than does a sexual element. That said, in trying to make sense of this general idea some comentators followed an idea from Plato that those who by homosexual acts prevented procreation ‘murdered the human race’ and read the Sin of the Sodomites in that light to make it fit in. This is certainly ascriptural, but given the natural tendency of all humans to be fascinated by sex, it gained the upper hand over time as the primary sin of the Sodomites. To modern people the idea of inhospitality to strangers seems a weak crime, but in the ancient Near East travellers could easily die if turned away from a settlement and forced into the wilderness.

In saying all of this I am not ignoring the sexual element, but seeking to put it into context. Down through the centuries moral theology adopted the term Sodomy for all acts of non reproductive sex, and down to the 20th Century Latin authors describe homosexual acts and contraceptive sex as both falling under the category of “Sodomia.”

So what you are saying. when your wife gives birth and she develops bleeding problems and damage to the womb and to save her life she has a operation to have her womb removed. Or she had he womb removed because of cancer. Now she can never have children again. Now her body is a Contraceptive body in having children. Having sex with your wife is now Sodomy.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hadrianus:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7574640#post7574640
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7574920

H,

Through the fluff in your two posts above, what you are saying is that the sin of Sodom is primarily inhospitality, not the homosexual lusts of its men, even if you qualified that Sodom’s homosexual sins still figured as a reason why God destroyed it (with Gomorrah).

Yours is still a revisionist interpretation, with just a little variation from what gay advocates claim: Sodom was punished for inhospitality, not for the sin of homosexual lust. First, although you do not touch on it, the translation of the Hebrew word “yada” in Genesis 19:5 where the men demanded that Lot bring out the guests, could not be so that the men could “get acquainted” with the guests. The context clearly provides the meaning in the Scripture that what is meant is to “know” or “have sex with.” If the men of Sodom only wanted to check out whether Lot’s male guests were intruders, then why would Lot offer these men the right to have sexual relations with his two daughters? This makes no sense. Lot’s terrible offer of his daughters was to satisfy their lust, not their concern for community safety (Genesis 19:5-8).

The context is clear that the men of Sodom wanted to sodomize Lot’s male visitors. While the men were undeniably inhospitable, they were primarily immoral, not the other way around, which is the context you are favoring.

Your Ezekiel 16:35 cite (which I did read) is a weak support. Why? The general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is not in question. That homosexuality was part of that wickedness would not be surprising. Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principal behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn’t contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail.

Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God’s wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as “abomination” in God’s eyes.

As to your claim of inaccurate translation of the Jude 7 passage, “other flesh” is closer in association with Sodom’s sins as "sexual immorality and perversion such as homosexuality” than with the sin of inhospitality!
To modern people the idea of inhospitality to strangers seems a weak crime, but in the ancient Near East travellers could easily die if turned away from a settlement and forced into the wilderness.
Sorry, the sentence above of yours is just too John Boswell-ish.

Further, as much as I respect your opinion in this forum, I would take exegesis from a publication that Catholic Answers uses with good basis before a subjective or tentative one of a poster.

Finally, although you are not arguing it, it’s telling that the origin and development of the word sodomy is confined to one and only one thing: anal sex.
c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum “analsex,” lit. “sin of Sodom,” from L. Sodoma, ult. from Heb. s’dom “Sodom,” morally corrupt city in ancient Palestine, said to havebeen destroyed, with neighboring Gomorrah, by fire from heaven(Gen. xviii-xix). Sodomize coined 1868.
Btw,

Nihil Obstat means: attestation by the Roman Catholic Church that nothing in the publication is against faith and morals.

Imprimatur means: official sanction by the RC.

It is unlikely that the RC would affix said marks blindly or without reviewing the interpretation or exegesis of scripture that a publication cites.
,

 

[shaky]

what is your question about? I was referring to the specific disorder of homosexual attraction, and rebutting the popular claim that it is either genetic (inherited through the genes) or present from birth (as the result of some prenatal influence other than genetic). That has not one blooming thing to do with a person born with malformed external genitalia. There is no connection so why are you bringing it into this discussion?

I was useing this example to prove to you that the specific disorder of homosexual Attraction. Is in fact Genetic and is present from birth!! If you want to re-butt the popular claim that homosexuality it is either genetic or present from birth that’s fine. But please back it up with facts. Otherwise it is Just a Opinion and A Opinion is not ‘‘TRUTH’’
Truth is backed up by Evidence a facts.
Also i never mentioned about genitalia being malformed. Because the person has two perfectly formed genitalia both functioning perfectly.
Also Another example. From Animals From monkeys to Pigeons homosexuality is present