sodomy

[mommamaree]

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.

These were cases of forcible sodomy, a form of sexual assault, like rape, but involving the violation of a person in a different orifice.
Forcible sodomy is as illegal as any other form of sexual assault, but consensual acts involving penetration of orifices is as legal as coitus. Also, my understanding of the anti-sodomy laws is that they were aimed at prevention of forcible sodomy (both to protect wives from coercion and other non-married females from it, as well as protect youth from being preyed upon by older gay man who desired them, which we now classify as pederasty or ephebiphilia), but that cases of consensual sodomy were occasionally caught up in it all. I could be wrong in my understanding of the old laws, though.
But, to your question, yes, people can still be charged with sodomy, but it has to do with the fact that it was a form of sexual violation.

 

[Gorgias]

Portrait:

homosexual vice is a perpetual reproach
such vile affections dishonour their own bodies
their shameful conduct
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

Joie,

Portrait seems to be denouncing actions, while you respond with a denunciation of people themselves. Who is being more charitable? Who is being more Christian, given that Christ himself did not denounce people but rather, sinful acts?

 

[Portrait]

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.

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

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.

Dear Joie de Vivre,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF and I trust that you will find your time on these boards spiritually profitable and informative. Thankyou for your response.

It is certainly true that in Ezekiel 16: 49-50 the sins of Sodom are described in terms of pride, greed and a want of love. However, Ezekiel also describes their conduct as an “abomination”, the very same word that is used of homosexual sin in the Book of Leviticus (18: 22).

It admits of no doubt, dear friend, that homosexual vice was rife among the inhabitants of Sodom and the destruction of the cities of the plain reflects God’s extreme displeasure with this detestable sin, against which even nature herself protests. Thus the whole discussion about threatened forcible sexual assault by the men of Sodom is not pivitol, though I would not stop to deny that it was a contributing factor to the measure of iniquity of that unhappy place. Indeed, it may well have been the final straw that kindled God’s wrath to the uttermost. However, the inhabitants of Sodom had already allowed themselves indulgence in unnatural uncleanness and were carried headlong by their vile affections (cf. Ezek. 16: 50; S. Jude 7). Their abominable practices were worse than brutish and the eternal reproach of human nature. Indeed, homosexual acts of grave depravity cannot be thought of without horror by those that have the least spark of virtue and any vestige of natural light and conscience. Alas, we have lost our sensitivity to sin, which is why many find it incredibly hard to believe that God would have visited the cities of the plain in divine vengeance because of the practice homosexual vice among them.

As Catholics, dear friend, we take our teaching from the Church and Sacred Scripture. After saying “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (CCC, para. 2357), it cites, in footnote, the Sodom passage (Genesis 19: 1-29) in support. Homosexuality is immoral in Church teaching because that teaching is based firmly on Sacred Scripture and not say Sherwin Baileys opinions respecting some violation of ancient hospitality. As in other matters, so in this matter, Holy Mother Church takes seriously the witness of Sacred Scripture because she “has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body” (CCC, para, 103).

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Dear Joie de Vivre,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF and I trust that you will find your time on these boards spiritually profitable and informative. Thankyou for your response.

It is certainly true that in Ezekiel 16: 49-50 the sins of Sodom are described in terms of pride, greed and a want of love. However, Ezekiel also describes their conduct as an “abomination”, the very same word that is used of homosexual sin in the Book of Leviticus (18: 22).

Yes, it is described as an abomination just like the most heinous and wicked sin of eating shellfish.

It admits of no doubt, dear friend, that homosexual vice was rife among the inhabitants of Sodom and the destruction of the cities of the plain reflects God’s extreme displeasure with this detestable sin, against which even nature herself protests. Thus the whole discussion about threatened forcible sexual assault by the men of Sodom is not pivitol, though I would not stop to deny that it was a contributing factor to the measure of iniquity of that unhappy place. Indeed, it may well have been the final straw that kindled God’s wrath to the uttermost. However, the inhabitants of Sodom had already allowed themselves indulgence in unnatural uncleanness and were carried headlong by their vile affections (cf. Ezek. 16: 50; S. Jude 7). Their abominable practices were worse than brutish and the eternal reproach of human nature. Indeed, homosexual acts of grave depravity cannot be thought of without horror by those that have the least spark of virtue and any vestige of natural light and conscience. Alas, we have lost our sensitivity to sin, which is why many find it incredibly hard to believe that God would have visited the cities of the plain in divine vengeance because of the practice homosexual vice among them.

Well, it wasn’t the final straw, that much is clear given that God was planning on destroying it before the angels visited.

As Catholics, dear friend, we take our teaching from the Church and Sacred Scripture. After saying “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (CCC, para. 2357), it cites, in footnote, the Sodom passage (Genesis 19: 1-29) in support. Homosexuality is immoral in Church teaching because that teaching is based firmly on Sacred Scripture and not say Sherwin Baileys opinions respecting some violation of ancient hospitality. As in other matters, so in this matter, Holy Mother Church takes seriously the witness of Sacred Scripture because she “has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body” (CCC, para, 103).

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

I said even if nothing in Scripture taught that it was immoral the Catechism would still condemn it as immoral because it is so and it violates other things in natural law, that does not mean that Scripture fails to condemn it, merely that that condemnation is unnecessary.

 

[mikekle]

Im curious, does anyone have a clue as to how long the city of Sodom went on as it did engaging in the acts they did? Im just wondering how long it took before God finally decided to destroy the entire town?

I want to look at that number and compare it to some of our more sexually sinful towns in modern times as kind of a guide to when/ if God could destroy those towns as well.(mostly referring to San Francisco, NYC…places known for immoral sexual acts on a large scale).

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Im curious, does anyone have a clue as to how long the city of Sodom went on as it did engaging in the acts they did? Im just wondering how long it took before God finally decided to destroy the entire town?

I want to look at that number and compare it to some of our more sexually sinful towns in modern times as kind of a guide to when/ if God could destroy those towns as well.(mostly referring to San Francisco, NYC…places known for immoral sexual acts on a large scale).

There was Port Royal, but that was mostly a ton of stupid which is to say they reclaimed land from the water by simply heaping sand there and built tall buildings out of heavy brick on the waterlogged sand. When an earthquake happened (this being near a fault line so earthquakes are to be expected occasionally) soil liquefaction occurred which sucked the vast majority of buildings into the sea. Of course that was mostly the result of stupid, but at the time it was attributed to God smiting the city as it was a den of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.

The most likely form of destruction for San Francisco is an earthquake, but California has extremely strict codes for buildings to protect against earthquakes so that removes much of the danger. There are also some rather elevated parts to the city (over 40 hills are above 100 feet high) so a tsunami isn’t going to do it.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it is described as an abomination just like the most heinous and wicked sin of eating shellfish.

Joie,

In this case, the (implicit) notion that it’s silly to assent to the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior based on the claim that the Scriptures equate eating shellfish and allowing homosexual activity (since both are translated ‘abomination’) is a weak argument. Yes, the word that appears in English is ‘abomination’ in some translations. Yet, that does not mean that the word in the original Hebrew is the same in Leviticus 11 (shellfish) and Leviticus 18 (homosexual activity). Rather, two distinct Hebrew words are used, and each word has its own distinct meaning. In the reference to shellfish, the word used (sheqets) has the connotation of ‘a thing that is to be detested’ or ‘a thing that is unclean’. In the reference to homosexual acts, however, the word used (toebah) is ‘a thing that is morally abhorrent’. There are distinct differences between these two words; the assertion that you make doesn’t nullify the Scriptures, but merely suggests that a particular translation into English insufficiently distinguishes between the two notions…

Incidentally, the NAB translation of Leviticus calls shellfish ‘loathsome’ and homosexual intercourse an ‘abomination’.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Joie,

In this case, the (implicit) notion that it’s silly to assent to the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior based on the claim that the Scriptures equate eating shellfish and allowing homosexual activity (since both are translated ‘abomination’) is a weak argument. Yes, the word that appears in English is ‘abomination’ in some translations. Yet, that does not mean that the word in the original Hebrew is the same in Leviticus 11 (shellfish) and Leviticus 18 (homosexual activity). Rather, two distinct Hebrew words are used, and each word has its own distinct meaning. In the reference to shellfish, the word used (sheqets) has the connotation of ‘a thing that is to be detested’ or ‘a thing that is unclean’. In the reference to homosexual acts, however, the word used (toebah) is ‘a thing that is morally abhorrent’. There are distinct differences between these two words; the assertion that you make doesn’t nullify the Scriptures, but merely suggests that a particular translation into English insufficiently distinguishes between the two notions…

Incidentally, the NAB translation of Leviticus calls shellfish ‘loathsome’ and homosexual intercourse an ‘abomination’.

Good exposition on translation and use of terms in OT times.

Further, the prohibition for eating shellfish had to do with external rites and ritual, whereas the proscription for homosexual activity had / has to do with moral internal law, written in the “hearts of men,” so to speak.

It is silly to think the minds in our 2,000 + year Catholic Church would put on the same level a rule on eating shellfish and sexual activity.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Joie,

In this case, the (implicit) notion that it’s silly to assent to the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior based on the claim that the Scriptures equate eating shellfish and allowing homosexual activity (since both are translated ‘abomination’) is a weak argument. Yes, the word that appears in English is ‘abomination’ in some translations. Yet, that does not mean that the word in the original Hebrew is the same in Leviticus 11 (shellfish) and Leviticus 18 (homosexual activity). Rather, two distinct Hebrew words are used, and each word has its own distinct meaning. In the reference to shellfish, the word used (sheqets) has the connotation of ‘a thing that is to be detested’ or ‘a thing that is unclean’. In the reference to homosexual acts, however, the word used (toebah) is ‘a thing that is morally abhorrent’. There are distinct differences between these two words; the assertion that you make doesn’t nullify the Scriptures, but merely suggests that a particular translation into English insufficiently distinguishes between the two notions…

Incidentally, the NAB translation of Leviticus calls shellfish ‘loathsome’ and homosexual intercourse an ‘abomination’.

These aren’t even my arguments, these are canned arguments for me to play Devil’s Advocate with (boredom is a dreadful thing).

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…]Rather, two distinct Hebrew words are used, and each word has its own distinct meaning. In the reference to shellfish, the word used (sheqets) has the connotation of ‘a thing that is to be detested’ or ‘a thing that is unclean’. In the reference to homosexual acts, however, the word used (toebah) is ‘a thing that is morally abhorrent’. There are distinct differences between these two words; the assertion that you make doesn’t nullify the Scriptures, but merely suggests that a particular translation into English insufficiently distinguishes between the two notions…

You’re not quite telling the whole story, here, Gorgias. There’s a third term, zimmah, which is often used to describe specifically sexual iniquity in Leviticus, but elsewhere is used of murder as well. It describes a disposition to evil as well as the evil performed. It is wickedness. The rabbis who translated the Hebrew into Greek used the word anomia or a variation thereof to translate zimmah. Anomia denotes something that is objectively unlawful (a- nomos). Bdelygma is the Greek that translates *toevah. Bdelygma *and toevah both refer to religious or cult impurity. The rabbis also chose bdelygma to translate sheqet.

What it appears we have in the Hebrew (which is slightly collapsed in the Greek, perhaps for cultural reasons I’ll speculate on below), is a scale of bad stuff: dietary impurity (sheqets), ritual/cult impurity (toevah), and things that are simply just wicked (zimmah).

It should be noted, too, that toevah seems to carry with it a particular sense: on the one hand it is often used to describe acts associated with idolatry (as in Deuteronomy) or with the stuff other people do (such as the list of toevah things in Leviticus 19). But note that, specifically with reference to the prohibition against wearing a tunic made of wool and linen and to the prohibition against “lying the lyings of a woman with mankind,” there is a sense that what is particularly wrong here is that things that are different are treated as if they are the same (one tunic of two materials; a man treated as a woman). This sense bolsters an understanding of toevah as specifically related to avoiding practices that may lead to the Hebrew people becoming just like or the same as other, neighboring, peoples–which would be particularly bad given the Hebrews’ understanding of themselves as a people set apart. This would likely explain why the rabbis translated both sheqets and toevah by bdelygma: they’re not actually commenting on the Greek culture that surrounds them–they’re making it clear the attitude that should be taken to that culture in order to maintain a sense of Hebrew/Jewish culture; and dietary laws and cult purity laws will prove uniquely important in that regard.

There’s a lot going on here, Gorgias, none of it very cut and dry.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Another not-so-cut-and-dry thing is reading Jude as if it’s reference to heteros sarkos (“alien or strange flesh”) is a reference to homosexuality. We can reasonably question this reading on the basis of two things: one, the Greek used; and two, the literary references Jude makes. First, Greek has two words of things that are different: heteros and allos. Heteros refers to something different of a different type; allos refers to a different thing of the same type. An orange is different from an apple in a heteros sort of way. A granny smith apple is different from a red delicious apple in an allos way. It’s clear that the heteros sarkos of Jude would not be a reference to two men or two women, but a reference two something quite different from either a man or a woman. And what this difference is is revealed by Jude’s references: Enoch and Sodom, and the thing they both have in common is: sex with angels. In the Book of Enoch, we learn of the Watchers who had sex with women in order to produce the nephalim, and in Sodom, we see the Sodomites (and the Bible is clear that the crowd gathered at Lot’s door is the whole population of Sodom) attempting to rape angels. The particular bone that Jude is picking here is with gnostic sects (those “clouds without water”) that teach that one must somehow have sex with one’s aeonic/angelic double (perhaps in the “sacrament” of the “bridal chamber” which occurred in a number of gnostic sects).

And finally, another not-so-cut-and-cry thing: it’s foolish for us to dismiss ancient concern with hospitality as something quaint or relatively unimportant. In doing so, we forget just how wicked inhospitality actually is, how characterized it is by abject cruelty, murder and injustice, by a complete absence of any sort of customary kindness, let alone love, particularly in a culture in which cities and refuges (few and far between) represent respite for a weary traveler. Consider this from the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 109B):There were four judges in Sodom, [named] Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now, if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say [to the husband], ‘Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee.’ If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s [donkey], they would order, ‘Give it to him until it grows again.’ If one wounded his neighbour they would say to him [the victim], ‘Give him a fee for bleeding thee.’ He who crossed over with the ferry had to pay four zuzim, whilst he who crossed through the water had to pay eight. On one occasion, a certain fuller happened to come there. Said they to him, ‘Give us four zuzim [for the use of the ferry].’ But, protested he, ‘I crossed through the water!’ ‘If so,’ said they, ‘thou must give eight zuzim for passing through the water.’ He refused to give it, so they assaulted him. He went before the judge, who ordered, ‘Give them a fee for bleeding and eight zuzim for crossing through the water.’ …] Now, they had beds upon which travellers slept. If he [the guest] was too long, they shortened him [by lopping off his feet]; if too short, they stretched him out. Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, happened to go there. Said they to him, ‘Arise and sleep on this bed!’ He replied, ‘I have vowed since the day of my mother’s death not to sleep in a bed.’ If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar, upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given him. When he died, each came and took back his. …] A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, [hiding it] in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great: whereon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: On account of the maiden [ribah].
Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Gorgias]

You’re not quite telling the whole story, here, Gorgias.

LOL! Then again, I was only responding to the case that Joie was mentioning… not writing the proposal for a Ph.D. thesis!

There’s a third term, zimmah, which is often used to describe specifically sexual iniquity in Leviticus, but elsewhere is used of murder as well.

Fair enough; yet, Joie was only discussing the usage found in the discussion of eating shellfish (Lev 11) and in the discussion of sexual behavior in Lev 18:22.

But note that, specifically with reference to the prohibition against wearing a tunic made of wool* and* linen and to the prohibition against “lying the lyings of a woman with mankind,” there is a sense that what is particularly wrong here is that things that are different are treated as if they are the same (one tunic of two materials; a man treated as a woman).

Perhaps, yet that’s not how Jews tend to see it; as I understand it, the prohibition against mixing wool and linen is a ‘chok’: it is seen as uninterpreted by the Torah – that is, it just is. So, it’s difficult to suggest that it shares an underlying element with a prohibition that speaks to morality, especially since other aspects of sexual ethics appear throughout the history of the Israelites.

This sense bolsters an understanding of toevah as specifically related to avoiding practices that may lead to the Hebrew people becoming just like or the same as other, neighboring, peoples

On the face of it, this sounds like a nice interpretation; yet, it feels overworked. Are there any Scriptural allusions to peoples of the near east who mix fiber and wool, or are we to allegorize this prohibition immediately, without any indication of any practical considerations?

This would likely explain why the rabbis translated both sheqets and toevah by bdelygma: they’re not actually commenting on the Greek culture that surrounds them–they’re making it clear the attitude that should be taken to that culture in order to maintain a sense of Hebrew/Jewish culture; and dietary laws and cult purity laws will prove uniquely important in that regard.

On the other hand, it could be simply the case that they’re seeing a similarity between things that are literally revolting and those that are morally revolting.

Moreover, it would be quite the odd statement to make, given that the LXX is precisely the kind of mixing – on the level of language – that your explanation predicts that they should want to avoid! Really, it sounds a bit like folk etymology – reasonable on the surface, but not supported by any external evidence…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps, yet that’s not how Jews tend to see it; as I understand it, the prohibition against mixing wool and linen is a ‘chok’: it is seen as uninterpreted by the Torah – that is, it just is. So, it’s difficult to suggest that it shares an underlying element with a prohibition that speaks to morality, especially since other aspects of sexual ethics appear throughout the history of the Israelites.

That just complicates matters, no? The fact remains that both mixing wool and linen and “lyings the lyings of a woman with mankind” are toevah. What you seem to be suggesting is that toevah is not actually as strong a word as we think it is if we’re to understand that it could either refer to extreme moral opprobrium or something that’s just…what it is. It becomes a very unstable/unreliable word.

Moreover it’s my feeling that from the perspective of observing the law, the distinction between ritual law and a more generally applicable moral law is collapsed: it’s *all *the law, and if you’re bound by it, you’re bound by it. The moral/ritual distinction is particularly useful for us Christians and, probably, for our Jewish sisters and brothers living after the destruction of the temple. But I highly doubt that this fine distinction would reasonably obtain for the ancient Israelites.

On the face of it, this sounds like a nice interpretation; yet, it feels overworked. Are there any Scriptural allusions to peoples of the near east who mix fiber and wool, or are we to allegorize this prohibition immediately, without any indication of any practical considerations?

I don’t know that any specific peoples need be mentioned for us to take Leviticus 20:22-26 seriously: “Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for** I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.**” (Bolding mine.)

By the way…this is not allegorizing: what is described in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy) is a very practical strategy for taking holiness (set-apartness) very seriously.

On the other hand, it could be simply the case that they’re seeing a similarity between things that are literally revolting and those that are morally revolting.

Moreover, it would be quite the odd statement to make, given that the LXX is precisely the kind of mixing – on the level of language – that your explanation predicts that they should want to avoid! Really, it sounds a bit like folk etymology – reasonable on the surface, but not supported by any external evidence…

I think (and again, this is speculation) that the LXX is applying the moral force of toevah to sheqet by translating both as bdelygma.

I’m not quite sure what you mean re: “it would be quite the odd statement.” The LXX is supremely practical–it was intended for a growing number of Greek-speaking Jews living amongst gentiles who likely never grew up knowing/learning Hebrew. How do you preserve Jewish identity in such a cultural situation? You can’t force everyone to learn Hebrew (I don’t believe there’s a commandment to learn Hebrew that can be enforced). And anyway, the rabbis weren’t setting themselves up as an ancient Jewish version of the Academie Francaise. But you can appropriately respond to the times in which you live by making clear just what is and is not required of you with respect to actually living your Jewish identity among the gentile nations. You don’t need to learn Hebrew to be a Jew (however helpful Hebrew might be on any number of levels)–but you do need to keep the covenant: you do need to live into what it means to be set-apart. There’s a sense in which the entire project of the LXX is part of that very old strategy for taking holiness (set-apartness) very seriously.

I’m not sure what folk etymology has to do with any of that–it’s more a matter of historical record regarding the diaspora. Notwithstanding, I’m sure it’d make a fine PhD paper; though I imagine someone somewhere has already gotten there and written it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is silly to think the minds in our 2,000 + year Catholic Church would put on the same level a rule on eating shellfish and sexual activity.
,

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

What admits of no doubt as regards the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative (Gen. 18: 1-29) is that Lot offered his maiden daughters as a substitute to the wicked men of Sodom who were demanding homosexual carnal relations with his guests. Certainly Lot cannot be praised but he evidently chose what he considered to be the lesser of two evils. After all, anything was surely better than that such an outrage should be offered to the strangers under his roof. However, the sexual connotation is undeniable and it is clear that the inhabitants of Sodom had given themselves over to their vile and unnatural passions. Moreover, as far as they were concerned, Lot’s guests were mere mortal men like themselves and had appeared as such and it was the most abominable wickedness that they were now intent upon. Even prior to this unhappy incident they had habitually allowed themselves to wallow in the unnatural uncleanness of homosexual vice and had “burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly” (cf. Rom. 1: 27). Having forsaken the Author of nature it was hardly surprising that they did not keep the natural order of nature. Thus the modern view that there is no implied condemnation of homosexual vice in the Sodom narrative does not stand up to scrutiny and is merely feeble attempt to rationalize the passage for polemical purposes.

Moreover, it would seem, dear friends, that this unpleasant episode in Sodom did indeed seal the doom of the city, for the Sodomites had failed the test spoken of in Genesis 18: 21: “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know”. Whilst Sacred Scripture also describes Sodom’s sins in terms of pride, greed and a want of love (Ezekiel 16: 49-50), Ezekiel also describes their conduct as “abomination” (16: 50), the very same word that is used of homosexual sin in the Book of Leviticus (18: 22). Moreover, as bad as social injustice, greed and indifference to the poor are, it is hard to see how any or all of them would warrant the complete obliteration of Sodom and the surrounding cities. However, abominable and unnatural homosexual acts of grave depravity would certainly qualify as an “outcry” and “very grievous sin” (Gen. 18: 20). Such a vile sin, against which even nature herself protests, would explain why the inhabitants of Sodom had to be visited with such a dreadful and fearful punishment and why they could not be permitted to remain. For the practice of such a wicked sin, God had to punish them most severely so that they could be “set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (S. Jude 7).

Not only Christian but also Jewish commentators on the Sodom passage have seen in it a clear reference to homosexual vice. A rabbinic commentary on Genesis 19: 9 states that “Rabbi Menahema said in Rabi Bibi’s name: The sodomites made an agreement among themselves that whenever a stranger visited them they should force him to sodomy and rob him of his money; even him of whom it is written, *That they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice *(Gen. 18: 19), we should use him bestially and rob him of his money” (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis 1, trans. and ed. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (London: Soncino press, 1939), 1: 438).

Philo, a Jew of Alexandria who lived c. 25 BC c. AD 45, characterised the country of the Sodomites as “full of innumerable iniquities…gluttony and debauchery”. The men of Sodom “lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature…the men became accustomed to be treated like women” (“On Abraham”, XXVI, in Nahum N. Glatzer, ed., The Essential Philo (New York: Schocken, 1971).

The Jewish historian Josephus, in reflecting on the Genesis 19 passage, stated that “the Sodomites, on seeing these young men of remarkably fair appearance who Lot had taken under his roof, were bent only on violence and outrage to their youthful beauty…Lot adjured them to restrain their passions and to proceed to dishonour his guests. God, therefore, indignant at their atrocities, blinded the criminals” (Ant. 1, 200-2, Jewish Antiquities, Books 1-IV, trans. H. Thackeray (London: William Heinemann, 1930).

Therefore, dear friends, we have a long history of Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Genesis passage which points unmistakably to the true meaning of the text, namely abominable and unnatural homosexual acts. The ‘inhospitality’ misinterpretation of the passage, which has become the stock argument in pro-homosexual circles, simply cannot be sustained.

Con’t/

 

[Portrait]

Con’t/

Whilst, dear friends, the Genesis narrative does not explicitly state what the precise sin was that merited Sodom’s destruction, there can be no doubt that the passage in Judges 19 does contain explicit references to homosexual vice. In many respects the Judges narrative is similar to the one in Genesis 19, but the events described in Judges are clearly intended to be understood as distinct from those that transpired in Sodom.

A Levite was traveling with his concubine and spent the night in the town of Gibeah in Benjamin, accepting the offer of hospitality of an elderly man from Ephraim who was sojourning in the area at that time (Jud. 19: 16-21). That evening “sons of belial” (RSV “base fellows”) from the city surrounded the house and said to the old man, “Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him” (v. 22). In other words they desired carnal and unnatural relations with the man’s guest. Alas, the man seized the Levite’s concubine, put her outside the house, and the wicked men of the city “knew her, and abused her all night until morning”. Now the use of the same Hebrew word, yada (“to know”), in verse 22 and verse 25 shows unmistakably that in verse 22 the men of the city were demanding homosexual carnal relations wit the visiting Levite. The rest of the text also shows that more was at stake here than a mere breech of hospitality. The men of the city are described in verse 22 as bene beliyyaal (“base fellows” RSV; lit., “sons of wickedness”). This phrase, which appears about 27 times in the O.T., denotes here, as in I Sam 1: 16, human beings who act in disregard of all laws, whether human or divine. Moreover, in verse 23 the request by the men of the city is characterised as “do not this folly” (“this vile thing”, nebalah). The word is employed to denote shameful licentiousness and whoredom, as in Genesis 34: 7 and Deuteronomy 22: 21. Unnatural homosexual vice is shameful licentiousness and is clear evidence that the heart of man is desperately wicked. The language of the narrative, then, clearly shows that Judges 19 contains an explicit reference to homosexual conduct and that such “vile” and shameful practices are viewed with the utmost abhorrence.

Homosexual vice is strongly condemned in the Mosaic law: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev. 18: 22)”. The word abomination (toebah), used five time in Leviticus 18, is a term of strong disapproval and means literally something very detestable and hated by God. (cf. Proverbs 6: 16; 11: 1). Some have suggested that the prohibition against carnal copulation with a woman during her menstrual flow (Lev. 18: 19) shows that the prohibition against unnatural homosexual carnal relations, which closely follows it in the text (18: 22), is likewise cultic rather than moral in nature. However, dear friends, this argument is clearly untenable in that the prohibition appears with others of a decidedly moral nature, fore example, prohibitions against adultery (18: 20), child sacrifice (18: 21), and bestiality (18: 23). Sacrificing children to Molech violated not one but two provisions of the moral law, that is to say the prohibitions against idolatry(Exod. 20: 3) and murder (Exod. 20: 13). Incidently, that there should have even been occasion for the making of a moral law against homosexual conduct, and that it should be constantly broken throughout the history of mankind, is the perpetual reproach and scandal of fallen human nature.

Finally, dear friends, homosexual acts of grave depravity witness to the deep degradation into which man has fallen as a consequence of the entrance of sin into the world. Homosexual vice is simply one expression among many of the basic disordering of human life; all concupiscence or evil desire, be it heterosexual or homosexual, violates the divine law and reflects man’s fallen nature. The Book of Genesis informs us that human life, including sexuality, no longer reflects fully the original divine intent, because man’s life is disordered by inborn sinfulness. As a consequence of disobedience, man is marked by the curse (Gen. 3: 16-19) and both his labour and his sexual life reflect the disordering and rupturing of the divine-human relationship. Homosexuality in terms of orientation, desire and temptation has to be seen as one of the unhappy effects of the Fall. This is not to single out those who struggle with a homosexual pre-disposition. All of mankind is deeply affected by the Fall and sin has corrupted the hearts and desires of us all - “There is none righteous, no not one” (Rom. 3: 10). Thus the Epistle to the Romans which speaks of “vile affections” and unnatural lusts (Rom. 1: 26, 27), proceeds to speak of men becoming “filled with all unrighteousness” (v. 29) and specifies all manner of other evils which are, sadly, the common heritage of men as they now are.

What is so very disturbing is that our age disgracefully speaks of a man or woman being ‘gay’ when the practice of homosexual vice is anything but ‘gay’. Moreover, by indulging in such vile and deviant conduct, men are imitating the very same sins of the Sodomites and the wicked men of Gibeah and this ought to make them tremble. Can the shameful and detestable vice indulge in for momentary veneral pleasure in this mortal life make amends for “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”? “Stand in awe, (therefore) and sin not” (Psalm 4: 4).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Finally, dear friends, homosexual acts of grave depravity witness to the deep degradation into which man has fallen as a consequence of the entrance of sin into the world. **Homosexual vice is simply one expression among many of the basic disordering of human life; all concupiscence or evil desire, be it heterosexual or homosexual, violates the divine law and reflects man’s fallen nature. **
God bless. …

Thanks for your posts.

I lifted the above part of your post that pro-homosexual posters / readers would likely ignore, and to emphasize that defenders of Catholic teaching on homosexuality do NOT give a pass to heterosexual sins.

I find in reading threads such as this one that homosexual(ity) apologists like to challenge scriptural moral proscription for certain sexual practices by comparing it to OT / Mosaic ritual and dietary restrictions that were relaxed in the New Testament.

A repeated line of questioning goes like this: Why are some of the Mosaic Laws described in the Old Testament (such as the prohibition against sodomy and active homosexuality) to be followed but not others (such as the prohibition against eating shellfish)?

This question is at times asked in a neutral manner. Often, however, it is asked because of what the questioner sees as bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals, or a desire to paint Christians as hypocrites or at least inconsistent, or as justification for their continued homosexual practices.

The Church Has Authority

The fact is the Church has authority with the pronouncement that active homosexuality is sinful. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit passed this knowledge to the Apostles, regardless of whether or not this knowledge is explicit in the New Testament. The Church teaches that aspects of the Mosaic law no longer apply.

We can expect that there will be those who reject the Church and her teaching authority. We can only pray for their conversion or enlightenment.
Evidence from Holy Scripture

The Bible consists of two sections – an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament”. While the Old Testament is not rendered null and void or irrelevant by the New Testament, where the New Testament of Jesus Christ expands upon or replaces information contained in the Old Testament, it is the New Testament that the Christian must follow.

For example, in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:28) Jesus Christ uses the phase “You have heard it said that . . . but I say to you . . .” many times. He proceeds to give a number of examples of how the new law is harder and a higher standard than the old. For example, He replaces the Mosaic Law of “eye for an eye” with “turn the other cheek”. It is clear from this that Jesus is entirely prepared to replace and expand upon the Mosaic Law.
…

Why do Christians condemn certain practices which are in the Mosaic Law if the Mosaic Law no longer applies? First, the reasons for condemning some practices (such as homosexuality) are not removed by the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. These behaviors are morally unacceptable in all respects, and damage individuals, society and their relationships with God. Additionally, however, the Scriptures condemn these actions themselves – for example I Corinthians chapter 5 makes it clear that sexual immorality is unacceptable. Galatians 5:19-21 provides a clear list of sins and immoralities which lead to damnation.

In short, Catholics (and all Christians, who took their moral precepts from the Catholic Church in the main) do not follow the Mosaic Law at all. What we do is follow a moral code which is similar and which was given to us by Jesus Christ during the Incarnation. Just as the people living in the modern United States used to follow British Law, and now follow American Law – there are similarities between the two legal systems which are based on the natural law and fundamental moral truths of the universe, but they are not the same legal systems.*

• from Catholic Basic Training

 

[Nelka]

England has from today allowed “gay marriage” and we are treated as bigots and intolerant if we disagree.

Is there a word that we can use instead of saying “gay marriage”?