sodomy

[InSearchofGrace]

The story in itself isn’t clear at all about what it is, indeed gay sex really isn’t the first thing that comes to mind unless of course you were taught that.

I’d like to point out that Jude 7 reads

Which is hardly clear that it is just gay sex given fornication≠gay sex.

Honestly, I find that tract incredibly weak as it beats up a strawman. Jude 7 mentions fornication in addition to “other flesh” and Ezekiel mention pride, gluttony, greed and sloth in addition to unspecified “committed abominations”.

When it says “inhospitality” it gives the impression of bad host whereas gay Christians tend to point out that the “inhospitality” included torturing and raping guests which is “slightly” more than being a bad host.

Quoting the story about Sodom doesn’t help us save souls which is what I care about.

I suggest you re-read the quoted part of the cited tract which is well analyzed and brings together verses from different parts of the bible; hence the tract has made it as a recommended reading for visitors to THIS Catholic site.

Watering down the immorality of active homosexuality (no, I am not saying heterosexual adultery or fornication gets a pass) and insisting on a revisionist version of Scripture that suits pro-homosexual interest do not help us save souls.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I suggest you re-read the quoted part of the cited tract which is well analyzed and brings together verses from different parts of the bible; hence the tract has made it as a recommended reading for visitors to THIS Catholic site.

Watering down the immorality of active homosexuality (no, I am not saying heterosexual adultery or fornication gets a pass) and insisting on a revisionist version of Scripture that suits pro-homosexual interest do not help us save souls.
,

I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate.

The Christian Right will lose and it will be their fault unless they stop using garbage arguments because they just aren’t working. The Catholic Right too often seems more interested in going on about how butt sex gets you AIDS than in proclaiming God is love at least as far as gay people are concerned.

Same sex attractions are objectively disordered insofar as they concern the desire to have same-sex genital relations and same-sex attractions, insofar as they are not concupiscent, are not disordered. Rather tautological I know, but it is still important to grasp.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The story in itself isn’t clear at all about what it is, indeed gay sex really isn’t the first thing that comes to mind unless of course you were taught that.
Quoting the story about Sodom doesn’t help us save souls which is what I care about.

What part of this story from Genesis do you not understand? It’s clear to me.

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate.

Why not play God’s advocate?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Quoting Genesis, Romans, Leviticus, etc. is rather ineffective if you want them to actually listen. If you care more about “scoring points” than the salvation of souls then go ahead. The vast majority of gay people have heard it already and most more hear it more times than they care to count. Most have either been hurt or have friends that have been hurt by religious people in the name of God. What is needed is love and compassion so they understand we actually care about them as people, then we have suitable ground for discourse.

So, in effect you are saying we should just quote to them parts of the Bible that do not offend?

Why can’t we both love them and offer them all the gospel, not just the parts they want to hear?

Sounds like a recipe for making more Cafeteria Catholics.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What part of this story from Genesis do you not understand? It’s clear to me.

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

Yes, it is clear rape is bad.

Why not play God’s advocate?

Tthe term Devil’s Advocate was the nickname for the promotor fidei? It’s a very Catholic position. Also, echo chambers are bad because it separates people from reality.

So, in effect you are saying we should just quote to them parts of the Bible that do not offend?

Why can’t we both love them and offer them all the gospel, not just the parts they want to hear?

Sounds like a recipe for making more Cafeteria Catholics.

No.

If only people actually pulled off “Hate the sin love the sinner” instead of “Hate the -]sin love the/-] sinner”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If only people actually pulled off “Hate the sin love the sinner” instead of “Hate the -]sin love the/-] sinner”

One way to love the sinner is to encourage him not to sin, just as God encourages us not to sin. “Go and sin no more.” Sodomy is a sin, as Genesis 19 tells us, and as Paul tells us in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

One way to love the sinner is to encourage him not to sin, just as God encourages us not to sin. “Go and sin no more.” Sodomy is a sin, as Genesis 19 tells us, and as Paul tells us in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6.

Here’s the issue, you need to have already established a rapport with the person for them to actually consider what you’re saying, this could be done over time via friendship or saving them from being stoned.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I’m really not certain what the distinction is that you are making here. What’s the difference, in your mind, between knowledge of grave matter and knowledge of mortal sin?

Take for example Protestants who are not aware of what are considered mortally sinful actions and what are not. The idea that something is not mortally sinful simply because the person does not know what is considered a mortal sin, would be incorrect. Take for example murder. Murder is considered by our Faith to be mortally sinful; however, a Protestant for example is not free from committing a mortal sin simply because they didn’t know that murder is considered a mortal sin in the Catholic Faith. The Protestant would still be guilty of committing a mortal sin, because they know murder is a grave matter.

In any case, just look a bit further in the CCC. Paragraph 1859 states: “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”

‘Knowledge’, then, refers to “the sinful character of the act.” Therefore, it would seem reasonable to claim that we’re not necessarily talking about knowledge of ‘grave matter’ or of ‘mortal sin’, but rather, simply that the act is sinful.

Wouldn’t what you’re suggesting make every sin a mortal sin, provided it was done with full knowledge and consent of the will?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s the issue, you need to have already established a rapport with the person for them to actually consider what you’re saying, this could be done over time via friendship or saving them from being stoned.

Oh yes, I agree.

But rapport is not established by giving anybody a sense that sodomy is the road to salvation. That is only rapport with the devil.

We should never throw stones, but we should never deny that sodomy is a boulder on the road to salvation.

Jesus and Paul told it like it is. They did not disguise the gospel as all sweetness and light. It is a burden for all of us, but this burden is light, and this yoke is easy if we submit.

 

[Gorgias]

Take for example Protestants who are not aware of what are considered mortally sinful actions and what are not. The idea that something is not mortally sinful simply because the person does not know what is considered a mortal sin, would be incorrect.

Fair enough. Yet, would they know that it’s ‘grave matter’ (in the way that the Church defines ‘grave matter’)?

Murder is considered by our Faith to be mortally sinful

Hmm… wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that “murder is considered by our faith to be grave matter”?

The Protestant would still be guilty of committing a mortal sin, because they know murder is a grave matter.

In this case, however, the Protestant person would be guilty of sin, due to his knowledge of and belief in the prohibition against murder as found in the Ten Commandments. I’m not certain that I would say that he’s guilty of sin because he knows it’s ‘grave matter’.

Wouldn’t what you’re suggesting make every sin a mortal sin, provided it was done with full knowledge and consent of the will?

No, since it would still require grave matter. In other words, venial sins, too, can be committed with full knowledge of their sinful character and with deliberate consent to the sinful act. This doesn’t make them ‘mortal’, however.

 

[tafan]

what is the Catholic definition of sodomy? if a married man and woman practice artificial birth control, can it be said they are practicing sodomy?

Would not be sodomy, would be considered masturbation/onanism.

 

[mikekle]

I have never understood that at one time fairly recently, Sodomy was illegal and people were arrested for it, but supposedly they changed the laws and now sodomy is not illegal, but I have seen plenty of cases within the past 2 years, where people have been charged with sodomy…so is it still illegal or not?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Oh yes, I agree.

But rapport is not established by giving anybody a sense that sodomy is the road to salvation. That is only rapport with the devil.

We should never throw stones, but we should never deny that sodomy is a boulder on the road to salvation.

Jesus and Paul told it like it is. They did not disguise the gospel as all sweetness and light. It is a burden for all of us, but this burden is light, and this yoke is easy if we submit.

I’ve never said sodomy was morally neutral let alone good. I have complained about Catholics going on about how immoral sodomy is while acting as if only gay people do it.

I have never understood that at one time fairly recently, Sodomy was illegal and people were arrested for it, but supposedly they changed the laws and now sodomy is not illegal, but I have seen plenty of cases within the past 2 years, where people have been charged with sodomy…so is it still illegal or not?

Sodomy laws in the United States of America were struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, that is what people were referring to.

 

[mikekle]

I’ve never said sodomy was morally neutral let alone good. I have complained about Catholics going on about how immoral sodomy is while acting as if only gay people do it.

Sodomy laws in the United States of America were struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, that is what people were referring to.

I have definitely seen more than a few people charged with sodomy after 2003, so what does that mean?

Later on today, after work, I will link to a couple things showing people have been charged with this crime post 2003.

 

[Portrait]

I suggest you re-read the quoted part of the cited tract which is well analyzed and brings together verses from different parts of the bible; hence the tract has made it as a recommended reading for visitors to THIS Catholic site.

Watering down the immorality of active homosexuality (no, I am not saying heterosexual adultery or fornication gets a pass) and insisting on a revisionist version of Scripture that suits pro-homosexual interest do not help us save souls.
,

Dear InSearchofGrace,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear and jolly well said. That CAF tract is bang on target and fully consonant with the teaching of Sacred Scripture.

Whilst it is perfectly true that the Genesis narrative does not explicitly state what the sin was that merited the obliteration of the cities of the plain, there are, notwithstanding, jolly strong and compelling reasons for concluding that it was homosexual deviant practices.

Lot received the angelic visitors into his house and at evening the men of the city surrounded his home and demanded to see his guests - “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came into thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them” (Gen. 19: 5). Now it has been argued (by Sherwin Bailey) that this demand to ‘know’ the angelic strangers was nothing more than a breech of hospitality matter and they only wanted to get better acquainted with them. Moreover, it has been noted that the word yada (‘know’) appears some 934 times in the O.T. and only 12 occasions does it clearly denote ‘to have carnal relations with’; elsewhere it means ‘to get acquainted with’ or ‘to have knowledge of’. However, this is an exceedingly weak argument and therefore not very compelling, save, perhaps, for those who wish to indulge in a revisionist approach to Sacred Scripture for polemical purposes. First, the words of Lot to the men of Sodom, “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly” (Gen. 19: 7), hardly seem appropriate to describe a mere violation of the laws of hospitality. Second, the offer of Lot’s virgin daughters clearly implies some sexual connotation to this most sordid episode. It may indeed be true that the verb yada is used only ten times of carnal copulation, but six of these occurrences are contained in Genesis and one in the Sodom narrative itself (i.e. about Lot’s daughters who had not ‘known’ a man, Gen. 19: 8). Third, there is no evidence within the Sodom narrative that the men of this wicked and unhappy place were not aware that Lot’s guests were angels (even Lot himself was unaware of their true identity, cf. Heb. 13: 2). It is as clear as the sun at noonday that the male mob’s intention was to engage in homosexual acts of grave depravity with Lot’s visitors, who they wrongly thought were their fellow men. Wickedness had become universal in Sodom and the men of the city were unanimous in any vile design; they had arrived at the highest pitch as regards moral degradation and were sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13: 13). Unfortunately, our own age is in a dreadful and frightening plight owing to increasing moral declension, including the widespread acceptance of homosexual vice and, now, even ‘marriage’, the very ultimate in wickedness. The avante-garde may consider homosexual vice just a so called ‘alternative lifestyle’, but it is actually a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon a civilisation which boasts in its post-Christian character.

Whilst, dear friend, it is undoubtedly true that Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of other sins, the chief sin which the N.T. writers focus upon is homosexual vice: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly…” (II Pet. 2: 6). From this passage it is clear that the false prophets and teachers against whom St. Peter warnedthe faithful, fell into the wicked unnatural vice for which the cities of the plain were so famed. Moreover, the words “making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly” could scarcely be cited as a warning against social injustice or indifference to the poor, but must surely imply such sin that brought tremendous vengeance from Heaven itself. We are also told that Lot was “vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked”, which means that the licentious conduct of the lawless in which he dwelt tortured his “righteous soul” (II Pet. 2: 8). The word “filthy” is hardly appropriate when applied to social injustice or disregard for the downtrodden, though this is not minimize or excuse the gravity of these sins. St. Jude in his short Epistle fixes our attention on the primary sin of Sodom, namely “going after strange flesh”, which means immorally indulging in unnatural homosexual vice. St. Jude’s unequivocal statement is an inspired commentary upon the O.T. narrative and should not be ignored or rationalized. To be sure, unnatural homosexual vice was not Sodom’s only sin, but according to Sacred Scripture it is certainly one of them and the only one which merits the attention of the N.T. writers.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

redacted due to post length limitations

You assume they cared whether Lot’s guests were willing to engage in sex. I think we can agree that rape, the profound violation of another’s bodily integrity, is a wicked thing.

Whilst, dear friend, it is undoubtedly true that Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of other sins, the chief sin which the N.T. writers focus upon is homosexual vice: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly…” (II Pet. 2: 6). From this passage it is clear that the false prophets and teachers against whom St. Peter warnedthe faithful, fell into the wicked unnatural vice for which the cities of the plain were so famed. Moreover, the words “making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly” could scarcely be cited as a warning against social injustice or indifference to the poor, but must surely imply such sin that brought tremendous vengeance from Heaven itself. We are also told that Lot was “vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked”, which means that the licentious conduct of the lawless in which he dwelt tortured his “righteous soul” (II Pet. 2: 8). The word “filthy” is hardly appropriate when applied to social injustice or disregard for the downtrodden, though this is not minimize or excuse the gravity of these sins. St. Jude in his short Epistle fixes our attention on the primary sin of Sodom, namely “going after strange flesh”, which means immorally indulging in unnatural homosexual vice. St. Jude’s unequivocal statement is an inspired commentary upon the O.T. narrative and should not be ignored or rationalized. To be sure, unnatural homosexual vice was not Sodom’s only sin, but according to Sacred Scripture it is certainly one of them and the only one which merits the attention of the N.T. writers.

I have a question if gay sex alone is grounds for obliterating a city then how was Jerusalem worse given that that whole chapter was a rant on their fornication, prostitution, infidelity, et cetera?

Have you heard of the beds of Sodom? When a visitor came for rest they put him on one of two beds, if he were short they gave him a long bed and stretched him until he fit, if he were tall they gave him the short bed and cut off his feet so he might fit. The word inhospitality in English cannot adequately explain this, nor them killing the maiden whose “crime” was to feed a poor man. Given those in the Talmud it is not surprising that some think inhospitality was the chief sin.

Even if there were not a single passage in the Bible condemning gay sex it was still be immoral in Catholic teaching. The issue many Catholics seem to have is that they fail to grasp that homosexuality is not reducible to engaging in or desiring sex with the same sex.

The English and Welsh bishops understand this

111. The Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Consequently, the Church teaches that homosexual people ‘must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). In so far as the homosexual orientation can lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life and the essential sexual complementarity of man and woman, it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered. However, it must be quite clear that a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself.

Also, hilariously due to the Catholic understanding of eros (which is different from the basically pagan view most Catholics have) it is possible to have chaste expressions of homoerotic love*.

*homoerotic in this case has erotic as the adjectival form of eros.

 

[Portrait]

Oh yes, I agree.

But rapport is not established by giving anybody a sense that sodomy is the road to salvation. That is only rapport with the devil.

We should never throw stones, but we should never deny that sodomy is a boulder on the road to salvation.

Jesus and Paul told it like it is. They did not disguise the gospel as all sweetness and light. It is a burden for all of us, but this burden is light, and this yoke is easy if we submit.

Dear Charlemagne III,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Indeed, the Gospel of Christ is not all “sweetness and light” and the practice of homosexual vice is an obstacle on the road to eternal salvation (cf. I Cor. 6: 9). Its high time that we called a spade a spade and spoke plainly and bluntly, especially given the eternal well-being of men is in question here.

Many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, have been negatively influenced by the spirit of the age and have accordingly shunned what they term the language of condemnation, believing it to be an unnecessary obstacle to building bridges with the unconverted. There is, moreover, a morbid concern about the Church presenting an image that is harsh and unforgiving, which would have been risible to pervious generations of the Catholic faithful and quite rightly so. The Church’s mission in the world is not to court popularity or to soft pedal unpalatable truths, including, for example, the wickedness of unnatural homosexual vice.

Sadly, dear friend, one seldom hears contemporary Catholics denouncing homosexual acts of grave depravity or pointing out that their growing acceptance as an ‘alternative lifestyle choice’ is an affront to our holy God and provokes his righteous anger (Rom. 1: 18). On the contrary, much energy is expended by modern Catholics in discussing and defending homosexual ‘rights’ and equality, as if this only is what mattered now. However, notorious sinners need to be made aware of the exceeding sinfulness of sin* first* if there is to be genuine penitence and a resolve to lead a new life. Our Catholic forefathers realized, dear friend, that a man’s conscience must be deeply wounded before the healing balm of Christ’s gospel can be applied effectively to the soul. Whether we establish any rapport or not, it is imperative that we do not mince matters and conceal the gravity of sin in the sight of God, preferring instead to focus exclusively upon the safe topic of so called ‘gay rights’.

Our morally degenerate age needs to hear afresh that homosexual vice is a perpetual reproach and scandal of fallen human nature and, as such, should be regarded with the utmost abhorrence. Men and women who engage in such vile affections dishonour their own bodies by their unnatural lust and their shameful conduct will, at length, result in them “receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1: 27), unless their is genuine repentance. It is, dear friend, a spurious charity, unworthy of a Catholic, that would withhold this truth from homosexual offenders and play down God’s loathing of this abominable sin (Lev. 18: 22).

God bless and thankyou for your excellent contributions to this thread.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Dear Charlemagne III,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Indeed, the Gospel of Christ is not all “sweetness and light” and the practice of homosexual vice is an obstacle on the road to eternal salvation (cf. I Cor. 6: 9). Its high time that we called a spade a spade and spoke plainly and bluntly, especially given the eternal well-being of men is in question here.

Many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, have been negatively influenced by the spirit of the age and have accordingly shunned what they term the language of condemnation, believing it to be an unnecessary obstacle to building bridges with the unconverted. There is, moreover, a morbid concern about the Church presenting an image that is harsh and unforgiving, which would have been risible to pervious generations of the Catholic faithful and quite rightly so. The Church’s mission in the world is not to court popularity or to soft pedal unpalatable truths, including, for example, the wickedness of unnatural homosexual vice.

Sadly, dear friend, one seldom hears contemporary nouncing homosexual acts of grave depravity, pointing out that their growing acceptance as an ‘alternative lifestyle choice’ is an affront to our holy God and provokes his righteous anger (Rom. 1: 18). On the contrary, much energy is expended by modern Catholics in discussing and defending homosexual ‘rights’ and equality, as if this only is what mattered now. However, notorious sinners need to be made aware of the exceeding sinfulness of sin* first* if there is to be genuine penitence and a resolve to lead a new life. Our Catholic forefathers realized, dear friend, that a man’s conscience must be deeply wounded before the healing balm of Christ’s gospel can be applied effectively to the soul. Whether we establish any rapport or not it is imperative that we do not mince matters and conceal the gravity of sin in the sight of God, preferring instead to focus exclusively upon so called ‘gay rights’.

Our morally degenerate age needs to hear afresh that homosexual vice is a perpetual reproach and scandal of fallen human nature and should be regarded with the utmost abhorrence. Men and women who engage in such vile affections dishonour their own bodies by their unnatural lust and their shameful conduct will, at length, result in them “receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1: 27), unless their is genuine repentance. It is, dear friend, a spurious charity, unworthy of a Catholic, that would withhold this truth from homosexual offenders and play down God’s loathing of this abominable sin (Lev. 18: 22).

Okay, let us commence denouncing every woman pregnant out of wedlock as a filthy whore who deserves eternal damnation for her sins and see how many lives we save compared to loving them and helping them choose life.

 

[Gorgias]

You assume they cared whether Lot’s guests were willing to engage in sex. I think we can agree that rape, the profound violation of another’s bodily integrity, is a wicked thing.

You raise an objection that is, on its face, not unreasonable: namely, whether the element of rape plays into the equation of the story of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, a question remains – is this assertion compelling?

Your assertion seems to be saying (and please, correct me if I’m wrong!) that that sole reason for Sodom’s destruction was rape, and not at all homosexual intercourse. Therefore, your assertion here seems to be asking a question: does rape act as a ‘trump card’ in the Sodom story, such that, in the presence of rape, no other considerations are present? Is it possible that the inspired author did not intend to condemn homosexual intercourse?

Your claim that rape is abominable is, of course, true. Yet, if we take your claim to its logical conclusion, then we would look at the case of the rape of children only as rape, and not as the violation of a child. That, of course, is nonsense: even in the case of rape, other sinful actions are possible and must be taken into account. Therefore, we must reject the case that (I believe) you’re making: that the account of Sodom in Genesis must be construed purely as a case of rape.

I have a question if gay sex alone is grounds for obliterating a city then how was Jerusalem worse given that that whole chapter was a rant on their fornication, prostitution, infidelity, et cetera?

This, too, is a reasonable question! The case of Sodom and that of Jerusalem, as it were, are distinctly different in nature. Jerusalem – that is, the Israelite people – was a nation of people who had a covenant with God. Under that covenant, certain laws were in place, and particular crimes had distinct punishments. Under the Mosaic covenant, fornication and prostitution and infidelity already had prescribed punishments in place; therefore, obliterating all of Jerusalem for the sins of some people would have been an injustice. On the other hand, Sodom did not have such a covenent, and therefore, there were no punishments in place. Moreover, in the discussion that God and Abraham had, we see that there weren’t even enough just people in Sodom to warrant a punishment to individuals rather than to the city.

Have you heard of the beds of Sodom?

If this were the reason for Sodom’s destruction, why is it that the inspired writer did not illustrate this notion as the cause for God’s wrath? Why tell the story he told and ignore the legend that you reference?

The issue many Catholics seem to have is that they fail to grasp that homosexuality is not reducible to engaging in or desiring sex with the same sex.

I’m not certain what your point is, here. Catholics don’t condemn homosexuality.

Also, hilariously due to the Catholic understanding of eros (which is different from the basically pagan view most Catholics have) it is possible to have chaste expressions of homoerotic love*.

As long as they’re not sexual expressions; what’s your point, then?