Sin of the Sodomites

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Hello Michael T,

First I like to sincerely thank you for your response. You really provided some very insightful documents that truly help to understand the issue at hand. I’ll research as many of the links you provide as soon as possible.

Also it just so happens that recently my girlfriend, whom I’m courting, ordered the cd set of Theology of the Boyd by Christopher West based on the writings of John Paul II. It hasn’t arrived yet, but we’re eagerly waiting for it.

Once again thank you, as well as to everyone else who provided their (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject.

God Bless you all.

 

[bluezone7]

Michael T.:

Therefore, deducing from the above, it follows that certain sexual acts involving touching and kissing, and even oral sex may be done morally, so long as they are not done in a manner which causes a complete sexual act in the man with the result of the wasting of his semen (and therefore a completed sexual act which is not ordered to life per se). So technically, oral sex, in marriage, is allowed. However, it may not be performed to completion on a man, but only as an act of foreplay. If it should accidentally result in ejaculation, this would not be sinful because it was not volitional, or it would be partially sinful if the orgasm and ejaculation were partially willed by the husband, wife, or both. It should be noted that human weakness can involve intellectually deceiving yourself, and it truly would have to be accidental and completely unintentional in order to not be sinful. I would add that St. Alphonsus Ligouri (the doctor of moral theology within the Church) advises against oral intercourse within marriage (for the man) because “the danger of pollution [ejaculation] is too great”.

Arguments against anal intercourse in Christian marriage are in keeping with the principles stated above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and posit the following reasons: anal intercourse is unsanitary and does damage to the anus, which is not a sexual organ. Since all sexual acts must be male/female complimentary, within the context of marriage, and open to life, anal intercourse is not permissible, since going from anal intercourse to vaginal intercourse is extremely unhealthy and can cause serious infection. Therefore, anal intercourse does not lend itself towards sexual acts that are ordered towards procreation per se.

continued…

The Church though did not come out and say it is a sin within the sacrament of marriage. So, it is allowed in marriage. I think the arguments above though lead to a dead end. People of the same sex can never be validly married according to God’s law (and his natural law) and will always be sinning … a man and woman can (and are) married validly according to God’s law. Natural Law is provided by God to all peoples not just Christians and Jews. Why is it that many things as homosexuality are condemned (or at least discouraged) as immoral by many around the world by those who are not followers of the God of Abraham?

 

[Michael_T]

bluezone7:

The Church though did not come out and say it is a sin within the sacrament of marriage. So, it is allowed in marriage. I think the arguments above though lead to a dead end. People of the same sex can never be validly married according to God’s law (and his natural law) and will always be sinning … a man and woman can (and are) married validly according to God’s law. Natural Law is provided by God to all peoples not just Christians and Jews. Why is it that many things as homosexuality are condemned (or at least discouraged) as immoral by many around the world by those who are not followers of the God of Abraham?

I am surprised that you seem to think Church teaching allows men to sodomize their wives.

Sodomy is degrading and unnatural. It is a positively animalistic act. It is also a dangerous and unhealthy practice. Doctors even advise against it because of the damage it does to tissue. It can cause tearing and infection, as well as lead to problems having normal bowel movements in the future. That part of the body was simply not designed for what sodomy entails.

Not to mention the fact that such activity amounts to the same thing as handling fecal matter with your bare hands.

It can never be an act of foreplay because to complete intercourse after sodomy is not only unsanitary, but can lead to infection.

Sodomy is considered an aggravating offense in sexual crimes precisely because of its degrading and violent nature.

Yet you claim it is allowed in the Christian marriage bed?

That is just plain silly.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

catsrus:

I’ve heard that “gays” consider the sin of the sodomites to be inhospitality.
For real.

Catsrus, there’s good reason for this as well. Consider Ezekiel 16:49–
“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

It is not so difficult to believe that a band of men intent on raping their neighbor’s guests is grossly inhospitable. Whether or not the guests were men or women is slightly immaterial–would it have been less sinful of them to rape Lot’s daughters instead, as he had suggested? Would Lot have been partly culpable in this case? And does not Lot’s suggestion of his daughters as replacement objects of desire suggest that the mob outside his door were not exclusively (if at all) homosexual?

Regardless, I find your incredulity on this point extremely disingenuous.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[miguel]

Deo Volente:

Regardless, I find your incredulity on this point extremely disingenuous.

I think the use of the word disingenuous is disingenuous.

 

[bluezone7]

I think many on this thread have gotten so off topic, including myself … that’s what I find silly. Maybe someone else should start a new thread addressing this issue between a married man and woman. This thread is about the sin of the Sodomites. The Church, Christian Oral Tradition, and the Bible specifically state homosexual sex is a sin and those engage in those activities will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals who are sexually active are condemned to hell. This point cannot be argued. If the sin of the Sodomites where about rape whether it was on a man or woman, why did Lot offer up his own daughters, instead of himself or some other male in his house to be raped by the gang of men? There is something about male on male sexual activity that God finds especially abominable and offensive; this is a point that cannot be argued either. No one on this thread (I hope) is promoting or advocating the violation of homosexuals’ legal, civil, or social rights … this is an issue about moral theology according to the Catholic point of view. Homosexual activity is a mortal sin!

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Deo Volente
Regardless, I find your incredulity on this point extremely disingenuous.

To the contrary, I was being extremely frank.
disingenous; Merriam-Webster - “lacking in candor, not frank, naive”
BTW, I find your explaination to be straining at the gnat.
Homosexual or not, the men at the gate intent on rape were not being treated inhospitably by Lot.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Catsrus, there’s good reason for this as well. Consider Ezekiel 16:49–
“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

It is not so difficult to believe that a band of men intent on raping their neighbor’s guests is grossly inhospitable. Whether or not the guests were men or women is slightly immaterial–would it have been less sinful of them to rape Lot’s daughters instead, as he had suggested? Would Lot have been partly culpable in this case? And does not Lot’s suggestion of his daughters as replacement objects of desire suggest that the mob outside his door were not exclusively (if at all) homosexual?

Regardless, I find your incredulity on this point extremely disingenuous.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

Isaiah on Sodom:

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzzi’ah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezeki’ah, kings of Judah.

Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: "Sons have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.

Isa 1:3 The ox knows its owner, and the *** its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand."

Isa 1:4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.

Isa 1:5 Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they are not pressed out, or bound up, or softened with oil.

Isa 1:7 Your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence aliens devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.

Isa 1:8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.

Isa 1:9 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.

Isa 1:10 **Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! **

Isa 1:11 "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts?

Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies - I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

Isa 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them.

Isa 1:15 When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.

Isa 1:16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil,

Isa 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;

Isa 1:20 But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

======

“Sodomy” is not even mentioned - verses 16, 17 seem to be one of the clues to what was wrong with Judah.

It would help if the date of Genesis 18 & 19 were known. Perhaps “sodomy” is simply an example of what Ezekiel (and Isaiah) are denouncing.

I’m not surprised catsrus is surprised - the famous texts are the ones in Genesis; not those in the prophets. It seems that oppression of the poor is “sodomy”, and a few other things that most of us might not think of.

BTW - there is a similar story to that in Gen. 19, in Judges 19. ##

 

[Timidity]

bluezone7:

Maybe someone else should start a new thread addressing this issue between a married man and woman. This thread is about the sin of the Sodomites

No. This thread is about the phrase “sin of the Sodomites”. Whether or not that phrase applies to actions that a husband and wife might partake in is exactly what the original poster was asking.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

catsrus:

To the contrary, I was being extremely frank.
disingenous; Merriam-Webster - “lacking in candor, not frank, naive”
BTW, I find your explaination to be straining at the gnat.
Homosexual or not, the men at the gate intent on rape were not being treated inhospitably by Lot.

catsrus, forgive me for taking an initially adversarial tone. I was reacting personally (hence with pride) to your apparent incredulity, the which I labeled (in a pique of self-righteousness) disingenuous, not your frankness. Regardless, I should have had more control over myself, and more tact. I apologize.

Now, regarding whether or not Lot treated the men inhospitably, this is not really the point. The “sin of sodom” is not so much Lot’s as the marauding mob’s. Lot was hospitable to his guests, the angels, and to the extent to which he tried to placate the mob, hospitable to them as well. However, the question in the latter case is whether or not Lot’s hospitality was in fact making him an accessory to sin (suggesting, for the sake of decorum and the hospitality due a guest, that they rape his daughters instead of his guests).

That the scriptures do not make a comment on this last point could suggest that the central theme of the story is in fact one of love of neighbor and hospitality towards a guest–because Lot is presented here as an ideal host. Any sexuality that enters into the picture is incidental in illustrating that central theme. The story says: it is wrong to rape your guests. It is possible that one can take this further to say: it is wrong to objectify others (a comment on the nature of lust). But to view the story as “homosexual activity is wrong” is really, I think to miss the point. The story is not a commentary on homosexual activity, specifically given the references to Ezekiel, and those that Gottle of Geer quoted from Isaiah above.

This is just my perspective on this.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

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).

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

 

[buffalo]

fix:

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).

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

By their thinking then Sodomites should not be called sodomites - but they should be called inhospitabilites.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

fix:

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.

Just a quick response–scholars debate to what the phrase “unnatural lust” in Jude refers. Most evidence, given what appears to be the anti-gnostic tone of the letter, points to the “lusting after strange flesh” translation/interpretation–that is, the sin here is lusting after angels, who are, after all, neither male nor female. This interpretation is bolstered, interestingly enough, by Jude’s frequent reference to apocryphal literature–the book of Enoch, and a story in which Michael argues for the body of Moses. The “lusting after strange flesh” apparently refers to a story in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs concerning the inhabitants of Sodom (the women this time) having intercourse with angels.

Re: God finding homosexual acts more loathsome than inhospitality, I find this difficult to follow. The story is about extreme inhospitality. Given Ezekiel’s and Isaiah’s words, there is a lot of rampant inhumanity happening in Sodom, a denial of the dignity of humanity, made in God’s image. That in the midst of this, homosexual acts trump pride, economic inequality and refusal to help the poor is a new one. “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.” Are you saying that a homosexual act will incur God’s wrath instantly, but that spitting on the poor, with whom Christ Himself identified…that just raises a passing Divine indignation??

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in*** Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.

*** CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

[Island_Oak]

Michael T.:

I am surprised that you seem to think Church teaching allows men to sodomize their wives.

Sodomy is degrading and unnatural. It is a positively animalistic act. It is also a dangerous and unhealthy practice. Doctors even advise against it because of the damage it does to tissue. It can cause tearing and infection, as well as lead to problems having normal bowel movements in the future. That part of the body was simply not designed for what sodomy entails.

Not to mention the fact that such activity amounts to the same thing as handling fecal matter with your bare hands.

It can never be an act of foreplay because to complete intercourse after sodomy is not only unsanitary, but can lead to infection.

Sodomy is considered an aggravating offense in sexual crimes precisely because of its degrading and violent nature.

Yet you claim it is allowed in the Christian marriage bed?

That is just plain silly.

Yet another justification for “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to the activities engaged in on the marital bed.

 

[Island_Oak]

Scott_Lafrance:

This thread took a wrong turn at Albequerque and is head straight over the edge of the Grand Canyon.

:yup: :clapping: :bowdown:

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Hello all,

I want to ask another questions which is some what different from the topic, but not entirely.

Someone very early in this tread quoted a pasage from Christopher West’s book, “Good News About Sex And Marriage: Answers To Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching.” Where Mr. West spoke about both oral and anal sex. Where he basically said neither is wrong as long as they end in vaginal copulation. He then raises the issue of hygene in regards to anal sex. Which I know from reading some of the post on this tread that is a main reason for saying that anal sex is not allowed. And come to think of it some of people who posted also said that another reason was because its not natural, and that its not a sexual organ, or it’s not ment for that, etc. And the more I thought about it, these aren’t viable reasons since all these can be said about oral sex, yet practically everyone in this tread said it’s allowed as long as it ends in vaginal copulation. This would be a double standard. So assuming that Mr. West is in line with Chruch teaching, he would appear to be right that neither one is inherently wrong, again as long as it ends in vaginal copulation.

But now the question that spins off from this is the following. Is a married couple who perform the acts of either oral or anal sex sinning if they use a condom, not as a contraceptive, but to elminate the hygiene concern stated by some on this tread. And then still end in vaginal copulation with the condom removed.

 

[bado20]

Dear Elizabeth4truth,

It looks I am the only one who understood your point about the original sin. In any case the man sin was disobeying, but I think the fruit was a figured language.
I think it was any way related to sex. The tree, the middle of the garden, the snake, the fruit, the fact they found they were naked…everything looks to be related to sex.
Did you just think about that or have you read something about?
I am looking for some literature about the subject.
I would like to talk more about it.
Nice to meet you.

 

[bado20]

elizabeth4truth:

Dear DaMaMaXiMuS,

First, thank you for responding in such a gentle manner. This subject is sooooo difficult to approach because it implies Adam possibly had more culpability in the act, then maybe we’ve thought. I too have asked this question of the Apologist, but have not received an answer, as of yet.

What led me to this question is the study of Genesis. If you can, please re-read it with the thought that this could have been the act of original sin. It makes sense to me.

First God told Adam, not Eve, not to eat of the tree or even touch it. This was before Eve was created. Maybe He was telling Adam not to masturbate because things weren’t complete for him until Eve was created, to correspond with his maleness.

Second, my bible says Genesis is an allegory, “a figurative story with a veiled meaning.” I’ve never understood the tree in the center of the garden. I can’t picture a physical tree, being more important than man, in God’s sight. Men have been described, like trees. Maybe the tree in the center of the garden was Adam’s? Maybe he was confused about physical sensations he was getting, before Eve was created, and didn’t know what to do about it?

Men produce “fruit” each time they ejaculate, don’t they? The possibility of life exists, every time…unless they don’t climax in the right place.

If we look at the punishment of Adam and Eve, wasn’t it really self-inflicted? Didn’t God give them what they asked for? I guess it bowls down to Adam asking Eve and Eve saying “yes”. In this light it makes sense why Eve’s urge then was turn toward her husband and he became her master.

There is more to consider but I’m short on time now.

Does any of this make any sense? Is it possible? I don’t know either. I wish I did or that someone would refute it logically for me so my spirit might be at ease over the whole topic.

Dear Elizabeth4truth,

It looks I am the only one who understood your point about the original sin. In any case the man sin was disobeying, but I think the fruit was a figured language.
I think it was any way related to sex. The tree, the middle of the garden, the snake, the fruit, the fact they found they were naked…everything looks to be related to sex.
Did you just think about that or have you read something about?
I am looking for some literature about the subject.
I would like to talk more about it.
Nice to meet you.

 

[elizabeth4truth]

bado20:

Did you just think about that or have you read something about?
I am looking for some literature about the subject.
I would like to talk more about it.
Nice to meet you.

Dear Bado20,

Greetings to you. Glad to finally meet one who might consider the possibility that the Original Sin might have been sexual in nature. I’ve not read about it anywhere. It is why I came to this forum, in hopes I’d find answers. It seems a taboo subject but makes great sense and gives possible reasons why we have sexual perversion and domination/division between the sexes.

I’ve been thinking about the possibility all my life, it’s just now coming to the surface, publically. Contemplating the story of Genesis and trying to understand mankinds issues with sexual sin and dominatin/division between the sexes are the main reasons for asking the question.

I’m pretty groggy now but would like to discuss this more later.

Peace to you,
Elizabeth